Using Three Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling and Fish ...

1Using Three DimensionalHydrodynamic Modeling andFish Swimming Energetics toAssess Culverts as PotentialPhysical Barriers toUpstream Fish MovementMatt Blank, WesternTransportation InstituteJoel Cahoon, MontanaState UniversityTom McMahon, MontanaState University

2Overview of Presentation• Aquatic barriers• Factors affecting passage• Assessment methods• 3-D D hydrodynamic method (and 1-D) 1• Comparison to fish movement• Future research directions

3Aquatic Barriers• 2.5 million aquatic barriers in U.S. byculverts, dams and canals (NationalFish Passage Summit, 2006).• Estimated 1.4 million stream-roadroadcrossings in U.S. (U.S. Fish andWildlife, National Fish PassageProgram, unpublished data).• 1,500 culverts on fish bearing streamswithin Montana’s s National Forests:47% barriers, 15% passable and 38%unclassified (Williams, 2007).

4Physical Factors Influencing FishPassage• High water velocity• excessive turbulence• Shallow water depth• Outlet drop• pool depth/leap height ratio• jump location• air entrainment• Debris/sediment blockage

5Fish Locomotion• Species and size• Temperature• Dissolved oxygen• Motivation• Gender• Physical condition• Disease• Sexual maturity

6Types of Barriers• Total Barrier• Partial Barrier• Temporal Barrier• No Barrier

7Assessment TechniquesDirect Approach Field experimentsthat measure fish movementdirectly and compare movementto flow conditions in a structure.Indirect Approach Approximate movementpotential using thresholds, modeling orcomparisons between populationcharacteristics measured upstream anddownstream of a crossing.•Tagging studies: markrecapture,PIT tagging orothers (e.g. radio telemetry)•Visual observations•Video camera•Regional screens based upon fieldand laboratory experiments•Hydraulic modeling•Comparisons between upstream anddownstream fish populationcharacteristics

8Assessment TechniquesDirect Approach Field experimentsthat measure fish movementdirectly and compare movementto flow conditions in a structure.Indirect Approach Approximate movementpotential using thresholds, modeling orcomparisons between populationcharacteristics measured upstream anddownstream of a crossing.•Tagging studies: markrecapture,PIT tagging orothers (e.g. radio telemetry)•Visual observations•Video camera•Regional screens based upon fieldand laboratory experiments•Hydraulic modeling•Comparisons between upstream anddownstream fish populationcharacteristics

Upper Clearwater River BasinAbove Seeley Lake outlet•143 square miles•121 miles of stream•Assessed 46 culvertsHighway 83Seeley LakeAll Base Maps Courtesy of the MSU Environmental Statistics Group: Map overlayscreated by Drake Burford9

10Summary of Results for Sites WhereMultiple Methods Were AppliedFishXing ResultsDirect PassageResultsUpstream vs.DownstreamSite Adult Juvenile Passage Size AbundanceIdentificationIndicator2 B B -0.36 no no10 B B 0.35 x x11 B P 0.2 yes no13 B B -1 x x19 B B 0.13 no no20 B B 0.03 no no23 P P -0.56 no no27 B B -0.19 no no28 B B -0.54 no no33 B B -0.85 yes no35 B B -0.69 no no43 B B -0.22 no no

11Development and Testing of 3-D 3Method – Mulherin CreekYe llo wstone R iver•Concrete Box Culvert•Length ~ 37 ft•Width ~ 12 ft•Slope ~ 1.1%•Outlet Drop ~ 1.5 ftMu lhe rin Cre ekCin nab ar Cree kUpp er Mulh erin C reekMain study culvertsCu lvert stu die d 200 4 and 2 005Culverts stu die in d companion 200 5 studyN

12Direct Passage Measurement• Visual observations• PIT tagging w/antennae• Mark-Recapture

13Hydrodynamic Model DevelopmentCFD model development using ANSYS CFX platform.Boundary ConditionsInlet: mass flow rate, turbulence intensityand length scaleOutlet: static pressure (water depth)Culvert sides and floor: no-slip wall boundariesInitial ConditionsInlet: grid of water velocitiesOutlet: water depthVelocities: 0 m/sVOF: step function

14Model ValidationObserved0.30.90.61.21.2 1.50.60.90.31.51.82.12.4PredictedFlow0.30.60.91.21.51.82.11.20.90.60.3

15Model Validation2.502.00Predicted Velocity (m/s)1.501.000.50r2mod= 0.86, rmod= 0.932r fit= 0.90, r fit= 0.950.000.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00Observed Velocity (m/s)

16Barrier Assessment 1-D1Flow8.20 ft/s8.62 ft/s8.91 ft/s9.02 ft/s9.13 ft/s9.22 ft/s9.31 ft/s9.38 ft/s9.46 ft/s9.53 ft/s9.59 ft/s1) V f -V w = V progress2) Time = 1 /V progress3) If Total Time > 5seconds, then fail,otherwise pass.FishMovement

Barrier Assessment (3D)170.5101.01.5982.071.00.5Flow652.5431.00.51.52.021•Estimate 3-D velocity field.June 25 Model•Find minimum energy path for each starting point.•Estimate passage using velocities along each path.

18Energy Paths0.5101.00.51.01.52.02.51.52.09876543210MinimumEnergy PathObservedEnergy PathsMaximumEnergy PathJune 29 ModelFlow

19Fish Swimming DataTemperatureSpecies Burst Speed Burst Speed Burst Speed Range Size Range Size Range Time Range Rangeft/s m/s m/s cm inches s CSource and NotesCutthroat Trout 4.12 Bell (1991)Cutthroat Trout 13.50 4.12 1.82 to 4.12 - - - Bell (1991).Rainbow Trout - 1.86 to 2.26 58 to 67 23 to 26 10 to 15Paulik and Delacy (1957) as cited in Hoar andRandall, eds. (1978).Rainbow Trout - 5.36 to 8.17 61 to 81 24 to 32 1.5Weaver (1963) as cited in Hoar and Randall,eds. (1978).Rainbow Trout - 0.3 to 2.5 14.3 5.6 0.08Webb, as cited in Hoar and Randall, eds.(1978).Rainbow Trout 0.3 to 1.8 14.3 5.6 0.04Webb, as cited in Hoar and Randall, eds.(1978).Rainbow Trout 2.72 0.83 - - -Jones et al. (1974) as listed in FishXingSwimming Speed table.Rainbow Trout 5.33 1.62 - 10.3 to 28 4.1 to 11 1 to 20Bainbridge (1960) as cited in Hunter andMayor (1986).Rainbow Trout 6.91 2.11 - 10.3 to 81.3 4.1 to 32 1 to 20 7 to 19Bainbridge (1960), Weaver (1963) andBeamish (1978) as cited in Hunter and Mayor(1986).Rainbow Trout 2.11** Hunter and Mayor (1986)Rainbow Trout 10.75 3.28 - 61 to 81.3 24 to 32 1.6 to 12.5 7 to 19Weaver (1963) and Beamish (1978) as citedin Hunter and Mayor (1986).

20Four Different Assessments1. 1-D flow model with Bell (1991) data.2. 1-D flow model with Hunter andMayor’s (1986) data.3. 3-D flow model with Bell (1991) data.4. 3-D flow model with Hunter andMayor’s (1986) data.

21Comparison of Predictions toDirect ObservationsFlow (m 3 /s)6.005.004.003.002.001. 1-D with Bell.2. 1-D with Hunterand Mayor.3. 3-D with Bell.4. 3-D with Hunterand Mayor1.000.004/3/04 5/23/04 7/12/04 8/31/04 10/20/04Date•DocumentedPassage andFailed Attempt•DocumentedPassage

22Future Research• Further validate 3-D 3 D hydrodynamic modeling forbarrier assessment.• Determine high end (burst) swimming speeds.• Assessment should be in terms of probabilities,not yes/no.• Marriage of aquatic ecology and hydraulics.

23Acknowledgements•Western Transportation Institute•Montana Department of Transportation•Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks•United States Forest Service

24Thank You!Matt Blank, Ph.D.Research Scientist/Assistant Research ProfessorWestern Transportation Institute and Civil Engineering DepartmentMontana State Universitymblank@coe.montana.edu406-994-7120

25Energy Paths21.91.50.52.11.51.10.522.31.00.9221.21zx

26Energy Paths350Select flow rate of interest.330310290Stage (mm)270250230Model velocity through culvert using ANSYS-CFX.2101901701503-Apr 23-Apr 13-May 2-Jun 22-Jun 12-Jul 1-AugDate and TimeExport velocity field on plane 0.06 m above culvertbed from ANYS-CFX to Microsoft Excel.Calculate energy paths using Microsoft Excelwith VBA code.E=s∫0F dsF = 05 . C ρA( V −V)d s f2

27Energy Paths1 2 3 4