IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i17p6354-d1231269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forecast of Operational Downtime of the Generating Units for Sediment Cleaning in the Water Intakes: A Case of the Jirau Hydropower Plant

Author

Listed:
  • Lenio Prado

    (Systems Engineering and Information Technology Institute, Itajubá Federal University, Itajubá 37500-903, Brazil)

  • Marcelo Fonseca

    (JIRAU ENERGIA, Distrito de Jaci-Paraná, Porto Velho 76840-000, Brazil)

  • José V. Bernardes

    (Electric and Energy Systems Institute, Itajubá Federal University, Itajubá 37500-903, Brazil)

  • Mateus G. Santos

    (Systems Engineering and Information Technology Institute, Itajubá Federal University, Itajubá 37500-903, Brazil)

  • Edson C. Bortoni

    (Electric and Energy Systems Institute, Itajubá Federal University, Itajubá 37500-903, Brazil)

  • Guilherme S. Bastos

    (Systems Engineering and Information Technology Institute, Itajubá Federal University, Itajubá 37500-903, Brazil)

Abstract

Hydropower plants (HPP) in the Amazon basin suffer from issues caused by trees and sediments carried by the river. The Jirau HPP, located in the occidental Amazon basin, is directly affected by high sediment transportation. These materials accumulate in the water intakes and obstruct the trash racks installed in the intake system to prevent the entry of materials. As a result, head losses negatively impact the efficiency of the generating units and the power production capacity. The HPP operation team must monitor these losses and take action timely to clear the intakes. One of the possible actions is to stop the GU to let the sediment settle down. Therefore, intelligent methods are required to predict the downtime for sediment settling and restoring operational functionality. Thus, this work proposes a technique that utilizes hidden Markov models and Bayesian networks to predict the fifty Jirau generation units’ downtime, thereby reducing their inactive time and providing methodologies for establishing operating rules. The model is based on accurate operational data extracted from the hydropower plant, which ensures greater fidelity to the daily operational reality of the plant. The results demonstrate the model’s effectiveness and indicate the extent of the impact on downtime under varying sediment levels and when neighboring units are generating or inactive.

Suggested Citation

  • Lenio Prado & Marcelo Fonseca & José V. Bernardes & Mateus G. Santos & Edson C. Bortoni & Guilherme S. Bastos, 2023. "Forecast of Operational Downtime of the Generating Units for Sediment Cleaning in the Water Intakes: A Case of the Jirau Hydropower Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:17:p:6354-:d:1231269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/17/6354/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/17/6354/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eva Contreras & Javier Herrero & Louise Crochemore & Ilias Pechlivanidis & Christiana Photiadou & Cristina Aguilar & María José Polo, 2020. "Advances in the Definition of Needs and Specifications for a Climate Service Tool Aimed at Small Hydropower Plants’ Operation and Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Hauer, C. & Wagner, B. & Aigner, J. & Holzapfel, P. & Flödl, P. & Liedermann, M. & Tritthart, M. & Sindelar, C. & Pulg, U. & Klösch, M. & Haimann, M. & Donnum, B.O. & Stickler, M. & Habersack, H., 2018. "State of the art, shortcomings and future challenges for a sustainable sediment management in hydropower: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 40-55.
    3. Aloyce Amasi & Maarten Wynants & William Blake & Kelvin Mtei, 2021. "Drivers, Impacts and Mitigation of Increased Sedimentation in the Hydropower Reservoirs of East Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Betti, Alessandro & Crisostomi, Emanuele & Paolinelli, Gianluca & Piazzi, Antonio & Ruffini, Fabrizio & Tucci, Mauro, 2021. "Condition monitoring and predictive maintenance methodologies for hydropower plants equipment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 246-253.
    5. Mark Borsuk & Robert Clemen & Lynn Maguire & Kenneth Reckhow, 2001. "Stakeholder Values and Scientific Modeling in the Neuse River Watershed," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 355-373, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amanda P. Rehr & Mitchell J. Small & Paul S. Fischbeck & Patricia Bradley & William S. Fisher, 2014. "The role of scientific studies in building consensus in environmental decision making: a coral reef example," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 60-87, March.
    2. Joon Sik Kim & Peter W. J. Batey & Yanting Fan & Sheng Zhong, 2021. "Embracing integrated watershed revitalization in Suzhou, China: learning from global case studies," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 565-595, June.
    3. Aurelian Cosmin Moldovan & Tomi Alexandrel Hrăniciuc & Valer Micle & Nicolae Marcoie, 2023. "Research on the Sustainable Development of the Bistrita Ardeleana River in Order to Stop the Erosion of the Riverbanks and the Thalweg," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-22, April.
    4. M. A. Burgman & B. A. Wintle & C. A. Thompson & A. Moilanen & M. C. Runge & Yakov Ben‐Haim, 2010. "Reconciling Uncertain Costs and Benefits in Bayes Nets for Invasive Species Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 277-284, February.
    5. Calder, Ryan S.D. & Shi, Congjie & Mason, Sara A. & Olander, Lydia P. & Borsuk, Mark E., 2019. "Forecasting ecosystem services to guide coastal wetland rehabilitation decisions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    6. Murad, C.A. & Bellinello, M.M. & Silva, A.J. & Netto, A. Caminada & de Souza, G.F.M. & Nabeta, S.I., 2022. "A novel methodology employed for ranking and consolidating performance indicators in holding companies with multiple power plants based on multi-criteria decision-making method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    7. I. Linkov & F. K. Satterstrom & G. Kiker & T. P. Seager & T. Bridges & K. H. Gardner & S. H. Rogers & D. A. Belluck & A. Meyer, 2006. "Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 61-78, February.
    8. Huđek, Helena & Žganec, Krešimir & Pusch, Martin T., 2020. "A review of hydropower dams in Southeast Europe – distribution, trends and availability of monitoring data using the example of a multinational Danube catchment subarea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    9. Wörman, Anders & Uvo, Cintia Bertacchi & Brandimarte, Luigia & Busse, Stefan & Crochemore, Louise & Lopez, Marc Girons & Hao, Shuang & Pechlivanidis, Ilias & Riml, Joakim, 2020. "Virtual energy storage gain resulting from the spatio-temporal coordination of hydropower over Europe," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    10. Failing, L. & Gregory, R. & Harstone, M., 2007. "Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 47-60, October.
    11. Olander, Lydia & Polasky, Stephen & Kagan, James S. & Johnston, Robert J. & Wainger, Lisa & Saah, David & Maguire, Lynn & Boyd, James & Yoskowitz, David, 2017. "So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 170-182.
    12. Ali Azarnivand & Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib, 2017. "A Multi-level Strategic Group Decision Making for Understanding and Analysis of Sustainable Watershed Planning in Response to Environmental Perplexities," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 629-648, May.
    13. Nunes Ferraz Junior, Antônio Djalma & Etchebehere, Claudia & Perecin, Danilo & Teixeira, Suani & Woods, Jeremy, 2022. "Advancing anaerobic digestion of sugarcane vinasse: Current development, struggles and future trends on production and end-uses of biogas in Brazil," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    14. Yanfei Liu & Wentao Wang & Wenjun Wang & Chengbo Yu & Bowen Mao & Dongfang Shang & Yucong Duan, 2023. "Purpose-Driven Evaluation of Operation and Maintenance Efficiency and Safety Based on DIKWP," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-22, August.
    15. Lynn A. Maguire, 2004. "What Can Decision Analysis Do for Invasive Species Management?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 859-868, August.
    16. Aldemar Leguizamon-Perilla & Juan S. Rodriguez-Bernal & Laidi Moralez-Cruz & Nidia Isabel Farfán-Martinez & César Nieto-Londoño & Rafael E. Vásquez & Ana Escudero-Atehortua, 2023. "Digitalisation and Modernisation of Hydropower Operating Facilities to Support the Colombian Energy Mix Flexibility," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-17, March.
    17. Borunda, Mónica & Jaramillo, O.A. & Reyes, Alberto & Ibargüengoytia, Pablo H., 2016. "Bayesian networks in renewable energy systems: A bibliographical survey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 32-45.
    18. Lei, Kaixuan & Chang, Jianxia & Wang, Yimin & Guo, Aijun & Huang, Mengdi & Xu, Bo, 2022. "Cascade hydropower stations short-term operation for load distribution considering water level synchronous variation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 683-693.
    19. Lennart Sjöberg, 2003. "Attitudes and Risk Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Nuclear Waste Siting Issue," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 739-749, August.
    20. Barton, D.N. & Saloranta, T. & Moe, S.J. & Eggestad, H.O. & Kuikka, S., 2008. "Bayesian belief networks as a meta-modelling tool in integrated river basin management -- Pros and cons in evaluating nutrient abatement decisions under uncertainty in a Norwegian river basin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 91-104, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:17:p:6354-:d:1231269. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.