Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ETSU H/06/00053/REP
DTI/Pub URN 01/688
Contractor
Dulas Ltd
Prepared by
J Howarth
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For more details, contact Dulas Ltd, Hydro, Dyfi Eco Parc, Machynlleth, Powys, SY20 8AX
ii
Screen Capacity.
The flow capacity of the screen was tested, both at the start and the end of the
15 month monitoring period, to determine if wear and abrasion in service had
reduced performance. The wedge wire edges of the screen were examined
with a microscope to determine if there was any visual signs of wear. To put
these results into perspective, samples of silt were taken from the river bed
and analysed to determine their abrasive properties.
1.3.2
Samples of silt were washed over the screen and the amount of silt passing
through was assessed in terms of particle size and quantity.
1.3.3
Monitoring of river flows and turbine flows was carried out to determine if the
screen had become blocked at any time. The screen was also inspected at
regular intervals to look for signs of blockage.
1.3.4
The screen was regularly inspected to monitor signs of build up of algae. The
capacity of the screen was assessed to determine if the algae had any
deleterious effect. Samples of the water were taken and analysed for pH and
the nutrients nitrate and phosphate, to determine if there were favourable
conditions for algal growth.
1.3.5
Any operating and maintenance requirements for the screen were recorded on
the daily site register.
1.3.6
The screen was carefully inspected, particularly after high flood flows, to
check for signs of impact damage from boulders or tree trunks etc.
iii
1.3.7
Screen Capacity.
The capacity of the screen was found to be approximately four percent less
than when installed. However, the errors present in accurately measuring the
flow were estimated at around 3%, hence it is difficult to draw a definite
conclusion. Microscopic examination of the screen wire edges showed no
visible signs of wear. The mineralogical analysis of typical silt found in the
river system, did not show any significant presence of highly abrasive
material. Hence it is thought unlikely that there would be a significant
deterioration of performance due to wear of the screen material.
There was however, evidence of the build up a limited amount of biological
growth, probably algae. This growth had coated part of the screen and it is
possible that this could reduce capacity slightly. The effects of this growth
can be mitigated by cleaning, and this is discussed more fully below.
1.4.2
Several tests were carried out over a range of flows. At low flows, where
there was insufficient water to produce an excess leaving the bottom of the
screen, the silt exclusion performance was lower, averaging around 50%
exclusion of particles between 0.41 and 1.17mm. At higher flow tests, much
better performance was achieved, with average exclusion rates for the same
particle range of 94%. It was felt that this was a more indicative test, since
large volumes of small size silt particles would only be in suspension at high
flows. In such instances, there is sufficient excess flow to remove silt
particles from the screen, rather than allowing them to sit on the surface and
trickle through the wedge wires.
1.4.3
iv
Neither the flow records for the turbine, or the operator reports showed any
evidence of blockage of the screen by debris. The operator reported that he
had never had to remove any debris or blockage from the screen.
It has been discovered however, that very thin strands of weed are able to pass
in small quantities through the wedge wires. This problem manifested itself in
a reduction in turbine maximum output power of about 7kW, or about four
percent. This occurred very gradually over a period of 15 months until the
operator decided to investigate the problem. Upon opening up the spear valve,
thin strands of weed were discovered. After cleaning these out, the turbine
output returned to normal. This was a short maintenance operation that only
required about an hour to carry out.
The winter of 1999-2000 was not particularly cold, so the screen was not
tested under severe freezing conditions. However, there was a few occasions
when the air temperature reached freezing point, and a period of several days
where it remained between zero degrees and minus two degrees celsius. No
problems of freezing of the screen or blockage by ice were noted.
1.4.4
During the 15 month period, it was noticed that a thin film of algae had started
to spread over the screen. After about 12 months of operation, it was noted
that this had reduced the capacity of the screen. The screen was cleaned with
a stiff brush and the capacity of the screen returned to normal. Again this was
an isolated maintenance operation that only required about 1 hour to perform.
The water quality analysis showed that although the pH of the water was
conducive to algae growth, the concentrations of the nitrate and phosphate
were low, hence, higher than normal growth rates of algae would not be
expected.
1.4.5
Apart from the two occasions described above, no maintenance was required
on the scheme due to problems with the screen.
1.4.6
The screen was inspected after several high floods where large tree trunks and
boulders had been washed over the weir. There was no evidence of any
damage to the screen. This is mainly due the orientation of the screen, where
objects tend to roll over it rather than impact with high force. This resistance
to damage has been observed at other installations, after more than 5 years in
service.
1.4.7
The NPV calculations carried out for the Coanda screen and a conventional
screen showed a significant advantage to using the Coanda screen. Over 5
years, there was a 14,000 benefit and over 10 years this amounted to
30,000. The majority of this benefit arises from the extra energy production
possible by using a self cleaning screen, that never blocks, compared to a
conventional screen can be 50% blocked for the whole of the autumn, when
high leaf loads are present.
1.5 Conclusions
From the results obtained from this investigation, it is clear that the
installation of a Coanda screen at this location has been highly successful,
resulting in payback on the installation costs within 1-2 years. The screen has
been effectively 100% reliable, since there has been no lost energy production
due to blockage by debris.
The screen has proven to be of consistent high capacity, robust, resistant to
damage from large boulders and tree trunks, unaffected by freezing
temperatures and has a high silt exclusion performance. The capacity tests
showed no significant deterioration in performance over a 15 month period.
The screens are also supplied approximately 50% oversized, hence even in
more aggressive, abrasive environments, the screens will be capable of
exceeding the performance requirements over a long design life.
Maintenance requirements have been negligible, with a total of about 3 hours
over 15 months being required for screen related maintenance activities. The
investigation has however, highlighted two minor areas where more careful
monitoring of performance may be required. The first is monitoring of algal
growth, which, if allowed to build up over long periods, can reduce the
capacity of the screen. In nutrient enriched waters, it may be necessary to
clean the screen once a month. The second area is monitoring of turbine
power output to check for build up of weed that has passed through the screen
and collected on the turbine spear valve. Both of these processes occur
relatively slowly, hence the cleaning can be a planned maintenance activity,
during a dry period. Hence, no loss of electricity production need occur.
Over the long term, the installation of an Aquashear Coanda screen is an
extremely good investment. For this particular site, the projected extra Net
Present Value from installation of the Coanda screen is 30,000 over a 10 year
period. For sites where a settling tank would be required in addition to the
conventional screen, the extra Net Present Value over 10 years was 38,000.
On some schemes, this extra availability and generated revenue, provided by
the Coanda screen, could be sufficient to turn an economically unattractive
project into a commercial viability.
vi
1.6 Recommendations
The screen has been tested over a period of 15 months for a range of
performance parameters. The screen has performed well in all of these tests.
The conclusions for most of the tests can be easily and accurately extrapolated
to the long term. For instance, tests for performance under freezing
conditions, resistance to blockage by debris, impact damage resistance and silt
exclusion should not be time dependent. However, there are two performance
parameters that would be of interest to investigate over the longer term;
1) Reduction of capacity due to build up algae or biological growth. It would
be very informative to monitor the build up of algae after a longer period
of 3 or 5 years. During this time it would be expected that the screen
would continually accumulate algae, which would be removed at intervals
by the operator as necessary. The current method is to use a stiff brush to
remove the growth from the outside screen surface. An increase in
capacity back to normal is usually noted. However, this brushing does not
return the screen to bare metal condition. It is possible that over longer
periods, more resistant residues may accumulate which could require a
more intensive cleaning process.
2) Reduction in capacity due to abrasion and blunting of the wedge wire
edges. The river in which the screen was installed did not contain large
volumes of abrasive material. A more meaningful test to determine long
term performance and life, would be to test the capacity of the screen after
5 years. An alternative would be to carry out a perfomance monitoring
programme on a screen installed in a more silty, abrasive environment. A
screen has recently been installed in Sri Lanka, which experiences high silt
loading. As the site is also in a tropical climate the rate of growth of algae
is much faster than for sites in the UK. This could therefore be a useful
site to monitor these two parameters of abrasion and algae growth.
The Aquashear Coanda screen is also supplied with smaller wedge wire
spacings. It would therefore be interesting to test a screen with 0.5mm
aperture. This type of screen would have many applications for higher head
sites, where the removal of smaller silt particles is essential to minimise
abrasion. It would be possible to do this on a small scale, by installing a
small, prefabricated section of screen in an appropriate river and monitoring
algae growth, abrasion and capacity over a 3 or 5 year period. The screen
would not necessarily have to be part of a hydro scheme to test these
parameters.
vii
3.3.2
OPERATOR REPORTS .................................................................................. N
3.3.3
OPERATION IN FREEZING CONDITIONS ...................................................... O
3.4
SLIME/ALGAE GROWTH ..................................................................................O
3.4.1
PH ANALYSIS .............................................................................................P
3.4.2
NUTRIENT NITRATE AND PHOSPHATE ANALYSIS .......................................P
3.4.3
VISUAL INSPECTIONS ..................................................................................P
3.5
PERFORMANCE BENEFITS AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS................Q
3.5.1
METHOD..................................................................................................... Q
3.5.2
MAINTENANCE LOG ................................................................................... R
3.5.3
STREAM AND TURBINE FLOW .................................................................... R
3.5.4
PERFORMANCE OF TURBINE/EFFICIENCY .................................................. R
3.5.5
VISUAL INSPECTION OF TURBINE AND RUNNER ......................................... R
3.6
MECHANICAL INTEGRITY .............................................................................. R
4 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS............................................................................... S
4.1
MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR A COANDA SCREEN AND CONVENTIONAL
SCREEN .........................................................................................................................S
4.2
TURBINE AVAILABILITY AND EFFICIENCY COSTS ....................................... T
4.3
CAPITAL COSTS .............................................................................................. T
5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................. V
5.1
SCREEN CAPACITY. ........................................................................................ V
5.2
SILT EXCLUSION PERFORMANCE. ................................................................. V
5.3
SELF CLEANING OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE IN FREEZING
CONDITIONS................................................................................................................ V
5.4
SLIME AND ALGAE GROWTH ........................................................................W
5.5
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS......................................W
5.6
INTEGRITY AND RESISTANCE TO DAMAGE ..................................................W
5.7
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ..............................................................................W
6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... X
7 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... Y
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
Screen capacity
Screen wear
Silt removal
Self Cleaning Operation
Operation in freezing conditions
Effect of slime/algae growth
Performance Benefits
Maintenance Requirements
Mechanical Integrity
Method
Capacity
The capacity of the screen was measured shortly after commissioning and then
again after 15 months operation. The same method was used on both
occasions.
Water flow through the screen was measured using the ultrasonic flow meter
installed in the powerhouse, at the site.
The screen capacity is greater than that required by the turbine/pipeline
system. The large section of screen was covered in a plastic sheet, to reduce
the flow capacity below the turbine capacity, and the turbine flow then
gradually increased until all the water passing over the top of the small screen
was drawn into the turbine. The amount of water available to the screen was
controlled by adjusting temporary stop logs on the top of the weir wall. See
photos in Appendix C.
The maximum flow was determined by monitoring the pressure at the turbine.
As soon as the pressure started to fall, this indicated that the turbine was
taking more flow than the screen could supply, and that the pipe was
emptying. The turbine spear valve was then closed slightly until a steady
pressure was achieved. This was therefore the approximate screen capacity.
The measured width of screen left available for passing flow was 0.49m.
This is a slightly different width to that used in the initial tests due to the
practicalities of arranging for exactly the same area of screen to be covered by
the plastic sheet. The maximum flow that could be taken by the turbine was
recorded at somewhere between 85 and 90 litres/second.
As before, there was some leakage beneath the plastic sheet and around the
plate sides, which was estimated in this instance to be a total of around 3 l/s.
There was a similar disturbed flow entry to the acceleration plate and screen,
with the result that there was a small area of flow separation (again about 3%),
where the water did not contact the screen. Additionally, in this test, there
was not quite enough water to ensure that the uncovered section of screen was
100% utilised. By using the stop logs to block off part of the screen, the water
level behind the weir was raised to the extent where flow started to spill over
the whole weir length, and was therefore not available to direct over the
uncovered section of screen.
It was estimated that the above two effects resulted in a loss of screen area
available of about eight percent, or seven litres/second.
Hence the combined effect of these approximations;
Measured flow capacity = 87.5 l/s,
Losses due to un-utilised screen area = seven litres/second,
Extra flow due to leakage around screen = three litres/second,
gives an estimated capacity of 91.5 litres/second.
This equates to a flow capacity of 187 litres/second per linear meter width
compared to 194 litres per second when measured after installation. This is
approximately a four percent reduction in capacity.
Errors
The measurements above are all subject to inaccuracy. Some estimate for the
degree of inaccuracy are indicated below:
1) The measurement of the point at which the screen is at full capacity is
probably subject to an error of plus or minus 2.5 litres/second or about
2.5% of total. This is mainly due to determining exactly when the pipe
begins to empty, and also that the turbine flow meter reading tends to
oscillate by plus or minus 1 litre/second.
2) The estimate of total leakage flows is probably plus or minus one
litre/second or about one percent of total.
3) The estimate of screen unutilised is probably plus or minus two percent.
The expected uncertainty is thus calculated by the square root of the sum of
the squares of the individual errors, ie.
Total Error = (2.52 + 12 +22) = 3%.
Hence the measured reduction in capacity is four percent, plus or minus three
percent.
3.1.4 Wear
The screen was examined for wear. A magnifying glass was used to examine
the edges of the wedge wires for comparison with the wires of a new screen.
It was not possible to see any general deterioration of the wedge wire profile,
although there were occasional scratches and slight deformations, probably
where larger stones had impacted.
What was noticeable however, was the thin coating of algae that covered parts
of the screen. Although not present upon the leading edge of each wire,
probably due to the shearing action of the water, it was present on the upper
surface of the wedge wire. This may have some effect on the capacity of the
screen, since the surface will be slightly roughened and this may reduce the
Coanda effect.
As a second method, a set of feeler gauges was used to determine the gap
between the wires of the installed screen and the gap for a section of new
screen for comparison. The measured gap varied between 1.0 and 1.1mm.
There is a slight error in measurement, since the wedge wires are able to
deform slightly. However, after measurement of the wedge wire gap in 20
different areas of the screens, there was no discernible difference between the
new and used screens.
3.1.5 Mineralogical Analysis of Silt
Samples of silt, which had collected above the weir, were taken as typical of
material that goes over the screen. There is a bias towards the collection of
larger particles as smaller particles tend not to be deposited.
The type of particles collected were analysed to determine the type of rock, ie
quartzite, sedimentary etc and to assess the abrasive properties.
The complete mineralogical report is contained in Appendix B.
The report states that the dominant material is made up of clasts of igneous
rock, with only a small percentage of sedimentary rock present. Quartz was
present but only as a minor phase. There is a high percentage of angular
shaped debris, indicative of the high energy environment. In abrasive terms,
the dominant rock had a hardness of around H6 on the Mohs Scale, H6 being
equivalent to Feldspar but softer than quartz. H5 and above will scratch
copper and H6 will scratch window glass. The screen material is stainless
steel, which has a hardness of between H6 and H7. We can conclude
therefore, that will be material in the river that can cause the screen to wear,
but as it is of a similar hardness, or perhaps slightly softer than the screen
material, we would expect the wear to occur over a long period of time. The
harder quartzite particles that could cause wear problems are only present in
small quantities. Hence the screen should be expected to have a long design
life under these site conditions.
3.1.6 Discussion
The combined results above show a slight deterioration in the screen capacity
after 15 months operation. However, the inherent errors involved in accurately
measuring such a small deterioration on a real site, make it difficult to draw a
definite conclusion. It is probable, given the results of the mineralogical
analysis above, that if there is a real reduction in capacity, it is probably more
due to algae build up, than wear of the wedge wires.
It shows that the practice of supplying schemes with screens that are 50%
higher in capacity is prudent. This will ensure that site specific effects such as
non ideal, (non laminar flow) inlet conditions, algae growth and screen wear,
will not affect the performance of the screen in the short or medium term.
What would be more useful, would be to revisit the scheme in three years time
and measure the screen capacity. This would indicate a more long term trend
in capacity change. It may also prove that the schemes are being supplied
with too much spare capacity, raising the potential for supplying smaller
screens at reduced cost.
Particle Size
Range (S)
(mm)
Mass of Sample
Size Poured onto
Screen (g)
Mass of Sample
Size that Passed
through Screen (g)
% Exclusion
1.17>S>0.70
0.41>S>0.70
200
100
91
82
55
18
Particle Size
Range (S)
(mm)
Mass of Sample
Size Poured onto
Screen (g)
Mass of Sample
Size that Passed
through Screen (g)
% Exclusion
1.17>S>0.70
0.41>S>0.70
165
120
45
63
73
49
3.2.3
The results show that for the above two tests, a higher proportion of silt
particles between 0.41 and 1.17mm diameter passed through the screen than
predicted.
The difference between the two tests is probably explained by the rate of flow
used for each test. On the second test, the proportion of screen used was made
smaller by the use of wooden baffles, hence there was a higher flow for the
relative area used in the test. As a result, the second tests showed a higher rate
of silt exclusion.
The rate of flow is quite critical, since in reality, there will only be high silt
load when there is high flow. At high flows, there will be large excess flows
over the screen, hence the silt tends to be washed over the screen rather than
being allowed to settle on unwetted areas and then dropping through, as
happens under low flow conditions. At low flows, there is much less particle
transport, particularly of larger, heavier silt particles. Hence, a more
appropriate test would be under high flow conditions, as detailed below.
3.2.4
Although the flow available was not excessively high, it was found that by
making a temporary dam across the weir, the extra volume of water stored,
when released quickly, allowed a sufficiently higher flow across the screen.
Two tests were carried out with the following results;
Particle Size
Range (S) (mm)
Mass of Sample
Size Poured onto
Screen (g)
Mass of Sample
Size that Passed
through Screen (g)
% Exclusion
1.17>S>0.70
0.41>S>0.70
150
100
3
9
98
91
Particle Size
Range (S) (mm)
Mass of Sample
Size Poured onto
Screen (g)
Mass of Sample
Size that Passed
through Screen (g)
% Exclusion
1.17>S>0.70
0.41>S>0.70
185
145
3
17
98.5
88
These higher flow tests confirmed the expectations, with an average silt
exclusion rate of 94%. The excess flow and higher flow velocities that leave
the bottom of the screen does not allow particles to settle on the screen
hence they are not able to make the necessary change in direction to pass
between the screen wedge wires.
immersion with internal temperature sensors. The logger data was downloaded
every month and an analysis of the data produced by Dulas.
The stream and turbine flows were logged for the duration of the project. If
the stream flow was high but the turbine was taking less flow, this could be
evidence of blockage of the screen (provided no operational or maintenance
procedures were responsible).
Photographs were taken of the screen at regular intervals to record any build
up of debris or signs of blockage. These are contained in Appendix C.
Appendix D contains the daily site records for Turbine flow, River Flow, Air
Temperature, Water Temperature, Power Output and Total kWh generated.
3.3.2 Operator Reports
In the 15 month period of operation, there has been no evidence of any
blockage of the screen due to leaves or other debris. The operator at the site
has been very pleased with the new screen, since the previous screen required
frequent cleaning, sometimes as much as every few hours during the autumn,
when there were lots of leaves present.
However, it was noted that over the last six months the turbine output power
had reduced by about 10kW, or approximately six percent. The turbine spear
valve was opened and examined and was found to be partly obstructed by
long, thin strands of weed, which had become hung up on the spear support
vanes. The spear was cleaned out and the turbine was returned to service.
The power then increased by about 7kW. The remaining 3kW of lost power is
due to fouling of the pipe which had become coated with a thin film of slime.
This has the effect of increasing the surface roughness of the pipe, slightly
decreasing the diameter, resulting in a higher friction loss for the pipe.
Hence the loss in efficiency due to weed passing through the screen, and
fouling the spear valve, is about four percent over 15 months.
Examination of the screen revealed a few strands of weed caught between the
wedge wires. It seems probable that this type of material may be able to find a
way through the screen. However, the concrete surfaces surrounding the
screen had become slightly eroded over time, hence there are some small gaps
that have formed around the edges of the screen. It is therefore probable that
some of the material has entered the system around the side of the screen, as
well as passing through the wedge wires.
The conclusion we can make from these observations, is that there may be
some types of organic material, made up of long thin strands, that can pass
through the screen and have the potential to cause some obstruction.
However, in this instance, this was a very minor problem and required only
about an hour to open the spear valve and clear the weed away. This problem
could be further reduced by ensuring that the screen remains well sealed to the
surrounding support structure.
The operator plans to monitor the power output closely to track any build up
of weed, and will plan in a 6 month inspection of the spear valve. This can be
planned for periods of low flow, when the turbine is shut down, hence this
would not involve any loss of production.
It should be emphasised, that compared to conventional alternative screens,
with larger apertures and less self cleaning characteristics, this is an almost
negligible problem. For conventional screens, it could be necessary to clear
the screen or turbine spear valve much more frequently, possibly every day at
certain times of the year.
3.3.3 Operation in Freezing Conditions
There was no air temperature data for the period from 12th April 1999 until the
end of August 1999. However, the water temperature during this period never
fell below 5 degrees Celsius, and it is unlikely that any frosts occurred during
this spring and summer period.
Both air and water temperature data were available from the period from 1st
September 1999 until 25th April 2000, which covered the autumn and winter
periods. Due to the relatively mild winter, there were no severe frosts;
however there was a continuous period of four days, from the 18th to 21st
December 1999, when the temperature remained between 0 degrees and -2
degrees Celcius. The screen continued to function normally throughout this
period and there was no evidence of any ice formation on the screen.
There were also other brief periods when the air temperature fell to freezing
point; no ice formation or reduction in screen capacity occurred.
Data obtained recently from other installations has shown resistance to much
more severe freezing conditions. Screens installed in other countries, notably
Switzerland3 and Utah, USA4, where temperatures have fallen as low as 32
degrees Celcius for prolonged periods, have not experienced any blockages
due to ice formation on the screen.
The sample of water collected from the river was analysed for pH, nitrate and
phosphate by the Institute of Freshwater Ecology at Windermere, Cumbria,
UK.
3.4.1 PH Analysis
Growth of algae can be promoted in pH neutral waters, whereas growth can
become inhibited in acidic waters (of pH 4-5 or less). The pH of the sample
collected at Lodore falls was 7.33. Hence, the pH of the water is conducive to
the growth of algae.
3.4.2 Nutrient Nitrate and Phosphate Analysis
The results are presented below, along with typical results for other waters in
the region, to allow comparison.
Parameter
Nitrate
Soluble Reactive
Phosphate
Lodore Falls
(mg/litre)
135
2.5
Ullswater
(Mildly Eutrophic)
(mg/litre)
1300
30
Coniston, Windermere,
Haweswater
(mg/litre)
80-130
10
As a result of the above analysis, a financial assessment has been made of:
the maintenance costs incurred with the Coanda screen and those
expected with a conventional screen installed. Two assessments
are made for the conventional screen. The first is for the screen
only. The second is for a screen and a desilting or settlement tank.
This allows a fairer comparison between the conventional solution
and the Coanda screen option, as it includes desilting performance.
the turbine performance in terms of availability and efficiency
the costs of avoided shutdowns due to non required maintenance (if
any).
the cost of supply and installation of a Coanda screen as compared
to a typical bar or mesh intake.
This results in a cost / benefit analysis for the installation and use of the
Coanda screen at this location.
unexpected. Hence, on this basis, typical costs would be of the order of two
hours per week at 15 per hour, ie 30 per week or 1560/year.
The desilting tank would also need regular maintenance, to periodically flush
out the accumulated silt. It is estimated that this would require about 2 hours
every month, ie 24 hours per year, resulting in a cost of 360 per year.
At other sites, where silt abrasion and wear are not considered such a problem,
or civil works are very cheap, the Coanda installation costs will be higher.
Hence for this analysis, two capital costs have been compared for the
conventional screen solution. The first is for a conventional screen only. For
this particular site, with no desilting tank, the capital costs for a conventional
screen would be about 50% of that of the Coanda screen, based on screen
material costs and associated civil works costs. This is probably typical for
other UK sites.
The second cost is for a conventional screen plus settling tank, to allow a fair
comparison of like with like, in terms of desilting performance.
Hence, for this installation, the cost benefit analysis is as follows:
Conventional
Screen
Capital Cost
Generated Units
Generated
income/year @ 4.0
pence /kWh.
Maintenance Cost
NPV over 5 years1
NPV over 10 years1
1
Coanda Screen
7400
700,000
28,000
Conventional
Screen with
Settling Tank
14,000
700,0000
28,000
1560
94,000
169,000
1900
86,000
161,000
90
108,000
199,000
14,800
800,000
32,000
The results show that for this site, over a typical 10 year life span, the net
present value of choosing a Coanda screen is 30,000 higher than that for a
conventional screen and 38,000 higher than that for a conventional screen
with desilting tank. Even over a very short five year life span, there is a
saving of 14,000 and 22,000 respectively . This would be enough to build
the screen again in totality, including design and all civil works. In reality, in
the unlikely event that the screen needs replacement after only five years, the
replacement cost would only be 7200 (at 2.5% inflation), since only the
screen material would be replaced. (The surrounding support structure and
civil works would be designed for 25 years.)
Hence it would be possible to replace the screen every five years and still
show between 7000 and 15,000 saving each time.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The following summarises the results of each of the tests and analyses carried
out.
thin strands of weed were discovered. After cleaning these out, the turbine
output returned to normal. This was a short maintenance operation that only
required about an hour to carry out.
The winter of 1999-2000 was not particularly cold, so the screen was not
tested under severe freezing conditions. However, there was a few occasions
when the air temperature reached freezing point, and a period of several days
where it remained between zero degrees and minus two degrees celsius. No
problems of freezing of the screen or blockage by ice were noted.
CONCLUSIONS
From the results obtained from this investigation, it is clear that the
installation of a Coanda screen at this location has been highly successful,
resulting in payback on the installation costs within 1-2 years. The screen has
been effectively 100% reliable, since there has been no lost energy production
due to blockage by debris.
The screen has proven to be of consistent high capacity, robust, resistant to
damage from large boulders and tree trunks, unaffected by freezing
temperatures and has a high silt exclusion performance. The capacity tests
showed no significant deterioration in performance over a 15 month period.
The screens are also supplied approximately 50% oversized, hence even in
more aggressive, abrasive environments, the screens will be capable of
exceeding the performance requirements over a long design life.
Maintenance requirements have been negligible, with a total of about 3 hours
over 15 months being required for screen related maintenance activities. The
investigation has however, highlighted two minor areas where more careful
monitoring of performance may be required. The first is monitoring of algal
growth, which, if allowed to build up over long periods, can reduce the
capacity of the screen. In nutrient enriched waters, it may be necessary to
clean the screen once a month. The second area is monitoring of turbine
power output to check for build up of weed that has passed through the screen
and collected on the turbine spear valve. Both of these processes occur
relatively slowly, hence the cleaning can be a planned maintenance activity,
during a dry period. Hence, no loss of electricity production need occur.
Over the long term, the installation of an Aquashear Coanda screen is an
extremely good investment. For this particular site, the projected extra Net
Present Value from installation of the Coanda screen is 30,000 over a 10 year
period. For sites where a settling tank would be required in addition to the
conventional screen, the extra Net Present Value over 10 years was 38,000.
On some schemes, this extra availability and generated revenue, provided by
the Coanda screen, could be sufficient to turn an economically unattractive
project into a commercial viability.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The screen has been tested over a period of 15 months for a range of
performance parameters. The screen has performed well in all of these tests.
The conclusions for most of the tests can be easily and accurately extrapolated
to the long term. For instance, tests for performance under freezing
conditions, resistance to blockage by debris, impact damage resistance and silt
exclusion should not be time dependent. However, there are two performance
parameters that would be of interest to investigate over the longer term;
1) Reduction of capacity due to build up algae or biological growth. It would
be very informative to monitor the build up of algae after a longer period
of 3 or 5 years. During this time it would be expected that the screen
would continually accumulate algae, which would be removed at intervals
by the operator as necessary. The current method is to use a stiff brush to
remove the growth from the outside screen surface. An increase in
capacity back to normal is usually noted. However, this brushing does not
return the screen to bare metal condition. It is possible that over longer
periods, more resistant residues may accumulate which could require a
more intensive cleaning process.
2) Reduction in capacity due to abrasion and blunting of the wedge wire
edges. The river in which the screen was installed did not contain large
volumes of abrasive material. A more meaningful test to determine long
term performance and life, would be to test the capacity of the screen after
5 years. An alternative would be to carry out a perfomance monitoring
programme on a screen installed in a more silty, abrasive environment. A
screen has recently been installed in Sri Lanka, which experiences high silt
loading. As the site is also in a tropical climate the rate of growth of algae
is much faster than for sites in the UK. This could therefore be a useful
site to monitor these two parameters of abrasion and algae growth.
The Aquashear Coanda screen is also supplied with smaller wedge wire
spacings. It would therefore be interesting to test a screen with 0.5mm
aperture. This type of screen would have many applications for higher head
sites, where the removal of smaller silt particles is essential to minimise
abrasion. It would be possible to do this on a small scale, by installing a
small, prefabricated section of screen in an appropriate river and monitoring
algae growth, abrasion and capacity over a 3 or 5 year period. The screen
would not necessarily have to be part of a hydro scheme to test these
parameters.