Design criteria for exposed hydro penstocks

Mot~rrerrlEl~gilleeril~g
C O I ~ P [ ILimited,
I I ~ , P.O. Box 6088, Srariotl ' ' A ' ' .Motzrreal, P.Q., Crrt~rrdaH3C 328
Received October 20, 1977
Accepted March 17, 1978
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14

At present there are no national codes for the design of exposed hydro-electric penstocks. Thus
an engineer must either make reference to other national codes for- similar work, such a s the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers boiler and pressure vessel code or the American
Water Works Association Standard for steel water piping, or he must write his own code and is
then faced with the decision of having to select design criteria that must cover a wide range of
steels; different operating and waterhammer conditions; a wide range of quality control proce-
dures used in manufacture and erection of the penstock; and different types of penstocks,
isostatic where the stresses can be calculated with precision, and hyperstatic where the stress
calculation is more imprecise. This paper discusses design criteria, factors of safety, and corre-
sponding quality control procedures that can be used for either isostatic or hyperstatic penstocks
using mild, intermediate. or high strength steel for penstocks supplying reaction of impulse
turbines.
Presentement, il n'existe pas de reglements nationaux pour le calcui de conduites fol-cees
exposees qui sont utilisees dans les projets hydroelectriques. C'est pourquoi I'ingenieur doit se
refkrer a des normes pour ouvrages similaires, comme Boiler and pressure vessel code par
I'ASME et le Sta~~drirclfvrsteel waterpipe de I'AWWA, ou encore ecrire ses propres normes. I1
doit par I;I suite choisir les crittres de calcul qui doivent s'appliquer i une large gamme d'aciers, i
For personal use only.

diffirentes conditions d'exploitation et divers types de coups de belier, h une multitude de

procedes de contr6le de la qualite i la fabrication et i la mise en place de la conduite forcee. e t a
differents types de conduites, isostatiques lorsque les contraintes peuvent etre determinees avec
precision, ou hyperstatiques lorsque la determination des contraintes est plus imprecise. Cet
article porte sur les criteres de calcul, les coefficients de securite et les procedes de contrble de la
qualite correspondants qui peuvent 611-e utilises pour les conduites forcies isostatiques ou
hyperstatiquesenacier dedifferentes nuanceset destineeshalimenter des turbinesi reaction ou i
impulsion.
Can. 1. Civ. Eng., 5.340-351 (1978)

Introduction Quality Control

Only 30 years ago liiost structural and plate steels
in common use on hydro power penstocks had a
yield point in the region of 193-248 MPa (1 MPa =
145.04 psi). Now we have a multiplicity of steels with
yield points ranging fro111 206 to 690 MPa, with the
design engineer having the problem of deciding which
steel should be used in a particular application.
Furthermore, since tliere are often advantages in
using a high strength steel, or even a range of steels
in one penstock, a consultant can no longer design a
penstock without having an intimate knowledge of
steel purchase and fabricating costs. Since steel
costs change for each grade of steel, and since
fabrication costs vary depending on plate thickness,
coliiplexity of welding, and shop and site erection
conditions, it is no longer possible for a consultant
to undertake the detailed design of a penstock and
expect to arrive at the most economic solution.
Instead a consultant must write a performance type
specification that covers quality control, design con-
ditions, allowable stresses, and type of penstock, so
that contractors can bid on the work, and the bids
call be assessed on the basis of cost.
Within a steel mill quality control standards are
established by national codes a n d need no further
discussion. However, quality control standards f o r
fabrication and erection of penstocks are not cover-
ed except in part by such standards as the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) boiler
and pressure vessel code. The 'weak link' in any
penstock lies in the welding of the lo~igitudi~ial
seams.
It is obvious that in order to make full use of the
steel strength, the weld must be equal to or stronger
than the parent metal. For this reason any quality
control procedure must be aimed a t obtaining a
1 0 0 z weld joint efficiency.
Welding of mild steels is a relatively simple pro-
cedure. However, welding difficulties increase in
proportion to the yield strength of the steel, so that
for high strength quenched and tempered steels, pre-
heating of the steel, use of low hydrogen electrodes,
and storage of these electrodes in ovens are all
necessary measures required t o achieve a full
strength weld.
There are several approaches to quality control of
welding on a penstock. In addition to testing of
 GORDON
welds, these are: (i) pressure test a n d no radi-
ography; (ii) radiography of all welds and no pressure
test; (iii) partial pressure test and radiography.
Pressure testing of a penstock at the site is time
consuming and expensive, often requiring larger
anchor blocks to resist the test forces. Since the test
pressure varies throughout the length of the pen-
stock, the penstock must be divided into short
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14
lengths, each of which must be capped and pumped
full of water. Accordingly, it is preferable to rely on
full radiography and only pressure test penstock
bifurcations, the design of which is more complicated.
However, there is one exception. Where the pen-
stock can be delivered to the site in full cans, the
penstock ~nanufacturer may have a factory test
facility where every can is pressure tested. In such a
case, field welding is only required on the circum-
ferential welds that are not stressed in the same
manner as the longitudinal welds. Some penstocks
have been built where these welds were not radio-
graphed; however, the steel was of intermediate
strength. Where a h ~ g hstrength steel is used, radi-
ography of at least four points on the circum-
For personal use only.
ferential weld, including every T-weld junction,
should be mandatory. If a deficiency shows up, then
the entire circumferential weld should be radio-
graphed. Furthermore, in order t o verify the welder's
qualifications, it is preferable to fully radiograph the
first three circumferential joints made by each
welder. Procedures for radiography and interpreta-
tion of radiographic negatives have been well estab-
lished by the ASME boiler code.
Where automatic welding machines are used on
the longitudinal welds, runon and runoff tabs are
required at each end of the can. The length of these
tabs should be increased by about 20 cm to serve as
samples for testing by the engineer. Each of these
samples should be marked with the penstock call
number and sent t o a laboratory for tensile testing.
At the start of fabrication, tensile tests should be
undertaken for every welding machine, until it is
proved that consistent results meeting the strength
criteria are attained. The tests should be repeated
for each change in plate thickness. However, for the
higher strength steels, where welding is more diffi-
cult, all runon and runoff tabs should be tested,
since the weld strength is more susceptible to
changes in amperage, voltage, and even the ambient
temperature.
Recently, due t o the cost, and due t o the interrup-
tion of the work schedule required by radiography,
particularly where a high strength source must be
used for thick plates, contractors have been re-
questing the substitution of ultrasonic testing for
radiography. There are two problems associated
34 1
with ultrasonic testing. One is that it requires intense
continuous concentration on the task by the opera-
tor, with only a few secoilds distraction required t o
miss a flaw. The other is that there is no perinanent
record available of the testing operation. For these
reasons it cannot be regarded as providing the same
degree of quality control as radiographic inspection.
Ultrasonic testing rnay be used on the transverse
seams of a penstock, but for the highly stressed
longitudinal seams, radiography or pressure testing
is mandatory in order t o prove the weld quality.
Design Conditions
The most important design condition for a pen-
stock is the hydrostatic water pressure within the
penstock, and the associated hydrodynamic o r
waterhammer pressure. T h e waterhammer pressure
within a penstock varies a s the flow changes, with
higher waterhammer pressures being caused by more
abrupt changes in flow. There are two conditioils
that must be considered in the design, namely,
waterhaminer pressures due to normal changes in
flow and waterhammer pressures during an emer-
gency. Furthermore, since controls o n a turbine are
different in reaction turbines and impulse turbines,
the type of turbine must also be considered in
establishing the design criteria (Smith 1961).
In a reaction turbine, it is current practice t o
design for a nornlal waterhammer in the region of
25-5017, above static pressure, except where a syn-
chronous bypass valve o r pressure relief valve has
been provided, in which case the waterha~n~ller
pressure is limited to around 15-25x above normal.
However, as will be established later, a normal
waterhammer pressure of 25% above static pressure
should be considered a minimum, since no saving in
penstock steel will be achieved by adopting a lower
figure. The limiting value of the waterhammer,
between 25 and 5017, above static pressure, to be
used in design will depend on an economic study.
Design for a normal waterhammer in excess of 50%,
above static pressure is not advisable since it is
usually associated k i t h speed regulation difficulties.
For a n irnpulse turbine, where the needle valves
have different opening and closing times, the unit
can achieve adequate governing characteristics by
means of rapid opening and slow closing of the
needles, while the speed rise o n load rejection is
limited by the deflectors. I n this case, it is customary
to design for a normal waterhamn~erin the region of
15-25%, with 25% being the recommended minimuln
figure, since a s will be shown later, the lower 1517,
waterhammer will not reduce the weight of penstock
steel. Furthermore, in order t o limit the water-
hammer t o 15% above static water pressure, very
 342 C A N . J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 5 . 1978
slow needle-valve closing tiines are required, which
are not always coinpatible with the fast needle open-
ing times necessary for unit startup and load
acceptance.
Establishing a design value for the einergency
waterhammer condition presents a greater problem.
There is no current practice that can be used as a
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14
guideline, and opinion differs as to the minimuill
value that should be used.
Arthur and Walker (1970) recoinillend a con-
dition that postulates an inoperative governor
cushioning stroke and part gate closure in 2Llo
seconds at the maximum rate of gate movement
(L = conduit length, rr = pressure wave velocity).
Under such conditions, the maximum waterhammer
will occur when the wicket gates in a reaction
turbine move at their most rapid rate, and the wave
return period is the longest. A preliininary design
value (which must be checked for the actual pen-
stock velocity and governor time selected) for the
emergency waterhaminer can therefore be obtained
from the limiting values of these two conditions.
The maximum allowable rate of wicket gate
For personal use only.
movement is obtained when the penstock is design-
ed for a large waterhanlmer under normal wicket
gate closure conditions. Since, based on the fore-
going, most penstocks are designed for a water-
hammer of between 25 and 50% above maximum
static water level, the higher waterhamiller of 50%
will give the faster closure rate, for which a close
approximation of the wicket gate closure time can
be obtained from the followiilg formula quoted by
Brown (1 958).
where: t, = effective governor time; g = accelera-
tion due to gravity; /I = head; V = water velocity;
L = penstock length.
In a hydro development with a reaction turbine,
the maximurn length of penstock is about four tiines
the head, assuming, for this discussion, that long
penstocks where relief valves and vernier stabilizers
are used to control waterhamnler are not considered.
Thus, for the longest pressure wave return time,
Substituting in [I],
[31 t, = 1 0 ~ / g
The pressure wave return time interval t can also
be rewritten as
With no cushioning, the rate of gate movement is
constant and, since velocity in the penstock is ap-
proxiinately proportional to gate opening, velocity
and time can be related as follows:
[51 A V/ v = ~ ~ j ~ ,
The change in velocity in the pressure wave return
time is thus
[61 A V = VAtlt,
The waterhaminer caused by gate closure in the
wave return time is given by
[71 All = aA l//g
Substituting, with At = t,
All =
VAt - al/ 811 g
n ----
C8l = 0.811
gte g a10V
Thus, waterhainmer upon loss of cushioning from
a part gate closure in time 2L/n will be limited to a
maximum of about 80% above static water pressure.
Unfortunately, there have been several occur-
rences when malfunctions of equipinent have caused
water pressures in penstocks to fluctuate in a har-
monic pattern, with the surge pressure varying from
zero head to 100% above static, as reported by
Jaeger (1963). Such resonant pulsations have oc-
curred with sufficient frequency to make it advisable
that allowances be made for them in design of the
penstock. Harmonic pulsation can be caused by
such minor colnponents as a vibrating penstock
valve seal, as at Bersimis, Canada, reported by
Abbott et rrl. (1963), or a governor pilot valve with
incorrect porting, as at Chururaqui, Bolivia, de-
scribed bv Gordon (1970).
Accordingly, it is proposed that the minimuin
emergency waterhammer condition should be a surge
equivalent to 100% of the static pressure on the unit.
There are other emergency conditions that should
be examined, such as slain closure of a single needle
valve in an impulse unit, which could produce water-
hammer pressures in excess of twice static. On large
multi-jet pelton units this is not often a problem. The
instantaneous valve-closure waterhaininer can be
obtained from [7] and, allowing for a sound wave
velocity of 1000 m/s, the instantaneocs waterhanlmer
pressure becomes 100V, where V is the velocity in the
penstock prior to slam closure of the needles. The
minimum head cn an impulse unit is in the region of
300 in; hence, substituting these values into [7], an
emergency waterhainmer equal to static head would
be caused by a 3 m/s change in velocity. Impulse unit
penstock velocities are usually in the region of 9 m/s;
hence reduction of velocity by one third or 3 m/s
would cause a 100% waterhamrner surge. Only one
needle can slam closed at any one time. Hence
pelton units with 3 or more needles will have a 113 o r
 GORDON
less instantaneous reduction in flow upon a needle
failure, producing a waterhammer equal t o o r less
than static head. On the other hand, small pelton
units with only one o r two needles will have a corres-
pondingly higher waterhammer surge, perhaps in
excess of 100% static head. If so, then this higher
emergency waterhammer head should be considered
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14
in design of the penstock.
The design levels for normal and emergency
waterhammer in an exposed penstock are illustrated
schematically in Fig. 1.
In addition t o the stresses caused by water-
hammer, there are other stresses due t o temperature,
supports, and rim bending that must be added t o the
hoop tension stresses t o produce the maximum
combined stress. The calculation and combination
of these other stresses have been well established for
conventional isostatic penstocks (where the penstock
is supported on saddles or ring girders, and contains
an expansion joint between anchors) and is not
discussed further.
For personal use only.
Allowable Stresses for Isostatic Penstocks
Prior to discussing stress levels in penstock steels,
it should be pointed out that, due t o modern quality
control of welding, it is customary to assume a
1007, weld joint efficiency (Hornberger 1965).
One of the aims in establishing allowable stress
levels is t o have all the different strength steels
stressed t o the same degree under the same normal
design conditions, and t o have the same percentage
increase in stress under emergency waterhammer
conditions. If this can be attained, there should be no
change in the governing design condition, resulting
in the minimum weight of steel and hence lowest
cost.
As a guide in establishing stress levels, reference
should be made to codes developed by national
societies and other agencies. European codes, as
reported by Eberhardt (1965), relate the allowable
design stress to the yield point of the steel. F o r steels
having a yield point below about 300 MPa this
method of establishing design stress is adequate.
However, for high strength steels the design stress
should be related to both the yield and the ultimate
stress of the steel, due to the smaller relative differ-
ence between these figures, as will be established in
the following discussion.
The yield point of steel is currently the most
common measure of steel strength. The range of
steels now available with yield points from 200 t o
690 MPa can be divided into three groups: (i) mild
steels comprising steels having yield strengths to -275
M P a ; (ii) intermediate strength steels comprising
steels having yield strengths from -275 t o -520
343
- -
ABOVE 2 OH D E S I O W PRESSURE
FOR EYLRBENCY WAlERHA'dYER
IUPULSE UNITS W I T H I o r 2 JETS
- -
4
/ 1 2 OH (.IN 1 0 E S I . N PRESSURE
FOR EMERQENCY WATERHAMMER
I U P U L S E AND R E A C T I O N U N I T S - - (
FIG.1. Sche~iiaticof penstock design conditions.
-
MPa; (iii) high strength steels comprising steels
having yield strengths from 520 to > 690 MPa.
The intermediate strength steels have been de-
veloped over the past 15 years and offer the advan-
tages of good resistance t o brittle fracture and easy
weldability. The high strength steels are quenched
and tempered in the manufacturing process, hence
require very careful quality control o n welding.
In addition t o the yield point, a ~ l o t h e rmeasure of
strength is the tensile stress level at rupture. Table 1
lists the yield and tensile stress for 40 steels common-
ly used in penstocks from I I countries. Figure 2
shows the relationship between yield and tensile
stress for these steels. Examination of these data will
indicate that the remaining strength beyond yield
is far greater in mild steels than in high strength
steels, being about 170 MPa above yield point for
the mild steels, reducing t o about 110 MPa above
yield point for the high strength steels. As a per-
centage, these figures represent a 707, increase over
yield a t tensile stress for the mild steels, reducing t o
only 17% for the high strength steels. This lower
'reserve strength' beyond yield for high strength
steels must be taken into account when selecting
design stress levels.
The United States Bureau of Reclanlation
(USBR) has established criteria for isostatic pen-
stock stresses related t o both yield and tensile stress,
as described by Arthur and Walker (1970). These
are shown in Table 2.
Based on the previously established 2 5 x minimum
normal waterhammer and 1007, minimum emer-
gency waterhainmer criteria, the foregoing stress
criteria are such that for a normal condition the
 344 C A N . J . CIV. ENG. V O L . 5 . 1978

TABLE1. Penstock steels, elastic limits, and breaking strengths

Minimum Minimum
yield tensile
Country Specification No. Steel grade (MPa) (MPa)

Australia A-135-1965 . A
A-135-1965 B
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14

A-151-1966 -
Austria ALDUR 50165
ALDUR 58/72
ALDUR 58
Canada CSA G40.21, 1976 38 T
CSA G40.21, 1976 44 T
CSA G40.21, 1976 50 T
CSA G40.21, 1976 60 T
CSA G40.21, 1976 70 T
CSA G40.21, 1976 loo Q
France C F 24 -
C F 36 -
Germany, Federal Republic of D I N 17100 RST 34-2
D I N 17100 RST 37-2
DIN 17100 RST 42-2
D I N 50-04913 B
2-210 55
2-210 60
2-210 65
For personal use only.

2-210 70
Italy Idrotub 48
Idrotub 58
Idrotub 56/40
Japan JISG 3106-SM 50 B
JISG 3106-SM 41 B
- WEL-TEN-60
Switzerland BH 24 K -
HOAG 29 -
BH 36 K -
USA ASTM A662-74a A
ASTM A662-74a B
ASTM A633-75 C, D
ASTM A633-75 E
ASTM A533-76 1
ASTM A533-76 2
ASTM A533-76 3
Yugoslavia A ST 52 -
S T 52 cbv -

allowable stress will always be controlled by the
33.3% tensile stress value, and for the einergency
condition the controlling stress will be 100% of
yield for the mild steels, gradually shifting to 66.6%
of tensile stress for the high strength steels, as illus-
trated in Fig. 3.
In a high head penstock for a reaction turbine,
where the design head may vary from a few metres
at the intake to over 800 m at the powerhouse,
several steels would be used, from a mild steel in the
upper reaches, where minimuin thickness is set by
erection requirements rather than structural strength,
to an intermediate strength steel in the middle
reaches, and finally to a high strength steel in the
lower levels; use of the USBR criteria would result
in some sections of the en stock having a greater
capacity for emergency stresses than others. Table 3
illustrates this point. It will be seen that the mild steel
can withstand a 64% increase in stress during an
emergency, whereas the high strength steel can with-
stand a 100% increase.
In order to have all steels stressed to the same
degree under the same design conditions, a slight
modification of the USBR standards outlined in
Table 2 will be required as shown in Table 4.
Using these criteria, the penstock illustrated in
Table 3 would now have the stress levels indicated in
Table 5. As shown, the emergency stress level is a
constant 60% over the normal stress level.
The relationship between normal and einergency
stress levels based on yield and ultimate stresses is
illustrated in Fig. 4, -which can be compared with
Fig. 3.
The design conditions and stress levels proposed
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14
For personal use only.

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
MINIMUM YIELD - MPa-

FIG. 2. Yield and tensile strength relationship in penstock steels.

700
TABLE
2. USBR penstock design criterla

Allowable stress not to exceed

600
Deslgn condition % yield % tensile
Normal 66 6 33.3 m
Intermittent 80.0 44.4 T

Emergency 100.0 66.6 z 500

"3
"3
u
r
x

herein will result in a penstock that, when used for a

400
multi-jet impulse turbine, will be stressed close t o the
maximum permissible level under both normal and
emergency conditions. This is illustrated in Table 6. :
If a lower normal waterhammer is selected for the 5 300

design, the emergency waterhammer will become

the governing condition and there will be no saving
in the weight of steel. ZOO
Penstocks supplying reaction turbines will be able
t o accept more than twice the static emergency
pressure, owing t o the higher normal waterhammer
loo
pressure. In penstocks designed for a normal water- ZOO 300 400 500 600 700
hammer pressure equal t o 1.5H, the emergency Y I E L D STRESS I N MPa
stress level at 60% above normal will permit a n FIG. 3. USBR allowable design stress criteria.
 346 C A N . J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 5 . 1978

3. Comparison of design stresses - allowable stress (USBR criteria)

TABLE

Normal condition Emergency condition

Increase
0.333 0.66 0.666 1.O emergency
Steel tensile yield tensile yield above normal
designation (MPa) (M Pa) (M Pa) (MPa) (%I
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14

ASTM-285C 126" 136 252 207" 64

CSA G40.8B 149' 173 298 262" 76
ASTM A517 263" 455 528" 690 100
'Governing stress.

TADLE4. Proposed penstock design criteria

Allowable stress not to exceed

Design condition % yield % tensile
Normal waterhammer 60 38
Emergency waterhammer 96 61

emergency waterhanlmer of 2.4H, which is more than

adequate. In this case, normal waterhammer will
usually be the governing design condition.
For personal use only.

Intermittent Loads and Stress Levels

T o avoid complicating the issue, the discussion so 5
"
300
far has been confined to loads on penstocks caused
by waterhammer. There are other loads that can
cause local stresses in excess of those due to normal
waterhammer. Such are, for instance, the loads due
to earthquake, and to filling the penstock when the
full water pressurc is not available to hold the pipe
rigid between supports. The USBR has published 200
loo 300 400 500 600 700

criteria for the latter condition, as reported by Y I ELD STRESS I N MPa

Arthur and Walker (1970), which are iaken into
account in Table 7 as allowable stress increases of
between 20 and 33.3% above normal.
This lllagnitude of stress increase is of the right
order. ow ever,it is suggested that, in order to-be
consistent, the allowable stress be 2 5 z above norinal
stress, whether based on yield or ultimate stress. The
suggested stress levels would then be as outlined in
Table 8.
FIG.4. Proposed allowable design stress criteria.
Allowable Stresses for Hyperstatic Pellstocks
A hyperstatic penstock is one wherein a bend is
introduced between two anchor blocks, and there is
no expansion joint between the end anchors. A t t h e
intermediate saddle supports the penstock is allowed
to move both longitudinally a n d transversely to

TABLE5. Allowable stresses based on new criteria

Normal condition Emergency condition

Increase
0.38 0.60 0.61 0.96 emergency
Steel tensile yield tensile yield above normal
designation (M Pa) (M Pa) (MPa) (M Pa) (%I
ASTM 285C 114 124* 23 1 199" 60
CSA G40.8B 170 157* 273 252* 60
ASTM A517 301" 414 483* 662 60
'Governing stress.
 GORDON
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14

FIG.5. Hyperstatic bend. Note absence of anchor block. The penstock curves through a 20" vertical angle and a 42"
horizontal angle at this location.
For personal use only.

TABLE6 . Percentage increase In waterhammer pressure and The advantage of this type of design over the Inore
allowable stress, emergency condition above nornlal condition
conventional isostatic design is that a b o u t half the
anchor blocks are eliminated at bends, and the
Normal Emergency
condition cond~tion % increase other half are considerably reduced in size due to the
elimination of the unbalanced hydrostatic force
Waterhammer 1.25H 2.OH 60 caused by the adjacent expansion joint. It is a type of
Stress, % yield 60 96 60 design that is particularly useful where soft founda-
Stress, tensile 38 61 61
tion conditions would require the use of large con-
TABLE7. USBR allowable stresses for nornlal and intermittent crete anchor blocks. The disadvantage is that the
loads determination of the stresses within a hyperstatic
penstock is difficult, and can only be accomplished
Allowable stress the lower of by use of a computer. Even so, the stress determina-
% yield % tensile
Normal condition 66.6 33.3
Intermittent condition 80.0 44.4
v '
/, intermittent above nornlal 20.0 33.3

TABLE8. Des~gnconditions and allowable stresses

Allowable stress the lower of

Design % yield % tensile
Normal waterhammer 60 38
Intermittent loads 75 47.5
Emergency waterhammer 96 61

allow for thermal expansion and contraction, which

is mainly taken care of by deflection of the bend 0
between the anchors. At the bend there is no support 200 300 400 500 600 700
YIELD STRESS I H MPa
as shown in Fig. 5, thus allowing the pipe to move in
any direction to accommodate thermal movements. FIG. 6 . Allowable design stress for type 2 a n d 3 stresses.
 CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 5. 1978

TABLE9. Penstock design safety factors, type 1 stresses

Allowable stress Safety factor to

Design criterion % yield % tensile Yield Tensile

Normal waterhammer 60 38 1.67 2.63

Emergency waterhammer 96 61 1.04 1.64
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14

TABLE10. Penstock design safety factors, type 2 stresses

Allowable stress Safety factor to

Design criterion 2 yield 2 tensile Yield Tensile

Normal waterhaninier 40 25 2.5 4.0

Emergency waterhammer 64 40 1.56 2.5

tion is not as precise as can be achieved with a con- for type 1 stresses in a n isostatic penstock. In view o f
ventional isostatic penstock. For this reason, a this, the allowable yield stress should be reduced by
different set of stress levels o r factors of safety must about 50%, to 40% of yield. Even with this change, t h e
be used with a hyperstatic penstock. design stress will be governed by the tensile stress
The forces causing stresses in a hyperstatic pen- except for mild steels as shown in Fig. 6.
stock can be divided into two classes based on the Since both type 1 and type 2 stresses must b e
degree of precision in the stress calculation, as combined to obtain the effective stress acting o n any
For personal use only.

follows: portion of the penstock, and since each type of stress

The stress caused by internal hydrostatic and has a different ~naximuinvalue, the stresses cannot
hydrodynamic water pressure can be calculated with be simply added together, neglecting for the moment
exactitude; on the other hand, stresses caused by that they may be acting in different directions. T o
thermal expansioil and contraction, by weight of the solve this problem, the concept of a stress safety
penstock, especially at the unsupported bend, and by factor must be used.
other forces such as those due to earthquake cannot T h e stress safety factor can be defined a s t h e
be calculated with exactitude, and are usually calcu- inverse of the allowable stress expressed as a ratio o f
lated with a computer using the ADLPIPE program the yield o r tensile stress, whichever applies. Thus f o r
developed for use on high pressure steam pipes de- a type 1 stress, the factors o f safety can be obtained
signed to the requirements of the American Boiler. as shown in Table 9, which call be compared with
ntld yiess~irevessel cock (ASME 1975). Table 4.
Thus the stresses can be divided into: type 1, pre- Using this concept for type 2 stresses, with t h e
cise stresses, due to water pressure forces; and type 2, allowable stresses as defined previously, and allowing
imprecise stresses, due t o all other forces. a 6 0 z increase in stress for the emergency water-
For type 1 stresses, the same allowable stress, or hamnier condition, safety factors for type 2 stresses
factor of safety, as used for an isostatic penstock can can be obtained as shown in Table 10. All type 1
be used. However, for type 2 stresses a higher factor stresses act circumferentially, tending to 'burst' t h e
of safety must be used, resulting in a lower allowable penstock. On the other hand, most of type 2 stresses
stress. Since type 2 stresses are determined by a com- act longitudinally, tending to 'stretch' or 'compress'
puter program developed for use in coi~junctionwith the penstock. Tlle one exceptioil is the stress due t o
the ASME boiler code (1975), the allowable stresses torque from an unsupported horizontal bend, which
as stipulated by this code should be used. This code will act in the same plane as type 1 stresses. T h u s
liinits the allowable design stress, for the type of steel type 2 stresses should be subdivided into two other
usually used in penstocks, to the lower of 518 yield stress types; type 2, which acts a t right angles t o
o r 114 tensile stress. For the steels listed in Table 1, type 1 stresses; and type 3 stresses, which act in t h e
the allowable design stress would be governed by the same plane as type I stresses. Type 3 stresses would
114 tensile stress as shown in Fig. 6, with the only still have the same allowable design stress levels a n d
exception being a mild steel with an unusually high factors of safety as type 2 stresses.
tensile stress. However, due to the design problems Since type 1 stresses and type 2 o r 3 stresses d o n o t
involved, the 518 yield stress is considered too high, act in the same direction, they have to be combined.
being higher than the corresponding allowable stress By multiplying the design stress level by the safety
 GORDON 349

TABLE
11. Penstock weld tensile tests

Yield strength Ultimate Extensometer Elongation (%)

0.29, offset strength gauge length
Sample No. (MPa) (MPa) (cm) 5cm 15cm
2-A 656 803 15 24.0 8.25
2-B 603 798 5 23.5 8.0
671
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14

2-C 798 15 24.0 8.0

3-A 712 826 15 - -
3 -B 569 719 5 20.0 5.0
3-C 712 824 15 19.0 6.8

factor, the yield point is approached. According to
the distortion energy theory (Roark and Young
1975) failure by yielding will occur when the stresses
are combined as indicated in [9], and as developed in
[lo] and [12]. However, when attempting to carry
out the same exercise for the ultimate stress level,
the distortion energy theory has to be replaced by
the maximum stress, maximum shear, or internal
friction theories. Since it is only necessary t o obtain
a design stress level, which is well below the yield
point, it was decided to retain the distortion energy
theory concept in order t o provide a uniform basis
For personal use only.
stress due to ail other stresses acting in a transverse
direction; F,, = combined stress, which must be
below the yield stress; FCL= combined stress, which
must be below the tensile stress.
From the foregoing it would appear that four
design conditions would have to be checked, an
expensive and time consu~ningtask. However, a n
experienced penstock designer can tell from a n in-
spection of the penstock profile which hydrodynamic
condition will govern the design of each penstock
section. Furthermore, a quick calculation of the
allowable stress level will determine whether the

for comparison, and combine stresses as shown in yield stress o r the tensile stress will govern; hence
I [ I l l and [13]. T o combine stresses acting at right the governing design conditions can be quickly
I angles to each other, the distortion energy theory determined, and the work reduced to t h e calculation
gives the following formula: of the combined stress for only one condition.

1 [gl F , ~= F~~ + FB2 - FAFD

Where a
Practical Problems
penstock is surrounded by concrete such
where: F, = combined stress; FA and F, = stresses
in planes at right angles to each other, positive for as at an anchor block, the higher stresses associated
tension, negative for compression. with high strength steel are accompanied by higher
Using the safety factors given in Tables 4 and 9, strains that cannot be resisted by the concrete. Con-
the combined stress a t any point in the penstock sequently, cracks often appear at the point of mini-
with normal waterhammer can then be obtained for mum concrete cover, usually above the penstock
the various types of stresses fro111 the following centre line. Since an anchor block depends on the
formulae : weight of the mass concrete for stability, such cracks
can be disregarded and merely sealed with a caulking
compound.
The area where most problelns are encountered
with high strength steel is in quality control. On a
project completed several years ago, routine testing
of weld tabs indicated a yield strength in the region
and with emergency waterhammer, the combined of 586-621 MPa with the break occurring in the
stresses can be obtained from the following fortnu- weld metal, whereas the yield point of the parent
lae : metal was 690 MPa. It was decided to cut samples
from two penstock cans, machine test lengths, and
undertake new tests at the Mechanical Testing Sec-
tion of the Physical Metallurgy Division of the
Department of Mines a n d Technical Surveys in
Ottawa. The results of these tests are shown in
Table 11. The tests were undertaken o n an Amsler
where: F , = stress due to water pressure, acting 200 000 Ib (0.89 MN) capacity universal testing
in a transverse direction; F2 = stress due to all other machine. The yield strengths for samples 2-B and
stresses acting in a longitudinal direction; F3 = 3-B were obtained from load elongation diagrams
 CAN. J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 5, 1978
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14
For personal use only.
0 0.1% 0.2%
STRAIN
FIG.7. Tensile test of weld.
plotted by means of a Baldwin autographic recorder
and a Templin type 5 cm gauge length clamp-on
extensometer. The other samples were tested with a
15 cm Te~nplinextensometer. It is interesting to note
the difference in yield point with the two extenso-
meters. A plot of the load and strain is shown in
Fig. 7 for samples 2-B and 2-C.
These tests indicate that where the weld strength
is suspect, the yield is likely to occur entirely in the
weld metal or the heat affected zone, hence use of a
short extensometer just covering the weld length will
give a more accurate determination of the yield
point than a longer extensometer that would have to
include some length of the parent metal.
These tests also raise an interesting point: if the
test on sample 3-B is disregarded, the yield strength
would be a minimum of 603 MPa, with an ultimate
minimum of 798 MPa, just above the guaranteed
ultimate of the parent inetal of 793 MPa. The design
stress, referring to Table 5, would then be the lower
of 3 8 z of 793 MPa = 301 MPa (governing stress)
or 60% of 603 MPa = 362 MPa; thus there would be
no reduction in the allowable design stress even with
a poor weld. In fact the yield strength would have to
be reduced to below 503 MPa before it governs the
allowable design stress.
An investigation of the probable causes of the
defective welds indicated that they were all under-
taken on an automatic welding machine, located
next to a window that was kept open for ventilation,
-
0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
when the outdoor temperature was in the vicinity of
- 15 to -20°C. Hence the cold draught must have
affected the weld quality.
Another area where strict quality control pro-
cedures are mandatory is during site welding, where
inspectors must conti~uallybe on the look-out for
procedures that contravene the specifications, a s
illustrated by Fig. 8, which shows the welding of a
stiffener onto a high strength steel penstock. 111 the
lower left corner of the photograph there is an open
can of weld rods, which, according to the pro-
cedures, should have been kept in an oven.
When using radiography for quality control, it is
important that all radiography be undertaken by the
consulting engineer or by an inspecting agency under
contract to the engineer, and not by the penstock
contractor. This is because there are many 'tricks
of the trade' that can be used by the radiographer t o
mask poor quality welds that would otherwise show
up on the radiographic negative. For site welding
this principle is easy to apply. However, at the
factory quality control of production welding is
usually undertaken by the contractor's own quality
contrdl group, hence the best solution is for the
engineer to have an inspector attached to this group.
Conclusions
Quality control standards based on tested and
approved procedures must be established for pen-
stock welds. These standards should be more
 GORDON 35 1

TABLE12. Penstock design stress safety factors

Safety factor to
Design condition
and stress type Yield Tensile

Nortttnl waterlm~~ti~rer
Isostatic penstock 1.67 2.63
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/19/14

Hyperstatic, type 1 force 1.67 2.63

Hyperstatic, type 2 force 2.50 4.00
E117ergencyi u ( ~ t e r l ~ n r ~ ~ t ~ t e r
Isostatic penstock 1.04 1.64
Hyperstatic, type 1 force 1.04 1.64
Hyperstatic, type 2 force 1.56 2.50

termined by using a safety factor defined as yield o r

tensile stress divided by design stress as shown in
Table 12. In hyperstatic penstocks, the forces pro-
ducing stresses within the pipe should be divided
into two classes, type 1 due t o water pressure and
type 2 due to all other forces. The stresses produced
by these forces have t o be calculated with a com-
puter. In all penstocks, stresses must be combined
in accordance with the strain energy theory in order
For personal use only.

to obtain the maximum combined stress level.

A B B O ~ TH. , F., GIBSON,W. L . , and MCCAIG,I. W . 1963.

I AMERICANSOCIE~I.;OF M E C H ~ N I C A LENGINEERS.
FIG. 8. Welder. Note open can of weld rods in bottom
left corner.
rigorous for high strength steel. Weld strength must
be verified by tensile testing, and quality by radi-
ography or pressure testing.
Exposed steel penstocks should be designed for
two waterhammer condit~ons:
(a) Normal waterhammer - equivalent t o a pres-
sure of 25% over static water level at the unit centre
line on a penstock feeding a n impulse turbine;
equivalent t o a minimum of 25% but not exceeding
a maximum of 5041, over static water level a t the unit
centre line on a penstock feeding a reaction turbine.
(b) Emergency waterhammer - equivalent t o a
pressure of 100% over static water level at the unit
centre line for both reaction and multi-jet impulse
turbines. Where the penstock is supplying an im-
pulse turbine with only one o r two jets, the emer-
gency waterhammer should be equal to that caused
by instantaneous closure of one jet.
The maximum combined design stress levels in
steel penstocks should be the lower of that de-
Measurements of auto-oscillation in a hydro-electric supply
tunnel and penstock system. Trans;~ctions,ASME Journal of
Basic Engineering. Series D, 85, p. 625.
1975. Boiler
and pressure vessel code, Section VIII, Division I , summer
1975. Addenda UA500, p. 18.
ARTHUR, H . G., and WALKER, J . J . 1970. New design criteriafor
USBR penstocks. ASCE Journal of the Power Division,
96(P01), pp. 129-143.
BROWN,J . G., editor. 1958. Hydro-electric engineering prac-
tice. Vol. 2. Blackie & Sons Ltd., London, England. p. 200.
EBERHARD-I , A. 1965. Penstock codes-United States and
foreign practice. Electric power today and tomo~.row.ASCE
Conference Papers. Power Division Specialty Conference,
Denver, CO, pp. 725-770.
GORDON, J . L. 1970. The Harca Hydro Development. Canadian
Electrical Association, Hydraulic Power Section, Spring
Meeting. Transactions. Canadian Electrical Association,
Engineeringand Operating Division, 9, Part 2:70-H-105.
HORNBERGER, R. G. 1965. Use of high-strength steels in
penstocks. Electric power today and tomorrow. ASCE Con-
ference Papers, Power Division Specialty Conference, Den-
ver, CO, pp. 807-828.
JAEGER, C. 1963. The theory of resonance in hydropower sys-
tems. Discussion of incidents and accidents occurring in pres-
sure systems. Transactions. ASME Journal of Basic En-
gineering, Series D, 85. p. 63 1.
ROARK, R. J., and YOUNG, W. C. 1975. Formulas for stress and
strrlin. 5th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. p. 24.
SMITH, W. J . 1961. Design of high head penstocks. Transactions
of Engineering Institute of Canada, 5(2), Paper 61-EIC- 10.