See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282704985

Preventing destructive effects of water hammer in hydropower plant

penstocks

Conference Paper · September 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 1,558

2 authors:

Adam Adamkowski Mariusz Lewandowski

Institute of Fluid Flow Machinery Institute of Fluid Flow Machinery
70 PUBLICATIONS   452 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   254 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

hydropower analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mariusz Lewandowski on 10 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Hydropower Development: Europe 2015
23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Preventing destructive
effects of water hammer in
hydropower plant
penstocks

Adam Adamkowski and Mariusz Lewandowski

Department of Hydropower
The Szewalski Institute of Fluid-Flow Machinery
Polish Academy of Sciences
Gdansk, Poland
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Content

A brief overview of our experiences concerning water hammer phenomenon

gathered during many years of work in the hydropower industry.

Presentation of results of laboratory and field research together with numerical

tests focusing on:

• Method for controlling changes of flow velocities in penstocks by proper

adapting the action of shut-off devices (valves and wicket gates);

• Method using controlled pressure relief (bypass) valves.

 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Destructive effects of water hammer in hydropower plants - cases

1997 – Lapino HPP (2.3MW) Poland 2009 - Bear Creek Hydroelectric Project (5MW)
California
(deereault.com)
2011 - Mississippi
River Power Corp. (4.6MW)
Canada (millstonenews.com)

1950 - Oigawa Hydropower Station (68.2MW)

Japan

Adamkowski A. (2001): Case Study:

Lapino Powerplant Penstock Failure.
J. Hydr. Eng. 127(7), 547-555.

Bonin, C. C. (1960): Water-Hammer Damage

to Oigawa Power Station, J. Eng. Power 82(2), 111-116
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Destructive effects of water hammer in hydropower plants - cases

2009 - Sayano–Shushenskaya
HPP (6.4GW) Russia

itcolossal.com
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Theoretical possibilities of reducing water hammer

Basic relationships describing water hammer:

Equation from rigid theory: Zhukovsky equation (wave theory):

V
L n
Q n li
p   aV   ae  
l dQ
p    dx   p f    i   p f
0
t L i A i dt L L i Ai

L L
Inertia of the hydraulic ae  L
 n
li
accelerated
liquid
losses dx
0 a( x) i a
i

The range of pressure changes occurring in closed conduits can be reduced by:
 slowing the rate of flow change (average flow velocity) of the liquid,
 shortening the length of a conduit,
 increasing the diameter of a conduit,
 reducing the speed of the pressure wave propagation,
 increasing the intensity of energy dissipation.
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants

The practical methods used for preventing destructive effects of water hammer:

• using pressure damping and pressure relief devices such as surge-tanks, water-air
vessels, relief and control valves,

• proper adjustment of the action rate of the flow shut-off devices,

• aeration of the flow,

• increasing the internal section area of pipelines,

• appropriate selection of the parameters of the pipe material (wall thickness, type of
material) to reduce the wave speed.

The main attention in this presentation was focused on:

• method for controlling changes of flow in penstocks by proper adapting the action of
shut-off devices (valves and wicket gates);

• using controlled pressure relief (bypass) valves.

 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants

Controlling the pipe flow velocity changes

• The method most commonly used in practice.

• Devices for cut-off the flow are used: shut-off valves, and movable wicket
gates with external drives

• Cutting-off the flow in such a manner that enable to maintain the pressure
increases in the target range and to obtain quick stabilization of flow conditions
is the most important task of practical realization in this method.
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants

of shut-off valve
Opening rate
Controlling the pipe flow Linear closing of the valves
velocity changes

Average flow velocity

Gate valve
Effect of the linear method for
closing the different shut-off Ball valve

valves on transients
Butterfly valve

Pressure at the butterfly valve

Ball valve

Butterfly valve

Gate valve
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants

of shut-off device
Normal shutdown of
Controlling the pipe flow

Opening rate
Francis pump-turbine from
turbine mode of operation
velocity changes

Effect of the linear method for

closing the different shut-off

Flow rate
Linear closing of
devices on transients butterfly valve

Linear closing of
wicket gates

Pressure at the butterfly valve

Linear closing of
Linear closing of butterfly valve
wicket gates
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
Programming the process of cutting-off the flow

Optimal multistage control Valve stroking

Movement of the shutting-off device with a
few constant rates determined for the
adopted optimization criterion. The most
practical is the criterion of minimizing water
hammer pressure increase and the criterion
of minimizing the duration of the transient
state, while maintaining maximum pressure
in predetermined acceptable range.
The basic requirement of flow control: forcing changes in the pipeline
flow in a manner that does not cause free pressure oscillations
immediately after procedure of flow control (directly after the termination
of the reason for the flow change steady state conditions are obtained).
Controlling method with maximum or minimum pressure
Method I Three stages of process of shutting-off the flow:
Stage I:
Minimum duration - one cycle of the pressure wave back and forth along the penstock (for
the pipeline with length L and pressure wave speed a this time is equal to 2L/a);
Objectives - pressure in the penstock varies from an initial value to a predetermined
pressure target - maximum or minimum value. At the end of this phase homogeneous flow
conditions along the penstocks are obtained.
Stage II:
Duration - depends on the pressure target
Objectives - transient flow is maintained uniform at the set pressure target.
Stage III:
Minimum duration - one (full) cycle of the pressure wave (4L/a);
Objectives - obtaining the final steady state of flow.

Controlling the duration of the transient state

Method II

Minimum duration - one cycle of the pressure wave back and forth along the penstock (2L/a);
Objectives - determination of the way of opening or closing the shut-off device for a given
change in fluid velocity in the selected conduit cross-section. The linear change of fluid velocity
at the time is usually assumed.
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
Controlling the pipe flow velocity changes
of shut-off valve

Linear closing of the valve Optimal two-stage closing

Opening rate

of the valve
Average flow velocity
Pressure at the valve
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
Controlling the pipe flow velocity changes
of shut-off valve

Valve stroking – method I Valve stroking – method II

Opening rate
Average flow velocity
Pressure at the valve
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants

Controlling the pipe flow velocity changes

Linear closing of the valve

Comparison of efficacy of
Optimal two-stage closing of the valve
reducing the maximum
pressure increaces for different
methods of controlling valve
closing with the linear closing
Valve stroking – method I
of this valve.

Valve stroking – method II

 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
Using controlled pressure relief
valves to reduce water hammer

Shut-off valve

Experimental verification of
effectiveness of the method for
reducing water hammer using
pressure relief (bypass) valves
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
Different bypass flow Opening rate of shut-off valve Different closing rates of bypass valve
and bypass valve

ju3
ju2 ju1
j j
ju1
ju1

Flow rate through hydraulic machine and bypass valve

Q
for ju3
for ju2 Q
without bypass
Qu Qm
for ju2
for ju1
for
Qu
for ju1

Pressure at the shut-off valve

without bypass for ju2

for

for j
for u1
for ju1

for ju2

for ju3
for

t [s] t [s]
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
Verification of programs for calculation water-hammer course basing on field research
H a 2 Q
 0
HYDraulic TRAnsients t gA x
HYDTRA H Q 
gA   Q| Q | 0
x t 2 DA
800

a 0 = 24 m m
a 0 = 30 m m
Hydrounit with reversible 600

Upper reservoir
Francis turbine 400

200

M 11
0

Suction pipe a0 = 1 mm

-2 0 0 a 0 = 18 m m
a0 = 6 mm

a 0 = 12 m m
-4 0 0

Penstock
-6 0 0

-8 0 0

6 0 0-1 5 0 -1 0 0 -5 0 0 50 100 150

n 11
0 .5 2 0 .5 3
n 1 1 = n D w /H p , Q 1 1 = Q /D w /H p , M 1 1 = M /D w /H p
-1
400 D w [m ], H p [m ], n [m in ], M [N m ]
Machine-valve set
Lower reservoir
a0 = 1 mm
102,0m 200
a 0 = 12 m m

 7,1m 150,2 a0 = 6 mm
92,7m 150,6
 6,7 62,5 51,0 150,7
 6,3

Q 11
98,5 70,0 37,5 0
32,5  5,9 17,5

-17,5 -2 0 0
I 164,1 II a 0 = 18 m m
III 150,4 IV V
 7,1 150,1 VI VII
 6,7 -4 0 0
a 0 = 24 m m
 6,3 72,2 a 0 = 30 m m
 5,9 47,2 9
-6 0 0
 5,5 -1 5 0 -1 0 0 -5 0 0 50 100 150
n 11
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
Verification of programs for calculation water-hammer course basing on field research

80 n o rm a l s h u td o wn 100 e m e rg e n c y s h u td o wn
j
60 fro m p u m p in g m o d e fro m p u m p in g m o d e

Y , j [%]
z u =1 1 0 .4 4 m , z l =1 .9 8 m , z u =1 2 1 .8 m , z l =1 .4 m
Y [%]

40 50
j = 100 %
20 Y

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

200 200
Q [m /s], n [min ]
-1

150

n [min ]
150 n

-1
100
100 50
50 0
3

-5 0
0 Q
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-5 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1 ,6 1 ,6
p t , p s [MPa]

1 ,2 p 1 ,2
t
p t
p t, p s [MPa]

0 ,8 0 ,8
c a lc ula tio n
c a lc ula tio n p s
p s 0 ,4
me a s ure me nts
0 ,4 me a s ure me nts

0 ,0 0 ,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [s ] time [s ]
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
Numerical simulation for 180 MW reversible Francis turbine
Different diameter of bypass valve
Emergency shut down from turbining mode Normal shut down from pumping mode
and bypass valve
Opening rate of

shut-off valve,
wicket gates
opening of
Rotational

hydraulic
speed of

machine

without bypass without bypass

bypass valve
machine and
Flow rate

hydraulic
through
Pressure at the
shut-off valve
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
Numerical simulation for 180 MW reversible Francis turbine
Different method for opening the bypass valve
Emergency shut down from turbining mode Emergency shut down from pumping mode
and bypass valve
Opening rate of

shut-off valve,
wicket gates
opening of

bypass valve
Flow rate
through
Pressure at the
shut-off valve
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
Numerical simulation for 180 MW reversible Francis turbine
Effect of bypass valve diameter on the
pressure increase caused by water
hammer accompanying load rejection in
the turbining mode of operation
Effect of bypass valve opening rate on the
pressure increase caused by water
hammer accompanying load rejection in
the turbining mode of operation
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
80

wicke t gate ope ning Y k [% ]

Load rejection tests in the turbining mode of w ic k e t g a te c lo s in g
60 la w a fte r m o d ific a tio n
operation of 180 MW reversible Francis turbine w ic k e t g a te c lo s in g
40 p r io r to th e r e fu r b is h m e n t

Case I: different opening/closing of the wicket gates 20

0
100
100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
90
90

80
w icket g ate o p en in g , Y k [% ] 80 140
w icket g ate o p en in g , Y k [% ]

70

rotation spe e d n/n o [% ]

70
120
60 60
7 .0 s 6 7 .5 s 6 2 .9 s 6 .9 s
4 5 .8 s 5 0 .2 s
50 100
50
5 3 .8 s 4 7 .2 s 7 4 .9 s 6 6 .6 s
40 40
80

30 30 n o = 1 6 6 .6 7 o b r/m in
w ic k e t g a te o p e n in g /c lo s in g c o u r s e 60
20 20 w ic k e t g a te o p e n in g /c lo s in g c o u r s e
d u r in g a s tills ta n d ;
d u r in g a s tills ta n d ;
10 th e s ta te p r io r to th e r e fu r b is h m e n t 10
m o d ifie d (lin e a r ) la w 40

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
tim e [s ] tim e [s ] 2000

I n i ti a l c o n d i ti o n s
1900 P 0 = 150.0 M W
Q 0 = 138.4m 3/s

pre ssure in the pe nstock [kPa]

1800

Basing on the numerical calculation and 1700

I n i ti a l c o n d i ti o n s
P 0 = 149.5 M W

emergency load rejection tests, the wicket gates 1600

Q 0 = 138.5 m 3/s

closing law has been changed in a manner 1500

allowing to avoid threats to the penstock and to 1400

1300

keep the overspeed within the allowable range. 1200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

tim e [s ]
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Practical methods for preventing destructive effects

of water hammer in hydropower plants
100

wicke t gate ope ning, Y k [% ]

Load rejection tests in the turbining mode of 80
m o d i fi e d w i c k e t g a te
c l o si n g l a w

operation of 180 MW reversible Francis turbine 60

40

Case II: closed/open interconnection between the penstocks

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
In order to increase the damping effect of the pressure waves due to the
water hammer effect, the penstocks of all the machines were 160

interconnected by a pipe.

rotation spe e d n/n o [% ]

140
The majority of the load rejection tests were conducted with closed
120
interconnection between the penstock of one unit and the adjacent
penstocks. For the purpose of comparison, the load rejection from same 100

power output was conducted at both closed and open interconnection. The 80
n o = 1 6 6 .6 7 o b r/m in
favourable interconnection effect is manifested mainly by substantially 60

faster damping of free oscillations after cutting-off the flow. The decrease 40
of maximum pressure rise due to the interconnection applied is practically 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

negligible. Taking into account the fatigue strength of the penstock 2000
structure under variable pressure load, it has been recommended to run
w i th c l o se d i n te r c o n n e c ti o n
1900
the units with opened interconnections. P 0 = 192.0 M W

pre ssure in the pe nstock, kPa

Q 0 = 1 9 0 .5 m 3/s
1800

The examples presented show that some 1700 w i th o p e n i n te r c o n n e c ti o n

P 0 = 192.5 M W

significant technical problems related to 1600 Q 0 = 189.5 m /s

3

upgrading of pump-turbines may come 1500

to light only at the stage of 1400

1300
commissioning tests and the initial
1200

operation period of the refurbished unit 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

c z a s [s ]
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Conclusions
Theoretical and experimental studies have been presented. Results of these
studies allow to determine the effectiveness of the methods under consideration
that allow reducing pressure amplitudes caused by water hammer phenomenon.
When focusing on reduction of water hammer, calculation programs whose
credibility was confirmed experimentally must be used.

The most important conclusions, following presented results are:

• For shut-off devices with an external drive:

• Replacing linear closing law by the controlled closing pressure
fluctuations can be reduced up to about 85%. The effectiveness of
reducing this level depends on the closing time settings and method
of controlling the closing the shut-off device.
• Water hammer course depends on the type of shut-off device.

• For relief (bypass) valves:

• A very effective method of reducing the water hammer is to use
bypass in the hydraulic machine flow system.
• High efficiency of this method considering reducing water hammer
depends, among others, on the size of the bypass valve and method
of controlling its closing/opening.
 Hydropower Development: Europe 2015. 23-24 September / Salzburg, Austria

Thank you for your attention

View publication stats