Practical applications of hot banded pipe (HBP) technology

for steel penstocks and steel linings in high head hydropower

plants and pumped storage plants

Dr. Clemente Curnis Eng. Daniele Bronzetti Dr. Selim M. Sayah

Consultant–Senior Expert Lombardi Engineering Ltd. Lombardi Engineering Ltd.
Zelweg, 20 Via R. Simen,15 Via R. Simen,15
5405 Baden 6648 Minusio 6648 Minusio
Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland

Introduction
At the Hydro 2017 Conference in Seville a detailed presentation about the realization of steel penstocks with Hot
Banded Pipe (HBP) technology for high head hydropower plants was exposed. In that paper the benefits of the HBP-
technology were illustrated in comparison with the use of Very High Tensile Strength Steel (VHTSS), providing the
basic knowledge of this particular design method.
The purpose of the present paper is to provide further practical applications examples of HBP-technology for steel
penstocks and steel linings in high head hydropower plants and pumped storage plants, including a comparison with
VHTSS solution. The document illustrates design aspects, analysis of some topics related to erection, construction
schedule, as well as cost-benefits analysis.
The analysis covers the realisation of hydropower plants / pumped storage plants with same configuration, subject to
static head of up to 850 mwc, having steel lined or steel pipes waterway made of different diameters, relevant to
different installed capacities . The realization of the high-pressure portion (HP) it is investigated adopting, for the
steel waterway, different solutions of steel qualities. The same analysis is performed with the HBP solution. The
results are finally compared in terms of erection time duration as well as prefabrication and erection costs.

1. Brief recall to HBP-technology

Hot Banded Pipe (HBP) technology consists on pipes, which are externally reinforced by forged hoops to withstand
high stresses induced by internal pressure. The function of the external hoops is to adsorb the major part of the
internal pressure, leaving a minor part to the pipe shell. This would result with a thinner shell thickness thus
simplifying the welding works at site during the construction.
The fabrication process of HBP foresees that the hoops are fabricated with an internal diameter smaller than the
external diameter of the pipe shell. The hoops are fabricated with high tolerances and are warmed up to 400°C in
order to increase their diameter and to be erected on the shell. After the assembly, the elements are cooled down to
room temperature and by elastic equilibrium the hoops remain pre-stressed with tension stresses while the shell
remains pre-stressed with compressive stresses. When the penstock (or steel lining) is in service, the pipe shell firstly
recovers the pre-compression stresses and then it reaches the design tension stress value. On the other hand, the
hoops continue to increase their tension stress, up to the design value.
In the range of pressure exploitation, the stress-strain elastic characteristics of hoops and shell are almost parallel and
with the same modulus of elasticity, thus the assembly operates as a solid wall pipe having mechanical
characteristics, yield and tensile, averaged between the two components.
 Fig. 1. Hot banded pipes configuration

Fig. 2. Mechanical behaviour resulting from a finite element analysis (FEA) assuming a HBP penstock/steel lining with inner
diameter D=3’600 mm, pipe thickness t=20 mm, number of hoops n= 14 equal-spaced over a pipe length L = 4’000mm
 Tab. 1. Some references of projects realized with hot banded pipes still operating nowadays

The previous table shows some references of projects realized with HBP-technology, which are still operating
nowadays. Another reference could be the hydropower plant of Chandoline (Switzerland) which was first put into
service in 1934 and put out of service in 2013 on grounds of energy efficiency and production optimisation. The
plant had a gross head of 1’750 mwc with two HBP-penstocks DN 2100, which were still available for operation.
During their exploitation no problems were reported for HBP-plants up to nowadays and only normal works for
maintenance purpose were performed during their life. References of existing HBP-plants shows that the expected
life duration exceeds 80 years, thus confirming the safety of the adopted HBP-technology.
 Fig. 3. Pumped storage plant Edolo (Italy) with two parallel HBP penstocks DN 3700 mm, static head of 1’300 mwc and
1’100 MW installed power

2. Design basics
For the scope of the analysis presented in the present paper, the design of the steel waterway is performed according
to ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 79. This code is worldwide recognized and represents a
valid and safe design method to assure a long lifespan to hydropower plants.
Main assumptions made for the calculation in the present paper:
- Stress theory:
The maximum stress theory (Tresca criterion) is adopted.
- Design membrane allowable stress (S):
The design membrane allowable stress (S) is obtained by the minimum value applying different safety factors to
the tensile strength (TS) and to the yield strength (YP) of the material selected for the realization of the
waterway:
S = min (TS/2.4; YP/1.5)

Fig. 4. Example of a 3D-FEA-modelling for an HBP Penstock of an existing Plant in operation, with diameter DN 3600 mm, pipe
shell thickness t = 20 mm and static head of 800 mwc
 For information, following table shows a comparison of safety factors with other international codes of
calculation.

Country Code YP TS Allowable stress governed by

USA ASCE No.79 1.5 2.4 Tensile stress (TS)
Japan JIS 2.0 - Only yield stress considered (YP)
France – Europe CODETI 1.5 2.4 Tensile stress (TS)
Europe CECT 1.5 - Only yield stress considered (YP)

Tab. 2. Comparison of safety factors for the design allowable stress for penstocks and steel linings

- Weld joint reduction factor (E):

To each type of joint configuration adopted during the execution is applied a value E. This value depends on the
degree of examination the joint receives and the type of joint configuration. The maximum value E is equal to 1.0
for joints in compression.
- The solid pipe solution is evaluated by the elastic theory while the HBP solution by Finite Element Analysis
(FEA).
- Interaction of the steel lining with the contiguous rock mass:
The moduli of deformation of the rock mass should be determined conservatively based on tests performed on
field. However, rock mechanical properties are usually difficult to be determined since many boreholes would be
necessary to collect a minimum number of reliable data. In some cases, due to project time schedules, the steel
lining must be designed and fabricated before completing the excavation of the tunnel. Because of this, during the
actual excavation, zones of material with a lower modulus than that determined for use in the design could be
encountered. This could lead to a full redesign work. In order to simplify this variable, the calculation performed
in the present paper does not consider any collaboration of the steel lining with the rock mass. To this purpose the
further analysis will show that for the HBP-solution it already results technological minimal thicknesses (around
to 20 mm) also for large diameters even without considering the collaboration of the rock mass. This means that a
HBP steel lining could be designed independently from the actual rock mechanical properties encountered during
the tunnel excavation. It still results with a minimum thickness (around 20 mm) also for large pipe diameters.
- External pressure for confined steel linings:
In the analysis exposed in the present paper, the steel lining is assumed to be subjected to a potential external
water load of 200 mwc, with a safety factor of f = 1.6.
- Materials and Allowable Stresses:

Solid wall Steel Carbon Allowed

TS YP YP/TS TS/2,4 YP/1,5
Solution Quality Eq. Stress (S)
EN [Mpa] [Mpa] [-] CE [%] [Mpa] [Mpa] [Mpa]
Pipe S355 NL 470 355 0,76 < 0.45 196 237 196
Pipe S460 NL 540 440 0,81 < 0.45 225 293 225
Pipe S500 M 560 500 0,89 < 0.45 233 333 233
Pipe S690 QL 770 700 0,91 < 0.53 321 467 321

Hot Banded Steel Carb. Allowed

TS YP YP/TS TS/2,4 YP/1,5
Pipe Solution Quality Eq. Stress
Pipe S355 NL 470 355 0,76 < 0.45 196 237
Hoops (forged) 1100 Q&T 1100 900 0,82 458 600
HBP assembly 785 628 327 418 327

Tab. 3. Example of allowable stresses (S) according to ASCE Guides No. 79 for different steel qualities
 Joint category Joint type Non-destructive testing
100% UT/RT Spot RT
Penstocks – Steel linings
Double-welded butt joints 1.00 0.85
Longitudinal, circumferential and Single welded butt joints with
0.90 0.80
spiral (helical) butt welds backing strips
Single-welded butt joint without
Not allowed Not allowed
backing strips
Bifurcations
Longitudinal and circumferential
butt joints in shell plates. Double-welded butt joints 0.85 0.70
Sickle plate splices butt welds.

Tab. 4. Example of weld joint reduction factors (E) according to ASCE Manuals and Reports No. 79

3. Basic assumptions for the investigated waterway solutions

3.1 Scope of work
The scope of the analysis is to compare the high-pressure portion of a waterway (penstock or steel lining) for three
different material solutions (steel S690, S500 and HBP) among a scenario of four
diameters(DN 2100/2600/3100/3600 mm). The high-pressure limit is conventionally defined as the elevation at
which the thickness reaches the value of 35/38 mm and it ends at the power house, thus giving the total length of this
section. This means that the same material solution, but with different diameters, will have different high-pressure
section lengths, being the pipe thickness different.

3.2 Exposed penstock profile

A typical penstock profile is considered in the further analysis. The penstock is assumed to be laying on sliding
supports spaced at max. 24 m span, while anchor blocks are provided at the main direction changes. Furthermore,
expansion joints are supposed to be installed downstream the blocks in order to allow free longitudinal elongation of
the corresponding penstock section.

Fig. 5. Typical analysed penstock profile

3.3 Steel-lined tunnel profile
A typical steel-lined tunnel profile is considered in the further analysis. The steel lining is divided in an inclined
section and in a horizontal section. Due to this configuration, a simultaneous beginning of the erection works
(upstream towards the reservoir and downstream towards the power house) can be assumed starting from the bottom
elbow, at the end of the inclined section.

Fig. 6. Typical analysed steel lining profile

3.4 Mechanical calculation

For the solutions with steel S690 and S500, the pipe shell thickness is calculated according to ASCE Manuals and
Reports No. 79. The HBP solution is verified by means of FEA calculation, being a “not classic” pipe configuration.
Furthermore, dynamic overload of 10% is assumed at the turbine guard valve at the power house.
For the scope of the analysis, penstock and steel liner are considered to have same thickness. This approach is quite
close to the reality being the bending stresses in the penstock, supported at 24 m span, quite small in comparison
with the membrane stresses induced by the water pressure.
Design static head is considered equal to 850 mwc and design dynamic head equal to 950 mwc.

3.5 Erection planning

The erection works for steel linings and penstocks are characterized by the repetition of cyclic activities, so called
“cycle chain”, to erect the pipe sections and to perform the civil works (anchor blocks and intermediate supports) in
order to complete the waterway portion. The cycle chain duration determines the critical path of the erection works
and, subsequently, the total duration of the site works.
For the purpose of minimizing the schedule, erection works on parallel independent lines are supposed to be
performed. In the case of steel lining, parallel independent works are assumed starting simultaneously from the
bottom elbow upstream, towards the reservoir, and downstream, towards the power house. The longest duration
among the two erection lines defines the critical path of the erection works. On the other hand, for the penstock
solution parallel erection works on different sections are feasible. Furthermore, site works activities could be
envisaged on three shifts during six days per week to further minimize the duration.

3.6 Site works duration

The total site works duration is depending on the critical path of the project. According to experiences gained during
the realization of many hydropower plants, following methodology are adopted to determine the critical path of the
planning:
- Perform a mechanical calculation to determine the thicknesses of the pipes and thus determining the length of the
high-pressure portion of the steel waterway (where the thicknesses exceed the value of 35/38 mm);
- Calculate the welding time per each joint based upon parameters like profile of welded joint, weld volume, weld
deposit rate and efficiency of personnel;
- Calculate the joints of the high-pressure portion, their average thickness and average welding time;
- Calculate the cycle duration critical time and then the total site works duration.
Following critical path lengths resulting from the calculation are considered in the further analysis:

Diameter Steel lining and Penstock

[mm] Critical path length [m]
DN 2100 600
DN 2600 770
DN 3100 910
DN 3600 1050

Tab. 5. Critical path lengths resulting for steel lining and penstock solution

3.7 Site limitations for erection works

The value of the maximum prefabricated length depends on transport and erection limitations, as well as the
maximum allowable transport and erection weight. The experiences on this field indicate that for high pressure
waterways nine meters (9 m) is a common solution. In the case the weight limitation is exceeded, six meters (6 m)
pipe length will be considered. Experience also indicates that rarely a single pipe weight exceeds thirty tons (30 t),
therefore this weight limitation will be considered for the purpose of the following analysis too.

3.8 Further considerations

- Because of the limited access to the outside of the steel lining, the site joints are realized with backing strip to
support the root passes and no back chipping can be performed to clean the root from defects. Due to this
configuration the non-destructive testing (NDT) inspections have low capacity to assess the root situation.
Therefore, the risk of cracks left on the root for the cases with steel S500 and S640 exists. On the other hand,
none of these problems were reported, according to experience, for steel S355 pipe shells. Following joint
geometries are normally adopted for execution of site joints:

Type of joint Root opening Bevel angle

Waterway solution
[mm] [°]
One side welded
Steel lining 8 20
Double side welded
Penstock 2 30
X-1/3-2/3

Tab. 6. Weld joint geometries

Fig. 7. Steel lining weld seam with backing strip (left: perfect match; right: with possible mismatches)
- The assumed deposit weld rates are result from experiences gained during the realization of many hydropower
projects. Usually, deposit weld rate for penstocks are on average 20% higher than for steel linings.

Weld rate deposits [kg/hr]

Steel
per welder
qualities Steel lining Penstock
S690 0.7 0.85
S500 0.8 0.96
S355 1.0 1.2

Tab. 7. Assumed weld rate deposits

- The number of site joints increases with the length of the high-pressure section. Consequently, to minimize the
site duration, simultaneous weld activities on different joints are necessary. In penstock projects, the possibility to
operate simultaneously on more joints is usually not a problem from the point of view of the planner. It is much
more depending on the anchor blocks configuration and their location. To the contrary, for steel linings great
concerns exist because the operations are performed in tunnels with extremely reduced working space. Therefore,
worldwide safety rules impose a carefully exhaustive safety risk analysis to include the transport of emergency
material and the evacuation of personnel in case of accident. For the scope of the following analysis a maximum
of two joints performed simultaneously are considered.
- The normal site work duration of a shift is height (8) hrs. Since this time includes transfer to and from working
point as well as rest and lunch period, an average net working time spent on production of maximum six (6) hrs is
considered.

4. Penstock analysis
4.1 Site erection critical path analysis
The following tables show an example of typical cycle activities calculated for a DN 3100 mm exposed penstock.
The critical path cycle for the erection of the penstock are analysed for the three different steel qualities solutions.
The duration is presented for two options with two (2) or three (3) joints executed simultaneously.
According to experiences on realized projects, operations on two (2) joints simultaneously is quite a normal solution
and it involves twelve (12) experienced welders per day. In the case of three (3) joints, seldom adopted solution,
eighteen (18) qualified welders per day would be necessary to be involved, quite a large quantity indeed.
In the case of exposed penstocks various crews operating simultaneously does not constitute a hazard in terms of
safety. Of course, planners have to consider the inefficiency of welding teams, being on hold when other activities
are performed on the joints, thus increasing considerably the erection costs.
Tab. 8. Critical path erection duration calculated for an exposed penstock DN 3100 mm for steel type S690

Tab. 9. Critical path erection duration calculated for an exposed penstock DN 3100 mm for steel type S500
 Tab. 10. Critical path erection duration calculated for an exposed penstock DN 3100 mm for HBP solution

4.2 Site erection cost analysis

The following tables show a cost estimation analysis for the mechanical works during the erection activities for a
DN 3100 mm penstock. The values are based on experience gained in many hydropower plants realized worldwide.
The site organization team is normally composed by:
- Management and service crew with a fix number of personnel for the entire duration of the site erection
activities.
- Operational crew with dedicated competences for the execution of the various critical activities.
Resources are defined according to the experience. Unit rates are indicated for the reference calculation only. They
might change significantly, though eventually proportionally from project to another.
The site duration allocated in the present analysis has been determined through the critical path analysis performed in
paragraph 4.1.
Tab. 11. Site erection costs calculated for an exposed penstock DN 3100 mm for steel type S690
Tab. 12. Site erection costs calculated for an exposed penstock DN 3100 mm for steel type S500
 Tab. 13. Site erection costs calculated for an exposed penstock DN 3100 mm for HBP solution

4.3 Pipe shell thickness

Following pipe shell thicknesses, averaged on the entire high-pressure portion, result from the calculation for
different pipe diameters (DN).

Average DN2100 DN2600 DN3100 DN3600

thicknesses [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
S690 28 32 36 39
S500 36 43 48 54
HBP 16 17.5 19 21

Tab. 14. Average thicknesses calculated for penstock and steel lining solution

4.4 Total cost analysis

A total cost analysis including material, shop prefabrication and erection costs is presented in following table for the
various solution analysed. The cost estimation for the material and shop prefabrication has been developed
considering a pipe length of twelve (12) m, then reweighted to fit the actual length of nine (9) m considered in the
present research. The analysis has been reiterated for all the solutions to obtain the complete cost matrix. Unit rates
are indicated for the reference calculation only.
 Tab. 15. Total estimation costs calculated for an exposed penstock DN 3100 mm for steel type S500, S690 and HBP solution

4.5 Comparison diagrams

Following table resumes the results of the complete analysis performed for the penstock profile. Erection cycle
duration, site erection duration, minimum pipe thickness and total costs are calculated for four different diameters
DN 2100/2600/3100/3600 mm. In order to give comparison curves for the different solutions adopted, the results are
then shown in diagrams with dimensionless values, referred to the HBP-solution with DN 2100 mm.
Tab. 16. Summary of the results of all the analysis performed for a penstock profile with steel type S690, S500 and HBP solution
for pipe diameters DN 2100/2600/3100/3600 mm

Fig. 8. Dimensionless comparison diagrams for penstock profile for the different investigated solutions
5. Steel lining analysis
The same methodology, as per the penstock profile (presented in chapter 4), is adopted for the steel lining profile.
The following tables show the results of the analysis of a DN 2100 mm steel lining waterway.

Tab. 17. Total estimation costs calculated for a steel lining DN 2100 mm, steel type S500, S690 and HBP solution
 Tab. 18. Summary of the results of all the analysis performed for a steel lining profile with steel type S690, S500 and HBP
solution for pipe diameters DN 2100/2600/3100/3600 mm

In order to obtain the minimum site duration, the analysis has been conducted assuming to perform activities in the
tunnel simultaneously on two (2) joints over twenty-four (24) hours per day, organized on three (3) shifts, six (6)
days a week.
The performed analysis indicates that solutions with S500 above DN 2600 mm and solutions with S690 above
DN 3100 mm become unacceptable since extraordinary long duration for the site erection result. The reason for this
is that in some portion of the waterway the weight limit imposed (30 tons) is exceeded due to the DN and the
thickness. Consequently, sections of shorter length, say six (6) meters, have to be considered, thus increasing the
critical erection time.
For similar cases, the project planner could foresee an intermediate access window to split the critical path length in
two sections, in order to reduce the critical path time to an acceptable value.
 Fig. 9. Dimensionless comparison diagrams for steel lining profile for the different investigated solutions

The results from the comparison diagrams, over the steel waterway diameter considered, are quite impressive: the
ratio of steel qualities S690 and S500 vs. HBP-solution for the various considered parameters results:
- Pipe shell thickness ratio: ranges from 1.4 to 2.5 for S690 and 2.2 to 3.6 for S500.
- Averaged ratio of single erection cycle duration: about 1.5 for S690 and 2 for S500.
- Averaged ratio of total costs for the realization: about 1.3 for S690 and 1.8 for S500.
- Averaged ratio of total site duration: about 1.6 for S690 and 2.7 for S500, it takes consideration of the
quantity of site joints to be realized.

6. Considerations about external pressure

The capacity of confined cylinders (i.e. penstocks and steel linings) to resist to external pressure has been largely
discussed by engineers in the past. The maximum allowable external pressure (Pall) was originally calculated
dividing the critical external buckling pressure (Pcr) by an appropriate safety factor (typically 1.5) according to
Amstutz (1970) and Jacobsen (1974) formulations. However, these approaches are based on elastic theory and lead
to too conservative results, with the risk to overestimate the weights of the steel waterway.
Extensive analysis by Karamanos and Vasilikis (2014), published by ASME Transaction, provide a valid instrument
for the evaluation of the critical external buckling pressure, Pcr = Py, which cause the full yield of the section (plastic
hinge formation) at the ultimate collapse state. Pipes have normally initial imperfections, for instance out of
roundness and consequently initial gap with the surrounding hosting cylinder (grouted tunnel), which create the
collapse. The out of roundness plays the most important role in the determination of the critical eternal pressure as its
value drastically reduce Pcr.
In the case of hot banded pipes (HBP), the application of external hoops creates an almost perfect round shaped pipe
without ovality, thus maximizing the critical external buckling pressure (Pcr). By numerical verification (FEA)
correlation and sensitivity analysis, ASME Transaction defines the maximum external pressure: Pmax = alfa*Pcr,
being the correlation factor alfa in function of the imperfections.
Following table shows the results for the application of the investigated cases of the HBP-research to the pipe shell,
assuming a very little imperfection out of roundness.

Tab. 19. Resulting maximum external pressures for buckling instability for HBP-solution calculated with Karamanos and
Vasilikis approach (2014)

7. Considerations about pumped storage plants (PSP)

7.1 General
Pumped storage plants are characterized to operate on daily alternating modes: turbine/pump/turbine. Depending on
the specific situation, the daily changes can be operated up to six (6) times, on each group of the plant. Per each
change of mode, the flow in the waterway has to be arrested by closure of the service valves. Furthermore, situations
of total breakdown of the electrical grid, can take place during the exploitation creating a condition of load rejection
on all the reversible machines of the PSP and a suddenly arrest of them, thus inducing pressure fluctuations in the
waterway for a transient period with peaks of overpressures until the situation in the waterway is dumped to the
normality. The accumulation of these events can originate the “fatigue” in the welded joints of the steel waterway.
Rain-flow methodology is applied to evaluate the fatigue effect on the waterway. Analysis are performed on the base
of the “Equivalent Constant Amplitude Stress Range (ECASR)”.

7.2 Case study

As an example, a PSP case study is presented in the present paragraph.

Inputs data:
- Installed power: 330 MW
- Static head, Pst: 650 mwc
- Dynamic design head, Pdyn: 860 mwc
- Steel waterway diameter HP portion: 3600 mm
- Steel waterway length: 800 m
- Project-lifespan: 90 years
- Project number of changes of modes, over lifespan at full load: 140’000
- Operational daily modes: N°6 changes, T/P/T, per day
- Design cycles: 3’000’000
Results from Wöhler curves:
The delta allowable stresses for the design fatigue limit of 3’000’000 cycles result from the fatigue Wöhler curves
(time vs. delta fatigue stress):
- Steel lining:
o Circumferential site joint is critical, ref. curve FAT #71, welded one side with backing strip.
→ Delta stress limit equal to about 60 MPa
- Penstock:
o All joints are critical, ref. curve FAT #112, welded both sides.
→ Delta stress limit equal to about 100 MPa

Fig. 10. Wöhler curves for the joint types considered in the different investigated solutions

Results from rain-flow analysis and fatigue verification:

By transient analysis (rain-flow methodology) performed on the machine-waterway following results are obtained:
- Maximum resulting dynamic peak pressure, at the machines, Pdyn= 861 mwc equal to about 1.35*Pst
- Minimum resulting dynamic peak pressure, at the machines, Pdyn= 328 mwc equal to about 0.5* Pst
- Fatigue constant pressure amplitude: 189 mwc
- The results of the investigation on steel lining show that, in the case of S690 solution, the thickness resulting by
the static design is impacted by the fatigue and has to be increased from 49 mm to 57 mm (16% increase).
In the case of penstock the thickness resulting by the static design would not be affected by fatigue.
 Tab. 20. Rain-flow analysis and fatigue verification for steel lining and penstock with steel S690

- The results of investigation on steel lining show that, in the case of HBP-solution, the thickness resulting by the
static design (from FEA calculation) does meet the requirement of the designed fatigue lifetime.
In the case of penstock the fatigue becomes almost unlimited. It means that in this case the fatigue is not an issue
at all.
- The above-mentioned behaviour has also been verified recently by the Materials Innovation Institute (M2i)-Delft
in Netherlands (Pijpers, 2011), in the course of an extended fatigue tests of welded connections made of very
high strength cast and rolled steels. This research has performed laboratory fatigue tests to assess the resistance of
welded joints made of steel qualities S355-S4690 and S690, with different bevel configuration, and someone with
permanent backing strip. The results have shown that steel S355-S460, for the same amplitude of stress fatigue,
cycles were higher and met the expectation.

Tab. 21. Rain-flow analysis and fatigue verification for steel lining and penstock with HBP-solution
Conclusions
- The results obtained by the research confirms that the adoption of HBP-technology is ideal for steel waterway
diameters above DN 2000 mm and static heads above 400 mwc. By the increase of the diameter the benefits of
HBP becomes very important and large savings in site works duration and total costs are determined. HBP
equivalent shell thickness results as much as about the half of the solution with steel S690 and even more for
S500.
- Even though the research has investigated waterways with diameters from DN 2100 mm to DN 3600 mm and
static heads up to 850 mwc, projects realized with HBP-technology cover ranges from DN 1900 mm to DN 4000
mm and static heads up to 1800 mwc.
- For projects where the steel waterway represents the critical path for the realization of hydropower plant,
the HBP solution introduces a further benefit due the shorter site works duration and earlier completion of
the Plant..
- For pumped storage plants (PSP), the daily operational cycle changes of mode of the plant, turbine
/pump/turbine (T/P/T), originates transient pressures in the waterway, which induce fatigue situation in the
welded joints. Therefore, constraints to the mechanical design are originated. Thickness of the waterway is
impacted and increase in the range of 10-18 % may be expected for steel linings, depending on the total
lifespan cycles. Plants are actually designed on the base of 80/90 years of lifespan, consequently 150.000
changes of cycles-modes are an average, creating a significant amount of fluctuation of pressure events,
might then be above 3’000’000.
- HBP solution demonstrates an ideal resistance to fatigue above 3’000’000 cycles and for the case of an
exposed penstock it becomes almost unlimited.
- Regarding the risk-safety analysis it has to be noticed, that dealing with VHTSS- S690 materials, situations
of undetected cold cracks lefts in weldment are very high expected. Steel linings waterways are the riskiest
in the case the site joints are realized with permanent backing strip, which is almost the normal case, as the
inspection of the root zone is very doubtfully due to the presence of the permanent support. In this zone we
really cannot assess the true situation of defects and the type.
It has to be noticed, that in Japan, the origin Country of use of VHTSS- S800-S690 for steel liners, the use
of permanent backing strip for welded joints is not allowed, because too risky.
To minimize the risks working with VHTSS-S690, exceptional quality control inspection and teams to
follow the full welding operations have to be considered. 100% of the welding works must be followed and
inspected, with consequences of relevant extraordinary costs for the Owner and additional time to be
allocated.
The execution of S690 joints requires highly workmanship to realize all the qualities provisions necessary to
reach and guarantee the sound performances; for pumped storage plants (PSP), quality demand is even
higher for the fatigue situation that largely impacting cost and time of execution.
In some projects, unfortunately, these quality-safe provisions are not in place for reasons of budget leaving
high margin of uncovered risks.
Past experiences of large failures in HEPP/PSP in waterway are very known, we only recall that “recently”
in a large HEPP in Ecuador, more than nine thousand (9.000) cold cracks were found, just at the put in
service of the Plant causing a complete stoppage of a three-billions USD investment on 2500 MW-HEPP,
demonstrating that the Risk it is real.
- HBP, being realized with common carbon steel pipe shell does not presents, as the experience has largely
demonstrated, any problem related to cracks, demonstrating that it is a fully a safe solution.
- Finally, the aim of this paper is that Planner Engineers and Owners reconsider Hot Banded Pipe (HBP)
Technology as a valid alternative for new High Head Hydropower Plants, Pumped Storage Plants or for
rehabilitation works on steel waterways.
References
1. Curnis, C., Bronzetti, D., Calvo S., Realization of steel penstocks with banded pipe technology (BPT) for high head hydro
power plants (HHP) and pumped storage plants (PSP). Hydro 2017 Conference in Sevilla
2. JPA (Japan): Japanese technical standard for gates and penstocks
3. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 79, 2012
4. G. Mattioli: Banded Pipes Technologies, Water Power 1962
5. D. Vasilikis and Spyros A. Karamanos: Mechanics of confined thin-walled cylinders subjected to external pressure, ASME
transaction, 2014
6. R.J.M. Pijpers: Fatigue strength of welded connections made of very high strength cast and rolled steels. 2011
7. Company ATB-RC-SPA (Italy): Documentation on banded pipes penstocks for executed projects in Europe and South
America

The Authors

Clemente Curnis is a Senior Expert Consultant in hydromechanical equipment, penstocks and steel lining for hydropower plants.
He accomplished his Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering with specialisation in Hydropower Plans at the Polytechnic University
of Milan in 1975. Dr. Curnis has collaborated for 25 years with Construction Companies in design, fabrication and erection of
penstocks, gates and guard valves for hydropower plants. His experience has been gained on hydropower projects in more than 20
Countries worldwide and includes, besides conventional hydropower projects (HPP), also 8 Pumped Storage Projects (PSP). Dr.
Curnis has also collaborated over 10 years with major Swiss Engineering Companies in: basic and detailed design, shop and site
supervision and commissioning of Hydro Power Projects. In 2018. Dr. Curnis has been appointed as a Hydro-Mechanical Expert
in the Panel of Experts for Lesotho LHDA Phase II project and for Rufiji 2100 MW. Dr. Curnis collaborates as Expert with the
ICC “International Court of Arbitration”. Curnis has now more than 35 years of experience in hydromechanical equipment,
penstocks and hydropower projects and he is also Expert with ICC- Paris for international Dispute in the field.

Daniele Bronzetti graduated in Civil Engineering from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETHZ) in 2012. He has
been working since 2013 at Lombardi Engineering Ltd., Switzerland, in the special studies department. His main activities are
associated with international and national hydropower projects with focus on design of underground structures, hydraulic tunnels,
rock mechanics and civil works.

Sélim Sayah accomplished his Specialized Master Degree at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland,
and obtained later in 2005 from the same school his Ph.D. in hydraulics at the Laboratory of Hydraulic Constructions. His
activities are associated with international hydropower projects at Lombardi Eng. Ltd. with focus on hydraulic design, Dams,
powerhouses, and underground works. His experiences abroad first as design manager and later as project manager for large
hydro projects allowed him to gain a sound experience in the design, construction and implementation of such projects. Since
2019 he assumes the role of Head of Dam and Hydropower Division at Lombardi Group.