See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326942666

Optimization of Run-of-River Hydropower Plant Capacity

Article  in  International Water Power and Dam Construction · August 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 285

4 authors, including:

Getachew Mamo Miroslav Marence

IHE Delft Institute for Water Education IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   134 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mário J. Franca
IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
155 PUBLICATIONS   755 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Energy Production Optimization by RoR Power Plants View project

Hydropower development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Miroslav Marence on 10 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Optimization of Run-of-River Hydropower Plant Capacity
Getachew E. Mamo1*, Miroslav Marence2, Juan Carlos C. Hurtado3 and Mário J.
Franca4
 
1* MSc.
Student, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands, gelebe76@yahoo.com.
2
Associate Professor of Dams and Hydropower, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands,
m.marence@un-ihe.org.
3
Junior Researcher, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands, j.chaconhurtado@un-ihe.org.
4
Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and River Basin, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft,
Netherlands, m.franca@un-ihe.org

Abstract
Run-of-River (RoR) hydropower plants are one of the most viable and environmentally friendly energy
sources. The development of this type of hydropower projects is highly dictated by technical feasibility and
financial viability of the project which reflects in the optimal configuration of the system. These, technical
feasibility and financial viability, are sensitive to the natural (river flow and head) and the financial
constraints, as well as to project construction costs. Classically, the river flow which equal or exceeded
between 50 and 120 days a year and gives maximum energy output is selected as a design discharge for RoR
power plants. The selected discharge giving maximum energy output may not be the optimal design
discharge that assures the plant optimal system configuration with minimum construction cost. This study
presents a mathematical model used to determine the design discharge, installed capacity and number of
turbines for optimal configuration of RoR hydropower plants based on the optimal operational rule defined
for RoR hydropower plants.  The electromechanical cost includes the turbine, generator and regulators, is
used as an input parameter to estimate the specific cost of energy production. This is estimated as the ratio
between the total cost of an RoR power plant and maximum total annual energy production. The developed
model is tested with real data from an existing RoR plant. The herein proposed RoR power plant, based on
simulations with our model to provide the optimal parameters, has 25% less production cost than the
existing case study RoR power plant. This model can be used as a decision support tool for investors,
decision makers and manufacturers for RoR hydropower development.

Keywords: Capacity, Operation rule, Optimal design, Optimization, Run-of-River power plant, Specific cost.

Introduction

Run-of-River (RoR) hydropower plants play a significant role in many parts of the world
by providing energy, reducing carbon emissions and creating job opportunities [1, 2]. Unlike
storage hydropower plant, there is no storage or dam across the river and electricity
production is driven by existing river flow and generated a drop in the river elevation [3]. The
system has no intention to store water for later use. The river water is diverted and
channelized in open or closed waterway system into a pressurized system (penstock) to
deliver the water for hydropower energy production. After its use, it is returned to the river.
This unique character makes the RoR hydropower system environmentally friendly by
minimizing flow disturbance. RoR power plants are planned to run 24/7 depending upon the
instant river inflow and head mainly to satisfy the base load. The most of the small
hydropower plants but also power plants on rivers are working without storage and as RoR
systems.

The RoR power plant relative less operation and maintenance cost, short construction
period and less environmental disturbance make them attractive [3, 4]. Technical and
financial viability are the most important aspects of development and implementation of this
type of hydropower scheme [5]. Both, the technical feasibility and financial viability are
reflected in the optimal configuration of the power plant system. To make RoR hydropower
investment more economical a sound and appropriate design of the system is crucial. This

1 
 
proper design of RoR power plants is strongly reflected in the optimal capacity determination
and overall configuration of the system. Meanwhile, seasonal variability of the river flow and
lack of water storage makes RoR hydropower best configuration design uncertain [6].
Different researchers used different optimization techniques to optimize RoR power plants.
 
Most RoR hydropower plant optimization studies conducted previously did not consider
the most important system parameters; critically, a number of turbine unit during
optimization [7-9]. The number of turbines has a strong influence on the total cost of RoR
power plants. Moreover, classically as a rule of thumb the design discharge lies between river
flows that exceeds 50 and 120 days a year. As consequence, the design discharge that gives
maximum energy may not guarantee a minimum production cost. This paper presents a
mathematical model which gives the optimal design discharge, number of the turbine and
installed capacity for RoR power plants based on optimal operation rule to assure optimal
configuration with minimum production cost.

Methods

The model is formulated to maximize the rated turbine discharge objective function to
produce maximum energy from the system. The detail of this optimization model is discussed
by [10]. The maximized turbine discharge objective function is defined as:

: ∗ (1)

Where,
, is the total rated turbine discharge of inflow to the system
, is allocated discharge of turbine unit at inflow to the system
, is the potential design discharge of unit turbine by assuming all unit have equal
capacity and is given by
(2)
, is the potential design discharge of the system
n, is the number of the turbine(s) we consider to the system during simulation
, is turbine efficiency function

The optimization model to overcome this optimization problem of the study is presented in
Figure 1.

2 
 
 Figure 1. Methodology of the optimization model

This defined maximization of turbine rated discharge problem is solved using Sequential
Least Squares Programming (SLSQP) algorithm for each possible combination of potential
design discharge, a number of turbine and flow to the production system. The optimal
operation rule giving maximum energy output of power plant for each combination is
generated from the optimized solution. The optimal operation rule of the power plant system
with n-number of turbine, the turbine design discharge and available flow to the
production system ( is expressed as a unit. The maximum single unit flow ( that a
single turbine can accommodate is express as the ratio between the turbine design discharge
and it self. Also, the maximum quantity of water that can be used by the system is equal to
the system design discharge ( . Therefore, the maximum available water flow to the power
system ( is always less or equal to the system design discharge ( . Further, the unit
available flow rate of the system expressed as the ratio between the turbine design discharge
and the quantity of available flow to the system. Thus, the number of unit usable flow
become:

∗ (3)

For simplification, the available water flow to the power system ( is assumed to be
equal to the system design discharge ( . Hence, the number of unit flows to the system
becomes equal to the number of turbine unit. Practically this available water to the production
system may not be the same as the system design discharge, particularly during the dry
period.

The installed capacity is calculated for each potential design discharge considered in the
study. To estimate the installed capacity the efficiency curve function , net head ,
and each potential design discharge ( ) is used as an input. The efficiency of the turbine at
the potential design discharge is taken as overall system efficiency. The total gross head can
be calculated from the rated curve for each daily river flow or can be a single input value. In
the meantime, the head losses are calculated using appropriate techniques and subtracted

3 
 
from gross head to get net head. The installed capacity of the entire system for each potential
design discharge is calculated as:

∗ ∗ ∗
(4)
10
Where,
, is the maximum installation capacity, MW
, is the unit weight of the water, N/m3
, is the potential design discharge, m3/s
, is the net head, m
, is turbine efficiency

Daily maximum energy output is calculated based on the optimal operation rule of the
system that assures maximum energy production for a particular inflow to the system,
number of turbines and potential design discharge combination. The annual total maximum
energy is estimated by summing up the daily maximum energy output over the year as shown
in equation (5). The energy output depends on the maximum utilizable inflow in the river, the
resulting head, and the turbine characteristics.

∗ ∗ 24 ∗ ∗ (6)

Where,
, is the maximum total annual energy production on n-number of turbine and
potential design discharge, kWh-year
, is net head jth maximum flow in to the system, m
, is acceleration due to gravity, ⁄

Estimation of total cost of the RoR project is highly variable and uncertain in return
period, power load and future energy price. Though the total cost of RoR is site-specific,
electromechanical cost shares 50% of the total cost [11]. The electromechanical cost is
relatively less variable and can be implemented in general project not only for a specific
project. For simplification, the study used the electromechanical cost as a cost input
parameter. The electromechanical cost data compiled by Alvarado-Ancieta [12] presents a
regression to estimate the cost of a single turbine per MW installed. Then the
electromechanical cost of the system is estimated by multiplying the electromechanical cost
per MW capacity with installed capacity.

On the other hand the electro-mechanical cost increases roughly by 20%, 35%, 50% and
65% for an increase in a number of turbines by one, two, three and four respectively [13].
Thus, this percentage cost increment function for each turbine increment is used in the model
to account the cost increment. The total cost of the RoR power plant is assumed twice of the
electromechanical cost.

The specific production cost of all possible potential design discharge and a number of
turbine unit combination is calculated as the ratio between the total cost and total maximum
annual energy production. This specific cost is considered as the independent parameter from
energy price and inflation rate change. Due to this behavior of specific cost, it used in the
study as an indicator to select the optimal design discharge and a number of turbine unit.

4 
 
 (7)

Where,
SC , is the corresponding energy production specific cost of turbine unit and
potential design discharge, $

C , is the corresponding total cost of turbine unit and potential

design discharge, $.
E , is the corresponding maximum total energy production of turbine unit an
potential design discharge, .

The minimum specific production cost is selected from all possible configurations. The
potential design discharge and the number of turbine unit combination which give the
minimum specific production cost are considered as optimal design discharge and number of
turbine unit. The corresponding installed capacity of the minimum specific cost is considered
as the optimal installed capacity of the system.

Optimal operation rule

The optimal operation rule gives information how and at what rate each turbine unit has to
work to extract maximum power output from the inflow coming to the system. A maximum
of five turbine units with equal capacity are used during simulation.

For this particular paper, the Kaplan turbine optimal operation rule is simulated and results
are presented in Figure 2. The minimum turbine discharge that the Kaplan turbine allows safe
work is assumed by 15% of the turbine design discharge. To maintain maximum power
output in line with turbine efficiency curve characteristics, jumping of turbine unit from one
intake rate to the other is visualized.

1.20
Maximum unit flow capacity

1.00

0.80

0.60 1 turbine
2 turbines
0.40 3 turbines
4 turbines
0.20
5 turbines
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Total unit flow to the system

5 
 
 Figure 2. Kaplan turbine optimal operation rule

The results indicate that the first turbine is working alone until it gets maximum unit flow
intake rate. This turbine unit flashed the extra incoming flow to the system (0.10 unit flow)
once it reached its maximum intake rate. This is to avoid energy production loss that will
result from reducing its intake rate and triggering the next turbine unit. When the turbine
unit gets its maximum intake rate the 1 turbine unit starts producing power together with
turbine unit. As the number of working turbine units increase in the production system,
some turbines work at high intake capacity at the expence of others. Due to this there is
jumping of turbine unit intake rate of the optimal opration rule. This suden jumping of turbine
unit intake rate to relative high intake rate by lowering the other turbine intake rate garanted
the production syatem to maintain maximum production at a particuler inflow rate.

The corresponding cumulative maximum unit power output of the system increased almost
linearly as the inflow into the system increased. Moreover, the turbine starts giving power
when the total unit flow in the system greater or equal to minimum turbine flow requirement
(0.15 unit).
Optimal design discharge and number of turbines 

Simulation of the optimal design discharge, number of turbines and installed capacity, the
model uses the flow duration curve developed from real river flow data and the rating curve
estimating upstream and downstream water level and determine available head. If there are
other water demands satisfied by the river, we can estimate those water demands and subtract
from the total river flow to get the net river flow duration curve. For this particular study,
there is no water demand considered from the river system. Thus the total river flow duration
curve is considered as net flow duration curve and used for energy production simulation.

An assumed potential design range between 5m3/s and 300m3/s at 5m3/s increment is used
in the simulation to estimate the installed capacity. The simulated installed capacity of the
system with Kaplan turbine is calculated for each potential design discharge. The simulated
installed capacity ranges from 0.34 MW to 14 MW for the respective minimum and
maximum assumed potential design discharge. In addition, the electromechanical unit cost
per MW installed capacity function of Kaplan turbine is incorporated into the model. The
electromechanical unit cost per MW installed capacity function and the percentage cost
increment function is used to calculate the electromechanical cost of each turbine unit. The
simulated five Kaplan turbine electromechanical cost is around 1.9 and 17.8 million USD for
respective simulated minimum and maximum installed capacity.

The maximum total annual energy output is simulated for the production system equipped
with a different number of the turbine. The total annual energy is one of the major input
required to determine specific production cost. The simulated energy output of the power
plant is almost the same for every potential design discharge less than 175m3/s as shown in
Figure 3. When the potential design discharge becomes larger than 175m3/s, the simulated
energy output from turbine unit one become less than the other turbine configuration output.

The simulated energy output of the system equipped with two, three, four and five-turbine
units is almost the same for each potential design discharge. This implies that increasing the
number of turbines did not increase the energy output. The simulated maximum total annual
energy output of the system when it runs using a single turbine is almost 80.2 GWh at
potential design discharge of 280m3/s on the other hand, simulated maximum annual energy

6 
 
from two to five turbine unit shows 5% production increment from a single turbine output at
300m3/s potential design discharge.

90
80
Energy output (GWh)

70
1 turbine
60
2 turbines
50
3 turbines
40
4 turbines
30
5 turbines
20
10
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Potential design discharge (m3/s)

Figure 3. Maximum total annual energy production 

Using the above simulated electromechanical cost and maximum total annual energy
output the corresponding specific cost can estimate. This specific production cost is
calculated as a ratio of electromechanical cost and total annual energy output. For all possible
combination of potential design discharge and number of turbine combination, the specific
cost is estimated as shown in Figure 4.

1.40

1.20
1 turbine
Cost ($/kWh)

1.00 2 turbines
3 turbines
0.80
4 turbines
0.60 5 turbines
0.40

0.20
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Potential design discharge (m3/s)

Figure 4. Production specific cost

The simulated specific cost is maximum at the minimum installed capacity of the system
equipped with a different number of the turbine. The maximum specific cost of the RoR

7 
 
system, when equipped with one turbine unit, is around 0.75 USD/KWh. Similarly, the
system with five-turbine unit maximum specific cost is 66% higher than the single turbine
specific cost. The simulated minimum production specific cost is 0.24 USD/KWh. This
minimum specific cost is the corresponding specific cost of the system operated with one
Kaplan turbine unit and 140m3/s potential design discharge. The maximum total annual
energy output of this minimum specific cost is almost 67 GWh. Meanwhile, the maximum
energy output of the system with the same turbine unit observed at 210 m3/s of potential
design discharge which produced around 58 GWh energy. This maximum energy output of
the system produced with a single turbine unit is almost 80.2 GWh around 0.26 USD/KWh.

The potential design discharge and a number of turbine unit combination that give
minimum specific cost are considered the optimal parameters that assure optimal
configuration of the system with minimum production cost. Therefore the optimal design
discharge and a number of the turbine for this particular case study are 140m3/s and one
turbine unit. The corresponding optimal energy output and installed capacity are 67 GWh and
12.6 MW respectively. Despite this fact due to high wide rage performance of Kaplan
turbine, the simulated specific production cost curve is very flat starting from 90m3/s
potential design discharge.

Conclusions
The developed model can be used for any RoR hydropower plant to get the optimal
operating rule, independent on the turbine type, which assures the maximum energy output of
the system based on the given boundary conditions. The optimal operating rule can be an
input for RoR automatic control equipment manufacturers. It can also improve the operation
and water exploitation efficiency of RoR power plants by avoiding unnecessary water losses
inside the production system.

The existing RoR power plan in the case study area has a capacity of around 14 MW at
250 m3/s design discharge with two Kaplan turbine. The case study simulated optimal
parameters production cost is 25% cheaper than the existing production cost. This implies
that the discharge which gives maximum annual energy output for this particular case study is
not production cost-efficient as shown in Figure 5.

350
Energy output = 82 GWh
300 Actual
Specific cost = 0.15 $/kwh
250
River flow (m3/s)

Energy output = 67 GWh

200
Proposed
150 Specific cost = 0.12 $/kwh

100
50
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Number of days that the indicated flow equals or exceeded

8 
 
 Figure 5. Comparison between existing and proposed RoR production cost

The response of the case study optimal solutions (design discharge, number of turbine unit
and energy output) are also examined by considering four different flow scenarios generated
from the case study river flow. Primarily the flow scenario analysis is conducted to examine
the impact of future hydrological change resulting from climate change on optimal solutions
of the model. For all scenarios, the optimal number of turbine unit is the same as the base
case. On the contrary, the optimal design discharge and annual energy output differ from the
base case scenario. The minimum flow (dry period) scenario profoundly reduces the optimal
energy output of the system almost by 30%. Using the optimal design parameter the proposed
power plant maintain 70% of its optimal energy output while the existing power plant
maintains 50% during the worst flow scenario.

To conclude the developed model can be used as a decision support tool to determine the
optimal configuration of newly proposed as well refurbishment of existing RoR hydropower
plant.

References

1.  Okot,  D.K.,  Review  of  small  hydropower  technology.  Renewable  and  Sustainable  Energy 
Reviews, 2013. 26: p. 515‐520. 
2.  Marence, M., S. Lemessa Tesgera, and M. J. Franca, Towards Circularization of Energy Cycle 
by  Implementation  of  Hydroelectricity  in  Existing  Hydraulic  Systems. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324079944. Researchgate, 2018: p. 125‐136. 
3.  Paish,  O.,  Small  hydro  power:  technology  and  current  status.  Renewable  and  Sustainable 
Energy Reviews, 2002. 6: p. 537–556. 
4.  Manders,  T.N.,  J.I.  Höffken,  and  E.B.A.  van  der  Vleuten,  Small‐scale  hydropower  in  the 
Netherlands: Problems and strategies of system builders. Renewable and Sustainable Energy 
Reviews, 2016. 59: p. 1493‐1503. 
5.  Singal, S.K., R.P. Saini, and C.S. Raghuvanshi, Analysis for cost estimation of low head run‐of‐
river small hydropower schemes. Energy for Sustainable Development, 2010. 14(2): p. 117‐
126. 
6.  Anagnostopoulos, J.S. and D.E. Papantonis, Optimal sizing of a run‐of‐river small hydropower 
plant. Energy Conversion and Management., 2007. 48(10): p. 2663‐2670. 
7.  Voros, N.G., C.T. Kiranoudis, and Z.B. Maroulis, Short‐cut design of small hydroelectric plants. 
Renewable Energy, 2000. 19(4): p. 545‐563. 
8.  Lazzaro,  G.  and  G.  Botter,  Run‐of‐river  power  plants  in  Alpine  regions:  Whither  optimal 
capacity? Water Resources Research, 2015. 51(7): p. 5658‐5676. 
9.  Kaldellis,  J.K.,  D.S.  Vlachou,  and  G.  Korbakis,  Techno‐economic  evaluation  of  small  hydro 
power plants in Greece: a complete sensitivity analysis. Energy Policy, 2005. 33(15): p. 1969‐
1985. 
10.  Mamo,  G.E.,  Method  for  Optimal  Design  of    Run‐of‐River  Power  Plants.  A  decision  support 
tool  for  RoR  power  plant  design.  MSc  Thesis.  UNESCO‐IHE  Institute  for  Water  Education, 
Delft, the Netherlands., 2018. 
11.  International Renewable Energy Agency, Hydropower. Renewable Energy Technology : Cost 
Analysis Series. 2012. 1: Power Sector(3/5). 
12.  Alvarado‐Ancieta,  C.A.,  Project  finance:  Estimating  E  &  M  powerhouse  costs.  International 
water power and dam construction, 2009. 
13.  Marence,  M.,  Storage  and  Hydropower/Hydropower  Layout,  Design  Requirements.  Lecture 
Note.Delft: UNESCO‐IHE. 2016. 

9 
 

View publication stats