HULU TERENGGANU HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Puah Headrace Tunnels

SNCLAVALIN Design Basis Memorandum and
POWER Hydraulic Design
(MALAYSIA)
Document No.: DBM 09H: P31-4HE3-09H-R0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DESIGN BASIS MEMORANDUM AND HYDRAULIC DESIGN

1.0 SCOPE OF DESIGN WORK ...........................................................................................4
2.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ..........................................................................................5
2.1 RELEVANT TENDER DESIGN OR DETAIL DESIGN DOCUMENTS ........................................... 5
2.2 STANDARDS, CODES AND GUIDELINES ............................................................................... 5
2.3 OTHER REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 5
3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA AND PARAMETERS ......................................................................6
3.1 DESIGN FLOW ..................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 HEADRACE TUNNEL VELOCITIES ......................................................................................... 6
3.3 HEAD LOSSES....................................................................................................................... 6
3.3.1 FRICTION LOSSES ................................................................................................................ 6
3.3.2 LOCAL LOSSES ..................................................................................................................... 7
3.4 WATER HAMMER ................................................................................................................ 8
3.4.1 FRICTION LOSSES ................................................................................................................ 8
4.0 HYDRAULIC DESIGN.....................................................................................................9

Attachment 1 Puah Headrace Hydraulics Including Head Losses and Water Hammer
Appendix 1 – Transient Calculation Note H-6745-00-MEF-00-0004ED Rev.B, Alstom

Page 3 of 9
 HULU TERENGGANU HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Puah Headrace Tunnels
SNCLAVALIN Design Basis Memorandum and
POWER Hydraulic Design
(MALAYSIA)
Document No.: DBM 09H: P31-4HE3-09H-R0

1.0 SCOPE OF DESIGN WORK

The hydraulic design for the Puah headrace tunnels comprises the following;

• Velocity calculations;
• Head loss calculation;
• Hydraulic Transient Calculation;

Page 4 of 9
 HULU TERENGGANU HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Puah Headrace Tunnels
SNCLAVALIN Design Basis Memorandum and
POWER Hydraulic Design
(MALAYSIA)
Document No.: DBM 09H: P31-4HE3-09H-R0

2.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

2.1 Relevant Tender Design or Detail Design Documents

1. Hulu Terengganu Hydroelectric Power, SMEC, Puah Diversion Works, Tender Design,2008.
2. Hulu Terengganu Hydroelectric Power, Consultancy Services for Contract No. TNB50/2010,
Tender Design Review Report, SNC-Lavalin Power (Malaysia), June 2010.

2.2 Standards, Codes and Guidelines

3. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC, Engineer Manual EM 1110-2- 1602, “Hydraulic
Design of Reservoir Outlet Works” , October 1980
4. Civil Engineering Guidelines for Planning & Designing Hydroelectric Developments, Volume
2-Waterways, ASCE-Hydropower Committee- Energy Division, New York, 1989

2.3 Other References

5. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, “Design of Small Dams”,
Third Edition 1987.
6. SNC-LAVALIN POWER DIVISION, Program for Transient Analysis of Pipe Systems (TAPS),
User’s Manual, Bertrand Masse & Gervais Pitchen, Montreal-Canada, May 2002- Revised
May 2010.
7. US Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, Water
Hammer and Mass Oscillation (WHAMO) 3.0 User’s Manual, USACERL ADP 98/129,
September 1998.
8. DS Miller, Internal Flow Systems, 2nd edition, BHRA, 1990.

Page 5 of 9
 HULU TERENGGANU HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Puah Headrace Tunnels
SNCLAVALIN Design Basis Memorandum and
POWER Hydraulic Design
(MALAYSIA)
Document No.: DBM 09H: P31-4HE3-09H-R0

3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA AND PARAMETERS

3.1 Design Flow

Each headrace tunnel will be designed for a flow of 93.26 m3/s.

3.2 Headrace Tunnel Velocities

The maximum flow velocity in a concrete lined tunnel may be up to 6 m/s; for the steel lined tunnels
a velocity of 8 m/s is acceptable; spiral cases may have higher velocities.

3.3 Head Losses

3.3.1 Friction Losses

• Pressure Flow

For pressure flow (pipes, power conduits and diversion tunnels) the friction losses will be
calculated with the Darcy-Weisbach formula:
L V2
Hf = f
4 R 2g
where:
Hf = head loss (m)
f = Darcy-Weisbach friction factor
L = length (m)
R = hydraulic radius (=D/4 for circular conduits with diameter D) (m)
V = mean velocity (m/s)
g = acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s²)

The factor f depends on the Reynolds Number Re = V4R/ν and the relative roughness k/(4R),
where k is the effective roughness of the conduit.
Values of f shall be obtained from the Moody diagram or, for turbulent flow (Re>3000) from the
Colebrook-White transition formula:
 k 2.51 
1/ f = - 2 log +
 3.7D R f 
 e 
where:
Re = Reynolds Number = VD ν
ν = kinematic viscosity (m2/s) given by the following table:

KINEMATIC VISCOSITY, ν OF WATER

Temperature (°C) ν (m2/s)
0 1.80 x 10-6
10 1.30 x 10-6
20 1.01 x 10-6
40 0.66 x 10-6

Page 6 of 9
 HULU TERENGGANU HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Puah Headrace Tunnels
SNCLAVALIN Design Basis Memorandum and
POWER Hydraulic Design
(MALAYSIA)
Document No.: DBM 09H: P31-4HE3-09H-R0

The value of k to be used shall be selected from the following table:

Effective Roughness, k (mm)
Pipe Material
Good Normal Poor
Concrete cast against steel forms 0.3 0.6 1.5
Steel lining against concrete 0.05 0.1 0.2

3.3.2 Local Losses

Local losses HL (m) are calculated with the equation:

V2
HL = K
2g
where:
K = loss coefficient
V = mean velocity (m/s)
g = acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2)

• Head Losses for Bends:

1 π2  r 
= ln  + α 
•
k 2α   D 
• where: α = Deflection angle at the bend (rad)
• r = bend radius
• D = pipe diameter
• Where possible use:
r
=3
• D
• There is no significant reduction in head loss for greater radii and in some cases
the head loss may increase as the length of the bend increases.
• Alternatively sudden losses on bends can be determined from the following
table:
Bend Angle, Degrees Loss Factor, K
30 0.06
45 0.09
60 0.11
90 0.16

Page 7 of 9
 HULU TERENGGANU HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Puah Headrace Tunnels
SNCLAVALIN Design Basis Memorandum and
POWER Hydraulic Design
(MALAYSIA)
Document No.: DBM 09H: P31-4HE3-09H-R0

3.4 Water Hammer

The water pressures in the waterways (pressure tunnels and shafts), surge tank
water levels and velocities at any point in the system during water hammer and
mass oscillation will be determined by using the software programme WHAMO
version 3.0, which was developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The software
has been used for different projects in Canada and many other countries.

3.4.1 Friction Losses

Friction losses will be estimated based on criteria described in Section 3.3.1.

Page 8 of 9
 HULU TERENGGANU HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Puah Headrace Tunnels
SNCLAVALIN Design Basis Memorandum and
POWER Hydraulic Design
(MALAYSIA)
Document No.: DBM 09H: P31-4HE3-09H-R0

4.0 HYDRAULIC DESIGN

The Hydraulic Design Report, “Puah Headrace Hydraulics Including Head Losses and Water
Hammer” is provided in Attachment 1.

Page 9 of 9
Attachments

1 Puah Headrace Hydraulics Including Head Losses and Water

Hammer

Contents
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Headrace System Description .......................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Head Losses................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3 Set-Up for Water Hammer Computations...................................................................... 1-5

1.3.1 Full Load Rejection ........................................................................................... 1-5

1.3.2 Full Load Acceptance ....................................................................................... 1-7

1.4 Results for Water Hammer Computations ..................................................................... 1-8

1.1 Introduction
This design report covers the hydraulics for the two identical and independent headraces of the
Hulu Terengganu HEP. The hydraulics for the Power Intakes is covered in a separate report.
This report covers the assessment of head losses due to both friction and sudden losses and
the computation of transient water hammer including water pressure and flow rate changes
and their timing.

The two headraces are identical and therefore only one headrace is considered in this report.
The hydraulics for the two headraces is identical.

The two headraces are relatively short and require no surge shafts. Accordingly no surge
analysis was required.

The assessment of the head losses was done with an Excel Spreadsheet. The computation for
the water hammer was done with the software WHAMO Version 3.0 developed by the US
Army Corps of Engineers.

1.1.1 Headrace System Description

Each headrace includes a free standing intake with trash racks, elliptical bell mouth, stop log
with slots and an emergency closure gate with slots. The intake has not been hydraulically
modelled as the project is not large enough to merit the building of a model for the exact
determination of the losses and of its performance. Intake submergence and losses have been
determined through the use of standard design methods and by comparison with constructed
intakes where model testing was carried out.

1-1
Each headrace waterway includes a 175.1 m long by 4.9 m diameter, circular concrete lined
low pressure headrace tunnel which slopes downwards away from the intake at 10%. The level
of the centre line of the headrace tunnel at the intake is 264.5 m asl. The low pressure
headrace tunnel is followed by a 4.9 m diameter 84° concrete lined bend and then a 4.9 m
diameter circular vertical shaft. At the bottom of the vertical shaft there is an 85° concrete lined
bend and a short concrete lined concentric reducer which reduces the headrace from a
diameter of 4.9 m to a diameter of 4.5 m. The vertical shaft, two concrete lined bends and the
single reducer are 126.2 m long in total. A 4.5 m diameter steel lined high pressure penstock
tunnel follows the reducer at the bottom of the shaft. This steel lined pressure tunnel slopes
down at 8% towards the powerhouse. The steel liner reduces from 4.5 m diameter to 3.48 m
diameter at the turbine spiral inlet. The overall length of the steel liner and the steel reducer is
110.9 m long. The spiral inlet connects with the downstream end of the steel reducer at a point
8.5 m upstream of the vertical centre line of the turbine.

There are no turbine inlet valves upstream of the Francis turbines.

A drawing showing the longitudinal section for one of the two identical headraces is given
below.

1.2 Head Losses

An assessment of the headrace head losses is required for the water hammer computations.
Waterway fiction and the head loss at the intake, bends, and reducers are required input to the
WHAMO software.
1-2
The head loss for the headrace with an assumed design flow rate of 93.26 m3/s, which is the
flow rate given by Alstom in their report “Transient Calculation Note”, H-6745-00-MEF-00-
004ED Rev B dated 28 June 2012, is given below. Alstom’s report “Transient Calculation
Note”, H-6745-00-MEF-00-004ED Rev B is attached to this report in Appendix 1.

Hulu Terengganu - Puah Headrace

Headrace - Headloss Calculation:
Kinematic viscosity (m²/s) = 1.01E-06
Detail Diam. Flow Velocity Frictn Derived Length k value Head
(m) rate Q (m/s) k val. f value (m) for loss
(m³/s) (mm) node (m)
Intake 5.190 93.26 4.408 0.350 0.347
Conc H/r Tunnel 4.900 93.26 4.945 0.60 0.00324 175.1 0.577
Bend 84 deg 4.900 93.26 4.945 0.170 0.212
Conc Lined Shaft Two Bends & Reducer 4.900 93.26 4.945 0.60 0.00324 126.2 0.416
Bend 85 deg 4.900 93.26 4.945 0.170 0.212
Steel Lined Tunnel 4.500 93.26 5.863 0.10 0.00245 110.9 0.424
Steel Reducer 4.5 - 3.48 4.500 93.26 5.863 0.038 0.067
Steel Spiral 3.480 93.26 9.804 0.10 0.00254 15.0 0.214

TOTAL 427 2.468

An overall loss coefficient of 0.35 was taken for the intake. This coefficient includes the losses
for the trash rack, bell mouth, stop log slot, emergency gate slot, transition and friction through
the intake waterway. This loss coefficient was taken from the model test conducted for the
intake of the Nam Theun 2 Hydroelectric Project. The computed head loss was in fact 0.347 m
which is less than that at the Nam Theun 2 intake because the intake waterway at Puah is
simpler than that at Nam Theun 2.

For the assessment of frictional losses, the headrace model includes four sections of headrace
waterway as follows:

1) The 175.1 m long by 4.9 m diameter circular concrete lined section of the low
pressure headrace. A friction factor for use in the Darcy equation was computed
using a rugosity of k = 0.60 mm.

2) The two circular concrete lined bends one at the top and one at the bottom of the
shaft, the circular concrete lined vertical shaft and the reducer. The reducer is
short and only reduces the diameter from 4.9 m to 4.5 m so for the purpose of the
friction losses it was taken to be 4.9 m throughout and included with the other
concrete lined waterways. The total length of the shaft, bends and reducer is
126.2 m. A friction factor for use in the Darcy equation was computed using a
rugosity of k = 0.60 mm.

3) The 110.9 m long by 4.5 m diameter steel lined penstock of circular section and
the steel reducer connect the end of the concrete lined headrace to the spiral inlet.
At the steel reducer the diameter reduces from 4.5 m to 3.48 m but since the
reducer is short the error resulting from assuming a constant friction loss
throughout the whole length of the steel lined penstock and steel reducer is very
minor and accepted. A friction factor for use in the Darcy equation was computed
using a rugosity of k = 0.10 mm.

4) The final section of headrace for head loss calculation is the 15.0 m long by
3.48 m diameter spiral inlet. A length of 15.0 m was assumed to represent the
1-3
 length of the spiral inlet pipe from the weld at the end of the reducer to the centre
of the spiral case. A friction factor for use in the Darcy equation was computed
from a rugosity of k = 0.10 mm.

The above rugosities of k = 0.60 mm for the concrete lined tunnel and shaft and k = 0.10 mm
for the steel lined headrace tunnel are taken from the reference “Civil Engineering Guidelines
for Planning and Designing Hydroelectric Development”, ASCE / EPRI, 1989, Volume 2,
Waterways, page 5-12 (DBM Reference 4).

The total length of the headrace waterways in the head loss spreadsheet above is 427.2 m.
The head losses due to friction for all of the above four headrace sections are computed in the
spreadsheet table above.

Sudden or form loss coefficients were determined from the reference “Internal Flow Systems”
by D S Miller, BHRA. The sudden loss at the concrete reducer was ignored as it would be very
small so, considering the intake separately, there are three other sudden losses to be included
in the headrace model. These three losses are for the 84° and the 85° bends and the steel
lined reducer. The 84° and the 85° bends are very close and so they have both been assessed
to have the same loss coefficient.

The loss coefficient K for the 84° and the 85° bends was conservatively assessed from the
following chart in “Internal Flow Systems” to be 0.17. A value for K of 0.16 would have been
equally acceptable.

The head loss coefficient for the steel reducer was determined from Figure 14.14 in “Internal
Flow Systems” where, with an inlet diameter of 4.5 m and an outlet diameter of 3.48 m and an
overall reducer length assumed to be approximately 6.0 m, A1/A2 = 1.67 and N/R2 = 3.45. From
Figure 14.14 the loss coefficient K was determined to be 0.038.

With a headrace flow rate of 93.26 m3/s, the head loss for each headrace was computed to be
2.468 m. This headrace head loss and all of its components were used as input to the water
hammer computations.

1-4
1.3 Set-Up for Water Hammer Computations
1.3.1 Full Load Rejection
The full load rejection case was run to determine the maximum water hammer pressures in the
headrace. For this case the reservoir is assumed to be full.

The starting point for the full load rejection water hammer computations is the modelling of the
steady state flow conditions with a flow rate of 93.26 m3/s in the headrace. The head losses,
friction factors and sudden loss coefficients from the head loss analysis above were entered
into WHAMO to establish the steady state conditions.

For the full load rejection case, the reservoir water level at the intake was assumed to be
296 m asl. The level of the water surface downstream of the turbine (wicket gate valve) was
assumed to be the level of the water surface in the tailrace surge chamber which was

1-5
145.21 m asl. This is the water level at the tailrace outlet structure of 145.0 m asl plus the head
losses calculated for the tailrace tunnel. The figure assumed for the water level downstream of
the turbine has little or no influence on the computed headrace water hammer.

The data for a wicket gate closing model was determined and put into WHAMO. At the start of
the WHAMO run the wicket gates were assumed to be fully open with a discharge rate of
93.26 m3/s.

For the full load rejection case run in WHAMO the wicket gate loss coefficients were
determined from the closure characteristic for the wicket gates of the Francis turbine as defined
in Alstom’s report “Transient Calculation Note”, H-6745-00-MEF-00-004ED and as given in the
following diagram. The wicket gates of the Alstom Francis turbine at Puah will be closed in two
stages in a total time of 12 seconds. The Alstom turbine wicket gates close 50% in 3 seconds
and then the remaining 50% in 9 seconds.

Francis Turbine Wicket Gate

100.000
90.000

Effective Gate Area (%)

80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
100 80 60 40 20 0

Time (%)

The shape of the wicket gate closure characteristic was based on Alstom’s two stage closure
given above and the characteristic given by John Parmakian in his book “Waterhammer
Analysis”, Dover Publications, New York, 1963. Parmakian’s chart for the wicket gate closure
characteristic is given below.

1-6
The wicket gate loss coefficients given above were determined by combining Parmakian’s
wicket gate closure characteristic curve with Alstom’s cushion closure characteristic and
applying these to the water pressures and head losses for the Puah headrace.

1.3.2 Full Load Acceptance

The full load acceptance case was run to determine the minimum water hammer pressures in
the headrace and to check that at no point will the headrace pressures become negative and
that a vacuum cavity will not form under the worst conditions. For this case the reservoir is
assumed to be at its minimum level.

The starting point for the full load acceptance water hammer computations is with a flow rate of
0.0 m3/s in the headrace. The head losses, friction factors and sudden loss coefficients from
the head loss analysis above were entered into WHAMO.

For the full load acceptance case the reservoir water level at the intake was assumed to be
276 m asl, which is minimum operating level. The level of the water surface downstream of the
turbine (wicket gate valve) was assumed to be the level of the water surface in the tailrace
surge chamber which was taken to be 145.0 m asl, which is the water level at the tailrace outlet
structure.

Alstom is contractually required to provide turbine generator units that can ramp up the load to
102.4 MW (80% of rated load) from no load speed in 10 seconds. Therefore to be conservative
it was assumed that for the load acceptance case 100% of load would be ramped up in
12.5 seconds and that the wicket gates would fully open in this time. A linear wicket opening
rate was assumed. Again to be conservative it was assumed that in the 12.5 seconds the
wicket gates would go from 0% open to 100% open but in reality the flow rate at speed no load
would be about 5% of the rated flow rate.

1-7
1.4 Results for Water Hammer Computations
The maximum and minimum water hammer pressures in metres of water for both the full load
rejection and full load acceptance cases were determined by the WHAMO software and are
given in the table below for the various points along the headrace.

Maximum and Minimum Water Hammer Pressures for Puah Headrace in Metres of Water
Column above Sea Level. Headrace Level is Also Given in Metres above Sea Level
At Power Intake At Top of At Upstream At Downstream
Headrace Shaft End of Steel End of Steel
Liner = Bottom Reducer =
of Shaft Spiral Inlet

Maximum 296.0 323.9 343.4 363.1

Pressure

Minimum 276.0 263.8 255.0 245.9

Pressure

Level of 264.25 245.24 142.43 132.00

Headrace
Centre Line

The maximum water hammer pressure at the spiral inlet (equal to the downstream end of the
steel reducer) in metres of water column above sea level determined from the WHAMO
analysis is 363.1 m. In their report in Appendix 1, Alstom have determined the maximum water
hammer pressure at the turbine to be 357 m of water column above sea level. This pressure is
6.1 m of water column lower than that determined from the WHAMO analysis. Furthermore, the
water hammer pressure determined by SMEC in the Tender Design was 359.6 m of water
column above sea level. Therefore the full load rejection water hammer pressures determined
from WHAMO are acceptable and recommended for the design of the headrace waterway.

In their load acceptance computation, Alstom determined the minimum pressure at the turbine
to be 269 m of water column above sea level. However, Alstom performed this calculation with
the reservoir at its full supply level of 296 m asl. The WHAMO calculation was carried out with
the reservoir at its minimum operating level of 279 m asl which is 20 m below the full supply
level. Taking 20 m off Alstom’s computed turbine water pressure would give a minimum water
pressure at the turbine of 269 – 20 = 249 m of water column above sea level. This compares
very well with the figure of 245.9 m of water column above sea level determined in the
WHAMO analysis. The WHAMO analysis results and pressures for the full load acceptance
case are acceptable and recommended for the design of the headrace waterway.

1-8
Appendix 1

Transient Calculation Note

H-6745-00-MEF-00-004ED Rev B
Alstom

1-9
 POWER SYSTEMS

TABLE DES MODIFICATIONS / MODIFICATIONS TABLE

ETABLI VERIFIE APPROUVE
REV DATE MODIFICATIONS STAT.
ESTABLISHED CHECKED APPROVED

A N.GANDHI B.PARIKH CK.JAIN 11/10/11 FIRST ISSUE GFR

MODIFIED BASED ON REVISED HEAD RACE TUNNEL
B N.GANDHI B.PARIKH CK.JAIN 28/06/12 GFE
PARAMETER

H-674500MEF00004ED 2/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

1 GENERAL SOFTWARE PRESENTATION

The program provides a calculation of transient flows in complex hydraulic networks comprising
penstocks and characteristic elements (turbines, pumps, gates, valves, surge tanks...). It is based
on the elastic water column theory.
This program has already been used on a lot of various scheme studies and well proven by various
transient tests on the site.

1.1 Notations

The units used are that of the International system, except for pressures (heads) which are
expressed in meters of water and rotational speed (in revolutions per minute).

ρ : water density (kg/m3)

V : water velocity (m/s)
E : Young's modulus of the medium (water + penstock)
g : acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
p : pressure head (m)
H=
ρg
S : penstock section (m2)
Q : flow (m3/s)
a : wave velocity in the medium (water + penstock) (m/s)
dt : calculation time interval (s)
∆H : difference in pressure head between two points (m)
∆h : relative overpressure (%)
Ce : drive torque supplied by the turbine (m.N)
Ch : hydraulic torque of the machine (m.N)
D : reference diameter (turbine, pump, gate, valve) (m)
n : rotation speed of turbine (rpm)
C11 : reduced hydraulic torque of the turbine (m.N)
n11 : reduced unit speed of the turbine (rpm)
Q11 : reduced unit flow of the turbine (m3/s)

1.2 General basic theory

The following general basic theory is known under the name of "method of characteristics of Mr.
BERGERON". This method is used to resolve the classical equations relating the pressure wave
propagation with the flow variations.

These equations are applied at a general section localised in the penstock. This section is
defined by its abscissa x (measured in the opposite sense of the flow). At the time t, and
considering that the water velocity is small comparing to the wave velocity, the two following
equations can be written:

H-674500MEF00004ED 3/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

- Dynamic equation

∂V ∂P ∂H 1 ∂V 1 ∂Q
ρ =− ⇔ =− =−
∂t ∂x ∂x g ∂t gS ∂t

- Mass conservation equation

∂P ∂V ∂H a 2 ∂V a 2 ∂Q
= −E ⇔ =− =−
∂t ∂x ∂t g ∂x gS ∂x

The pipe is assumed with an ideal one dimensional flow.

By deriving successively by x and t, the two last equations can be changed in the well-known wave
equations:

∂ 2 H 2
2 ∂ H
 2 = a
∂tt ∂x 2
 2 2
∂ Q = a2 ∂ Q
 ∂t 2 ∂x 2

These partial derivative differential equations, of the second order, are of the hyperbolic type. A
general solution of these basic equations may be written:

H ( x , t ) = f 1( x − at ) + f 2( x + at ) (1)
Sg
Q( x , t ) =
a
( f 1( x − at ) − f 2( x + at )) (2)

f 1 and f 2 are arbitrary functions of the arguments " x + at " and " x − at " respectively. This reflects the
fact, that any pressure distribution p ( x ) along the pipe axis is propagated as a whole and without
deformation, at a velocity a, either in + x or - x direction. The water hammer phenomena is
characterized by the superposition of the two functions ( f 1 and f 2 ) depending only of pressure and
velocity, and travelling into the pipe at the wave velocity a. The values of pressure and velocity in the
pipe section x can be completely determined at the time t by the addition of these two functions.

1.3 Application to the numerical method

The transient calculation program, used for the HULU TERENGGANU project study, is based on a
step by step numerical solution of the classical equations (1) and (2) described above.

H-674500MEF00004ED 4/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

After dividing the penstock into BERGERON sections of length d = adt, bounded by nodes, the
variation of the pressure head H and discharge Q computed at every node are governed by this
general solution of basic equations.

At the start of the computation, the values of functions f 1 and f2 are determined, at every node,
from the known values of H and Q which generally correspond to steady state conditions at time t =
o:
 a 
f 1 ( x ) = 1 2  H ( x , o) + Q( x , o)
 Sg 
and
 a 
f 2 ( x ) = 1 2  H ( x , o) − Q( x , o)
 Sg 

Then at every step (dt) in time, the values of f 1 and f2 are deducted from those existing at the
previous instant for all penstock nodes, by noting that:

f 1( x − a ( t + dt ) ) = f 1 (( x − dx ) − at )

f 2 ( x + a ( t + dt ) ) = f 2 (( x + dx ) − at )

Furthermore, the computation program considers, at every moment, the possible variation of
pressure or discharge conditions at the plant boundaries as well as the characteristics of head
losses for all singular points. In particular, for turbines, it is necessary to know, at every moment, the
discharge Q11 = f (n11) and the hydraulic torque C11 = g (n11) given by the shell diagram data in
function of the guide vane opening.

Considering the different types of turbines, the speed increasing and the corresponding
overpressure may vary in different ways:

"Rapid" Francis runners, characterized by their great specific speed (about 300 < ns < 450):
The speed increasing creates a discharge increasing, and a depressure at spiral case inlet.
Consequently, the energy furnished to the turbine decreases, and the overspeed decreases.
"Slow" Francis runners, characterized by their small specific speed (about 40 < ns < 200):
The speed increasing creates a discharge cut and then an overpressure due to the shape of the
runner. The effect of this overpressure conduces to increase the runner overspeed.

In the computer program, the runner rotational speed is determined at every step in time by solving
the classical torque equation:

H-674500MEF00004ED 5/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

dω
I = Ch − Ce
dt

in which I = rotor inertia

and ω = turbine rotational frequency

To calculate overpressure and overspeed the definition of the turbine hill chart must be carefully
numerized. The results will directly depend on the shape of the turbine hill chart curves.

The program is able to take into account very complex hydraulic systems with many turbines or
pump-turbines, valves, any head losses varying with time or not, surge tanks and so on... It allows a
good precision in the results depending widely on the precision of the data. We usually consider as
maximum margins: 5 % of the design speed rise and 10 % of pressure rise on pressure results.

1.4 Main data use by the program

Parameters determining the hydraulic circuit:

- the number of nodes and network segments
- the number of segments of each type
- the dimensional parameters for the segment reaction tables
- the number of boundary conditions and the dimensional parameters of their development
tables.

The network can be exactly simulated, considering penstocks, head losses, turbines... Two different
type of segments are considered: the penstock itself and the "incidents" (turbine etc.). It is possible
to use as many segments of each type as necessary.

Each penstock segment is defined by its diameter and its length. The penstock segment is
automatically cut into Bergeron segments such that the pressure wave covers a Bergeron segment
in a time equal to a time interval.
Each head loss segment can be defined with its head loss coefficient. This coefficient can be
expressed as a function of time.

For each turbine segment, the following data must be indicated:

- runner, diameter, generator, inertia, initial operating values (speed, flow, head, torque, gate
and blade opening).
- value and form of the closure rate (wicket gates and blades)
- turbine operating features, given for several values of wicket gate and blades opening.

H-674500MEF00004ED 6/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

At each extreme node (Boundary conditions), the following data can be introduced :
- the flow, versus time if necessary
- the pressure head (reservoir level) versus time
- the curve H versus Q or Q versus H.

The initial flow values must be indicated for all segments. The values of initial heads must be
indicated for all the nodes.

2 CALCULATION FOR HULU TERENGGANU PROJECT

2.1 Model

The model of waterway is taken from the drawings submitted by customer. Hydraulic circuit is
modeled as following:

H-674500MEF00004ED 7/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

H-674500MEF00004ED 8/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

Correlation between lengths indicated in the single line diagram and actual layout and sectional
drawing:
th
I. Please refer drawing given by mail dated 8 June,2012 in AutoCAD format “P31
42D3_Info_v2000”:

Head race tunnel diameter 4.9 m & corresponding length 298 m

Head race tunnel diameter 4.5 m & corresponding length 104 m

II. Spiral casing diameter and length as per diagram are below:
Dia. 3.48m, Length 20 m (Spiral casing)

III. Draft Tube Diameter – 5.2 m (as per hydraulic design) and Length – 25 m

IV. Draft tube (W x H) – (11.2 x 5.3) - Equivalent dia. – 8.7m and Length – 15m
(Up to downstream surge chamber)

V. Tail race tunnel Diameter. – 8.0 m horse shoe type (equivalent dia. 8.4 m) and
length = 500 +680 = 1180 m

Please refer to DRG. No. 5050082-D720 (Tailrace tunnel plan & profile) & Tender
clause S0.3.4 Hydraulic system

The head losses in each power conduit & the tail race tunnel from the outlet of the diverging section
of draft tube shall be taken to vary according to the following relationships as mentioned in tender
documents. For 2 units running with 93.26 m3/sec discharge, turbine net head & total head loss is
calculated as below:

Power conduit:
HLc = K x Q2
= 2.74 x 10 -4 x (93.26)2
= 2.383 m
Where, HLc =Head loss in the one power conduit (m)
Q =Flow rate in one power conduit (m3/s) = 93.26 m3/s
K = 2.74 x 10 -4

Tailrace Tunnel :
HLT = K x Q2
= 0.7 x 10 -4 x (186.52) 2
= 2.435 m
Where, HLT =Head loss (m)
Q =Flow rate in tailrace tunnel (m3/s) = 2 x 93.26 = 186.52 m3/s
K = 0.7 x 10 -4

H-674500MEF00004ED 9/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

Total head loss (for 2 units running) = HLc + HLT = 2.38+2.43 =4.81 m
Turbine net head Hn= HWL-TWL- HLc - HLT
= 296-143.34-2.38-2.43
= 148 m

Where HWL = head works water level = 296 m

TWL = tail water level = 143.34 m

maximum and minimum net heads are based on below assumptions:

- Minimum Tailrace level at 100% guide vane open (136.3 m) is with Q = 100m3/s
- Tailrace Full supply level (145.0m) is with Q = 200m3/s
This assumption has to be confirmed by the customer.

There is a downstream surge tank having a net cross section of 550 m² and orifice area of 25.52 m²
and the elevations are 126. 8 m to 155.5 m. We are considering inlet/outlet head loss coefficient for
the upstream surge as 0.00021743. This value has to be confirmed by the customer.

The unit has the following characteristics:

Rated speed: 214.3 rpm
Rated load: 128.00 MW
Maximum load: 134.4 MW
Generator flywheel effect (GD2) 7848 tm2
Turbine flywheel effect (GD2) 135 tm2
Distributor centerline EL 132.00 m a.s.l.

2.2 Desired values after load rejection

As per contract documents,

Maximum over speed: 45 %
Maximum spiral case pressure: 240 mWC

2.3 Wicket gate closing time

A two-slope distributor closing law has been considered.

It is defined as following:

H-674500MEF00004ED 10/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

Wicket gate closing time

Opening
120

100 0

80

60
3

40

20
12
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time

The rapid closure time and the position for rate to change have been chosen to reduce the unit over
speed and the waterway pressure rise.

2.4 Computation results

2.4.1 LOAD CASE 1:

Load rejection of 1 turbine at 134.4 MW load at maximum Net head corresponding to:
Head water level 296 m
Tail water level 136.3 m
Net head 156.8 m
Initial speed 214.3 rpm
Initial output 134.4 MW
Results :
Maximum momentary speed 43.4 %
Minimum total pressure under the runner -2.2 mWC
Maximum pressure at spiral case inlet 229.48 mWC
Maximum upsurge in downstream surge tank 139.65 mWC
Maximum down surge in downstream surge tank 131.52 mWC

See graphs in appendix.

H-674500MEF00004ED 11/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

2.4.2 LOAD CASE 2:

Load rejection of both turbines at 128 MW load at rated net head corresponding to:
Head water level 296 m
Tail water level 143.34 m
Net head 148.00 m
Initial speed 214.3 rpm
Initial output 128 MW
Results:
Maximum momentary speed 43.29%
Minimum total pressure under the runner 5.35 mWC
Maximum pressure at spiral case inlet 226.84 mWC
Maximum up surge in downstream surge tank 147.52 mWC
Maximum down surge in downstream surge tank 136.16 mWC

See graphs in appendix.

2.4.3 OTHER LOAD CASE:

Load rejections have also been computed from 60% and 40% of the rated output (128 MW)
at net head.

See graphs in appendix.

2.4.4 LOAD ACCEPTANCE:

The case was studied and the power was taken up to 102.4 MW (80% of rated load) from
no load speed.
Two turbine taking load from 0 to 80% in 10 seconds as required by contract documents.

Head water level 296 m

Tail water level 136 m
Initial speed 214.3 rpm
Initial output 0 MW (No load condition)
Loading Time (from no load to 80% load) 10 secs.

Results :
Final Output 102.4 MW
Minimum total pressure under the runner 5.56 mWC
Maximum Surge tank level 143.5 mWC
Minimum Surge tank level 136 mWC

H-674500MEF00004ED 12/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

3 CONCLUSION
The load rejection has been computed under the most unfavorable conditions: the results are
below the tender limits of design spiral case pressure and maximum overspeed. So, the
spiral case overpressure guarantee and unit overspeed guarantee will be respected in all
operating condition.
The surge tank fluctuations during load rejections and load acceptance are within the limits
under worst conditions.

4 RESULTS AND GRAPHS

H-674500MEF00004ED 13/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

Case 1: Load rejection at maximum net head (156.8 m) & maximum output (134.4 MW) – 1
unit in operation

H-674500MEF00004ED 14/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

Case 2: Load rejection at rated head (148 m) & rated output (128 MW) – 2 units in operation

H-674500MEF00004ED 15/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

Case 3: Load rejection at net head of 157.69 m & 60% of rated output (76.8 MW) – 2 units in
operation

H-674500MEF00004ED 16/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

Case 4: Load rejection at net head of 159.75 m & 40% of rated output (51.2 MW) – 2 units in
operation

H-674500MEF00004ED 17/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

LOAD ACCEPTANCE OF BOTH UNITS SIMULTANEOUSLY FROM 0 TO 80% LOAD IN 10 SEC

H-674500MEF00004ED 18/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

DOWNSTREAM SURGE TANK PLOTTING

LOAD ACCEPTANCE OF BOTH UNITS SIMULTANEOUSLY FROM 0 TO 80% LOAD IN 10 SEC

H-674500MEF00004ED 19/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

Case 1: Load rejection at maximum head (156.8 m) & maximum output (134.4 MW) – 1 unit in
operation

H-674500MEF00004ED 20/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

Case 2: Load rejection at rated head (148 m) & rated output (128 MW) – 2 units in operation

H-674500MEF00004ED 21/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

Case 3: Load rejection at net head of 157.69 m & 60% of rated output (76.8 MW) – 2 units in
operation

H-674500MEF00004ED 22/23
 POWER SYSTEMS

Case 4: Load rejection at net head of 159.75 m & 40% of rated output (51.2 MW) – 2 units in
operation

H-674500MEF00004ED 23/23