Barrier_IIA_Testing_Summary_Rpt_102406.pdf

Dispersal Barrier IIA Electric Field Strength and Sparking Potential Testing

Prepared By:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District 111 North Canal Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

P.O. Box 9005, Champaign, Illinois 61826

OCTOBER 24, 2006

Dispersal Barrier IIA Electrical Field Strength and Sparking Potential Testing

Page 1 of 29 24 October 2006

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) –Chicago District is operating a demonstration electric field-based aquatic nuisance species dispersal barrier (Barrier I) in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC), Romeoville, Illinois. After an electrical discharge-related incident in the vicinity of the barrier was reported in 2004, USACE and the U.S. Coast Guard coordinated to complete a series of safety tests at the demonstration barrier. Based on the results of these tests, the Coast Guard established a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) between Mile Marker 296.1 (the north side of the Romeo Road Bridge) and Mile Marker 296.7 (the south side of an aerial pipeline).

USACE is also constructing a second, more permanent dispersal barrier (Barrier II) in the CSSC.

Barrier II is located 800 feet downstream of the demonstration barrier and is also located within the RNA. It is being constructed in two phases. Each phase can be operated independently, but the ultimate goal is to operate both at the same time. The first phase (IIA) consists of construction of two sets of underwater electrode arrays and one control house. The second phase (IIB) consists of construction of a second control house that will allow both sets of arrays to be operated at the same time. Figure 1 shows the relative locations of Barrier I and Barrier II.

The Barrier IIA control house has been completed and is fully connected to the southern set of electrode arrays. Figure 2 shows Barrier IIA and nearby features. This configuration has been undergoing safety testing since April 2006. The safety testing has been planned and conducted in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard to address concerns about the safety of the barrier for commercial and recreational navigation.

Tests have been completed to define the extent and magnitude of the electric field generated by Barrier IIA, evaluate the potential of Barrier IIA to create sparking between metal hulls, and evaluate the potential physiologic effects a person in the electrified water would experience. The evaluation of physiologic effects will be completed by a third party expert. To date, the field strength mapping and sparking potential tests completed are:

1. Electric field strength mapping for as designed operation;

2. Sparking potential tests in the fleeting area for as designed operation;

3. Electric field strength mapping after physical changes to the barrier; and

4. Electric field strength mapping after changing the barrier’s electrical operation.

The initial field strength mapping for operation as designed showed that the electric field extended beyond the southern end of the RNA. The subsequent sparking potential tests showed that this electric field could lead to sparking between barges in the fleeting area south of the bridge. Therefore, the physical and operational changes were evaluated to identify ways to reduce the electric field beyond the RNA.

Page 2 of 29 24 October 2006

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Electric Field Strength Measurements

To map the strength and extent of the electric field generated by Barrier IIA, an array of sensors was attached to a Boston Whaler fiberglass boat. A small fiberglass boat was selected to eliminate field perturbations that could be caused by a metal hull and to allow reasonable maneuverability. The sensors used were highly sensitive silver/silver chloride half-cells. The half-cells were mounted on nylon ropes secured to a wood framework clamped to the boat in a grid configuration as shown in Figure 3. Two sets of half-cells were suspended at four depths (2, 4, 7, and 15 feet) at opposite ends of the boat spaced 17 feet, 4 inches (208 inches) apart horizontally. The half-cell sensors were connected to the Pacific Instruments 6000 Series Data Acquisition System for automated recording of voltages measured. The voltage difference between the two half-cells at the same depth divided by the separation distance of 208 inches equals the horizontal electric field strength at that depth in volts/inch.

During field mapping, the canal in the vicinity of the barrier was closed to through traffic by the U.S. Coast Guard. Once the barrier was activated, the boat traveled slowly over the barrier on the measurement paths shown on Figure 4. Data collection continued for several hundred feet both up and downstream of the barrier itself to determine the full extent of the field. Figure 5 shows track logs of typical field mapping runs along the east and west banks and the center of the canal as recorded by geographic positioning system (GPS) equipment attached to the boat.

The testing objective on 1 and 2 June 2006 was to evaluate the impact on the electric field of altering barrier operational parameters. As with the previous measurements, two sets of half-cells were suspended at opposite ends of the boat; however the spacing was 8 feet, 11 inches (107 inches) because a different boat was used. In order to test a relatively large number of operational scenarios while minimizing the time the canal was closed for traffic, electric field strength data was collected only at discrete points on the north and south sides of the bridge at one depth (15 feet). This was done by connecting the sensors to a Fluke 123 Scopemeter, an instrument better suited for quick and efficient readings at discrete sample points. Both the Fluke and Pacific Instruments have the same input sensitivities and, therefore, record equivalent voltage readings. This was confirmed by completing mapping runs using both the Pacific Instruments and Fluke simultaneously.

Field magnitude readings for all field strength testing were geo-referenced with two Ike 304 GPS location systems and the recorded data was post-processed using ESRI’s ArcMap and Microsoft Excel. An appendix to this report provides more information on the instrumentation used.

Sparking Potential Testing

On 28 April 2006 tests were completed to determine if sparking would occur between two barges contacting one another within the Midwest Generation fleeting area located on the west side of the CSSC approximately 100 feet south of the Romeo Road Bridge. These measurements were made using the instrumented tow configuration shown in Figure 6. The tow consisting of the towboat and Barge 690 was brought slowly into contact with the stationary Barge 699. After contacting, the tow was then slowly backed away from Barge 699. Throughout this process, Page 3 of 29 24 October 2006 voltage differences between the bow of the towboat and the stern of Barge 690, between the bow of the towboat and the bow of Barge 690, and between Barge 690 and Barge 699 near the contact point were continuously recorded by a Pacific Instruments 6000 Series Data Acquisition System.

Figure 7 shows to scale the position of the tow and Barge 699 during this testing. During testing both barges were fully loaded so that the maximum amount of hull was underwater. Wire rope was used to connect Barge 690 to the towboat.

RESULTS

Table 1 lists the series of tests that have been completed at Barrier IIA. The Date/Time column of Table 1 lists the date and time the test was completed; the Configuration is a letter assigned to the barrier’s physical configuration and electrical operating parameters for that test; the Figure Number refers to an illustration of the physical configuration of the barrier; the Operating Parameters column describes the barrier electrical configuration, pulser voltage, and pulser current during operation; and Observations and Notes describes any other important observations and details of the test. Table 2 reports the results of electric field strength mapping. Table 3 reports the results of sparking potential testing. Table 4 reports the weather conditions on testing days.

Measurements were collected on 11 April 2006 for initial as-designed operation of Barrier IIA (Configuration A) at normal voltage (approximately 1 volt/inch (V/in) maximum field strength in the water) and increased voltage (approximately 2.5 V/in maximum field strength in the water).

As reported in Table 2, an increased electric field, compared to conditions when the barrier was off, was measured outside the RNA at the south side of the Romeo Road Bridge for both voltage levels.

Figures 8, 9, and 10 are plots from the normal voltage field strength mapping run of 11 April.

One second of data is shown on Figure 8. The pulses from the barrier can be clearly seen. This illustrates the ability of the measurement system to capture the barrier pulses. When the time scale is expanded further, the designed pulse width of 4 ms can be verified.

Figure 9 shows the voltage measured over a complete run after being geo-referenced. The locations of the barrier and the Romeo Road Bridge are indicated on the plot. The two peaks in the electric field correspond to the two halves of Barrier IIA: electrode arrays S1 and S2, which work as a combined unit, and electrode arrays S3 and S4, which also work as a combined unit.

Note that the maximum field strength is close to 1 V/in (1000 mV/in). An expanded view of the area near the southern edge of the bridge is shown in Figure 10. The peak voltage at the southern edge of the bridge is approximately 35 mV/in.

Testing was done on 13 April to see if operating electrode arrays S1 and S2 at a lower voltage while increasing the voltage of electrode arrays S3 and S4 would reduce the electric field strength in the CSSC south of the RNA. The results of these tests did show some reduction in the field strength, however pulsing from arrays S3 and S4 was still measured at the southern end of the bridge.

Page 4 of 29 24 October 2006

It was decided that placing additional electrically conductive material in the canal between the barrier and the south end of the RNA would reduce the electric field extent by providing a ground to collect electric charge. This was tested on the morning of 28 April by turning off electrode arrays S1 and S2 while operating electrode arrays S3 and S4 (Configuration B).

Electric field strength mapping for this configuration was done with S1 ungrounded (“floating”) and grounded. Both configurations reduced the electric field strength at the south side of the bridge, with the grounded scenario providing the largest reduction, but neither eliminated the electric field outside the RNA.

Sparking potential tests were completed the afternoon of 28 April. The first test was done with Barrier IIA operating at a higher voltage. No sparking was observed when the barges made initial contact. However, sparking was seen when contact between the barges was broken as the tow backed away. The test was then repeated at normal voltage and for the floating and grounded scenarios of Configuration B. In all cases the result was the same: no sparking between the barges at initial contact, but sparking between them upon separation. A final test was completed in which Barrier IIA was turned off. No sparking occurred between the barges on either contact or separation.

Table 3 presents the recorded peak voltage differences between: a) the bow of the towboat and the stern of Barge 690, b) between the bow of the towboat and the bow of Barge 690, and c) between Barge 690 and Barge 699 near the contact point. No voltage differences developed between Barge 690 and the towboat, confirming previous test results at the demonstration barrier, which showed that tows configured with wire rope do not develop significant internal voltage differences. The voltage differences between Barge 690 and Barge 699 decreased as barrier operating configurations generating lower electric field strengths outside the RNA were used, but not to a level that eliminated sparking upon separation of the barges. At this time the minimum voltage difference between barges necessary to create sparking is unknown.

Since the Configuration B tests did reduce the electric field strength beyond the RNA, it was decided to install a new grounding system between Barrier IIA and the Romeo Road Bridge.

The grounding system was constructed by placing blast mats made of woven steel wire in rows on the canal bottom and connecting them to each other and earth ground. The blast mats were selected because they provide consistent coverage of a large area, but do not protrude up off the canal bottom. They also are unlikely to be moved by any uplift forces from currents near the canal bottom because they have open spaces within the weave that water can pass through.

Figure 11 is a photograph showing the mats. The blast mats used were 14-foot by 14-foot squares. The canal width is approximately 160 feet near Barrier IIA, so 11 mats placed side-to-side created rows covering almost the entire canal from side to side.

Installation of the first row of mats was completed on 15 May (Configuration C). Subsequent electric field strength mapping indicated the field outside the RNA was slightly lower than the field measured for the Configuration B tests. Two additional rows of mats were placed (Configuration D) and electric field strength mapping was then completed on 17 May. The measured electric field strength was overall the lowest of any configuration tested to that point, but an electric field was still present beyond the RNA. Since there was no more room to place another row of mats to the south without going under the bridge, a fourth row of mats was placed

Page 5 of 29 24 October 2006 to the north of the initial row placed. Electric field strength mapping for the four rows of mats was completed on 18 May (Configuration E, normal). The electric field strength outside the RNA increased with four rows of mats compared to three rows of mats. This likely occurred because the fourth row is too close to the barrier electrode arrays and to some extent may be serving as another electrode helping to transmit the electric field.

With opportunities to place further grounding in the canal between the barrier and bridge exhausted, investigation turned to possible ways to further reduce the electric field extent by changing barrier operational parameters and/or changing the way the mat network was grounded.

A series of ten additional tests was completed on 1 and 2 June as documented on Tables 1 and 2.

This series of tests did produce the lowest electric field strength measurements outside the RNA.

Figure 12 provides a graphical comparison of the electric field strength measurements at the south end of the Romeo Road Bridge by configuration, location, and depth.

The measurement limit is the location where the barrier pulses become indistinguishable from background and, therefore, defines the extent of the electric field. Figures 13 through 16 show the locations of the measurement limits for some of the tested barrier configurations. On 1 and 2 June measurements were collected only at discrete points near the bridge, therefore the measurement limits were not defined.

DISCUSSION

Table 4 indicates that there was variation in weather conditions during the testing. USACE is confident that the results of the tests are independent of weather conditions. The measurements collected indicate that the voltage potential differences generated between metal objects in the vicinity of the barrier are not great enough to initiate the breakdown of air due to a high voltage.

Therefore, arcing does not occur between two objects that are close, but not touching. The sparking observed in the sparking potential tests only occurred after the two barges touched and then separated. This type of sparking is analogous to striking an arc in electric welding or the contacts of an electrical switch opening. Two metal objects at different electric potentials are brought together. The differing potentials results in an electric current flow between the objects.

When the objects are separated the current continues to flow, ionizing and heating the air between the objects. When the distance becomes too great for the electric potential to maintain the arc, the current is limited by the circuit resistance or power supply, or the electric potential is removed, current flow stops. In the case of barges, localized heating results in melting of steel and tiny metal particles are emitted from the barge. This is the observed sparking. This sparking is independent of the weather conditions because it is initiated by the two objects touching and separating, and the process of ionizing air via this mechanism is independent of temperature and humidity. The heat and temperature generated by this sparking process is much greater than the temperatures on the canal and will rapidly evaporate any moisture in the air.

The sparking observed in the testing completed at Barrier IIA is dependent on the electric potential difference between the touching metal objects. It is therefore dependent on the electric field strength created in the water by the barrier. This field strength can vary with the water conductivity. However, Barrier IIA is equipped to obtain real-time feedback from the canal and automatically adjust output power to maintain the electric field strength at the prescribed setting

Page 6 of 29 24 October 2006

(e.g., 1 volt/inch). Therefore, tests done at the same prescribed setting will be consistent regardless of the conductivity in the canal at the time.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The most successful Barrier IIA configurations for reducing the spread of the electric field beyond the RNA involved connecting the blast mats back to other metallic conductors north of the active electrode arrays and/or operating the barrier with synchronized pulses. The recommended operating configurations, in order of desirability, are Configuration I (normal), Configuration I (synchronous), Configuration E (synchronous), Configuration F (floating) and Configuration F (grounded).

Configuration I (normal) is the best operating configuration identified because it allows Barrier IIA to be operated as originally designed, except with a grounding system to the north and south that substantially reduces the electric field strength beyond the RNA. It therefore clearly provides the desired effectiveness for repelling fish and could become a long-term solution for operation of Barrier IIA if it can successfully complete further safety testing. A separate grounding system, such as additional blast mats, could be placed between Barrier IIA and Barrier IIB when the Barrier IIB electrodes are eventually activated or to attempt to further reduce the electric field extent.

Configuration I (synchronous) resulted in slightly lower electric field strength beyond the RNA than Configuration I (normal). However, it is not clear how synchronized pulsing might change the effectiveness of the barrier for repelling fish. Also, as the barrier is currently constructed, synchronized pulsing is dependent on all arrays being powered by Pulser 2. If Pulser 2 were to become inoperable due to maintenance problems, this configuration could not be maintained.

Modifications to the barrier could eliminate this concern, but expenditures on such modifications may not be necessary if Configuration I (normal) can satisfy safety concerns.

The next best operating configuration is Configuration E (synchronous). While this configuration resulted in slightly lower electric field strength beyond the RNA than either variation of Configuration I, the use of synchronized pulsing again raises concerns. Also, the blast mats are connected to system ground in this configuration. System ground is used as a common zero voltage reference for all the barrier electronics and power supplies. If high voltages are placed on the system ground, electronics could be upset and improper operation could result.

The two variations of Configuration F produced the lowest measured electric field strengths outside the RNA. However, these configurations only energize arrays S1 and S2. This results in a less complex overlapping electric field and shortens the peak area of the field. These changes could result in lower effectiveness in repelling fish. They also require placing higher than designed voltages on electrode arrays S1 and S2. Configuration F (grounded) is less desirable than Configuration F (floating) because it further includes connection of the blast mats to system ground.

Page 7 of 29 24 October 2006

Additional electric field strength mapping and sparking potential tests should be completed for the configurations discussed in this section to better define the strength and distribution of their electric fields and determine whether they can lead to sparking during operations at the Midwest Generation fleeting area. A separate testing plan for this purpose will be developed by USACE.

The additional tests should be completed as soon as possible to identify which configurations would be most desirable for emergency, short-term operation of Barrier IIA. While any of the operating configurations discussed in this section would be better than leaving the CSSC without an operating barrier in an emergency situation, only Configuration I (normal) is currently also a potential long-term operating configuration (provided it satisfies safety concerns). More field testing, perhaps proceeded by computer and/or laboratory modeling, would be necessary to develop other potential configurations for long-term use of Barrier IIA.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thanks Garvey Marine Towing for providing towboat operations during sparking potential testing, Material Service Corporation for providing mooring space for Corps boats during testing, and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago for providing an additional fiberglass boat for electric field strength mapping.

Page 8 of 29 24 October 2006

Table 1. Barrier IIA Field Strength and Sparking Potential Tests.

Date/Time Configuration/Figure Fish Barrier Operating Parameters * Observations and Notes *

11 APR 2006

1000 – 1100

Configuration A (S1/S2 and S3/S4

Increased Voltages) Figure 2

S1 & S2 (Pulser 2) 1000 V, 2100 A S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 1500 V, 4200 A

This test employed increased pulser voltages resulting in a nominal 1 volt/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 and a nominal 2.25 volts/inch gradient between S3/S4. †

11 APR 2006

1300 – 1400

N/A Fish Barrier IIA turned off. Set of field mapping runs to measure background (ambient) conditions. †

11 APR 2006

1600 – 1700

Configuration A (Normal Voltage)

Figure 2

S1 & S2 (Pulser 2) 498 V, 1064 A S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 820 V, 2383 A

This was the “normal” operating condition to achieve a nominal 0.5 volt/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 and a nominal 1 volt/inch gradient between S3/S4. There was a measurable field south of the bridge. †

13 APR 2006

1300 – 1400

Configuration A (S1/S2 Reduced Voltage, S3/S4 Increased Voltage)

Figure 2

S1 & S2 (Pulser 2) 221 V, 498 A S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 1989 V, 5920 A

Tried operating the southern (S1/S2) arrays at a lower voltage (to reduce the field at the south side of the bridge) and the northern (S3/S4) arrays at a higher voltage (to maintain the fish deterring capability of the barrier). This was not successful, because the higher S3/S4 voltage (nominal 2.8 volts/inch voltage gradient) still dominated at the south side of the bridge. †

28 APR 2006

900 – 1015

Configuration B (Floating) Figure 17

S1 & S2 Open and Floating S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 800 V, 2354 A

Operation of Barrier IIA to determine whether additional conductors placed in the canal would dampen the field south of the S1 array in the vicinity of the bridge. Nominal 1 volt/inch voltage gradient between S3/S4 arrays. †

28 APR 2006

1030 – 1100

Configuration B (Grounded) Figure 17

S1 Grounded S2 Open and Floating S3 & S4 (Pulser1) 800 V, 2354 A

Test with Barrier IIA operating parameters modified to determine whether grounding additional conductors placed in the canal would dampen the field south of the S1 array in the vicinity of the bridge. Nominal 1 volt/inch voltage gradient between S3/S4 arrays. †

28 APR 2006

1300 – 1315

Configuration A (S1/S2 Increased Voltage, S3/S4 Normal Voltage) Figure 2

S1 & S2 (Pulser 2) 790 V, 1737 A S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 800 V, 2383 A

Sparking Potential Testing – sparking observed at 5 volt barge-to-barge potential difference. Nominal 0.8 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays and a nominal 1 volt/inch gradient between S3/S4 arrays.

28 APR 2006

1320 – 1326

Configuration A (Normal Voltage)

Figure 2

S1 & S2 (Pulser 2) 400 V, 878 A S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 800 V, 2376 A

Sparking Potential Testing – sparking observed at 1.2 volt barge-to-barge potential difference. Nominal 0.4 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays and a nominal 1 volt/inch voltage gradient between S3/S4 arrays.

Page 9 of 29 24 October 2006

Date/Time Configuration/Figure Fish Barrier Operating Parameters * Observations and Notes *

28 APR 2006

1330 – 1340

Configuration B (Floating) Figure 17

S1 & S2 Open and Floating S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 805 V, 2393 A

Sparking Potential Testing – sparking observed at 0.9 volt barge-to-barge potential difference. Nominal 1 volt/inch voltage gradient between S3/S4 arrays.

28 APR 2006

1340 – 1350

Configuration B (Grounded) Figure 17

S1 Grounded S2 Open and Floating S3 & S4 (Pulser1) 800 V, 2383 A

Sparking Potential Testing – sparking observed at 0.8 volt barge-to-barge potential difference. Nominal 1 volt/inch voltage gradient between S3/S4 arrays.

15 MAY 2006

950 – 1020

Configuration C Figure 18

S1 & S2 (Pulser 3) 421 V, 826 A, S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 800 V, 2178 A S1/S2 opposite polarity of S3/S4

Field Mapping run conducted after the first row of blast mats was installed and grounded. Nominal 0.45 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays and a nominal 1 volt/inch gradient between S3/S4 arrays. †

17 MAY 2006

1400 – 1420

Configuration D Figure 19

S1 & S2 (Pulser 3) 420 V, 779 A, S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 806 V, 2080 A S1/S2 opposite polarity of S3/S4

Field Mapping run conducted after the third row of blast mats was installed and grounded. Nominal 0.45 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays and a nominal 1 volt/inch gradient between S3/S4 arrays. †

18 MAY 2006

1725 – 1745

Configuration E (Normal with polarity flip)

Figure 20

S1 & S2 (Pulser 3) 426 V, 833 A, S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 809 V, 2109 A S1/S2 opposite polarity of S3/S4

Field Mapping run conducted after the fourth row of blast mats was installed and grounded. Nominal 0.45 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays and a nominal 1 volt/inch gradient between S3/S4 arrays. †

01 JUN 2006

1600 – 1800

Configuration F (Floating) Figure 21

S1 & S2 (Pulser 3) 793 V, 2959 A S3 floating S4 jumpered to blast mat cable, both floating

Test to evaluate connecting ungrounded blast mats to conductive material in water north of the barrier. Nominal

0.8 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays. ‡

01 JUN 2006

1600 – 1800

Configuration F (Grounded) Figure 21

S1 & S2 (Pulser 3) 802 V, 2975 A S3 floating S4 jumpered to blast mat cable, both grounded

Test to evaluate connecting grounded blast mats to conductive material in water north of the barrier. Nominal

0.8 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays. ‡

02 JUN 2006

900 – 1000

Configuration E (Synchronous)

Figure 20

S1 & S2 (Pulser 2) 820 V, 3787 A S3 & S4 (Pulser 2) 820 V, 3787 A Pulser 2 energizing both arrays (synchronized configuration)

As originally designed, S1/S2 arrays and S3/S4 arrays pulsed independently. Test to evaluate synchronized pulsing. Blast mats grounded. Nominal 0.8 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays and nominal 1 volt/inch voltage gradient between S3/S4 arrays. ‡

02 JUN 2006

900 – 1000

Configuration G Figure 22

S1/S2 floating S4 jumpered to blast mat cable (both grounded) S3 & S4 (Pulser 2) 816 V, 2928 A

Test to evaluate if having a balanced electrode configuration would reduce the field at the south side of the bridge. Nominal 1 volt/inch voltage gradient between S3/S4 arrays. ‡

02 JUN 2006

900 – 1000

Configuration F (Grounded) Figure 21

S1 & S2 (Pulser 2) 802 V, 2216 A S3 floating S4 jumpered to blast mat cable (both grounded)

Repeat of 01 June in order to have test data for configurations F though J collected under the same conditions. Nominal 0.8 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays. ‡

Page 10 of 29 24 October 2006

Date/Time Configuration/Figure Fish Barrier Operating Parameters * Observations and Notes *

02 JUN 2006

1200 – 1400

Configuration F (Floating) Figure 21

S1 & S2 (Pulser 2) 800 V, 2900 A S3 floating S4 jumpered to blast mat cable, both floating

Repeat of 01 June in order to have test data for configurations F though I collected under the same conditions. Nominal 0.8 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays. ‡

02 JUN 2006

1200 – 1400

Configuration F (Floating with polarity flip)

Figure 21

S1 & S2 (Pulser 2) 800 V, 2900 A S3 floating S4 jumpered to blast mat cable, both floating S1/S2 opposite polarity of S3/S4

Test to evaluate effect of polarity flip. Blast mats floating.

Nominal 0.8 volt/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays. ‡

02 JUN 2006

1200 – 1400

Configuration H Figure 23

S1 grounded S2 floating S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 800 V, 2900 A

Test to evaluate using S1/S2 arrays as part of grounding system with blast mats. Blast mats grounded. Nominal 1 volt/inch voltage gradient between S3/S4 arrays. ‡

02 JUN 2006

1700 – 1800

Configuration I (Synchronous)

Figure 24

S1 & S2 (Pulser 2) 400 V, 800 A S3 & S4 (Pulser 2) 800 V, 2900 A Synchronized configuration

Blast mats connected to N1 array of Barrier IIB (both floating). Nominal 0.4 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays and a nominal 1 volt/inch gradient between S3/S4 arrays. ‡

02 JUN 2006

1700 – 1800

Configuration I (Normal) Figure 24

S1 & S2 (Pulser 3) 400 V, 800 A S3 & S4 (Pulser 1) 800 V, 2900 A Asynchronous configuration

Blast mats connected to N1 array of Barrier IIB (both floating). Nominal 0.4 volts/inch voltage gradient between S1/S2 arrays and a nominal 1 volt/inch gradient between S3/S4 arrays. ‡

† Data taken using a Pacific Instruments 6000 series data acquisition system and half-cell electrode arrays as sensors.

‡ Data taken using a Fluke 123 Scope Meter and half-cell electrode arrays as sensors with half-cells at 15 foot depth.

* ‘Open’ means not electrically connected to anything.

‘Floating’ means not electrically connected directly to system/earth ground.

‘Grounded’ means electrically connected to system/earth ground.

‘Jumpered’ means electrically connected in a quick connect/disconnect manner (e.g., battery or plier-style clips).

Page 11 of 29 24 October 2006

Table 2. Peak Pulse Voltage Gradient (mV/in) at Romeo Road Bridge.

Date/Time Configuration Depth South Bridge North Bridge West Bank Center East Bank West Bank Center East Bank

2' 66.0 ± 1.3 52.4 ± 1.7 41.1 ± 12.2 4' 66.7 ± 1.6 51.2 ± 1.5 40.6 ± 12.4 7' 66.3 ± 1.4 50.8 ± 1.5 40.9 ± 12.4

11 APR 2006

1000 – 1100

A (S1/S2 and

S3/S4 Increased Voltages) 15' 67.9 ± 2.9 45.2 ± 1.5 40.7 ± 12.2

2' 0.00± 7.2 4' 0.00± 7.2 7' 0.00± 3.6

11 APR 2006

1300 – 1400

N/A *

15' 0.00± 3.6 2' 35.5 ± 1.5 28.0 ± 1.9 27.2 ± 1.3 4' 38.3 ± 3.3 31.1 ± 3.9 28.5 ± 2.4 7' 36.9 ± 1.5 29.1 ± 2.0 26.3 ± 1.3

11 APR 2006

1600 – 1700

A

(Normal Voltage)

15' 37.2 ± 1.8 28.4 ± 2.9 27.1 ± 1.6 2' 54.0 ± 37.2 43.2 ± 28.6 38.7 ± 26.0 4' 56.3 ± 36.5 44.0 ± 28.1 39.3 ± 25.5 7' 54.6 ± 37.2 41.6 ± 28.2 37.1 ± 25.3

13 APR 2006

1300 – 1400

A

(S1/S2 Reduced Voltage, S3/S4

Increased Voltage)

15' 54.6 ± 36.9 39.3 ± 26.1 35.6 ± 24.2

2' 32.4 ± 3.6 24.8 ± 1.4 23.7 ± 1.2 4' 39.6 ± 7.6 30.7 ± 3.9 25.4 ± 1.4 7' 32.8 ± 2.4 26.8 ± 1.3 22.4 ± 1.2

28 APR 2006

900 – 1015

B

(Floating)

15' 35.4 ± 4.1 27.1 ± 2.7 22.1 ± 1.0 2' 27.7 ± 1.4 23.1 ± 0.9 22.2 ± 0.9 4' 31.6 ± 3.3 24.6 ± 2.3 24.5 ± 2.0 7' 29.0 ± 1.0 23.1 ± 1.2 21.7 ± 0.9

28 APR 2006

1030 – 1100

B

(Grounded)

15' 30.1 ± 1.9 22.8 ± 1.6 22.0 ± 1.0 2' 26.5 ± 1.6 25.3 ± 1.4 20.1 ± 2.0 4' 29.1 ± 3.4 27.9 ± 3.2 22.7 ± 3.5 7' 25.7 ± 1.3 25.6 ± 1.8 19.5 ± 1.4

15 MAY 2006

950 – 1020

C

15' 23.6 ± 2.2 26.5 ± 2.0 19.5 ± 1.8 2' 12.4 ± 1.8 23.5 ± 2.7 10.8 ± 1.3 4' 13.5 ± 4.3 25.9 ± 3.7 11.7 ± 4.1 7' 12.6 ± 1.9 23.8 ± 2.5 10.1 ± 1.5

17 MAY 2006

1400 – 1420

D

15' 13.1 ± 2.2 23.6 ± 2.8 9.6 ± 1.7

Page 12 of 29 24 October 2006

Date/Time Configuration Depth South Bridge North Bridge West Bank Center East Bank West Bank Center East Bank

2' 17.8 ± 3.2 25.4 ± 7.0 19.2 ± 4.5 4' 18.0 ± 4.6 26.5 ± 7.6 20.1 ± 5.5 7' 17.8 ± 3.1 25.9 ± 7.7 19.3 ± 5.1

18 MAY 2006

1725 – 1745

E (Normal with polarity flip)

15' 16.3 ± 2.9 27.9 ± 7.9 19.0 ± 4.5

01 JUN 2006

1600 – 1800

F (Floating)

15' 11.0 ± 0.5 9.4 ± 0.5 6.0 ± 0.5 4.7 ± 0.2 9.4 ± 0.5 7.5 ± 0.2

01 JUN 2006

1600 – 1800

F (Grounded)

15' 8.8 ± 0.5

02 JUN 2006

900 – 1000

E (Synchronous)

15' 15.6 ± 0.5 12.0 ± 0.5 5.9 ± 0.2 7.8 ± 0.2

02 JUN 2006

900 – 1000

G 15' 21.5 ± 1.0 20.5 ± 1.0

02 JUN 2006

900 – 1000

F (Grounded)

15' 10.0 ± 0.5 10.0 ± 0.5 7.5 ± 0.2 14.0 ± 0.5

02 JUN 2006

1200 – 1400

F (Floating)

15' 9.8 ± 0.5 5.9 ± 0.2 12.7 ± 0.5 24.5 ± 1.0

02 JUN 2006

1200 – 1400

F (Floating with polarity flip)

15' 6.9 ± 0.2 49.0 ± 1.9

02 JUN 2006

1200 – 1400

H 15' 19.0 ± 0.5 12.7 ± 0.5

02 JUN 2006

1700 – 1800

I (Synchronous)

15' 12.7 ± 0.5 9.3 ± 0.5 7.8 ± 0.2

02 JUN 2006

1700 – 1800

I (Normal)

15' 15.0 ± 0.5 10.8 ± 0.5 13.7 ± 0.5 49.0 ± 1.9

* Background field measurements.

Page 13 of 29 24 October 2006

Table 3. Peak Voltage Gradients During 28 April Sparking Potential Tests.

IIA Operating Configuration Tow to Barge 690 Bow

(volts) Tow to Barge 690 Stern

(volts) Barge 690 bow to Barge 699

(volts)

A (S1/S2 Increased Voltage, S3/S4 Normal Voltage)

A (Normal Voltage)

1.2

B (Floating)

0.9

B (Grounded)

0.8

Table 4. Environmental Conditions During Field Testing.

Date Mean

Temperature (°F)

Maximum Temperature

(°F)

Average Humidity

Precipitation (in)

11 April 2006 60 75 50 0.00 13 April 2006 67 84 46 0.00 28 April 2006 55 71 48 0.00 15 May 2006 55 62 90 0.00 17 May 2006 60 73 76 0.85 18 May 2006 52 62 64 0.00 1 June 2006 68 75 62 0.00 2 June 2006 68 80 60 0.78

Page 14 of 29 24 October 2006

Figure 1. Relative Location of Barriers I, IIA, and IIB.

Page 15 of 29 24 October 2006

Figure 2. Fish Barrier IIA as originally designed, constructed, and operated (Configuration A).

Page 16 of 29 24 October 2006

208" or 107"

2'

Fiberglass Boat (Boston Whaler)

208" or 107"

2'

Fiberglass Boat (Boston Whaler)

Figure 3. Half-cell array suspended from fiberglass (non-conductive) boat.

Figure 4. Field measurement paths in canal.

Page 17 of 29 24 October 2006

Figure 5. Track logs of typical electric field strength mapping runs.

Page 18 of 29 24 October 2006

Figure 6. Experimental configuration for sparking potential testing.

Page 19 of 29 24 October 2006

Figure 7. Location of tow and stationary barge during sparking potential testing.

Page 20 of 29 24 October 2006

14.0 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 15.0 -50

-40

-30

-20

-10

Whaler traveling upstream center Data from south side of bridge

Voltage Gradient between Half-Cells Immersed at 2 Feet

Time (seconds)

11 April 2006 Run 13 N o r t h

V ol ta ge

G ra di en t ( m

V /i n)

Figure 8. Differential voltage measured over one second at south end of Romeo Road Bridge, 11 April normal voltage.

Page 21 of 29 24 October 2006

-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -200

11 April 2006 Run 13 N o r t h

B a r r i e rB r i d g e

Whaler traveling upstream along center Differential Voltage between Half-Cells Immersed at 2 Feet

Vo lta ge G ra di en t ( m V/ in

Distance From Center of Arrays (feet)

Figure 9. Differential voltage across Barrier IIA, 11 April normal voltage.

Page 22 of 29 24 October 2006

-300 -200 -40

-30

-20

-10

11 April 2006 Run 13 N o r t h

S.

E nd o f B rid ge

Whaler traveling upstream along center Differential Voltage between Half-Cells Immersed at 2 Feet

Vo lta ge G ra di en t ( m V/ in

Distance From Center of Arrays (feet)

Figure 10. Differential voltage at south end of Romeo Road Bridge, 11 April normal voltage.

Page 23 of 29 24 October 2006

Figure 11: Photo of Blasting Mat.

Page 24 of 29 24 October 2006

Po te nt ia l ( m

V/ in ch

West Bank Center East Bank

X 2-foot ∆ 4-foot

○ 7-foot ─ 15-foot

Configuration A (Normal)

Configuration B (Floating)

Configuration B (Grounded)

Configuration C

Configuration D

Configuration E

(normal w/ flip)

F (floating)

F (floating)

F (grounded) F (grounded)

G

H

I (synchronous) I (norm al)

B ackground

E (synchronous)

F (floating w / flip)0

Po te nt ia l ( m

V/ in ch

West Bank Center East Bank

X 2-foot ∆ 4-foot

○ 7-foot ─ 15-foot

Configuration A (Normal)

Configuration B (Floating)

Configuration B (Grounded)

Configuration C

Configuration D

Configuration E

(normal w/ flip)

F (floating)

F (floating)

F (grounded) F (grounded)

G

H

I (synchronous) I (norm al)

B ackground

E (synchronous)

F (floating w / flip)

Figure 12. Graphical representation of electric field strength measurements at the south end of the Romeo Road Bridge by configuration, location and depth.

Page 25 of 29 24 October 2006

Measurement LimitMeasurement Limit

Measurement LimitsMeasurement Limits

Figure 13. Location of measurement limit for Configuration A (normal voltage), 28 April.

Figure 14. Location of measurement limits for Configuration C (one row of blast mats installed), 15 May.

Figure 15. Location of measurement limits for

Configuration D (three rows of blast mats installed), 17 May.

Figure 16. Location of measurement limits for Configuration E (normal), 18 May.

Page 26 of 29 24 October 2006

Figure 17. Configuration B (grounded if connected to fence).

Figure 18. Configuration C.

Figure 19. Configuration D. Figure 20. Configuration E.

Page 27 of 29 24 October 2006

Figure 21. Configuration F (grounded if connected to fence).

Figure 22. Configuration G.

Figure 23. Configuration H. Figure 24. Configuration I.

Page 28 of 29 24 October 2006

Appendix - INSTRUMENTATION

The most important test equipment used for this project is listed below.

1) Pacific Instruments 6000 Series Data Acquisition System with 6603-3 Plug-in

2) Tektronix P5200 High Voltage Digital Probe

3) Fluke 123 Digital Scopemeter with 20 MHz Bandwidth

4) ARMS enhanced Ike 304

The Pacific Instruments 6000 Series Data Acquisition System was used to continuously measure and record the voltage differentials. The Pacific was chosen because of its multiple independent channel capabilities and its virtually limitless storage. The Pacific was connected to a laptop computer through a GPIB interface and the data was immediately transferred to the computer for storage. Because of the high sample rate and long scan times, barrier pulses were easily captured. When interpreting the Pacific data, the individual pulses and the ‘envelope’ (overall trend of the peak values) of the waveform may both be examined.

The Pacific Instruments 6000 Series Data Acquisition System was run at a sampling frequency of 10,000 samples/second for all testing. The unit has a 24 channel capability and the noise per channel is 200 μV peak-to-peak.

A Tektronix P5200 High Voltage Differential Probe was used to attenuate the voltage signal level at the input to the Pacific Instruments 6000. The Tektronix Differential Probe has a 25 MHz bandwidth and an input resistance of 4 megaohms with a common mode rejection ration of 80 dB at 60 Hz. The maximum voltage input at the 1/50 attenuation setting is 130 Volts. The maximum voltage input at the 1/500 setting is 1300 Volts.

The Fluke Model 123 Graphical Volt/Ohm meter was used to conduct stationary gradient measurements at specific locations in the canal (as opposed to spatial field mapping conducted with the Pacific Instruments 6000). Both the Pacific and Fluke were used in direct instantaneous reading modes. The Fluke Model 123 Graphical Volt/Ohm meter has a 20 MHz input bandwidth with a sensitivity of from 5 mV/div to 500 V/div with an 8 bit vertical resolution. The range varies from 20 ns/div to 60 s/div.

Throughout the project all moving electrical measurements were collected and referenced with geospatial coordinates to aid in mapping and determining the extent and strength of the electric field. Two Ike 304s were used to record the data. The Ike 304 is a rugged, hand-held device developed via a Cooperative Research Laboratory Agreement between the USACE Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) and Surveylab, Ltd. The Ike 304 seamlessly integrates and synchronizes a global positioning system (GPS) (operating a L1C/A code and carrier phase of 1Hz which produces an accuracy of approximately 1 meter), laser distance meter, digital camera, compass, inclinometer, geographical information system software, and a personal digital assistant computer.

The Ike 304s were typically placed on the bow and stern of the “Boston Whaler” as well as the barge configuration. By simultaneously recording geo-spatial data from the bow and stern of the

Page 29 of 29 24 October 2006 ship, corrections for the lateral drift of the Whaler could be made. GPS location was recorded at two to three second intervals which equates to 0.2-ft to 20-ft spatial intervals, depending on the speed of the boat, as the reference cell array passed over the electrodes of the fish barrier.

The following steps were taken to get the data into the proper format for analysis and reporting using ESRI’s ArcMap and Microsoft Excel:

1. Converted Global Coordinate System WGS84 projection to Universal Transverse Mercator NAD83 projection.

2. Added X-Y coordinates for each point into the shape file attributes in ArcMap.

3. Opened SHP file's DBF and imported table into Excel.

4. Adjusted the time recorded for each point from Greenwich Mean Time to Central Standard Time.

Because the data acquisition instruments recorded voltages at millisecond intervals, in order to georeference the electrical data a linear interpolation of the GPS data was required. The electrical measurements were georeferenced by using the barrier array as a marker. Because the maximum electrical measurement values occur over the barrier, the time values of the measurement files were georeferenced by synchronizing the time of the maximum values with the time of the location of the barrier arrays in the GPS files.