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

net/publication/293677202

Hydrodynamic pressures

Article · October 2005

CITATIONS READS

3 2,302

1 author:

Martin Wieland
Independent Dam Consultant
75 PUBLICATIONS   699 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Rudbar Lorestan dam project View project

Plavinas HPP Latvia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Wieland on 08 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

p18_24_WP_Oct05_Seismic_CD 10/10/05 11:47 am Page 18
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Hydrodynamic
pressures
Dr Martin Wieland investigates
hydrodynamic pressures in penstocks,
bottom outlets, plugs of diversion tunnels
and gates of intake structures and spillways
caused by earthquakes
P
ENSTOCKS, plugs of diversion tunnels, gates in bottom
outlets, intake structures and spillways, valves and other
hydromechanical components of the pressurised water system
in hydro power plants have rarely been designed for the
hydrodynamic pressures, which may be caused during a strong earth-
quake. In general the hydrodynamic pressure according to Westergaard
is assumed. This assumption is acceptable for gates of surface spillways,
but not for gates located in tunnels or valves in large diameter penstocks.
Although no case is known where a penstock has failed or been
damaged during a strong earthquake, the question of earthquake
safety still has to be addressed. As earthquakes affect all components
of a hydro power plant, hydrodynamic actions also have to be checked
for all hydromechanical components. It may be argued that in the
pressurised water system the water hammer is already investigated
and the emergency shut-down of a penstock may cause the maximum
hydrodynamic pressures. As discussed in the subsequent sections, the
hydrodynamic pressures due to valve regulation are larger than those
due to earthquakes in long penstocks or pressure tunnels with a
natural period of vibration of the water of several seconds. However,
in relatively short penstocks with fundamental eigenfrequency of the
oscillating water mass in the range of the dominant frequencies of the
earthquake ground motion, the situation may be the opposite.
18
Damage and failure of buried water and gas mains has been
caused by quite a number of earthquakes. The vulnerability of these
lifelines is not a new phenomenon. However, the implications of
these observations may not yet have been fully realised elsewhere.
Penstocks and gates of hydro power plants are not intrinsically safe
against earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause damage to penstocks
by different mechanisms as discussed below:
• Hydrodynamic pressures due to ground shaking: The magnitude
of the pressure depends on the response spectrum of the ground
shaking and the natural period of the oscillating mass in the
pressurised water system.
• Relative displacements along active faults.
• Support movements due to earthquake-triggered slides.
• Rock falls on penstocks on the surface in steep terrain.
• Dynamic forces in penstock due to support movements and
deformations of rigid anchor points.
• Dynamic soil pressures in buried penstocks; imposed (quasi-static)
deformations due to soil liquefaction, differential settlements and
creep movements of slopes, etc.
It is evident from the above list that the seismic actions, which can
cause damage to a penstock, cover a wide spectrum. To ignore the
earthquake action because it may not have been considered in the
OCTOBER 2005 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
p18_24_WP_Oct05_Seismic_CD 10/10/05 11:47 am Page 19
past would not be an acceptable argument. Also, to simply declare
the earthquake action on a penstock as an acceptable risk, does not
comply with today’s state of knowledge practice, particularly in view
of the fact that rather sophisticated dynamic analyses are already
carried out for the seismic design of dams.
In mountainous regions the main hazard is from rock falls and mass
movements. For example, during the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in
Taiwan (magnitude 7.5) and the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran (mag-
nitude 7.6) several thousand rock falls have occurred (Figures 1 and 2).
Therefore, rock falls and mass movements have to be expected and
appropriate action shall be taken in the design of penstocks (soil cover,
concrete protection, pressure shaft instead of surface penstock etc.).
Fault crossings may require special solutions, as shown in the
examples in Figure 3, where the Trans Alaska pipeline is crossing
the Denali fault. During the magnitude 7.9 Denali earthquake of 3
November 2002, significant horizontal fault movements occurred
at this location. Due to the sliding bearings, the fault movements
could be absorbed without major damage and with a very short
interruption of the pipeline operation (Sorenson and Meyer, 2003).
Besides the penstocks, the gates of spillways, bottom outlets,
intakes etc. can also be affected by high hydrodynamic forces. This
is the case when the gate is located in a pressure tunnel or shaft. For
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM OCTOBER 2005
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Anticlockwise from above: Figure 1: Rock falls caused by 1990 Manjil earth-
quake at Sefid Rud buttress dam site: access road to dam crest littered with
rocks (inset), and overturning of first transmission line tower due to rock fall;
Figure 2: Punctured fuel pipeline due to rock fall caused by 1990 Manjil
earthquake in Iran
Figure 3: Horizontal sliding bearings of the Trans Alaska pipeline at the Denali
fault crossing
Figure 4: Leakage from damaged gate of intermediate level spillway of Sefid Rud
buttress dam following the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran (radial gates not visible)
example, during the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran, one of the two
radial gates of the intermediate level spillway of the Sefid Rud
buttress dam was damaged due to hydrodynamic forces resulting
from a mass oscillation of the relatively short intake tunnel. One of
the arms of the radial gates buckled and one of the trunnion plates
cracked (Jalalzadeh, 2000). Due to the deformations, the damaged
gate could not be operated after the earthquake and was leaking.
So what should be done in order to improve the seismic safety of
a penstock? First, it is necessary to identify the type of seismic hazard
(see list on p18) and the weak elements in a penstock.Such checks
are not very costly and it is worthwhile to perform them in the
context of an overall safety assessment involving other hazards from
the natural and man-made environment.
In order to minimise the potential damage in the case of failure of
a penstock, the proper functioning of valves during and after an
earthquake must be guaranteed. Thus, the seismic safety of these
devices shall be carefully checked and assessed.
The rock fall and landslide hazard is best assessed together with an
experienced geologist, who is familiar with the local conditions. The best
protection of a penstock against rock falls is by burying the penstock.
Anchor points in potentially unstable slopes need special solutions.
Of course, the best solution would be to avoid such locations.
However, for high head penstocks in the mountains, the slopes are
generally very steep with slope angles up to 45°, which exceeds the
friction angle of the slope wash or the weathered rock, therefore, the
slope stability of supports is a general problem. Earthquake damage
can be accepted when, due to the release of the water in the penstock,
people are not affected and damage to the environment and
property is limited and the economical losses can be covered by
insurance. Earthquake alarm systems, which allow the automatic
shut-down of a penstock and the installation of additional valves in
long penstocks, may be more effective than designing a penstock for
the worst seismic actions (Griesser et al., 2004).
In the subsequent sections the earthquake-induced hydrodynamic
pressures in penstocks are discussed, which for low head schemes
can greatly exceed the hydrostatic pressures. These pressures may
not only jeopardise the safety of the penstock but also the gates and
valves located in relatively short intake tunnels and penstocks,
respectively. Moreover, the plugs in closed diversion tunnels may
experience very high hydrodynamic forces during an earthquake.
19
p18_24_WP_Oct05_Seismic_CD 10/10/05 11:48 am Page 21

SEISMIC ANALYSIS

H YDRODYNAMIC PRESSURES IN PENSTOCKS DUE

TO EARTHQUAKE ACTION
The hydrodynamic pressures in penstocks can be characterised by the
one-dimensional wave equation, which can be expressed as follows:

(1)

where c is the wave propagation velocity of a pressure wave in an

elastic pipe (depending on the flexibility of the pipe and the
embedment, c varies between ca. 1000 to1300m/s), subscripts ‘t’
and ‘x’ denote partial derivation with respect to time and space, x
is the coordinate along the pipe axis and u(x,t) is the time-dependent
displacement of the elastic fluid in direction of the pipe axis.
In case of an earthquake ground acceleration üg(t) in direction of
the pipe axis, the relative acceleration utt has to be replaced by the
total acceleration, which is the sum of the ground acceleration and
the relative acceleration, i.e. the wave equation takes the following
Fig. 5: Typical acceleration response spectra (5% damping) for a peak ground
form:
acceleration agd (return period: 475 years) and different soil types A (rock) to
F according to Eurocode 8 (2004)
(2)

The hydrodynamic pressure, p(x,t), can be obtained from the following
relationship, assuming the fluid in the pipe being an elastic material:
(3)
where E = ␳ c2 represents the equivalent modulus of elasticity of the
water and the elastic pipe and ␳ is the mass density of water (1000
kg/m3).
In a penstock with the length L, which is closed at one end and
terminates at the surface of a reservoir or surge chamber, the
hydrodynamic pressure due to a ground excitation can be determined
with the mode superposition method (Clough and Penzien, 1975).
Accordingly, the modes of vibration Xn(x) (subscript n denotes the
n-th mode) can be expressed as follows (note: x = 0 at the free surface
end of the pipe):
üg(t): ground acceleration in direction of pipe axis.
The eigenfrequencies of the pressure system are as follows:
(10)
The fundamental frequency (n=1) can be taken as f1 = c/(4L).
The maximum of u n(t) can be obtained directly from the
acceleration response spectrum, Sa(fn, ␰n), i.e.
(11)
Using equation 3 the hydrodynamic pressure at the fixed end (x = L)
of the n-th mode of vibration can be obtained in an analogous way.

(4) (12)

The modes of vibration satisfy the following orthogonality relationship: By substituting equation 11 and the expressions for fn and dn in
equation 12, we obtain the following maximum n-th pressure at the
fixed end of the pipe:

(5)
Using u(x,t) = ∑ Xn(x) un(t) we obtain from equation 4
(6)
where un(t) represents the n-th modal coordinate.
By substituting equation 6 into equation 2, multiplication with
Xn(x), introduction of a viscous damping term and integration along
ther whole pipeline, the following equations of motion result:
(13)
The total hydrodynamic pressure at the closed end of the pipe can
be obtained by using the the following standard superposition
method (SRSS-method) for the modal maxima:
(14)
If only the contribution of the first mode is taken into account then
we obtain the following maximum hydrodynamic pressure at the
fixed end:

(7) (15)

where ␰n: n-th damping ratio In case of a pipe (or tunnel) filled with an incompressible fluid where
␻n: n-th circular frequency of oscillating fluid in pipe in rad/s the flexibility of the pipe is not accounted for, we obtain

(16)

(8) where ao is the peak ground acceleration. This means the total mass
in the pipe (or tunnel) behaves like a rigid body and the maximum
dn: n-th modal partizipation factor, inertia force is equal the total mass of water in the pipe of length L
multiplied with the peak ground acceleration.
The ratio between the maximum hydrodynamic pressures of the
compressible and incompressible fluid, characterised by K, can be
(9) determined as follows:

WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM OCTOBER 2005 21

p18_24_WP_Oct05_Seismic_CD 10/10/05 11:49 am Page 22
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Fig. 6: Typical examples of short penstocks in an arch dam (Bhumiphol dam,
Thailand, above) and rockfill dam (Atatürk dam, Turkey, above, top)
(17)
If the design response spectra shown in Figure 5 are used, then the
maximum spectrum amplification factor for the absolute acceleration
s = Sa,max/a0 varies between 2.5 (soil type A: rock) and 3.5 (soil type
E) for a damping ratio of 5%. However, the damping ratio of the
pressure oscillations in a penstock is usually less than 5%. For seismic
design purposes a damping ratio of about 2% may be assumed. The
effect of the damping ratio on the elastic acceleration response
spectra can be approximated by the following correction factor
(Eurocode 8, 2004):
(18)
The response spectra for 5% damping have to be multiplied by the
above factor for periods exceeding 0.15 s (soil type A). In the case
of an undamped pressure oscillation, we obtain ␩ = 1.414.
Therefore, for a rock foundation (s = 2.5) we obtain a maximum
K-value of 2.9 (equation 17) for the undamped penstock. This
means that the maximum hydrodynamic pressure in a compressible
liquid in a penstock can be more than twice as large as in an
incompressible one. In the case of soil type E (s = 3.5) we obtain a
maximum value of K of 8x3.5x1.41/3.142 = 4.0.
If a pressure tunnel is located in the body of a massive concrete
dam (e.g. orifice spillway in arch dam) then the hydrodynamic pres-
sure must be calculated using the so-called floor response spectrum
at the location of the pressure tunnel rather than the acceleration
response spectrum of the ground motion.
E XAMPLE 1: 1000 M LONG PENSTOCK
Determine the maximum hydrodynamic pressure in a 1000 m long
penstock with the following properties: rock site with a peak ground
acceleration of 0.3 g (3m/s2); wave propagation velocity in the
elastic pipe of c=1100 m/s, damping ratio of 0%, mass density of
water of 1000 kg/m3. The fundamental period of vibration according
to equation 10 is T 1 = 1/f 1 = 4L/c = 3.64 s. The maximum
hydrodynamic pressure of the first mode of vibration is obtained
from equation 15 using the response spectrum shown in Figure 5
22
for soil type A and a vibration period of 3.64 s (spectrum value:
0.264 for 5% damping). For an undamped pressure oscillation the
5% damped response spectrum has to be multiplied by ␩ = 1.414
according to equation 18. Therefore, we obtain
p1,max = 8 x 1000 kg/m3 x 1000 m x 1.414 x 0.264 x 3 m/s2
/ 3.142 = 0.91 MPa or 9.1 bar
This maximum hydrodynamic pressure is independent of the head
or the average slope of the penstock. Therefore, for high head
penstocks with a hydrostatic pressure of several MPa’s, a maximum
dynamic pressure of about 1 MPa is not a serious concern. However,
for low head penstocks with static pressures in the order of the
dynamic pressure – this applies mainly to pipes in relatively flat
terrain – the hydrodynamic pressure has to be checked carefully. For
penstocks with a length of say 3000m the natural period of
vibration is three times that of the 1000 m long one and increases
to 10.9 s. For this period the spectrum acceleration drops to
roughly 1/9 of that of the 1000m long pipe as the tail of the response
spectrum is proportional to one over the square of the period. This
results in a hydrodynamic pressure of ca. 0.1 MPa or 1 bar.
The maximum hydrodynamic pressure of the second mode of
vibration (n=2) with a period of vibration of T2 = 4L/(3c) = 1.212 s
can be determined from equation 13 (spectrum value for 1.212 s for
soil type A in Fig. 5: 0.825):
p2,max = 8 x 1000 kg/m3 x 1000 m x 1.414 x 0.825 x 3 m/s2
/(9 x 3.142) = 0.32 MPa (3.2 bar)
Similarly, for the third mode of vibration we obtain (period of
vibration: 0.727 s, spectrum value: 1.375):
p3,max = 8 x 1000 kg/m3 x 1000 m x 1.414 x 1.375 x 3 m/s2
/(25 x 3.142) = 0.19 MPa (1.9 bar)
From these numerical values it can be seen that the maximum hydro-
dynamic pressures decrease with increasing mode number despite the
fact that the response spectrum is still increasing for periods down to
0.4 s. This is due to the fact that the hydrodynamic pressures are
inversely proportional to (2n-1)2, where n is the mode number.
Finally the total hydrodynamic pressure has to be calculated using
the SRSS superposition of the modal maxima according to equation
14. Thus for the first three modes we obtain:
2 2 2 1/2
ptot = (0.91 + 0.32 + 0.19 ) = 0.98 MPa (9.8 bar)
By comparing the total hydrodynamic pressure of the first three
modes with that of the first mode we can note that the total pressure
is only 8% larger than that of the first mode contribution. In view
of the different assumptions made, this is a negligible difference.
Therefore, for most applications it is sufficient to include only the
contribution of the first mode.
E XAMPLE 2: 130 M LONG PRESSURE TUNNEL
Determine the maximum hydrodynamic pressure in a 130m long
pressure tunnel with the following properties: rock site with a peak
ground acceleration of 0.3g (3m/s2); wave propagation velocity in
the elastic pipe of c=1300m/s, damping ratio of 5%, mass density
of water of 1000kg/m3. The fundamental period of vibration
according to equation 10 is T1 = 1/f1 = 4L/c = 0.4 s. The maximum
hydrodynamic pressure of the first mode of vibration is obtained
from equation 15 using the response spectrum shown in Figure 5
for soil type A and a vibration period of 0.4 s (spectrum value: 2.5
for 5% damping). Therefore, we obtain
pmax = 8 x 1000 kg/m3 x 130 m x 2.5 x 3 m/s2 / 3.142 =
0.79 MPa (7.9 bar)
OCTOBER 2005 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
 p18_24_WP_Oct05_Seismic_CD 10/10/05 11:49 am Page 24
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
The maximum hydrodynamic pressure is of the same order as that
of the 1000m long penstock in Example 1. If zero damping would
be assumed then the maximum hydrodynamic pressure would reach
11.2 bar, which is more than that in Example 1. For short penstocks
with small head or gates and plugs in relatively short tunnels, this
dynamic pressure is quite important. The example is selected in such
a way that for the given response spectrum the hydrodynamic pressure
would become a maximum, i.e. if the pressure tunnel is longer or
shorter than 130m then the hydrodynamic pressure will decrease.
The contributions of the higher modes of vibration play a smaller
role in this example than in Example 1 as the spectrum values of the
rock response spectrum do not increase further if the periods of
vibration decrease to below 0.4 s (in Example 2 the spectrum values
of the 2nd and 3rd modes were larger than those of the 1st mode)..
In an incompressible pipe or tunnel the maximum hydrodynamic
pressure acting on a gate or valve is given by equation 16.
Accordingly in Example 1 we get a maximum dynamic pressure of
pmax = 1000 kg/m3 x 1000 m x 3 m/s2 = 3 MPa (30 bar)
and in Example 2 we obtain
pmax = 1000 kg/m3 x 130 m x 3 m/s2 = 0.39 MPa (3.9 bar).
We have to keep in mind that the slope of a penstock or pressure
tunnel does not have any effect on the maximum hydrodynamic
pressure caused by an earthquake.
Furthermore, during pressure oscillation no negative pressures are
possible. If such pressures are calculated based on the linear analysis
presented above then nonlinear processes would change the nature
of the oscillations. These phenomena are not discussed in this paper.
CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Based on the above illustrative numerical examples the following
conclusions may be drawn regarding the hydrodynamic pressures:
• The hydrodynamic pressures in short penstocks (typical situation:
dam with power house at the base of the dam, see Figure 6) and short
pressure tunnels can be quite high during strong earthquake
shaking. In this case resonance-like pressure oscillations can devel-
op under earthquake shaking, i.e. the lowest eigenfrequency of the
pressurised water system is in the range of the dominant frequencies
of ground shaking. In this case the assumption of an incompressible
fluid leads to an underestimate of the hydrodynamic pressures.
• In penstocks with a length of several hundred meters, the lowest
eigenfrequency of the pressurised water system is far below the
dominant frequencies of ground shaking. In this case the maximum
hydrodynamic pressures in a compressible fluid are below those
of an incompressible fluid.
• The contributions of higher modes of vibration of the pressurised
water system are relatively small and may be neglected.
• The maximum hydrodynamic pressures depend on the shape of
the acceleration response spectrum. In the case of long penstocks
the fundamental period of vibration is of the order of several
seconds, which is beyond that of most buildings and bridges. Thus
spectrum values result, which are rather low. Moreover, the design
response spectra given in building codes may be rather inaccurate
in that range of periods. Therefore, the design response spectra
used for such analyses have to be reviewed carefully.
PENSTOCKS AND GATES IN PRESSURE TUNNELS
In the seismic design and safety check of penstocks and gates and
valves in pressure tunnels, the following items have to be taken into
consideration:
• The design earthquake (DE) or safety evaluation earthquake (SEE)
occurs very seldom, i.e. every 475 years when the DE is used.
However, for safety-relevant elements like the bottom outlet, which
must function after an earthquake, the SEE with a return period
of say 10,000 years has to be taken into account.
24
View publication stats
• The high hydrodynamic pressures act during a relatively short
period of time, i.e. for a sinusoidal oscillation with a period of 5 s
the duration of high dynamic pressures is roughly 2 s in each cycle.
• In the case of extreme events with very low probability of occurrence
average strength values may be taken into account together with
load and safety factors of 1.0 if no specific regulations and guidelines
exist for such design situations.
• Local plastification in ductile steel elements is acceptable as long
as the safety-relevant gates are still operable after the earthquake.
This applies mainly to structural elements subjected to high
flexural stresses where, e.g., a small plastified zone in a flange does
not cause any significant deformations, which would impair the
serviceability of a gate.
Using the above concepts – if applicable - then penstocks or gates,
which have been designed for a safety factor of 1.8 should also be
able to cope with the increased stresses due to earthquake-induced
hydrodynamic pressures. In any case a check of the seismic stresses
and deformations is necessary.
C ONCLUSIONS
Penstocks and other elements of the pressurised water system in hydro
power plants have seldom been designed for earthquake action.
Earthquakes can cause substantial hydrodynamic forces in penstocks
and pressure tunnels. Depending on foundation conditions (soil type)
and length of a penstock or pressure tunnel the maximum hydro-
dynamic pressures are up to 1 MPa for a peak ground acceleration
of 0.3g. These dynamic pressures are not a problem for high head
penstocks in steep terrain as they amount to less than 20% of the
hydrostatic pressures in a penstock with a head of 500m. However,
in pipes in rather flat terrain with low head, the maximum
hydrodynamic pressures can be of the same magnitude as the
hydrostatic ones.
High dynamic pressures are also expected in short pressure tunnels
located within the body of a dam, where at the location of the tunnel
a higher acceleration response is expected than on the ground.
However, the main seismic hazard for long surface penstocks in
mountainous regions results from mass movements and rock falls.
In steep terrain large numbers of rock falls can be triggered by strong
earthquakes. This was, for example, the case during strong
earthquakes in Taiwan (1999) and Iran (1990).
The analysis procedure discussed in this paper can be used to
determine the maximum hydrodynamic pressures in penstocks at
the location of closed valves, the dynamic pressures acting on valves,
gates and plugs installed in penstocks, pressure tunnels and
diversion tunnels respectively. IWP & DC
Dr. Martin Wieland, Chairman, ICOLD Committee on
Seismic Aspects of Dam Design, Electrowatt-Ekono Ltd.
(Jaakko Pöyry Group), Hardturmstrasse 161, CH-8037
Zurich, Switzerland
Tel. 076 356 28 62; Fax 044 355 55 61; E-mail:
martin.wieland@ewe.ch
References
Clough R.W., Penzien J. (1975): Dynamics of structures, McGraw-Hill, Inc., USA
Eurocode 8 (2004): Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 2:
Bridges, European Standard, prEN 1998-2:200X, Draft 5, June 2004
Griesser L., Wieland M, Walder R. (2004): Earthquake detection and safety
system for oil pipelines, Pipeline & Gas Journal, December
Jalalzadeh A.A., Fouladi N.C. (2000): Measures on gated spillway of
Sefidrud and Marun dams – case studies, Q.79-R.37, Proc. 20th Int.
Congress on Large Dams, ICOLD, Beijing, China, September 19-22, 2000
Sorenson S.P., Meyer K.J. (2003): Effect of the Denali Fault Rupture on the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline, Proc. Sixth U.S. Conference and Workshop on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, ASCE Technical Council on Lifeline
Earthquake Engineering, Long Beach, CA, August
OCTOBER 2005 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION