HYDG20749

FLOW ANALYSIS IN PENSTOCK
A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
ALTERNATE HYDRO ENERGY SYSTEMS
PRAVEENKUMAR KULKARNI
C G 20 49
ACC Nu.................
Datf ............. . f
ALTERNATE HYDRO ENERGY CENTRE

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE
ROORKEE - 247 667 (INDIA)
JUNE, 2011
CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work which is being presented in this dissertation,
entitled, "FLOW ANALYSIS IN PENSTOCK", in partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the award of the degree of Masters of Technology in "Alternate
Hydro Energy Systems", submitted in Alternate Hydro Energy Centre, Indian Institute
of Technology, Roorkee is an authentic record of my own work carried out during the
period from July 2010 to June 2011 under the supervision of Dr. Arun Kumar, Head,
Alternate Hydro Energy Centre and Dr. B.K.Gandhi, Professor, Department of
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India.
I have not submitted the matter embodied in this dissertation for award of any
other degree.
Dated: June 30 2011 -''~

Place: Roorkee (PRAVEENKUMAR KULKARNI)
This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the
best of my knowledge.
(/ v [t.
(Dr. Arun Kumar) (Dr. B.K. Gandhi)

Head, Professor
Alternate Hydro Energy Centre, Department of Mechanical and
Indian Institute of Technology, Industrial Engineering,
Roorkee - 247677 Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee - 247677
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is my proud privilege to express my sincere gratitude to my guides Dr
Arun Kumar, Head, Alternate Hydro Energy Centre and Dr. B.K. Gandhi,
Professor, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Roorkee for their kind cooperation, invaluable guidance & constant
inspiration throughout the dissertation work.
I wish to express my profound gratitude to Dr. Arun Kumar, Head, Alternate
Hydro Energy Centre, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee for providing all the
facilities, which has made it possible for me to complete this dissertation work. The
cooperation he has given is greatly appreciated.
I am also grateful to all faculty members and staff of Alternate Hydro Energy
Centre especially to Shri Avtar Singh Addi, Shri Khoobchand and Shri Tejpal, Indian
Institute of Technology, Roorkee.
I extend my thanks to all classmates who have given their full cooperation and
valuable suggestions for my dissertation work.
Date: June 302011 (PRAVEENKUMAR KULKARNI)
HM
Flow of water in penstock is a complex phenomena, which depends on
different parameters such as- velocity of water, base material properties, orientation of
penstock and the slope of alignment. The output from of the hydraulic turbine
decreases as hydraulic losses increase in the penstock. Very limited study and
research has been done in this area. With advanced computation techniques, flow
analysis in penstock and its peripherals can be carried out more conveniently. Present
work is an effort to study mismatch of penstock alignment on velocity profile and
hydraulic losses. Experiments were conducted for investigating the effect of mismatch
on flow conditions of penstock at 5 different Reynolds number ranging from 534 x
103 to 622 x 103. Mismatch was created from 2 mm to 10 mm with a step of 2 mm. It
was observed that there was steep loss of pressure head after the mismatching point in
all cases at all Reynolds numbers. Hydraulic gradient line and total energy line were
drawn at all Reynolds numbers. The results are also compared with that obtained by
CFD using Ansys 12.1. The results obtained were in good agreement with the
experimental results.
TI
CONTENTS
PARTICULARS PAGE
No.
CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
ABSTRACT iii
CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
NOMENCLATURE xii
ABBREVATIONS xiii
CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Small hydropower 1
1.2 Types of SHP schemes 2
1.2.1 Run-of River scheme 2
1.2.2 Canal based scheme 2
1.2.3 Dam Toe based scheme 2
1.3 Components of SHIP 3
1.3.1 Civil works 3
1.3.2 Electro Mechanical Equipment 4
1.4 Objectives of work 4
1.5 Organisation of Dissertation work 5
CHAPTER-2 PENSTOCK 6
2.1 Penstock materials 6
2.2 Factors considered for choosing penstock materials 8
2.3 Penstock fabrication 9
iv

2.3.1 Process of fabrication

2.3.2 Tests and inspection 10

2.3.3 Stress relieving 10

l Type of penstocks 11

2.4.1 Riveted or flange bolted penstocks 11

2.4.2 Welded penstocks 11

2.4.3 Multilayered penstock 12

2.4.4 Banded or hooped penstocks 12

2.5 Layout of penstocks 13

2.6 Hydraulic design 14

2.6.1 Hydraulic losses 14

2.6.1.1 Entrance losses 14

2.6.1.2 Friction losses 15

2.6.1.3 Conduit losses other than friction loss 16

2.6.1.4 Losses in penstock branches and Wyes 17

2.7 Penstock accessories 18

2.7.1 Manholes 18

2.7.2 Piezometric connections 19

2.7.3 Flanged connections 19

2.7.4 Bulk heads and Test heads 19

2.7.5 Closing pieces 20

2.7.6 Filling connections 20

2.7.7 Drainage connections 20

2.7.8 Air vents and air valves 21

2.7.9 Valves and control gates 21

2.8 Penstock related issues 22

2.8.1 Ovalization/Out-of-roundness 22.

2.8.2 Linings and unlining 23
v
2.8.3 Organic growth 23
2.8.4 Corrosion, Erosion, and Cavitation 24
2.8.5 Localized buckling 24
2.8.6 Voids in backfill or Concrete-encased penstock sections 24
2.9 Flow through pipes 25
2.9.1 Incompressible, steady and uniform turbulent flow in 27
bounded conduits
2.9.2 Velocity distribution in turbulent, fully developed pipe flow 29
2.9.3 Representation of energy changes in a fluid system 31
CHAPTER -3 LITERATURE REVIEW 33
CHAPTER -4 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 40

4.1 Description of experimental setup 40
4.1.1 Working principle of pitot static tube - 43
4.2 Experimental procedure 44
4.3 Calculation of parameters from experimental results 45
CHAPTER-5 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION AND CFI) 48

ANALYSIS
5.1 Defining the mathematical model 48
5.1.1 Principle of conservation of mass 49
5.1.2 Momentum equations 49
5.1.3 Energy equation 50
5.2 Numerical model 51
5.2.1 Standard k-z Model 52
5.3, Boundary conditions 52
5.3.1 Mesh generation 53
5.4 Discretization solution algorithm 54
vi
CHAPTER-6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 59
CHAPTER-7 CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE OF FUTURE WORK 88
REFERENCES
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Particulars Page No.
Classification of hydro schemes in India 2
Characteristics of penstock materials 8
Equipments and instruments required for experiments 42
Boundary Conditions of Numerical Model 53
Position of points and corresponding distances from 59
mismatching
6.2 TEL and HGL readings at Re=534017 (Experimental) 66
6.3 TEL and HGL readings at Re=534017 (CFD) 67
TEL and HGL readings at Re=621748 (Experimental) 82
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Particulars Page No.

1.1 Typical Small hydro power scheme 3
2.1 Velocity distribution of turbulent flow 25
2.2 a Variation of horizontal components of velocity for laminar 26
flow
b Variation of horizontal components of velocity for turbulent 26
flow
2.3 Moody's Diagram (Variation of friction factor f with 29
Reynolds number and pipe wall roughness for ducts of
circular cross-section)
2.4 Different zones of a turbulent flow past a wall 31
2.5 Total Energy Line and Hydraulic Gradient Line for pipe 32
flow
4.1 Schematic of experimental setup 41
4.2 Pitot tube arrangement along with U tube manometer 41
4.3 Circular markings on 400 mm diameter flange at an interval 42
of 2 mm
4.4 Pitot-static tube 43
4.5 Ultrasonic flow meter connected at upstream of mismatch 45
4.6 Experimental setup for pressure measurement 45
4.7 Velocity measured at different radius with the help of pitot 46
tube
5.1 Control volume for flow analysis 51
5.2 Boundary Conditions of the Model 53
5.3 Values Provided at inlet Boundary Conditions 54
5.4 Solver Used 55
5.5 Viscous Models Used 55
5.6 Material and its Properties Used for the Solution 56
5.7 Solution-controls used to solve the numerical model 57
ix

5.8 Scaled residuals and convergence 57

6.1 Pressure and Velocity measured points 60
6.2 Planes created along the penstock with inlet and outlet 60
6.3 Velocities obtained by UTTF and pitot tube methods for 61
straight pipe.
6.4 Velocities obtained by UTTF and pitot tube methods for 2 -61
mm mismatched pipe.
6.5 Velocities obtained by UTTF and pitot tube methods for 4 62
mm mismatched pipe.
mm mismatched pipe.
mm mismatched pipe.
mm mismatched pipe.
6.9 Total Energy Line (Experimental and CFD) for straight pipe 64
and mismatching conditions at Re= 534017
6.10 Hydraulic Gradient Line (Experimental and CFD) for 65
straight pipe and mismatching conditions at Re= 534017
.6.11 Total Energy Line (Experimental and CFD) for straight pipe 68
6.13 Total Energy Line (Experimental and CFD) for straight pipe 72
6.15

Total Energy Line (Experimental and CFD) for straight pipe W

6.17 Total Energy Line (Experimental and CFD) for straight pipe

6.19 Percentage decrease in TEL with Re 84

6.20 Percentage decrease in HGL with Re 85
6.21 Velocity vectors coloured by velocity magnitude for 85
10 mm mismatch pipe at Re=621748
6.22 Velocity vectors coloured by absolute pressure for
6.23 Velocity vectors coloured by Z velocity for
6.24 Contours of Z velocity for 10 mm mismatch pipe at
Re=621748
XI
NOMENCLATURE
p = pressure (N/m2)
p = Dynamic viscosity (kg/m-s)
v= kinematic viscosity (m2/s)
u, v = velocity (m/s)
d, D = Diameter of pipe (m)
p = Density (kg/m3)
u = Average velocity (m/s)
z = Shear stress (N/m2)
ht _ Head loss (m)
f = Friction factor
m = hydraulic radius (wetted perimeter) (m)
q, Q = Discharge (m3/s)
h = Manometric height (m)
g = acceleration due to gravity m/s2
xii
ABBREVATIONS
SHP = Small Hydro Power
PVC = Poly Vinyl Chloride
PE = Poly ethylene
HGL = Hydraulic Gradient Line
TEL = Total Energy Line
Re = Reynolds number
CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics
UTTF=.Ultrasonic transit time flow

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Power is very important feature in overall development of any nation in the world. It
is the tool to forge the economic growth of the country. There has been an ever®
increasing need for more and more power generation in all - countries of the world.
India with population of 1.2 billion people living, is the second most populous
country in the world after china. The total installed capacity of power stations in India
as on May 21St 2011 was 1,74,361.40 MW out of which 65% from Thermal, 22%
from Hydro, 2% from Nuclear and 11% from renewable energy sources such as Small
Hydropower, Biomass Gasifier, Biomass Power, Wind Energy [1].
Hydropower is considered to be an attractive source as it avoids the pollution

associated with burning of fuels; however most of the large hydro scheme involves
massive dams impounding enormous volume of water in manmade lakes in order to
provide year round power by smoothing out fluctuations in the river flow. Many of
larger schemes have adverse effect on the local environment and gestation period is
quite long. On the other hand small hydro is one of the most environmentally benign
energy conservative option enhance the main advantages comparing with electricity
sources, namely saving consumption of fossil fuels or fire wood, being self sufficient
without the need of important component.
1.1 SMALL HYDROPOWER
In India development of small hydro power has been taking place since its first
hydro installation of 130 kW at Darjeeling in the year 1897. An estimated potential of
15,384 MW of small hydro exists in India. However, nearly 12,015 MW have been
actually identified through 4,703 sites [2] . In Himalayan and sub Himalayan area of
northern India, perennial streams with small discharges are available which can be
harnessed for -small hydro power generation. The advantages of small hydro are low
gestation period, low initial cost. No shifting of locals from their land, no loss to
environment etc. Classification of SHP schemes in India is given in table 1.1.
I
Table 1.1 Classification of hydro schemes in India [21
Type Station capacity Unit rating
Micro Up to 100 kW Up to 100 kW
Mini 101 to 2000 kW 101 to 1000 kW
Small 2001 to 25000 kW 1001 to 5000 kW
1.2 TYPES OF SHP SCHEMES
1.2.1 Run-of River scheme
Run-of-River hydroelectric schemes are those, in which water is diverted

towards power house, as it comes in the stream. Practically, water is not stored during
flood periods as well as during low electricity demand periods, hence water is wasted.
Seasonal changes in river flow and weather conditions affect the plant's output. After
power generation water is again discharged back to the stream. Generally, these are
high head and low discharge schemes.
1.2.2 Canal based scheme
Canal based small hydropower scheme is planned to generate power by

utilizing the fall in the canal. These schemes may be planned in the canal itself or in
the bye pass channel. These are low head and high discharge schemes. These schemes
are associated with advantages such as low gestation period, simple layout, no
submergence and rehabilitation problems and practically no environmental problems.
1.2.3 Dam Toe based scheme

In this case, head is created by raising the water level behind the dam by
storing natural flow and the power house is placed at the toe of the dam or along the
axis of the dam on either sides. The water is carried to the powerhouse through
penstock. Such schemes utilize the head created by the dam and the natural drop in
the valley.
2
1.3 COMPONENTS OF SHP
a.Civil Works
b. Electro-Mechanical Equipments
1.3.1 Civil works
. A hydropower development includes 'a number of structures, the design of

which will be dependent upon the type of scheme, local conditions, access to
construction material and also local building traditions in the country or region.
Typical Small hydro power scheme is shown in Figure 1.1.
- j t
PLAN
Figure 1.1: Typical Small hydro power scheme.
The following structures are common in a hydro scheme:
• Power house
• Diversion structure
a. Dam
b. Spillway
c. Energy dissipation arrangement
d. Fish passages
3
e. Residual flow arrangements
0 Water conveyance system
a. Intake
b. Canals
c. Tunnels
d. Penstock pipe
1.3.2 Electro Mechanical equipment
• Hydro-Mechanical Equipment
a. Hydraulic Turbines
b. Gates and Valves
0 Electrical Equipment
a. Generator
b. Switch Gear Equipment

c. Plant Service Transformer
d. Outdoor Substation
1.4 OBJECTIVE OF WORK
In hydro power, there is 3-8 % head loss due to hydraulic losses. These losses
are observed in penstock pipe, valves, bifurcations etc. These losses should be
minimized to get more power output. When penstock pipes are welded for the
purpose of joining, mismatching is created at the junction. At this junction hydraulic
losses occur, which will affect output of powerhouse. To know the effect of
mismatching in penstock, experiment is to be conducted to assess the hydraulic
losses. Mismatching of 2 mm to 10 mm at steps of 2 mm is created and effect of this
on pressure and velocity has to be observed from the experiment at different
Reynolds number.
This fluid flow problem is analysed by experiment, so it is better to validate
the same problem by using numerical methods. Thus in this dissertation work a
numerical analysis is done to support the experimental results by using a CFD
4
commercial ANSYS-FLUENT code and its pre-processor and modeling tool
DESIGN-MODULAR.
1.5 ORGANISATION OF DISSERTATION WORK
Chapter 1 covers power scenario of India. Small hydro power classification, types and
its components are discussed.
Chapter 2 includes penstock materials, fabrication of penstock, accessories, type of

penstocks, layout of penstocks, hydraulic losses, issues related to penstock and flow
conditions.
Chapter 3 includes literature related to flow conditions in pipes and penstocks.
Chapter 4 includes description of experimental setup, experiment procedure and

procedure for calculating results.
Chapter 5 describes about working of CFD, numerical technique used to formulate the
problem, boundary conditions given to solve the problem.
Chapter 6 contains results obtained from experiment and CFD technique, and
comparison between them.
Chapter 7 comprises of conclusion drawn from experimental and CFD results along
with future scope of work.
5
CHAPTER 2
PENSTOCK
The water is taken from the forebay to the power station through the penstocks. These
may be pressure conduits or shafts. The penstocks shall carry water to the turbines
with the least possible loss of head consistent with the overall economy of the project.
For successful operation, the size of the pipe for a given discharge may vary between
wide limits, but there is usually one size that will make for the greatest economy and
design.
2.1 PENSTOCK MATERIALS

There is a wide choice of materials for penstocks. For the larger heads and
diameters, fabricated welded steel is probably the best option. Nevertheless spiral
machine welded steel pipes should be considered, due to their lower price, if they are
available in the required sizes. For high heads, steel or ductile iron pipes are preferred,
but at medium and low heads steel becomes less competitive, because the internal and
external corrosion protection layers do not decrease with the wall thickness and
because there is a minimum wall thickness for the pipe.
For smaller diameters, there is a choice between: manufactured steel pipe,
supplied with spigot and socket joints and rubber "0" gaskets, which eliminates field
welding, or with welded-on flanges, bolted on site; plain spun or pre-stressed
concrete; ductile iron spigot and socket pipes with gaskets; cement-asbestos; glass-
reinforced plastic (GRP); and PVC or polyethylene (PE) plastic pipes. Plastic pipe
PE14 is a very attractive solution for medium heads (a PVC pipe of 0.4 m diameter
can be used up to a maximum head of 200 meters) because it is often cheaper, lighter
and more easily handled than steel and does not need protection against corrosion.
PVC pipes are easy to install because of the spigot and socket joints provided with
"0" ring gaskets. PVC pipes are usually installed underground with a minimum cover
of one meter. Due to their low resistance to UV radiation they cannot be used on the
surface unless painted, coated or wrapped. The minimum radius of curvature of a
PVC pipe is relatively large (100 times the pipe diameter) and its coefficient of
thermal_ expansion is five times higher than that for steel. They are also rather brittle
and unsuited to rocky ground. [3]
................Pipes of PE16 — (high-molecular weight polyethylene) can be laid on top of

the ground and can accommodate bends of 20-40 times the pipe diameter (for sharper
bends, special factory fittings are required). PE pipe floats on water and can be
dragged by cable in long sections but must be joined in the field by fusion welding,
requiring a special machine. PE pipes can withstand pipeline freeze-up without
damage, may be not available in sizes over 300 mm diameter. [3]
Concrete penstocks, both pre-stressed with high tensile wires or steel

reinforced, featuring an interior steel jacket to prevent leaks, and furnished with
rubber-gasket spigot and socket joints constitute another solution. Unfortunately their
heavy weight makes transportation and handling costly, but they are not affected by
corrosion.
In developing countries, pressure creosoted wood-stave, steel-banded pipe is

an alternative that an be used in diameters up to 5.5 meters and heads of up to 50
meters (which may be increased up to 120 meters for a diameter of 1.5 meters). The
advantages include ease of laying on the ground with almost no grade preparation, no
requirement for expansion joints and no necessity for concrete supports or corrosion
protection. Wood-stave pipe is assembled from individual staves and steel bands or
hoops that allow it to be easily transported even over difficult terrain. Disadvantages
include leakage, particularly in the filling operations, the need to keep the pipe full of
water when repairing the turbine, and considerable maintenance such as spray coating
with tar every five years. Table 2.1 shows the main properties of the penstock
material.
Several factors will influence the type of pipe material chosen for a penstock
pipe: corrosiveness of water, water pressure, flow required, soil characteristics and the
physical properties of the pipe material. The materials most often used for penstock
pipe are steel, concrete, ductile iron, cast iron, asbestos cement etc.
7
Table 2.1: Characteristics of penstock materials [3]
Material Young's modulus Coefficient of Ultimate tensile

of elasticity linear expansion strength
2 0 2
E(N/m )E9 a (/ c)E6 (N/m )E6
Welded Steel 206 12 400
Polyethylene 0.55 140 5
Polyvinyl 2.75 54 13
Chloride (PVC)
Cast iron 78.5 10 140
Ductile iron 16.7 11 340
2.2 FACTORS CONSIDERED FOR CHOOSING PENSTOCK MATERIALS:
i. Corrosion
Some water reacts with pipe materials due to an imbalance in the chemical
make-up of the water or to minerals in it. The result can be corrosion of metal pipes,
leaching of cement in concrete pipes, or deposits of minerals which reduce the water
flow in all types of pipe. Most likely, a judgment on the corrosiveness of the pipe will
have to be based on-experience in the local area [4].
ii. Flow
Pipe materials vary in smoothness which, in turn, affects their resistance to the
flow of water. The rougher the surface, the more energy is required to move water
from one point to another, thus decreasing power generation. These losses are
compounded as the rate of flow increases [4].
iii.Water pressure
Pipe materials vary greatly in their ability to withstand pressure without

bursting so it is important that the pressure at all points in the system be known [4].
8
iv.Soil characteristics
Soils react with pipe -materials under some condition. Other problems in the
soil include rocks or boulders which might crush or break the pipe, swamps or bogs
which do not provide adequate support, and sand which can shift and expose the pipe.
Important physical properties of the pipe materials include resistance to crushing,
degree of stiffness and reaction to temperature changes, sun rays and chemicals [4].
v. Physical characteristics of pipe
Impact resistance is a material's ability to absorb a blow without damage.

Such a blow might occur if a rock fell on the pipe in a trench or if the pipe were
dropped. The stiffness or flexibility of material indicates how it will react to impacts.
Pipe materials which are inflexible include concrete, asbestos cement and cast iron.
Steel pipe is moderately flexible, particularly in smaller diameters. The plastic pipes
are usually very flexible [4].
Considering all the above factors steel penstocks are best suited for most of the sites,
hence it is necessary to discuss more about steel penstocks.
2.3 PENSTOCK FABRICATION

The fabrication of penstocks involve fabrication of straight pipes, bends
special fittings like Wyes, Supporting Rings, Expansion joints and Bearings, etc. The
fabrication procedure of these items depends upon the available fabrication facilities
and fabricators shop practice. The fabricator shall adopt suitable welding process, the
shape of bevels, electrodes and filler metal. In order to obtain quality as laid down in
the specification, the fabricator shall take care that they are complied with by proper
inspection during fabrication.
2.3.1 Process of fabrication

The process of fabrication involves marking, chamfering, rolling and welding [5].
i. Marking
The plates are laid out and trimmed to true rectangular shape. In case of bends,
bifurcations and other specials, the developments are marked on the plates with great
accuracy.
0
ii. Cutting and beveling
Chamfers or bevels are generally prepared by flame cutting, shearing,
planning; or milling., The chamfers which are not satisfactory after flame cutting
particularly as regards. to shape and metallurgical conditions shall be ground. The
shape of chamfer depends upon the thickness of material, operating condition of part
or equipment of the workshops, as well as on the welding process called for.
iii.Rolling
The plates shall be rolled to true curvature in a bending machine. The
diametrical distance between any two points on the pipe so formed shall be within the
tolerance limit of D + 5 mm.
iv Welding
The welds can be made by well tried methods. Usually in shop, welding is
carried out by automatic welding machine. The selection of quality of welds shall
depend upon the basic material and stresses on the same, since the longitudinal and
circumferential welds undergo some forces as the basic material. The mechanical
properties of electrode and filler metal shall confirm to those of parent metal. The
welding sequence shall be determined in advance specially when the shape of the part
is likely to cause shrinkage or in case of complicated shapes. The preheating of
material will depend upon the material to be welded, thickness of wall and process
used.
2.3.2 Tests and inspection

The fabricator shall be - responsible for the quality control and shall make
necessary inspection of welds by non-destructive method of testing specified and shall
submit a report giving all the results of test and assessment of radiographic or
Ultrasonic Examination and Hydrostatic testing.
2.3.3 Stress relieving

After fabrication, when the shape or magnitude of structure requires, the '
welded joint must undergo stress relieving heat treatment either locally or as a whole
- as specified. It is a post heat treatment given to a welded body to eliminate any stress
caused due to welding. The stress relieving shall be carried out on
10
(a) All the pipes fabricated out of the plates of thickness greater than 36mm,
(b)- All the complicated fabricated structure like man-hole opening, bifurcation and
_ trifurcation, ring girder, fabricated rocker. supports etc.
The stress relieving process consist of .heating the welded structure under
controlled condition in a furnace to a temperature of 580°C to 620°C and then cooling
in the furnace to 400°C at a rate of 55°C per hour. Below 400°C, the vessel may be
cooled in still air. In the field the stress relieving of girth joint is not carried out. In
special cases, where stress relieving in field is specified, the stress relieving is usually
carried out by Electric Pad Method with suitable precautions.
2.4 TYPE OF PENSTOCKS

Depending upon the method of fabrication the penstocks are classified as
under [5] :
2.4.1 Riveted or flange bolted penstocks
Riveted penstocks were in vogue in India during 1940 to 1950 when the
present welding technique was not developed fully. Due to the difficulty of welding
and stress relieving of thick plates in field, it was a practice to use riveted
circumferential joints, which involved three to four rows of rivets for high head plants
like Mahatma Gandhi Hydro-Electric (Mysore) and Barapani Hydel (Assam)
involving more material, and the total weight of the pipes is more by 8 to 10% than
welded pipes and also gives higher hydraulic losses which made them uneconomical
and now riveted pipes are obsolete. Flange bolted pipes are only used for small
diameter pipes if site condition render field welding and rivetting difficulty.
2.4.2 Welded penstocks

With the advancement in welding technique and development of higher heads,
all welded steel penstocks are mostly used. The pipes are formed by butt welding the
longitudinal and circumferential joints. The main advantages of this type over riveted
penstocks are
(i) Lower Weight
(ii) Lesser Hydraulic Losses and
(iii) Ease of Fabrication and Erection.
Most of the penstocks recently designed for Hydro-Electric Project in India
are of all welded type. With the advancement in designs, higher and higher heads with
11
larger capacity of power station are developed for power development. As the head
increases so also the thickness and various difficulties are faced in rolling and welding
of thick plates. This difficulty is overcome by the development of high tensile steel
multi-layered penstocks and banded or hooped penstock.
2.4.3 Multilayered penstock

This consists of several layers of thin steel plates wrapped around the pre-
fabricated central core pipe by a special wrapping machine. The internal pressure is
resisted by the interaction of layers. It is claimed that this type of design gives a
saving of about 10 to 15% in material. But the cost of fabrication and installation is
expected to be high. The use of thin plates eliminates the stress relieving.
2.4.4 Banded or hooped penstocks

In this type the bands or hoops are slipped over thin walled penstock pipe by
cold process' or hot process. These bands or hoops induce pre-stress in the pipe as a
result of which high operating heads can be carried by comparatively thin pipes. The
banded pipes are designed for equal stress in the hoop and in the pipe under maximum
operating pressure. In spite of saving in material the banded pipes are more expensive,
mainly because of special fabrication process.
The various types of penstock installations generally adopted for a hydro-

electric project or a pumped storage scheme are further classified into following
categories: -
a) Surface penstocks: Where steel conduit or pipe is laid exposed and is supported
above ground by saddle supports or ring girder supports.
b) Embedded penstocks: The steel conduit is embedded in large mass of dam

concrete serving as watertight membrane.
c) Buried penstocks: The conduit is laid in open trenches and backfilled with earth.
d) In tunnel: Conduits are placed in open tunnel and the pipe is either supported in
similar manner as surface penstocks or backfilled with concrete. In the latter case, the
conduit is called pressure shaft.
The type of installation generally adopted depends upon the layout.:
12
2.5 LAYOUT OF PENSTOCKS
The layout : and -. arrangement of penstock- - depends upon the type of
-development, site conditions, topography and ' relative location of dam and power
plant. In case of "concentrated fall development", the powerhouse is located close to
the dam [5].
a) When the power house is located at the toe of dam, the penstocks are generally
short and embedded in dam concrete or masonry.
b) Sometimes, the penstocks are partly embedded in dam and partly supported on the
downstream slope of dam by rocker supports to facilitate construction of dam earlier
to erection of Penstocks as for Nagarjunasagar Dam Project.
c) When Power House is located a little further away from the dam and depending
upon the utility of space between dam and powerhouse the penstocks are encased in
concrete before burying in earth as for Jawahar Sagar Dam Project, where the space
between power house and dam is utilized as switchyard.
d) Advantage is also taken of diversion tunnel, when power house is situated at the
outfall of diversion tunnel. The steel conduit is placed in the tunnel after diversion is
complete and tunnel intake is plugged as in case of Pong Dam Project.
e) For a head development, where underground power house is located just below
reservoirs, the steel conduits are placed in tunnel shafts and backfilled with concrete
as in the case of Koyna Stage III Project.
In case of medium and high head penstocks, the water is conducted from dam
or diversion structure across river by open channel or tunnel up-to forebay or surge
shaft at a suitable point and from there it is carried by surface penstocks as in case of
Upper Sileru Project and Balimela Project.
Sometimes, depending upon the topography a combination of surface penstock

and penstock in tunnel is used as in case of Baira-Siul Project, Beas-Sutlej link
Project and Lower Sileru Project.
13

• For very high heads, it is generally preferred to lay the penstocks in tunnel
_ . shafts and backfill' with concrete as this arrangement enables to transfer part of
:_--internal _hydraulic pressure to. surrounding rock. Idikki Project, Koyna Project and
Yamuna Projects are examples.
2.6 HYDRAULIC DESIGN

The Hydraulic design of a penstock involves determination of Hydraulic
losses in a pipe line, pressure rise or pressure drop due to turbine or pump operation
and ascertaining of most economic diameter of penstock on the basis of available
data. These are discussed as below. Sometimes studies are required to be made to
ascertain the necessity or desirability of providing surge tank or pressure relief device
in the penstock.
2.6.1 Hydraulic losses

For a penstock alignment, it is rarely possible to provide a straight uniform
alignment and normally the flow in a pipe encounters a variety of deviations like
partial obstacles, change in section, branches, bends etc. which impose additional
losses other than the frictional resistance. The various hydraulic losses which occur
from penstock intake to power house are classified as follows:
ii) Entrance losses
ii) Friction loss in pipe
iii) Conduit losses other than friction loss [5].
These losses are expressed in terms of coefficient to be applied to the velocity

head at the section.
2.6.1.1 Entrance losses

Entrance losses include trash rack loss and entrance loss.
a) Trash rack losses: The penstock opening is protected from floating debris
entering into it by trash rack structure at intake. The head loss through trash rack
varies according to velocity of flow through it. The velocity of flow is restricted to
1 m/s with 50% clogged area. The loss through trash rack can be expressed as:
14
h = Kv 2
r 2g (2.1)
Where K = a loss coefficient
v = velocity through rack limited to a maximum of 1 m/s.
The value of `K' depends upon the ratio of net to gross area at rack section and on the
shape of bars.
b) Entrance losses
The magnitude of entrance losses depends upon the shape of entrance. The hydraulic
losses are estimated as:
h _Kv 2
Q 2g (2.2)
Where the magnitude of `K' depends upon the geometry of entrance. Representative
values are as follows:-
S. No. Type of entrance Value of `K'

1 Sharp Cornered 0.5
2 Slightly rounded 0.23
3 Bell-mouthed 0.05 to 0.1
2.6.1.2 Friction losses

Head loss due to friction in pipes may be estimated from the formulae given
below:
i. Darcy-Weisbach formula:
~V 2
hI 2 gD (2.3)
where
hf = friction head loss in pipe in m;
f= loss coefficient depending upon type, conditions of the pipe and Reynolds number
L =length of pipe in m;
v = velocity through pipe in m/sec; and
D = diameter of pipe.
ii. Manning's formula may be used in case of fully rough turbulent flow.
15
Manning's formula
R2/3 Sl/2
V =
n..
(2.4)
where
R = hydraulic radius
S = slope of energy gradient; and
n = roughness coefficient, shall vary from 0.012 to 0.014 for concrete pipes and for
steel pipes the valve of n shall vary from 0.008 to 0.012. [3]
2.6.1.3 Conduit losses other than friction loss

In a penstock, other conduit losses include losses due to bends, expansion or
contraction, obstruction caused by valve passes and losses in penstock branches and
wyes.
a) Bend Loss: The bend loss excluding friction loss for a circular conduit depends
upon the shape of bend, deflection angle and ratio of radius of bend to diameter of
pipe. The bend loss may be calculated from the following formula:
kb V 2
fib = ~9 (2.5)
where
hb = head loss due to bend,
kb = bend loss coefficient, and
v = velocity in pipe.
b) Loss Due to Expansion and Contraction

Head loss due to gradual expansion h,, may be estimated from the formula:
hex = (V1-
kex 2gV2)2 2.6)
l
where
Vi = velocity at upstream end in m/sec;
V2 = velocit.y at downstream end in m/sec, and
keX — loss coefficient depending upon cone angle.
Head loss in reducer piece hr, may he estimated by the following formula:
16
h, = k (V1~8 Z ) (2.7)
where
kG, = loss coefficient for contraction,
v1,= velocity in normal section, and
v2,= velocity at the contraction section.
c) Losses in valve passages

Various types of valves are provided on a penstock and discharge lines to
check the flow. These are circular gate valves, needle valves and butterfly valve. All
the valves, even under fully opened position, present obstacle to flow in the form of
disc thickness.
i. Circular gate valve

Q= Cd DZ 2g OH (2.8)
where
Q = Discharge in m3/s.
Cd = Discharge coefficient
D = Valve diameter in m.
OH = Pressure drop across the valve in m.
ii) Needle valve or Howell Bunger valve

Needle valve or Howell Bunger valve is provided in the penstock for
bypassing the regulated discharge whenever required.
iii) Butterfly valve
Butterfly valves are frequently used in penstock as service or emergency gates
with the provision for automatic closure in the event of power failure.
2.6.1.4 Losses in penstock branches and Wyes

It is not essential that each unit of a power plant is provided with individual
penstocks. Often one single penstock feed more than two units. The number and size
of penstock is fixed on economic consideration. Depending upon the number of units
17
a single penstock feeds, the penstock branching is defined as Bifurcation — when
feeding two units; Trifurcation — when feeding three units and Manifold —when
feeding more _than three units: The hydraulic losses at wyes are governed by angle of
bifurcation, ratio of cross sectional area and type and shape of bifurcation. The
hydraulic phenomenon in a branch pipe corresponds to that due to change in direction,
change in shape or sudden expansion and losses caused by obstruction, such as tie
rods or sickle.
The various types of wyes and branches generally adopted are:-
a) Wyes with sharp transition.
b) Wyes with conical transition.
c) Wyes with tie rods.
d) Wyes with sickle.
e) Spherical type of bifurcation.
Extensive studies and model tests are conducted to determine the head losses
in various.types of wyes and branches. These model tests are conducted for wyes with
bifurcation angles 300, 45°, 60° and 90°. For the hydraulic losses to be minimum it is
recommended to keep the angle of bifurcation between 45° to 600. The losses are
more when one or more of pipes are closed.
2.7 PENSTOCK ACCESSORIES

Besides the main components of the penstock system several accessories will
also have to be provided for in a pipeline to facilitate fabrication, installation, testing,
safe operation, and inspection and maintenance. These accessories are described
below [5].
2.7.1 Manholes
Manholes are required in the course of the penstock length to provide access
to the pipe interior for inspection and maintenance and repair. These are spaced at
practicable distances normally not more than 400 to 500 ft. apart so that no part of the
pipe length is unduly too far from the manhole. The location of the manholes can be
at top, bottom and side quadrant of the pipe depending upon the individual profile and
size of penstocks. If the penstocks are above the natural ground level the manhole is
located about"I .m.- from the ground level depending upon the diameter of the pipe or
the bottom half of the pipe at 45° off the vertical diameter. If the penstock is below the
18
- natural ground level the'-practicable position for the manhole is in the top position of
the pipe, In such.' cases a -portable ladder is to be used. by the personnel to reach the
bottom -of -the :pipe.. Also as: far as possible the location of the manholes .shall be fixed -
. so as to provide natural ventilation to the interior surface for easy inspection and
repairs. The general size of the opening of the manhole is normally 20" diameter.
2.7.2 Piezometric connections

The piezometric connections are to be provided in the penstock pipes to
facilitate connections for measuring devices for use in the turbine performance tests.
Normally these piezometric connections are provided in the straight length of
penstock away from bends and branches and in the near vicinity of the power house
or valve . house. They are provided in groups of four, equally spaced, around the
periphery of the pipe section. From each group of these connections the piezometric
line is connected to the meter box of the pressure measuring device.
2.7.3 Flanged connections

The flanged connections are provided to connect the penstock pipe line with
any equipment such as valves, expansion joints, pumps turbine scroll cases etc. The
type and the design of the flanges are to be designed to suit the connecting flanges of
the equipment to which the penstock is to be connected. The general type of the
flange connections are the welding neck type, the slip-on-type and plate type of
flanges. Generally. the welding neck type is of forged steel and is used for high heads
and pipes of large diameter while the other type are used with medium to low heads
and with pipes of smaller size.
2.7.4 Bulk heads and Test heads

Test heads are required for the purpose of hydrostatic pressure testing of the
steel pipes and its joints. Similarly bulk heads are provided whenever the penstocks
are to be closed for temporary periods as in phased constructions until future stage
construction is taken up. The shapes of the test heads, generally adopted, are
hemispherical, semi-ellipsoidal or standard dished flange ends. Allowance should be
given in the ends of the pipe for connecting the straight ends of these test heads which
will be removed after the. testing of the pipe. The test heads and bulk heads shall be
designed to withstand the test pressures of the pipe section.
19. _ _. _..
2.7.5 Closing pieces
Often small unavoidable errors creep into the penstock system due - to
discrepancies between theoretical calculations and actual laying of the pipe lengths at-
site, or due to errors in process of fabrication or erection at site; or due to shrinkage of
field weld joints. In order to permit the final field adjustments and to obtain perfect
assembly of the pipe line system it is often necessary to provide for one or more
special piece length of pipe. These are called as closing pieces or make up pieces. The
number and length of these closing pieces shall be fixed for fabrication only after the
pipe line is erected and actual measurements for perfect fitting of pipe line are made.
Normally these pipes will be fitted either at the connection to valves or near
expansion joints and turbine scroll cases or at the portals of the tunnel.
2.7.6 Filling connections

Before putting the penstock system into operation . the same shall be filled
slowly with water, care being taken to prevent shock or hammering effect. Also by
filling the pipe with water the controlling gates will be kept under balanced pressure
which facilitates its easy opening. For this purpose intake nozzles will be provided in
the pipe section at suitable positions for connections with filling lines. Normally these
intake nozzles opening are provided at the horizontal centre of pipes either at
upstream end of the pipe length. It is preferable to provide these connections on the
downstream of the penstock gate so that filling can be effected under submerged
conditions. These filling lines are connected with the reservoir on the other end and
provided with proper control valves. These lines are to be of sufficient capacity to
complete the filling of the entire length of with a possible reasonable time depending
the size and the length of the penstock system. It is advisable to provide separate
filling lines for each individual pipe line for easy operation.
2.7.7 Drainage connections

Whenever the penstocks are to be inspected for maintenance and repairs they
are to be drained off. For this purpose drainage connections shall have to be provided.
These drainage nozzles located at the bottom most reach of the penstock at the lowest
point of the pipe with proper gratings flush with the inner surface of pipe. These
drainage lines are normally connected to the draft tube of the turbine or to sump
provided - in the power plant. The capacity of these drain lines are determined
according to the time in which the pipe is to be emptied depending on size and length
of the pipe system.
2.7.8 Air vents and air valves

Air vents shall be provided on the immediate downstream side of the control
gate or valve to facilitate connection with atmosphere. These air inlets serve the
purpose of admitting the air into the pipes when the control gate or valve is closed and
the penstock is drained thus avoiding collapse of the pipe due to vacuum or excessive
negative pressure. Also the air admitted will accelerate the draining action of the pipe.
Similarly when the penstock is being filled up these vents facilitate the proper escape
of the air from the pipes. In long discharge lines from pumping stations especially
where there are steep slopes depending on the topographical features of the rough
terrain it is advisable to provide at the summit points either air vents or air valves to
release air at the time of sudden shut down. These summit pockets in a pipe line
should be eliminated as far as possible. Care should be taken to design the air vents
with adequate capacity of the air entry as serious accidents and failures may result due
to inadequate venting. The factors governing the size of the vents are the length,
diameter, thickness, head of water and discharge in the penstock and strength of the
penstock under external pressure viz, collapsible strength of the pipe.
2.7.9 Valves and control gates

Gates and valves are to be provided for control of the flow into the penstocks
for operation, inspection and repairs. The type of the gate or valve to be provided will
be selected based on the type of intake, size of intake and operating conditions.
The general types of the head gates are-

a) Sliding gates
b) Wheeled or tractor gates
c) Stoney gates
d) Caterpillar gates
e) Taintor gates
f) Cylinder gates.
Similarly types of the valves which will be used for a pipe line are:-
a) Butterfly valves
21
b) Needle valves
c) Gate valves
d) Spherical valves.
In general any type of the gates enlisted above will be used at the intake of the
conduit whereas the valves are used at the strategic points in the Course of the pipe
line for effecting control and safe operation. It is general practice to provide valves
wherever the length of pipe is long. These are normally provided at two places one at
the upper end of the conduit say after the surge tank and one at the lower end of the
pipe line near the entry to the turbine. The present trend is to put the valve below
surge tank in case of pressure shafts in sound rock. The valve at top if provided is
fitted with an automatic over-velocity tripling device which closes the pipe when
velocity exceeds 20% normal. The construction of the valve in general can be
described of having a closing member which operates and remains within the passage
way. The design of the valve should be quite safe against the cavitation which is the
most important criteria for successful operation of the valve. These controlling
devices can be operated hydraulically, electrically and by manual operation also.
These controlling devices for penstocks will normally be used only either in full open
conditions or in full closed conditions.
2.8 PENSTOCK RELATED ISSUES
2.8.1 Ovalization/Out-of-roundness
Thin-walled penstocks are most susceptible to losing their shape and
becoming out of round. However, penstocks with an acceptable wall thickness also
can lose their shape. Some of the most common causes of penstock ovalization are
listed below [6]:
a) When the normal internal pressures are low and the wall thickness calculations
have not included the effect of the fluid weight on the penstock shell, the penstock
typically will not maintain it's shape under normal operating conditions. For low-
head sections, the stiffening effect associated with pressurizing the conduit may not
be sufficient to offset the weight of the fluid acting downward to flatten out the
pipe.
22
:.. b) Improper installation of buried or partially-buried penstocks can cause the penstock
to lose its shape. Typically, either improper _ compaction or the application of
excessive surcharge loads: can cause the penstock to lose its shape. Proper
compaction from penstock invert to springline is essential for proper installation.
Over-compaction at the springline can deflect the penstock sides inwardly, and
under-compaction can cause the sides to splay outward. Exceeding the design
surcharge or external pressure design loading (e.g., under road crossings) can also
result in ovalization of the penstock.
c) Penstock sections that have not been designed for external loads and that are
backfilled in soil or encased in concrete can become ovalized.
2.8.2 Linings and unlining

The penstock interior may be lined or unlined. A penstock lining will hide any
defects or cracks in the steel. The present condition of the lining is important to the
longevity of the penstock. Even small areas of pinhole leaks or degraded lining will
allow water to seep between the lining and the base metal, trapping moisture and
increasing the rate of corrosion. The presence of rust or stains indicates that the lining
is not performing as intended. The inside surfaces of the penstock should be examined
to verify that the original surface is smooth and that the lining, if present, is intact.
The condition of the inside surface or lining affects head loss. The lining should be
examined to verify that it is protecting the penstock structural material. A
determination should be made if any lining is missing or if the surface is rough or
smooth. If . operating conditions have caused layers of deposits, like calcium
carbonate, that have been allowed to remain in place, a determination should be made
as to whether such deposits are detrimental to the base metal underneath [6].
2.8.3 Organic growth

The interior surfaces of the penstock may have become fouled with organic
growth over a period of time, thus restricting water flow. Also, marine organisms such
as freshwater clams or zebra mussels can reduce hydraulic capacity of a penstock.
23
2.8.4 Corrosion, Erosion, and Cavitation
....The degree of erosion and corrosion, as well as the condition of the lining, are
. _portant.:Erosion_ or -cavitation inside the penstock can be caused by-turbulent water•
(typically, occurring at discontinuities and bends), high velocity, or scouring damage
caused by abrasive material carried in the water (typically occurring along the
penstock invert). Mismatched surfaces at inside joints should be checked to verify
their integrity. Corrosion can occur on the inside of a penstock. Pinhole leaks may
occur at any location, although general corrosion and deep pitting is more likely to
occur in relatively horizontal penstock regions and in crevices. Also, look for rust
streaks or discoloration which may indicate penstock deterioration. The extent of wall
thinning caused by uniform corrosion and erosion may be difficult to measure
visually, so further testing may be necessary to determine the average wall thickness.
Corrosion can occur on the outside of a penstock. Pinhole leaks may occur at
any location, although general corrosion and deep pitting is more likely to occur in
relatively horizontal penstock regions and in crevices. Also look for rust streaks or
discoloration which may indicate penstock deterioration. The extent of wall thinning
caused by uniform corrosion may be difficult to measure visually, so further testing
using ultrasonic techniques may be necessary to determine the average wall thickness.
2.8.5 Localized buckling

Localized circumferential buckling is an indication of longitudinal
overstressing of the penstock. This phenomenon only occurs if inadequate provisions
have been made for expansion and contraction. This defect is most commonly caused
by thermal changes that affect a section of penstock between two fixed points, such as
anchor blocks. This phenomenon is most likely to occur when the penstock has been
dewatered and the ambient temperatures exceed the penstock's normal operating
temperatures. Therefore, dewatering of the penstock for prolonged periods must be
avoided during the warmest seasons of the year.
2.8.6 Voids in backfill or Concrete-encased penstock sections

For buried or concrete-encased penstock sections, voids may be present in the
backfill or concrete. The external pressure from surrounding ground water in the area
... of these,. voids can cause the penstock shell to. partially collapse in the form of an
24
inward bulge. Voids in backfill are typically caused by ground-water erosion of the
backfill material near the invert of the penstock. Prolonged erosion of the backfill can
undermine the penstock foundation, leading to differential settlement and potential
failure. This type of defect can usually be detected by striking the penstock shell with
a hammer at multiple locations and listening for a hollow sound. Voids in concrete are
caused by poor consolidation of the fresh concrete during concrete placement or by
the trapping of excess water in the concrete "bleed water" near the penstock invert.
Typically, these types of voids are localized and relatively small. However, voids
large enough to cause damage to the penstock can occur. The d ction of voids in
concrete is similar to the detection of voids in backfill. CENTRAL C/e~
ACC Na .................9~~
Date....................
2.9 FLOW THROUGH PIPES
Flow in a round pipe is stabilized as laminar flow w r the Reynolds

number Re is less than 2320 or so, but the flow becomes turbulent through the
transition region as Re increases [7] shown in Figure 2.1. In turbulent flow, as
observed in the experiment where Reynolds let coloured liquid flow, the fluid
particles have a velocity minutely fluctuating in an irregular short cycle in addition to
the mean velocity.
' 1 I NI V~l..l4t
V
now Laminar flow
TO J Umax
X — -.-
Figure 2.1: Velocity distribution of turbulent flow [7].

Most flows are turbulent in nature, which are important in such applications as
heat transfer and mixing. Alongside progress in measuring technology, including
visualisation techniques, hot-wire anemometry and laser Doppler velocimetry, and
computerised numerical computation, much research is being conducted to clarify the
structure of turbulent flow. Some are the points given below which can explain
turbulent flow.
25
i. The turbulent motion is an irregular motion.
ii. . Turbulent fluid motion can be considered as an irregular condition of flow in

which various quantities (such as velocity components and pressure) show a
random variation with time and space in such a way that the statistical average
of those quantities can be quantitatively expressed.
iii. It is postulated that the fluctuations inherently come from disturbances (such
as roughness of a solid surface) and they may be either dampened out due to
viscous damping or may grow by drawing energy from the free stream.
iv. At a Reynolds number less than the critical, the kinetic energy of flow is not
enough to sustain the random fluctuations against the viscous damping and in
such cases laminar flow continues to exist.
v. At higher Reynolds number than the critical Reynolds number, the kinetic
energy of flow supports the growth of fluctuations and transition to turbulence
takes place
Characteristics of Turbulent Flow
i. The most important- characteristic of turbulent motion is the fact that velocity
and pressure at a point fluctuate with time in a random manner as shown in
Figure 2.2 (b). In Figure 2.2(a) characteristic of laminar flow is shown.
UV
Lamar
- (a) t
Figure 2.2: Variation of horizontal components of velocity for (a) laminar and
(b) turbulent flows at a point P [7].
ii. The mixing in turbulent flow is more due to these fluctuations. As a result we
can see more uniform velocity distributions in turbulent pipe flows as
compared to the laminar flows.
26
2.9.1 Incompressible, steady and uniform turbulent flow in bounded conduits [71
r 0 =rim d
(2.9)
where d p is the rate of loss of piezometric head along the conduit, r0 is the wall or
boundary shear stress and m is hydraulic radius(wetted perimeter).
The concept of a flow friction factor f is introduced, which is a non

dimensional, experimentally measured factor normally expressed as
2
fPv
ro = 2 (2.10)
where v is the mean flow velocity. Hence
=;f p;:
dP*
dx 2m (2.11)
If the frictional head loss down a length 1 of the conduit is denoted by h1 , then
the rate of loss of piezometric pressure may be expressed as
dP* __ fPv 2 _ Pghf

dx 2m 1
f l v2
h f = 2gm
(2.12)
For pipes running full of fluid, the wetted perimeter becomes the internal
circumference of the pipeline; hence A / P = m = ,r D2 /4,r D = D / 4 , so that above

equation for circular pipe becomes
4f1v2
h f = 2gd
(2.13)
The above equation is known as Darcy-Weisbach equation for head loss in

circular pipes. It is -seen from the above equation that all the parameters, with the
27
exception of friction-factor f, are measurable. Results of extensive experimentation in -
this area led' to the establishment of the following proportional relationships:
i. hal
ii. hf a v2
iii. hf a
iv hf depends on the surface roughness of the pipe walls;

v. depends on fluid density and viscosity
hf
vi. hf is independent of pressure
The value off must be selected so that the correct value of hf will always be
given by the Darcy equation and so cannot be a single-value constant. The value of
f must depend on all parameters listed above. Expressed in a form suitable for
dimensional analysis this implies that
f=(D (v,d, P, u,k,k',a)
Where k is a measure of size of wall roughness, k' is a measure of the spacing
of the roughness particles, both having dimensions of length, and a is a form
factor, a dimensionless parameter whose value depends on the shape of the
roughness particles. In the general rough pipe case, dimensional analysis yields an
expression
f=c 2 (Re,k/d,k'/d, a)
- Thus, the calculation of losses in turbulent flow is dependent on the use of
empirical results and the most common reference source is the moody chart, which
is logarithmic plot of f vs. Re for. a range of kid values. This type of data
presentation is commonly referred to as a Stanton diagram. A typical moody chart
is shown in Figure 2.3.
28
--U.
"Woo
ato
-us■
" Where p„u the fluid density and viscosity, R is the pipe radius, k is the roughness
particle size and zo is the wall shear stress.
Dimensional analysis suggests an expression of the form
u= =SPA( R R' )
f~ • (2.14)
where is a form of the Reynolds number.
Surface roughness represented by kIR will affect the value of u*, but will only
be a significant factor in the flow zone close to the wall. Similarly, the fluid viscosity
will only be a major importance in the laminar sublayer close to the pipe wall. Thus,
the velocity in the central turbulent core of the flow will, be assumed to depend• only
on the positional group y/R. It is customary to express this relationship in terms of
velocity defect or the difference between the local velocity u at position y from the
wall and the flow maximum velocity on the pipe centerline um , Hence
(u — u)/u' =O2(y/R)
(2.15)
This expression is referred to as the velocity defect distribution and is well

supported by experimental work which shows that, for a wide range of flow Reynolds
numbers, the velocity profiles only differ in the region close to the pipe wall. As the
Reynolds number increases, the friction factor f and the shear stress zo terms become
smaller, and the velocity profile across the central core of the flow becomes
progressively more uniform.
Prandtl proposed an empirical velocity distribution for this turbulent central core of
the form
u/u, = (y/R)”
(2.16)
Where the value of n = 1/7 for Re > 105 and decreases above this Reynolds number.
This is well supported experimentally, but does not break down at y=R as symmetry
here demands that du/dy=0, which cannot be justified by the expression.
30
-- -------... -- If the - case of .the smooth pipe is considered, the k/R group- becomes
unimportant and .so, close to pipe wall, the effect of pipe radius R is negligible, so
long -as<R; buffer zone is limit for this assumption as shown in Figure 2.4' so that
~ ),
UU = SPs (Re (2.17)
where Re*= pyu` I p, a group independent of pipe radius R

ASS ~tszcs~-a I c a. ~s a s.¢ x: a n.. m s m ca a s mr o r m a.. .. s..-a m .szsa.
+ ........ sae•
G uftr
wan 0 L8[Ct1IR3r
Lrnhiw
cubJay*r
Figure 2.4: Different zones of a turbulent flow past a wall [7].
U
u = A loge Re* +A1
U (2.18)
where A and Al are constants to be determined experimentally.
The equation 2.18 is known as universal velocity distribution. This equation . only
applies in the central, turbulent core of the pipeline as shown in Figure 2.4
2.9.3 Representation of energy changes in a fluid system
The changes of energy, and its transformation from one form to another which
occurs in a fluid system, can be represented graphically. In a real fluid system, the-
total energy per unit weight will not remain constant. Unless energy is supplied to the
system at some point by means of a pump, it will gradually decrease in the direction
of motion due to losses resulting from friction and from the disturbance of flow at
changes of pipe cross section or as a result of change of direction.
31
V+1 IJI ..
2g
Figure 2.5: Total Energy Line and Hydraulic Gradient Line for pipe flow.
The line joining all the points to which the water would rise, if an open stand
pipe was inserted, is known as the Hydraulic Gradient Line (HGL), and runs parallel
to the Total Energy line (TEL) at a distance below it equal to the velocity head as
shown in Figure 2.5.
32
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
. - -Various authors have analysed pipe flow experimentally and analytically for different
flow conditions. Discussion about previous work that has been done on pipe flow
analysis, summary of work carried out by different authors, their objectives and
conclusions are presented here in brief.
Salami [8] has investigated turbulent developing flow at the entrance to a

smooth pipe. Developing turbulent flow was examined and three theoretical models
were evolved to explain the three most important regimes: the region of flat plate
flow, the region of transition from flat plate to pipe flow, and the region of boundary
layer interaction. There was good agreement between the theoretical models and the
experimental data for the boundary layer development. A simple empirical formula
was obtained from which it is possible to predict the length of the entry region. The
onset of the increase in turbulence intensity at the core, which marks the start of
transition from flat plate flow to pipe flow, seems to occur at a particular Reynolds
number, based on distance into the pipe, of about 3.15x 106.
Gibbings [9] has studied measurement of skin friction from the turbulent
velocity profile. This paper give details about the measurement technique for deriving
the surface shear, under turbulent pipe and boundary-layer flows, from the velocity
profile. Analytical development of an expression for the full velocity profile was
described and a recent generalised means of regression curve fitting enables this
profile to be fitted to experimental measurement. Recent measurements of good
quality, using Pitot tubes, hot-wire and laser-doppler anemometers, are used to assess
critically, and then, to improve the experimental accuracy of, the empirical coefficient
and the determination of the surface shear
Zagarola and Smits [10] have studied scaling of the mean velocity profile for
turbulent pipe flow. An experimental investigation was conducted, to determine the
scaling of the mean velocity profile for a fully developed, smooth pipe flow.
Measurements of the mean velocity profiles and static pressure gradients were
performed at 26 different Reynolds numbers between 31 x 103 and 35 x 106. The
profiles indicated two overlap regions: one which scales as a power law and one
33
-which scales as a: log ' law, where the log law was only evident when the Reynolds
number exceeds approximately 300 x 103. It was proposed that the velocity scales for
the inner and- outer regions: were different, which was contrary to commonly accepted
beliefs.
Bhaganagar et. al. [11]. have studied effect of roughness on wall-bounded

turbulence. Direct numerical simulation of turbulent incompressible plane-channel
flow between a smooth wall and one covered with regular three-dimensional
roughness elements was performed. Results are compared from the smooth- and
rough-wall sides of the channel for three different roughness heights of hh = 5.4, 10.8,
and 21.6 for Re, of 400, to isolate the effects of the roughness on turbulent statistics
and the instantaneous turbulence structure at large and small scales. Main focus was
on the interaction between the near-wall and outer-layer regions, in particular the
extent to which the near-wall behavior influences the flow further away from the
surface. Roughness .tends to increase the intensity of the velocity and vorticity
fluctuations in the inner layer. In the outer layer, although the roughness alters the
velocity fluctuations, the vorticity fluctuations are relatively unaffected. The length
scales and flow dynamics in the roughness sublayer, the spatially inhomogeneous
layer within which the flow is directly influenced by the individual roughness
elements, were also examined. Alternative mechanisms involved in producing and
maintaining near-wall turbulence in rough-wall boundary layers were also considered.
It was found that the strength of the inner/outer-layer interactions were greatly
affected by the size of the roughness elements.
Jimenez [ 12] has reviewed the experimental evidence on turbulent flows over
rough walls. Two parameters were important: Reynolds number and k., , which
measures the effect of the roughness on the buffer layer, and the ratio of the boundary
layer thickness to the roughness height, which determines whether a logarithmic layer
survives.. The behaviour of transitionally rough surfaces with low k,, depends a lot
on their geometry. In flows with S / k :5 50 , the effect of roughness extends across the
boundary layer, and is also variable. The theoretical arguments were sound, but the
experimental evidence was inconclusive. Finally, some ideas on how rough walls can
34
be 'modeled without the detailed computation of the flow around _the roughness
elements themselves were discussed.
Shockling et. al. [13] have studied roughness effects in turbulent pipe flow.
Mean- flow measurements are presented for fully developed turbulent pipe flow over a
Reynolds number range of 57x103 to 21x106 where the flow exhibits hydraulically
smooth, transitionally rough, and fully rough behaviours. The surface of the pipe was
prepared with a honing tool, typical of many engineering applications, achieving a
ratio of characteristic roughness height to pipe diameter of 1: 17000. Results for the
friction factor showed that in the transitionally rough regime surface followed a
Nikuradse (1933)-type inflectional relationship rather than the monotonic Colebrook
(1939) relationship used in the Moody diagram. The pipe exhibited smooth behaviour
for scaled roughness height ks <_ 3.5.
Schultz and Flack [14] have studied turbulence measurements for rough-wall
boundary layers and compared to those for a smooth wall. The work covers a wide
Reynolds-number range (Re =2180-27100), spanning the hydraulically smooth to the
fully rough flow regimes for a single surface, while maintaining a roughness height
that is a small fraction of the boundary-layer thickness. In this investigation, the root-
mean-square roughness height was at least three orders of magnitude smaller than the
boundary-layer thickness, and the Karman number, typifying the ratio of the largest to
the smallest turbulent scales in the flow, was as high as 10 100. The mean velocity
profiles for the rough and smooth walls show remarkable similarity in the outer layer
using velocity defect scaling. The Reynolds stresses and higher-order turbulence
statistics also show excellent agreement in the outer, layer. The results lend strong
support to the concept of outer layer similarity for rough walls in which there is a
large separation between the roughness length scale and the largest turbulence scales
in the flow.
Langelandsvik et. al. [15] have studied flow in a commercial steel pipe. Mean
flow measurements are obtained in a commercial steel pipe with k/D = 1/26 000,
where k. is the roughness height and D the pipe diameter, covering the smooth,
transitionally rough, and fully rough regimes. The results indicate a transition from
smooth to rough flow that is much more abrupt than the Colebrook transitional
35
roughness function- suggests. The equivalent sandgrain roughness was found to be -1.6
times the: r.m.s..roughness -height, in sharp contrast to the value of 3.0 to 5.0 that is
commonly used. The difference amounts to a reduction in pressure drop for a given
flow rate of at least 13% in the fully rough regime. The mean velocity profiles support
Townsend's similarity hypothesis for flow over rough surfaces.
Volino et. al. [16] have studied turbulence structure in rough- and smooth-
wall boundary layers. Turbulence measurements for rough-wall boundary layers are
presented and compared to those for a smooth wall. The rough-wall experiments were
made on a woven mesh surface at Reynolds numbers approximately equal to those for
the smooth wall. Fully rough conditions were achieved. The work focuses on
turbulence structure, as documented through spectra of the fluctuating velocity
components, - swirl strength, and two-point auto- and cross-correlations of the
fluctuating velocity and swirl. The results were in good agreement, both qualitatively
and quantitatively, with the turbulence structure for smooth-wall boundary layers
documented in the literature. The boundary layer is characterized by packets of
hairpin vortices which induce low speed regions with regular span wise spacing. The
same types of structure are observed for the rough- and smooth-wall flows. When the
measured quantities are normalized using outer variables, some differences are
observed, but quantitative similarity, in large part, holds. The present results support
and help to explain the previously documented outer-region similarity in turbulence
statistics between smooth- and rough-wall boundary layers.
Kwon [17] has studied transient flow in a piping system using both
experimental and computer models. Two different computer models, the method of
characteristics model and the axi-symmetrical model, are utilized and discussed.
Experiments for transient flow in a piping system were conducted to verify the results
of the computer models. It was found that the energy decay is underestimated if the
Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient f is used for the analysis of transient flow. The
value of a parameter k in the axi-symmetrical model was calibrated using the results
of experiments. Therefore, the equivalent head loss coefficient CL for the analysis of
transient flow was introduced and experimentally determined. The method of
characteristics model is more numerically stable and convenient to use than the axi-
symmetrical .model. The methodof characteristics model has a shortcoming that the
36
steady - state. head- 'loss coefficient should be used. The axi-symmetrical model can
overcome such a shortcoming and may accurately predict pressure of transient flow.
Langelandsvik et. al. [18] have studied flow in commercial steel pipes. Mean
flow measurements are obtained in a commercial steel pipe with kJD = 126 000,
where 11 is the roughness height and D the pipe diameter, covering the smooth,
transitionally rough, and fully rough regimes. The results indicate a transition from
smooth to rough flow that is much more abrupt than the Colebrook transitional
roughness function suggests. The equivalent sand grain roughness was found to be 1.6
times the r.m.s. roughness height, in sharp contrast to the value of 3.0 to 5.0 that is
commonly used. The difference amounts to a reduction in pressure drop for a given
flow rate of at least 13% in the fully rough regime. In the present study the Reynolds
number was varied from 150x10 to 20x106, with kn,s/D =126 000 to 38.5x10. The
transitionally rough behaviour was found to be significantly different from that
suggested by the Colebrook roughness function. In particular, the departure from the
smooth curve is considerably more abrupt, and the fully rough regime is attained over
a relatively small interval in Reynolds number.
Willis et. al. [19] have studied Experimental and theoretical progress in pipe
flow transition. Recent results from experimental and numerical investigations
obtained are discussed. Progress has been made on three fundamental issues: The
threshold amplitude of disturbances required to trigger a transition to turbulence from
the laminar state; the threshold Reynolds number flow below which a disturbance
decays from turbulence to the laminar state, with quantitative agreement between
experimental and numerical results; and understanding the relevance of recently
discovered families of unstable travelling wave solutions to transitional and turbulent
pipe flow.
Hultmark et. al. [20] have studied Scaling of near-wall turbulence is pipe
flow. Measurements of the stream wise component of the turbulence intensity were
acquired for Reynolds numbers based on pipe diameter, ReD, ranging from 24x 103 to
145 x 103. Measurements of the stream wise component of the turbulence intensity
were performed in a fully developed pipe flow to ensure accurate calibration at low
._ ___...velocities.. The results indicate that the near-wall peak was invariant with Reynolds
37
:number - in - -location-- and- -magnitude at Reynolds numbers up---to-1-45 -000-:which - - - --- -
compares well with sufficient: spatial resolution to avoid spatial filtering effects. The
invariance in the inner peak magnitude stands in contrast to similar results obtained in
boundary layers, where a strong Reynolds number dependence has been observed.
Tay et.al. [21] have studied Influence of adverse pressure gradient on rough-
wall . turbulent flows. Experimental investigation of adverse pressure gradient
turbulent flow over two rough surfaces and a reference smooth surface has been done.
The adverse pressure gradient was produced in an asymmetric diffuser whose opening
angle was 30. The rough surfaces comprised sand grains and gravels of nominal mean
diameters of 1.55 mm and 4.22 mm, respectively. The tests were conducted at an
approach flow velocity of 0.5 m/s and the momentum thickness Reynolds number
varied from 900 to 3000. A particle image velocimetry technique was used for the
velocity measurements. Profiles of the mean velocity, turbulent intensities, Reynolds
stress ratios, mixing length, eddy viscosity and the production terms were then
obtained to document the effects of adverse pressure gradient (APG) on low Reynolds
number rough-wall turbulent boundary layers. The results indicate that APG thickens
the boundary layer and roughness sub-layer. The APG and surface roughness also
enhanced the production of turbulence as well as the turbulence level when compared
with the smooth-wall data.
Casartelli and . Ledergerber [22] have studied Aspects . of the numerical

simulation for the flow in penstocks. The flow in a full-scale penstock has been
computed. Characteristic of this flow is the very high device Reynolds-number, which
ranges up to -100 millions. It is observed that mesh quality has been identified as a key
parameter for this kind of flows. The very low viscosity present in the flow can lead
to instabilities, which can be of physical or numerical nature and both affect the
convergence of steady . state simulations, thus transient approach is followed.
Computations. were performed with two different meshes (two different qualities) and
three different numerical procedures were used for the investigation. The
shortcomings• due to the use of a low quality mesh can be overcome with numerical
dissipating schemes, like a first order scheme (also known as upwind scheme), or with
unsteady computations, which compensate the problems in the mesh with a large
number of inner loops- and thus lead to a considerable increase in computational time. -. - -
38
'Loureiro et.al [23] have studied .the distribution
• -of wall shear stress
downstream 'of a change in roughness. Six different 'experimental techniques were
used to characterize the non-equilibrium flow downstream of a rough-to-smooth step
change in surface roughness. Over the rough'surface, wall shear stress results obtained
through the form drag and the Reynolds stress methods were shown to be mutually
consistent. - Over the smooth surface, reference wall- shear stress data was obtained
through two optical methods: linear velocity profiles obtained through laser-Doppler
anemometry and a sensor surface, the -diverging fringe Doppler sensor. The work
shows that the two most commonly used methods to determine the wall shear stress,
the log-law gradient method and the Reynolds shear stress method, were completely
inappropriate in the developing flow region. Preston tubes, on the other hand, were
shown to perform well in the region of a non-equilibrium flow.
From literature review it is observed that research has been done to analyse
turbulent flow. Factors influencing flow-are discussed in literature cited. Pipe material
properties play a major role in deciding the hydraulic losses through the pipes. It can
be seen from literature that no work has- been done to estimate the losses in penstock
due to mismatch.
39
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
- .- In hydro power plants the hydraulic losses account for 3% to 8%. Various factors
which cause hydraulic losses are discussed in earlier chapter. The literature survey
revealed that no amount of work has been done to know the effect of mismatch in
penstocks. The experiment was conducted to know the effect of mismatch on
penstock flow conditions. The effect of mismatch on pressure and flow velocity is to -
be calculated using experiment. The flow velocity is calculated using the discharge
obtained. Hydraulic Gradient Line (HGL) and Total Energy Line (TEL) are drawn by
the experimental results.
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The experimental setup consists of the following equipment/instrument as

shown in the table 4.1. The penstock is having sufficient length such that the flow is
fully developed so that the velocity can be measured with the help of pitot tube,
Ultrasonic flow meters and pressure is measured with LD 301 pressure transmitter at
fully developed flow to get accurate results. The upstream and the downstream pipe
work configurations of bends, expanders, reducers, valves, and pump. In order to
eliminate the disturbance caused by above accessories, the discharge and .pressure
measuring instruments have been installed at 10D distance from the upstream flange
of the pipe, where. D is the diameter of the pipe. Schematic diagram of experimental
setup is shown in Figure 4.1.
For experimental setup MS pipe of 3 mm thickness was rolled to diameter of

0.342 m and for a length of 1.65 m and was replaced with 7 mm thickness pipe of
same dimensions - which is shown in Figure 4.2. The MS pipe was welded by two
flanges of diameter 400 mm on upstream and 375 mm on downstream side. 6 circular
markings were made on 400 mm - diameter flange at steps of 2 mm gap to create
mismatch of 2mm, 4mm, 6mm, 8mm and 10mm as shown in Figure 4.3. A pitot tube
was inserted into penstock pipe. with a rubber seal to ensure no leakages through the 8
mm drilled hole at a distance of D on the upstream of pipe joint. The pitot tube can be
moved in vertical direction along the diameter and can be exactly positioned inside
40
the pipe with the help of vernier scale attached to it as shown in Figure 4.2. Similarly
other three pitot tubes were inserted into penstock pipe at a distance of D, 2D and 4D
distance at the downstream of pipe joint as shown in Figure 4.2.
ors
Sapp
Figure 4.1: Schematic of experimental setup.
I Vernier scale
375 mm
Dia flange
400 mm
Dia flange
3 ' t \ — gala —~..
Figure 4.2: Pitot tube arrangement along with U tube manometer.
41
Table 4.1 Equipments and instruments required for experiments
S1. No. Name of the Equipment/Instrument Qty.

I Pump (150 1ps,10 m) 1
2 Clamp-on type UTTF 1
3 MS Pipe (7 mm thickness) 16 m length and
342 mm diameter
4 Butterfly valve
5 VIS Pipe (3 mm thickness) with Flanges connected 1.65 in length and
400 mm diameter flange on upstream and 375 342 mm diameter
m diameter flange on downstream side.) 2 Flanges
6 Measuring Tape 1
7 Grinder 1
8 Pitot tubes ( length of 50 mm and diameter of 6 4
mm)
9 Vernier scale attached to pitot tubes (length of 4
350 mm) With 0.1 mm least count
10 U tube manometers with 50 mm Scale attached 4
11 LD 301 Pressure Transmitter with manifold and 1
a battery of 12 V
12 Structure, Mountings, Clamps, Chain pulley -
(Handling Equipment) Etc.
Figure 4.3: Circular markings on 400 mm diameter flange at an interval of 2 mm.
42
4.1.1 Working principle of pitot static tube
A line_ diagram. of;pitot static tube is shown in Figure 4.4. The holes. on-th
side of the tube connect to one side of a manometer and register the static head, (hr),
while the central hole is -connected to the other side of the manometer to register
the stagnation head (h2).
Figure 4.4: Pitot-static tube.
Consider the pressures- on the level of the centre line of the Pitot tube and using the
theory of the manometer,
PA=P2+PwgX
P B= PI + Pw g (X-h)+ Pairg h
PA =PB
P2+ Pw$X =pl + P (Y-h) + Pw g h
We know that p2 = pstatic = pl-+ pw u; , substituting this in to the above gives

2
~1
Pr+ (Pw- Pair) $ h `P1 +' Pwui
J 2h(Pw —Par )
u1 =
Pw (4.1)
43.
ul is the velocity- of water flowing inside the penstock. p,, is the density of water and
__ .. _. _ _::.. !°a►T is. dcnsity. of air. The. Pitot-static tubes give velocities at points in the flow. It
does not give the overall discharge.
4.2 EXPERIMENT PROCEDURE
The objective of the experiment is to know the effect of mismatch on flow

condition in penstock at different Reynolds number. For this purpose discharge, mean
flow velocity and pressure are to be measured. Velocity was measured by two
different methods. In first method the flow velocity was calculated by using pitot
tube at every 10 mm interval across the diameter of the pipe. The pitot tube can be
brought to exact position with the help of vernier scale attached to it. The manometric
height was noted down for each pitot tube kept at same height from bottom wall of
penstock. In the same manner manometric height were noted down for all pitot tubes
across the walls of the penstock at an interval of 10 mm gap. Velocity of water was
calculated using equation 4.1. In second method Ultrasonic flow meter was used to
know the velocity and discharge in penstock. Ultrasonic flow meter was connected at
positions where pitot tubes were used to take the readings as shown in Figure 4.5. The
above procedure was followed to take velocities at 5 different Reynolds number. The
flow was varied with the help of butterfly valve which is shown in Figure 4.1.
For the purpose of pressure measurement LD 301 Pressure Transmitter with

pressure equiliser was used which is shown in Figure 4.6. Least count of LD 301
Pressure Transmitter is 0.01 k-Pa. In this arrangement 6 mm holes were drilled at 4
places at centre line of penstock, and four nipples having hole of 6 mm were welded
to penstock as shown in Figure 4.6. Ball valves were attached to the other end of
nipples for taking pressure measurement at each point separately. Through this Ball
valve PVC pipes were connected to pressure equiliser (manifold). A PVC pipe was
connected from pressure equiliser to LD 301 pressure transmitter for pressure
measurement. One Ball valve was kept open and other three were kept closed for
taking pressure readings at a particular time. Similarly pressure readings were taken at
all positions one after the other at all Reynolds number. Pressure ' readings were
observed from LED display.
44
Figure 4.5: Ultrasonic flow meter connected at upstream of mismatch.
Pressure equiliser
LED
display
Figure 1.6: Arrangement for pressure measurement.
4.3 CALCULATION OF PARAMETERS FROM EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Let Ahi, vl, qi, Ah2, V2, q2. Ah3, v3, q3, Oho, V4, q4 be manometric height,
velocity and discharge corresponding to 1 st , 2nd, 3rd and 4`t' pitot tube readings
respectively. Four different manometric heights were noted down simultaneously for
a straight pipe flow and Reynolds number. Pitot tube was then adjusted to different
45
height 'with- the help of vernier scale to note down manometric- height.'This procedure
was repeated to note down the manometric heights across the diameter of penstock at
an interval of 10 ' mm, , from one wall of penstock to another as shown in Figure 4.7.
This procedure was repeated by changing the flow with the help of butterfly valve.
Again above procedure was repeated for mismatching conditions. Discharge through
the penstock is calculated by equation 4.2. Oh was noted down for a particular radius,
above and below central line of penstock as shown in Figure 4.7. Corresponding
velocity was calculated taking average of Ah for a particular radius.
'V
Figure 4.7: Velocity measured at different radius with the help of pitot tube.
Q= 2zr((v0 +v1 )/ 2) fr'rdr +2Tr((vl +v2 )/2)frirdr+

2 Tr ((v2 + v3 ) / 2) frZ r dr + --------------------+ 2 if ((v16 + v17) / 2) fri6 r dr ... (4.2)
Where
Q= discharge through penstock in m3/s
vo = Velocity of flow (m/s) at centre line of penstock measured by pitot tube

v= Velocity of-flow (m/s) át:10 mm away from centre line of penstock-measured by
pitot tube.
Similarly v2 to v16 are velocities of flow (m/s) at 20 mm to 160 mm away from centre
line of penstock at gap of 10 mm measured by pitot tube.
v17 = Velocity at wall of penstock which is taken as zero
r. = 10 mm, r2=20 mm, ........ r17= 171 mm, Ar= 10 mm.
Total Pressure was measured from LD 301 pressure transmitter at four cross
sections where pitot tubes are inserted at all Reynolds number and all mismatching
conditions. Since straight pipe is used, datum head is taken as zero at every cross
section of the pipe. TEL and HGL are drawn across the penstock section. Hydraulic
gradient line (HGL) is drawn by subtracting velocity head from Total energy line.
47
CHAPTER 5 --
: T MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION AND CFD ANALYSIS
-Computational - Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is the technique used to . analyse systems

involving .fluid flow, heat transfer and associated phenomena such as chemical
reactions by means of computer-based simulation. The heat and mass transfer, fluid
flow, chemical reaction, and other related processes that occur in engineering
equipment and in natural environment play a vital role in a great variety of practical
situations. Nearly all methods of power production involve fluid flow and heat
transfer as essential processes. The same processes govern the heating and air
conditioning of buildings. Major segments of the chemical and metallurgical
industries use components such as furnaces, heat exchangers, condensers, and
reactors, where thermo-fluid processes are at work. Aircraft and rockets owe their
functioning to fluid flow, heat transfer, and chemical reaction. In the design of
electrical machinery and electronic circuits, heat transfer is often the limiting factor.
The pollution of the natural environment is largely caused by heat and mass transfer,
and so are storms, floods, and fires. In the face of changing weather conditions, the
human body resorts to heat and mass transfer for its temperature control. The
processes of heat transfer and fluid flow seem to pervade all aspects of our life.
The equations related to pipe flow are discussed in chapter 2. Before

proceeding for simulation of flow analysis in mismatched pipe, it is necessary to
discuss the important aspects of CFD. In this chapter, steps required to solve the
problems using CFD approach are discussed. Different discretization techniques are
described and the mathematical model and equations involved in it are discussed.
5.1 DEFINING THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL
CFD is a numerical technique to obtain an approximate solution. We have to use a

discretization method, which approximate the differential equations by a system of
algebraic equations, which can then be solved on a computer. The approximations are
applied to small domain in space and/or time so that the numerical solution provides
results at discrete locations in space and/or time.
48

• . The Navier-Stokes equations form a system of nonlinear partial

differential equations, with major consequences of this. nonlinearity being
the existence of turbulence, shock waves, shedding behind a cylider:
ii. . In addition to the basic flow, we need physical laws (with best possible
approximation) to model more complex phenomena such as combustion,
multiphase and multi-species flows with eventual effects of condensation,
evaporation, chemical reactions as in fire simulations, free surface flows,
iii. Therefore, a good understanding of the physical properties and limitations
of the accepted models is very important, as it is not unusual to discover
that discrepancies between CFD predictions and experiments are not due
to errors in experimental or numerical data, but are due to the fact that the
theoretical model assumed in the computations might not be an adequate
description of the real physics.
The physical aspect of any fluid flow is governed by the following three
fundamental principles:
5.1.1 Principle of conservation of mass:
P + 0(pv) = 0
(5.1)
This equation is the general form of the mass conservation equation and is
valid for incompressible as well as compressible flows.
5.1.2 Momentum equations:
Principle: Newton's Second Law F = m*a
Force — Body forces and surface forces are given by the following equations:
aT~` + az~ + Pfz

X Component a ~Pu~ + V (pu v) = + 'r — + (5.2)
at 3x c x ray az
+az + az"' + azry +pfy

Y Component +V(pvy)= q (5.3)
at ay ax 8y c3z
Z component a( )+ v( pwV) _ + az .+ a~ + aZ-. + pfZ (5.4)
at az ax ay az
where,
V = Velocity of fluid, m/sec
p = Pressure, N/m2
p = Density of fluid, kg/m3
5.1.3 Energy equation
Principle of Conservation of Energy:
The physical principle of energy conservation is• the first law of

thermodynamics. The energy equation is given below as:
[4e+ z ]+ J4e+ V2)V ]

a V
at 2 2
_ p+ a k aT + a k aT + ak aT
ax ax ay ay aZ az
8(up) _ a(vp) _ a(wn)+ a(u/~z )+ a(u~= )+

ax ay az ax ay az
+ a(Vr )+ a(Vz) + a(Vz)+ a(wr)+ a(wz)+ a(uza )

+pf.V
ax ay aZ ax ay aZ
(5.5)
. These equations along with the conservation of energy equation form a set of
coupled, nonlinear partial deferential equations. It is not possible to solve these
equations analytically for most engineering problems.
It is possible to obtain approximate computer-based solutions to the governing

equations for a variety of engineering problems. This is the subject matter of
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). The strategy of CFD is to replace the
continuous -problem domain with a discrete domain using a grid. In the continuous
domain, each flow variable is defined at every point in the domain.
50
5.2 NUMERICAL MODEL
The problem is to be solved by using numerical model in the fluid flowing
through a circular pipe of constant cross-section. The pipe diameter D=0.342 m and
length considered was 2.15 m as shown in Figure 5.3. Ptl, Pt2, Pt3, Pt4 are shown in
Figure 5.1 refers to points where velocity and pressure are measured experimentally.
Discharge was measured through the pipe as explained in 4.3. Average velocity was
calculated for five different mass flow rates and Reynolds number was calculated with
the equation 5.6
PVavgD
Re = (5.6)
Lt
Pt4 . Pt3 Pt2 PtI
Figure 5.1: Control volume for flow analysis.

Where Vag is the average velocity at the inlet. Reynolds numbers calculated
were in the range of 534 x 103 to 622 x 103. At this Reynolds number, the flow is
turbulent. In order to solve the turbulent flow, contains fluctuating quantities which
need to be modeled using a turbulent model like k-c model.
The k-c models consist of two differential equations: one each for the
turbulent kinetic energy, k and turbulent dissipation, c. These two equations have to
be solved along with the time-averaged continuity and momentum equations. So
turbulent flow calculations are much more difficult and time-consuming.
ANSYS-FLUENT is the commercial software for application of

computational fluid dynamics. It applies control volume approach for descretization
of basic mathematical equations. The computational domain is divided into number of
small volumes by using different meshing schemes as available. In this case
tetrahedral shape was selected for -meshing. Minimum size of mesh was of 1 mm
51
while maximum face size of 1=mm and maximum tet size of 10 mm. By this quality of
mesh 17. 61,759 nodes and 94, 57, 681 elements were generated.
5.2.1 Standard is c Model

The simplest "complete models" of turbulence are two-equation models in
which the solution of two separate transport equations allows the turbulent velocity
and length scales to be independently determined. The model transport equation for k
is derived from the exact equation, while the model transport equation for c was
obtained by using physical reasoning and bears little resemblance to its
mathematically exact counterpart. The standard k-c model is valid only for fully
turbulent flows. The assumption is that the flow is fully turbulent, and the effects of
molecular viscosity are negligible.
5.3 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

The inlet boundary condition was mass flow inlet and outlet boundary
condition was pressure outlet. Pipe walls were given WALL as boundary condition.
Rest of the interior part was taken as FLUID as boundary condition. The present
model and its boundary conditions are clearly observed in the Figure 5.2. While
preparing the model to solve in ANSYS-FLUENT code should provide the values for
the mass flow inlet value, pressure outlet value, type of wall and the type of fluid.
The problem was solved for all cases of mismatching condition including straight pipe
case and all cases of Reynolds numbers. Mass flow inlet and pressure outlet condition
were given corresponding to experimental results. The other boundary conditions
were same throughout the numerical analysis. For all flows, ANSYS-FLUENT uses
gauge pressure internally. Any time an absolute pressure is needed, it is generated by
adding the operating pressure to the gauge pressure. The experimentally determined
gauge pressures before mismatch and after mismatch were given while specifying
boundary condition. Pressure measured before mismatch was given as gauge pressure
at inlet boundary condition and pressure measured at Pt4 was given as gauge pressure
at outlet boundary condition.
52
.•.. —.e .r r 'II- ,•t . .•(• ++l LG a .. -.
..
twi
n .reris dP
~~ er
rw. ~w.e..ro. 59 %mod ._ r
Figure 5.2: Boundary Conditions of the Model.
5.3.1 Mesh generation

Tetrahedral mesh scheme was used to mesh the geometry. Minimum size of
the meshing element and maximum face size was 1 mm, maximum tet size was 10
mm and growth rate of 1.2 (default value) was specified for generating the mesh.
Totally 17, 61, 758 nodes and 94, 57, 681 elements were generated.
The boundary conditions for the numerical model during the modeling by
using ANSYS-FLUENT pre-processor Design Modular tool are shown in table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Boundary Conditions of Numerical Model
S. No. Boundary Name Boundary Type

I Inlet Mass flow inlet
2 Outlet Pressure outlet
3 Wall Wall (By Default)
4 Interior Fluid (By Default)
53
The type of wall is stationary and no slip shear condition. The type of fluid
used is water-liquid and its properties from fluent database shown in the Figure 5.3
Zone Nee
:ret
MaITh.rmalIRaatknlSpedesI DPM I Multiphase I LD5
Reference Frame Absdute ------

Mass Fbw Specfication Method Mass How Rate v
Mass Flow Rate (kq/s) 149.4 constant v
S.(ersonicJlrtid Gauge Pressure (pascal) 11 .29 constant v
Direction Specif cation Method Direction Vector
Coordinate System Cartesian (X, Y, Z) v'.

X-Component of Flow Direction_.
0 -----_ constant
Y-Conponerk of Flow Direction o constant
Z{opponent of Flow Direction 1 constant
Turbulence
Spectication Method Intens*y and Hyd aic Diameter
Turbulent Intensiy (%)
Hydrauk Diameter (m)
® c_
Figure 5.3: Values provided at inlet Boundary Conditions.
5.4 DISCRETIZATION SOLUTION ALGORITHM

The "3ddp" option is used to select the 3-dimensional, double-precision solver.
In the double-precision solver, each floating point number is represented using 64 bits
in contrast to the single-precision solver which uses 32 bits. The extra bits increase
not only the precision but also the range of magnitudes that can be represented.
The analysis of the pipe flow has been carried out by using pressure based
solver, time steady, absolute velocity formulation shown in the Figure 5.4
The turbulent model solved by using standard k-epsilon and under near-wall
treatment, picks standard wall treatment shown in Figure 5.5. For incompressible
flow, the energy equation is decoupled from the continuity and momentum equations.
The problem needs to solve the energy equation only if it is required in determining
the temperature distribution but the actual problem is not dealing with temperature.
54
The energy equation has been turned off since this is an incompressible flow problem
and we are not interested in the temperature.
Problem Setup General
Mesh
Models
Maters Scale... Check Report Quality
Display...
Cel Zone Conditions
Boundary Conditions
Solver
Dynamic Mesh Type Velocity Formulation
Reference Values Pressure-Based (_.; Absolute
Q Density-Based ()Relative
Solution
Solution Methods
Solution Controls Time
Steady
Monitors
0 Transient
5ok. tlon Initialization
Calculation Activities ❑ Gravity
Run Calculation
Resets
Graphics and Animations Help
Plots
Reports
Figure 5.4: Solver Used.
Model Constants
oLaminar
o
0Spalart-Nnwras (1 eqn)
0 k-epsion (2 eqn) C1 -Epsion
o k-omega (2 eqn)
[1.44
o Transition k-W-omega (3 eqn)
o Transbon SST (4 eqn) C2{psdon
o Reynolds Stress (7 eqn)
1.92
o Detached Eddy Simulation (DES)
0 Large Eddy Simulation (LE5)
TKE Prandtl M.inber -_.-
kbpsion Model
V
ORNG
®Standard
User-Defined Functions
o Realizable Turbulent Viscosity _ _
Near-Wal Treatment none V
Q Standard Wal Functions Prandtl Numbers
o Non-EWt~brium Wall Functions
TKE Prandl Number
OEnlwnced Wall Treatment
none V1
OLIser-Defined WaN Functions
TDR Prandl Number —_
none
OK Cancel HelP
Figure5.5: Viscous Models Used.
55
Mat
~ —_-- Material Type br
" ateriq~~d (:; Name
fhkkid
) dal Formula
ChefT ical Foinde
FLUENT Fluid Materials
h2o <I>
water-squid (h2o <I>) v HIJENT Database"'
User-0efned Database...
Properties
Density (k9/m3) cor~stant „ i,r

998.2
l I Edit...
Viscosity (1Ilm-s)
constant k
10.001003
Change/Create Debte Close Help
Figure 5.6: Material and its Properties Used for the Solution.
Material used is water-liquid from ANSYS-FLUENT data base having

properties shown in the Figure 5.6. While solving the problem the material chosen as
water-liquid which is having the properties of density 998.2 kg/m3, specific heat at
constant pressure 4182 J/kg-K, thermal conductivity 0.6 W/m-K and viscosity 0.001
kg/m-s.
The momentum, turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent dispassion rate

equations are solved by using second order upwind scheme. The second order scheme
is used for pressure correction. The SIMPLE algorithm is used for pressure-velocity
coupling shown in the Figure 5.7. The order of discretization that we set refers to the
convective terms in the equation. Second order discretization generally yields better
accuracy while first order discretization yields more robust convergence. ANSYS-
FLUENT code uses the finite-volume method for discretization. In the finite-volume
approach, the intecral form of conservation equations are applied to the control
volume define by a cell to get the discrete equations for the cell. ANSYS-FLUENT
code will find a solution such that mass, momentum, energy and other relevant
quantities are being conserved for each cell. Also, the code directly solves for values
of the variables at the cell centers; values at other locations are obtained by suitable
interpolation.
Fie Mesh Defrie Solve Adapt Surface Display Report Para~el View Fiea
Problem Setup Solution Controls

General Under-Relaxation Factors
Models A
Materials Presnre
0.3
Cell Zone Conditions
Boundary Conditions Density
Dynamic Mesh
Reference Vakies Body Forces
Sokdon
Sokrtion Methods
Momentun
Manors [ 0.7
5okrtion Ir tiaization
TurbLdent IOnetic Energy
Calnlation Activities
Run Calculation 0.8
Resifts
Graphics and Animations Default
Plots
Reports Equations.., limits.., Adrancad...
Help
Figure 5.7: Solution controls used to solve the numerical model.
Initialize the flow field to the values at the inlet. ANSYS-FLUENT reports a
residual for each governing equation being solved. The residual is a measure of how
well the current solution satisfies the discrete form of each governing equation. The
iterations have been carried out for the solution until the residual for the continuity, x-
velocity, y-velocity, z-velocity, k and epsilon equations falls below 10-6. The residuals
for each iteration are plotted in the graphics window as they are calculated as shown
in the fig 5.8.
ResiusIs
10+02
/ . ANs'C
r-ve
leosilon
10+01
1e+00
1e-01
le-02
le-0
1e-04
1e-05
le-06
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Iterations

Scaled Residuals Jun 13, 2011
ANSYS FLUENT 121 (3d pions, eke)
Figure 5.8: Scaled residuals and convergence.

57
There is a need to _perform iterations to deal with the nonlinear terms in the
governing. equations. In a .practical problem,- one would usually have thousands to
.. , ..•- millions of grid points which occupies more -memory in matrix inversion so an
iterative scheme allow for efficient matrix inversion with greatly reduced memory
requirements and it is necessary to solve nonlinear equations. In steady problems, a
common and effective strategy used in CFD code is to solve the unsteady form of the
governing equations and march the solution in time until the solution converge to a
steady value.
58
CHAPTER 6
V ` RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Experimentation and CFD; analysis has been done to know the effect of mismatch on
-
flow conditions in penstock. The analysis was carried for straight pipe flow and five
different mismatching conditions at five different Reynolds number ranging from
534 x 103 to 621.7 x 103. Hydraulic Gradient Line and Total Energy Line are drawn
for the results obtained from experiment and CFD analysis. Results from experiment
and CFD analysis are discussed below.
In experimentation total pressure was measured at four cross sections. Ptl, Pt2,
Pt3, Pt4 indicates points where pressure and velocity were measured as shown in
Figure 6.1. Positions of each are given in table 6.1. A point Pto is assumed just before
mismatch (at a distance 0.01 m). From Pt, to Pto and Pt2 to Pt4 losses are due to
friction, but from -Pto to Pt2 losses are due to friction and mismatching. Since no
provision was made to measure pressure and velocity just before the mismatching it is
assumed that pressure loss between Pte and Pt3 is same as Pt, and Pto being the same
length of the pipe and occurrence of friction losses only. Total energy line and
Hydraulic gradient line are drawn between Pt, and Pt4. Procedure to calculate velocity
head and pressure head is given in Appendix-A.
Table 6.1: Position of points and corresponding distances from mismatching
Positions Distance from mismatching

Ptl D upstream side= -0.342 (m)
Pto (assumed point) Just before mismatch (-0.01 m)
Pt2 D downstream side= 0.342 (m)
Pt3 2D downstream side= 0.68 (m)
Pt4 4D downstream side= 1.36 (m)
In case of CFD analysis five planes were created along the penstock for
obtaining the results. The planes created are shown in Figure 6.2. Pressure and
velocity calculations - were obtained for all the cases of mismatching and Reynolds
number to draw TEL and HGL.
59
Pt 4 Pt 3 Pt 2 Pt l
Figure 6.1: Pressure and Velocity measured points.
Outlet
Z' X
Mesh Jun 17, 2011

ANSYS FWENT 12.1 (3d Pbns, ske)
Figure 6.2: Planes created along the penstock with inlet and outlet.
Discharge of water through penstock was measured by Ultrasonic flow meter

and also with the help of pitot tube arrangement for all mismatched condition at
different Reynolds numbers. Average velocity was then obtained by both methods for
all flow conditions. Maximum deviation between Ultrasonic method and pitot tube
method was 0.95%, considering all flow conditions. The average velocity obtained
from both the methods are compared and shown in Figures from 6.3 to 6.8. The lines
marked with I are corresponding to velocity measured by Ultrasonic flow meter
method, while 1 corresponds to pitot tube method in Figures 6.3 to 6.8.
Straight pipe
1.70
Re =621748 1
1.65
1.60 2
Re =591233 1
U)
E 1.55
Re =572161 1
2
U
1.50 Re =553089 1
2
1.45
Re =534017
2 1
1.40
2 1- Vuttf 2- Vpitot tube

1.35
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Distance from mismatching (m)
Figure 6.3: Velocities obtained by UTTF and pitot tube methods for straight pipe.
2 mm mismatced pipe
1.70
Re =621748 1
1.65
1.60 2 Re =591233 1
U)
E 1.55 Re=572161 1
2
U
0 1.50 Re =553089 1
a)
2
1.45
Re =534017 1
2
1.40
2 1- Vuttf tuhe
1.35 I I I -r-

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Figure 6.4: Velocities obtained by UTTF and pitot tube methods for 2 mm mismatched pipe.
61
4 mm mismatched pipe
1.70
Re =621748
1.65 V------------.._.._ ___ -----

Y
1.60 2 Re =591233 1
U)
E 1.55 Re =572161 1
2
U
1.50 Re =553089 1
a)
2
1.45
Re =534017 1
2
1.40

1.35 1 I I I r

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
6 mm mismatch
1.70
Re =621748
1.65
1.60 2 Re =591233
U)
E 1.55 2 Re =572161 1
U
1.50 Re =553089 1
a>
2
1.45 Re =534017 1
2
1.40
2 1- Vittf 2- V )itot ti:I,p

1.35 -1

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
62
1.70
Re =621748
1.65
A
2
1.60 Re =591233
E 1.55 Re=572161 1
2
U
0 1.50 Re =553089 1
a)
2
1.45 Re =534017 1
2 -
1.40

1.35 I I r I I

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
1.70
Re =621748 1
1.65 -
A---- -
1.60 2 Re =591233 1
E 1.55 Re =572161 1
2
1.50 Re =553089 1
J 2
1.45 Re =534017 1
2 -
1.40
2 1- Vuttf 2- upitot tube

1 .35 I-- I T- -T-T- r- -r -r -
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 I.2 I.4 1.6
6.8: Velocities obtained by UTTF and pitot tube methods for 10 mm mismatched pipe.
63
Total energy line and Hydraulic gradient lines are drawn for all mismatching
conditions and Reynolds numbers ranging from 534 x 103 to 621.7 x 103 from
experimental and CFD results as shown from Figure 6.9 to Figure 6.18.
From Figure 6.9 it is observed that, there is a loss of pressure head due
to which there is a steep drop in TEL across mismatching point. For a straight pipe
there is a gradual decrease in TEL. As mismatching is increased from 2 mm to 10 mm
drop in TEL has increased.
Total Energy Line at Re= 534017
3.70
Experimental results
3.65
a) O~ V
3.60
J
A
Q)
L
C
w 3.55
ctl
0
E-
3.50
3.45 '
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

a straight pipe (e)
o 2 mm mismatch (e)
4 mm mismatch (e)
— -d — 6 mm mismatch (e)
— — 8 mm mismatch (e)
— —a — 10 mm mismatch (e)
— —+- — straight pipe (cfd)
--0— 2 mm mismatch (cfd)
A 4 mm mismatch (cfd)
v 6 min mismatch (cfd)
— -j — 8 mrn mismatch (cfd)
— — n ;ii itch (cfd)
Figure 6.9: Total Energy Line (Experimental and CFD) for straight pipe and
mismatching conditions at Re= 534017.
64
From Figure 6. 10 it is observed that, there is a steep drop in HGL across
mismatching point. For a straight pipe there is a gradual decrease in HGL. As
mismatching is increased from 2 mm to 10 mm drop in HGL has increased.
Hydraulic Gradient Line at Re= 534017
3.60
3.55
E
0
i
J
3.50 0 - - =-
a)
Co
0
cL 3.45
ca
= 3.40
3.35
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Distance from mismatch (m)

• Straight pipe (e)
0 2 mm mismatch (e)
v 4 mm mismatch (e)
— —f — 8 mm mismatch (e)
--0-- 10 mm mismatch (e)
— --- — Straight pipe (CFD)
—0---- 2 mm mismatch (CFD)
A 4 mm mismatch (CFD)
V 6 mm mismatch (CFD)
— —$— - 8 mm mismatch (CFD)
— —0 — 10 mm mismatch (CFD)
Figure 6. 10: Hydraulic Gradient Line (Experimental and CFD) for straight pipe and
mismatching conditions at Re= 534017.
i'ressure Lead and velocity head cu►iculated at —ii- Jl l << re iahulated

in table 6.2 and 6.3. In table 6.2 experimental results are tabulated for all case of
mismatching and straight pipe. Table 6.3 contains CFD results.
65
- Table 6.2: TEL and HGL readings at Re=534017 (Experimental)
Re= 534017 i5=997.1 kg/jn3 µm.894 x 10-3 Pa-s

Straight pipe Position in ` P (k Total head (m) Velocity Pressure head
(m) Pa) (TEL) head (m) (m)
from (p/P*g)+(~/2*g) (~/2*g) (HGL) (P/P*g)
mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 36.01 3.681 0.098 3.583
Pto reading 0.00 35.91 3.671 0.098 3.573
Pte reading 0.34 35.8 3.660 0.100 3.560
Pt3 reading 0.68 35.69 3.649 0.101 3.548
Pt4 reading 1.36 35.49 3.628 0.102 3.527
2 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 36 3.680 0.099 3.581
Pta reading 0.00 35.89 3.669 0.099 3.570
Pte reading 0.34 35.64 3.644 0.100 3.543
Pt3 reading 0.68 35.53 3.632 0.101 3.531
Pt4 reading 1.36 35.33 3.612 0.102 3.510
4 mm mismatch
Pty reading -0.34 35.98 3.678 0.099 3.579
Pta reading 0.00 35.87 3.667 0.099 3.568
Pte reading .0.34 35.57 3.636 0.100 3.536
Pt3 reading 0.68 35.46 3.625 0.102 3.524
Pt4 reading 1.36 35.26 3.605 0.102 3.502
6 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 35.97 3.677 0.099 3.578
Pto reading 0.00 35.85 3.665 0.099 3.566
Pte reading 0.34 35.5 3.629 0.101 3.528
Pt3 reading 0.68 35.38 3.617 0.102 3.515
Pt4 reading 1.36 35.15 3.593 0.103 3.491
8 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 35.97 3.677 0.099 3.578
Pto reading 0.00 35.85 3.665 0.099 3.566
Pte reading 0.34 35.45 3.624 0.101 3.523
Pt3 reading 0.68 35.33 3.612 0.102 3.510
Pt4 reading 1.36 35.1 3.588 0.103 3.485
10 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 35.96 3.676 0.099 3.577
Pto reading 0.00 35.83 3.663 0.099 3.564
Pte reading 0.34 35.38 3.617 0.101 3.516
Pt3 reading 0.68 35.25 3.604 0.103 3.501
Pt4 reading 1.36 35.01 3.579 0.104 3.476
Table 6.3: TEL and HGL readings at Re=534017 (CFD)
Rem 534017 (=997.1 kg/m3 µm.894 x 10-3 Pa-s

. Straight pipe Position :in (m)- 'P (k Pa) Total head (m) Velocity-head=- =P-ressure -head (m)
from mismatch / (TEL) ~) (HGL) (P/p*g)
Ptl reading -0.34 35.16 3.595 0.098 3.497

Pto reading. 0.00 35.06 3.584 0.097 3.487
Pt? reading 0.34 34.95 3.573 0.099 3.474
Pt3 reading 0.68 34.84 3.562 0.099 3.462
Ptd reading -1.36 34.64 3.541 0.100 3.441
2 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 35.15 3.593 0.098 3.495
Pto reading 0.00 35.00 3.579 0.097 3.481
Pt2 reading 0.34 34.76 3.553 0.099 3.455
Pt3 reading 0.68 34.65 3.542 0.099 3.443
Pt4 reading 1.36 34.45 3.522 0.100 3.421
4 mm mismatch
Ptl reading =0.34 35.14 3.592 0.098 3.494
Pto reading 0.00 34.95 3.573 0.097 3.476
Pt2 reading 0.34 34.65 3.543 0.099 3.444
Pt3 reading 0.68 34.54 3.531 0.100 3.432
Pt4 reading 1.36 34.34 3.511 0.101 3.410
6 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 35.13 3.591 0.098 3.493
Pto reading 0.00 34.89 3.567 0.097 3.470
Pt2 reading 0.34 34.55 3.532 0.099 3.433
Pt3 reading 0.68 34.43 3.520 0.100 3.420
Pt4 reading 1.36 34.20 3.496 0.101 3.396
8 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 35.12 3.590 0.099 3.492
Pto reading 0.00 34.86 3.564 0.097 3.466
Pt2 reading 0.34 34.46 3.523 0:099 3.424
Pt3 reading 0.68 34.34 3.511 0.100 3.411
P reading 1.36 34.12 3.488 0.101 3.387
10 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 35.10 3.588 0.099 3.490
Pto reading 0.00 34.80 3.558 0.097 3.461
Pte reading 0.34 34.36 3.513 0.099 3.414
Pt3 reading 0.68 34.23 3.500 0.100 3.399
Pt4 reading 1.36 33.99 3.475 0.101 3.374
67
From Figure 6.11 it is observed that, there is a loss of pressure head due to
which there is a steep drop in TEL across mismatching point. For a straight pipe there
is a gradual decrease in TEL. As mismatching is increased from 2 mm to 10 mm drop
in TEL has increased.
Total Energy line at Re= 553089
3.15
3.10
E
a)
3.05
a)
a) ■
W 3.00
is CFD results ~~ • —_
0
F-
2.95
2.90
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

o 2 mm mismatch (e)
4 mm mismatch (e)
— —o— — 10 mm mismatch (e)
— —♦- — Straight pipe (CFD)
—c--- 2 mm mismatch (CFD)
• 4 mm mismatch (CFD)
v 6 mm mismatch (CFD)
— -O — - 8 mm mismatch (CFD)
— -0 — 10 mm mismatch (CFD)
Fiure 6.11: Total Energy Line (F.' ;cr n tal mid CUD) for straight ird_i
mismatching conditions at Re=553089.
From Figure 6.12 it is .observed that, there is a steep drop in HGL across
3.05
3.00
E
a)
C 2.95
J
C
a)
0 2.90
C0
U
2.85
v
2.80
2.75
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

0 2 mm mismatch (e)
V 4 mm mismatch (e)
— —o — 6 mm mismatch (e)
— 8 mm mismatch (e)
— --0— — 10 mm mismatch (e)
— Straight pipe (CFD)
—0---- 2 mm mismatch (CFD)
4 mm mismatch (CFD)
— — 8 mm mismatch (CFD)
10 mm mismatch (CFD)
Figure 6.12: Hydraulic Gradient Line (Experimental and CFD) for straight pipe and
Pressure head and velocity head calculated at Rc-553089 are tabulated

t , tl 1. (. ! pia! .. !: t ~i~ ~~ , ~~~ ;ci~,~ 1~aI ti 1111 -1 Iu as 0
Table 6.4: TEL and HGL readings at Re= 553089 (Experimental)
Re= 553089 g=997.1 kg/m3 µm.894 x 10-3 Pa-s = - T

Straight pipe Position in (m) P (k Pa) Total head (m) (TEL) Velocity head Pressure head (m)
from mismatch (P/p*g)+(v2/2*g) ( ~ )) (HGL) (P/p*g)
Pt, reading -0.34 30.41 3.109 0.107 3.002

Pto reading 0.00 30.31 3.099 0.107 2.991
Pte reading 0.34 30.19 3.086 0.109 2.978
Pt3 reading 0.68 30.09 3.076 0.110 2.966
Pt4 reading 1.36 29.89 3.056 0.111 2.944
2 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 30.4 3.108 0.108 3.000
Pto reading 0.00 30.29 3.097 0.108 2.989
Pt2 reading 0.34 30.04 3.071 0.109 2.962
Pt3 reading 0.68 29.93 3.060 0.111 2.949
Pt4 reading 1.36 29.73 3.039 0.112 2.928
4 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 30.38 3.106 0.108 2.998
NO reading 0.00 30.27 3.095 0.108 2.987
Pte reading 0.34 29.97 3.064 - 0.110 2.954
Pt3 reading 0.68 29.86 3.053 0.111 2.941
Pt4 reading 1.36 29.66 3.032 0.112 2.921
6 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 30.37 3.105 0.108 2.997
Pta reading 0.00 30.25 3.093 0.108 2.985
Pte reading 0.34 29.9 3.057 0.110 2.946
Pt3 reading 0.68 29.78 3.045 0.111 2.933
Pt4 reading 1.36 29.55 3.021 0.112 2.909
8 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 30.37 3.105 0.108 2.997
Pta reading 0.00 30.25 3.093 0.108 2.984
Pt2 reading 0.34 29.85 3.052 0.111 2.940
Pt3 reading 0.68 29.73 3.039 0.112 2.928
Pt4 reading 1.36 29.5 3.016 0.112 2.904
10 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 30.36. 3.104 0.109 2.995
Pto reading 0.00 30.23 3.091 0.109 2.982
Pte reading 0.34 29.78 3.045 0.111 2.933
Pt3 reading 0.68 29.65 3.031 0.112 2.920
Ptd reading 1.36 29.4 3.006 0.113 2.892
70
Table 6.5: TEL and HGL readings at Re= 553089 (CFD) .. .
Re= :553089 x=997.1 kg/m', µm.894 g 141' Pa-s

Straight pipe- Position-in (in) P (k Pa) Total head (m) Velocity head Pressure head
from mismatch (TEL) (m) (m)
(P/p*g)+( /2*g) (v2/2*g) (HGL) (P/P*g)
Ptl reading -0.34 29.69 3.036 0.107 2.929
Pto reading 0.00 29.59 3.025 0.106 2.919
Pt2 reading 0.34 29.47 3.013 0.107 2.906
Pt3 reading 0.68 29.37 3.003 0.109 2.894
Ptd reading 1.36 29.17 2.982 0.110 2.873
2 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 29.68 3.034 0.107 2.927
Pto reading 0.00 29.54 3.020 0.106 2.914
Pt2 reading 0.34 29.30 2.995 0.108 2.887
Pt3 reading 0.68 29.18 2.984 0.109 2.875
Pt4 reading 1.36 28.99 2.963 0.110 2.854
4 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 29.670 3.033 0.107 2.926
Pto reading 0.00 29.492 3.015 0.106 2.909
Pt2 reading 0.34 29.197 2.985 0.108 2.877
Pt3 reading 0.68 29.087 2.974 0.109 2.864
Pt4 reading 1.36 28.889 2.953 0.110 2.844
6 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 29.670 3.033 0.107 2.926
Pto reading 0.00 29.442 3.010 0.106 2.904
Pt2 reading 0.34 29.099 2.975 0.108 2.867
Pt3 reading 0.68 28.979 2.963 0.109 2.853
Pt4 reading 1.36 28.752 2.939 0.110 2.829
8 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 29.650 3.031 0.107 2.924
Pto reading 0.00 29.412 3.007 0.106 2.901
Pt2 reading 0.34 29.020 2.967 0.109 2.858
Pt3 reading 0.68 28.901 2.955 0.109 2.845
Pt4 reading 1.36 28.674 2.931 0.110 2.822
10 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 29.640 3.030 0.108 2.922
Pto reading 0.00 29.362 3.002 0.106 2.896
Pt2 reading 0.34 28.922 2.957 0.109 2.848
Pt3 reading 0.68 28.793 2.944 0.109 2.835
Pt4 reading 1.36 28.547 2.918 0.110 2.808
71
is a gradual decrease in TEL. As mismatching is increased from 2 mm to 10 min drop
Total Energy Line at Re=572161
2.56
2.54
2.52 ..... .
E 2.50 ~b.... ....., p.....

a)
C 2.48 ,_, .0...r.:`
~~.t......................,...._.~.............
J
m 2.46
a)
C CFD results
W 2.44
v A
2.42 ;......_...c...........c
2.40
2.38 ....... ....... ..........
2.36
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

o 2 mm mismatch (e)
v 4 mm mismatch (e)
— — — - 6 mm mismatch (e)
— —o — 10 mm mismatch (e)
— —~ — Straight pipe (CFD)
02 mm mismatch (CFD)
4 mm mismatch (CFD)
— —.— 8 mm mismatch (CFD)
— —O — 10 mm mismatch (CFD)
72
From Figure 6.14 it is observed that, there is a steep drop in HGL across
Hydraulic gradient Line at Re = 572161
2.46
2.44
2.42
2.40
a)
2.38
0 2.36
m
6 2.34
U
2.32
co
2.30
2
2.28
2.26
2.24

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

0 2 mm mismatch (e)
v 4 mm mismatch (e)
----0----- 10 mm mismatch (e)
— —4 — — Straight pipe (CFD)
2 mm mismatch (CFD)
4 mm mismatch (CFD)
— —. — 8 mm mismatch (CFD)
— —0 — 10 mm mismatch (CFD)
Pressure head and velocity head calculated at Re=572161 ice tabulated

73
.Re= .572161 f X97.1 kg/m' µ=0.894 x 10-3 Pa-s

•Straight pipe Position in (m) -P (k Pa) Total head (m) (TEL) Velocity head Pressure head (m)
from mismatch (P/p*g)+(v2/2*g) (m) (HGL) (P/p*g)
v2/2*
Pt, reading -0.34 24.93 2.549 0.112 2.437
Pto reading 0.00 24.83 2.538 0.112 2.426
Pte reading 0.34 24.71 2.526 0.113 2.414
Pt3 reading 0.68 24.61 2.516 0.114 2.402
Pt4 reading 1.36 24.41 2.496 0.114 2.381
2 mm mismatch
Pt1 reading -0.34 24.92 2.548 0.112 2.435
Pto reading 0.00 24.81 2.536 0.112 2.424
Pt2 reading 0.34 24.56 2.511 0.113 2.398
Pt3 reading 0.68 24.45 2.500 0.114 2.385
Pt4 reading 1.36 24.25 2.479 0.115 2.364
4 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 24.9 2.546 0.112 2.433
Pta reading 0.00 24.79 2.534 0.112 2.422
Pt2 reading 0.34 24.49 2.504 0.113 2.391
Pt3 reading 0.68 24.38 2.492 0.114 2.378
Pt4 reading 1.36 24.18 2.472 0.115 2.357
6 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 24.89 2.545 0.112 2.432
Pto reading 0.00 24.77 2.532 0.112 2.420
Pt2 reading 0.34 24.42 2.497 0.113 2.384
Pt3 reading 0.68 24.3 2.484 0.115 2.370
Pt4 reading 1.36 24.07 2.461 0.115 2.345
8 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 24.89 2.545 0.112 2.432
Pta reading 0.00 24.77 2.532 0.112 2.420
Pt2 reading 0.34 24.37 2.491 0.114 2.378
Pt3 reading 0.68 24.25 2.479 0.115 2.364
Pt4 reading 1.36 24.02 2.456 0.116 2.340
10 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 24.88 2.544 0.112 2.431

Pto reading 0.00 24.75 2.530 0.112 2.418
Pt2 reading 0.34 24.3 2.484 0.114 2.370
Pt3 reading 0.68 24.17 2.471 0.115 2.355
Pt4 reading 1.36 23.92 2.445 • 0.117 2.329
74
Table 6.7: TEL and HGL readings at Re= 572161 (CFD)
Re= 572161 g=997.1 kg/m' p=0.894 x 10-3 Pa-s

Straight pipe Position in (m) P 2(k Pa) Total head (m) Velocity head Pressure head (m)
from mismatch (TEL) (m) (HGL) (P/p*g)
(P/p*g)+(v2/2*g) (v2/2*g)
Pt, reading -0.34 24.34 2.489 0.111 2.377
Pto reading 0.00 24.24 2.478 0.111 2.368
Pt2 reading 0.34 24.12 2.466 0.111 2.355
Pt3 reading 0.68 24.02 2.456 0.112 2.344
Pt4 reading 1.36 23.82 2.436 0.113 2.323
2 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 24.33 2.487 0.112 2.376
Pta reading 0.00 24.20 2.474 0.111 2.363
Pte reading 0.34 23.95 2.449 0.111 2.337
Pt3 reading 0.68 23.84 2.437 0.113 2.325
Pt4 reading 1.36 23.64 2.417 0.114 2.304
4 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 24.32 2.486 0.111 2.375
Pto reading 0.00 24.15 2.469 0.110 2.359
Pt2 reading 0.34 23.86 2.439 0.111 2.329
Pt3 reading 0.68 23.75 2.428 0.112 2.316
Pt4 reading 1.36 23.55 2.408 0.113 2.295
6 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 24.30 2.484 0.112 2.373
Pto reading 0.00 24.11 2.465 0.110 2.355
Pt2 reading 0.34 23.77 2.430 0.111 2.319
Pt3 reading 0.68 23.65 2.417 0.112 2.305
Pt4 reading 1.36 23.42 2.394 0.113 2.281
8 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 24.29 2.483 0.111 2.372
Pto reading 0.00 24.08 2.462 0.110 2.352
Pt2 reading 0.34 23.69 2.422 0.111 2.311
Pt3 reading 0.68 23.57 2.410 0.112 2.297
Pt4 reading 1.36 23.35 2.387 0.113 2.273
10 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 24.28 2.482 0.112 2.371

Pto reading 0.00 24.04 2.458 0.110 2.348
Pte reading 0.34 23.60 2.413 0.112 2.301
Pt3 reading 0.68 23.47 2.400 0.113 2.287
Pt4 reading 1.36 23.23 2.375 0.114 2.261
75
Total Energy line at Re= 591233
2.16
2.14
2.12
E 2.10
a)
C- 2.08
2.06
a)
C
W 2.04
2.02
2.00
1.98
1.96
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

0 2 mm mismatch (e)
v 4 mm mismatch (e)
— -A— 6 mm mismatch (e)
— 8 mm mismatch (e)
-----0-- 10 mm mismatch (e)
— — Straight pipe (CFD)
—0— 2 mm mismatch (CFD)
4 mm mismatch (CFD)
— -~ — 8 mm mismatch (CFD)
— -0 — 10 mm mismatch (CFD)
Figure 6.15: Total Energy Line (Experimental and CFU) for straight pipe and
76
2.04
2.02
2.00
E
1.98
c
1.96
N
1.94
m
C-) 1.92
co
1.90
2 ...........:...........:...........`,..._.._ ~. .~.
1.88
1.86
1.84 I
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

♦ Straight pipe (e)
0 2 mm mismatch (e)
4 mm mismatch (e)
8 mm mismatch (e)
--0--- 10 mm mismatch (e)
— —~ — Straight piipe (CFD)
—c----- 2 mm mismatch (CFD)
4 mm mismatch (CFD)
6 mm mismatch (CFD)
— —0 — - 8 mm mismatch (CFD)
— - — 10 mm mismatch (CFD)
Pressure head and velocity head calculated at Re=591233 are tabulated

77
Re= 591233 0 97.1 kg/m3 µm.894 x 10-3 Pa-s

Straight pipe Position in (m) P. (k Pa) Total head (m) Velocity head Pressure
from mismatch (TEL) (m) head (m)
(p/p*g)}(v2/2*g) (v2/2*g) (HGL)
P/ * )
Pt, reading -0.34 20.98 2.145 0.122 2.023
Pta reading 0.00 20.88 2.135 0.122 2.013
Pt2 reading 0.34 20.76 2.122 0.123. 1.999
Pt3 reading 0.68 20.66 2.112 0.124 1.988
Ptd reading 1.36 20.46 2.092 0.126 1.966
2 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 20.97 2.144 0.122 2.022
Pto reading 0.00 20.86 2.133 0.122 2.010
Pt2 reading 0.34 20.61 2.107 0.123 1.984
Pt3 reading 0.68 20.5 2.096 0.125 1.971
Pt4 reading 1.36 20.3 2.075 0.126 1.949
4 mm mismatch
Pt1 reading -0.34 20.96 2.143 0.122 2.020
Pto reading 0.00 20.85 2.132 0.122 2.009
Pt2 reading 0.34 20.55 2.101 0.123 1.977
Pt3 reading 0.68 20.44 2.090 0.125 1.965
Pt4 reading 1.36 20.24 2.069 0.127 1.942
6 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 20.95 2.142 0.123 2.019
Pt0 reading 0.00 20.83 2.130 0.123 2.007
Pte reading 0.34 20.48 2.094 0.124 1.970
Pt3 reading 0.68 20.36 2.081 0.125 1.956
Pt4 reading 1.36 20.13 2.058 0.127 1.931
8 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 20.95 2.142 0.122 2.019
Pto reading 0.00 20.83 2.130 0.122 2.007
Pt2 reading 0.34 20.43 2.089 0.124 1.965
Pt3 reading 0.68 20.31 2.076 0.126 1.951
Pt4 reading 1.36 20.08 2.053 0.127 1.926
10 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 20.94 2.141 0.122 2.019
Pto reading 0.00 20.81 2.127 0.122 2.005
Pte reading 0.34 20.36 2.081 0.124 1.957
Pt3 reading 0.68 20.23 - 2.068 0.126 1.942
Pt4 reading _ - 1.36 - 19.98 2.043 0.127 1.915
78
_Table 6.9: TEL and HGL readings at Re= 591233 (CFD)
Re= - 591233 f -997.1 kg/ni3 µm.894 x 10-' Pa-s

Straight 'pipe Position in-(m) P (k Pa) Total head (m) Velocity head Pressure head
(1'/P*g)+(v2/2*g) (v2/2*g) (HGL)
(P/ * )
Ptl reading -0.34 20.48 2.094 0.121 1.973
Pto reading 0.00 20.39 2.084 0.120 1.964
Pt2 reading 0.34 20.27 2.072 0.121 1.951
Pt3 reading 0.68 20.17 2.062 0.123 1.939
Pt4 reading 1.36 19.97 2.041 0.124 1.917
2 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 20.47 2.093 0.121 1.971
Pto reading 0.00 20.34 2.080 0.120 1.960
Pt2 reading 0.34 20.10 2.055 0.121 1.933
Pt3 reading 0.68 1999 2.044 0.123 1.921
Pt4 reading 1.36 19.79 2.023 0.124 1.899
4 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 20.46 2.092 0.122 1.970
Pto reading 0.00 20.31 2.077 0.120 1.956
Pt2 reading 0.34 20.02 2.047 0.121 1.925
Pt3 reading 0.68 19.91 2.036 0.123 1.913
Pt4 reading 1.36 19.71 2.015 0.125 1.891
6 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 20.44 2.090 0.122 1.968
Pto reading 0.00 20.27 2.073 0.120 1.952
Pt2 reading 0.34 19.93 2.038 0.121 1.916
Pt3 reading 0.68 19.81 2.025 0.123 1.903
Ptd reading 1.36 19.59 2.002 0.125 1.878
8 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 20.44 2.090 0.122 1.968
Pto reading 0.00 20.25 2.071 0.120 1.951
Pt2 reading 0.34 19.86 2.031 0.121 1.909
Pt3 reading 0.68 19.74 2.018 0.123 1.896
Pt4 reading 1.36 19.52 1.995 0.125 1.871
10 mm mismatch
Ptl reading -0.34 20.43 2.089 0.121 1.967
Pto reading 0.00 20.21 2.066 0.119 1.947
Pt2 reading 0.34 19.77 2.022 0.121 1.900
Pt3 reading 0.68 19.65 2.008 0.123 1.885
Pty reading 1.36 19.40 1.983 0.124 1.859
79
Total Energy Line at Re = 621748
1.18
1.16
1.14
E 1.12
J 1.10
a
2)
1.08
W
0 1.06
1.04
1.02
1.00 r
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0:6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

♦ Straight pipe (e)
0 2 mm mismatch (e)
V 4 mm mismatch (e)
— —d — 6 mm mismatch (e)
— —o— — 10 mm mismatch (e)
— —*- — Straight pipe (CFD)
O— 2 mm mismatch (CFD)
• 4 mm mismatch (CFD)
——— 8 mm mismatch (CFD)
— — 10 mm mismatch (CFD)
mismatchin<; conditions at Re=621743.
1.04
1.02
E 1.00
Q)
J 0.98
a,
~ 0.96
/^
V
0.94
c6
0
= 0.92
0.90
0.88
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

• Straight pipe (m)
0 2 mm mismatch (e)
4 mm mismatch (e)
--0--- 10 mm mismatch (e)
— — Straight pipe (CFD)
2 mm mismatch (CFD)
A 4 mm mismatch (CFD)
0 6 mm mismatch (CFD)
— -i — - 8 mm mismatch (CFD)
-0 10 mm mismatch (CFD)
mismatching conditions at Rc=621748.
Pressure head and velocity head calculated at Re=621748 are tabulated

in table 6.10 and 6.1 1. In table 6.10 experimental results are tabulated for all case of
Re= 621748 p =997.1 kg/m' µ=0.894 x 10"3 Pa-s

Straight pipe Position in (m) P (k Pa) Total head (m) (TEL) Velocity head Pressure head
from mismatch (P/p*g)+(v2/2*g) (m) (m)
(v2/2*g) (HGL)
(P/P*g)
Pt, reading -0.34 11.34 •1.159 - 0.134 1.025
Pto reading 0.00 11.24 1.149 0.134 1.015
Pt2 reading 0.34 11.12 1.137 0.135 1.002
Pt3 reading 0.68 11.02 1.127 0.137 0.989
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.82 1.106 0.139 0.968
2 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 11.33 1.158 0.134 1.024
Pto reading 0.00 11.22 1.147 0.134 1.013
Pt2 reading 0.34 10.97 1.121 0.136 0.986
Pt3 reading 0.68 10.86 1.110 0.138 0.973
Pt4 reading 1.36. 10.66 1.090 0.139 0.951
4 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 11.31 1.156 0.135 1.022
Pto reading 0.00 11.2 1.145 0.135 1.010
Pty reading 0.34 10.9 1.114 0.136 0.978
Pt3 reading 0.68 10.79 1.103 0.138 0.965
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.59 1.083 0.140 0.943
6 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 11.3 1.155 0.135 1.020
Pto reading 0.00 11.18 1.143 0.135 1.008
Pt2 reading 0.34 10.83 1.107 0.136 0.971
Pt3 reading 0.68 10.71 1.095 0.138 0.957
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.48 1.071 0.140 0.931
8 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 11.3 1.155 0.135 1.020
Pto reading 0.00 11.18 1.143 0.135 1.007
Pty reading 0.34 10.78 1.102 0.137 0.965
Pt3 reading 0.68 10.66 1.090 0.139 0.951
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.43 1.066 0.140 0.926
10 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 11.29 1.154 0.135 1.019
Pto reading 0.00 11.16 1.141 0.135 1.006
Pte reading 0.34 10.71 1.095 0.137 0.958
Pt3 reading 0.68 10.58 1.082 0.139 0.942
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.33 1.056 0.141 0.915
m
Tabie6.11: TEL and HGL readings at Re= 621748 (CFD)
Re= 621748 p=997.1 kg/m3 p.=0.894 x 10-3 Pa-s

Straight pipe Position in (m) P (k Pa) Total head (m) Velocity head Pressure head
(PAP*g)+(v2/2*g) (v2/2 *g) (HGL) (P/p*g)
Pt, reading -0.34 11.07 1.132 0.133 0.999
Pto reading 0.00 10.97 1.122 0.132 0.989
Pt2 reading 0.34 10.86 1.110 0.133 0.976
Pt3 reading 0.68 10.76 1.100 0.135 0.964
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.56 1.080 0.137 0.943
2 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 11.06 1.131 0.133 0.998
Pta reading 0.00 10.94 1.119 0.132 0.987
Pte reading 0.34 10.70 1.094 0.134 0.960
Pt3 reading 0.68 10.59 1.083 0.136 0.947
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.39 1.063 0.137 0.926
4 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 11.06 1.131 0.134 0.997
Pto reading 0.00 10.91 1.116 0.132 0.983
Pt, reading 0.34 10.62 1.086 0.134 0.952
Pt; reading 0.68 10.51 1.075 0.136 0.939
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.31 1.055 0.137 0.917
6 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 11.04 1.129 0.134 0.995
Pto reading 0.00 10.88 1.112 0.132 0.980
Pte reading 0.34 10.54 1.078 0.134 0.944
Pt3 reading 0.68 10.42 1.065 0.136 0.930
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.20 1.042 0.137 0.905
8 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 11.04 1.129 0.135 0.994
Pto reading 0.00 10.87 1.111 0.133 0.979
Pt2 reading 0.34 10.48 1.071 0.134 0.938
Pt3 reading 0.68 10.36 1.059 0.136 0.924
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.14 1.036 0.137 0.899
10 mm mismatch
Pt, reading -0.34 11.03 1.128 0.134 0.994
Pta reading 0.00 10.84 1.108 0.132 0.977
Pt2 reading 0.34 10.40 1.063 0.134 0.929
Pt3 reading 0.68 10.27 1.050 0.136 0.914
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.03 1.025 0.138 0.888
m
From the graphs it is observed that in case of straight pipe there is gradual
decrease in both TEL and HGL. As the Reynolds number increase, pressure head has
decreased, therefore there is a drop in TEL and HGL. It is observed that as Reynolds
number increases, head loss has also increased. For Re= 534017, 1.44% of head loss
was observed while 4.57% of head loss was observed for Re=621748. There is
negligible variation in velocity across the pipe flow.
In case of mismatching conditions it has been observed that, there is a loss of

pressure head. As the mismatching increases it was observed that loss in pressure
head has also increased. It has been observed that for a mismatching condition, as
Reynolds number increases there is increase in loss of pressure head. For 2 mm
mismatching condition, decrease of 1.85% in Total Energy Line at Re= 534017 and
5.87% decrease at Re= 621748 across the pipe length, where as for Hydraulic
Gradient Line it is 1.98% and 7.13%. For 10 mm mismatching condition, decrease of
2.64% in Total Energy Line at Re= 534017 and 8.49% decrease at Re= 621748 across
the pipe length, where as for Hydraulic Gradient Line it is 2.82% and 10.21%.
Percentage drop in HGL and TEL across the penstock for straight and mismatching
condition at all Reynolds numbers are shown in graphs below from Figure 6.19 and
Figure 6.20.
9 -
P
8
7
J
W
1-6 0
C
u)
@5
n)
U
a 4
O
03
2
1
5.2e+5 5.4e+5 5 fle F5 58a'-5 6 Oe+5 6.2e+5 6.4e+5
Reynolds number
• Straight pipe
0 2 mm mismatch
v 4 mm mismatch
— o— 6 mm mismatch
i— 8 mm mismatch
— —0— — 10 mm mismatch
Figure 6.19: Percentage decrease in TEL with Re.

12
10
///
/ /// O
01
5.2e+5 5.4e+5 5.6e+5 5.8e+5 6.0e+5 6.2e+5 6.4e+5
Reynolds number
e Straight pipe
0 2 mm mismatch
V 4 mm mismatch
— — - 6 mm mismatch
— f — 8 mm mismatch
— —0--- 10 mm mismatch
Figure 6.20: Percentage decrease in HGL with Re.
Experimental results give a glimpse of variation in pressure and velocity, but

can be visualized through CFD plots. Velocity vectors of velocity for 10 mm
mismatch pipe at Re=621748 are shown in Figure 6.21. In the plane of Pto it was
observed that velocity has decreased and increased thereafter.
6.15e+00 (P_ ANSlY

5.84e+00
5.53e+00
5.230+00
4.920+00
4.61e+00
4.300+00
4.00a+00
3.69e+00
4
3.386+00
3.07e+00
2.77.+00
2.46e+00
2.15e+00
1
1.840+00
154s+00
1.239+00 -.
9.23.-01
6.150-01 y
3.08e-01
5.25e-04 Z -X
Velocity Vectors Colored By Velocity Magnitude (m/s) Jun 17, 2011

ANSYS FLUENT 12.1 (3d, pbns, ske)
Figure 6.21: Velocity vectors coloured by velocity magnitude for

10 mm mismatch pipe at Re=621748.
1.21.+05 ANSI 5
1 20e+05
1.189+05
1.160+05
1.158+05
1.13e+05
1.11.+05
1.09e+05
1 08e+05
1
1.04e+05
1.03.+05
1.01 a+05
9.93e+04
9.760+04
9.59e+04
9.42e+04
9.250+04
9.08e+04
8.90e+04
8.73e+04 Z~ X
Velocity Vectors Colored By Absolute Pressure (pascal) Jun 17, 2011

Figure 6.22: Velocity vectors coloured by absolute pressure for

In Figure 6.22 velocity vectors coloured by absolute pressure for

10 mm mismatch pipe at Re=621748 are shown. It was observed that there was a
pressure drop across the length of the pipe. Pressure drop after mismatching point was
more compared to pressure drop across any other part of penstock which is proved by
experimental results.
6.03e+00
5.610+00
5.19e+00
4.770+00
4.36.+00
3 94e+00
3.529+00
3.109+00
2.68e+00
2.27.+00
1.850+00
1.43.+00
1.010+00
5.95.-01 4-
1.77e-01
-2.411-01
-6.59*-01
-1.08.+00
-1.49e+00
-1.916+00
-2.33.+00 Z X

Velocity Vectors Colored By Z Velocity (rn(s) Jun 17, 2011
Figure 6.23: Velocity vectors coloured by Z velocity for

In Figure 6.23 velocity vectors colored by z velocity for 10 mm mismatch pipe
at Re=621748 are shown. It was observed that at central core region, velocity is
maximum. Near the walls of the penstock velocity has decreased. Magnitude of
velocity has decreased just before mismatch and has increased thereafter.
5.384+00
5.04e+00
4.69.+00
4.35e+00
4.00e+00
3.66e+00
3.32e+00
2.97e+00
2.636+00
2.29e+00
1.94e+O0
1.600+00
1.25e+00
9.108-01
2.23e-01
2.23s-01 r
-1.21*-01
\v\
-4.64e-01 \J
-0.080-o1
- 1.15e+00
- 1.50e+0O z X

Contours of Z Velocity (m/s) Jun 17, 2011
ANSYS FLUENT 12.1(34 pbns, ske)
Figure 6.24: Contours of Z velocity for 10 mm mismatch pipe at Re=621748
Contours of Z velocity for 10 mm mismatch at Re=612748 are shown in

Figure 6.24. It was observed that near wall and just before mismatching velocity has
decreased. In the plane of Pt0 circulation was observed which cause hydraulic loss.
CHAPTER 7
• -CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE OF FUTURE-WORK---- -- — - —
Experimentation and CFD analysis have been carried out to know the effect of
- - mismatch on flow conditions in the penstock. The analysis was carried for straight
pipe flow with five different mismatching conditions each at five different Reynolds
number ranging from 534 x 103 to 621 x 103. Following conclusions were drawn from
the results obtained.
i. Maximum deviation in velocity measured from Ultrasonic flow meter method

and pitot tube was 0.95 % considering all the flow conditions.
ii. From experimentation it has been found that, a gradual decrease in TEL and
HGL for flow in straight pipe due to loss in pressure head. There was a
decrease of 1.44% in Total Energy Line at Re= 534017 and 4.57% decrease at
Re= 621748 across the pipe length, where as for Hydraulic Gradient Line it is
1.56% and 5.56%.
iii. In mismatching condition sudden decrease in TEL and HGL was observed as
follows.
• For 2 mm mismatching - condition, decrease of 1.85% in Total Energy
Line at Re= 534017 and 5.87% decrease at Re= 621748 across the pipe
length, where as for Hydraulic Gradient Line it was 1.98% and 7.13%.
• For 10 mm mismatching condition, decrease of 2.64% in Total Energy
Line at Re= 534017 and 8.49% decrease at Re= 621748 across the pipe
length, where as for Hydraulic Gradient Line it was 2.82% and
10.21%.
iv. Percentage decrease in TEL and HGL increases with increase in mismatch at a
particular Reynolds number and vice-versa.
v. Less than 3 % variation was observed between the results obtained from
Experimentation and CFD analysis.
m
Scope of future work
:.: )._. Analysis _ =.of-_-hydraulic losses in penstock - accessories_. _ such__as bends,_

bifurcations, reducers, valves etc. can be carried out.
b) The remedial measures for mismatching condition may be planned and tested.
E7
References
[1] www.powermin.nic.in accessed on June 1S` 2011.-

[2] http://www.mnre.gov.in/prog-smallhydro.htm accessed on 17" June2011.
[3] Layman's handbook on how to develop a small hydro site (second edition), 1998
European small hydropower association, pp 138-150.
[4] Bill McStraw, [1996], Inspection of steel penstocks and pressure conduits,
pp 6-20.
[5] Manual on Design, Fabrication, Erection and Maintenance of Steel Penstocks,
1974, pp 1-66.
[6] Steel penstocks, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 79,
1993, pp 22-23.
[7] J.F.Douglas, J.F.Gasiorek and J.F.Swaffield, [1999], "Fluid Mechanics", 3'
edition, Addison Wesley publication.
[8] L. A. Salami, (1986), "An investigation of turbulent developing flow at the
entrance to a smooth pipe", International journal on heat and fluid flow,
Butterworth & Co Publishers Ltd., Vol. 7, pp 247-257.
[9] J. C. Gibbings, (1996), "On the measurement of skin friction from the turbulent
velocity profile", Flow measurement-Instrumentation Elseveir science Ltd, Vol. 7,
pp 99-107.
[10]M. V. Zagarola and A. J. Smits (1997), " Scaling of the Mean Velocity Profile for
Turbulent Pipe Flow", The American physical society, Vol. 78, pp 239-242.
[ 11 ] Kiran Bhaganagar, John Kim, and Gary Coleman (2004), "Effect of Roughness
on Wall-Bounded Turbulence" Flow, Turbulence and Combustion. Vol. 72, pp
463-492.
[ 12] Javier Jimenez (2004), "Turbulent flows over rough walls", Annual Review Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 36, pp-173-196.
[13]M. A. Shockling, J. J. Allen and A. J. Smits,( 2006), "Roughness effects in
turbulent pipe flow" Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 564, pp. 267-285.
[14]M. P. Schultz and K. A. Flack, (2007), "The rough-wall turbulent boundary layer
from the hydraulically smooth to the fully rough regime", Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 580, pp. 381-405.
. - . [15] L. I.-Langelandsvik, G. J. Kunkel and a. J. Smits, (2008), "Flow in a commercial
steel pipe", J. Fluid Mech. Vol. 595, pp. 323-339.
[16],R. J. Volino, M. P. Schultz and, K. A. Flack, (2007), "Turbulence structure in
rough- and smooth-wall boundary layers" J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 592, pp. 263-293.
[17]Hyuk Jae Kwon, [2007], "Analysis of Transient Flow in a Piping System" ,
KSCE journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 11, pp 209-214.
[18]L. I. Langelandsvik, G. J. Kunkel and A. J. Smits, [2008], "Flow in a commercial
steel pipe", Journal of fluid mechanics, Vol. 595, pp. 323-339.
[19]A.P Willis, J Peixinho, R.R Kerswell and T Mullin, [2008], "Experimental and
theoretical progress in pipe flow transition", The royal society, Vol. 366, pp
2671-2684.
[20]Marcus Hultmark, Sean C: C, Bailey and Alexander J. smits, [2010], "Scaling of
near-wall turbulence in pipe flow", Journal of fluid mechanics, Vol. 649,
pp 101-113.
[21]G.F.K. Tay, D.C.S." Kuhn, M.F. Tachie, (2009), "Influence of adverse pressure
gradient on rough-wall turbulent flows", International Journal of Heat and Fluid
Flow, Vol. 30, pp 249-265.
[22]E. Casartelli and N. Ledergerber, [2010], "Aspects of the numerical simulation
for the flow in penstocks "IGHEM", pp 234-242.
[23]J.B.R. Loureiro, F.B.C.C. Sousa, J.L.Z. Zotin and A.P. Silva Freire, (2010), "The
distribution of wall shear stress downstream of a change in roughness",
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 31, pp 785-793.
91
APPENDIX-A
= ; =. Procedure to calculate Velocity head and Pressure head for 10 mm mismatched

condition at Re=621748
Let Ahi, v1, ql, Ohl, V2, Q2. Ah3, v3, Q3, A 4, v4, q4 are manometric height,
velocity and discharge corresponding to 1s' , 2°a, 3rd and 4th pitot tube readings
respectively are given in table A-1. Four manometric heights were noted down
simultaneously for 10 mm mismatched pipe flow at Re= 621748 from four pitot
tubes. Pitot tubes were then adjusted to different height with the help of vernier scale
to note down manometric height. This procedure was repeated to note down the
manometric height across the diameter of penstock at an interval of 10 mm, from one
wall of penstock to another. Discharge through the penstock is calculated by equation
given below. Ah was noted down for a particular radius, above and below central line
of penstock. Corresponding velocity was calculated taking average of Ah for a
particular radius.
Q= 2rr((vo '+v1 )/ 2) fo"rdr+2ir((v, + v2 )/2) fr' rdr+

T17
2n((v2 +v3 )/2) f13 rdr+
z + 2 ir ((vie +vi7)/2) frib r dr ...
Where
Q= discharge through penstock in m3/s
vo = Velocity of flow (m/s) at centre line of penstock measured by pitot tube
v1 = Velocity of flow (m/s) at 10 mm away from centre line of penstock measured by

pitot tube.
Similarly v2 to v16 are velocities of flow (m/s) at 20 mm to 160 mm away from centre
line of penstock at gap of 10 mm measured by pitot tube.
v„ = Velocity at wall of penstock which is taken as zero
r = 10 mm, r2 =20 mm, ........ r17= 171 mm, and Ar= 10 mm.
i
Average velocity was calculated by the formula: Vavg = Q/A
A-1
O co 0 N M M N ei Q1 N LA N O N
...• O• co M M N a- I O Ol 00 to LI) M N C)
• O O a-I 1-1 v-I -4 -' a -I v-I -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E
° O OE O O O O C) O O Co C) C) O O C) O O O
c O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .O O O O
•
O. . v-I O M U) N O N 1.0 e-I 00 0 0 m 00 Lfl 1.0
'1
ed. O: ..4i N 0) lD m O LI) 00 N 1.0 00 %-1 m d' LO CO 01
o N U) Ln to N co o 0o M rn rn o 0 0 0 o O
C) 0). en N CO N N 0) LI) 1.0 1.0 r-1 O Ql G) CO N c-1

O 00 LI) N 0) N m tD O mr N O N M t!) N m O
N O et Ln tD ZD f~ CO o0 rn Ci Ol O O O O O O r
O v-I ~- It-I v—I v—I r-I N N ('1 N N N N
Qr o m m Il1 N O %-I 00 LI) M al ';t 00 N 1.0 O m I.A

O a-I N m tt lD N N 00 0) O1 O O e~ e1 N N N
O ci a ci a1 r-1 v N N " N NC
a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O LI) 00 LA O lD O a-I N N e-1 O 0) N LI) N 0) IN N

O 00 Cr q* M en N r-I C) m 00 lD LI) CF M e-I O M
O O a-I e-I e-I r-1 v-1 •I .~ vI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C O O O O O O O O O O• O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O v
O N 0) N N M 00 m 1.0 1n LI) M O O
N m H O N CO N O M N r-1 M 1.0 00 O N '' tO 00 I~
LI)
o N In to l0 N o0 00 0o rn of rn of o o O O O c'J
> O O a-1 a-i a- i. i a-I %-I .~ vi a--I r l e4 N N N N N
cd
O m M 1-I r-I N 1.0 00 O to r-I 1.0 lD t!1 LI) d M N
O 00 LI) N 00 N N Ct O N LI) N m a1 a LA N 00
O Ln lD l0 1~ 00 00 01 al Ol Ol Gl O O O O O
00
N
E O a-I a-1 a--I a-I ei i-1 e-i e-1 v-I 4 ei e~ N N N N N
N O M M rl O cn m M N v -I LI) cn N
O N m ~D N N 00 c0 Ol Ql O O -I N
II O rl 1 1 T-I ri v-I -! a-1 ri a-1 e-1 N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N
O Id) CO 01 00 O v-I v -I e-1 O 00 lD N 01 1.0 1
O CO if q* M M N N v-I O Ol 00 lC U) CI e1 O „~
- O O rl rl r1 v -I rq T- 4 i--I r-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
t]. N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
b D s U)
O 0 O v-I m v-I N 01 LI) LI) O en 00 00 M O O Ol 1.0 Q

V O 'CI rl CO * O N ri II) O e It) N O) v-I M IO (II
CA O N N to W N N CO CO m O 0 01 m O O O O
.ter cd > O O v—I ei a1 r4 r4 r4 i 4 a 4 v-; v-I v4 ,4 N N N N
C? a
O O N NII) M m 0) N Ol ei to ei ID a-i O m m M
O O CO d' v- I lD m M N N qt N CO O N m m N
O u9 lC t0 fN fN 00 00 m m G1 O) O O O O O
is O a-I a-i ,-I a--1 ~ 4 a--I r-I r-1 r-1 .4 e.4 a.4 N N N N N
..r
I ~]y O N N m N 1.0 t!) v-I O 00 M Oo v-I co N 1.O 0)
O a-I N M 'Ct u1 1.0 N 00 00 0) M O 0 0 v—I v—I
O VA VA N N N N N N
E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rl O m Lfl N O d N O a-i r-1 O Q1 N LO y
a"I m lG ^
I.' of CD 00 'CF Re M M N N a-1 0 01 N to to a ei C
- O 0 r-I c-I v--1 r-I i--1 a--I a--I a-1 O 0 0 0 C) O O O cn
W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O G C O O O O O O
CD cd 0)
O CO t!1 o M M M lD O m a-i 00 en 00 m 00 O v-I
m y O N CO 11) M O lD N 1.0 0) r-1 M TT lC N 0) O N
4N > O O ei a-I r-I a-! r-I .-1 e-1 r-i e1 .~ e-i r-i e-I a-1 N N d
2 O 1.0 u9 N 0) 00 00 00 LI) a-1 v-I 1.0 rl tD r-I LI LI
0 O LI v-I 0) to M 00 V1 N O N LI) N CO 0 e-1 N
'
-. O Re v1 N tO N I- 00 0o m On 01 01 Ql m O O O
a O r-I a-1 e,4 v-II a--1 v-I e-1 v-I v-I v-I r-I e-1 v-I v-I N N N
O v
44 O 00 1N O N m l0 m t1) 00 N u'1 CO vI d N m
a O O e1 M m tD N N CO 00 m m m O O O O
O ~--I e-I v-I %-I T-1 a-1 %-I v-I r-1 a-1 a--I e-1 %-I N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Qi N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O. e-I
a-1; N M LI) lD N 00 0) O.
O r-I v-I v-Ii v-I v-I v-I N
uI) 1.0
0 N E
0 3
E4
A= Cross sectional area of penstock.
• ::. V avg was 'calculated. at four cross sections. Velocity head was calculated from average
velocity obtained.
Total Pressure was measured from LD 301 pressure transmitter at four cross
sections where pitot tubes were inserted. Since straight pipe was used, datum head is
taken as zero at every cross section of the pipe. TEL and HGL are drawn across the
penstock section. Hydraulic gradient line (HGL) is drawn by subtracting velocity head
from Total energy line.
Total Energy Line = P/ (p*g) + v2/ (2*g)
Hydraulic gradient Line = P/ (p*g)
Experimental readings corresponding to Velocity head and Pressure head are given in
Table A-2.
Table A-2: Experimental readings corresponding to Velocity head
and Pressure head
10 mm Position in (m) P Total head (m) Q v Velocity Pressure

mismatch from mismatch (k Pa) (TEL) • (m3/s) (m/s) head(m) head (m)
(p/p*g)+(v2/2*g) (v2/2*g) (HGL)
(P/ * )
Ptl reading -0.34 11.29 1.154 0.149 1.626 0.135 1.019
Pto reading 0.00 11.16 1.141 0.149 1.626 0.135 1.006
Pte reading 0.34 10.71 1.095 0.150 1.641 0.137 0.958
Pt3 reading 0.68 10.58 1.082 0.151 1.653 0.139 0.942
Pt4 reading 1.36 10.33 1.056 0.151 1.663 0.141 0.915
A-3 ---

HYDG20749

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HYDG20749

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FLOW ANALYSIS IN PENSTOCK

ALTERNATE HYDRO ENERGY CENTRE

entitled, "FLOW ANALYSIS IN PENSTOCK", in partial fulfillment of the

Alternate Hydro Energy Centre and Dr. B.K.Gandhi, Professor, Department of

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India.

Dated: June 30 2011 -''~

(Dr. Arun Kumar) (Dr. B.K. Gandhi)

It is my proud privilege to express my sincere gratitude to my guides Dr

Professor, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of

inspiration throughout the dissertation work.

I wish to express my profound gratitude to Dr. Arun Kumar, Head, Alternate

cooperation he has given is greatly appreciated.

Institute of Technology, Roorkee.

valuable suggestions for my dissertation work.

Date: June 302011 (PRAVEENKUMAR KULKARNI)

work is an effort to study mismatch of penstock alignment on velocity profile and

on flow conditions of penstock at 5 different Reynolds number ranging from 534 x

LIST OF TABLES viii

1.1 Small hydropower 1

1.2 Types of SHP schemes 2

1.2.1 Run-of River scheme 2

1.2.2 Canal based scheme 2

1.2.3 Dam Toe based scheme 2

1.3 Components of SHIP 3

1.3.1 Civil works 3

1.3.2 Electro Mechanical Equipment 4

1.4 Objectives of work 4

1.5 Organisation of Dissertation work 5

2.1 Penstock materials 6

2.2 Factors considered for choosing penstock materials 8

2.3 Penstock fabrication 9

2.3.1 Process of fabrication

CHAPTER -3 LITERATURE REVIEW 33

CHAPTER -4 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 40

CHAPTER-5 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION AND CFI) 48

Table No. Particulars Page No.

Classification of hydro schemes in India 2

Characteristics of penstock materials 8

Equipments and instruments required for experiments 42

Boundary Conditions of Numerical Model 53

Position of points and corresponding distances from 59

6.2 TEL and HGL readings at Re=534017 (Experimental) 66

6.3 TEL and HGL readings at Re=534017 (CFD) 67

6.4 TEL and HGL readings at Re=553089 (Experimental) 70

6.5 TEL and HGL readings at Re=553089 (CFD) 71

6.6 TEL and HGL readings at Re=572161 (Experimental) 74

6.7 TEL and HGL readings at Re=572161 (CFD) 75

6.8 TEL and HGL readings at Re=591233 (Experimental) 78

6.9 TEL and HGL readings at Re=591233 (CFD) 79

TEL and HGL readings at Re=621748 (Experimental) 82

6.11 TEL and HGL readings at Re=621748 (CFD) 83

Figure No. Particulars Page No.

5.8 Scaled residuals and convergence 57

p = Dynamic viscosity (kg/m-s)

v= kinematic viscosity (m2/s)

d, D = Diameter of pipe (m)

u = Average velocity (m/s)

z = Shear stress (N/m2)

ht _ Head loss (m)

m = hydraulic radius (wetted perimeter) (m)

h = Manometric height (m)

g = acceleration due to gravity m/s2

SHP = Small Hydro Power

PVC = Poly Vinyl Chloride