CHAPTER 93

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

Both fixed and semirigid types of penstock are secured in place at points by a n c h o r
b l o c k s . Anchorages represent the fixed supports of the penstock and are located at
either vertical or horizontal bends in the line. All three possible types of anchor blocks are
used for the penstock shown in Figs 1/93 and 2/93.
1. Forces transmitted by the adjacent penstock sections to an anchor block located at a
point where the change in slope of the terrain, and thus the bend in the penstock, is
concave when viewed from above, tend to displace the anchor block over the terrain.
These forces, however, have a component normal to the terrain the magnitude of
which depends upon the angle of

CHAPTER
93
Hand H are the
design
heads at
the points indicated
f(

Fig. 1 93. Location of anchorges and types of anchor blocks

27 Mosonyi

Conduit length L
Length of one
section lf -/H}
Saddle spacing bf
Dead veight of bf tong section .* 60
Dead
weight of
section 1}
-ISg
of section 1**16%

146

CHAPTER 93

the bend and this favourably influences the stability conditions of the anchor
block.
2. At bends, where the penstock deflects downwards, i.e. which are convex when viewed
from above, the resultant of forces acting upon the anchor has a component directed
away from the terrain and at such places large concrete volumes are usually required
to ensure the stability of the block.
3. As already mentioned, intermediate anchor blocks spaced at least at 100 to 150 m are
necessary at long straight penstock sections as well. These blocks are subject to a
force caused by pipe thrust and approximately parallel to the terrain, and constitute
thus an intermediate case between cases 1 and 2, as far as stability is concerned.
Let us consider in the following the forces acting upon an anchor block located as
described under point 2, i.e. where the bend is convex and where stability presents the
greatest problem. The block fixing the penstock section no. 2 in Fig. 1 93, together with
the forces acting upon it, is redrawn to a larger scale in Fig.

3/93.
Axial forces transmitted to the anchor from the upstream part of length I2 may be
listed as follows:
1. The dead weight of the pipe, according to Eq. (24/92),
Po = + Go sin p2 [kg].

(1/93)

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

147

Fig. 2/93. Location of penstock on rugged terrain. Various kinds of anchor blocks are exemplified in the picture, a simple
intermediate anchorage, b anchorage at concave vertical bend, c anchorage at convex vertical bend. (After a catalogue
of Christiani & Nielson, Copenhagen)

(Forces acting in a direction towards the anchor will be denoted hereafter as positive,
and opposite ones as negative.)
2. The friction force over the supports, according to (Eq. 25/92),

E P'f db (i E (Go + G'w) cos

[kg]

(2/93)

where the + sign applies to forces due to temperature increase, while the sign
indicataes forces due to a temperature drop. These forces, as pointed out earlier, act
along a line below the centreline of the penstock, yet, in order to simplify construction,
may be transferred to the centreline since the error introduced thereby will be on the
side of safety.

148

CHAPTER 93

3. The friction force at the expansion joint packing, according to Eq. (29/92),
t

Pp~ pind1eyH [kg].

(3/93)

The sign convention under point 2 applies.

4. The direct water pressure at the expansion joint, according to Eq. (30/92)

P'=+ndidiyH' [kg].

Fig. 3/93, Forces acting upon the anchor block

(4/93)

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

149

5. The axial component of hydrostatic pressure acting on the section and due to the
change in direction, is one of the most significant forces. The magnitude thereof due
to water pressure prevailing in the section of diameter d\ is

K'=
6.

The

y fcd

(5/93)

drag of flowing water caused by conduit friction is according to Eq. (32/92),

P'i= + y I'z /= + y AH' [kg],

(6/93)

where AH' is the differential head in metres over the section of length l2.
7. An impulse force is exerted by the flowing water on the pipe wall. This force acts
along the mitre line of the angle included by sections 2 and 3 and is directed outward,
i.e. away from the terrain. The impulse force may be resolved into two components,
both of which act along the centreline of the penstock. With J( denoting the mass of
water flowing per second at design velocity i?i, the component acting along the
centreline of section 2 is

P\=+Jtvi=y- vl [kg].
4
g

(7/93)

Axial forces transmitted from the downstream part of length l2 may be listed in a
similar manner. Forces directed towards the anchor will again be denoted as positive, while
opposite ones directed downstream will be negative.
1. The dead weight of the pipe

Po=-GZsmfo [kg].

(8/93)

2. The friction force over the support (or occasionally supports)

J

L Pf~ pE(Go r Gv) cos

[kg].

(9/93)

An increase in temperature gives rise, as agreed upon previously, to positive, whereas

150

CHAPTER 93

a decrease to negative forces.

3. The friction force at the expansion joint packing:

Pp - px 7i dt e y H" Peg]

(10/93)

in keeping with the sign convention adopted.

4. The direct water pressure at the expansion joint:
P" = + d2 S2 y H" [kg].

(11/93)

5. The axial component of hydrostatic pressure due to the change in direction is

computed from the head prevailing in the section of diameter d2

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

151

K-2yH [kg].
4

(12/93)

It should be noted that the axial water pressure due to the reduction in crosssection and considered during the structural analysis of the pipe, should not be
allowed for separately in this instance. This force is already included in forces P'w
and P transmitted from section 2 and ({, Namely, P'w may be resolved into two
components, one of which is that acting on the taper section (confuser)

Pc AFyH -

yH,

while the other is the water pressure acting on the projection of the reduced section

ndl
yH.
4

K {di)
Obviously

6. The drag of flowing water includes a force

^ ^2 j T
Pi
Ttt
y------AH
pointing downstream.

[kg]

(13/93)

7. The component of the impulse force acting along the centreline of section 3

y
ndl
.2
Pf- +
vi
[kg],
g4
points upstream, i.e. towards the anchor block.

(14/93)

To check the stability of the anchor the parallelogram of forces should be drawn as in
Fig. 3(93, assuming an increase in temperature, which is obviously a less favourable
condition for stability than that of temperature drop.

152

CHAPTER 93

Starting from the point where the centrelines of the two penstock sections intersect, the
forces pointing downstream
p^+rp}+p;+p;+p;+p;-fpi
(15/93)
are plotted on the extended centreline of the section preceding the anchor, while the forces
pointing upstream
f

- Po + E P;+ P ; + Pi+ Pi - P2 4- P"

(16/93)

are plotted on the extended centreline of the section following the anchor. The vectorial
sum of these forces is force Z, the resultant of all forces transmitted to the anchor from the
adjacent penstock sections.

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

153

The resultant acting upon the anchor is influenced primarily by the effects listed
subsequently in the order of their significance:
From upstream:

the hydrostatic pressure due to the change in direction (P*),

the direct water pressure transmitted at the expansion joint (Pel
the component due to dead weight (Pi>), and the frictional force
over the supports (EP*ef}).
The rest is usually too small to be of significance.

From downstream: the hydrostatic pressure due to change in direction (Pwl

the direct water pressure transmitted at the expansion joint
(#)
Components due to dead weight and friction over the supports are usually negligible
from among those acting upon the anchor from downstream, inasmuch as expansion
joints are often located immediately downstream of anchor blocks. An arrangement
frequently applied is to locate the expansion joint between the anchor and the first
downstream support so that this component does not develop at all.
Both the shape and dimensions of the anchor block of width B should be adjusted until
the resultant R of the force Z and of the dead weight G of the anchor does not pass within
the middle third of the base of the block. With notations as
in Fig. 3/93

x>A/ 3, and xo A/2 x and

the maximum pressure transmitted to the rock is

(1 + [kg/cm2]

( 1

7/93)

The downstream face of the anchor block is inclined for reasons of stability and the
base is frequently stepped for economical reasons. Flat and stepped bases may be
horizontal, yet may be constructed at a counter slope as shown in Fig. 3/93. This latter

154

CHAPTER 93

arrangement involves a larger excavation volume and requires more material, but offers
increased safety against sliding. For the case illustrated, the safety against sliding may be
expressed as

jiRsin 9~nRcos 9

(18/93)

where, neglecting the bond between the rock and the concrete and assuming good-quality
rock, a sliding coefficient /=0.6 to 0.7 may be assumed. In rocks of power quality, showing
a tendency towards saturation, sliding coefficients significantly lower, amounting even to
but fractions of the above value, may be encountered. Safe resistance against sliding
should be ensured very carefully whenever there is some doubt as to the magnitude of the
sliding coefficient. Values of the
latter have been given in Chapter 69 (Volume I). The coefficient of safety should be at
least n~ 1.5.
Simple petrographical investigations of the underlying rock are, however, unsatisfactory
in themselves and should be accompanied already in the preliminary stages of designing by
the careful exploration of the hill slopes selected for locating the penstock. In some
instances the rock lying close to the surface and consequently to be taken into account for
foundation may prove satisfactory as far as load-bearing properties are concerned,
whereas the dip of rock strata towards the valley may be excessive, so that the anchor
blocks may slide together with the underlying rock. At greater depths deposits may be
encountered between the rock strata that may become unstable when overloaded. Hillsides
that show evidences of rock slides or avalanches should be avoided.
Sliding of the top layers covering the hillside presented in 1946 a source of danger for
the lower portion of the penstock and for one of the anchor blocks at the Cubatdo power
station in Brazil. This was one of the reasons why engineers decided in favour of the
underground arrangement for the proposed extension.
3
A lean mix containing from 150 to 200 kg cement per m concrete is generally used for
3
the anchor blocks. For their foundation even a mixture containing 120 kg/m may be used.
When there are heavy loads to be supported, the simple embedding of the penstock into
the anchor block may not prove adequate, and hold-down straps may be necessary to fix
the pipe to the anchor as illustrated in Fig. 4/93. In order to prevent the covering concrete

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

155

layer from cracking, reinforcement is placed also into the latter. Hold-down straps, as well
as the reinforcement around the pipe, should be dimensioned to resist the force Z
determined previously. Flanges should be welded at close intervals to the pipe pieces to
prevent it from sliding. An interesting solution was applied at the Rjukan power station in
Norway, where the

Fig. 4/93. Anchor detail showing hold-down straps for penstock, Arnstein power plant. (After A.
Schoklitsch)

156

CHAPTER 93

Fig. 593. Anchor block loaded by rock fill, Rjukan power plant,
Norway. (After A. Ludin)

upper part of the anchor block was designed to form a box filled with stone (Fig. 5/93).
It may be seen in Fig. 6/93 that the resultant of forces transmitted to the anchor acts in
a more favourable manner at concave bends. Structural and stability analysis should
follow a process similar to that described in the foregoing.
Bends, in which the direction changes simultaneously in profile and in plan, are referred
to as combined (Fig. 7/93). If the angles made in profile by adjacent tangents with the
horizontal are h and #*, and the angle in plan is oc, the angle in space included by
subsequent tangents may be computed as:
cos oco cos fii cos h cos a+ sin fii sin f}2.

(19/93)

Penstocks laid side-by-side may in many instances be fixed more economically and
practicably by a c o m m o n a n c h o r b l o c k instead of separate ones
(Figs 8/93, 9/93, 10/93 and 11/93).

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

157

If the penstock tracing requires bends also in plan, the axial forces acting upon the
structures in horizontal plane have to be determined. In large-angle curvatures,

Fig6193. Forces acting upon the anchor block

at a concave vertical bend

158

CHAPTER 93

Fig. 7/93. Penstock with combined bends, Chanet power station, La Reuse River, Switzerland. 2=2.5 to 6.0 m3/sec, H= 73 m,
AT=3300 kW. The penstock is 294 m long and of a diameter of 1.75 m. (After
a publication of the Schweizerische Wasserwirtschaftsverband)

Fig
Fig,
. 8j937
9J93.
Anchorage
Lowest anchor
of parallel
blockpenstocks
for the penstocks
by common
supplying
anchorthe
blocks.
Cubatdo
Above:
aboveground
Aasgaard
power
hydroelectric
station. Tiete
plant,
system,
Norway.
Brazil.
(After
The G.
weight
G. Robb:
of individual
Water Power
blocks in
1949).
the line
To
ranges
the right:
from 1000
Pykara
to 3200
powertons.
plant, India.
(After(Photographed
R. D. Rajan: Water
by the author
Power ,1952)
1954)

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

159

namely, the resultant of the axial forces, especially that of the usually predominating
hydrostatic loads, can be decisive for the design of the relevant penstock section (pipe,
joint, anchor block). This aspect is important for dimensioning the lowest anchorage and
the manifold too, as it will be shown here later. It also occurs that, for avoiding extremely
high loads upon the anchor block, the pipe is not discontinued by a joint in the curvature,
but, instead, has a sliding support upon the block. Such a solution was chosen for the
penstock of the Santa Isabel plant (Bolivia), where, in order to avoid erection of
aqueducts and tunnels along the rugged terrain, the 2640 m long penstock was traced
with several curvatures. At one of the bends, near the powerhouse, the pipe had burst
during the test filling in 1973 under a pressure head of 735 m (the design head was 880
included water hammer overpressure), and the violent jet inundated the powerhouse and
the substation. The pipe with an internal diameter of 1.15 m was fabricated from 22 mm
thick high-strength steel plate. The actual cause of the failure could not definitely be
detected, however, it seemed probable that the wide rupture started from a brittle
fracture of a weak spot of longitudinal weld in the curved section of the pipe. (The
accident and repair of the failure are described by S. Jacobsen, W. P Jan. 1974.)
The upper part of s u p p o r t p i e r s located between anchorages should be designed to
ensure the accurate location for the penstock and to keep, at the same time, the friction as
low as possible. A lower frictional resistance is favourable as regards both stresses in the
penstock and the moment tending to overturn the

160

CHAPTER 93

Fig. 10/93. Juan Carosio-Moyopampa power development, Peru. The 800 m long penstocks are divided by anchor blocks,
respectively, expansion joints into 8 sections. Supports are spaced at 6 to 9 m. Each of the two pipes conveys a flow of 5.3
m3/sec at a clear diameter of 1250 to 1050 mm and a shell thickness of 10 to 27 mm. H456 m, A=45,000 kW. The steep
ditch for the waste water spilling from the headpond is to be seen to the right of the penstocks. (After a publication of Motor

Columbus AG,
Schweizerische Bauzeitung 1953)

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

161

support. Consequently, efforts to minimize frictional resistance should be the more

intensive, the higher the pipeline is above the terrain.
For penstocks of small and medium diameter the upper part of the support pier may be
shaped as a saddle (or cradle) in which the penstock may slide freely.
The depth of the saddle is usually about 1/3 or 1/4 of the pipe diameter. Linings of cast
iron, yet more recently of steel plate, are applied to reduce friction. It may be stated that
unlined concrete saddles are used very seldom and for very small diameters only. Saddles
supporting pipes having a diameter larger than 0.8 m are usually lined.
In some instances support piers topped by roller-mounted bearing shoes, similar to
moving bridge supports, are also applied. Supports of the rocker type have also

162

^ - V*

'*.

, ; .

*
A
i* _ **
k

-*? '

***

- '.. ...

;4:' **; '4*

';'^T^
v-.
,- .
V ' * *. ^ ';.A
/ J <
-.
r
* * -^**_;: ~- -. A

' ^M- A
A

^A^'AA ,-

A''

tv<^5
*" * A

- A*

'-v J!

'^'' ' . ~

***

.' MUJ

. .^i<i^p,-i;

^v

v ' 'Ai

' Aru

^T VV'
.; -:!J. w ^*>

v4K, ^- ^' , :-T

:;

A'* f V > - ' u - "

f--'

riZ tte&A

" ^ ' 7-7

'A \
4*i

"

A"'
' *..

**

,>

^ * * -4^i Tijf f 9

^ ' ' 1 ->-7'

...

. J^*7f V. 1-

^il

. A ,
,. B

- , -A

,.

>' * > *-v

w.-Vu*,
srf

' i? M -
J
5**
l _ v ^ -=^^v 'A ^
V
.
r 1
<*
:
** s

T93
///.*[
/A
CHAPTER
^nn
'H
-/ *^ * ^
r
7//'
Ap^ / f '
r rrf
i ^^v.Tp.
W
T

. w ^ 3frV */.*va
\ . jf r -, 5... /;.... ; >, Vc-^i'vV^.v^'

1'

"

>$?' \
'

j&2*V''* J ; r
iwiivi-- >.. : -

ower
plant,
Scotland. Houille
Blanche 1948)

.000

been adopted for penstocks. The use of these solutions is indicated if the supports are
widely spaced (e.g. self-bearing pipe bridges of smaller span) or if the piers are high and
are subject to considerable forces.
Forces acting on the support pier are: the frictional force Pf given by Eq. (25/92) and
acting in the centroid of the bearing surface, and the dead weight of the pier itself.
Inasmuch as the frictional force Pf may be positive or negative, depending upon the change
in temperature, stability conditions of the pier should be investigated for both cases.
Supports between anchorages may be further of the ring girder type, which carry the
load to the piers of plain or reinforced concrete either over a rigid connection or over a
rocker or roller assembly (Fig 12/93).
A few examples for the design of support piers are given in Fig 13/93. Supports,
respectively anchors for wood stave pipes are shown in Fig. 14/93, while a view of a wood
stave penstock is presented in Fig 15/93.
.

ifC- f

i.* > . /!>- ?.

Lftil
:
ANCHORAGES
M AND SUPPORTS
m m

;. ' ring girder

/#. 12/93. Rocker-mounted
supports for penstock. Above: 2.60 m
dia. pipe, Owens River Gorge, Los
Angeles, USA. (After P. J. Bier: Water
Power). Below: Estes Park power
plant, Big Thompson development, USA.
(After R. G. Baumhoff:
Water Power 1950)

r^.

J^SSWV. -, - -

^tyMBnUi^^AV *"*

1V rJ
* x j Ms
*
r
A*

r
feiv

d
fe

\A

-;.'

vM

5';

-7/..
>J
fr
k

V '.I
wv-*' ' ='7<$

$mv '
J^^T7 ^TTKf
^ , r
n
>. - 'fff4
VWVS

;V^
S.+iSj
S
: ;
--

te-

;il r

. . . V- i-- l- s
-b. .*?1.M#Sk

*<*

8 ; >

r^ .* v t
%**
.
- ..

*Kt*
VT*V
%*>

(j % tfcVj > i
^

163
^SSSt
f?**&*
.

;** i?
Vd$ifcv

UfvC !P*J
;

r;w
m

For erection of long, small-diameter penstocks it may be expedient to precast reinforcedconcrete cradles and transport them, hung on the pipe sections, together to the site, as
described by A. Eberhardt. In such a case the pipes have to be tied by straps to the cradles
which will be placed upon footings being concreted previously.
The so-called rigid-pipelines (definition is given in Chapter 87) are supported by
anchor blocks only, they are not fitted with expansion joints and, generally, they are not
supported by cradles between the anchorages, viz. because of their rigidness no sliding can
take place. Accordingly, the anchor blocks have to be placed nearer to each other, than it
would be necessary in case of a semirigid solution. The forces acting upon the anchor
blocks can be determined on basis of the previous analysis. Some forces are the same as
formulated for the semirigid pipe, while other ones (friction resistances) do not exist. On
the other hand, an additional axial force of considerable magnitude, owing to changes in
temperature, can come into being between two neighbouring blocks. This force, according
to Eqs (18/92) and (19/92) can be expressed as

Pt~ndEct&19d t [kg],

(20/93)

or

P-t*0J6dSt [kN],

(20a/93)

164

CHAPTER 93

Fig. 13/93. Details of various supporting piers: a) steel-plate lined saddle, b) saddle made up of
rolled sections, c) roller- mounted support, d) double saddle for supporting an expansion joint

where the diameter d and the wall thickness of the pipe 8 in cm and the temperature
change in Celsius degrees have to be substituted.
Decrease in temperature exerts tensile forces in the pipe, while with rising temperature
pressure develops. If the pipe is rigidly fixed to the blocks, these forces are transmitted to
the latters. When there is no change in the direction of the penstock line at an anchor
block, viz. neither in profile, nor in
C=90
plan, these temperature forces

balance each other, so that the

block is not exposed to additional loads. On the contrary, an anchor block supporting a
bend of the pipe is exposed to the resultant of the two forces acting from both sides (Fig.

16/93):
Z=2P, sin AilZA..
This force is at an angle of

(21/93)

(22/93)

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

165

with the horizontal. A decrease in temperature exerts upon a convex bend, while a rise in
temperature upon a concave bend, a force which presses the anchorage to the foundation.
On the contrary, temperature rise affects a convex bend and a tem-

166

CHAPTER 93

Fig. 14/93. Support and anchorage for wood stave pipe (after A. Ludin): a) on concrete saddles
(Norway), b) on anchored steel trestles (Rio and Delaware works, USA,)

perature drop a concave bend reversely, i,e. the resultant has a lifting affect upon the block.
Naturally, all other forces, which may act in the selected case, have to be allowed for.
Finally, it has to be noted that, usually, the semirigid solution is chosen for buried
penstocks or for exposed penstocks of small diameter.

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

167

Fig. (16/93) and Eq. (21/93) are, according to the meaning, applicable for bends in plan,
when the temperature forces are acting in a horizontal (or almost horizontal) plane, the anchor blocks are pressed against the foundation either to the left or to the
right.
Special attention is to be devoted to the design of the l o w e s t a n c h o r b l o c k (end
anchorage) located at the end of the penstock. As can be seen from Fig. 17/93, the lowest
anchor followed by a bend in the penstock is subject to a significantly greater sliding
component originated from the water pressure, than intermediate anchorages. The force
Pt acting at the anchor block is balanced by the force P'w acting at the bend and thus the
entire pressure P'w rides against the anchor block. (The force P is, of course, again
proportionate to the static head increased by water hammer.)
V

168

CHAPTER 93

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

169

The component tending to displace the anchor is, under otherwise similar conditions,
the greater, the flatter the slope of the preceding tangent section. It should be recalled that
some of the forces transmitted to the block are not affected by the elevation of the block
itself and thus proceeding downstream, the hydros-

170

Concave
Convex
bend
bend

/,n
/3nPn+1* On, j ^
o
Pn+1~Pnj

\
I
go
CHAPTER
93

90
'
"
\ V'
I80pn+1~(

$0~

J?

a
ba Decrease
Rise
Decrease
in in
in
temperature
temperature
b Rise in
temperature

-Pn

-180- fn - (90-Mill; - 90 - (JMlhUlL)

Fig. //95

tatical force due to the change of direction (Pw) becomes more and more significant as
regards the stability of the anchorage. Consequently, at developments operating under
very high head, the thrust acting upon the lower anchorages is hardly influenced by the
spacing of the latter, and will be especially great at the lowest block if it is anchoring an
almost horizontal pipe section immediately before the manifold (Fig. 18(93). Yet in spite
of these considerations, the end anchorage

28 Mosonyi

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

End anchorage

Pan

Fig. 17(93. Location of the lowest anchorage

Fig. 18(93. Location of the lowest anchorage

Fig. 19(93. Deformation of the penstock
manifold due to temperature rise

171

172

CHAPTER 93

block should expediently be placed at the end of the horizontal section as close to the
powerhouse as possible, to thus reduce the length of the unsupported penstock section. A
manifold (header) occasionally incorporating bends and without intermediate anchorage
would be subject to excessive forces that would result in impermissible deformations.
Although the arrangement according to Fig. 18/93 is more favourable for the
manifold than that shown in Fig. 17/93, it still requires a careful analysis. Let us
consider the system consisting of manifold and unit penstocks fixed between the lowest
anchor block and the powerhouse substructure illustrated in distorted scale in Fig.
19/93. The conduit may expand more or less freely, there being only intermediate
supports (and no anchorages). At mean temperature the position of the conduit system is
represented by the broken line ABCDE. In case of tern-

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

173

perature rise the pipe system assumes the deformed shape ABC DE (exaggerated in the
figure). The expansion of the pipe section AC due to a temperature rise t would be
Alcolt,
if it were not restricted in its movement by the unit penstocks BD and CE. However, in view
of the fact that, on the one hand, the expansion due to the change in temperature corresponds to
very great forces and, on the other, bending moments due to relatively small forces result in
appreciable deflections of pipe sections BD, respectively CE, the compression due to forces
acting at points B\ respectively C may safely be neglected. As an approximation it may
therefore be assumed that the force acting in point C is of a magnitude to cause the
displacement Al of the pipe section CE. The force causing a displacement Al at the end of the
cantilever of length Ii is
3/l

" [kg],

(23/93)

Al

and the moment induced at point E is

M=PU =

l\

[kgm]

(24/93)

Considering that the sectional modulus of the pipe cross-section is 2/i/di, the maximum stress
at the fixed end attains, of course approximately, the following value:
ait

[kg/cm ].

(25/93)

It is to be seen that stresses increase rapidly as the length of the unit penstock is reduced and
the installation of too short branches may easily lead to rupture.
If a more exact analysis is deemed necessary, the method illustrated for the extremely
simple case in Fig. 20/93 may be applied with careful judgement to any given pipeline. In
case of unrestricted movement the displacement of point C would be co 11. However, the
resisting
C in the direction AC results
Fig. 20/93
28*force P acting at point

174

CHAPTER 93

m a compression

PI
ndE'
On the other hand, the deflection of the element BC due to opposite of force P is
Pll
3EIx
and since the latter displacement is equal to the resultant of the first two values

pii , PI
~ (D It-------- r,
3EJi
ndE

(26/93)

the unknown force P can be computed.

Of course, the bending moment acting on the manifold due to the elongation of the
unit penstock should also be taken into consideration. Although the force is usually
smaller, the lever arm / is relatively long.
A simple inspection of Fig. 21/93 will reveal that for the same temperature changes an
obtuse-angled branching is considerably less favourable than a rectangular one since, in
the former case, the displacement of the corner point is significantly greater. Although the
use of a hydraulically round bend having a long radius is permissible the axis of the
branch pipe should be perpendicular, or at least approximately so, to the manifold.

The installation of a distributing pipe system fixed between the lowest anchor block
and the powerhouse substructure cannot be avoided unless

End anchoraoes

Fig. 22/93. Lateral penstock arrangements

>

;
vr
.

..

--

> _* -s? :r-'vJV^' ' '-'-'

* *,'* ;
J

-.

'.

' v.-

V i *v

* '^*' 1 : . \ -
>>
\r
>- %y t'.
>.>
*

*/

* V' .

fc - -

/V0. 2393. Penstocks of a high-head hydroelectric plant. A direct connection of the penstock to the powerhouse
was formerly avoided for reasons of safety. The manifold is led around the powerhouse and the unit penstocks
connect to the turbines from the downstream side. The station illustrated in the picture is supplied by two
reservoirs at different elevations. (Schwarzenbach dam and power station
Badeny Germany )

kr EAnchor
nd ancnor
block
Pouemo
block
usc
Expansion joints

Powerhou
mm
wiwz1mSubstructure
3IAnchorages
\end
i
acting
as
End
se
anchorage
Expansion jowls
anchorage
s
1^- V,

|l0r

^rvcbiot
^,0#
";
5
in* *
ioni
011

Fig. 24/93. Various solutions for the direct connection of the penstocks to the powerhouse

a) the penstocks run directly towards the powerhouse and are (in plan) at right
angles, or at least approximately so, to the longitudinal axis thereof, and
b) each generating unit is supplied by a separate penstock and therefore no
manifold is necessary.

Direct connections to the powerhouse were formerly not favoured and, in spite of the
difficulties involved, one of the lateral arrangements shown in Fig. 22/93 was

Fig. 25/93. Direct connection of the penstock to the powerhouse. Papanasam hydroelectric plant,
Thambrapami River, India. H~ 101 m, N= 18,000 kW. 1.75 m diameter penstocks are supported at 6 m
centres. (After R. Dorai Raj cm, Water Power 1952)

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

182

employed. The main reason for this was the effort to safe-guard the powerhouse by all
means against flooding in case of occasional penstock bursts (Fig. 23/93). Since,
however, on the one hand, these arrangements alone do not guarantee full safety, and, on
the other, reliable automatic devices have been developed for the rapid closure in case of
penstock failure (see Chapter 89), in recent times direct connection is gaining in
popularity. Advantages of direct connections are as follows (Figs 24/93 and.25/93):
a) No distributing pipe system is necessary.
b) The end anchorage block may be arranged immediately before the powerhouse
and consequently the rigidly fixed pipe section may be very short (Fig. 26/93).
c) In some instances the lowest anchor block may be omitted entirely if the
substructure alone is capable of resisting the thrust transmitted from the
penstocks. The lowest anchorage may be economically united with the machine
foundation, respectively with the powerhouse substructure, even if the latter alone
is insufficient for anchoring purposes (Figs 27/93 and 28/93).
d) Exclusion of bends and bifurcations diminishes hydraulic losses.
It would be mistaken, however, to assume that because of the preference for direct

. r

Fig. 26/93. Lowest anchorage of the penstocks immediately

before the powerhouse. (Vcntavon power
station, after A. Ludin)

v . Ar. *

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

183

connections, lateral arrangements have been discarded entirely for recent developments.
Lateral penstock connections may be encountered even at very up-to-date stations, the
layout of which is the result of careful studies and considerations. Regardless of the
above advantages of the direct connection, site conditions may decide in favour of the
lateral arrangement. Indications therefore, however, various they may be, can be traced
back to the relative position of the hillside selected for the penstock and of the potential
powerhouse site. The method of connecting the penstock to the units is ultimately
governed with due regard

- * L _ ______

184
CHAPTER
Fig. 27/93. Loch Sloy power plant Scotland. The
lowest93
anchor block of the directly connected penstocks is

designed to form a unit with the substructure (see also Fig. 28/93). H- 260 m, the diameter of the 460 m long
penstocks varies from 2.14 m at the upstream end to 1.93 m at the bottom. Erection sections were 7.3 m in
length. The support saddles are steel-lined and spaced at 14.6 m centres. The
anchor blocks are from 1700 to 3600 tons in weight. (Water Power 1950)

to the considerations listed above by the condition whether it is possible to locate the
powerhouse at right angles to the line of fall and thus to the horizontal projection of the
penstock, or whether it is more expedient to set the powerhouse with its longitudinal axis
parallel to the conduit. The former situation calls obviously for a direct connection, while
the latter for a lateral arrangement.
In order to avoid misunderstanding, it should be stressed that the endeavour to
achieve direct connection does not contradict the principle expounded in Chapter 87,
i.e. to apply as few penstocks as possible (eventually one). By choosing high- capacity
generating units the number of unit penstocks can be reduced, and a favourable
bifurcation obtained by direct connection as well (Fig. 11/95).
Conditions may frequently impose limitations on the location of the powerhouse
relative to the hillside, and may require the modification of the predetermined method
of connection. A direct solution preferred for the afore-mentioned structural as well as

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

185

hydraulic considerations may prove impractical if other conditions call for an

arrangement parallel to the penstock. The orientation of the machine hall may be
governed by the availability of space required for the transformers and the switchyard.
The practical alignment of the tailwater tunnel, or at least of the initial section thereof, is
sometimes an important aspect, moreover the entire

LOCH
186Fig. 28/93.
93substructure. Loch Sioy power station. Each
powerhouse
of the
Anch Anchor block built in unit with the CHAPTER
four penstocks
is connected to a Francis turbine //=260 m, N4 x 32,500 kW, =428 rpm.
or
(Water Power 1950)

L
OhON
D

station layout may be influenced by the space available to carry the wheel discharge away
from the powerhouse sometimes in a very narrow valley or river bank.
Details of a modem power station with the machine hall arranged parallel to the
penstock are shown in Fig. 29/93. The Cimego powerhouse of the Alto Chiese
development in Italy featured at that time (in 1957) the largest horizontal-shaft Pelton
units in the world. (Double-wheel Pelton turbines having a capacity of 150,000 HP, while
the electrical output of the generator is 110 MW.) The two large generating sets installed

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

187

at the station are supplied through a laterally connected banded (hooped) penstock. Four
3
unit penstocks convey the plant discharge of 34 m /sec to the wheels. A separate small
penstock is connected directly to the third machine installed, a vertical-shaft Francis
turbine having an output of 9 MW. The small penstock is supplied from the Ponte
Murandin, while the large one draws on the Malga Boazzo reservoir. Each of the high3
capacity units can discharge 17.75 m /sec under a net head of 721 m. The large penstock
is 1220 m in length and is

188

CHAPTER 93

500,011
MW Jim

006000

Control room
cz Z)

.%

6h

W00t
.

.# m 4+

iff* V I
4

k**p M*

479,6

0
c -J

j
It
l

4 460,40

^TESSXSSSXttCB
StSSBCHISt^^SSS
L

0
479,5
0
Fig. 29(93. Cimego power station with lateral penstock arrangement. .4/to Chiese scheme, Italy. Three
generating sets are installed at the powerhouse: two double-wheel horizontal-shaft Pelton
4?Wunits and a verticalshaft Francis machine supplied from a separate penstock. Each of the high-capacity units generates a power of
110 MW, while the smaller set driven by
a Francis turbine has a capacity of 9 N.
MW
r-rr-n
only. The power capacity of the whole station totals 229 MW. (Water Power 1957)

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

189

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

To Fig, 29j93

190

ANCHORAGES AND SUPPORTS

191

fixed by ten anchor blocks. Free movement is provided for by expansion joints arranged
immediately below each anchor block. The inital diameter of 3.3 m is reduced at the lower
end to 2.9 m, consequently the flow velocity increases from 4.0 to 5.2 m/sec before
reaching the point of bifurcation. Fig. 32/93 presents a clear view of the lower end of the
penstock revealing the wye sections heavily reinforced by stiffening clamps.
It has been pointed out in the preceding chapter, in connection with Figs 7/92,
8/92,9/92,10/92 and 11/92, that considerable reinforcement is necessary at bifurcations.
The reinforcement required is the heavier, the smaller the angle of bifurcation, yet acuteangled branchings are sometimes unavoidable. Usually, however, the additional cost of
reinforcement far outweighs the savings attainable by the reduction of head losses
through the choice of small angles at bifurcations. Hydraulic considerations are
consequently sacrificed and wyes are in most cases designed with angles between 35 and
45 degrees. A clear picture of the arrangement of anchor blocks may also be gained from
Fig. 30/93. The lowest block rests against the substructure of the powerhouse.
In keeping with the pledge made at the end of Chapter 90, a few informative data
will be given for the determination of head losses at bifurcations. These losses are defined
as the difference between the piezometric heads immediately before and immediately
following the bifurcation (elevation of the centreline + manometric head at the centreline).
Piezometric head loss in the main penstock and in the branch pipe is obviously involved.
Both of them are related to the velocity head downstream of the bifurcation, i.e.
a

Ahm= :*-=- and Ahb=&

2g

2g

(27/93)

where the suffixes m and b refer to the main penstock and to the branch pipe,
respectively. For calculating these velocities cross-sectional areas following the

TABLE 1/93

The coefficient of head loss at bifurcations for various discharge ratios

and different angles
Discharge ratio for

2=2,
2*
2
G.10
0.25
0.50
0.75
0.90

+ Qb
Qm
Qb

1/3
1/9

The loss coefficient for bifurcations under

90 degrees
acute (30 deg.) angles

&

Cm

0.03

0.89

0
0
0

0.78
0.63
0.44
0.36
0.41

0
0

0.88

0.18
0.28

1.06

0.91

1.20

0.16
0.26

bifurcation, respectively the wye itself should be allowed for. The discharge delivered by
the main penstock to the point of bifurcation is Q = Qm + Qb. The above notations have
been used in compiling Table 1/93 containing values of the loss coefficient for various
Qb/Q, respectively Qm/Qb ratios and for bifurcations under 90 degrees and under acute
angles. It should be noted that, as revealed by accurate investigations, the main-line loss,
i.e. the quantity Jhm may, in case of small discharge ratios, assume negative values as well,
indicating that the piezometric head in the main penstock may under certain
circumstances show a slight increase. Of course, the energy law is not violated thereby
inasmuch as this increase originates from the velocity diminution, so that a portion of the
kinetic energy of the main flow is converted into pressure increment. In view of the
slightness of these increments, negative loss coefficients have not been entered into the
table and are denoted by zero.

CHAPTER
94
THE ECONOMICAL
PENSTOCK
DIAMETER

Different diameters d may be considered for a penstock required to carry a given

discharge Q. Although the weight and thus the first cost of the penstock increase parallel
with increasing diameter, the output in electrical energy is also increased owing to the
reduction in frictional head loss. The economic diameter may be determined on the basis
of the following considerations: the economically justified diameter for a penstock
required to carry a given flow Q is the one at which annual costs due to the greater
investment do not exceed the annual value of the resulting increment energy output. The
governing criterion is thus to regain economically the last increment kilowatt-hour made
available by reducing the head loss through using a larger diameter. Mathematically this
criterion of economical nature may
2
be expressed by the
relation
dd
dCi
(1/94)
dd
where Ci is the annual cost due to the investment for a pipe of any diameter d, and C2 is
the value of energy that can be produced at the same diameter d.
With H, metres, denoting the design head for the penstock section under
consideration, the necessary shell thickness is from Eq. (9/92)
yHd 0.1 Hd
8
[cm],
i t 2<r
d Sa
7c0.1
Hal
2cr
t
G l
[kg],
y
yx
1 1000x2
1000
c r.
and the weight of the penstock section having a length / cm is
3
where y i is the specific weight of steel: 7.85 kg/dm . Considering that the installed
weight of the penstock is higher by about 20 per cent due to the weight of joints, rivets,
etc., we may write
2
1.2 x 7.85 x ft H d l
HdTl
0.0015
(2/94)
20,000 oa

176

CHAPTER 94

Denoting the specific average first cost for the penstock Co [S/kg] and the annual
operating charges including the depreciation, maintenance by a per cent, the average
annual specific cost of the penstock is

The annual cost of the penstock having a diameter d is thus:

Cl = 0.0015

GQ

-1- [$/year].

(3/94)

Let us now consider the influence of the changes in the diameter d on the annual energy
Output and its value.
Using Eqs (10/90) and (11/90) the resistance of the pipe having a diameter d cm and a
3
length / cm, and delivering Q m /sec may be written as

X 100 /g
5
12.1
d
s

(Factor 100 is introduced since /has been substituted in metres into the original
expression.)
The power output may be considered as the difference of an initial No and the power
loss due to frictional resistance and written into the form:
N
NQ~~9.%T}Q

Ah
_
100

(Reference is made to Eq. (1/11) derived in Volume /, according to which the power output
3
is obtained from the expression 9.Sr}QAh in kW, if the discharge is introduced in m /sec
and the head in m units.)
Assuming the overall efficiency of the development as 0.77 and denoting the average
annual duration of operation by t hours, the annual energy output is, after reductions and
rearrangements,

THE ECONOMICAL PENSTOCK DIAMETER

177

E=Nt = (N0- 0.075 Q Ah) t [kWh/year],

which, when substituting, the expression of Ah assumes the final form
0.075 x100 XIQ
5
12.1 d
s

G 2 C2

N o 6.2 x 10

[kWh/year].

/ ct [S/year].

If the value of power at the generator terminals is c% S/kW/z, the annual energy
produced may be represented by the sum:

(4/94)

THE ECONOMICAL PENSTOCK DIAMETER

178

Differentiating Eqs (3/94) and (4/94) with respect to d and substituting into Eq. (1/94),
7

^
i
d
6
.
2
x
l
0
x
5
0.003
Oa
we obtain
Rearranging terms and rounding off
and

1
d 710
0

^100
wherein

11 X<JatC

Cl

C
l

H
H

XO g t C 2

(5/94)

1000 ci H

X the friction coefficient, values of which have been given in Chapter 90 (may be taken
2
as 0.02 for preliminary estimates), aa the allowable stress for steel in kg/cm , t = the
annual duration of operation in hours, c2 the value of one kWh at the generator
terminals,
3
Q the discharge conveyed by the penstock in m /sec, ci = the annual cost of 1 kg
weight of the penstock in the same currency units as c2, and
H = the design head in m.
It should be pointed out that the investigation is more involved if the utilized discharge is
subject to considerable fluctuations, inasmuch as under such circumstances both Q and t
are to be determined by auxiliary computations before being entered into Eq. (5/94).
As can be seen from Eq. (5/94) the economic diameter depends upon the head thus upon
the elevation of the pipe section under consideration. Theoretically, the
relationship indicates the necessity of gradually reducing the penstock diameter towards
the lower end but this, and even the use of small decrements, is not feasible for practical
r

THE ECONOMICAL PENSTOCK DIAMETER

179

reasons. When applying therefore Eq. (5/94) to any proposed installation, the head
pertaining to the central section of the investigated pipe length, i.e. the mean head should
be introduced. Reductions in diameter are practicably carried out at anchorages.
Decrements of at least 50 to 100 mm are commonly used, the shell thickness is specified in
mm. Neglecting slight variations in X with the diameter, each step in the latter can be
computed in keeping with Eq. (5/94)
29 Mosonyi

180

from the relationship

CHAPTER 94

(6/94)
where H, respectively Hi are the mean heads pertaining to the compared sections.
Constituents of the annual charges are:
Depreciation for a useful life 50 to 33 years . . . . 2 to 3%
Annual maintenance............................................................3 to 5%
Other charges (cost of money, etc.)......................................2 to 4%
Thus coefficient .........................................................7 to 12%
In estimating the cost co it should be considered that the cost of shop-welded pipe
sections is about 1.5 to 2.0 times that of steel plates delivered from the mill. The higher
coefficient applies to longer sections designed for higher heads. Erection may be taken as
from 20 to 25 per cent of the cost of fabrication, but may be considerably higher. (E.g. if
longitudinal joints must be prepared at the site, i.e. if half cylinders only can be
transported.)
The method of investigation described above and referred to on several occasions in
the literature should, of course, not be accepted without criticism, inasmuch as the
validity of the basic considerations may justly be questioned. It is not settled yet whether
the diameter at which an infinitely small additional investment is balanced by the
increment return, should actually be accepted as the most economical. The cost of the
penstock represents an item of varying significance relative to the total cost of the
development and it is the mean unit cost of energy produced that is eventually of decisive
importance. In some instances the unit cost of energy production may be very low and in
order to increase energy output a relative investment higher than the limit defined in the
foregoing may be justified for the penstock without raising the mean unit cost of energy
above the permissible value. This consideration will become clear if it is remembered
that, under exceptional conditions, the investment required for the penstock (or
penstocks) may be as low as from 3 to 5 per cent of that of the entire development. Under
average conditions the cost of the penstock amounts to about 5 to 10 per cent of the total
investment, yet in some cases the share of the penstock was from 15 to 20 per cent. As

THE ECONOMICAL PENSTOCK DIAMETER

181

demonstrated by A, W. K. Billings, the total cost of the penstock is at high-head

developments in many cases equal to the aggregate cost of all mechanical and electrical
equipment (including the switchyard and the transformer station).
In connection with the above deduction the following should be remembered: the
treatment of the head H as a constant value is an approximation, since changes in the
pipe diameter involve changes in the flow velocity as well as in the dynamic pressure
component caused by water hammer.
For determining the economic diameter the graph shown in Fig. 1/94 has been
proposed by G. Ferrand. The graph represents a function of two variables

25
3.0
Diameter
Head
[
mj
v
<
Fig. 1J94.
[m] diameter plotted against discharge and head. (After
ib The mean value of economical penstock
182

eU
r

Q
O
)
O

CHAPTER 94

G. Ferrand)

in
the
form of a
family of
curves

d~<p(Q)
for
different
H= const,
values
between
150 and
2000 m.
The
graph
provides

information as to the mean diameter.

In connection with the economic analysis of the penstock, it should be noted that by
dividing the discharge to 2, 3, 4, 5 penstocks of equal diameter, their cost is increased to
1.10,1.17,1.22,1.26 times that of a single pipe, respectively. (After W. Bauersfeld and A.

Schoklitsch.)
It should be emphasized in conclusion that any diameter determined by the method
described above, or on the basis of other considerations of an economic character, is not
i

THE ECONOMICAL PENSTOCK DIAMETER

183

feasible unless requirements of fabrication, handling, transport and installation as well as

limitations as regards the velocity of flow are complied with.
For a more accurate analysis of the economical penstock diameter the reader is referred
to the exact mathematical transaction of J. O. de Mello Flores (see bibliography).
29*

184

CHAPTER 94

During the last three decades, i.e. since the time that the second edition of this book
was published, several experts dealt with this problem (G. S. Sark aria, E. J. Low, T.
Sungur, D. I. H. Barr). Lately, Sarkaria, with reference to his earlier suggestion,
recommended a simple empirical formula (expressed in the foot-pound system) to be
applied for a quick estimate on the economic penstock diameter. An instructive table is
attached to this paper, listing 38 plants and penstocks, respectively, and containing a

THE ECONOMICAL PENSTOCK DIAMETER

comparison between the estimated and the actual diameters.

185

APPENDIX