Upstream or downstream seal gates? In most of the recent projects of hydro power plants, the emergency intake gates are supoleg with upstream seals The main alleged reason for this preference i its lower inal cost when com pared with downstream seal gates. In general, ‘upstream seal gates arent subjected to downpull forces. Thsallos the use of ois wit lower it- ing capacty than those requied for gates with downstream seals Lower cepacty means lower ‘cost Nevertheless, this isnot the onl requirement ‘to,govern the selection ofthe seal arrangement. Sloped sll In some cases, only upstream seal gates (USG) ‘an be used. n heavy sloped intake sil (Kaplan turbine for example), the use of a downstream seal gate (DSG) may rstcn the design ofthe lower horizontal girder ince this element is sub- jacted toa greater load it requires larger ine tia. high girder depth may interfere with the silface.On the other hand, the bottom girder of US is lcated in the downstream side ofthe skinplate and, theoretically, can be set in any postion without causing rouble Gs ae also used in sillweys with strong oc currence of debts orice BSG are not adequate for this type of structure as debris and ice may Paulo C.F Ei Telephone: +55 (0) 21 3322.47 05 eMail: ecbisti@uniyscom br Upstream or downstream sea gates? Water ow, — Waterflow — Fig. 1~ Gate dosed (a) Downstream seals) Upstream seals _acoumulate between the girders tumedtothe up- stream side, inceasing the weight of the mov- able pants and, consequently, the lifting forces. ‘eration During pat-gate operation when the conduit is ful atthe downsteam portal and part fullear the gate, a vent adits air so thatthe pressure near the gateis not reduced substantially below atmospheric pressure. This action reduces the tendency towards cavtaion. An ac vert bul in the concrete structure con- recs the downstream condutto the eternal a. For USGs the aration canbe provided though the gate shaft ise unless a watertight cover is installed in the salt (se Fig. 2) Inspection of gate in closed position ‘The gate lea of USGs canbe inspectedin dry con citions, in dosed postion. Inthis case, the access to the penstock is made vertically through the gate shaft or bulkhead doors installed inthe in take walls. Nevertheless, thisinspection is seldom ‘made since it does not allow forthe inspection ofthe main items subjected to damage (seals, main wheels and whee! track) ‘he inspection of OSGs is made under the pro- tection of the intake stoplogs ‘Top seal leakage Special measures ae taken inthe design of the top seal of USGs to reduce the defection of he tophoraontl girder when the gates closed and subjctedto the maximum hytreul load The de- flection ofthe top gid inthe downstream di rection may cause leakage in the center ofthe top sel ina 12 mspanUSG, for example top Girder deflection equivalent 10 1/1000 of the Support length wil causea cap of about 12-5 mm, assuming a maximum seal compression of Sam Increasing the rigidity fhe top girder wl educe this gap. Alternativ, the defection ofthe girder ceva part may be compensated by camberng the seal base late inthe upsteam cretion, an the creation af a gap between the seal andthe base plate ints lower side as shown in ig, 3a ‘With the gate closed i stil wate the top seal willbe shite to the downstream direction see Fig, 3, provided itis ee tomave within the ex- isting gap between the seal and is base. With the gate cosed and subjected tothe maximum headwate the top gid wl elec inthe down stream drection,carying wit tthe tp seal Nevers, the hyrauicpressure wil push tne seal to upstieam, pressing it against the lite, thus avoiding leakage (see Fig. 3cUpstream or dawnstear> seal gates? : nm ae : ae Pe air vent He ak — eflinder i fe, Watertight % yt “Enger Fig. take of the Tucural Power Plant Emergency intake gate with upstream seals. Span of 11.26 m and height of 14.96 m CCambering the upstream lintel in the down- ment requites a rather rigorous control during stream direction should be avoided because it assembly and concreting ofthe vertical elements, ‘may intrfre with the gate during the gate e- to provide the correct distance between both sure instil water. elements (hee! treck and seal seatn accordance “he problem of leakage intop seals does not oc- with the tolerances required by the projet. cur with 056, as the deflection of the top girder increases the seal compression. Hydraulic cylinders Case A - Upstream seal gate Field erection of embedded parts The following data were colected ina recent id ‘Whee racks and seal seats of DSGs are generally forthe supply of intake gates wit upstream sal located inthe same vertical plane, On the other — Nominal capacty of hand, themain wheels of USGs estondownstream the hydraulic onder 22060 kN embedded pats while the gate seals make contact — Weight of one hydraulic elinder with stucural elements located upstream ofthe (8.400 mm /@ 125 mm, gate. In adton to the correct postoning ofthe stroke 15400 mim, embedded pats inthe vertical plane this aange- working pressure 21 MPa) 108k 100 ~ Weight of ove intake fxed-wheel gate (12mspan, 15.2 mbeight) 1380 KN, = Weight of one complete set (gate + embedded parts + finder) 2040 kN Cost of one hydraulic cylinder US$ 68,000 ~ Cost of one complete set (gate + embedded pars + glinder) Uss 1,220,603 Theratio between the weight othe linger and the Weight ofa complete set (gate + embedded parts + liner only108/2040 = 0.0529 (5.3%) The cost of one tnd isa small parcel ofthe {otal cost of supply of one complete set 68,0001 1,220,603 = 0.0529 (5.3%). Ina simulated study, the above USGs were sub stituted by DSGs and the downpul forces esti- ‘mated with 1300 kN. The following resus were obtained: ~ Nominal capacity ofthe hydraulic ytnder 3360 kN = Weight of one hydraulic cinder (@500mm / 160mm, stroke 15,400 mm, working pressure 21 MP) 152 kN ~ Weight of one intake fxed-wheel gate (12mspan, 15.2 m height) 1380 kN — Weight of one complete set (gate + embedded parts + finder) 2084 KN ~ Cost of ene hydraulic qylinder USS 93,000 = Cost of one complete set (gate + embedded pans + tinder) Uss 1,285,603 In the new arrangement, the ratio between the ostof the onder and the cost of one complete set becomes 93,000/1,245,603 = 0.0729, Le about 7.3%, Case B - Downstream Seal Gate ‘This case refers toaDSG withthe following char acteristis = Nominal capacity ofthe hydraulic yinder 1000 kN ~ Weight of one hyraulic cinder (© 300 mm/ 120mm, stroke 8190:mm, working pressur 17 MPa) 30.7 kN ~~ Weight of one intake fixed whee! gate (5.45 m span, 7.37 mheight) 240 kN = Weight of one complete set (gate + embeded parts + finder 362kN Cost of one hydraulic cylinder USS 29,500, = Cost of ane camplete set (gate + embedded parts + finden) uss 511,000Upstream ox downstream seal gates? Y\ lA 4 lintel in i 4 Flow s Pressure H Yh Fig. 3~ Emergency gate with upstream seas - Top seal details the center ofthe span (a) Gate ciosing, sll water, 2) Gate closed, instil water, ©) Gate closed and penstock empty Tretatio between the weight ofthe onde and ‘the weight of a complete set (gate + embedded pats + onder 38.7362 = 0.1097 (119) The cost of one cjinde is a small parcel ofthe total cost of ne complete set 29,500/511,000, =0.0577 (58%) Redesigning this gate with els ated inthe upstream faethe downpull forces willbe lini rated and the inde: capacity reduced to about 310 KN, The main chatacters ofthe equip met wil be ~ Nomina capacity ofthe hydraulic cylinder 310kN ~ Weight of one hyaulie ender (0 180mm 19 80mm, sttoke 8190 mm, working pressure 17 MPa) 1472kN = Weight of one rake fxed-wheel gate (6.45 mspan,737 mheight) 24D KN ~ Weight of one complete set (gate + embedded pars + finder) 337 kN ~ Cost of one hydraulic cylinder USS 21,500 = Cost of one complete set (Gate + embedded pars + lider) US$ 503,000 Inthis situation, theratio between the cost of the ‘lider and the cost of one complete set is 21,500/503,000 = 0.0427 (4.3%). Cost comparison ‘A comparative anass of costs of hysrulc in ets of DSGs and USGs shows, in absolute values, aninial advantage or the USG. Nevertheless the ® Fig. & Gate top seal) Downstream seal, Aiferencis very small and does’ justify the re duction onthe reiabity ofthe equipment As shown incase study A, @DSG costs more USS 25,000 than an USG. In case B, substituting a SG for an USG would resuit in a cost reduction cof US$ 8,000. When comparing these values with ‘the total cost for acquisition of ne complete set, thelr significance becomes vey sal Case: 25,000!1,220,603 = 0.0205 (2.1%); = Case 8: 8000/511,000 = 0.0157 (1.6%). Failures with USGS ‘When an intake gate with upstream skinglate and seals is used fr watering-up the penstoc, forces Upstream seals sufcientto catapult the gate can develop Severs falues in installations of hs type occured ‘the Mossyrock Oar, USA, an intake gate weigh- Ing 654 KN was catapulted approximately 12 m up the gate slot. At the Dtorshak Dam, 3 gate ‘weighing 124.6 KN catapulted 76 m othe topof the gate slot. A the UVAC Power Pant, Yugsl via, an intake gate wth a width of 26 m, height (of 4.6 m and weight of 174.6 kN was catapulted ‘when the tunneling was completed ante il ing ofthe vent andthe gate shaft start. The gate was damaged, some intermediate stems twisted ‘and the metalic ar vent fattened. tthe te of ‘the accident, the headwater level was 56 5 m, 101