Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydropower Plants: A Hydropower Technology Round-Up Report, Volume 2
Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydropower Plants: A Hydropower Technology Round-Up Report, Volume 2
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3)
and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of this
publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI.
This notice supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the
document prior to publication.
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins
Drive, P.O. Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (800) 313-3774.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 1999 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
HCI Publications
410 Archibald Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64111
Principal Investigators
J.C. Phillips, P.E.
C. Vansant, P.E.
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Rehabilitation and Upgrading Hydro Plants: A Hydropower Technology Round-Up Report,
Volume 2, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1999. TR-113584-V2.
iii
REPORT SUMMARY
Owners of aging hydropower plants are confronted with an array of project and technology
options for rehabilitating or upgrading their facilities and are making large capital investment
decisions at a time of increasing competitive pressures. Ensuring that investments in plant are
optimal requires a thorough understanding of the technologies, approaches and strategies
available for rehab and upgradingas well as the risks associated with these projects. This
volume of EPRIs Hydropower Technology Roundup report presents techniques and practices,
lessons learned, and examples of the rehabilitation and upgrading of hydropower plants.
Background
Hydropower plant owners and operators are rehabilitating and upgrading hydro plants to increase
the value of output, add capacity, improve reliability, reduce operating and maintenance expense,
extend plant life, and comply with environmental and safety regulations or voluntarily-imposed
standards. Some owners have adopted formal, comprehensive programs; others employ a plantby-plant, unit-by-unit, component-by-component approach. Significant funds are being expended
to prepare facilities around the world for the 21st century. Although not intended to provide
exhaustive coverage of the issues, this second volume of the Technology Roundup Report can
help hydropower mangers understand the state-of-the-art in rehabilitation and upgrading in the
global hydropower community and learn from others experience. For a comprehensive
treatment of hydropower rehabilitation and upgrading see EPRI report GS-6419, Volumes 1-3,
Hydropower Plant Modernization Guide, which is currently being updated.
Objective
Approach
The investigators assembled and reviewed recent pertinent conference reports, publications,
other literature, and audiotapes of roundtable discussions on hydropower rehabilitation and
upgrade programs. They contacted individuals known to have significant experience in the
selected areas and invited them to share additional information and perspectives. They chose
example applications and case studies for presentation involving hydro facilities of all ages,
types, and sizes, located in North America and worldwide. To the extent appropriate, they made
generalizations concerning the applicability and benefits of the strategies and technologies
implemented in these applications.
v
Results
Numerous successful improvements to hydro systems, plants, units, and individual components
are identified and described in the report. Specific plant components rehabilitated or upgraded
include turbines, water passage and conveyance facilities, generators, governors and controls,
and auxiliary systems and equipment. Numerous lessons learned gleaned from the literature or
offered by contributors are presented to assist others in the consideration or application of these
strategies and technologies.
EPRI Perspective
Faced with cost competition, increasing environmental standards, and on-going licensing
requirements, hydropower plant owners need to know about the technology options available and
under development to make their facilities more compliant, protective of the environment, and
competitive. They need information about the benefits and costs of alternative technologies and
the successful practices and strategies used for their implementation. EPRIs Hydropower
Technology Roundup report series will provide a clearinghouse for worldwide information on
key topics and new and emerging technologies, including case studies and contacts. This volume
presents an overview of research, practices, lessons learned, and some examples regarding the
rehabilitation and upgrading of hydropower plants. Technology Roundup reports are published
several times a year.
TR-113584-V2
Keywords
Controls
Generators/Motor-Generators
Governors
Rehabilitating(ion)
Turbines/Pump-Turbines
Upgrade(ing)
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks and acknowledgment is made to those individuals and organizations whose
assistance and gracious input were key to the development of this report. The following
contributors provided information and perspectives via personal communication:
Michael Bahleda - American Electric Power Service Corporation, Columbus, Ohio
Martin A. Bauer - U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California
Paul A. Bernhardt - Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Syracuse, New York
Lawrence D. Chapman - Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee
William H. Colwill, Ph.D. - American Hydro Corporation, York, Pennsylvania
Bob D. Foster - Lower Colorado River Authority, Buchanan Dam, Texas
Matthew E. Gass, P.E. - Hetch Hetchy Water and Power, Moccasin, California
Nick M. Hawley, P.E., C.E. - BC Hydro, Burnaby, British Columbia
Dan Jarvis - AmerenUE, Eldon, Missouri
David C. Kee, P.Eng. - Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario
Robert J. Knowlton, P.E. - New York Power Authority, White Plains, New York
Hans F. Naeff - ABB Power Generation, Inc., Littleton, Colorado
Niels M. Nielsen, P.Eng. - BC Hydro, Burnaby, British Columbia
Steven C. Onken, P.E. - Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District, Oroville, California
Jiri Spidla, Ph.D. - CKD Blansko Engineering a.s., Blansko, Czech Republic
The assistance of Marla Barnes and Catherine Bennett at HCI Publications for providing
reference materials and permitting the use of HCI files was essential to the research for this
report and is acknowledged, with appreciation.
vii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1-1
Situation ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
Trends in Rehabilitation ...................................................................................................... 1-2
Report Organization............................................................................................................ 1-2
Reference........................................................................................................................... 1-2
ix
xi
A CONTACT-LIST ..................................................................................................................A-1
Owners ...............................................................................................................................A-1
Suppliers - Turbines............................................................................................................A-3
Suppliers - Generators........................................................................................................A-3
Suppliers - Governors and Controls....................................................................................A-3
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects Discussed in this Report ......... 1-3
Table 2-1 Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects (in order of mention in
text) ................................................................................................................................. 2-8
Table 2-2 Capacity and Efficiency Improvements (in order of decreasing MW prior to
upgrade) ........................................................................................................................ 2-14
xiii
1
INTRODUCTION
In 1998, as part of its core program in the hydroelectric generation area, EPRI initiated the
Hydropower Technology Round-Up project. The objective of the project is to prepare periodic
Tech Round-Up reports to disseminate useful, world-wide information related to hydro power
technological advancements.
The scope of the investigation brought to you in this report has been broad, including both U.S.
domestic and international utilities and companies having international experience. This report
presents an overview of research, practices, lessons learned, and some examples regarding
environmental solutions to lubrication, specifically, utilizing self-lubricating materials and
environmental lubricants at hydro facilities. Part 2 presents an overview of techniques and
practices, lessons learned, and some typical examples regarding the rehabilitation and upgrade of
hydro plants.
Situation
The onset of the competitive market for generation of electricity in North America and elsewhere
has intensified interest in maximizing the economic efficiency of conventional and pumped
storage hydro plants. Customer choice initiatives, the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas
emissions, and ever-stricter environmental regulations have increased the focus on the
environmental compatibility of hydro generation. At the same time, market prices for energy and
generating capacity are relatively low and are projected to remain so for the foreseeable future,
as markets move to open pricing.
To sustain hydros efficiency and competitiveness requires implementation of improved, more
cost-effective maintenance and operating practices and the commitment to applying
technological advancements. Furthermore, consideration of plant rehabilitation and upgrading to
increase the value of output, minimize environmental risks, reduce operating expenses, and
extend maintenance intervals and overall service life are key to the sustained viability of hydro
resources.
Significant investment is often needed to improve many hydro plantsparticularly older,
conventional plantsto restore or sustain efficiency and competitiveness, and to meet
environmental objectives. However, economic justification of needed investments is often very
difficult. Recent improvements in technology, particularly in the areas of hydro-turbine and
component design and manufacture, control equipment and instrumentation, and improved life
and maintenance management, have greatly enhanced the prospects for increasing production
and economic efficiency, and extending the life, of existing hydro plants.
1-1
Trends in Rehabilitation
An industry benchmarking survey conducted in conjunction with the HydroVision 98 conference
held July 1998 in Reno, Nevada, provides a good sampling of general approaches and practices
being implemented by hydro owners, primarily in North America, with regard to plant or
component rehabilitation. A total of 66 rehabilitation projects were reported. The survey report
presents statistics on the reasons for rehabilitation, strategies employed, economic and
prioritization criteria, contracting arrangements, and quality control and testing methods.
Leading the list of project components approved for rehabilitation are turbine runners and
miscellaneous components, generator stator windings and miscellaneous components, excitation
systems, and governors. [1]
Report Organization
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Section 2 - Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants
Section 3 - Turbines and Pump-Turbines
Section 4 - Generators and Motor-Generators
Section 5 - Governors, Controls, and Auxiliaries
Section 6 - Evaluation, Planning, Management, and Implementation
Many hydro rehabilitation and upgrade programs and projects have been initiated or successfully
completed, substantially improving the economic efficiency and reliability of hydro plants.
Table 1-1 presents the programs and projects discussed in this report.
Each section contains a lessons learned subsection, presenting some general guidance based on
the experience of the contributors.
References are listed at the end of each report section. Lists of contacts for various owners,
suppliers, and manufacturers involved in programs and projects discussed in this report are
contained in Appendix A of this report.
Reference
1. Hydro Rehabilitation Practices: Whats Working in Rehabilitation. HCI Publications, Kansas
City, MO, 1998.
1-2
State (U.S.),
Province (Canada),
or Country
Ontario
British Columbia
Texas
Texas
Qubec
New York
Michigan
California
Washington
Alaska
Buchanan
Brfell
California Water Project
Castaic
Texas
Iceland
California
California
Chippewa Falls
Clam River
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Forbestown
California
Montana
South Carolina
California
France
Tennessee and
several adjacent
states
Several states in
eastern Mid-west
Texas
Texas
Alabama
Brazil
Kirkwood
Lookout Shoals
Major Rehabilitation
Muddy Run
New Moccasin
California
North Carolina
Many states
Pennsylvania
California
Hydro Modernization
Owner
Section
No(s).
Ontario Hydro
BC Hydro
Lower Colorado River Authority
Lower Colorado River Authority
4
6
6
5
Hydro-Qubec
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
American Electric Power Corp.
Southern California Edison
Seattle City Light
Alaska Industrial Development
and Export Authority
Lower Colorado River Authority
Landsvirkjun
California Water Project
Los Angeles Dept. of Water &
Power
Northern States Power
Northwestern Wisconsin
Electric Co.
Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation
District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Duke Power
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power
Electricit de France
Tennessee Valley Authority
6
3
3
3
6
5
3
3
3
6
2,6
6
6
3
6
6
6
5
5
3
3
3
6
4
4,5,6
3,5
3
1-3
State (U.S.),
Province (Canada),
or Country
Washington
Missouri
Sweden
New York
Oklahoma
Washington
Stechovice
Germany
California
North Carolina,
South Carolina
Czech Republic
Tafjord K2
Trngslet
Tuxedo
Twin Branch
Wanapum
Norway
Sweden
North Carolina
Indiana
Washington
Yale
Washington
1-4
Owner
Section
No(s).
6
5
4
3
5
3,4
5
4,6
6
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
2
REHABILITATING AND UPGRADING HYDRO PLANTS
World-wide, many hydro plants, particularly older plants, are undergoing rehabilitation and
upgrading. Plants and facilities being rehabilitated or upgraded are of all types. The reasons for
and the scope, objectives, and costs of rehabilitation and upgrade programs and projects are
wide-ranging.
This report presents techniques and practices, lessons learned, and some typical examples
regarding the rehabilitation and upgrading of hydro plants. Table 2-1 lists the rehabilitation and
upgrade programs and projects discussed.
A comprehensive treatment of the subject of hydro plant rehabilitation and upgrading may be
found in EPRIs Hydropower Plant Modernization Guide (three volumes) published in 1989. [1]
EPRI plans to replace the 1989 guide with new guidelines for plant life extension and
modernization. The first volume of the new guidelines is expected to be published in 1999. [2]
Extending life
Halting or decelerating deterioration
Increasing generating capacity
Improving efficiency
Reducing risk of catastrophic failure
Reducing forced outages or unscheduled down time
Improving ability to control equipment via
remote control
automation
Civil Works
Intakes, gates, tunnels, surge tanks, penstocks, turbine or isolation valves, tailraces, dams,
spillways, spillway gates, powerhouse structures, trash removal systems, bulkheads, and exterior
cranes and hoists.
2-2
2-3
The survey had 29 hydro owner or operator respondents from the following countries: United
States (21), Canada (3), Canada/United States (2), Australia (1), Ghana (1), and United Kingdom
(1). A total of 66 rehabilitation projects were reported. [4]
The various project components were approved for rehabilitation in the following percentages
(rounded to nearest percent):
Turbine runners
74%
69%
Stator windings
60%
Excitation systems
53%
47%
Governors
45%
43%
36%
35%
Generator rotor
33%
33%
31%
26%
Stator cores
24%
22%
16%
Percent Increase
Percent Increase
Average
Range
Turbine Capacity
42
23.8
1-230
Generator Capacity
29
20.1
1-67
Turbine Efficiency
22
6.1
3-15
Generator Efficiency
1.5
1-2
2-4
The benchmarking survey report also presents statistics on the reasons for rehabilitation,
strategies employed, economic and prioritization criteria, contracting arrangements, and quality
control and testing methods. [4]
Table 2-2 presents the capacity and efficiency gains realized or expected as a result of the
rehabilitation and upgrade programs and projects discussed in this report. For three of the
projects, realized or expected annual energy gains (in lieu of efficiency gains) are known and are
presented. The programs and projects for which capacity, efficiency or annual energy gains are
known represent a total of more than 10,000 MW of capacity. The capacity and efficiency gains
presented on Table 2-2 can be summarized as follows:
The annual average energy gains known are 13%, 23%, and 61%. The 13% annual average
energy gain is for a large plant (Beauharnois); the 23% and 61% gains are for small plants.
Definitions
Within the hydropower industry, the terms rehabilitation and upgrade or upgrading,
among others, are employed to indicate the nature, extent, or result of an improvement to a hydro
plant or component. These several terms often appear to be used interchangeably.
Several of these improvement terms are defined, as nouns, below. In this report, those terms
are intended to have the meanings given, except when the terms appear in the names of specific
programs or projects, or in the titles of papers or articles. No claim is made that the given
definitions are generally accepted by the industry, nor that the terms are mutually exclusive. The
terms may not have counterparts in non-English languages.
Rehabilitation
The restoration of an old plant, unit, or component through a process of repair, modification, or
replacement, for any of several purposes including extending life, improving reliability, and/or
reinstating or improving performance [definition adapted from Hydro Rehabilitation Practices:
Whats Working in Rehabilitation]. [4] Rehabilitation suggests restoration to a more or less as
new condition, improving on the present performance, capability, or reliability but without
significant change or addition of capacity or capability to the original design.
2-5
Upgrade or Upgrading
The substantial modification of an existing plant for any of several purposes including:
increasing capacity or efficiency; improving control, safety, reliability, or environmental
compatibility; or reducing operation or maintenance cost. Upgrade suggests achievement of
significant improvement in the performance or capability of features or components compared to
the original design.
Modernization
The act or process of making a plant, unit, or component modern in appearance and capability
using existing civil structures; particularly refers to installing up-to-date instrumentation and
controls, and bringing the facility into compliance with current safety and environmental
standards.
Redevelopment
New construction of an existing plant, including replacement or substantial modification of civil,
mechanical, and electrical components [definition from Hydro Rehabilitation Practices: Whats
Working in Rehabilitation]. [4]
Refurbishment
The overhaul or repair of a unit or a component, including replacement of worn or degraded
parts.
Replacement
The substitution of a unit or component for another.
Repowering
The replacement of existing units with new units, normally of greater capacity or higher
efficiency.
Retrofit
The act or process of providing a unit or component with parts, devices, or equipment not
available at the time of original manufacture.
2-6
Two additional definitions follow, which are not necessarily considered to be improvements
per se:
Uprating
The designation of an increased capacity rating of a plant, a unit, a turbine, or a generator for any
reason but typically resulting from the addition or improvement of equipment, a change in
operation, or an increase in available flow.
Overhaul
The planned disassembly, cleaning, repair, lubricating, and reassembly of a unit or component.
References
1. Hydropower Plant Modernization Guide. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA: June 1989. Report GS-6419.
2. EPRI Plans New Guidelines for Plant Life Extension, Modernization, Hydro Review,
November 1998, p. 80.
3. L. D. Chapman, Tennessee Valley Authority, personal communication, October 1998.
4. Hydro Rehabilitation Practices: Whats Working in Rehabilitation. HCI Publications,
Kansas City, MO, 1998.
2-7
Table 2-1
Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects (in order of mention in text)
Program,
Project, or
Powerhouse [a]
State (U.S.),
Province
(Canada), or
Country
Hydro
Modernization *
Owner
Section
No(s).
Tennessee
and several
adjacent
states
Tennessee Valley
Authority
2,6
Forbestown *
California
Oroville-Wyandotte
Irrigation District
Yale *
Washington
Robert Moses
Niagara *
New York
No. of
Units
MW [b]
Status
[c]
Cost
$million
[d]
88
in
prog.
36
comp.
1991
PacifiCorp
125
comp.
1996
13
2275
in
prog.
2006
280
1.0
Source
[e]
per com
0.64
ASCE 93
per com
ASCE 97
HR 4/98
per com
Bennetts Bridge *
New York
Niagara Mohawk
Power
Corporation
7.5
comp.
1990
Great Falls *
South
Carolina
Duke Power
comp.
1992
ASCE 93
Stechovice *
Czech
Republic
Czech Power
Company CEZ,
a.s.
2->1
42
comp.
1997
HV paper
per com
Muddy Run *
Pennsylvania
PECO Energy
3,5
880
comp.
1998
40
ASCE 93
per com
ASCE 97
HR 4/96
HR 9/98
2-8
State (U.S.),
Province
(Canada),
or Country
Rocky Reach *
Washington
Owner
Section
No(s).
Chelan County
PUD
3,4
No. of
Units
MW [b]
Status
[c]
Cost
$million
[d]
Source
[e]
11
1380
in
prog.
116
ASCE 97
John Hollis
Bankhead *
Alabama
Alabama Power
Company
46
comp.
1998
Chippewa Falls *
Wisconsin
Northern States
Power
21.6
comp.
1995
HR 4/97
HR 9/98
ASCE 93
HR 11/98
Twin Branch *
Indiana
American Electric
Power Corporation
6->8
7.3
comp.
1992+
ASCE 93
per. com
Berrien Springs *
Michigan
American Electric
Power Corporation
4->12
7.2
comp.
1997+
HR 11/98
per.com.
Wanapum *
Washington
10
900
in
prog.
Big Creek 1 *
California
Southern California
Edison
36
comp.
1993?
Tafjord K2 *
Norway
Tafjord Power
Company
28
comp.
CF
Holm *
California
Hetch Hetchy
Water and Power
150
comp.
1993
1.5
H&D 2/98
per com
Kirkwood *
California
Hetch Hetchy
Water and Power
84
comp.
1997
1.3
H&D 2/98
per com
New Moccasin *
California
Hetch Hetchy
Water and Power
runner replacement
112
in
prog.
1999
.9
expected
H&D 2/98
per com
75
ASCE 97
CF
2-9
Table 2-1
Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects (in order of mention in text) (continued)
Program,
Project, or
Powerhouse [a]
State (U.S.),
Province
(Canada),
or Country
Clam River
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Wisconsin Electric
Company
Montana
Tuxedo *
North
Carolina
Duke Power
Owner
unnamed
Shasta *
California
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation
Section
No(s).
4,6
No. of
Units
MW [b]
Status
[c]
Cost
$million
[d]
Source
[e]
comp.
1995
0.3+
ASCE 97
105
comp.
1992
18.5
ASCE 93
comp.
1991
ASCE 93
comp.
HV paper
328
in
prog.
21
HR 9/98
per. com
2002+
Arnprior
Ontario
Ontario Hydro
70
comp.
1993
HR 5/95
Lookout Shoals *
North
Carolina
Duke Power
replacement of turbine-driven
exciter with generator
comp.
1996
ASCE 97
Major
Rehabilitation
Many states
Porjus
Sweden
Vattenfall
4,5,6
comprehensive rehabilitation,
economic evaluation, stator iron
replacement
high-voltage generator
(prototype test)
450+
ASCE 93,
95 and 97
HV audio
11+
comp.
1998
HR 11/98
HRW 5/98
per com
Bradley Lake
2-10
Alaska
Alaska Industrial
Development and
Export Authority
120
comp.
1993
HR 12/95
State (U.S.),
Province
(Canada),
or Country
Robert S. Kerr
Dam
Oklahoma
California Water
Project
Osage
Owner
Section
No(s).
California
California Water
Project
controls upgrade
Missouri
AmerenUE
No. of
Units
MW
[b]
Status
[c]
Cost
$million
[d]
Source
[e]
114
comp.
0.6
HR 4/96
1.0+
HR 4/96
1995
in
prog.
10
212
comp.
ASCE 93
1992
HR 4/97
per com
Castaic
California
controls upgrade
1440
comp.?
0.9
HV paper
Trngslet
Sweden
Stora Power AB
330
comp.
1.5
HRW 8/96
17
HRW 9/97
1987
Sckingen
Germany
Rheinkraftwerk
Sckingen AG
Lower Colorado
River Authority
80
comp.
1997
Auxiliary
Equipment
Replacement
Texas
Asset
Management
British
Columbia
BC Hydro
Hydro
Improvement
France
Electricit de
France
Jupi *
Brazil
Companhia
Energtica de So
Paulo
6
plants
270
in
prog.
ASCE 97
1999
6
9746
23100
to be determined
ongoing
HR 4/98
per com
ongoing
HRW
winter 95
14
1411
planned
HRW 10/96
2-11
Table 2-1
Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects (in order of mention in text) (continued)
Program,
Project, or
Powerhouse [a]
State (U.S.),
Province
(Canada),
or Country
Hydroelectric Life
Extension
Texas
Owner
Lower Colorado
River Authority
Section
No(s).
No. of
Units
MW
[b]
Status
[c]
economic evaluation of
rehabilitation and upgrade projects,
project planning
6
plants
270
in
prog.
Small Plant
Rehabilitation
North
Carolina,
South
Carolina
Duke Power
Hydro
Modernization
Several
states in
eastern Midwest
American Electric
Power Corporation
Beauharnois *
Qubec
Hydro-Qubec
Nine Mile *
Washington
Washington Water
Power
Boundary
Washington
Cost
$million
[d]
Source
[e]
HR 2/98
per com
2005+
17
plants
900+
38
1666
6.8
comprehensive rehabilitation of
entire plant
in
prog.
HV audio
in
prog.
HV audio
in
prog.
per com
C1500
HR 12/97
2002+
comp.
ASCE 93
1995?
1051
in
prog.
88
ASCE 97
6.4
HR 2/98
11.5
HR 2/98
10.4
HR 2/98
2008
Inks *
Buchanan *
Texas
Texas
Lower Colorado
River Authority
Lower Colorado
River Authority
11.4
comp.
1997
25
in
prog.
1999
Austin *
Brfell *
2-12
Texas
Iceland
Lower Colorado
River Authority
Landsvirkjun
15.0
comp.
1994
210
in
prog.
HV paper
Asterisk (*) indicates program or project is listed in Table 2-2 Capacity and Efficiency Improvements
b.
Capacity of units rehabilitated or upgraded (or planned to be rehabilitated or upgraded) prior to the work; capacities are presented for comparison and may be nominal values
c.
d.
e.
2-13
Table 2-2
Capacity and Efficiency Improvements (in order of decreasing MW prior to upgrade)
Program or Project
Owner
Section
No(s).
No. of
Units
13
Beauharnois
Hydro Qubec
Jupi
Rocky Reach
Companhia Energtica de
So Paulo
3,4
Type of
Units
Capacity
Prior
(MW) [a]
Capacity
After
(MW) [a]
Capacity
Gain
(MW)
Francis
2275
2600
325
27
Francis
1666
11
propeller
14
Kaplan
1411
Efficiency
Cost
Gain [b] $million
[c]
1-2%
280
13% [d]
C1500
308
(22/unit)
Kaplan
propeller
1280
1316
36
116
75
-> Kaplan
Wanapum
Muddy Run
PECO Energy
Hydro Modernization
Completed to date:
Tennessee Valley
Authority
10
Kaplan
900
1125
225
3,5
pumpturbine
800*
864*
64*
2,6
4% gen
700+
850+
152
5.7%
88
Shasta
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation
4,6
Francis
328
426
98
Brfell
Landsvirkjun
Francis
230
300
70
4%
Holm
Pelton
150
169
19
4%
Yale
PacifiCorp
Francis
100*
140*
40*
9%
2-14
40
varies
23
Total program:
4% pump
21
15
New Moccasin
Kirkwood
John Hollis Bankhead
Stechovice
Forbestown
Big Creek 1
Tafjord K2
Buchanan
Chippewa Falls
Austin
Inks
Bennetts Bridge
Twin Branch
Owner
Section
No(s).
No. of
Units
Type of
Units
Pelton
Capacity
Prior
(MW) [a]
112
Capacity
After
(MW) [a]
115
Capacity Efficiency
Gain
Gain [b]
(MW)
1.2%
3
expected
2
2.5%
Pelton
84
86
propeller
46*
52*
6*
2->1
pumpturbine
42
Oroville-Wyandotte
Irrigation District
Southern California
Edison Company
Francis
36.3
53/50
[e]
40.7
4.4
7.1%
36
unkwn
unkwn
14%
3
6
2
2
Pelton
dbl. runner
Pelton
Kaplan
28
25
34
34
6
9
6%
2
4
10%
Cost
$million
[c]
.9
expected
1.3
4
0.64
3
11.5
21.6
24+
2+
Kaplan
Kaplan ->
propeller
Kaplan
15.0
17.3
2.3
10.4
Francis
11.5
14.9
3.4
6.4
7.5
9.9
2.4
10.5%
6 ->8
Francis
dbl. disch.
Francis to
semiKaplans
7.3
4.8
(2.5)
61% [d]
1.0
2-15
Table 2-2
Capacity and Efficiency Improvements (in order of decreasing MW prior to upgrade) (continued)
Program or Project
Owner
Section
No(s).
No. of
Units
Type of
Units
Capacity
Prior
(MW) [a]
Capacity
After
(MW) [a]
Capacity
Gain
(MW)
Berrien Springs
4->12
Francis to
semiKaplans
7.2
7.2
Nine Mile
Washington Water
Power
Francis
6.8
20
13.2
Efficiency
Gain [b]
Cost
$million
[c]
23% [d]
quadrunner
dbl. draft
Great Falls
Francis
Tuxedo
Francis
Lookout Shoals
Francis
0.8
0.8
Totals (approximate)
175
10,300
1400
Capacity (MW) values do not necessarily represent official plant or unit ratings and should be considered nominal; capacity (MW) values given are known or understood to
represent maximum output, except that values noted with an asterisk (*) are known to represent best efficiency output
b.
Nominal improvement in maximum (best gate) efficiency except as noted; see [d]
c.
d.
e.
2-16
3
TURBINES AND PUMP-TURBINES
Many very old hydroturbines are still operating; some of them are more than 100 years old, and
some are virtually unchanged from the originals. Large, reversible pump-turbines first installed
in the United States in the 1960s were of relatively primitive design, reflecting the developing
technology at that time. Most hydro plant rehabilitation and upgrade projects involve the turbines
(or pump-turbines) and result in significant improvements in capacity, efficiency, and reliability.
Development of specifications
Specification solicitation
Bid evaluation
Award
Re-assembly
Commercial operation
3-1
Visual inspection of the following components and areas of the existing turbines is
recommended: [1]
Cavitation areas, specifically the runner and the throat or discharge ring
Main shaft packing box and wicket gate stem packing condition
Model testing and prototype acceptance testing are performed under the test codes of the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) or the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. [9]
Reaction Turbines
Francis Turbines and Pump-Turbines
Very old turbines are relatively inefficient due to their design. In particular, relatively little
attention was paid to avoiding head loss in water passageways in early plants. Unfortunately,
correcting or rebuilding waterways (intakes, penstocks, spiral cases, and draft tubes) is often not
cost-effective, so an upgraded unit must frequently be placed in a less than ideal setting. Runner
settings are often too high by modern standards, resulting in excessive cavitation.
In Francis runners, efficiency improvements can often be obtained by reshaping (grinding)
runner vane edges. Cutting back runner tips can also increase the runner vent area, admitting
more flow. For existing runners, restoration of runner vane surfaces to original shape can provide
a dramatic improvement in performance and power; cavitation repairs (overlays) over the life of
the units can in some instances significantly choke the runner. Frequently, templates of the
original runner vane contours no longer exist.
Solving Draft Tube Hydraulic Instability in a High-head Turbine Upgrade
Control of air flow to the draft tube can be an important consideration in a turbine upgrade. The
Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation Districts Forbestown Powerhouse, in California, contains a
single, Francis unit under almost 800 ft (250 m) of net head. The unit was placed into operation
in 1963. The upgrade began in 1989 with the installation of a new runner. The new runner did
not meet the efficiency guarantee and experienced hydraulic instability in the draft tube at low
loads, causing rough operation. Air venting through the 6-in. (15-cm) opening in the hollow shaft
3-3
smoothed operation at all loads but reduced power and efficiency. A redesigned nose cone failed
to stabilize the draft tube swirl. The hollow shaft was then plugged with a steel plate having a
2-in. (5-cm) opening; this admitted sufficient air to stabilize the flow without reducing power or
efficiency. Finally, in 1991, the original, mild steel wicket gates were replaced with new stainless
steel gates of the original design; the original gates were badly eroded and the surfaces distorted
due to welding and grinding. The results of the entire upgrade were that maximum turbine output
(in MW equivalents) increased to 40.7 MW from 36.3 MW and peak turbine efficiency increased
to 91.4% from 84.3%. Turbine output was determined by assumed generator efficiency. [11,12]
Pump-Turbine Design
The design of pump-turbines is a more complex process than the design of conventional,
one-way Francis turbines. Pump-turbines should be designed with special attention to meeting
the demands of the system. It is essential to combine computer design techniques with
homologous model tests. There are significant conflicts in designing for good performance in
both turbine and pump modes. The challenge frequently is to maximize turbine power as
constrained by motor capacity. Design technique involves special contouring at the blade pump
inlet. Maximum pumping head is higher than maximum turbine head, due to hydraulic losses;
suitable blade angles for high pump head cause inefficiencies in turbining, particularly at low
heads. Cavitation in turbining does not normally limit the design, but cavitation is critical at high
head pumping and will affect the blade angles. It is necessary to compensate for fluid-structure
interactions, including penstock pressure rise under full load rejection. Wicket gate vibrations
can be caused by runner pressure pulsations causing resonance; a close gap between wicket gates
and the runner exacerbates this problem. Within these constraints, the designer has some leeway
to favor turbine vs. pump performance, or high power vs. high efficiency. [13]
Medium-Sized Plant Upgraded for Capacity
PacifiCorps Yale Project, located in Washington State, was a bottleneck on its river system.
The plant has two Francis units. Output was limited by the turbines to 67 MW; the generators
were rated at 73 MW. The turbine runners were upgraded to match the generator output. The
owner specified certain efficiencies and capacities to be guaranteed. No model test was
performed. The upgrade consisted of: replacing the runners with new runners designed by
interactive computer, with lengthened runner bands; modifying stationary wheelcase
components; removing and replacing the discharge ring; re-machining the stationary seal rings;
re-babbitting and modifying bearing shoes for a new high pressure oil lift system; replacing
packing; refurbishing servomotors; rebuilding bearing oil pumps; re-tubing oil coolers;
cleaning/painting generator stator and rotor; upgrading the plant busbar; testing generator
components; replacing insulation; installing new solid-state excitation, electronic speed sensors,
and a new PLC control system; and rebuilding breakers. Comparison of the results of index
testing of the upgraded units and the original units indicated an efficiency improvement of about
9% at the best efficiency point. The capacity at best efficiency point was increased by over
20 MW. [14]
3-4
upgraded unit has shown virtually no cavitation after five years of operation. [15] The turbine
and generator ratings of the upgraded units are 200 MW and 215 MVA, respectively. By 2006,
NYPA expects to have spent about $280 million upgrading all thirteen units at the Robert Moses
plant. [16]
Upgrading a Small, Old Unit
Unit 2 at Niagara Mohawk Power Corporations (NMPC) Bennetts Bridge Hydro Development
in New York State is a 7.2-MW, horizontal Francis, double discharge turbine with a directconnected synchronous generator, 1914 vintage, subsequently converted from a frequency of
25 Hz to 60 Hz. By the early 1990s, the severely pitted, cracked condition of the runner and
several other deficiencies in the turbine and generator led to a decision to upgrade the unit. The
principal goal was to extend life, but it was hoped also to increase capacity and efficiency. The
stator had been last rewound 20 years ago, and the generator was in need of complete
refurbishment. The governor and spiral case were good condition, and the significant leakage
through wicket gates was not a major concern since minimum downstream flow was needed in
any case for the fishery.
Upgrading the turbine consisted of replacing the runner, turbine shaft, wicket gate bushings, and
linkage. Wicket gates and operating ring, governor regulating shafts, packing collars, connecting
rod pins, and turbine bearings were refurbished. The new runner had more and longer buckets,
and a larger discharge area than the original. The head cover and bottom ring were modified.
Replacement of the turbine shaft was necessary to accept the higher horsepower loading of the
new runner. The maximum capacity increased from 7.5 MW to 9.9 MW, and the efficiency at
best gate increased by over 10%.
A few problems that arose during the Unit 2 work are noteworthy. Rebuilding of the distributor
was attempted in the field, but fitting problems led to parts being shipped to the manufacturers
shop for rework. For the subsequent units, fit-up problems were avoided by performing the
distributor work in the manufacturers shop in the first place. A problem with the Unit 2 work
was how to handle the 32-ton (29,000-kg) flywheel; ultimately it was blocked in place and
presented no major problem in reassembly. A piece broke from one of Unit 2s draft tube elbows
during disassembly when the elbow, with a bolt left in the mounting flange, was lifted by a
crane. A metal-stitching process was used to rejoin the broken piece to the body of the elbow.
The success with the work on Unit 2 led to rehabilitating and upgrading the other three units at
Bennetts Bridge. The four unit upgrades at Bennetts Bridge resulted in an average capacity
increase of over 33% and an average efficiency increase of over 6%.
NMPC served as the general contractor for all the Bennetts Bridge upgrades and for similar
rehabilitation and upgrade projects at other plants. Separate contracts were let for the turbine and
the generator work. The arrangement was satisfactory, although there were occasional instances
of forces called to other jobs, with minor schedule effects. Subsequent downsizing of the
companys workforce has reduced NMPCs ability to complete rehabilitations in a timely
manner while performing normal maintenance activities; consequently, some current jobs are
being bid out. [17,18]
3-6
Cylinder Gates
In considering upgrading two 3-MW Francis units at its Great Falls plant, Duke Power evaluated
replacing the existing cylinder gates with more efficient wicket gates. However, conversion to
wicket gates would have required considerable concrete excavation and could not be justified.
Installation of new turbines with cylinder gates was chosen over unit retirement or new units
with wicket gates. The generator insulation was upgraded, and improved controls were installed.
Unit output increased to 4 MW. [19]
Two Pumped Storage Plant Upgrades
The redevelopment of the 42-MW, 210-m head Stechovice Pumped Storage Plant in the Czech
Republic raised the capacity to 50 MW and increased efficiency. One unit (with a single-stage
pump-turbine) replaced two units (each with a two-stage pump and turbine on a common shaft),
with a drastic increase of submergence to minimize cavitation. This resulted in the need for an
unusual, S-shaped pump suction/turbine draft tube. The two original 1.7-m diameter penstocks
were joined into a new 2.2-m diameter penstock at approximately the level of the turbine
distributors of the former units. Extensive transient studies indicated the need for a surge tank in
the upper penstock. Ecological requirements included self lubricated housings for the wicket
gates and gate operating mechanism, exhaustion of oil vapors from bearings, installation of oil
leakage sensors, all stainless water piping, and asbestos-free sealing materials.
Extensive model tests were conducted on the new pump-turbine. The entire S-tube was included
in the homologous hydraulic model because the manufacturers performance guarantee included
losses in the S-tube. Higher than normal values of pressure pulsation occurred in the S-tube
during low load model turbine operation (below 70%); low-load operation was important to the
owner. An air injection solution appeared uneconomic. The solution was the addition of fins in
the S-tube combined with natural air admission. A no-cavitation condition was confirmed by the
tests.
A field acceptance test was conducted by an independent contractor. Discharge was measured by
propeller meters in both of the upper penstocks; the accuracy of the prototype flow measurement
by propeller meter is considered to be 1.2%. All efficiency guarantees were met. At
commissioning, problems with rough pressure pulsations and rotor vibrations occurred in the
synchronous condensing operating mode. The solution was to decrease cooling water discharge
to the runner/impeller seals and to open the connecting pipe between the suction cone and the
spiral case. Condensing operation is now satisfactory in both directions.
The Stechovice acceptance tests showed significant shifting of the flow and power vs. head
relationships in the pumping mode (some 2-3% greater discharge and power at the same head in
the operating range) than predicted by International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 995.
[20] This could be a potential problem for the motor-generator if proper allowance is not made.
This phenomenon has been observed at other pumped storage plants in the Czech Republic.
Other formulae for converting model-to-prototype performance have been developed from model
and field acceptance tests of pump-turbines and are being proposed. [21,22]
3-7
PECO Energy has upgraded the eight pump-turbines (rated 110 MW as turbines) and the plant
controls at the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Plant, in Pennsylvania. The impeller-runners were
replaced by a new design. The average cycle efficiency has increased by approximately 10%.
The project also included replacing the unit main bus, installing static exciters, and upgrading the
relay protection system. The project cost was about $40 million. [23]
The Muddy Run impeller-runner vendor was selected by competitive model testing. The owner
specified how relative value of the rehabilitated pump-turbines would be calculated. [24]
At the start of the job, the anticipated pump-turbine upgrade was limited to impeller-runner and
wicket gate replacement; in the end, the head covers, bottom ring, turbine bearing, and bearing
housing all were replaced. Self-lubricating bushings were installed. The runner-impeller crown
and band were cast stainless steel, with integral machined upper and lower seals. The buckets
were formed from stainless plate. New, reshaped stainless wicket gates were installed. The
wearing rings were replaced with a labyrinth style. The new head covers provided more rigidity
in the bearing housing area; the bearing was lowered for stiffness and is of a new type, allowing
easier access and adjustment. The stay ring was modified for stress reduction. Before-and-after
index and capacity tests were performed. The upgrade achieved an increase of 4% in pumping
efficiency, a decrease of 3.5% in pumping power, an increase of 4% in turbine efficiency, and an
increase of 8 MW in output at the best efficiency point. [25]
Units 8-11 will have new five-bladed Kaplan runners. Shaft systems will be modified to permit
blade control. Stay vanes will be modified, distributors refurbished, new greaseless bushings
installed, and discharge rings replaced with larger diameter, stainless steel rings affording a
lower runner setting. Other work will include replacement of generator stators, thrust bearings,
and governor oil systems, and the installation of new digital governors and PLC controls.
The diameters of the Units 8-11 runners will be increased by 5%, and a semi-spherical discharge
ring will be installed. The runner chamber will be redesigned. The runner will have a fully
spherical upper hub surface. A power increase of 15% is expected. Opening tendency for the
blades at all operating conditions is required. The Units 8-11 turbine work was sole-sourced to
the manufacturer of Units 1-7 for practicality and continuity. An independent confirmation of the
manufacturers model test results will be required. Further work was done to increase efficiency
at full load. CFD analysis led to model testing of stay vane modification. A difficult construction
will be the tapered extension of the lower head cover to match the top diameter of the hub of the
new runner.
The Units 8-11 runner blades will be single-piece castings each weighing 14 tons; a disadvantage
of the single-piece castings is that the runner must be disassembled for shipment to the site. A
new governor system, with higher oil pressures and new servomotors, will be installed. Wicket
gates and operating mechanisms will be reused. All bushings will be greaseless. A digital
governor and PLC system for unit controls will be installed. Thrust and guide bearings will
be replaced for increased weight and thrust. Removal of the imbedded discharge ring and
re-imbedment of a new discharge ring and associated parts will be challenging. To minimize
outage time, work is planned to occur simultaneously at the draft tube, the turbine and the
generator levels of the units. [26]
Upgrading a Medium-Sized Propeller Turbine
Alabama Power Company upgraded the single unit at its John Hollis Bankhead Plant. The
six-bladed propeller runner and the discharge liner were replaced. The wicket gates and
servomotors were refurbished. The rated capacity increased from about 46 MW to over 52 MW.
The upgrade project cost about $4 million. [28]
Rehabilitation of Small Propeller Turbines
The expense of homologous model testing cannot normally be justified for runner replacements
at small plants. Northern States Powers Chippewa Falls Plant in Wisconsin had six 3-MW
Kaplan units, each with an antiquated water passage design. Proposals were obtained from
manufacturers for six new runners that were identical in shape; two of the runners would be
Kaplans and four would be fixed-blade propellers. The manufacturers provided guaranteed
efficiencies based on test results from their closest models. The known efficiency of a given
turbine design that has been modeled can be adjusted, within limits, in accordance with the
differences in model-to-prototype features; e.g., wicket gate height, wicket gate pin circle
diameter, stay vanes, intake, draft tube, and runner centerline elevation. The changes in
efficiency can be estimated by calculating relative head losses or by the results of model tests of
alternative designs, if available. The manufacturers adjustments to the performances of their
3-9
respective models could be verified for reasonableness based upon the model-to-prototype
differences. The most competitive manufacturers proposed to perform a limited model test of the
new runner and wheelcase with the existing draft tube, in order to demonstrate efficiency prior to
manufacture of the prototypes. In this way, the owner was reasonably assured of a good design
and could evaluate bid prices based on expected performance. Also, the two Kaplan units were
manufactured first so that index testing could establish the optimum blade angle for the four
fixed-blade propeller units. [29] The plant is currently rated at 24 MW. [27]
Submersible Replacement Units
American Electric Power (AEP) has installed a total of 20 submersible, adjustable-blade,
semi-Kaplan units with cylinder gates, at two old plants. At the Twin Branch Plant in Indiana,
AEP replaced six multi-runner, open flume units with eight submersible units. The submersible
units were selected from among proposals offering a variety of units on the basis of the following
evaluation criteria: minimizing structural modification and need for cofferdams, optimizing use
of standard components, simplifying maintenance procedures and access, and optimizing control
of unit operations. The cofferdam required with several options was a critical cost factor. The
additional efficiency of double-regulated units could not be justified economically; single on-off
controls provided the best return on investment. The choice of submersibles allowed phased
installation, delaying replacement of some units. The scope of supply included the turbinegenerators, turbine seats, conical draft tubes, cylinder gates, hydraulic gate activators,
accessories, and spare parts. The generators are 600-kW induction types; the use of induction
generators required consideration of plant location and capacity with respect to the bulk power
system. The turbines have planetary speed increasers to match the generator speeds.
The arrangement of two submersible units per bay was tested in a hydraulic model. With the
addition of flow deflector plates behind each cylinder gate, the model indicated good hydraulics
without modification of the flumes. The main advantages of the submersible units are simplicity
and ease of installation; total installation was from above, eliminating the need for cofferdams.
The capacity rating of the Twin Branch plant decreased from 7.3 MW to 4.8 MW, but energy
production increased significantly. [30]
AEP performed a similar upgrade at its Berrien Springs Plant, in Michigan. Twelve 600-kW
submersible units identical to the Twin Branch replacement units replaced four open-flume,
Francis camel-back units with quad runners, with essentially no change in plant capacity. Fish
mortality was a concern at Berrien Springs; AEP estimates that the upgraded plant has resulted in
a 4 to 5% reduction in mortality, due to the greater distance between runner blades and the
reduced plant hydraulic discharge. [27]
Upgrading Large Turbines for Fish-Friendliness
The development of fish friendly hydroturbines is proceeding under the joint sponsorship of
the U.S. Department of Energy, several industry sponsors, and EPRI. Some owners of major
hydro facilities are incorporating fish friendly features into designs of replacement units. New
Kaplan turbine designs are incorporating features such as smaller clearances, spherical discharge
ring surfaces, and spherical surfaces at the blade-hub interface (created by pockets in the hub) to
3-10
reduce fish mortality; the hub pockets tend to cause undesirable hydraulic disturbances, however.
Wicket gate clearance and configuration relative to the bottom ring in propeller units can be
designed to reduce fish mortality. An example is the Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant
Countys Wanapum Project on the Columbia River in Washington State. The design of the
Kaplan replacement runners being installed at Wanapum includes hub pockets, and the design
was changed from five to six blades in order to reduce the disturbance at the pockets to
acceptable levels. The wicket gates were matched to the stay vanes to reduce obstacles and
improve flow characteristics, as well as to reduce the potential for fish strikes. In general,
minimizing cavitation also enhances the survival of fish passing through a turbine. [31]
Proper layout
Optimum combination of speed, pitch circle diameter (PCD), and net head
Old Pelton runners often have bolt-on buckets and poor inlet hydraulics. Wear and tear reduces
efficiency. A common problem is too high speed as a result of frequency change; runner speed
greatly changes efficiency. The runner design compromises between structural and hydraulic
designs. Many Pelton wheels must tolerate frequent load cycles.
The rotation of discharge water due to too small a ratio of PCD to bucket size loses efficiency.
Turbine housing is critical, especially for horizontal turbines. Space is needed, especially at the
upstream end of the housing, so that water (highly aerated) can effectively escape the wheel and
drain to the pit. Proper baffle plate design prevents interference of the discharge water with the
runner and the jet. Too close placement of nozzles with respect to the runner circumference
causes interference. An increase of nozzle spacing from 55 to 75 for a two-jet unit greatly
increased efficiency. At the Big Creek No. 1 Powerhouse, in California, two double, singlenozzle, Pelton units were upgraded with new runners and replacement nozzles. The PCDs were
reduced by 8 in to optimize conditions at the rated net head and speed. The turbine housings
were widened and extended on the upstream end for drainage. The governors had to be relocated.
Special baffles were installed in the housings. The efficiency at best power increased by about
14%, and the best efficiency point occurred at a higher output. [33]
Upgrading Pelton turbines can often be economic. Most vertical impulse units have peak
efficiencies at 65% of full load. Old machines often have lower speeds and larger buckets than
modern design. Also, bucket shapes often become distorted after years of repair, without
templates or experienced personnel. This points to new runners. Commissioning tests of original
equipment often indicate efficiencies higher than supported by runner model performance; this
means that gains from replacement runners will be greater than expected based on comparison
with the tested performance of existing runners when first commissioned. Older units tend to
be robust (conservative design); this often allows an uprating without changing components due
to size or stress. [34]
A checklist for Pelton turbine upgrades is: [34]
Waterway sizing
3-12
Needle imbalance
Runner stresses
3-13
isolation valves as well and to make the small units penstock the same diameter as the other
two, anticipating installation of a larger unit in the future. The tunnel coal tar lining was removed
and the tunnel repainted; the Corps discovered that the most effective way to remove coal tar
enamel is ball-peening at 3-4 in. (8-10 cm) intervals. The contractor tried robotic-type equipment
for painting, but the riveted plate construction made this unsuccessful; however, the test showed
the robotic painting system would work on welded steel. The surge tanks, runners, draft tubes,
and scroll cases were repainted. Acoustic flow meters were installed in penstock sections. The
plant was out of service for 2-1/2 years for the upgrade. [36]
3-15
Lessons Learned
A competent model program can achieve the maximum benefit from a turbine or pumpturbine upgrade over the life of the upgraded units. Physical model testing is necessary to
accurately predict prototype efficiency. CFD cannot account for small changes in efficiency
which, for large units, have a large effect on value.
For optimum results in turbine upgrades, attention must be paid to water passages. Wicket
gate height and shape, stay vane, and discharge ring modification can have demonstrable
economic benefits and should be considered.
The draft tube is the most troublesome component in turbine upgrades. Draft tube design and
performance analysis remain as the principal challenges to achieving optimum results.
A experimental nitrite coating of Pelton runner buckets for erosion protection was
unsuccessful due to the high velocity impacts of pebbles and stones.
Experience has shown that IEC 995 formulae for converting homologous model performance
to prototype performance may result in too low a discharge and power in the pumping mode.
The effect could be excessive load on the motor at low heads.
Semi-homologous models can often accurately demonstrate flow in portions of the turbine,
e.g., the draft tube, saving time and expense compared to development of a fully homologous
model turbine.
Original commissioning acceptance tests by the Gibson method often overestimated turbine
efficiency; use of the results of such tests could significantly underestimate the potential
improvement from a turbine upgrade.
The cost of upgrading Pelton turbines can be as low as $100 per kW. Prioritizing Pelton
upgrades in favor of machines with highest head, highest load factor, highest diameter-tobucket width ratio, and lowest efficiency is suggested.
Old Pelton runner buckets that appear to have good contours and smooth finish surfaces may
in fact be relatively inefficient due to distortion of surface shape over the years caused by
repairs.
A thorough supplier quality control program is vital to the success of any rehabilitation or
upgrade project. Building the rehabilitated distributor in the manufacturers shop can
significantly reduce fit-up problems in the field.
3-16
References
1. T. W. Clippinger, Rehabilitation of Existing Hydro, Our Oldest Natural Resource, source
and date unknown.
2. Guide for Hydraulic Machinery Model Testing. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA: June 1988. Report AP-5876.
3. B. Mahe and V. De Henau, Recent Trends in Francis Turbine Uprating, Concepts for the
Future, HCI Publications, 1994, p. 85.
4. The Value of Competitive Model Testing in the Bid Evaluation Process for Hydroelectric
Turbomachinery. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA: July 1985. Report
EM-4174.
5. L. D. Chapman, Panel Session (audiotaped): Great Ideas in Rehab, HydroVision 98
Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
6. M. E. Gass, Hetch Hetchy Water and Power, personal communication, October 1998.
7. D. C. Kee, Ontario Hydro, personal communication, October-November 1998.
8. R. J. Knowlton, New York Power Authority, personal communication, October-November
1998.
9. ASME Hydro Power Technical Committee, The Guide to Hydropower Mechanical Design.
HCI Publications, Kansas City, MO, 1996, pp. 3-2, -21, -24, -26, -29.
10. V. De Henau, M. Sabourin, Y. Labrecque, and B. Papillon, Hydraulic Turbine Design: Will
Computer Simulations Replace Model Testing?, Hydro Review, September 1998, p. 54.
11. S. C. Onken, Turbine Uprating and Incremental Gains Made With Each Change,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1993, Volume 3, p. 2006.
12. S. C. Onken, Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District, personal communication, November
1998.
13. W. H. Colwill and S. A. Chacour, Pump-Turbine Upgrades: Measuring the Benefits of New
Designs, Hydro Review, November 1996, p. 38.
14. S. M. Murray and F. B. Siebensohn, Yale Hydroproject Upgrade, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997,
Volume 3, p. 1641.
15. R. J. Knowlton, P. W. Ludewig, and J. H. Phillips, Ensuring Optimum Performance From
the Machines, Hydro Review, April 1998, p. SR8.
3-17
16. J. L. Ford and J. Grzan, Challenging Change: NYPA Rehabilitates Robert Moses Power
Plant, Hydro Review, April 1998, p. SR2.
17. P. A. Bernhardt, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, personal communication,
October 1998.
18. P. A. Bernhardt, Rehabilitation of Unit #2 at Bennetts Bridge Hydro, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993,
Volume 3, p. 1607.
19. T. A. Jablonski, Replacement Of Great Falls Units 1 & 2 Hydro Turbines, Proceedings of
the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993,
Volume 3, p. 1537.
20. IEC Publication 995, International Electromechanical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland,
1991.
21. J. Spidla, Rehabilitation of Stechovice Pumped Storage Plant, Paper presented at
HydroVision 98 Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
22. J. Spidla, CKD Blansko Engineering a.s., personal communication, October-November 1998.
23. PECO Energy Completes Rehab At Conowingo, Muddy Run, Hydro Review,
September 1998, p. 66.
24. F. R. Harty, Jr., J. Geuther, T. Jenkins, and T. Callahan, Evaluating and Specifying Pumped
Storage Upgrades, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 3, p. 1683.
25. J. L. Kepler and T. W. Jenkins, Case Study for the Upgrade and Rehabilitation of a Pumped
Storage Installation - Muddy Run Powerhouse, Proceedings of the International Conference
on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 3, p. 1591.
26. J. J. Hron, C. A. McKee, A. Bramati, and G. Rossi, Rocky Reach Kaplan Turbine
Replacement, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 2, p. 1428.
27. E. Fulton, Preparing for the Twentieth-First Century: Environmental Protection,
Efficiency, Hydro Review, November 1998, p. 10.
28. Alabama Power Completes Upgrade at Bankhead Hydro Plant, Hydro Review,
September 1998, p. 66.
29. M. Holmberg, B. Zawacki, D. R. Froehlich, and J. Singleton, Upgrade of the Chippewa
Falls Hydroelectric Turbines, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993, Volume 3, p. 1545.
3-18
30. R. E. Dool and S. M. Abelin, Upgrading of AEPs Twin Branch Hydroelectric Plant,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1993, Volume 3, p. 1659.
31. J. J. Hron, J. B. Strickler, and J. M. Cybularz, Wanapum Kaplan Turbine Replacement,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1997, Volume 1, p. 412.
32. W. H. Colwill, American Hydro Corporation, personal communication, October 1998.
33. P. Ligaard, Modern Technology Successfully Applied in Pelton Turbine Upgrades,
Concepts for the Future, HCI Publications, 1994, p. 77.
34. M. E. Gass, Modernization and Performance Improvements of Vertical Pelton Turbines,
Hydropower & Dams, Issue Two, 1998, p. 25.
35. J. Dahlberg, W. Forsmark, and J. VanHoven, Clam River Dam Unit 3 Powerhouse
Rehabilitation, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 2, p. 1351.
36. R. W. Bockerman and D. F. Miller, Fort Peck - Power Plant No. 1 Penstock Replacement,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1993, Volume 3, p. 1507.
37. W. A. Maynard, Replacement of the Wood Stave Penstock and Turbine Runners at Tuxedo
Hydro Plant, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1993, Volume 3, p. 1574.
3-19
4
GENERATORS AND MOTOR-GENERATORS
Generators and motor-generators are complex, electromechanical machines that suffer electrical
and mechanical stress and deterioration. Windings and cores are especially subject to
degradation, resulting in lost efficiency. Generators at old hydro plants often are neglected and
may have operated since the early 1900s with the original windings. The common element of
rehabilitating or upgrading generators and motor-generators is rewinding. The predominate
causes of failure are failure of stator winding insulation, deterioration of stator core pressure and
inter-laminate insulation, and field coil insulation problems. The number of engineers
experienced in generator insulation has dwindled. Problems often are not realized until too
late. [1]
What is the machines present condition and how much longer can it operate?
What would be the total cost for repair after a sudden failure vs. a planned repair based on
existing condition?
A survey of U.S. owners indicates a large majority are unprepared to answer those five
questions. A comprehensive discussion of tests, recommended contractual and monitoring
procedures, and common pitfalls in generator rewinding is presented in Hydro Generator
Rewinds: Planning for Success, Hydro Review, May 1996. [1]
Several tests are recommended in an assessment of the potential for upgrading a generator. A
controlled heat run can be used to predict cooling requirements at uprated load. Machine losses
can be segregated into components by speed-no-load, open circuit, and short-circuit tests. Pole
saturation tests can determine potential loading of field poles. Historic test reports and outage
reports may provide useful information. Testing can accurately measure fixed (windage, friction,
and core) and variable (copper and stray) losses. Computer models can provide good assessments
if sufficient, reliable data are available. Caution is advised that post-commissioning
modifications may have altered original values. [2] The standard for generator testing in the
United States is American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (ANSI/IEEE) 115. [3] EPRIs Hydropower Plant Modernization Guide addresses the
application of generator test results to rehabilitation and upgrading. [4]
TVA measures heat transfer through generator air coolers, electrical heat within the machine,
contribution from bearing friction, and heat conducted through housing to/from the outside
environment. The variation of stator and field temperature rise with the square of the respective
current is essentially linear and can be plotted to predict temperature rise at higher loads.
However, since the relationship of field temperature rise to the square of the current is less linear
than for the stator, additional margin for field temperature rise is recommended. ANSI code
allows a temperature rise of 90C for Class F insulation. (TVA limits Class F temperature rise to
80C.) TVA attempts to test at 50% and 100% load, with heavy reactive loading.
Design changes will affect heat losses. For example: rewinding changes copper lossthe effect
of changes in copper area can be estimated; changing fan and baffles changes windage loss, not
easily estimated by hand calculation; and changing pole dimensions or configuration changes
field copper loss. To raise the loading limit requires measures such as higher class insulation,
upgraded ventilation (which may affect air cooler performance), improvement of air coolers, or
shimming behind pole bodies to decrease air gap; this latter measure requires expert advice
concerning the effect on reactances and other electrical circuits, and potential mechanical
problems. ANSI standards limit air cooler outlet temperature to 40C for temperature rise
purposes; this may be a consideration during warmer months. [2]
In one case, a rotor had been shipped for rehabilitation; severe cracking in the hub-to-spider arm
area was noticed after the pole pieces had been removed and sandblasting had occurred. In this
case, thorough investigation of the rotor spider was undertaken, additional surface cracks were
found, and a detailed stress and fracture mechanics review was performed. Fabrication or casting
of a new spider was considered, but, due to time constraints, it was decided to cut out and weld
repair all visible cracks. The repair took about three weeks. [5]
Allow sufficient time for a quality rehabilitation job (four months for small projects after
bidding; one year for large machines including 3-5 months for bidding and evaluation)
Match the manufacturer to proven capability for the type and size of machines
Some owners ask pre-qualified contractors to supply samples of winding materials for tests and
design checks and to provide references involving the same rewinding materials and insulation
system. Operating characteristics such as current loading, rated voltage and voltage stress of the
insulation to ground, stator core length, operating temperature, and starts/load cycles of the
reference units should match the project units. Less important are rpm, kVA, power factor (PF),
and frequency. A good specification is invaluable. Careful handling of materials and windings at
the job site is important. Close inspection is required. Verification testing should not be waived
to hasten restart. Comprehensive monitoring and testing should begin immediately after recommissioning. [1]
Generator Protection
Generally, older generators have protection shortcomings. There are risks in not providing
adequate protection. Hydro generator protection can be enhanced using digital technology.
Generators require protection not only from short circuits but also from abnormal electrical
conditions, e.g., over-excitation, over-voltage, loss of field, unbalanced currents, reverse power,
and abnormal frequency. Multifunctional digital relaying is an ideal way to upgrade protection;
required features can be supplied in a single package. Communication with the relays can be
installed, and metering quantities within the relays can be accessed. [6]
4-3
Annual Benefit
to nameplate capacity
$5.3 million
0.5 million
(incremental)
to 142 MW (upgraded)
0.8 million
(incremental)
Total
$6.6 million
Economic justification was based on energy only since the applicable power contracts are limited
to the sale of energy. The upgrade work includes:
Replacement of armature windings and stator cores for 80/75C temperature rise for output
of 142,000 kVA at unity PF
Installation of redesigned rotor fans and shroud systems, static exciters, and static voltage
regulation and excitation control systems
Installation of segmented main thrust bearings with high-pressure lubrication to allow for
rapid restart
4-4
The upgraded generators are required to be capable of (1) charging the transmission line without
becoming self-excited or unstable at not less than 107,000 kVAR at zero PF under-excited and
(2) absorbing load of 80,000 kVAR at zero PF over-excited without exceeding temperature rise
limitations. The guaranteed generator efficiency is 98.70%, to be confirmed by heat run tests.
(Reclamation calculates generator efficiencies to 0.01%.) Sensors were installed as part of the
upgrade, as were instruments for checking shaft runout and vibration. Reclamation specified that
maximum efficiency be at full load and rated power factor.
In planning the upgrade, the initial step was to collect data from existing generators including
dimensions, measured temperature rises, field voltage and currents at rated load, open circuit
field characteristics, losses, and reactances. The contractor analyzed the data by a proprietary
computer program, calibrating output to match the existing machines and calibrating the flux
distribution in the air gap. In these analyses, the more data gathered, the better the design.
The computer simulation achieved a new design with least intervention in the existing machine.
Replacement of the stator winding and core provided the best opportunity to maximize efficiency
and output. Analysis included a mechanical analysis. During dismantling, some of the tightening
bolts expected to be reused were found to be broken; this resulted in redesign of the bolts using
high-grade steel, thus reducing the number of bolts and the cost of bolt replacement. [7,8]
The new generators were anchored to the existing sole plates, and their shafts were connected to
the existing turbine shafts. The new generators were connected to the plants 480-volt auxiliary
electrical system. Special attention was paid to possible shaft vibrations and avoidance of
harmonic frequencies in the generators. Testing at the manufacturers facility included a 200%
speed test (1200 rpm). The work was accomplished during the main plant rehabilitation, and the
new generators are included in the new plant control system. The units were installed by plant
support forces in 1996. [10]
Developing Technologies
Insulation Systems
Hydro generator design always involves a tradeoff between stator insulation thickness (more is
better for insulation life) and generator size (smaller is less expensive). Development of new
insulation systems using corona-resistant materials and thinner (higher stress) insulation that
would provide equal protection and reduce generator size has been claimed. A manufacturer
partnered with two utilities to test stator bars; in one test, 40 bars with thinner insulation were
included in a rewind to compare to the standard product; the bars were instrumented with
temperature detectors, and partial discharge detectors were inserted. The physical integrity of
insulation systems is important to resist damage from installation or operating vibrations.
Voltage endurance tests are most crucial. The corona-resistant, composite materials tested are
reported to be competent and available for use in generator rewind projects. [13]
4-6
Lessons Learned
Retain a generator specialist for upgrade projects that could affect the generator.
Be prepared for the need to replace iron in the stator core; much time and cost can be saved if
optional contractual provisions are made in advance.
Evaluation of each generator component modification should be made to ensure that each
component modification is necessary or cost-effective.
Examine and analyze mechanical generator parts early; the design or condition of mechanical
components may limit the upgrade potential unless modifications are made. Minimal material
properties should be assumed, due to the variability of material in castings; destructive
testing may provide misleading results for the same reason. Cracks are hard to see in old,
rough-surface castings.
4-7
References
1. H. F. Naeff, Hydro Generator Rewinds: Planning for Success, Hydro Review, May 1996,
p. 44.
2. M. S. Poteet and G. O. Keith, Cooling and Uprate Analysis of Hydro Generators,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1997, Volume 1, p. 740.
3. ANSI/IEEE 115-1983. Test Procedures for Synchronous Machines.
4. Hydropower Plant Modernization Guide. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA: June 1989. Report GS-6419.
5. W. G. Moore, Mechanical Considerations for Uprate and Rehabilitation of HydroGenerators, Paper presented at HydroVision 98 Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
6. C. J. Mozina, Upgrading Hydroelectric Generator Protection Using Digital Technology,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1997, Volume 1, p. 713.
7. M. A. Bauer and C. Millet, Project Spotlight: Uprating Generators at Shasta Powerplant,
Hydro Review, August 1998, p. 104.
8. M. A. Bauer, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, personal communication, October 1998.
9. G. Haines, Improving the Air Gap Mechanical Stiffness Of a Hydrogenerator,
Hydro Review, May 1995, p. 66.
10. D. N. Summers, B. L. Sigmon, S. G. Powell, J. C. Sigmon, and E. M. Brinson, Replacement
of DC Exciter with AC Generator, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 3, p. 1633.
11. B. M. Bickford and D. H. Garrison, Creative Problem Solving at Rocky Reach,
Hydro Review, April 1997, p. SR22.
12. J. A. Norlin, Panel Session (audiotaped): Rehabilitation II - Lessons Learned,
HydroVision 98 Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
13. R. E. Draper and R. H. Rehder, Hydro Generator Insulation Improvements through
Extended Use of Corona Resistant Materials, Proceedings of the International Conference
on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 3, p. 2160.
14. K. Isaksson and T. Karisson, Technology for the Future: Development of a New
Generator, HRW, May 1998, p. 23.
15. H. F. Naeff, ABB Power Generation, Inc., personal communication, October 1998.
16. A New Turbine; A New Generator, Hydro Review, November 1998, p. 14.
17. E. Kita, Y. Ohno, T. Kuwabara, and A. Bando, Gaining Flexibility, Value with AdjustableSpeed Hydro, HRW, Winter 1994, p. 18.
18. Application of Adjustable-Speed Machines in Conventional and Pumped Storage
Hydroelectric Projects. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA: November 1995.
Report TR-105542.
4-8
5
GOVERNORS, CONTROLS, AND AUXILIARIES
Governors and controls are often included in hydro plant rehabilitation or upgrade projects.
Properly operating governors and controls are not only important for plant efficiency and
reliability but also for plant safety. Modern, digital equipment can greatly reduce the human
effort in operating and monitoring a hydro plant while enhancing reliability. Some rehabilitation
and upgrade projects have focused primarily on governors and controls.
Auxiliary systems are also essential to a well-functioning, safe hydro plant. Unfortunately, these
systems may often be neglected in favor of power train components. Some hydro owners have
specific programs to upgrade auxiliary systems. Under certain circumstances, consideration
should be given to rehabilitating or upgrading auxiliary systems prior to the rehabilitation or
upgrade of the major plant components.
Common operation now is to block-load power. Sometimes during volatile situations, six needles
are kept open under pure deflector control. Potential limitations to this type of operation are that
(1) an even number of jets is needed and (2) machine bearings must be capable of accepting
unbalanced loading. [3]
5-2
5-3
Presently, the units are normally loaded from central dispatch. River flows govern loading, and
plant staff calculate river influences and communicate them to central dispatch. After nearly six
years, the automation equipment has performed as expected; there has been no lost generation
due to the automation equipment. Now, in emergencies, units are quickly loaded from standstill
to 85% gate; normal startup is to 10 MW minimum operating load. Plant staffing has been
reduced from about 60 positions before automation to under 30 positions today. [5,6,7]
synchronizing, trip breakers, and load active and reactive power. Wicket gate positions, voltages,
power, indications, fault signals, and energy metering pulses are transmitted to the remote center.
In 1992, the equipment was upgraded in several ways, including addition of instrumentation for
tunnel outlet water level measurement and equipment for dam failure, with separate equipment
for alarm sending. Overall, station efficiency improved 0.5% beyond expectations. The cost of
the upgrade was about US$1.5 million. [9]
Electric Servomotors
In Japan, electric servomotor systems have been developed and implemented to replace oil-based
gate operating systems; over 60 systems have been installed on small and medium-sized Francis
turbines. Electric servomotors up to 55 kW are available; this is sufficient for a 5-second gate
closure of a 60-MW turbine under a head of 100 m or a 90-MW turbine under a head of 200 m.
The advantages of electric servomotor systems are freedom from dealing with hydraulic oil, easy
maintenance, and relative compactness. Reliability has been high, reducing the need for
redundant systems; todays systems have a DC battery bank standby only. The basic design was
developed in the 1980s and has not changed significantly, but features have been improved with
experience.
Application of electric servomotor systems is being extended to Kaplan and Pelton turbines.
Problems with the complexity of Kaplan blade control have been solved; electric servomotors
have been installed at Kaplan units as large as 20 MW. Application to Pelton turbines has been
relatively difficult due to the fast deflector closing speed required in an emergency; this calls for
a very large capacity servomotor. A system equipped with a energy storage spring arrangement
has been devised and installed at both horizontal and vertical Pelton turbines.
The need for fast, emergency shutdown is a significant limitation to the application of electric
servomotor systems. Wider application seems to require development of a more powerful and
compact energy storage system. [10]
Auxiliaries
Auxiliary systems include cranes and hoists, fire protection, grounding, compressed air, HVAC,
sump/drainage, potable water supply, sanitary, station electrical, lighting, and others. All these
systems are important in a well-maintained plant. Antiquated or faulty auxiliaries can be
hazardous and cause disproportionate maintenance attention. Any hydro plant improvement
program should consider the rehabilitation or upgrade of auxiliary systems. Auxiliaries that are
5-5
Replacement of most of the low-voltage auxiliary supply system with a fully redundant DC
supply system
Replacement of turbine governors, start-stop controls, and monitoring systems with digital
equipment
The owner considered not only price and quality but also customer service and communications
variables in selecting equipment suppliers; quality control requirements were adjusted
commensurate with the reputation and experience of each supplier.
Worker input, ideas and incentives were considered in the designing and planning program; a
worker whose idea saved over US$500,000 was awarded US$6000. Workers have been awarded
over US$35,000 for ideas saving some US$1.5 million during the project. The plant began with
39 staff; the target is now 15. The station is fully automated and attaining envisioned
efficiencies. The actual cost was US$17 million (60% of budget). The owner expects full cost
recovery in seven years. [14]
5-6
Lessons Learned
Make sure that powerhouse cranes, crane systems, and all other auxiliaries are ready for the
outage. Cranes, or crane rails or supports, may need to be rehabilitated or upgraded prior to
the unit upgrade, to remedy deficiencies or to increase capacity.
Dealing with the effect of automation on plant personnel is critical. Valued employees should
be given as much notice as possible of planned changes affecting them. The automation
planning process should take personnel into consideration. The participation of plant
personnel in the planning process is very important and may provide cost-saving ideas.
Drawings and prints at plants are often not up-to-date. Major renovations provide the impetus
and opportunity to upgrade the blueprint system.
An in-house person proficient in the hardware and software should be on-site or readily
available for the first year. Small glitches and minor irritations can be dispensed with as
they occur.
Use in-house personnel whenever practical during the installation of a control system to
familiarize them with the equipment.
Keep the system as simple as possible. Minimize the input and output points. Dont merely
try to duplicate the prior system.
Consider being aggressive with control upgrades. It may be economical to upgrade controls
on a system basis in advance of turbine rehabilitations and upgrades; this advanced timetable
could result in realization of enhanced flow control and increased production at the earliest
opportunity.
5-7
References
1. O. Moeller, Panel Session (audiotaped): Rehabilitation II - Lessons Learned, HydroVision
98 Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
2. D. J. Dolezilek, Innovative Instrumentation and Control System Designs Optimize
Hydropower Operations, Paper presented at HydroVision 98 Conference, Reno, NV
(July 1998).
3. T. A. Bauman and D. P. Stead, Software-Based Governor Control Helps Manage Power
Swings, Hydro Review, December 1995, p. 44.
4. C. S. Rogers, J. Webb, and J. Gant, Hydro Automation: Finding the Right Approach,
Hydro Review, April 1996, p. 16.
5. S. Duxbury and R. W. Ferguson, Automation of the Osage Hydroelectric Plant,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1993, Volume 3, p. 1841.
6. R. A. Spicer, D. Dunlop, D. Jarvis, and W. Byers, Managing the People Part of Hydro
Automation, Hydro Review, April 1997, p. 18.
7. D. Jarvis, AmerenUE, personal communication, October 1998.
8. M. Moulay and M. Schoof, Governor Control Upgrades - Castaic Pumped Storage Power
Plant - Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, Paper presented at HydroVision 98
Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
9. S. Andersson, A Retrofit That Worked: Upgrading Trngslet Stations Controls, HRW,
August 1996, p. 16.
10. H. Tanaka, S. Sugimoto, and H. Tomiyasha, Experiences and Developments of Electric
Servomotor Systems for Hydraulic Turbine Control, Paper presented at HydroVision 98
Conference, Reno, NV (July 19980.
11. TVA Develops New Wicket Gate Latches, Hydro Review, November 1998, p. 68.
12. J. A. Norlin, Panel Session (audiotaped): Rehabilitation II - Lessons Learned, HydroVision
98 Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
13. G. Lewis, Panel Session (audiotaped): Great Ideas in Rehab, HydroVision 98 Conference,
Reno, NV (July 1998).
14. B. Lorenz and U. Baum, Hydro Modernization: Optimizing Economics at an Existing
Plant, HRW, September 1997, p. 10.
15. B. D. Foster, Strategic Hydropower System Rehabilitation, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997,
Volume 2, p. 1507.
5-8
6
EVALUATION, PLANNING, MANAGEMENT, AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Owners of systems having many hydro plants have developed a variety of programs and
procedures for evaluating, planning, managing, and implementing rehabilitations and upgrades.
Selected examples are presented.
6-1
6-2
For any proposed rehabilitation, the first step is a thorough evaluation of the effect of the project
on the plant and its operations, costs, and benefits. EDF has identified the following variables:
Expense savings - reduced maintenance costs, reduced downtime, reduced personnel costs,
improved reliability
EDF discounts the time series of all costs and benefits (present worth analysis). A rehabilitation
or upgrade project is profitable when discounted costs are less than discounted benefits. This
allows EDF not only to choose among alternatives but also to optimize the timing of a project;
postponement in expectation of future increased energy values has been shown in some cases to
be the preferred solution even when engineering analysis indicates immediate rehabilitation is
warranted. This approach provides an orderly, consistent way of evaluating and prioritizing the
many possible rehabilitation projects at EDFs hydro facilities in order to maximize the overall
economic benefit. [5]
6-4
Rehabilitation projects compete for scarce funds and require a uniform method of documentation
and justification considering economic, environmental and engineering aspects. Projects are
categorized as: (1) restoring lost efficiency, (2) restoring lost capacity, (3) restoring lost
availability, (4) increasing remaining service life, and (5) improving efficiency. The life cycle
benefits of a major rehabilitation project must exceed the cost, and each component must be
incrementally justified. [11] The cost of the Major Rehabilitation Program is expected to reach or
exceed $450 million. [9]
The Corps has developed standard techniques to evaluate equipment degradation or deterioration
in order to prioritize repairs and replacements. The rate of change of actual labor and materials
costs (relative to inflation) is an indicator of reliability. Trends for future costs are determined
from project records. Replacement of low cost items necessary for production is usually justified
on this basis alone. Evaluation of efficiency and capacity requires analysis of performance, by
testing. Original and current performance levels are compared to establish degradation.
Degradation of availability can be determined from records; continued degradation can be treated
as an objective risk with sufficient supportive information.
The Corps attempts to quantify risk for an objective analysis by estimating annual probabilities
that equipment will need to be replaced or rebuilt; this is akin to insurance mortality analyses.
Curves based upon average experience are adjusted up or down in accordance with a specific
components Condition Indicator (CI). CI values are assigned to each component based on
inspection and test data. CI values in mid-range require no adjustment. A low CI value,
indicating poor condition or worse, would increase the probability of retirement. The Corps is
working with other large utilities to increase its database for stator windings and turbine runners
and to locate or develop databases for other kinds of equipment, e.g., transformers and circuit
breakers. [10,12]
The Corps continues to review its methods. A risk-based Major Maintenance and
Rehabilitation program for reliability and efficiency improvements at hydro plants has been
developed and recommended. [11]
LCRA develops a comprehensive Project Configuration Document that identifies all work
packages for each improvement project and assigns responsibilities. This document identifies the
roles of all involved personnel and is especially helpful in the frequent event of personnel
changeover. There are significant advantages to having plant operating and maintenance
personnel heavily involved in hydro rehabilitations or upgrades. [13,14]
Duke Power
Duke Power initiated an upgrade program to transform its fleet of small hydro plants into an
efficient, reliable, remotely controlled system that would enhance peaking and ancillary services.
Hydro upgrade projects are prioritized on the basis of condition, potential improvement, and the
need to effect river (flow) management. Each hydro improvement project is evaluated and
economically justified on a unit-by-unit basis before final approval and commitment of
funds. [15]
Careful planning is required, with particular attention given to minimizing the loss of generation
due to scheduled outages. The program is reviewed and adjusted annually. Maximum use is
made of in-house forces, with work intensifying during low-flow periods. Design staff are
integrated with field upgrade staff; proximity reduces cost considerably. Beauharnois
management has open purchase orders with suppliers up to C$1 million. Thus far, the plants
annual generation has increased by about 13%, and plant operation and maintenance cost has
been reduced by about 35%. [18,19]
An SCL task force developed a plan for the comprehensive rehabilitation of the entire project.
Planning began with a detailed inspection and assessment of every component of the plant (some
1400 in all), complemented by discussions with operation and maintenance staff and review of
drawings. Basic information and design data, and inspection and testing information and
assessments were compiled in an extensive database. A focused, intensive testing and monitoring
program to complement the information on hand was implemented in 1996; additional detailed
testing will be carried out during the design process as appropriate. The result was a conclusion
that, while the condition of components was acceptable overall, condition was marginal in
critical cases and rehabilitation was justified.
Specific maintenance, repair, modification, replacement or upgrade measures were
recommended for 800 of the 1400 items. Redesign of critical systems was required because
current standards were not met; for example, there was insufficient redundancy in station electric
service. Issues were identified that needed to be addressed globally throughout the project
(e.g. oil containment, safety lockout, and tagging provisions, and development of as-built
information). From these elements was developed a conceptual plan for rehabilitation of the
project.
The Boundary Rehabilitation Program was developed under the City of Seattles Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) Program. CIP narratives and budget sheets were developed to
conform with the CIP process, including an overall budget through 2008 and a detailed budget
for the initial 2-year cycle 1997-98. Ultimately, the Program was approved by SCL management
and the City Council.
A project Concept Plan for planning and design was developed by first assessing the 800 work
items and grouping them into some 300 tasks in consideration of optimum work packaging for
design, procurement, and construction. These tasks were incorporated into the database and
described. Among key principles embodied in development of the Concept Plan were that: work
was to be organized by area, i.e., by equipment or system rather than by engineering discipline
(39 areas defined); work had to be coordinated with scheduled unit outages; and significant
scheduling and design efforts were required at the beginning of the program. The Concept Plan
allows tasks to be assigned to either SCL, the consultant, or both. The focus is on an extensive
database for labor scheduling and costs. As new tasks are defined, the database is updated. [21]
BC Hydro
Since 1995, BC Hydro has had a partnering arrangement with a major supplier of hydro turbines
and generators for an expected 1995 value of C$150 million of improvement work. The
arrangement includes 70% of all work related to turbines in upgrades and to turbines and
generators in additions. BC Hydro selected its partner following negotiations with three
manufacturers who were invited to submit proposals based on expressions of interest. BC Hydro
believes that the arrangement thus far has proven beneficial; they have been able to negotiate
some very fair prices. The arrangement does not provide for bonuses or incentives to the
supplier. [2,27]
Partnering success depends upon cooperation and teamwork, and upon the personal
commitments of the individuals comprising the project management team. Partners should
develop a joint statement of goals and common objectives. Processes to resolve disputes, head
off problems, and evaluate performance should be identified. [28]
switchgear and the lighting system. The estimated cost of the Buchanan work is $11.5 million;
the capacities of Units 1 and 2 are expected to increase to 16.9 MW, from 12.5 MW. LCRA had
accomplished a similar upgrading of its Austin project Units 1 and 2 in 1988-1994, prior to the
partnership agreement; the combined capacity of the two units increased to 17.3 MW, from
15.0 MW. The Austin upgrade cost $10.4 million. [14]
6-11
Lessons Learned
There are many instances where rehabilitation or upgrade seems to make engineering sense
but cannot be justified economically. In such cases, the optimum course may be to continue
routine operation and maintenance; the merits of rehabilitation or upgrading may be
evaluated at a future date if and when there is an increase in forecasted energy and capacity
values. In some cases, the economic course may be to continue operation with minimal
maintenance until equipment fails, followed by abandonment or decommissioning.
In todays changing market for generation and related services, owners of generation
facilities need to be very flexible and to deal with uncertainty in managing assets and asset
investment. Significant risk must be assumed. It is not a given that investing or spending to
increase hydro energy production is the optimum action.
The cost of lost generation and capacity during hydro rehabilitation and upgrade projects can
be considerable and should be taken into account in project justification and planning.
Particularly for upgrades designed to increase capacity (power), a complete system analysis
should be made, checking each component for weak links. The resulting plant or unit
capacity will be determined by the weakest component and could be limited by a
component or device that would have been relatively inexpensive to upgrade or replace at the
time of the capacity upgrade.
Each step of a project should be thoroughly thought through, with attention to detail. Be
prepared for anything to go wrong. Experience has shown that seemingly insignificant items
can cause delay and cost.
Specifications should provide for the testing, removal, and proper disposal of lead paint just
in case; dont assume that all the lead paint on the original equipment has been eroded
away.
Many references and contributors stressed the advantages of involving regular operations and
maintenance staff in the planning and execution of rehabilitations and upgrades. This will
enhance the staffs acceptance and understanding. If operations and maintenance personnel
have time to study the equipment, they can often be very effective at finding solutions and
improvements. Employee recognition or awards programs for offering ideas and suggestions
have proven to be beneficial.
Large organizations should involve their procurement staff in improvement projects very
early in the planning process, in order to ensure that quality is adequately valued in
procurement.
Up-to-date drawings of plant structures, equipment, and systems should be assembled and
made available at the onset of a rehabilitation or upgrade project.
6-12
Think about data management; an infinite amount of data can be obtained, but the amount of
data can be overwhelming and is not all needed.
Involve dispatching people in rehabilitation and upgrade projects, so that they understand the
capabilities of the equipment and the special requirements that may exist as to river (flow)
management.
Integrate design and field staffs for maximum effectiveness and efficiency.
An owner acting as its own general contractor is responsible for and must pay special
attention to staffing and scheduling.
Resolve any potential problems with suppliers regarding equipment performance verification
as early as possible.
The use of liquidated damages (but not bonuses) in Pelton turbine rehabilitations is sufficient
to get the best result.
Designate a single individual (project manager) as the focal point for all parties; the
individual should be dedicated to keeping the job moving smoothly and on schedule and
budget.
Where there is customer participation or other outside interest in a project, keeping all
parties informed of progress and direction is very important to sustain their support.
Pay attention to the disconnection and reconnection of common systems that serve other
units or components.
Be wary of repairing or retrofitting parts of systems. The cost of a few such repairs can
exceed the cost to replace the entire system.
References
1. N. M. Nielsen and N. M. Hawley, Developing a Strategy for Meeting Competitions
Challenges, Hydro Review, April 1998, p. 26.
2. N. M. Hawley and N. M. Nielsen, BC Hydro, personal communication, October 1998.
6-13
6-15
A
CONTACT-LIST
Owners
Alabama Power Co.
Birmingham, Alabama
205-250-1000
Anchorage, Alaska
907-269-3000
AmerenUE
314-554-2873
Columbus, Ohio
614-223-1000
BC Hydro
604-528-1600
Sacramento, California
916-653-4313
Companhia Energtica de
So Paulo
Brazil
Czech Republic
Duke Power
Electricit de France
France
Vinita, Oklahoma
918-256-5545
Moccasin, California
209-989-2130
Hydro-Qubec
Montreal, Qubec
514-289-2211
Landsvirkjun
Iceland
213-481-4211
Austin, Texas
512-473-3200
212-468-6000
704-594-0887
A-1
315-474-1511
715-839-2962
Northwestern Wisconsin
Electric Co.
Grantsburg, Wisconsin
715-463-5371
Ontario Hydro
Toronto, Ontario
416-592-5711
Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation
District
Oroville, California
916-534-1221
PacifiCorp
Portland, Oregon
503-731-2000
PECO Energy
Darlington, Maryland
410-457-2700
Wenatchee, Washington
509-663-8121
Ephrata, Washington
509-754-3541
Rheinkraftwerk Sckingen AG
Germany
Seattle, Washington
206-625-3000
Rosemead, California
818-302-1212
Stora Power AB
Sweden
Norway
Chattanooga, Tennessee
423-751-0011
Portland, Oregon
503-808-4200
Denver, Colorado
303-236-3292
Vattenfall
Sweden
Spokane, Washington
A-2
509-489-0500
Suppliers - Turbines
Alstom Electromechanical
(formerly GEC Alsthom)
Aurora, Colorado
888-342-5522
York, Pennsylvania
717-755-5300
Qubec, Qubec
514-485-4049
914-524-6640
415-392-6461
415-441-7230
Voest-Alpine M.C.E.
704-647-9276
York, Pennsylvania
717-792-7000
Littleton, Colorado
303-730-4000
Alstom Electromechanical
(formerly GEC Alsthom)
Aurora, Colorado
888-342-5522
Qubec, Qubec
514-485-4049
914-524-6640
Columbus, Ohio
614-488-1151
Siemens Westinghouse
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
414-475-3358
Suppliers - Generators
Denver, Colorado
303-730-4000
914-524-6640
Switzerland
650-737-6672
Loveland, Colorado
970-962-7518
A-3