Civil Engineering ‘Guidelines for Planning and Designing Hydroelectric Developments Volume 3 Powerhouses and Related Topics Division ll. Design Part. Powerhouses and Related Topics ‘Approved for publication by the Energy Division of the “American Society of Ci Engrs Publishes by the ‘Amorean Séciely of Civil Engineers ‘345 East 471 Steet /, New York, New York 10017-2308ssstesct Civil Engineering Guidelines for Planning and Designing Hyorosiectric xt raising ces Panag ae Onsen anna Deon a pwn anlar yen aoc Eero necmnes dane au mara aiecaemens ie eeemcr a cng eo le pang Sees ie cunaer resem payee ‘design of powerhouses anc related topics. While the frst three volumes deal with Soe recaese anas athbe es tee aus e Searcy yangete esa pat ee cred hgh ie So aceana ees Satarmcee rata Spe seose regret Sg te og eared Sheer cover ar ee cece tn ag meee seme Seo ean pars ten Sa me cane cae rs ei ate eae entered ey hydroelectric projects. “The materiel presented inthis publication has been prepared in accordance with ‘generally recognized engjneoring principles and practices and is for general infor ‘alon only This inormation should not be used without first securing competent ‘advice with respect tos sutabity for any general or specific appicaion. ‘The conten ofthis publcason are nt intended to be and should notbe construed tobe a standars af the American Society of Givi Engineers (ASCE) or the Electric Power Hleseasch Institue (EPRI) and are rot iniended for use as areforence in pur- ‘chase speciicatons, contrcts, regulations, statues. or any other legal document, ‘No relerence made in tls pubication io any specic method, product, process, o: ‘Service Gonstiutes or impies an endorsement, recommandabon, or warranty therect By ASCE or EPRI, sponsors ofthe work. ASCE and EPA make no representation o: warranty of any kind, whether expressed ‘orimpted, concerning the accuracy, ess, sutabiy, or util oF any infor maton, apparatus, product, or process discussed inthis publication, and assume Ro abt terefor ‘Anyone using tis information assumes all iailty arising fom such use, including but not imited to infringement of any patent or patents. gt eldetrieieetataoiEaaee SR ie ne cudnn eoouana ta canta Cray ase cae ect reFOREWORD Civil Engineering Guidelines for Planning and Designing Hydroelectric Developments was prepared by the Hydropower Committee of the ASCE Energy Division. The committee's work on the Guidelines received substantial financial support from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), without which the preparation of these Guidelines would have been impossible. ‘The Guidelines began in response to the formulation of the purpose of the Hydropower Committee at the mecting in Houston, Texas, in October 1983, when the committee was reactivated. The purpose of the committee as restated in 1983, was to “investigate and disseminate information on all phases of hydro- electric power.” At the time there was a noticeable gap between the state of the art and the literature. ‘There was a need for a comprehensive document that pulled together the widely recognized hydro-related design information using appropriate text and references. Because of the small initial membership of the Hydropower Committee, the original intent was merely a civil engineering hydroelectric design symposium involving publication of state-of-the-art papers. Additional papers would be added later to close apparent information gaps. However, as more members joined the committee, the objective and scope of the Guidelines grew. Membership reached almost 40 — the largest ever for the Hydropower Committee and among the highest of all technical committees in the. Energy Division. In early 1986, the outline of the Guidelines was finalized, and the work of writing a completely new document began in eamest.. ‘The objective of the Guidelines is to provide material that is useful to an engineer having 5 to 10 years experience and basic knowledge of the design of hydroelectric developments. The Guidelines provide comprehensive coverage and the necessary information on the type and depth of studies needed for developing and designing a successful hydroelectric project. ‘The Guidelines emphasizes the planning and design of the “powertrain,” which includes the intakes, Power conduits, powerhouses, and associated elements. The intent was to include the technology and Practices that have developed during the past 25 years, but also to recognize precedent designs of earlier periods, especially that after World War II ‘The text is arranged so that engineers can add their own notes in the margins. QuarkXPress electronic Publishing software was used to lay out all of the pages of the Guidelines. Many of the authors" original drafts were printed using IBM-compatible computers, and the files were converted to a Macintosh for- ‘mat. Equations were created using a Macintosh software program. ‘The Hydropower Committee intends to publish a revision to the Guidelines early in 1991. To this end, a form is enclosed that allows readers to order this revision or to offer comments, corrections, or additions, Recognition is due to the Hydropower Committee members, especially those who remained active con- ttibutors until completion of the Guidelines and dedicated many hours of their personal time to this undertaking, Recognition is also due to the organizations, both public and private, that supported the par- ticipation of the committee members, allowing them to attend meetings and providing the office assis- tance required for the chairmen and control members to administer related committee activities, James Birk and Charles Sullivan of EPRI were instrumental in the successful completion of the work by. recognizing the committee's capability to develop the Guidelines and by securing the necessary funding ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989FOREWORD — Continued Douglas Mortis, EPRI Project Manager, monitored and directed the EPRI-related activities of the com- mittee and contributed significantly in the review of the Guidelines. Philip M. Botch, who served as Energy Division Contact Member of the committee until his death in 1986, provided substantial contributions and support for the project. As the new contact member and Executive Committee Chairman during 1984, Don Matchett continued to provide support for the Hydropower Committee's work and for the Guidelines. Special recognition goes to Tom Logan, who under contract with EPRI, spearheaded preparation of the Guidelines with great devotion. By organizing meetings, communicating directly with the authors, and arranging for the review, editing, and typesetting of the Guidelines, Tom contributed greatly to the successful completion of this monumental project. Joe Carriero assisted Tom in organizing the material and provided valuable expertise in editing and format- ting the Guidelines. Finally, special gratitude is due to Arvids Zagars. Without his dedicated leadership, the Guidelines would not have been written. Arvids established the tnllal concept and provided the direction that guided the authors. He served as committee chairman for the entire period during which the Guidelines were written. In addition, he authored several major chapters and provided valuable input to many other chapters on which his name does not appear as a contributor. Respectfully submitted, ASCE Hydropower Committee a Shoat 7 Hocte Edgar T. Moore, P. Hydropower Committee Chairman 1989 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989ASCE ENERGY DIVISION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CONTACT MEMBERS Donald Matchett, PE., Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Denver, Colorado Philip M. Botch, PE,, PM. Botch and Associates, Bellevue, Washington ASCE CONTROL GROUP MEMBERS, 1984-1988 Arvids Zagars, PE., Chairman, ASCE Hydropower Development Committee, Harza Engineering Co., Chicago, ‘linois R.A. Corso, PE., Federal Energy Regulatory Committee, Washington, D.C. Garith Grinnell, PE., Stone and Webster Engineering Co., Denver, Colorado Edgar Moore, PE., Harza Engineering Co., Chicago, Hinois Sydney Steinbom, PE., Steinbom Associates, Seattle, Washington EPRI PROGRAM MANAGER Douglas I. Morris, EPRI, Palo Alto, California EDITOR AND TECHNICAL COORDINATOR ‘Thomas H. Logan, PE., Consultant, 1310 Wadsworth Blvd., Suite 100, Lakewood, Colorado 80215 PUBLISHING COORDINATOR Joe Carriero, PE., Consultant, 2240 Harlan Street, Denver, Colorado 80214 TYPESETTERS John Cruise and A. Celeste Velasquez, 330 East 10th Avenue, #810, Denver, Colorado 80203ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDED CONTINUOUS SUPPORT FOR COMMITTEE MEMBER PARTICIPATION IN PREPARATION OF THE GUIDELINES Harza Engineering Company (Support for all administrative activities of the Committee Chairman) Chicago Bridge and Iron Company Dames and Moore, Electric Power Research institute Gebhard Engineers ‘Mead and Hunt, Inc. ‘New York Power Authority Northeast Utilities Service Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company Steinbom Associates ‘Stone and Webster Engineering Bureau of Reclamation US. Amy Corps of Engineers Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Tennessee Valley Authority Ott Water Engineers OTHER PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS R.W. Beck Black and Veatch Duke Power Company Ebasco Services, Inc. Gilbert Commonwealth Richard Hunt and Associates ‘Southern Company Services ‘The SNC Group Ray Toney and Associates University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeCONVENTIONAL HYDROPOWER SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ‘Thomas H. Logan, Chairman, Consultant, Lakewood, Colorado Divyendu Narayan, Vice Chairman, New York Power Authority, White Plains, New York ‘Thomas Ahl, Chicago Bridge and Iron, Na-Con, Oak Brook, Illinois Bruce Ainsworth, Black & Veatch, Kansas City, Missouri Robert Auerbach, Consultant, Lakewood, Colorado George L. Buchanan, Hydro Engineering Projects, TVA, Knoxville, Tennessee Kin Chung, Gilbert Commonwealth, Jackson, Michigan Brian W. Clowes, Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon James Conwell, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California Luther Davidson, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado Jerry Dodd, Consultant, Englewood, Colorado ‘Shou-shan Fan, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Gaithersburg, Maryland Nolan J. Folden, Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon ‘John Gulliver, St. Anthony Falls, Minneapolis, Minnesota Peter Ludewig, New York Power Authority, New York, New York Richard Mittelstact, Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon Edgar Moore, Harza Engineering Co., Chicago, Winois Bruce Moyes, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado Lucien J, Mroczkiewicz, Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon Clifford A. Pugh, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado Paul M, Ruchti, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado Janis Straubengs, Ebasco Services, Inc., Bellevue, Washington Richard D. Stutsman, Pacific, Gas & Electric Co., San Francisco, California Arvids Zagars, Harza Enginecting Co., Chicago, IlinoisCIVIL ENGINEERING GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AND DESIGNING HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENTS VOLUME 1. PLANNING, DESIGN OF DAMS AND RELATED TOPICS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONAL HYDRO DIVISION L. PLANNING Chapter 1. Development ofthe Study Pen Chapter 2. Load-Resonrce Analysis Chapter 3. Hydrologic and Geologie Stdies Chapter 4. Estimating Power Pout Chapter 5. Power Pant Sizing (Chapter 6, Power Plant Cost Estimates Chapter 7. Economic Evalusion of Hydropower Projects (Chapter 8. Environmental impacts and Pertinent Legisation Chapter 9. Closary of Hydropower Planning Terms DIVISION Hl DESIGN PART A. DAMS AND RELATED TOPICS ‘Chapter 1. Dans Couper. Spilways Chapter3, Outlts "Chapter 4. Diversions Chapter. Reservoirs Chapter 6, Geologic Investigations PART D. ENVIRONMENTAL, ‘Chapter 1. Environmental Issues and Mitigaive Approaches, VOLUME 2. WATERWAYS CONVENTIONAL HYDRO DIVISION IL, DESIGN PART B. WATERWAYS Chapter 1. Takes Chapter 2, Powe: Canals and Taraces Chapter3. ‘Tunnels and Shas Chapter 4. Penstocks Chapter 5. Swady Flow in Closed Conduits Chapter 6. Transients and Surge Tanks CChopior7. Hyéraulie Models (Chapter 8. Gatesand Valves VOLUME 3. POWERHOUSES AND RELATED TOPICS: CONVENTIONAL HYDRO DIVISION II. DESIGN PART C, POWERHOUSES AND RELATED TOPICS CChaptsr 1. Poweshouses — Surface and Underground ‘Chapter 2. Hydrulic Turbines and Relted Topics Chapter 3. Electrical Engineering (Chapter 4. Transmission Lines and Swilchyards "Not incnded in 1989 edition VOLUME 4, SMALL-SCALE HYDRO. DIVISION. PLANNING CChaper 1. Smell Sale Hydropower Perspectives Chapter? Developmest of Level and Seope of Sty Pan Cuuper3. Site Evaluation Chaper4. Hydlogic Dua Chapter, Estimating lant Capacity nd Power Oupat Capers. Power Sysem Use and Connection Remuiremens Caper. Operon aad Maintenance Couper. Environmental ses (Chapter 9. Instuionl sues (Couper 10, Projet Schedule (Chapter 11, Cos Estimates Couper 12. eonomie Analysis DIVISIONTI. DESIGN Chapter. Stonge, Diversion and Apputensn Strctres Chaper?2. Wateroys Chapier3, Power Pants uaper 4, Subsution and Transmission Lines DIVISION IL. CONSTRUCTION “Chapor 1. Construction Conrcts CChaper 2. Acceptance Tests VOLUME 5. PUMPED STORAGE AND TIDAL POWER PUMPED STORAGE DIVISION L. PLANNING CChaper 1. GeneatConcets (Chair 2. Environmental ses and Pubic Acceptance Chaper 3. Paing DIVISION IL DESIGN PARTA, RESERVOIRS CChaper Reservoirs PART. WATERWAYS Chapter. Tnakes and Oxtts “Chapter 2: Tunnels, Shafts, and Penstocks “*Chapter3. Hydraulics Chapter rani PART, POWERHOUSES AND RELATED TOPICS ‘Cpr. Powerhouse haper?, Pamp/Turines and Plant Operation DIVISION II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ‘Cupter. Operon ané Maintenance ‘TIDAL POWER ‘Chapter 1. introduction (Chapter. Basis of Tidal Power (Chapter. Preliminary Design Considerations Chapter 4. Construction Considerations Chapter S. Project Deserigtion (Chapter 6. Significant Tidal Rangesac etal. app. avg. AVR bbl BIC BEP £8/min £0 /s cH PC: de DO. DOB dyn ed, EL. FS. fig. ftlb ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS Altemating current (adj. & noun) Ampere ‘Ampere hour ‘And others Appendix Average Automatic voltage regulator Barrel Benefit-cost ratio Best efficiency point Calorie Cauchy number Centimeter Chapter Cubic foot per minute (also cfm) Cubic foot per second (also cfs) ‘Conventional hydro Degree Celsius Degree Fahrenheit Direct current (adj. & noun) Dissolved oxygen Dynamic operating benefit Dyne Edition Elevation (S1) Elevation (in-Ib) Euler number Factor of safety Figure Flow Foot Foot-pound For example Froude number Gallon Gram Gravitational constant AS-1 S ERTIES 3 F Bg wv kVA kW kWh max. MHWL. MWS. oz 0.4, BP Head Hertz Horsepower Hour Hydroelectric power Hydrogen-jon concentration Inch Inflow design flood Inside diameter Joule Kilovolt Kilovolt-ampere Kilowatt Kilowatt-hour Liter Maximum ‘Maximum high water level ‘Maximum water surface Megawatt Megawatt-hour Meter Million gallons per day Mile Miile per hour (also mph) Minimum ‘Minute (time) Net positive suction head Newton Number Number (for reinforcing bar sizes) Ohm Operation and maintenance Ounce (avoirdupois) Outside diameter Page Pagesppm Pvc 1b lof PH PRV PMF PMP PS PSP PSPH Sp. gt ie. kip TBM. UGPH es 5 where: n= rotational speed, in rpm, P = power output of turbine, and H = hydraulic head on turbine. * Specific speed is a fundamental concept used in correlating turbine characteristics. It now appears in. many different forms, though current efforts are directed toward a unified system of units (dimensionless form). In Chapter 2, “Hydraulic Turbines and Related Topics” (Conventional, Division II, Part C), the various formulations and conversion factors are addressed.MEASUREMENT CONVERSIONS — Continued VELOCITY Unit fa kav fus min mis 1 Foot per day (fvd) vt 1.27105 LISTXIOS —7,891x10% = 3,528x10-6 1 Kilometer per hour (km/h) 78.740 1 9113 0.6214 0.2778 1 Foot per second (fs) 86.400 1,097 1 0.6818 0.3048 1 Mile per hour (mish) 126700 1.609 1467 1 0.447 1 Meter per second (m/s) 283,500 (3,600 3.281 2.237 1 VOLUME Unit L gal we m acre-ft 1 Liter (L) 1 0.264 0.035 0.001 8.11x107 1USS. gallon (gal) 3.785 1 0.134 0.00379 3.07x105 1 Cubic foot (ft3) 28.317 1.48 1 0.02832 230x105 1 Cubic meter (m3) 1000 264 35.315 1 8.11x104 1 Acre-ft (acre-fi) 1,233,500 325,851 43,560 1,233.48 aj 131 in3 = 0.83 Imperial gallons. .05 quarts = 1,000 grams of water, 1 Barrel = 42 U.S. gallons. 13 of water = 62.4 1b, ‘SIPREFIXES AND SYMBOLS Multiplication factor Prefix Symbol 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 10!8 xa E 1,,000,000,000,000,000 = 1015 peta P 1,000,000,000,000 = 1012 tera T 1,000,000,000 =109 —giga G 1,000,000. = 106 mega M 1,000 =10? kilo k 100 =102 ecto h 10 =101 deka da 01 =101 deci a 0.01 =102 — centi c 0.001 =103 milli m 0,000,001 =106 — micro # 0.000,000,001 =109 nano n 0,000,000,000,001 = 1012 pico P 0,000,000,000,000,001 = 1013 — femto f 0.000,000,000000,000,001 = 1018 aito a M4CONVENTIONAL HYDRO GUIDELINES VOLUME 3. POWERHOUSES AND RELATED TOPICS CONTENTS DIVISION I. DESIGN PARTC. POWERHOUSES AND RELATED TOPICS Chapter 1. Powerhouses — Surface and Underground A. Introduction B, Powerhouse types C. Powerhouse (turbine) setting D. Powerhouse monolith sizing E, Surface powerhouse substructure F. Superstructure G. Interior space requirements H Underground powerhouses I. References Chapter 2. Hydraulic Turbines and Related Topics Chapter 3. Electrical Engineering A. General B, Planning C. Design D. Construction E, Electrical fundamentals Electric machines G. Bibliography Chapter 4, ‘Transmission Lines and Switchyards A. Transmission lines B. Switchyards and substations C. References ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989CHAPTER 1. POWERHOUSES — SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND CONTENTS B, Powethouse types .. 1. Powertiouse type descriptions oe a. Type A, subtype 1: integral intake, indoor powerhouses. b. Type A, subtype 2: integral intake, semi-indoor powerhouses c. Type A, subtype 3: pier powerhouses 4. Type A, subtype 4: horizontal unit powerhouses. €. Type A, subtype 5: surface powerhouses at dams £. Type A, subtype 6: detached surface powerhouses 8. Type B, subtype 1: underground pit powerhouses. h. Type B, subtype 2: underground cavern powerhouses 2. Powerhouse type selection a. Powerhouse type related to conduit length, head developed, and proximity to the dam , Powerhouse type affected by topographic constraints .. c. Geologic constraints... 4. Constraints dictated by high tailwate ¢. Sclection of underground concepts £, Selection of pit type concepts g. Climatic constraints + Other constraints . Powerhouse (turbine) setting. 1. Vertical axis units 2. Horizontal (bulb) axis units. 3. Underground powerhouse units D. Powerhouse monolith sizin 1. Powerhouse unit monolith, sub-bays — definitions. 2. Powerhouse sub-bay functions a. Intake (integral with powerhouse). , Upstream service bay.. c. Generating bay and erection bay, 4, Downstream service bay e. Draft tube piers, draft tube deck. 3. Powerhouse unit monolith size . Unit monolith width — general. , Unit monolith width determination . Unit monolith length... 4. Generating bay width determinati . Generating bay height determination. 4. Erection bay size. a. Unloading area. ». Temporary erection sheds, unloading areas ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989CONTENTS — Continued Section Page a. Permissible velocities .. b. Inlet geometry . E, Surface powerhouse substructure. 1. Powerhouses on soft foundations. a. General b. Intake and draft tube foundation slab 2. Powerhouses on competent rock foundations a. Intake foundation slabs...... b. Draft tube elbow encasement. c. Unwatering pipe embedment.. d. Draft tube foundation stab. 3. Foundation slab outlines ..... a. Grouting and drainage galleries : 4, Walls and piers of integral intakes and draft tubes. a. Integral intake walls and piers . b. Intermediate pier downstream nose location .. ¢. Draft tube outline — walls and piers... 5. Semi-spiral case 2. Semi-spiral case roo! 6, Steel spiral case. : a. Concrete cover over the spiral case. 7. Draft tube roo! 8. Downstream headwall. 9, Draft tube deck... a. Function. b. Thickness F Superstructure.. 1. General 2. Generator barrel a. Generator barrel outlines. ’. Access provisions in generator barrel 3, Generator floor... 4, Other interior floors... 5, Generating bay walls... a, Upstream wall of generating bay... b. Downstream wall of generating bay . c. End walls. 4. Wall type construction. 6. Superstructure roofs. 8. General ere , Roofs for indoor powerhouses..... G. Interior space requirements .. 1. General seed 65 sme -65 snnel-92 1-92 1-101 ASCEV/EPRI Guides 1989 iiCONTENTS — Continued Section Page 2. Unit service equipment and provisions. 3. Station service equipment and provisions ... 4. Sizes of individual equipment rooms... a. Upstream (Swedish concept)..... b. Intermediate location ... c. Downstream location... 3. UGPH advantages....... 4, UGPH disadvantages 5. Types of UGPHS .. 6. Pit powerhouses a. General discussion ». Applicable head ranges, location, connection to water conduits. c, Pit geometry considerations. 4. Turbine setting .. e. Unit bay sizing... £, Substructure outline.. . Superstructure arrangement h. Pit powerhouse erection bay... i, Other underground aspects. 7. Cavern powerhouses .......ess a. General... b, Primary considerations for location and orientation... ©. Underground features. 4. Appurtenant underground features €. Cavems for powerhouses. I. Reference TABLES Crane clearance data a Minimum wall thicknesses for major plants. Room sizes for three power plants..... Underground powerhouses with cavems 21 meters or wide Comparison of stresses for various projects Modulus of deformation for rock types. ‘Comparison of modulus of deformation for selected projects... BE EGaTas 4 iii ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989CONTENTS — Continued FIGURES 1-1 LG, LaGrande, James Bay, Canada 1-2 Jochenstein, Danube, Austia.. 1-3 Wanapum, Columbia R, Washington 1-4 Sam Raybum, Angelina, Texas...-.cone0 1-5 Iron Gate, Danube, Rumania/Yugoslavia 1-6 John Day Dam, Columbia, Washington/Oregon. 1-7 Gezhoube, Changjiang, PR. China... Dnestr, Dnestr River, USSR. ‘Volga 22nd CPSU Congress, Volga, U.S.SR (0. Plavinas, Daugara, Latvia... 1 Box Canyon, Pend Oreille, Washington 1-12, Simbach-Braunau, Inn, W. Germany 1-13 Baygorria, Rio Negro, Unuguay.. 1-14 Sounders-Moses, St. Lawrence, United States/Canada 1-15 Lavamtind, Drau, Austra, 1-16 Wells, Columbia, Washington. 1-17 Rock island, Columbia, Washington so 1-18 Main Canal, South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, Washington 1-19 Sauveierre/Avignon, Rhone, France . 1-20 Paldang, Han, S. Korea. 121 Kiev, USS, 1-22 LaRance Tidal Power Plant, Franc 1-23 Comparison of civil features for Francis, -24 Gurl, Caroni, Venezuela. 25 Mha-Solteira, Parana, Brazil Libby Dam, Kootenai, Montan: Agua Vermelha, Grande, Brazil Dworshak, Clearwater, Idaho .. /-31 Funil, Paraiba du Sol, Brazil... 1-32. Xingo, Sao Francisco, Brazil 1-33 Monteynard, Drac, France... 1-34 Hartwell, Savannah, Georgi 1-35 Chitkey, Sulak, USSR. 1-36 Grand Coulee Ill, Columbia, Washington 1-37 Robert Moses, Niagara, New York..... 1-38 Hoover Dam, Colorado R., Arizona/Nevads, 1-39. Chief Joseph, Columbia, Washington... 1-40 Mossyrock, Cowlitz, Washington... 1-41 Karun, Karun R,, Iran 1-42. Krasnoyarsk, Yenisey, USS.R. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 ivan 3 a a q T a 3 CONTENTS — Continued High Aswan Dam powerhouse, Nile, Egypt. G3, LaGrande, James Bay, Canada Rio Lindo, Lindo, Honduras, Marimbondo, Rio Grande, Brazil... ‘Uribante-San Agaton, Agaton, Venezuela ‘Swedish pit powerhouse... USSR study... Partial pit powerhouse ...nnnesnunnnunennnnnnmesen Boundary, Pend Oreille, Washington... ‘Stomorrfors, Ume, Sweden .... Churchill Falls, Churchill, Canada... stannevavinnanaeannannnnnnaennnk 86 Rogun, Vakhsh, U.S.S.R. Ambuklao, Agno, Philippines...... Bersimis No. 1, Bersimis, Quebec, Canada.. Tamut 11, Tumut, AUSttalia .snnennnsininnannnnnnsnnni Montpezat, Loire/Rhone, FraN0e ..nninsnnsnmesennnnsnnnannnssn Cabora Bassa, Zambezi, Mozambique .. Recommended total draft head... Horizontal turbine runner setting... Powerhouse monolith sub-bays Draft tube intermediate pier thickness... Spiral case embediment.. . ‘Water passage and generator outlines superimposed to determine monolith width . Semi-spiral case and draft tube setting in monolith... Undesirable monolith outline. .....c.rnnnmnnnnn Steps 1, 2, 3,4, and 5 in substructure layout... Steps 5, 6, and 7 in substructure layout... ‘Minimum unloading and ereotion space... Intake pier noses Staning, Enns, Austria Pierre—Benite, Rhone, France urn Grouting and drainage gallery location Kaplan unit spiral cases... Kaplan unit wheel dimensions ....00 Kaplan unit draft tube dimensions .....rnn Francis units runner and spiral case outlines, Francis units draft tube dimensions 0.1m Draft tube dimensions.....:nnnednnunnss Pelton unit casing dimension: Pelton unit spiral case dimensions......nmnnnn ‘Semi-spiral case roof support. Generating and downstream service bays. Downstream service bay wall. pase 6B v ASCE/EPRI Guides 19891-98 1-99 1-100 1-101 1.102 1-103 1-104 1-105 1-105 1-107 1-108 1-109 1-110 Ml 1-112 1-113 1414 1s 1-116 17 1-118 1419 1-120 1-121 1-122 1-123 1-124 1-125 1-126 1.127 1-128 1-129 1-130 CONTENTS — Continued Draft tube deck framing. Generator barrel arrangement... ‘Headwall suppor. : Headwall-semi-spiral case and roof joint «sm Hrauneyafoss powerhouse, Iceland Grand Coulee Third Powerhouse nnn Angat, Philippines, auxiliary powerhouse... Finchaa powerhouse, Ethiopia. ‘Mossyrock, Cowlitz, Washington. Kinzua pumped storage powerhouse (conventional unit), Allegheny, Pennsylvania..... Roof design with prestressed concrete guiders and cast-in-place slab, Bath County . Roof guider wall seat detail .eanm Underground powerhouse locations .. Pit powerhouse with tailrace tunnel bypassing rapids... Pit powerhouse with tailrace tunnel shor-cutting a loop in the stream.. Pit excavation geometry earn — Showing minimum excavation outline for substructure. Principal elements in pit powerhouse exterior rock walls. Pit walls lined with concrete. Pit wall stability requirements... Angat Philippines) original design.. Vilyui, Vilyui River, USSR. enn Pit powerhouse erection and unloading bays . Cabora Bassa Powerplant, Zambezi River, Mozambique svnnenemsnsstinnnnseenns 9B sosinetennnennnsenns F123 sennseee T= 1-126 ‘Mica underground powerhouse, Columbia, Canada ... 1-127 LG? underground power plant arrangement, James Bay, Canada... senses TTB James Bay LG2 underground powerhouse complex. 1-129 Cabora Bassa underground powerhouse, Zambezi, Mozambique vn... 1-129 Churchill Falls powerhouse, Churchill, Quebec, Canada... 14131 Katue powerhouse, Katue River, Zambia. an sesnenenned 132 Mica powerhouse, Columbia River, British Columbia, Canada..... 1-133 Guatape powerhouse, COMMDIA...nnnsucimnnennnnn 1-134 Altemative transformer locations. 1-135 ‘Tunnel 2, Australia, underground powerhouse arrangement. 1-136 Cross sections of a bus-bar BallEIY ses Agus IV, Agus, Philippines Revin pumped storage powerhouse, France. Access tunnel cross section, Bear Swamp pumped storage Bl&Mt .ess.ann Elevator arrangement and size. High-voltage cable shaft, 7 High-voltage cable shaft combined with elevator shaft Low-voltage bus shafts Borisoglebsk Project, Paz River, US.SR. Porjus Project (480 MW), Lule, Sweden... ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 viFigure 1131 1-132 1133 14134 1135 1-136 14137 1-138 1-139 1-140 1.141 14142 1143 1144 145 1-146 147 14148 1.149 1-150 1-151 1.152 1-153 1-154 1155 1-156 1-157 1-158 1159 1.160 1161 1-162 1-163 1164 1165 -Kiambere powerhouse (140 MW), Tana, Kenya. CONTENTS — Continued Page 147 ssennnnnnnnseeT AAT Kotmule powerhouse (201 MW), Sri Lanka, ‘Montezic pumped storage powerhouse, France ....ssnnann Shintoyone pumped storage powerhouse, Japan. Draft tube gate pier concept .. Bersimis Lac Cassé draft tube and tairace tunnel, Bersimis, Quebec. Concept of modified tailrace nel ..nuenensinni ‘Minimum rock cover f0F CAVE «nn Stength-stress ratios for different shapes of cavern walls Influence of cavem shape and applied stresses upon maximum boundary stresses. Joints between small unit bays . James Bay L62 powerhouse cavem with rock ledges for suppor El Cajon, Hunuya, Honduras, 4-91.25 MVA units. Kemano, Kemano River, British Columbia, Canada......senns Northfield Mountain Cavern, New Hampshire, with transformer niches Draft tube shape for underground powerhouse draft tubes . Churchill Falls cavern excavation ...snnsnusiusnnenas Auxiliary crane in a pumped storage powerhouse cavern, Churchill Falls powerhouse, Quebec — longitudinal section... Altemative access tunnel connections to erection bay Kerckhoff powerhouse, San Joaquin, California Kisenyama powerhouse, Japaneses ‘Saussaz powerhouse, Arc River, France Internal support pressures for cavers.. Waldeck I powerhouse, Germany... Bolt lengths for caverns. irata powerhouse cavern, Citarum River, Java, Indonesia. ‘Northfield Mountain pumped storage powerhouse cavern, Massachusetts. ‘Vanderkloof powerhouse cavern, South Africa..... (Churchill Falls underground powerhouse complex. ‘Turlough Hill pumped storage powerhouse caver, Ireland Modulus reduction ratio correlated with RQD..... Relationship between radial deformations, radial stresses, and reduction in support requirements, Rock support zone with confining support SYStEM.ujveennnnnesnninvessn ‘Mohr’s circle for determination of shear steps in rock support zone... CREDITS ‘The “Powethouses —= Surface and Underground” chapter was written by: Arvids Zagars, PE, ‘Vice President and Chief Staff Engineer, Harza Engineering Company 150 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, Iinois 60606-4175 Chairman, ASCE Hydropower Commitiee vil ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989CHAPTER 1. POWERHOUSES — SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND A, INTRODUCTION ‘The purpose of this part of the Guidelines is to first introduce the reader to the various types of powerhouses that have found application in hydroelectric developments, With this, the intent is to illustrate, for the benefit of an inexperienced designer or the pos- sibly uninformed owner of a future hydroelectric plant, what kind of powerhouse design could be well suited for potential hydroelectric sites under consideration. Thus, the intent is to first present something like a powerhouse type catalogue to expedite the powerhouse type selection process. To expedite is the key phrase that describes the purpose of these Guidelines, which have been prepared primarily to assist the hydroclectric designers during conceptual studies when the project design is defined. Existing designs represent invaluable experience of the entire profession, which cannot be gained by a single design organization. By using the overall experience of the profession, there is assurance that the designs developed for a new project will be safe and economical and will greatly reduce duplicating efforts in the development of a hydroelectric concept. Even for the experienced designer the powerhouse type catalogue is expected to enhance their experience by the illustrated experience of others. After discussion of the powerhouse types, the presentation deals with the turbine setting, which may influence the selection of the powerhouse type, such as surface versus under- ground. Sizing of the powerhouse monoliths for the generating units and erection bay, which aspect is similar for the most prevalent powerhouse types, follows presentations of the preceding aspect. Subsequently, the various components of the surface and underground powerhouses are discussed in some detail. These presentations are intended to assist the designer to obtain safe and economical powerhouse design concepts which is the primary purpose of these design guidelines. 1. Conceptual Studies ‘To incorporate the powerhouse into an overall project concept, the following powerhouse information must be developed: + Number and capacity of generating units + Monolith size including erection bay + Powerhouse (turbine) setting with respect to tailwater + Types of powerhouse suitable for the site Introduction Purpose Intent Expedite engineering, efforts Experience of profession! Safe and ‘econonomical designs Further discussions rat ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Powerhouse types Powerhouse type deserip- tions For many preliminary studies, such information can be quickly determined on the basis of similar existing projects. Such information is sufficiently accurate when transferred to the small-scale topographic maps used for conceptual studies. Further steps of the studies are the following: * Zero-in on the powerhouse type + Firm up setting with respect to tailwater + Develop powerhouse outline += Incorporate the above into overall project concept studies Selection of powerhouse type is governed by the following considerations: + Water conduit length + Head developed at the project + Powerhouse proximity to the dam + Topographic and access constraints + Geologic constraints + Exposure to elements + Other project-specific constraints ‘The following sections present guidelines in the areas outlined above. B, POWERHOUSE TYPES Powerhouses for hydroelectric projects can be of the following types: ‘Type A — Conventional surface: indoor, outdoor, semi-indoor, pier type, with vertical or horizontal (or inclined) axis units ‘Type B — Underground pits and cavems: upstream, intermediate, downstream location ‘Type C— Silos or shafts (in the chapter on pumped storage powerhouses in volume 5) ‘The surface-type powerhouses may be divided into several subtypes depending on their location with respect to the reservoir, stream (in-stream, off-stream), and the dam, which will be discussed in the subsequent sections. Representative examples of the above types are illustrated by figures 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, etal. 1. Powerhouse Type Descriptions 4a, Type A, Subtype I: Integral Intake, Indoor Powerhouses. — This powerhouse subtype is used for ran-of-river plants; the intake forms a part of the dam and is constructed inte- grally with the generating bay to make up the powerhouse. This powerhouse subtype, mostly designed with reinforced concrete semi-spiral cases, was considered (in the period up to 1960s, and by some designers even later) suitable for maxi- mum heads of approximately 100 feet (30 m). However, the illustrated examples (figs. 1-5, 1-7, 1-8, and 1-10) indicate substantial move above that maximum Limit, ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 12‘The Plavinas powerhouse (fig. 1-10) operatcs under a maximum head of 40 meters (131.2 ft), Itis understood that the soffit of the spiral case roof is clad with a steel plate, Information on the design of the spiral case for the Dnestr (fig. 1-8) powerhouse with a head of 53 meters (173.8 ft) is unknown, ‘The substantial increase in the design heads on concrete semi-spiral cases can be attributed to improved concrete technology (control of cement content by use of pozzolans or fly ash, precooling of aggregate) and availability of large-size reinforcing bars (#14 and #18). For indoor type powerhouse, equipment access is at the draft tube deck level and an indoor bridge crane serves for equipment unloading and installation. In general, the powerhouses are founded on competent rock. However, there are a number powerhouses in operation that are founded on dense sand foundations. Figure 1~4, 1-21 and many on moraine interbeds with other materials (sand, gravel, clay) in the USSR. (fig. 1-10). i Figure 1-1.— LG1, LaGrande, James Bay, Canada. Units: 10@ 114 MW; H = 28.20 m (92.5 ft). [Ludewig and Olive, 1980}. 3 ASCE/EPRI Guides 198920870 revoir 40 see ot i anne an a “a 25 Snectfeonage 7 i. a a aeew, Se Figure 1-2.— Jochenstein, Danube, Austria. [Mosonyi, 1957]. 290-onenertey ety cane 25-on bated garey one, nae rk 579, pannel nd ee 3808 et tube ent cane rma drown 6 Moe 85274 IE seers 0.512 ovate TE. 483 Figure 1-3.— Wanapum, Columbia R., Washington. Units: 10@ 78.9 MW; H = 77 ft (23.5 m). (Willey, 1960]. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 4Figure 1~4.— Sam Rayburn, Angelina, Texas. Units: 2@ 26 MW; H = 83 ft (25.3 m). (Courtesy of Harza Engineering Co.). Das, es Yogi sine mat, Yogooara owner 6s Reman nt ower ost (ower boar) Hm 216 to 1545 ana Sm 15 MW (2 su diged by Leiogad (Sel wots (CME) 3 vets eal! by Ress Woes Remasie (Dring coutny Rene Woe Remain Figure 1-5. — Iron Gate, Danube, Rumania/Yugoslovia. Units: 12@ 178 MW; Hf = 35.46 m (1163 ft); 9.5-m-diameter turbine runners. (Raabe, 1985). 1s ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Figure 1-6. — John Day Dam, Columbia, Washington/Oregon. Units: 17@ 135 MW; A= 335 m (110 ft). (Mackintosh, 1964). Figure 1-7. — Gezhouba, Changjiang, PR. China. Units: 2@ 176 MW, 9@ 125 MW; Hiqy = 24m (78.7 ft); 11.3-m-diameter turbine runners. [YVPO}. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-6Figure 1-8. — Dnestr, Dnestr River, U-S.S.R. Units: 6@ 117 MW; H = 53 m (17338 ft). — Pal = d nthe Figure 1-9. — Volga 22nd CPSU Congress, Volga, US.S.R. Units: 20@ 126.5 MW; Hmqx = 26.3™m (863 ft); 93-m-diameter turbine runner. (Mikhailov, 1967]. aT ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989EEEEES| ee, Figure 1-10. — Plavinas, Daugara, Latvia. Units: 10@ 82.5 MW; Hmgx = 40m (31.2 ft). [Mikhailoy, 1967]. Figure 1-11. — Box Canyon, Pend Oreille, Washington. Units: 4@ 15,000 MW; ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 Hmax = 46m (150.9 ft). 18b, Type A, Subtype 2: Integral Intake, Semi-Indoor Powerhouses. — This powerhouse type is used when the tailwater is high dictating a commensurately high indoor type power- house. Semi-indoor type surface powerhouses are similar to subtype 1 powerhouses except that the powerhouse crane is located on the powerhouse roof. The access is at the roof level and a gantry crane is provided to unload the equipment and install it through removable hatches or removable roof sections, for each unit. As evident from figure 1-13, some of these powerhouses are also provided with indoor cranes to enable work on the equipment with the roof hatches closed, Figure 1-12. — Simbach-Braunau, Inn, W. Germany. Units: 4@ 24 MW; H max = 12.2 m (40 ft). (Mosonyi, 1957). Figure 1-13. — Baygorria, Rio Negro, Uruguay. Units: 3@ 34 MW; Hay = (S158). 1 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Figure 1-14. — Sounders-Moses, St. Lawrence, United States/Canada. Units: 32@ 57 MW; H = 87 ft (26.5 mm). (Courtesy of Corps of Engineers). An integral-intake outdoor type powerhouse would be just an extension of the semi-indoor subtype with the superstructure enclosure removed. There are relatively few of that type of powerhouses in existence. The reason for this may be that most owners prefer the units housed indoors to obtain protection against weather during installation and maintenance. ¢. Type A, Subtype 3: Pier Powerhouses. — This subtype is basically an integral-intake design except that the units are housed in individual piers rather than in adjacent power- house monoliths, ‘The piers serve also as an integral part of a spillway (weir) and are wider than conventional spillway piers to house the generating units. Only a few of these installations are in exis- tence. Lavamiind (fig. 1-15) was constructed during World War I. A similar plant, Maribor, on the same river in Yugoslavia, was constructed during the same period, Subsequently, three other pier-type plants have been constructed on the Drau River. The Wells (fig. 1-16) pier type powerhouse (referred to also as a “hydro combine") incorporates a superstructure over the piers and spillway. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-10fon -o- 1 be rt the aeng : Sas . $2400 —__rr gag . Sections. Figure 1-15. — Lavamiind, Drau, Austria. Units: 3@ 7.67 MW; H = 9.00 m (295 ft). ar ASCEVEPRI Guides 1989ft (21.6 m), (Patrick, 1971). Figure 1-16. — Wells, Columbia, Washington. Units: 10@ 77.4 MW; H = 71. ASCE/EPRI Guides 19894. Type A, Subtype 4: Horizontal Unit Powerhouses. — Powethouses with horizontal Horizontal units have been increasing in the last decades for the lower head ranges of run-of-tiver type unit projects. Currently, the maximum size of horizontal units in operation are 53 MW (Rock powerhouse Island). A 65-MW bulb unit is scheduled for operation in August 1989 at the Tadami Project in Japan. When compared with the civil works requirements for vertical units, the horizontal units require less excavation and concrete because there is no deep-seating elbow draft tube. Also, the monolith width may be narrower than for vertical units. Also, in plan, the horizontal units require narrow monoliths, but somewhat longer in the flow direc- tion (fig. 1-23). Mechanically, the bulb units require a smaller runner diameter (15%), improved efficiency, and reduced cavitation allowing higher setting than vertical units with same speed {Cotilion, 1977]. . Figures 1-17 through 1-23 illustrate some projects in existence. Figure 1-17. — Rock Island, Columbia, Washington. Units: 8@ 53 MW; HT = 40.9 ft (12.5 m). [Stone and Webster, 1982]. 1-13 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Figure 1-18. — Main Canal, South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, Washington. Units: 1@ 26 MW; H max = 52-5 ft (16.0 m). [Moore et al. 1985]. Pell sranening 5 xo ter te o Figure 1-19. —- Sauveierre/Avignon, Rhone, France. Units: 2@ 30 MW; H may = 9.4 m (30.8 ft). ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-14Eel Downeast gaa Figure 1-20. — Paldang, Han, S. Korea. Units: 4@ 21.2 MW; H = 39 ft (11.9 m). (Engineering News-Record, June 1970), Figure 1-21. — Kiev, U.S.S.R. Units: 1@ 128 MW, 21@ 115 MW; H may = 11.5 m (37.7 ft). (Mikhailov, 1967; ENR, 1962}. 11s ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Figure 1-22, — LaRance Tidal Power Plant, France. Units: 24@ 10 MW3 Hag = 11.0 m (6.0 m as pump). [Cotillon, 1977]. Dimers compara of tn urine showing, Franc whe meet (otc wat) (0) Kagan, where TED (wot hand aap fs wee BOT be Figure 1-23. — Comparison of civil features for Francis, Kaplan, and straight-flow units. (Water Power, 1977). ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-16€. Type A, Subtype 5: Surface Powerhouses at Dams. — This subtype of powerhouse is used when the head becomes too high for integral-intake powerhouses; i. for medium and high-head projects and when the river channel is wide enough to accommodate the length of the powerhouse, Subtype 5 powerhouses, constructed at the toe of the dam, or within the dam proper, result in short water conduits (with high hydraulic efficiency) and thus savings in overall con- struction, For these reasons there are numerous powerhouses of this type in existence, This type of powerhouse can be either indoor, semi-indoor, or outdoor. However, suitable powerhouse foundation in a deep river gorge, when located at the toe of the dam, may offset the savings in conduit length, and other powerhouse locations may be ‘more economical. Figure 1-24. — Guri, Caroni, Venezuela. Units: 3@ 218.4 MW, 3@ 270 MW, 1@ 340 MW, 3@ 400 MW, 10@ 730 MW; H = 146 m (478.9 N). (Courtesy of Harza). Surface powerhouses at dams 17 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989= F Fa HE. Ia i g = 286.09 san, TRATON LEVEL el air RAR oe f 7 ge Figure 1-28. — Iha-Solteira, Parana, Brazil. Units: 20@ 160 MW; H = 46 m (150.9), [Budweg, 1974]. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 118Figure 1-26, —Itaipu, Parana, Brazil, Units: 18@ 700 MW; Hayg = 120 m (393.6 Nt). (Raabe, 1985]. wer penstacks: Trashrack structure, a x Figure 1-27. — Norris Dam, Clinch, Tennessee. Units: 2@ 50.4 MW, Hmay = 215.5 ft (65.7 m). (Tval. 1-19 ASCEJ/EPRI Guides 1989Setimar srains 3 Militod one aeons Suiza Figure 1-28, — Libby Dam, Kootenai, Montana. Units: 8@ 105 MW; H = 335 ft (102.1 m). {Samuelson}. mF | f ae am i By BS S| L j= Sy} sme 1 i ee ‘Figure 1-29. — Agua Vermelha, Grande, Brazil. Units: 6@ 250 MW; H = 57 m (187 ft). {BCLD, 1982]. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-20i — o_o T eee ami ad = Tr Bitte ect Figure 1-30. — Dworshak, Clearwater, Idaho. Units: 1@ 200 MW, 2@ 90 MW; ‘H = 485 ft (147.9 m). (Courtesy of Corps of Engineers). 1-21 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Figure 1-31. — Funil, Paraiba du Sol, Brazil. Units: 3@ 72 MW; H = 62 m (203.4 ft). [BCLD, 1982]. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-22Ey ‘Figure 1-32. — Xingo, Sao Francisco, Brazil. Units: 10@ 400 MW; Hina = 105 m (344.4 ft). [Soos, 1982]. 123 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Figure 1-33, — Monteynard, Drac, France. (Engineering News-Record, October 25, 1962). {Dninma ene aaes Figure 1-34. — Hartwell, Savannah, Georgia. Units: 4@ 65 MW; H = 170 ft (51.8). (Courtesy of Harza). ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-24Figure 1-35. — Chirkey, Sulak, U.S.S.R. [Mitrushkin and Shnyroy, 1974]. 1-25 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Ff. Type A, Subtype 6: Detached Surface Powerkouses. — It is not always technically fea- sible, as discussed in more detail in Section B.2, “Powerhouse Type Selection,” that the powerhouse can form a part of the reservoir retaining structure (integral-intake powerhious- es) or be located at the toe of the dam, or in the dam itself, to reduce water conduit length. In that case, the surface powerhouses are detached from the main dam and located either in-stream or on river banks downstream of the dam, Free-standing steel penstocks or steel/concrete lined underground conduits provide for connection between the intakes and the detached type powerhouses. Hoover Dam has two such powerhouses (fig. 1-37), one on each bank of the river. Figures 1~36 through 1-47 show detached powerhouses. FOREBAY DAM 4900 TON ROTOR ‘GANTRY 2-275 TOW CRANES Figure 1-36. — Grand Coulee II, Columbia, Washington. Units: 3@ 600 MW, 3@ 700 MW; Hae = 355 ft (108.2m). [USBR, 1977}. “BE mea [igen | oie (ase En wrce B (ne tre ster EL 238 —ure [etnias pce rr $$ sr Figure 1-37.— Robert Moses, Niagara, New York. Units: 13@ 150 MW; H = 305 ft (92.9 m). [Water Power, 1961]. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-26“(U6 '6LD U 068 = H MWC OT “AAI OF Oz “MW S78 OSL ‘syrup “eperanyeuozsry “y opesojoy ‘weg 12,007 — “g¢-T andy 1 p09 obo ob VdVAAN 24noy snot ae ry pas od anh ao} 7 POEL ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-27Figure 1-39. — Chief Joseph, Columbia, Washington. Units: 16@ 64 MW; H = 186 ft (56.7 m). [Stinchfield, 1958). Figure 1-40. —- Mossyrock, Cowlitz, Washington, Units: 2@ 150 MW, Hmax = 340 ft (103.7 m). (Courtesy of Harza), ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-28Figure 1-41. — Karun; Karun R,, Iran, Units: 4@ 250 MW; H max = 165 m (541.2 ft). (Courtesy of Harza), 1-29 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Figure 1-42. — Krasnoyarsk, Yenisey, US.S.R. Units: 12@ 508 MW; Hmmgx = 100.5 m (329.6 ft). [Gamous et al., 1975}. Figure 1-43. — High Aswan Dam powerhouse, Nile, Egypt. Units: 12@ 180 MW; max = 77m (252.6 N). (Water Power, 1965]. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-30Figure 1-44. — G3, LaGrande, James Bay, Canada. Units: 12@ 192 MW; H = 260 ft (79.3 m). [Ludwig and Olive, 1980]. Lits _fascoee 55m Terane. ¢ Runner 1.79.00 (Mx. TW. El. 77.00 Figure 1-45. — Rio Lindo, Lindo, Honduras. Units: 4@ 20 MW; Hy_qx = 410 m (1,344.8 ft). (Courtesy of Harza). 1-31 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Figure 1-46. — Marimbondo, Rio Grande, Brazil. Units: 8@ 180 MW, H = 61.9 m (203 ft). (Courtesy of USCOLD). Cctmcero nes ee Figure 1-47. — Uribante-San Agaton, Agaton, Venezuela. Units: 2@ 153 MW; H = 350 m (1,148 ft). ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 (Courtesy of Harza). 1-32&: Type B, Subtype 1: Underground Pit Powerhouses. — Pit type powerhouses are shal- ow underground type powerhouses. They result when the rock cover above them is either of insufficient thickness or of inadequate quality to form an underground cavern, This type of powerhouse is selected when an in-stream type of powerhouse, either across the stream or along its banks, is not feasible because of physical limitations of the site or because the general project layout dictates a powerhouse location away from the river banks, ‘The pit shape can be either rectangular to house several units, or square, or cylindrical shafis to house single or a pair of units. Square and cylindrical shaft shapes have found wide application for pumped storage pow- erhouses because their shapes are structurally advantageous for deep submergence and the correspondingly higher hydrostatic pressures. Consequently, the shaft type powerhouses will be treated in the Pumped Storage Guidelines. Figure 1-48 illustrates a pure pit type powerhouse design in Sweden. The design shown on. figure 1-49 shows a pit powerhouse directly under the spillway chute, whereas figure 1-50 illustrates a partial pit/surface powerhouse design. Power sation with rota tunael,2—"intake sand wate 32. . ur ping ohefe, flor (9 winch far draft tube gat tp ia 11 — taileace tunel, 12 ~ entrance tanael, 1S peoenger it alk, 1 {or generator ewitchgeat, 13 —~wanaformer, 16 shaft for 200 KV cablen, switchyard, Figure 1-48, — Swedish pit powerhouse. [Masonyi, 1960]. 1-33 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Longitudinal section through structures of the hydrostation: 1) intake spttluay: 2) chute; 3) headrace tunsel; 4) poverhouse: 5) tatlrace tunnel; 6) coo solidatton grouting; 7) grout curtain. Figure 1-49. — U.S.S.R. study. [Sitnin, 1983). Pages vt ned nba, amd seoyg Taig Ph rn cats rin Mh et wikis rtcie mde cirmes Sh eg ese coe agi TAD) won e452 peter swchoees S209 dhe abudng fer, 1b HE contrat ee Gorman (ANE IF. Wied ead G6. Ps) Figure 1-50, — Partial pit powerhouse, Sweden. [Mosonyi, 1960]. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1344, Type B, Subtype 2: Underground Cavern Powerhouses. — Underground cavern type Powerhouses offer flexibility in project layout because they can be located almost any- ‘where within the proximity of the dam or with respect to the reservoir. However, one important condition must be satisfied the geological conditions must be suit- able for underground construction. ‘Also, other technical and economic considerations must justify the selection of this type of Powerhouse in preference to other types. These considerations are discussed in the follow- ing subsection. In this volume of the Guidelines, only underground powerhouses of conventional hydr0- electric developments, i.e., excluding the underground powerhouses of pumped storage developments, will be discussed. ‘The following illustrations give examples of some existing cavem type powerhouses. For other illustrations of underground powerhouses, see Section H, “Underground Powerhouses.” tem pen my 21728: Figure 1-51. — Boundary, Pend Oreille, Washington. Units: 6@ 137.8 MW; H =250 ft (76.2 m). (Strandberg, 1966). 1-35 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Figure 1-52, — Stornorrfors, Ume, Sweden. Units: 3@ 125 MW; H = 77 m (252.6 Nt). Figure 1-53. — Churchill Falls, Churchill, Canada, Units: 11@ 475 MW; H = 1,025 ft (312.5 m). [Willett, 197). ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 136Figure 1-54. — Nathpa Jhakri, Sutlej, India. Units: 6@ 250 MW; H = 425 m (1,394 ft); (under design). [Goyal, 1987). foe Rapon hydesatectete plant. 1) chine gh1- et 5) ternines'®) Figure 1-55, — Rogun, Vakhsh, U-S.S.R. Units: 6@ 600 MW; H = 310 m (1,0168 ft). [Osadchii et al., 1980), 1-37 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Figure 1-$6. — Ambuklao, Agno, Philippines. Units: 3@ 25 MW; H = 380 ft (115.9 m). [Eberhardt 1958). Figure 1-57. — Bersimis No. 1, Bersimis, Quebec, Canada. Units: 8@ 125 MW; H = 267 m (8758 ft). ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-38Figure 1-58. — Tumut I, Tumut, Australia. Units: 4@ 70 MW; H = 945 ft (288.1 m). [Pinkerton and Gibson, 1964]. Figure 1-59. — Montpezat, Loire/Rhone, France. Units: 2@ 60 MW; H = 625 m (2,050 ft). [Mosonyi, 1960}. 139 ASCE/EPRI Guides 19897” le Figure 1-60. — Cabora Bassa, Zambezi, Mozambique. Units: 5@ 415 MW; H = 103.5 m (339.5 ft). (Lemperierre and Vigny, 1975]. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1402. Powerhouse Type Selection Which type of powerhouse to select for a project concept depends on site-specific condi- tions with economy always being the primary concem, The following discussions, along with examination of the actual site conditions, the geologic and hydrologic information. available for conceptual studies of the project, shall serve as a guide for selection of suit- able powerhouse type. One cardinal rule shall gover all powerhouse type selection studies: the water passages connecting the reservoir to the powerhouse should be as short as possible, a, Powerhouse Type Related to Conduit Length, Head Developed, and Proximity to the Dam, — Power water conduit length between the reservoir and the powerhouse (for sur- face type) or the tailrace (for underground type) constitutes one of the primary economic considerations in conceptual studies of power plants. ‘The water conduit length depends greatly on the head developed at the project, the type of dam selected and on the powerhouse type itself. For low-head, run-of-river plants, the shortest conduit length is obtained by providing an {integral intake with water passages as the upstream part of a conventional surface type powerhouse. Such @ powerhouse constitutes a part of the dam to retain the reservoir. For intermediate heads (> 40 m or about 130 ff), integral intake designs prove to be struc- turally difficult and the intake is incorporated in the dam, or provided as a separate struc- ture nearby, with the powerhouse becoming a separate structure located as close to the dam as is feasible to obtain the shortest conduit length possible. ‘The powerhouse may also be located within the dam if the dam is of the gravity or hollow gravity type. ‘The powerhouse may be located at the surface for practically all head ranges, or under- ground (as cavem, pit, or shaft types) for higher intermediate and high-head ranges depending on the prevailing topography and economic considerations, with related con- straints for water conduit arrangement and connection to the powerhouse. >. Powerhouse Type Affected by Topographic Constraints. — Preferably, the powerhouse should be set normal to and in the stream utilized for power development to obtain best flow conditions. Narrow valleys, with high and steep banks may dictate other setting arrangements or differ- ent powerhouse types than in streambed. Large surface powerhouses, with several units, may have to be located along the river banks dictating longer conduits. The Hoover Dam powerplants (one on each bank) represent such an arrangement (fig. 1-37). There are numerous plants with powerhouses located along the river banks. High, steep banks may result in expensive excavations, with high cut slopes which may present stabili- ty problems with commensurete increase in construction and maintenance costs. Powerhouse type selection ‘Water conduit length Maximum head for integral intake powerhouses Powerhouse type selection ‘Topographic constraints 41 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Geologic constraints High tailwater constraints Underground concepts It is questionable whether the Hoover Dam powerhouses today would be designed as sur- face type powerhouses. With present-day advances in underground design, it is quite con- ceivable that they could be located underground which has been a preferred solution for numerous powerhouses. ¢. Geologic Constraints, — It is generally accepted practice to found powerhouses on Tock or at Jeast soft rock types. All powerhouses of the Tennessee Valley Authority have been built on rock foundations. However, there are some exceptions in that a number of powerhouses have been built on sand or other types of soft foundations. The Sam Raybum Power Plant (fig.1-4) on the Angelina River in Texas has been built on dense sand foundation, There are a few more. One of the earliest was the Swirsk powerplant in western Russia, The Plavinas (fig-1-10) with maximum head of 40 meters (131 ft), is constructed on moraine loam and sandy loam Many other powerhouses in the U.S.S.R. are constructed on similar foundations. ‘Good rock conditions are of greater concem for underground or pit type construction The rock should be of such quality (with support provisions if required) that underground cav- ems, or the walls for pit powerhouses, can be safely excavated and maintained for the life of the project. Any kind of powerhouse should clear geologic faults by a safe margin established on appropriate investigations, 4. Constraints Dictated by High Tailwaters. — High tailwater conditions may rule out indoor surface type powerhouses because the access 10 such powerhouses would be at a commensurately higher level, thus requiring a higher overall powerhouse structure. ‘The semi-indoor type powerhouses, with access at the roof level and the superstructure designed to retain the higher tailwater levels, will result in a more economical design than the indoor types, ‘Underground powerhouses are set at substantial depth below the tailwater (their beneficial attributes for pumped storage installations) without affecting the overall height of the pow- ethouse. ¢. Selection of Underground Concepts, — The geological conditions must be suitable for provision of underground water conveyance conduits, and underground spaces to house all electrical and hydromechanical equipment. Watertightness and structural competency of the surrounding rock are basic prerequisites for safe and economical underground installa- tions. Under the assumption that the prevailing geological conditions are suitable for under- ground installations, the designer usually has greater freedom in selection of the location for an underground powerhouse than for a surface powerhouse and this aspect is one of the advantages of the type B powerhouses, ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-42‘With type B powerhouses located at the dams (reservoirs), the first decision that usually ‘has to be made is to determine in which abutment it should be located. While economical considerations regarding conduit length should, of course, be one of the primary concems, nevertheless, quite frequently geologic conditions may become the obvious goveming fac- tors. Likewise, location and arrangement of diversion tunnels around the damsite shall be con- sidered in selection of the type B powerhouse location, because the downstream portions of the diversion tunnels are quite frequently utilized as tait tunnels for discharges from the underground powerhouses. Hydro devolopments, where the head is not developed immediately downstream of the dam but rather via long conduits to take advantage of available steep gradient of a natural stream between the reservoir and the point of tailrace discharge, are most suitable condi- tions for underground powerhouse applications, ‘The underground powerhouses can be located either at the upstream end of the conduits — short power tunnels (penstocks) with long tailrace tunnels, or at some intermediate or downstream location — with increased power tunnel-penstock length and decreasing tail ‘tunnel length, The costs of the water conduit system can vary greatly with the powerhouse location, Normally, the power tunnel-penstock design is more costly than tail tunnel design which may be unlined or orly partially lined. Should, however, the tailrace tunnel require rein- forced concrete lining, the economic advantages may swing into favor of the smaller-size (higher velocities) power tunnels-penstocks and, thus intermediate locations for the under- ground powerhouses. J. Selection of Pit Type Concepts. — Pit powerhouses, excavated in rock from the surface, Pit type may find application for intermediate head developments where the setting of the units is at_ concepts shallow depth below the ground surface, yet deep enough to require tailrace tunnels for unit discharges. As for the cavern powerhouses, pit powerhouses can be located near the intake (reservoir) or at an intermediate or even downstream location depending on the prevailing geology and topography. Arrangements with shortest possible penstocks, in general, are expected to offer the most economical and hydraulically efficient solutions. Convenient and economi- cal access provisions may play a role in selection of the pit powerhouse location. To obtain free surface drainage and for ease in construction, the roof of pit powerhouses may preferably be at or somewhat above the natural ground level. ‘The geologic conditions shall be such that they are suitable for tunneling for the penstocks and tailrace tunnel and result in stable walls for the powerhouse pit. Access is usually from the roof leve! via stairs and elevator. Equipment access is provided through appropriate shafts, 1-43 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Climate constraints Other & Climatic Constraints. — Surface type powerhouses and their equipment, if well con- structed, are not markedly sensitive to exposure to harsh seasonal climate changes. ‘The surface-type powerhouses of the James Bay Complex in Canada, along the St. Lawrence Seaway, and others in Canada and the northem regions of the United States, as well in Europe, have withstood frigid winter climate regimes remarkably well, However, special provisions must be considered to ensure good work quality during winter construction, if such is needed because of tight schedules. On the other hand, underground construction can proceed uninterrupted and with practically no provisions against cold weather effects. Although underground installations would appear preferable where deep snow is expected, the numerous existing surface type powerhouses exposed to severe snow conditions dispell such justification in favor of underground powerhouses. It is clearly the owner's choice and preference based on economic considerations — the possibly substatially lower investment versus the increased maintenance costs for the surface powerhouse types. ‘h. Other Constraints. — Other possible constraints in the selection of powerhouse type may be, but not necessarily limited to, the following: + Difficult and expensive surface access in narrow canyons with steep walls + Encroachment on railroad or highway right-of-way + Archaeologic aspects + Environmental aspects + Socio-demographic and possible other aspects, ‘The last three constraints in the above list would most likely be treated in the overall pro- Ject siting studies and, therefore, may not affect the selection of the powerhouse type. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 144C. POWERHOUSE (TURBINE) SETTING ‘Turbine setting 1. Vertical Axis Units Vertical axis ‘Simultaneously with the studies for powerhouse location and selection of its type, the set- ting of the powerhouse, actually the setting of the turbines with respect to che minimum. tailwater elevation must be determined. For initial studies, however, the centerline of the distributor can be set at the minimum tail- water elevation. This setting will allow preparation of reasonably realistic study sketches to determine preliminary excavation outlines and to assess foundation requirements. In general, the turbine setting shall be the responsibility of the hydraulic machinery design- er of the design organization with input from the turbine manufacturer, Bureau of Reclamation Engineering Monograph No. 20, Selecting Hydraulic Reaction Turbines, (USBR, 1976] contains useful deta for turbine setting, which is illustrated on figure 1-61 (ee also fig. 1-81). According to figure 161, the recommended draft head is: Z=H,+b where: H, = static draft head, and vertical distance from distributor to the location of the minimum runner diameter (meters or feet). ° W Hy= Hy- OH ey Hy=Ha-H, atmospheric pressure minus vapor pressure (meters or feet), cavitation factor, and maximum head (meters or feet) at which turbines can operate at Full gate. ‘The above relationships are illustrated on figure 1-61 [USBR, 1976: fig. 17] 145 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989TTWOSPWERIG paeseune Feotes piney (Sean 'S dura grtinosberie peur fr atitedet yeopar eesure of water se yemy=Ky. Atmore aresure mins spar preanet,1n) pest eect temperature, Hk Soy ine eee arte 5 Zs! : ara i : gem Creal Neat 18nd surnene H= Distance from O10 minima tnimater lone eine We ceri fal gee 1 2! rousg = Leos dete than eat Ht My cngtenee ane = Uysmgl / Berea sachorataianter at rae. 1? Totnes oF estate rm to mm ce © af etter ot ext amet fll arti, 30.1 Figure 1-61. — Recommended total draft head. [USBR, 1976]. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-462. Horizontal (Bulb) Axis Units ‘This discussion is limited to installations with bulb units which type is in predominant use for conventional hydro developments that are not classified as small hydro. ‘The setting of the horizontal axis units is based on the same governing parameters as given for the vertical units (fig. 1-61). For horizontal units, the static draft head, H., is measured to the centerline of the runner as indicated on figure 1-62. According to Khanna and Bansal [1979], the setting is calculated by taking the upper tip of the blade as reference for cavitation calculation purposes. Based on studies of various plants, the depth of the lowest bulb turbine draft tube point below minimum tailwater can be set at: Hpp=(0.6D to 1D) + Hy draft head, H,, can be determined from the equation H,= Hy— OH by using the appropriate sigma coefficient, 0, which will be lower than for the vertical Kaplan units. The lower o will result in smaller submergence requirements. In most cases, however, it may suffice to ensure that the top of the draft tube is submerged below the minimum tailwater. By comparison, the lower point of the draft tube for vertical Kaplan unit is (see reference above): Hpx= (18D to2.5D) + Hy Consequently, the setting of the vertical Kaplan unit is at least 0.8D to 1.9D deeper than for the bulb unit. 3, Underground Powerhouse Units As discussed in Section H, “Underground Powethouses,” one of the advantages of these units is that they can be set deeper with respect to the tailwater than surface powerhouses without an increase in excavation depth and, thus, an increase in the overall height of the powerhouse structure. ‘The greater submergence below tailwater permits higher operational speeds of the turbines ‘and, thus, the physical size ofurbines and generators. Moreover, the cavem size can be reduced correspondingly which should always be attempted because of the high excavation costs, Horizontal axis units Units in underground powerhouses, 147 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989For large units, in the range of 200 MW and up, the speed will seldom exceed 375 rpm, however, it may go up to 500 rpm and more for smaller units. ‘The 382.5-MW Raccoon Mountain reversible pump/turbines would have required 225 rpm. with a submergence of 75 feet for a design with a conventional surface powerhouse. A sub- mergence of 127 feet and unit speed of 300 rpm was possible with the adopted under- ‘ground powethouse design, ‘The large 475-MW Churchill Falls units operate with 200 rpm in the underground power ‘house and have a rather shallow submergence of about 40 feet. Figure 1-62, — Horizontal turbine runner setting. [Kanna and Bansal, 1979}. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-48D. POWERHOUSE MONOLITH SIZING 1, Powerhouse Unit Monolith, Sub-Bays — Definitions Figure 1-63, — Powerhouse monolith sub-bays. The text that follows uses what is thought to be a widely accepted terminology for designa- tion of the various components or principal parameters of a powerhouse structure, Nevertheless, for clarity, the designations used are defined below. Powerhouse Sub-Bays INT. Intake, if built integrally with powerhouse USB Upsteeam service bay GB__ Generating bay, houses generating units adjoins longitudinally to erection bay DSB Downstream service bay L w Unit monolith (bay) length Unit monolith (bay) width Walls and Piers Intake End Pier, structural member forming upstream part of the dam, separates adjoining intakes, supports gate loads and hydrostatic pressures on transverse walls. Intake intermediate pier provided for large inlet openings, forming the upstream part of the dam, supports gate loads and hydrostatic pressures on transverse walls. Intake curtain wall, forms the upstream face of the intake above the inlet ‘openings. Some designs (figs. 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, I-11, 1-17, 1-18, etc.) ‘omit such wall. Retains trash and ice. 1-49 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989D Bulkhead wall, serves as @ fixed bulkhead or headwall when bulkheads are provided upstream of service gates. E _ Intake headwall retains the hydrostatic pressure for integral intake powerhouses. F Generating bay upstream wall when upstream service bay is provided. ‘Supports slabs, roof, and powerhouse crane. May also become water-beating headwall if built integrally with intake, G Generating bay downstream wall. Supports walls, roof, and powerhouse crane. May become powerhouse downstream wall (possibly water bearing) if downstream service bay is not needed. H_ Powerhouse downstream wall. May be a water bearing wall (downstream head- wall) for high tailwaters, constructed integrally with draft tube piers. J Draft tube end pier. Separates draft tubes of individual units. Supports downstream wall, draft tube roof and deck. Also acts integrally with the wall to support hydrostatic pressure from tailwater. Supports gate loads. Along with intermediate pier, carries substructure load to foundation (pier portion below the draft tube 100). K Draft tube intermediate pier. Provided for wide draft tubes principally to reduce gate (stoplog) spans, to support draft tube roof, downstream wall and deck loads. Along with end piers, carries sub-structure to foundation. Supports gate loads. 2, Powerhouse Sub-Bay Functions 4. Intake (Integral with Powerhouse) + Serves as upstream inlet to the water passages and forms, integrally with the power- house sub-structure, the dam to retain the reservoir. 7 + Service gates are provided to close the water passages. In most cases bulkheads are provided upstream of the service gates to (1) enable maintenance of the latter and (2) to enabte closure of the water passages in case the service gates are inoperable. + The inlet to water passages is provided with trashracks to keep trash out of the water passages and to prevent damage to the hydraulic equipment. Upstream . Upstream Service Bay service bay + Provided and located over the water passages, if they are long. + Provided for large installations to house electrical and/or mechanical station service equipment, If the transformers are located on the deck of the upstream service bay, ‘most of the electrical equipment is located in the upstream service bay, at the higher Tevels. The lower levels may be occupied by mechanical station service equipment, + Control room, battery room, spaces for operating and maintenance personnel may be located in the upstream service bay. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-50«All levels should be served by at least two stairs and elevator (two or more for multi- unit installations). + Width of this bay is approximately 30 feet or slightly more for simplicity in structural framing as discussed under Subsection d, “Downstream Service Bay” below. c. Generating Bay and Erection Bay + Principal function of the generating bay is to house the generating units (turbine and generators) with the connecting water passages (semi-spiral or spiral cases, draft tube inlet cone and elbow) and the surrounding sub-structure concrete. + Erection bay is aligned with the generating bay, in most cases located at one end of the latter or, sometimes, in the center portion of the generating bay, or at both ends. + Powerhouses crane(s) spans between the upstream and downstream walls to serve for equipment unloading and assembly in erection bay, and installation and maintenance of the individual units. + For large installations, cranes at two levels are recommended. The heavy, slow-speed crane needed for turbine runner and rotor-shaft installation is set at higher level because of the greater clearance requirements. + One or two small-capacity, high-speed cranes are set below the large crane and are used for handling of most of the equipment installed, except for the heavy turbine runners and rotors. 4, Downstream Service Bay + This bay is developed above downstream part of the draft tube to house either electri- cal (upper levels) and/or mechanical (lower levels) equipment. It may not be provided for small installations. + If the transformers are located in this bay (instead of upstream service bay), they are usually located on the draft tube deck which is set above maximum powerhouse design flood level (not necessarily the probable maximum flood). + Spiral case access is provided from this bay or from a level slightly above the spiral case floor level. + Depending on the draft tube length, the width of this bay may reach approximately 30 feet or somewhat more. Spans in this range enable floor design without beams to sim- plify design, provide more usable headroom and simplify construction. Larger spaces ‘may also be susceptible to vibrations. Draft Tube Piers, Draft Tube Deck + Draft tube piers are extended to the draft tube deck level to receive the draft tube gales. + These piers serve as an integral strucural support of the downstream wall and the draft tube deck which supports the draft tube gantry crane (if such is provided) and may also support the transformers. In that case, the deck width is expanded to suit. + Gate slots are provided in the draft tube deck between the piers to receive the gates. + The size of the gate slots is govemed by the gate size and operating clearance require- ments, Average gate slot size is in the range of approximately 36 inches wide and 20 Generating anderection bay. Downstream service bay Draft tube piers and deck 1-51 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989inches deep overall including blockouts for embedded welding pads), which suffices for preliminary layouts. + Intermediate piers receive two gate slots cach. Minimum distance between the slots should be govemed principally by construction clearance requirements. With reinforce- ment in place, the clear distance between reinforcement should be about 2 feet. 20" for gate slots and ‘embedment concrete Alternative pier outline Figure 1-64. — Draft tube intermediate pier thickness. Total pier thickness: Gate slots: 2 x 20 in = 40in Reinforcement cover: 2x2in = 4in 2 layers (vert. & horiz.) reinforcing 2x2ineach (min) = 4 in ‘Clearance bet. reinf. in each face for erection = 24in 72 in = 6 feet (minimum) Generally, draft tube intermediate piers are about 6.5 feet thick, or somewhat more, ~ End piers receive only one gate slot and can be approximately 4 feet ~ 8 inches mini- ‘mum, which may be structurally too thin for large powerhouses. Overall unit bay width, govemed either by spiral case or draft tube dimensions, may dictate thicker end piers. Monk size 3. Powerhouse Unit Monolith Size Wiath, «2. Unit Monolith Width — General. — Unit monolith width is governed by: general + Geometry (size) of the hydraulic passages * Minimum clearances for concrete embedment around the passages and generator size + Minimum clearances around the generators for ease of access and equipment handling. Basically, either the first two or the last requirement governs the width of the unit monolith in the direction normal to the flow. For low-head, low-speed units, the semispiral case or the draft tube width will most likely determine the width of the monolith, but the generator size and the required clearances could also be the controlling parameters. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 152In high-head plants, with higher speed units and steel spiral cases, the unit monolith width is usually govemed by the overall width of the spiral case (subsection E.5) and the mit mum thickness for concrete embedment. {_Sentesction joint rComaction joint NY _3 £ 2 3 2 2 orca wad a, With shear walls. 'b. Without shear walls. Figure 1-65. — Spiral case embedment. ‘Shear walls are required for powerhouse structures on soft foundations to maintain during construction reasonably uniform dead load distribution on the foundation in the upstream/downstream direction. Experience shows that shear walls generally are not required for powerhouses on rock foundations and substantial savings in the overall unit block width (and thus concrete) can be achieved, especiatly when there are several unit As a rule, shear walls are not needed in underground powerhouses because such are con- structed only in competent rock. ‘Minimum thickness of the shear walls should be govemed by shear requirements on any plane normal to the flow and by stendemess limitations under consideration of flexural com- pression. The minimum thickness of shear walls should be in the range of 18 10 24 inches to avoid congestion of reinforcement and allow for ease of concrete placement. Larger power- house structures require thicker shear walls, up to 3 to 5 feet, possibly more. b. Unit Monolith Width Determination The following considerations should be made to determine the width of the unit monolith. For economical reasons, espe: width is kept to a minimum. ly for multi-unit installations, it is important that this To determine the width, first the geometry of the spiral (or semi-spiral) case (subsections E.5 and E.6), the draft tube (subsection E.4.c.7) and the generator must be determined and drawn as outlined under paragraphs d and e in this subsection, ‘Next, for powerhouses with concrete semispiral cases, the thickness of the side walls at the centerline of the units and must be determined, Shear walls ‘Shear wall thickness ‘Width determination 1-53 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Intemal hydrostatic pressures against the walls and roof, and the corresponding reactions ‘must be considered. The latter may be tensile forces acting in addition to the flexural ten- sion, Preliminary shear and moment calculations (assuming partial fixity) should be prepared to ascertain adequate yet economical wall thickness. Thickness requiring shear reinforcement and more than two layers of flexural reinforcement would indicate that the walls are under- designed. On the other hand, very light reinforcement requirements would indicate over-designed condition leading to uneconomical concepts for multi-unit plans. For concepts with steel-lined spiral cases, the unit bay width is obtained from the overall ‘width of the spiral case plus the necessary concrete embedment thickness and, if required, the shear wall thickness as discussed under the preceding paragraph, ‘The overall monolith width thus determined should be compared graphically with the gen- erator housing dimensions — by drawing the generator outline on the plan for the spiral case and the draft tbe (fig. 1-65), For single-unit installations, the clear distance between monolith bay end walls (running parallel to the flow) and the generator housing should be about 10 feet minimum to allow free passage and installation of auxiliary equipment. 5 to 10 feet Generator 840.58 | am_| see Fig. 1-61 See Figures 1-76 through 1-80 and related expressions for dimensions A, 8, C, D, € and others. Figure 1-66. — Water passage and generator outlines superimposed to determine ‘monolith width. (On figure 1-66 the draft mie or the generator appears to govem the width. ‘The centerline of the draft tube should always coincide with the centerline of the unit ‘monolith, as should the centerline of the integral intake. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-54‘The centeriine of the unit (parallel to the flow) housed in a semi-spiral case will be offset with respect to intake and draft tube centerlines. In that case the outline of the draft tube elbow in plan becomes unsymmetrical at the end of the elbow and its centerline is skewed ‘and not parallel to the flow (fig. 1-67): t— € Draft wbe and ‘Monolith ‘Maintain straight line, adjust intake and draft tube end Figure 1-67. — Semi-spiral case and draft tube setting in monolith. ‘The centerlines of units housed in steel spiral cases may, depending on their size, also be offset from the centerline of the draft tube or they may coincide. For simplicity in construction, it is preferable to maintain straight, unbroken outlines for the unit monolith side walls as shown above. Zigzag geometry of the contraction joints between the unit bays result if the centerline of draft tube is not offset and if minimum ‘embedment clearance for the spiral case is maintained, & Draft tube and Unit Figure 1-68.— Undesirable monolith outline. ‘The offset resulting from the arrangement indicated on fig. 1-68 complicates forming, rein- forcement arrangement (with projecting, intersecting reinforcement), all contributing to complications during construction and, therfore, should be avoided. 1-55 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Monolith ¢. Unit Monolith Length, — The unit bay length may be comprised of the following sub- length bays (fig. 1-63): + Integral Intake — for low-head plants only (head < 130 feet (40 meters)) + Upstream Service Bay — for low-head plants with somewhat longer water passages (fig. 1-4) or for powerhouses (surface type and underground) separated from intakes » Generating Bay — all types of powerhouses + Downstream Service Bay — mostly for surface installations, although numerous underground plants have such a bay in the caver + Draft Tube Piers and Deck — integral with generating bay for surface powerhouses, separated from powerhouse for underground installations ‘The width of each sub-bay is determined separately by starting out with the generating bay and then working in upstream and downstream direction to determine: + The length of water passages: © Conduit to the turbine (spiral case, semi-spiral case with inlet) « Intake (for low-head plants) ¢ Draft tube + Tail tunnels (for underground powerhouses only) + The usable space above the water passages and framing of the service bays For economic reasons, water passages are made as short as possible (with suppliers’ input) and the space for scrvice bays should be arranged to suit the geometry of the water pas- sages and not the other way around, Generating 4d. Generating Bay Width Determination, — Generating Bay width is determined by suc- bay width cessive layout steps in the following sequence: Step 1: + Determine semi-spiral or spiral case geometry or from turbine manufacturers informa- tion, Draw plan and transverse (parallel to flow) section Step 2:. + Prepare the same information for the draft tube and combine both in one sketch. Step 3: + Draw substructure concrete around draft tube and spiral case. Determine needs for lower galleries to connect with draft tube accesses for turbine runner inspection and maintenance. * Study turbine guard valve needs. For small installations, guard valves may be located in the generating bay; large installations will require separate valve galleries (with separate crane). ‘+ Guard valves located in the generating bay must clear the generator barrel (generator housing) and should be sufficiently downstream of the upstream wall to enable lift by the powerhouse crane. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-56Step 4: + Determine generator outline and setting by providing adequate access clearances to the turbine pit and adequate structural concrete thickness for embedment and support of thrust bearing and stator sole plates and their anchorages. + Establish generator barrel (pedestal) outline and clearances with upstream and down- stream walls, A minimum of 10 feet is required for passage of personnel and installa- tion of piping, etc., 12 to 15 feet, at least on one side of the barrel, is required for larger installations — all subject to appropriate clearance studies by electrical and mechanical engineering. Depending on the layout, passages can be eliminated on one side of the barrel, which then adjoins one of the walls. Step 5: + Establish location of inside faces of upstream and downstream walls with respect to the guard valve (if used), lower galleries, and generator barrel. Step 6: + Determine crane capacity and governing lift height (turbine runner with shaft and rotor with shaft). + Draw crane geometry in required location above the unit and determine clearances required between the walls and equipment, The wall location may have to be readjusted to provide the clearances needed, ‘The above steps will lead to the preliminary width of the generating bay (in flow direction). 1-87 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989— - 7) oratt ube | | a. Steps 1 and 2. Erection clearance om te 3am feaae _) iO Teme isc.) Second stage concrete Steel e1bow liner Draft tube piers (Gt requiveg) b. Step 3. lu de ~ jenesator ower gut Dearing bracket —f Pessogeway autery Piping ond copies Steps 4 and 5, Figure 1-69. — Steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in substructure layout. (Wolf, 1961]. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 ie¢. Generating Bay Height Determination. — The generating bay height is determined in Generating the following steps — in extension of the sizing of the generating bay width described in bay height steps 1 through 6 in the preceding subsection, a. Step S — continued. Superstructure Substructure b. Steps6 and 7. Figure 1~70. — Steps 5, 6, and 7 in substructure layout. 159 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Step 7: (continued from subsection d above) + Determine elevation of centerline of distributor (horizontal centerline of unit in a ver- tical section) based on turbine setting with respect to minimum tailwater. Step 8: + Provide a minimum of 4 feet, up to 10 feet for large units, of concrete above a steel spiral case to provide mass as a measure to control vibrations. For concrete semi-spiral cases the roof thickness is govemed by structural considerations ‘0 control bursting from intemal pressures and the 4 feet minimum thickness may be insuf- ficient except for small semi-spiral cases. Step 9: + Provide 6.5- to 7-foot-high access clearance to the turbine pit and about 4- to 5-foot thickness above the access opening for lower generator bearing bracket anchor bolts, Step 10: + Draw a diagram of the rotor with shaft (simple outlines) and place it above and off the center of the generator, in the widest space available, on the cross section as devel- oped above, with ample clearances (12 in) with equipment. Check clearances with the closest wall (or set the wall line to suit), Step 11: * Locate the bottom of the crane girder about 2 feet above the rotor shaft on the above diagram to allow for hoisting connections. Draw crane outline based on published manufacturer's information and provide at least 6 inches of clearance between the tolleys and roof framing. Repeat the same with the turbine runner and shaft 10 deter- mine the governing condition for crane setting. Step 12: + Size superstructure framing and enclosure to complete the cross section. Erection 4, Erection Bay Size bay ‘The erection bay size is govemed by its intended functions, ic, to provide the following: + Unloading area for plant equipment received + Erection area, principally for the turbine runner and the generator rotor — for stacking of the poles; the stator may be erected in the machine pit (atest approach is that the stator is also completely assembled in the erection bay) + Erection and laydown space for periodic equipment overhaul a. Unloading Area. — The unloading area should be wide enough to receive low-bed vehi- cles with heavy equipment parts such as turbine runners, guard valves, transformers, rotor spider parts, generator bearing bracket, etc, At least 25 feet of width should be provided, preferably at the outer end or one side of the erection bay, depending on the access door location. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-60Generator and Erection Bay width € Access door. “Os > 25 ft, wide unloading area = 7.62 Trans. rats Establish crane hook travel A f Tins neo euten sovrage Cp: py mas ; Tyurbine runner 5 ft. min, clearance al! around’ /~ Rotor Figure 1-71, — [7 tavdown and ersetion area imum unloading and erection space. On some plants, transformer rails may extend into the unloading area for initial assembly and for maintenance after commissioning of the plant. + Where high tailwaters prevail, access to the erection bay unloading area may be at a higher level than the erection and laydown area. + For semi-outdoor type installations, with access at the powerhouse roof level and gantry cranes on the roof, the unloading area in most cases will be located in an area immediately next to and in extension of the erection bay (outside the erection bay structure) with gantry crane rails extended accordingly. Based on recommendations by the generator manufacturers, stators that cannot be shipped shop-assembled are shipped in segments and completely assembled on the erection floor with overlapping laminations at joints between the individual segments. This procedure requires an additional space in the erection bay. For multi-unit installations, space for simultaneous assembly of a pair of stators and rotors may have to be provided (depending on the installation schedule). In addition, there should be enough space for the assembly of at least one turbine runner or rotor spider. The avail- able space between the generaors of the first units may be used for runner assembly. ‘The 3-600 MW and 3-700 MW unit Grand Coulee II Power Plant has two erection bays —one at each end of the structure. One serves for the assembly of the turbine parts and the other for the generators, In addition, the large Churchill Falls and Itaipu plants have sepa- rate erection bays at each end of the structure. Normally, an erection bay length of about 1.5 times the unit monolith width sufficies. 161 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989Permissible velocities Intake roof shape ». Temporary Erection Sheds, Unloading Areas. — On some multi-unit projects tempo- rary erection sheds have been utilized to expedite rotor and runner assembly in an area in extension of the erection bay, either at the erection bay floor level, or at the roof level, pro- vided there is sufficient free space for that purpose. For indoor plants, the end wall of the superstructure must have provisions for crane girded extension and passage of the crane. 5. Integral Intake Geometry (Low-Head Plants) For integral intake plants, once the powerhouse setting is determined, the integral intake setting below the minimum poo! level and its connection to the generating bay can be developed. The inside geometry of the integral intake is based on hydraulic considerations t0 obtain uniform accelerated flow conditions with minimum losses. 4, Permissible Velocities. — The following maximum velocities have been usad to deter- mine integral intake geometry: m/s, fs Gross velocity through trashracks: 09-12 3.040 ‘Maximum velocity at gate slots (t= head at center of cross section): O.12/2eF —0.124/2gh 0.144/2¢h 0.144/2¢h Minimum velocity at downstream end of intake (inlet of semi-spiral case), but at least (USBR, 1976]: 1s 50 ‘Maximum velocity at the downstream end of intake (to prevent air-entraining vortices): 3.0 <10.0 ‘The velocity curve through the above control sections should have a shape free of abrupt changes. See the information on figure 1-76. Whenever the overall geometry of the intake inlet is governed by the permissible velocities at the inlet, the width is dictated by the width of the semi-spiral case (fig. 1-76 and related data). b. Inlet Geometry. — Because of the low velocities in the low-head integral intakes, the inlet shape can be of much simpler geometry than for intakes with deep submergence pro- vided for high-head plants (see Chapter 1, “Intakes"). (1) Roof Profile. — The roof soffit intersection with the curtain wall face at the inlet is either a wide-angle intersection between two flat planes (figs, 1-3, 1-4, 1-7, 1-14, and 1-18), oF the soffit may be curved to various degrees (figs. 1-1, 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, I-11, 1-12, and 1-17), The need for curvature is dictated by the length of the intake. Longer intake roof soffits can be formed with straight line segments with only small roundings at the inlet (R = 12 to 24 in). For curved soffits, a transition radius is needed to connect with the face of the curtain wall. In general, curved forming should be kept to a minimum because of the high cost. ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-62(2) Pier Shape— Unlike for spillway and outlet works intake with well-curved (rounded) upstream pier noses, the shape of the power intake noses is incised by the trashrack slots (fig. 1-72). To overcome the disruption in the pier shape by the trashracks, the trashrack bars that lie within the pier limits are located and slanted such that they are continuous with the pier face through the trashracks. Pier nose may be ‘extended upstream and shaped to suit a. Detail A. cua eae - tf ect nae ee retease _ —}| Ge How = an Fait b. Plan. Figure 1-72. — Intake pier noses. ‘To obtain the desired flow distribution to the stay ring, the downstream noses of the intake piers are asymmetrical (fig. 1~72). The noses themselves are cylindrical with a minimum radius of 12 inches (30 cm) for structural reasons to avoid stress concentrations. (On the side of the main spiral entrance (either left or right) the 12-inch radius in most cases is tangent to a straight pier face. The other side of the pier curves towards the pier nose to guide the flow into the spiral. Pier shape 1-63 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989E. SURFACE POWERHOUSE SUBSTRUCTURE Substructure ‘The substructure of surface (type A) powerhouses (all six subtypes illustrated in subsection B.1), basically comprises the part of the structure that lies below the turbine floor and the lowest floors of the sub-bays, i.., the structure below the top of the water conduit roof line. For powerhouses with vertical axis units, the substructure houses the draft tube elbow, the

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5810)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1092)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (843)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (608)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1716)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (897)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (540)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (346)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (822)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1850)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1946)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (401)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4610)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4203)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (806)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2521)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1898)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)