High Head Small Hydro

a dissertation
by
J. L. Gordon, P.Eng.
This presentation includes design suggestions developed from experience with the detailed
design of 6 high head small hydro plants in Bolivia and Madagascar, and 2 larger high head
powerplants in Canada, and Sri Lanka. In this case, small hydro is defined as any powerplant
having an installed capacity of less than 50MW, and a flow less than 20m 3/s.
Two Excel 97 computer programs are included in the CD-ROM. One provides a method of
comparing the size, efficiency and cost of three alternative turbine-generators powered by
horizontal axis 2-jet Pelton units, horizontal axis 1-jet Turgo units, and either horizontal or vertical
axis Francis turbines. The other computer program provides a preliminary sizing for a surge tank.

prepared for a workshop on

International Small Hydro Opportunities

organized by

Natural Resources Canada

in conjunction with the

International Energy Agency

Hydropower Implementing Agreement on Technologies and Programs

at

Hydrovision 2002, Portland, Oregon, 30 July

1

Introduction.
A high head small hydro plant implies generation from small flows. At the upper limit of capacity,
at 50MW, and assuming a head of 300m, the flow required is less than 20m 3/s. at this flow; the
relative cost of the powerhouse and equipment becomes a smaller proportion of the total
investment. The major proportion of cost is usually associated with the conduit from the intake to
the powerplant. This contrasts with low head hydro, where most of the cost is for the equipment.

Access roads.
High head hydro plants are built in mountainous terrain. Construction of an access road in such
terrain is both expensive and time consuming. The Zongo River valley in Bolivia, is a prime
example of the difficulties encountered by road builders. A gravel road reaches the valley over a
mountain pass at El. 4,720m. In the valley, the road descends through several hairpin
switchbacks to the reservoir for the first powerplant Zongo, at El. 4,634m. There are 8 more
powerplants on the river, with the last at Faltani, with a tailwater at El. 866m. The plants were built
between 1928 and 1994. Except for Faltani, all are equipped with impulse units. Distance by river
from the Zongo Reservoir to the Faltani tailrace is only 33km. Average river gradient is 11.4% (1).
For the last 6 powerplants, the construction schedule started when the access road reached the
powerhouse site. No attempt was ever made to impose a schedule on the road construction. It
usually required about 1 to 2 years to traverse about 2 to 5km. As the resident engineer remarked
to the author - with the river descending at an average gradient of 13%, and the road at only 6%
on average, I have to go backwards in several switchbacks before I can reach the powerhouse
site. The location of the switchbacks is dictated by the turning radius of trucks, and turning space
is very difficult to find in a mountain side-slope of 30 to 50 degrees.
Hydro designers on high head developments often overlook access road construction difficulties
and cost. With a head of say 300m, and an average road grade of 6%, it will require at least 5km
of road to reach the intake from the powerhouse. On some developments, the road will require
more time than the tunnel. Another illustration of access difficulties, was the road to the 386m,
150MW Cat Arm development in Newfoundland, built about 20 years ago. The road, almost
entirely blasted out of rock, required twice the scheduled time, and cost about 2.5 times the
estimated cost. Since it was the first contract to be awarded on the project, it gave the Owner
many anxious moments wondering whether the whole project had been seriously
underestimated.

Bed-load and sediment.

Mountain rivers, due to their steep gradient and active erosion process, carry a large bed load
and sediment volume. In general, the steeper the gradient, the larger the bed load. On the Zongo
River, one can stand on the bank, and listen to large boulders being slowly rolled down the river
bed during a flood. The noise is a deep-seated thunk, thunk-thunk, as the boulders roll and
temporarily settle into a new position.
If sediment enters the conduit, it will reduce runner life. Sand traps designed to remove particles
down to 0.1mm size are necessary. These facilities require considerable space, and sometimes a
compromise on particle size is necessary, with the design based on removal to a size of 0.4mm.
Another problem can be the presence of grasses and floating twigs in the water. These can easily
block closely spaced trashracks, necessitating the use of automatic rack cleaning devices, or
employment of labor to maintain the racks. In general, the volume of bed load and sediment can
be related to river gradient the steeper the river, the greater the bed load. Floating material is
related to the density of the forest cover and is a major problem in steep tropical rivers, such as
those in Asia and Madagascar.
2

Diversion weir.
Most high head small hydro installations are run-of-river, with storage provided on any suitable
lake upstream. The dam is only a low diversion weir, designed to open fully to pass the bed load.
The most common design used to comprise a concrete weir across the river, less than 2m high,
topped with flashboards or stoplogs. The upstream face of the concrete section would have a
slope of about 6 horizontal to one vertical, and covered with old steel railway rails, to spread the
impact of boulders rolling over the weir.
Currently, this design has been modernized, by using inflatable rubber dams to replace the
stoplogs. During a flood, the rubber dams are fully deflated, thus providing no impediment to the
passage of bed load. Any designer unfamiliar with the concept, should take time to visit the
Mamquam weir and intake, about one hour by car north of Vancouver, Canada. There, two rubber
dams across the river, divert water to a 50MW powerplant. The weir dam was designed by Acres
International, based on a hydraulic model study. The Mamquam River carries one of the highest
bed loads per cubic meter of flow of any river in Canada.
There are a few rules for designing diversion weirs on mountain streams. These are:

The diversion weir should not impose any obstruction to the passage of bed load.

The weir crest should not be above the average river bed level. If above, the river
bed will fill with bed load to weir crest level.

Rubber dams (preferred), or fish-belly flap gates, or stoplogs can be used to increase
the water level above the crest of the concrete weir.

The weir should have the same width as the river, bank to bank.

A set of widely spaced racks, set at right angles to the flow, and immediately
upstream of the weir, should be used at the entrance to the intake channel. The rack
spacing should be set to inhibit the entry of boulders.

A small sluice gate can be placed immediately downstream of the entrance to the
intake channel to flush out debris and bed load.

The intake channel should lead to a sand trap, with a low sluice outlet, and a weir to
the intake tank and trashracks. The sand trap wall, on the river side, could be used
as a weir to discharge flood waters back to the river.

The design should be such that minimal damage will occur on overtopping by a large
flood. The rubber dams and sluice facilities could then be designed for the passage
of a relatively small flood having a frequency in the range of 1/00 to 1/500.

If the site conditions are difficult, with bends in the river immediately upstream, a hydraulic model
study of the weir and intake may be necessary. An illustration of the complexity such a sand trap
facility can acquire is provided by the Corani development, where the Rio Vinto side stream
intake has a rock trap, gravel trap and finally a sand trap. The design was based on a hydraulic
model studied at the San Andres University in La Paz, Bolivia (2, 3).

Intake.

The generating equipment on a high head hydro plant is relatively small. For example, at a head
of about 300m, and with 2 units in a 25MW powerplant, there is the choice of using either Francis
or impulse units, as illustrated by the attached program, from which it can be determined that:-.
Francis units would have a 15-blade runner with a throat diameter of about 829mm, and rotate at
900rpm. Rack spacing at 2.25% of runner diameter, would be only 18.6mm.
If the units were horizontal axis, 2-jet impulse turbines, the runner would rotate at 327.3rpm. and
have an outside diameter of 2619mm. Jet diameter would be 205mm. Rack spacing at 0.2 times
jet diameter, would be 41mm.
This illustrates two points:

Rack spacing is very close on high head units, resulting in easy blockage from an
accumulation of grass and twigs.

If rack spacing is a criterion, impulse turbines are preferred. However, in this

example, the cost preference would be for Francis units.

Due to the narrow rack spacing resulting in rapid clogging with floating leaves and twigs, it is
prudent to have a generous rack area, and to install an automatic rack cleaning machine, or allow
for manual cleaning. If there is a large volume of floating material, consideration should be given
to using a gathering tube type of intake, where the top of the racks are submersed about 1m.
below water level, and are very long with a height of about a meter, as at the 56MW, 214m head
Andekaleka development in Madagascar (4, 5), and at the 6.3MW, 88m head Maggotty
development in Jamaica. At Andekaleka, the intake design proved particularly difficult to resolve,
since there was a bend in the river immediately upstream, a heavy bed load, and a large floating
debris load from the tropical forest. A series of tests with a hydraulic model was necessary, and
several configurations had to be tested, before a successful design was produced.
There is always a discussion about the type of gate required in high head developments. Since
there is usually a turbine valve to provide the second line of defense in flow control, it can be
argued that a simple sliding bulkhead gate is adequate at the intake. Except for tunnel
developments, the author favors the use of a wheeled gate, capable of closure without power
against flow. The reason for this, is the distinct possibility of pipe or penstock rupture. Even if
there is a control valve at the penstock inlet, failure of this valve to operate on excess flow is
possible due to poor maintenance of the controls.

Conduit optimization.
Since the water conduit usually comprises a major proportion of the project cost, determination of
the optimum conduit diameter is important. There are a few rules of thumb for determination of
the most economic conduit diameter, at the pre-feasibility stage, as follows:

For energy generating plants, where the plant capacity factor is in the region of 60%,
the hydraulic loss from the forebay to the tailrace should be in the region of 4 to 6%
of the gross head.

For peaking plants, where the capacity factor is about 40%, the hydraulic loss should
be in the region of 6 to 8%.

The loss per meter of conduit should be about twice as high for the penstock, as
compared with the loss per meter in the low-pressure conduit.

To clarify these statements, assume a peaking project with a gross head of 300m. With the
allowable loss in the conduit set at 7%, the loss is = 21m. If the project has a 3,000m long low4

pressure tunnel to the surge tank, followed by a 900m long penstock, total conduit length is
3,900m. Allowable losses in the tunnel and penstock are calculated as follows:Loss in the penstock at twice the loss in the pipe is = 21 x 900 x 2 / [3000 + (900 x 2)] = 7.875m.
Loss in the low-pressure pipe is = 21 7.875 = 13.125m. Check, loss per meter of penstock =
7.875/900 = 0.00875m. Loss per meter of pipe = 13.125/3000 = 0.004375m.
Knowing the allowable loss, it is easy to calculate the conduit diameter. Also, since loss is
proportional to the diameter raised to the power of 5.33, a small change in diameter has a very
large effect on the loss. This procedure is adequate for a pre-feasibility assessment.
Where there is only a penstock, the preliminary diameter can be obtained from formulae such as
those developed by Fahlbusch (6).
At the feasibility design level, the operating mode should be known. Then a determination of the
annual energy loss for each load level should be undertaken, for a range of diameters, to arrive at
the optimum diameter. Note that an energy plant will not be operating at full load for many hours
per annum. Also, since loss is proportional to flow squared, a high loss at full load for a short time
can be tolerated. By undertaking such a detailed analysis, the author has encountered a few
instances where the penstock diameter on energy projects could be reduced.
Such is not the case in a peaking plant, where most generation takes place at full load. This
illustrates why the load pattern must be known with accuracy, for an assessment of the optimum
diameter.
At the feasibility design stage, it is usually adequate to start with a detailed costing of the conduit
based on the diameter selected using pre-feasibility rules of thumb. The cost of other diameters is
then estimated using a lower unit price for the incremental work. In a spreadsheet, this can be
achieved by using an exponent between 0.6 and 0.9 in a cost formula. For example, if the cost of
100,000m3 of excavation is $1 million, the cost could be represented by the formula Cost = x
100,000y, where x and y are interconnected. If the exponent y = 0.8, then x = 100, and cost = $1
million. An exponent of 0.8 means that the cost of 120,000m 3 of excavation is $1,157,000 and the
incremental cost of the additional 20,000m 3 is $7.85/m3.
In effect, the incremental unit cost is reduced by 21.5%. Lower values of the exponent y decrease
the incremental cost. The lower incremental cost is to allow for the lower contractors incremental
cost once the fixed overhead costs have been included in the base price. Discussions with a
contractor will help to arrive at a reasonable value for y.

Intake canal, low-pressure pipeline and tunnel.

A canal in mountainous terrain is both expensive to construct, and difficult to maintain.
Maintenance difficulty arises from erosion material falling down the uphill side of the slope, to end
in the canal. In Bolivia, the small canals are constantly patrolled and any debris encountered is
removed by hand. In areas where experience has indicated that debris volume is large, the canal
is covered with timbers. Based on the authors experience, canals should be avoided. They can
only be justified where there is ample labor for construction and maintenance.
Tunnels are the preferred means of moving water to the penstock. However, the minimum size
has to be taken into consideration. The smallest tunnel section that can be constructed with
standard rail mounted equipment is an inverted U-shape having a width and height of about 2.5m.
Any reinforcement of the tunnel can be added within this section. At Corani, in Bolivia, the final
section has a width of 2.05m and height of 2.25m (2).
Construction experience with the tunnels in the Zongo valley, showed that it was preferable to
build the access road on one side, and the tunnel on the opposite side of the valley. This was due
to the very steep mountain slopes, averaging about 45 degrees. Access to the tunnel was
5

obtained by cable from the roadside, to portals on the opposite slope, at about 800m intervals
along the tunnel. The 800m interval is based on the 400m distance men can move a loaded truck
to the portal, since it was not possible to lift power equipment to the tunnel on the cableway.
Disposal of tunnel muck was always a major concern. Most muck ended up in the river, since any
attempt to leave the material on the mountainside, usually resulted in the material being washed
down the mountain during rainstorms.
Low pressure pipes can also be used to convey water to the penstock. If pipes are used, the
preference is for a buried design, again due to the high possibility of damage from boulders and
other erosion material descending from the upper slopes. In selecting the route, a major
consideration is the means of traversing the numerous gullies encountered on the mountainside.
The preferred means is by a self-supporting pipe bridge, with enough clearance below the pipe to
allow for the passage of boulders and debris being washed down. Abutment supports are usually
expensive, since moving concrete to the area is often difficult. For this reason, gully crossings are
costly, and are usually underestimated. In the authors experience, a tunnel is often the most
economic alternative in steep terrain.

Peaking storage.
Where there is a long tunnel, the tunnel itself can sometimes be used for peaking storage, as at
Harca (1) where side chambers to the tunnel have been built with a section 4m wide by 4.9m
high, about double the width and height of the normal tunnel section. Alternatively, a small pond
could be developed in a gully off to the side of the tunnel as at Chururaqui in Bolivia (7).
At Chururaqui, the peaking pond is divided in two, by a weir with a bottom flap gate, designed to
open when the water level on the large upstream pond is above that in the lower smaller pond.
The intake to the penstock is connected to the lower pond. Flow from the tunnel enters the small
lower pond, quickly filling the pond, and flowing over the weir into the upper pond. When the
upper pond is filled, and when the peak demand starts to exceed flow from the tunnel, the water
level in the lower pond starts to fall, draining the tunnel. Simultaneously, the upper large pond is
drained through the low level flap gate, providing peaking flow.
The weir between the two ponds increases head on the turbines as soon as the peak demand
period is over, and tunnel flow exceeds turbine flow. The higher head is maintained throughout
the pond filling cycle, increasing energy generation.

Surge tank.
A surge tank is usually required at the end of the low-pressure pipeline. On some impulse
powered developments, the tank has been omitted. This results in extremely long needle valve
opening times, sometimes in the order of several minutes. This is too long for the units to be
capable of operating in an isolated mode. Also, due to the very slow opening, synchronizing of the
units may have to be accomplished with a jet deflector. This situation adds complexity to the
controls, and must be disclosed to the bidders at tender call.
A program for preliminary sizing of a restricted orifice surge tank is contained in the CD-ROM.
The program calculates tank diameter, size, rock excavation, concrete and formwork quantities if
in rock, and weight of steel if the tank is elevated above ground. A copy of the program is shown
on the next page. Input data includes:1. Flood level.
3. Turbine rated head.
5. Design full load flow.
7. Upstream conduit diameter.
9. Erected cost of steel.

2. Low supply level.

4. Elevation of surge tank tee.
6. Upstream conduit lendth.
8. Average Manning n.

Due to the simplicity of the program, it is NOT protected. Make a secure copy before use.

_______________________________________________________
Surge tank size and cost calculation.

Enter data in blue cells only. Steel cost in cell E15

Virginia Falls.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Flood level at dam, meters.

=
Turbine rated head, m.
=
Design full load flow, m3/s.
=
Upstream conduit diameter, meters. =
Conduit velocity m/s.
=
Elevation top of tank, meters.
=
Tank height, top to bottom, meters. =
Steel weight in tank and legs, tonnes=
Cost of steel tank, millions of US$ =
Rock excavation volume, allowing for a full
Concrete lining volume, m3.
=

457.00 Low supply level at dam, meters =

140 Elevation at surge tank tee, meters =
20.24 Upstream conduit length, meters. =
3 Average Manning friction coefficient=
2.86 Tank diameter, meters.
=
470.79 Elevation bottom of tank, meters. =
27.67 Tank volume, cubic meters.
=
58.917 Total height of tank, tee to roof, m. =
0.339 If in rock, total tank/ris. volume, m3 =
concrete lining of tank and riser, m3.
=
351 Curved formwork area, m2.
=

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Conduit area, m2 =
7.07 Steel price $/kg. Erected. =
Acceleration n =
0.01265 Deceleration n
=
Accel. head loss, m.
4.67 Decel. head loss, m.
=
Acceleration c
=
0.569 Deceleration c
=
Tank area, F m2. =
25.19 Tank H/2 above tee. m. =
Acceleration
Deceleration
N acc. =
29.74 N dec. =
K acc. =
45.97 K dec. =
y acc. = downsurge = m. =
5.71 Y dec. = upsurge = m. =
Ref: "Estimating weight of steel surge tank" HRW Vol.6, # 4, Sept. 1998, pages 26 - 29.
Ref: Hydroelectric Handbook. 2nd. Ed. 1950. W. P. Creager & J. D. Justin, page 734 - 743.

454.00
432.00
2100.00
0.011
6.41
443.12
892
38.79
971
1323
662
5.75
0.01045
3.26
0.397
24.96
20.76
19.69
16.55

Note - this is a preliminary program, suitable for sizing and costing a restricted orifice surge tank.
For a simple tank, with no internal riser and no restricted orifice, increase the diameter by 25%
and keep the same high and low water levels. In such a case, the mimimum thickness of steel
plate in the tank wall, in millimeters =
21.0 Calculate steel weight manually. A simple
tank will be more expensive than a restricted orifice tank due to the larger diameter.

_____________________________________________________________________
Figure 1. Copy of printout from surge tank program.
Penstock.
Penstock pipes from the surge tank down to the powerhouse can be either of a hyperstatic
design, where every second bend is unsupported and free to move, or of an isostatic design with
anchors and expansion joints at every bend. Hyperstatic penstocks are occasionally used in
difficult terrain, where construction of anchor blocks is impossible or very expensive (8).
Experience with the design of the Santa Isabel penstocks in Bolivia, has indicated that the cost
savings expected from the elimination of every second anchor block in a hyperstatic design, is
negated by the added volume in the piers and anchors. Also, the penstock design is very
complex. The addition of pipe steel stresses due to earthquake, pressure and miter
discontinuities is difficult, and has to be undertaken manually, since there are, as yet, no
programs for this combination of stresses. At Santa Isabel, the governing condition was found to

be waterhammer, plus earthquake, (both are likely to occur simultaneously, due to shut-down
from vibration) and bend miter stress intensification.
The penstock can be either buried (preferred) or exposed. If exposed, consideration should be
given to storing at least one pipe can of the largest thickness for each diameter of pipe, at site.
This is to allow for the possibility of damage to the penstock from boulders rolling down the
mountainside. For the Zongo developments in Bolivia, this was standard practice.
Also, due to the possibility of a pipe break, the addition of an automatic shut-off valve at the upper
end of the penstock is recommended. Valve closure is initiated on detection of excessive velocity
through the valve.

Powerhouse.
Most small hydro powerplants are built above ground. An underground plant is usually too
expensive. However, there are exceptions, such as at Andekaleka (4). Finding a location for the
surface powerhouse is dictated by topography any suitable reasonably flat area is a candidate.
In mountainous terrain, the likely sites are often found at the confluence of rivers.
One important lesson learned in the Zongo valley was to locate the powerhouse about 100m
downstream of the penstock. The penstock would be routed down the mountainside, to near river
level, and turn through a right angle to the powerhouse downstream. This precaution was to avoid
damage to the plant facilities from boulders, partially disturbed during excavation of the penstock
grade, and later, rolling down the penstock trench to the river.
At Harca, in the Zongo valley, this danger was so extreme, that a large concrete ski-jump was
built at the bottom of the penstock cut, where it intersected a gully, to throw the rolling boulders up
over the access road and penstock pipe, to land in the river. The ski-jump has to be cleaned
regularly to remove accumulations of smaller rocks and other debris.
Another lesson learned, was that once the water was de-sanded and clean, it made no sense to
discharge the clean water into the river and headpond of the next plant downstream. In the
headpond the clean water would mix with the dirty river water, requiring a larger sand trap at the
downstream intake. Instead, a canal or pipe conveys clean water from the draft tubes to the
intake, by-passing the headpond. This is very important during the flood season, when most of
the sand and silt is mobilized by the river. During this period, very little flow is extracted from the
river downstream, instead the plants operate on the cleaned water from the upper powerplants.

Equipment.
As mentioned previously, the equipment is small. Preference should be given to units with
horizontal axes, since in such units, access to the turbine runner is easy. This is a very important
aspect, due to the erosion of the runner from silt suspended in the water, and difficult to remove
at the sand trap. Runner replacement should be included in the operating cost. Some runners
have to be replaced every six months or so, others last over 20 years. It all depends on the
efficiency of the sand trap, the extent and volume of hard quartz particles in the water, and the
developed head (higher head = higher velocity = more erosion).
Where the head is such that a choice is available between Francis or impulse units (including
turgo impulse units), preference should be given to impulse units. In a Francis unit, the wicket
gates, stay vanes and runner are all eroded by sediment. While it may be possible to replace
runners on a regular basis, it becomes more expensive to replace wicket gates, and repair stay
vane erosion. On the other hand, erosion damage to an impulse unit is usually confined to the
runner, since ceramic coatings have been developed for impulse needles, to counter erosion.

One concern with impulse units is the lower peak efficiency, and the necessity of locating the
powerplant above maximum flood level. In the authors opinion, efficiency is not a concern, due to
the very flat efficiency curve of an impulse unit, compared with that for a Francis unit (9).
As for the loss of head in an impulse unit, due to the higher powerhouse level, this is partially
countered by the much lower cost of building a powerhouse above water level, with no site dewatering costs. Also, by selecting horizontal axis impulse units, the powerhouse concrete is
mostly a slab at grade, with concrete box culverts below each unit a simple design concept.

Equipment selection program.

To assist designers in the selection of appropriate equipment, an Excel 97 program is provided,
specifically designed to size, set and cost the turbine-generators. A sample of the first page of the
program is included on the next page. There are only 8 input parameters, all easily available from
site data. These are:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.

Total powerplant flow in m3/s. Upper limit is 20m3/s.

Desired number of units in powerplant.
Normal headpond or forebay elevation.
Total conduit losses from trashracks to turbine inlet in meters.
Normal minimum tailwater level, and
6. Maximum tailwater level at flood.
System frequency, 50 or 60 cycles, and
8. Generator power factor.

The program calculates the total water to wire cost of the equipment, and the efficiency curve for
horizontal axis 2-jet Pelton turbines, horizontal axis 1-jet Turgo turbines and either horizontal or
vertical axis Francis turbines. A summary of cost, total capacity and peak efficiency is provided for
comparison purposes in the second part, along with a statement as to whether the unit is suitable
for the head and flow. In the example provided in Figure 2, the head and flow was purposely
selected to be within a range where all three units would be suitable.
The next three sections provide further details on the equipment, such as speed, rated head,
runner and jet diameters, and setting elevation for the turbine. Note that the Francis unit head will
be larger than the impulse unit heads, since the Francis unit can be set close to minimum
tailwater, instead of above maximum tailwater for the impulse units. For the Francis unit, the
program will also determine whether the unit will have either a horizontal shaft, or a vertical shaft.
If vertical, the program calculates distributor centerline elevation, and if horizontal, shaft centerline
elevation. See comment in the adjacent cell. Incidentally, the program can be used for sizing and
setting small Francis units down to a head at which they are no longer suitable.
Page 2 of the program, includes efficiency charts for each unit. Note that if the program states
that the unit is not suitable, the efficiency chart and other data should be disregarded. To
emphasize this point, the water to wire cost of unsuitable equipment will show as zero in the
summary section. Instead of providing a copy of each efficiency chart from page 2, all three have
been combined into one as shown in Figure 3, from page 3 of the program.
And before it is pointed out that the efficiency for the 2-jet Pelton unit is in error, since the
efficiency at 0.4 flow appears to be higher than at 0.8 flow, the chart is correct. With only one jet
operating on a horizontal axis 2-jet unit, the lower jet is in use. When both jets are in use, the
higher upper jet has less head, hence less efficiency, and also has higher pipe loss due to the
sharp bends in the distributor to the upper jet. The result is lower overall efficiency when 2 jets are
operating. For more details, consult reference 10.
The physical characteristics of the equipment, as calculated by the program are believed to be
reasonably accurate, to within about +/-0.5% on peak efficiency, and to within about +/-1.5% on
the shape of the efficiency curves. Size, speed and setting are also expected to be very close to
quoted parameters. What is not so certain, is the estimated cost. Cost is based on quoted prices

for water to wire equipment for a variety of configurations, and should be in the right order.
Manufacturers should be requested to provide a more accurate estimate.

10

High head small hydro turbine selection program

Enter data in blue cells only, project name in A3.

Virginia Falls
Total powerplant flow, (max = 20) m3/s.
=
Desired number of units in powerplant.
=
Normal forebay elevarion for head rating, EL. (m). =
Total conduit losses at rated flow, m.
=
Normal minimum tailwater elevation, m
=
Maximum flood tailwater elevation, m
=
System frequency, Hz.
=
Generator power factor. (Range 0.9 to 1.0)
=

7.50
3
550.00
15.00
278.80
283.50
50
0.95

Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment

Total W/W
Total generator
Cost $ US m.
capacity, MW
Comment
Comment
Horizontal axis, 2 jet, 1 runner impulse turbine
4.276
15.917
Combination of capacity, head and flow is suitable for this type of turbine.
Horizontal axis, 1 jet, 1 turgo runner impulse turbine
3.268
15.703
Combination of capacity, head and flow is suitable for this type of turbine.
Horizontal axis Francis turbine
2.593
16.669
Combination of capacity, head and flow is suitable for this type of turbine.
Turbine axis, jet and runner configuration.

SMTS/2002/1
Print pages 1, 2.

Peak turbine
efficiency
Comment
0.905
0.897
0.920

Horizontal axis, 2 jet, 1 runner Pelton impulse turbine

Calculated synchronous rotational speed ( rpm ) =
Calculated outside runner diameter ( m )
=
Calculated minimum shaft centerline elevation, m =
Calculated peak efficiency, all jets operating
=
Calculated turbine full load output ( MW )
=
Calculated water to wire cost excluding subs.
=

428.6
1.844
285.34
0.905
5.492
4.276

Rated head, m.=

Jet diam (m) =

249.00
0.153

Peak eff. Q/jet=

Generator MW =
Million $ US.

0.938
5.306
Comment

Horizontal axis, 1 jet, 1 turgo runner impulse turbine

Calculated synchronous rotational speed ( rpm ) =
Calculated outside runner diameter ( m )
=
Calculated minimum shaft centerline elevation, m =
Calculated peak efficiency, all jets operating
=
Calculated turbine full load output ( MW )
=
Calculated water to wire cost, excluding subs.
=

750.0
1.502
285.00
0.897
5.418
3.268

Rated head, m.=

Jet diam (m) =

249.00
0.217

Peak eff. Q/jet=

Generator MW =
Million $ US.

1.650
5.234
Comment

Horizontal axis Francis turbine

Calculated runner submergence "S" meters
=
Calculated number of runner blades
=
Calculated runner throat diameter, ( d ) meters.
=
Calculated peak efficiency. ( % )
=
Calculated distributor or shaft CL. elevation, meters =
Calc. turbine output at rated head & flow ( MW ) =
Estimated water to wire cost, excluding subst.
=

Comment
-2.50
15
0.595
92.03
281.15
5.748
2.593

Comment
Rated head, m.=
256.20
Speed, rpm. =
1000.0
Peak eff. Q =
2.359
Comment
Horizontal shaft
Generator MW=
5.556
Million $ US.
Comment
Page 1.

11

Figure 2. Copy of first page from equipment selection program.

Instructions on program use are included in the yellow Comment cells. Hold the cursor over the
yellow cell, and a comment window will open.

Efficiency comparison

Efficiency

1.0

0.8

Pelton 1 jet.
Pelton 2 jet.
Turgo
Francis

0.6

0.4
0.2

0.4

0.6

Flow ratio

0.8

1.0

Figure 3. Copy of page 3 from equipment selection program.

On the above chart, the efficiency curve for the Francis unit is shown down to 0.2 flow. In
practice, a Francis unit can not be operated below about 0.4 to 0.5 flow. The efficiency curve was
continued down to the lower flow, to show the advantage impulse units have in being capable of
operating very efficiently down to very low flow ratios.

Conclusions.
Access roads. Roads in mountainous terrain are both expensive to construct, and difficult to
schedule. A generous contingency for additional cost and time should be included in the design.
Bed-load and sediment. This has to be excluded from the water passages by gravel and sand
traps. Failure to exclude sediment, will result in rapid deterioration of the turbine runner.
Diversion weir. It is preferable to build low diversion weirs instead of dams. A dam will retain the
sediment. The diversion weir should be equipped with rubber dams for water retention, and these
should be fully deflated to pass the bed load during floods. The intake should be placed at right
angles to the flow, and have a low level sluice immediately downstream.
Intake. The intake should have a generous rack area, and provision for automatic cleaning made
in regions where there is a large floating debris (leafs and twigs) load.
Conduit optimization. A procedure for conduit optimization has been provided. It is too complex
to summarize.
Low-pressure pipeline and tunnel. The preferred conduit for transferring water to the penstock
is a tunnel. It requires the least maintenance. Canals should be avoided, they fill with debris
washed down from the upper slopes. Buried pipes are acceptable.
Peaking storage. Where the low-pressure tunnel is oversized for the flow, due to minimum
construction size, the tunnel itself can be used for peaking storage. Also, side tunnel chambers

12

can be used for additional storage. Small headponds can sometimes be built in gullies if the local
sediment problem is not serious.
Surge tank. A requirement for isolated plants. If the surge tank is omitted in impulse
developments, the needle opening time will be very long. A program for sizing the tank is provided
in the CD-ROM.
Penstock. A buried pipe is preferred. If on the surface, spare pipe cans may be needed to
replace cans damaged from boulders rolling down the mountainside.
Powerhouse. It is preferable to locate the powerhouse away from the penstock cut, to avoid
damage from material dislodged during construction, and after, rolling down the cut. Clean water
from the draft tubes should be directed to the next intake downstream, instead of being mixed
with the sandy and silt-laden (dirty) water in the headpond.
Equipment. The preferred layout would have horizontal axis units, to facilitate access to the
turbine runner. Impulse units (Pelton or Turgo) are preferred, due to easier replacement of worn
parts, in areas where sediment is a problem. A program for equipment selection, sizing and
approximate costing is provided in the CD-ROM.

Acknowledgements.
The author thanks CANMET for the opportunity to make this presentation, and hopes that
engineers in the audience will find the data useful. Thanks are also due to Mr. P. O. Sjoman for
data on the Doran-Taylor and Soo River developments in British Columbia, and to Mr. D. H. T.
Hammonds, for data on the Caon del Pato development in Peru.

References.
1. "The Harca Hydro Development", Trans Eng. Op. Div. CEA 9: part 2, 1970 paper #70-H-105.
2 "Hydropower Expansion in Central Bolivia" Trans. Eng. Op. Division, CEA 24, part 2, 1986.
3. "The Expansion of Two Bolivian Plants", Water Power and Dam Construction, Vol. 34, No. 2,
Feb. 1982. pp. 26-31.
4. "Andkalka Gathering Tube Hydropower Intake" ASCE, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
Vol. 113, No. 8, Aug. 1987, pg 1019-31.
5. "Caractristiques de la prise d'eau Andkalka pur l'exclusion des sdiments", La Houille
Blanche, Sept. 1986. pp. 441-449.
6. Power tunnels and penstocks: the economics re-examined Water Power and Dam
Construction, Vol. 34, No.6, June. 1982. pp. 13-15.
7. Una cascada de plantas intercepta at Zongo en Bolivia Ingenieria International Construccion
Noviembre, 1968.
8 "Comparison of Isotatic and Hyperstatic Penstocks at Santa Isabel, Bolivia", Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1, Mar. 1982, p. 1-12.
9 "High Head Hydro Powerplant Evaluation" proceeding of ASCE, Journal of Energy Div., Vol.
112, No. Ey3, Dec. 1986, pp. 153-167.
10. Hydraulic Turbine Efficiency, Canadian Jour. of Civ. Eng. Vol. 28, #2, April 2001. Pp 238-53

13

______________________________
Comments on some PowerPoint slides.
5. Zongo storage dam, Bolivia. FSL = 4,634m.
Constructed in 1908, and raised three times, with last raise about 1965. Located at head of
Zongo valley, dam provides seasonal storage for downstream powerplants. The Zongo
powerplant, contains three horizontal axis Pelton turbines, operating under 381m head. Unit #1,
installed in 1909, 1,100HP. #2, installed 1930, 1,100HP. #3, installed 1945, 4,550HP. Units are
shut down during spring and summer as reservoir is filling with spring flood waters and summer
melt-waters from glaciers.
6. Harca development schematic profile.
Shows typical features of a high head development. Note the following:- Intake directly off upstream powerplant tailrace, to avoid entraining silt-laden water from river.
- Tunnel of minimum size, 30% lined with plain concrete, 3% lined with reinforced concrete,
23% lined with steel arches, 4% gunnite lined, and 40% unlined.
- Underground storage chambers, usually built near tunnel adits to facilitate removal of rock
and provide air vent.
- Underground surge tank, built just off from tunnel to avoid danger of falling rock into tunnel.
- Valve at top of surface penstock with automatic closure in case of pipe rupture.
10. Logs, sand and gravel in river bed.
An inspection of the river will indicate the measures necessary to remove debris and bed load.
13. Chururaqui weir on Zongo River.
The intake facilities can become quite complex, and take up considerable space. From upstream
to downstream, the drawing shows:- Low cyclopean concrete weir, with 1/6 upstream slope, 1/1 downstream slope.
- Stoplogged intake at right angles to flow, with low level sluice.
- Gravel trap with sluice at outlet and weir to spillway.
- Side channel spillway with floating boom to remove surface debris and weir to sand trap.
- Sand trap and sluice, weir into canal parallel to powerplant to pick up powerplant flow.
With all the weirs in the facility, allowance must be made for hydraulic losses, which can be in the
region of 2 to 4 meters or more. The weir and intake design is based on the weir downstream of
the Zongo powerhouse, for the Botijlaca development built in 1940. The Botijlaca weir washed out
twice, before a reliable design was developed. The Botijlaca weir layout concept has been used
on all the Zongo valley developments.
16. Maggotty weir and intake in Jamaica.
At Maggotty there is a large volume of floating debris in the river, mostly leafs and twigs. The
gathering tube intake, located at right angles to the flow, with a downstream low level sluice,
skims off the cleaner water from just below the surface. There are flow vanes behind the racks to
turn the water into the tube. After the vanes, there is a throttle, to even out the flow, with a larger
opening for the upstream racks.
19. Andekaleka dam and intake, Madagascar.
The Andekaleka river has both a high bed load and a large volume of floating debris. A hydrauilc
model study was required to develop an acceptable design. There is an upstream wall, just below

14

the water surface, to prevent the bed load from reaching the trashracks. The gathering tube
intake is incorporated into the dam, after it was observed on the model, that the area immediately
upstream of the dam was always free of sediment. The first alternative included an underground
sand trap, but this facility proved to be inordinately expensive, and was discarded.
20. Caon del Pato intake and eroded needles.
There is a 21.5m high dam in the river, with a small low level sluice immediately downstream of
the intake which is at right angles to the flow. The forebay is now completely filled with sediment.
There is an underground sand trap, but it is about 1/3 of the required size. Consequently sand
and silt flows down the tunnel, entrained in the water. Stainless steel needle cones last about 12
to 16 days during the flood season. Now, ceramic coated needles last about 30 to 40 days. The
runners are also eroded. There is a full-time repair staff for welding runner buckets and needles.
An analysis of the repair costs and the enlargement of the sand trap has found that the repair
work is the most economic alternative.
23. Side hill canal captures melt waters.
At the head of the Zongo valley, there are small lateral canals to capture the glacial melt. The
canals are excavated in rock, are about 1m wide, with a masonry side wall about 0.65m high.
Slope varies, and is in the region of 1% to 0.5%. In vertical mountainsides, there are small
tunnels. The canals are patrolled to remove rock falls, and in areas where there is a history of
frequent falls, the canals are covered with timbers.
24, 25. Spray and Harca side hill canals.
Show the difficulty of building side hill canals. The Spray canal has washed out twice, once after
commissioning, when the water burst through a blanket lining over a talus slope area. The
second time was at about the same location, when a sinkhole went undetected. In the second rebuild, the blanket thickness was doubled, and protected with filters. Nevertheless, monitoring for
sinkholes continues. There is a 4 to 6m wide road on the uphill side, where falling rocks are
contained for later removal.
The Harca slides show the difficulty associated with rock and debris from the uphill slope. This
section of the canal has been covered with concrete panels. Some parts of the mountainside are
so steep, that undercutting is the only way to obtain the flow section.
26. Pingston Creek tunnel.
At only 2.3m wide by 2.3m high, the contractor found the section to be too small, and enlarged
the section locally to accommodate the excavating equipment. A large portion of the section is
taken up by the ventilation duct a fact sometimes forgotten by designers.
27. Doran-Taylor buried penstock.
Photo taken about 5 years after construction. Bury it and forget it! If the ground is suitable for a
buried penstock, this is the preferred option. In steep sections, the cover can be gravel. The main
difficulty in the steep sections is the pipe support, since this cannot be compacted. A solution is to
use weak concrete slurry, with only sufficient stiffness to remain in place on the slope.
28. Corani and Chururaqui penstocks.
At just over 1m diameter, the limiting size is usually the steel thickness required to avoid preheating for welding. The Corani penstock was built with an overhead cableway. A load can be
seen at top of the slide. The Chururaqui slide shows the penstock traversing a side gully just
upstream of the powerhouse. In steep mountainous terrain, these gullies are a source of rock
15

slides and must be avoided. No structures should be located near gullies. At this gully, there is a
concrete ski jump to throw rock debris over the access road.
31. Surge tanks.
In hilly terrain, the surge tank can be located on the hillside, instead of above the penstock.
39. Harca powerhouse section.
With horizontal axis units, the powerhouse is simply a slab on rock, with a culvert section below
each unit.
43. Turgo runner.
A Turgo unit is similar to a Pelton unit, but the jet is angled to the runner, and nearer the runner
axis, so that speed is higher. Hence it can operate at lower heads than a Pelton unit.
46. Equipment selection.
Most manufacturers have selection charts, but none provide details.

________________________________________
Bio data for J. L. Gordon.
Mr. James (Jim) L. Gordon is an independent hydro consultant with 50 years of experience. For
the last 12 years he has provided advice to utilities and consultants on civil and mechanical
aspects of hydro projects. He graduated from Aberdeen University, Scotland, in 1952 with a first
class honors degree in civil engineering. He worked for Montreal Engineering (Monenco) for 38
years, retiring as Vice-President, Hydro.
During his time with Monenco, he was responsible for 6 hydro projects which received awards
from the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada for excellence in design. He was
awarded the Rickey medal by the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1989 for outstanding
contributions to the advancement of hydroelectric engineering and was awarded the Canadian
Electricity Association Distinguished Service Award (1999) for his contributions to the
hydropower industry and the engineering profession.
He has authored or co-authored over 75 papers on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from
submergence at intakes to turbine cavitation and generator inertia requirements, and wrote
Chapter 7 "Facilities guidelines and case studies" in Hydropower Engineering Handbook
(McGraw-Hill, 1990). He was part of the scientific team assembled to produce RETScreen, and
developed the hydro design and cost algorithms used in the program. E-SOURCE Distributed
Energy Service of Platts, a Division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, evaluated RETScreen as
"one of the few software tools, and by far the best, available for evaluating the economics of
renewable energy installations."
He has been an invited speaker at 20 seminars, and has worked on the design of 46 hydro
developments in Canada and overseas, ranging in size from 600kW to 560MW, and ranging in
head from a few meters, to 825m.
He can be reached at:-

102 Blvd. St.-Jean.

Pointe Claire, Quebec.

Canada.

H9S 4Z1.

E-mail jim-gordon@sympatico.ca

16

________________________

17