Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Dam”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2

Hydropower and environmental flow management: System-level trade-offs at Glen Canyon Dam

The research focuses on the Colorado River Basin, specifically examining the Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) and its influence on surrounding aquatic ecosystems. This area is crucial due to its role in hydropower production and its impact on downstream environments, including the Grand Canyon National Park. This study explores the integration of environmental factors into hydro dispatch modeling at GCD to tackle ecological challenges posed by the invasive smallmouth bass (SMB). Utilizing the GTMax SL and SERM models, the research assesses the effects of SMB control experiments on hydropower generation, economic value, and grid stability. The study examines the financial and economic impacts of bypass flows designed to release colder water to prevent SMB spawning, which can significantly reduce hydropower output and increase costs. The research identifies that declining reservoir levels and rising water temperatures in Lake Powell have facilitated SMB spawning, posing a threat to native fish populations like the endangered humpback chub. The findings highlight the importance of adaptive management strategies to balance ecological preservation with hydropower generation amid long-term weather-related challenges. The study underscores the need for comprehensive assessments of flow options to prevent SMB establishment below GCD, considering the broader implications for sediment dynamics and ecological interactions.

Ecological impact assessment↗

Self-Lubricating Bushing Testing for John Day Dam Ka plan Turbine Replacement

The goal of this testing program is to find suitable self-lubricated alternatives to replace the in use oil lubricated grooved-bronze bushing in Kaplan runner hubs that are currently being utilized at John Day Dam operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Scaled bushing testing utilizing a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory designed, fabricated, and operated Bushing Test Stand under the direction and funding from USACE determined that self-lubricated bushings tested appear capable of outperforming the current oil-lubricated bronze bushings. Performance tests are focused on durability which includes cyclic load bearing properties and articulations under various loading scenarios. This testing was performed at nominally 1/5 th scale. A scaling sensitivity analysis determined that scaled testing results apply to prototypic size. This report shows the direct comparison between the current baseline bronze bushing to self-lubricated bushings from various manufacturers. Bushing data like coefficient of friction and bushing material loss (associated with bushing wear) was determined. Self-lubricated bushings tested include products manufactured specifically for hydropower applications by the following companies: Trelleborg, Kamatics, Anonymous, and Tenneco/Deva.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Lower Snake River Dams Contribution to Grid Services

Hydroelectric generation and water storage have long been components of the clean energy mix, providing both reliable steady output and operational flexibility. As variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar increasingly replace traditional generation, the role of all flexible resources—including hydropower—in balancing supply and demand continues to evolve. This study examined the contribution of the Lower Snake River (LSR) Dam plants to Bonneville Power Administration grid services in maintaining power system reliability within the Western Interconnection. By analyzing publicly available data, the study evaluated various reliability services through performance metrics including energy capacity, balancing and ramping, voltage and reactive power support, frequency response, and transmission impact. Results indicated that the LSR plants deliver services as expected based on their size, contributing to the balancing process, ramping capabilities, and operational reserves, particularly during peak load conditions and weather events, while also providing measurable frequency and voltage support to the grid.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Financial Analysis of the High Flow Experiment conducted at the Glen Canyon Dam during Water Year 2023

The Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) is a Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) power resource that is a component of the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP). The 2016 record of decision (ROD) for the GCD long-term experimental and management plan (LTEMP) final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) specified criteria for GCD monthly water releases, daily and hourly operating limits, and experimental releases. This report examines the financial implications of the high flow experiment (HFE) conducted at GCD during the spring of Water Year (WY) 2023 as required by the LTEMP HFE Protocol. This report is part of a series of reports that describe the financial costs of LTEMP experimental releases since the 2016 ROD was adopted in January 2017. Previous reports analyzed the impact of several past HFEs and Bug Flow Experiments. This report focuses on the HFE conducted in April 2023. For this experimental release, financial costs of approximately $1.33 million were incurred because the HFE required sustained water releases exceeding the power plant’s maximum turbine flow rate. In addition, during the experiment, operators were not allowed to shape GCD power production, either to follow Firm Electric Service (FES) customer day-ahead energy deliveries or to respond to market prices. This study identifies the main factors contributing to the HFE costs and examines the interdependencies among these factors. It applies an integrated set of tools to estimate Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) financial impacts by simulating GCD under two types of cases; namely, (1) a “With Experiment” case that mimics the operations that actually occurred and (2) a “Without Experiment” case that simulates operations under the assumption that the HFE did not occur. The “With Experiment” case mimics operations during the HFE and the entire month the HFE occurred. It complies with LTEMP hourly and daily operating criteria. The “Without Experiment” case assumes that the HFE did not occur. The monthly water release volume is assumed to be identical under both cases. The Colorado River Storage Project Python-based model (CRiSPPy) model was the main modeling tool used to simulate the dispatch of the GCD hydropower plant and associated water releases from Lake Powell. In the modeling process, the research team used extensive data sets and historical information on SLCA/IP power plant characteristics, hydrologic conditions, and WAPA’s power purchases and sales prices. In addition to estimating the financial impact of the HFE, the team used the CRiSPPy model to gain insights into the interplay among ROD operating criteria, exceptions made to criteria to accommodate the HFE, and WAPA operating practices.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Bonneville Dam Powerhouse 2 Gatewell Improvement Post Construction Evaluation (Final Report)

Modifications to vertical barrier screens (VBS) and the addition of concrete corbels to improve passage conditions for juvenile salmonids in the gatewells of Bonneville Dam’s second powerhouse (B2) were completed prior to the 2024 passage season. To evaluate the effectiveness of those modifications, PNNL carried out a post construction evaluation to contrast fish condition and mortality between two turbine unit operational ranges within the peak efficiency range. A block-treatment study design was implemented in 2024 to contrast descaling and mortality of juvenile salmonids sampled in the juvenile fish facility following exposure to turbine operations (middle versus upper 1% peak efficiency range) during spring and summer passage periods. In spring, 1.96% of juvenile salmonids sampled during mid-1% operations were descaled and 0.46% were mortalities. Of those sampled during upper 1% unit operations in spring, 2.90% were descaled and 0.95% were mortalities. Although these differences appeared to be meaningful, substantial exceedances of the upper 1% limit occurred during two treatment blocks of the spring study period. Fish collected during the upper 1% treatment of these two blocks experienced substantially higher rates of descaling and mortality compared to those collected during mid-1% treatments. Censoring these two upper 1% samples from the spring study period resulted in upper 1% descaling and mortality rates that were statistically similar to those from the mid-1% treatment. During the summer study period, 0.99% of juveniles sampled during mid-1% operations were descaled and 0.33% suffered mortality; these rates were significantly lower than the descaling (2.80%) and mortality (1.73%) rates observed during upper 1% treatments. Comparing the results from the 2024 study to those from the historical (2008–2013) baseline of unmodified units revealed that the descaling and mortality rates observed during upper 1% operations in spring 2024 were near the upper end of the historic range observed for mid-1% operations. Spring 2024 upper 1% descaling and mortality rates were below, or well below the median of historical mid and upper 1% (combined) rates, which suggests that the modifications have had a positive effect. Summer 2024 upper 1% descaling and mortality rates were at or above the top of the range of historical mid 1% and above or well above the median of historical mid and upper 1% (combined) rates. It is important to keep in mind that 2024 is a single year when considering these comparisons. Additional study could help confirm these results or seek a level of operation that achieves the desired outcomes for fish.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Evaluation of Howard A. Hanson Dam Juvenile Fish Passage and Survival Study: Downstream Passage and Survival (Acoustic Telemetry) (Task Final Report)

The Downstream Passage and Survival (Acoustic Telemetry) task was one of several tasks for the Evaluation of Howard A. Hanson Dam (HAHD) Juvenile Fish Passage and Survival study. For this task, a juvenile fish passage and survival study was conducted at HAHD from March 10, 2024 through June 27, 2024 for arrays in the HAHD Reservoir and Green River, and through July 9, 2024 for the arrays in the Duwamish River. Fish releases occurred over four times from March through May. Active tag (acoustic telemetry) technology was used to provide biological baseline information for the passage and survival of juvenile Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Results will be used by biologists, engineers, resource managers, and regional decision-makers to inform the engineering design of the new fish passage facility (FPF) at HAHD. However, hatchery sub-yearling PS Chinook salmon of the appropriate size for tag implantation during the study period (> 95 mm in fork length, Geist et al. 2018) were unavailable. Therefore, yearling Coho salmon (O. kisutch) were used as a surrogate species for this acoustic telemetry study.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Financial Analysis of the Smallmouth Bass Flows implemented at the Glen Canyon Dam during 2025

The Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) is a Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) power resource that is a component of the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP). The 2016 record of decision (ROD) for the GCD long-term experimental and management plan (LTEMP) final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) specifies criteria for GCD monthly water releases, daily and hourly operating limits, and experimental releases.

Ploussard, Quentin [Argonne National Laboratory (A↗

Loss of Glen Canyon Dam Hydropower Plant Capabilities

The power grid in the western United States is undergoing a major transformation, driven by technological advancements, power markets, policy shifts, and evolving energy demands. The integration of variable renewable energy (VRE) resources, such as wind and solar, into the power grid has become a major driver of change. Between 2018 and 2023, about 19 gigawatts (GW) of new solar capacity and 14 GW of new wind capacity was built in the Western Interconnection (WI) region. These two VRE resources accounted for the majority of WI capacity additions. The Western Interconnection is expected to host 30 GW of wind, 40 GW of solar, and 14 GW of energy storage by 2030 (Western Electricity Coordinating Council n.d.).

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Hydropower Infrastructure - LAkes, Reservoirs, and RIvers (HILARRI), v4

HILARRI is a database of links between major datasets of operational hydropower dams and powerplants, and inland water bodies. These connections are critical for conducting large-scale analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated natural and engineered water systems. Features include: – Dams from the National Inventory of Dams (2025) and the Global Reservoir and Dam Database (GRanD v1.3) – Hydropower plants from the Existing Hydropower Assets dataset (EHA 2025) – Power plants that are listed in the 2025 U.S. Hydropower Development Pipeline Data or were listed in previous versions of the dataset These hydropower infrastructure features are linked to several major datasets that provide hydrologic and hydraulic information relevant for analysis of hydropower systems that includes the integral water resources. That information comes from: – Products from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) – NHDPlusV2 Medium Resolution river network flowlines, – NHD waterbodies (limited to lakes and reservoirs), – NHD Watershed Boundary Dataset (HUC12-level for the Conterminous United States (CONUS)) – NHD High Resolution waterbodies – HydroLAKES water bodies (lakes and reservoirs) – LAGOS-US lakes and reservoirs – EPA National Lakes Assessment (2007, 2012, 2017, and 2022) – The Reservoir Sedimentation Database (RESSED) – EPA SuRGE sampling locations Unique identifiers are used to facilitate joining to the original full datasets. For example, characteristics of NHD flowlines such as estimated average flow rate can be joined from the NHDPlusV2 dataset to a dam or power plant listed in HILARRI based on the ID field, “COMID”, that is common to both datasets. HILARRI only includes basic information about identifiers, location, and data quality or usage notes. It does not contain the attributes or time series data associated with these sites. The HILARRI dataset incorporates information from several datasets to facilitate more effective and accurate analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated waterbodies. For example, dams were checked against the most recent American Rivers Dam Removal Database to identify and flag facilities that may no longer exist. Additionally, dams that are listed multiple times in the NID are identified and flagged to avoid double-counting when analyzing and summarizing information. Other quality flags include certainty of operational hydropower (i.e., if one or more datasets indicates hydropower at a particular location), whether an associated water body is accurate or composed of multiple polygons, or whether there is a known issue with reported characteristics in one of the underlying datasets. These additional data flags are designed to increase confidence in data usage for individual to large-scale analyses.

Hansen, Carly [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000193280838)↗

Reservoir Sediment Management and Monitoring Database

Overview This dataset compiles dam sediment management and monitoring information from surveys, case studies, and journal articles. Additionally, features described by the National Inventory of Dams (i.e., presence of sluice gates) are included to indicate known infrastructure features that may address sediment releases. The location and description of records from downstream monitoring gages are catalogued in order to help with tracking conditions over time (e.g., before and after management actions, as operations change, etc.). The data help address national scale understanding of challenges and solutions related to the accumulation of sediment behind a dam as well as downstream passage. Sediment trapping causes problems as it reduces storage capacity, disrupts dam and reservoir function, impedes access for recreation, alters water quality/habitat conditions, and contributes to riverbank and coastal erosion within the reservoir. Data compilation from a variety of sources is a first step towards assessing system-wide efficacy of management solutions. This dataset was developed under the Water Power Technologies Office funded effort which began as a Seedling on Reservoir Sedimentation Data, and was supported by the Reservoir Sedimentation Modeling Framework and Data Analysis project. These projects have addressed challenges in describing sediment transport, trapping, and management at dams throughout the US. Methodology An outer join on dams/reservoirs with surveys and survey reports (documented in the RESSED database, USBR or USACE databases, project websites, etc.) with the National Inventory of Dams, based on the NIDID to determine dams with documented management and/or sluice gates. Additional dams with documented management activity were identified through review of technical articles from the past 25 years in Journal of Hydrology, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Geomorphology, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Water, Journal of Cleaner Production, International Journal of Sediment Research, Nature Scientific Reports, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, and Environmental Science and Pollution Research. Individual records were created for each survey or management activity documented. To evaluate downstream sediment monitoring records, the nhdPlusTools and dataRetrieval packages in R were used to find gages within 10km of each dam in the management database. Length of record and location of matched gages were retrieved for those parameters relevant to sediment concentration or total sediment discharge.

Hansen, Carly [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000193280838)↗

The HydroBio Dataset: a new data resource for evaluating existing and potential hydropower capacity and freshwater biodiversity in the conterminous United States

Hydropower is a critical source of affordable and reliable electricity and energy system stability services in the United States. Opportunities to expand US hydropower production include retrofitting existing non-powered dams to produce power, retrofitting existing hydropower dams to improve efficiency or increase capacity, or constructing new hydropower infrastructure on currently unregulated river reaches. We created the HydroBio Dataset, which summarizes existing and potential hydropower capacity and freshwater biodiversity at the sub-basin scale in the conterminous US to contextualize existing and potential grid contributions with the freshwater ecosystems in which dams are situated. We demonstrate a use-case of this dataset by rescaling and comparing potential non-powered dam nominal capacity to rarity-threat-weighted freshwater species richness for sub-basins where both types of data exist. On average, normalized freshwater biodiversity exceeded normalized potential non-powered dam nominal capacity in these sub-basins. Potential non-powered dam nominal capacity was concentrated in sub-basins in the Upper Mississippi and Ohio hydrologic regions while freshwater biodiversity was concentrated in the South Atlantic-Gulf, Ohio, and Tennessee hydrologic regions. Additionally, non-powered dams and existing hydropower dams are located in sub-basins with similar indices of freshwater biodiversity. The HydroBio Dataset adds an additional ecological dimension of context to our understanding of current and potential future US hydropower capabilities and is a valuable decision support tool for stakeholders tasked with balancing gains in services to the US power grid with the public and environmental benefits of freshwater ecosystems.

Biodiversity↗

Hydropower Infrastructure – LAkes, Reservoirs, and RIvers (HILARRI)

HILARRI is a database of links between major datasets of operational hydropower dams and powerplants, and inland water bodies. These connections are critical for conducting large-scale analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated natural and engineered water systems. Features include: – Dams from the National Inventory of Dams (2024) and the Global Reservoir and Dam Database (GRanD v1.3) – Hydropower plants from the Existing Hydropower Assets dataset (EHA 2024) These hydropower infrastructure features are linked to several major datasets that provide hydrologic and hydraulic information relevant for analysis of hydropower systems that includes the integral water resources. That information comes from: – Products from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) – NHDPlusV2 Medium Resolution river network flowlines, – NHD waterbodies (limited to lakes and reservoirs), – NHD Watershed Boundary Dataset (HUC12-level for the Conterminous United States (CONUS)) – NHD High Resolution waterbodies – HydroLAKES water bodies (lakes and reservoirs) – LAGOS-US lakes and reservoirs – EPA National Lakes Assessment (2007, 2012, 2017, and 2022) – The Reservoir Sedimentation Database (RESSED) Unique identifiers are used to facilitate joining to the original full datasets. For example, characteristics of NHD flowlines such as estimated average flow rate can be joined from the NHDPlusV2 dataset to a dam or power plant listed in HILARRI based on the ID field, “COMID”, that is common to both datasets. HILARRI only includes basic information about identifiers, location, and data quality or usage notes. It does not contain the attributes or time series data associated with these sites. The HILARRI dataset incorporates information from several datasets to facilitate more effective and accurate analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated waterbodies. For example, dams were checked against the most recent American Rivers Dam Removal Database to identify and flag facilities that may no longer exist. Additionally, dams that are listed multiple times in the NID are identified and flagged to avoid double-counting when analyzing and summarizing information. Other quality flags include certainty of operational hydropower (i.e., if one or more datasets indicates hydropower at a particular location), whether an associated water body is accurate or composed of multiple polygons, or whether there is a known issue with reported characteristics in one of the underlying datasets. These additional data flags are designed to increase confidence in data usage for individual to large-scale analyses.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Reservoir Storage Capacity Change (ResCap)

Overview Storage capacity is an essential reservoir metric that is directly linked to various water management and energy objectives. Accurate reporting and tracking of change in storage over time is crucial for the safe and reliable operation of the associated dam. While storage information is available for many reservoirs through the National Inventory of Dams, additional details, e.g. water elevation levels as well as changes over time are not included. This dataset contains reservoir storage capacities based on conducted surveys in CONUS. To represent changes in a reservoir’s storage over time, the storage capacity as determined by the first and last conducted survey is listed. The level of detail of surveys can vary greatly and improved with technological advancements. Therefore, the type of survey and year when it was conducted is noted. To ensure a fair comparison of storage capacities, the water elevation level along with the corresponding operation of the dam is reported. Structural changes, e.g. heightening of a dam will have an influence on the storage capacity and are therefore also mentioned. A total of 739 different reservoir storage capacity comparisons are listed, with some reservoirs represented more than once (storage capacity comparison at different water elevation levels). Methodology Data were acquired from USBR reservoir survey reports, TWDB lake survey reports and elevation-area-capacity tables, the RSI Web Portal and the NID (USACE, 2024). Initial storage capacity along with year and type of survey record is compared to the most recent reported storage capacity, survey type and year. Comparison elevation in feet as well as comparison elevation type were either extracted from survey reports (USBR, TWDB) or the Web Portal (RSI) and in some cases cross-referenced with data from other sources (Water Management Data, USACE, Water Data for Texas, TWDB).

Chu, Antonia [ORNL] (ORCID:0009000510540427)↗

An Integrated Hydroclimatic Assessment of Future Reservoir and Hydropower Operations in the U.S.

The engineering of rivers by dams is a formative feature of human-nature systems and the interconnectivity of water, energy, and the climate. Sufficient and broad-based representations of dams in large-scale hydrological models prove essential to mapping their extensive regulation of river flow and biogeochemistry and gauging climate-linked provisions, including freshwater supply and hydropower. We present an integrated modeling framework to investigate future streamflow and hydropower generation in the Contiguous U.S. (1990–2075), leveraging an ensemble of six downscaled and bias-corrected General Circulation Models (GCMs) from the high-end SSP585 scenario of the CMIP6. To achieve this, we develop a reservoir operations and parameterization scheme for 1,384 dams in a high-resolution river network, including simulated hydropower generation for 326 dams. For the GCM ensemble mean, we simulate a widespread increase in regulated streamflow into the late-century (11% annual and 17% in winter for the dam median) with region-specific changes in summer streamflow that feature prominent declines in the Northwest (−7%). Mediation by reservoirs is shown to dampen intra-annual streamflow changes, delivering additional summer releases that partially mitigate declining flows. Total hydropower generation is projected to increase modestly (+3%), with boosted generation in the winter (+9%) and spring (+5%) offsetting declined summer generation (−3.4%), suggesting strong adaptation potential for hydropower in the future energy portfolio. Further analysis reveals that the choice of GCM, particularly in western regions, has significant bearing on projected streamflow and hydropower changes.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

CONUS-wide Projected Flood Frequency and Uncertainty Estimates, Version 1.0

This dataset presents a large-ensemble of CONUS-wide projected flood frequency and uncertainty estimates across ~2.7 million NHDPlusV2 river reaches over the CONUS. The framework producing this dataset leverages a multi-model, uncertainty-aware modeling framework that allows evaluating shifts in flood frequences at the stream reach level across the CONUS. CONUS-wide ensemble streamflow projections generated from hydrologic simulations driven by downscaled and bias-corrected Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) outputs are used to derive these flood frequency and uncertainty estimates over the period 1980 - 2099. A spatially consistent regional L-moment algorithm is applied across clusters defined by the US Hydrologic Unit Code Subregions (HUC4s and HUC8s) and NHDPlusV2 stream orders to estimate flood frequencies. The dataset also includes at-site based flood estimates that allow for the comparison between local and regional approach-based estimates, assess projected changes, and characterize their uncertainties. For more reliable estimation of rare flood frequencies such as 500 and 1000-year return periods, super-ensemble based estimates are also included in the dataset. This dataset is derived to support the "Impact-Informed Dam Safety Risk Assessment for Securing Hydropower Assests" project for the US Department of Energy (DOE) Hydropower and Hydrokinetic Office (H2O). For further details, refer to Kao et al. (2022), Ghimire et al. (2023), Ghimire et al. (2025), and Hosking and Wallis (1997).

Ghimire, Ganesh [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000242843941)↗

Hydropower Capacity Factor Trends & Analytics for the United States

This data repository contains all code, input data, and data generated for Turner et al. (2024)—“Hydropower capacity factors trending down in the United States”. File descriptions: – hydro-cf-trends-inputs.zip: Full set of input data used in this study, organized for direct entry into “/data” directory of hydro-cf-trends data processing pipeline. – hydro-cf-trends.zip: Full data processing pipeline, coded using the R {targets} framework. This is a snapshot release (v1.0) of the code repository stored at https://code.ornl.gov/turnersw/hydro-cf-trends/. – hydro-cf-trends-results.zip: Provides all dam level results required to reproduce results and graphics in Turner et al. (2024). Dams are identified by the “complxID” (root of the hydropower plant ID in the Existing Hydropower Assets Database, inherited from HILARRI). Results include: • dam_CF_trends.csv: Table of long-term trends in annualized capacity factors for 610 dams and modeled annualized capacity factors for 362 modeled dams (naturalized and assimilated flows). • dam_annualized_CF_gen.csv: Annualized time series of the following variables for each of 610 hydropower dams with nameplate > 5MW – Reported nameplate capacity (MW) – Implied maximum annual generation (MWh) – Reported net generation (MWh) – Computed annual capacity factor – Modeled annual capacity factor (362 modeled plants only)

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗