Modelling a transient event at an hydroelectric scheme

P J Purcell
Dooge Centre for Water Resources Research,
University College Dublin, Eire

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the development of a computational model of a transient event at an

hydroelectric scheme. In 2009, a waterhammer incident occurred that resulted, due to
operator error, in the venting of a substantial quantity of water from a shaft adjacent to
the intake. Following a subsequent investigation, it was decided to commission a
numerical model of the transient behaviour of the hydroelectric scheme with the
objective of better understanding the incident that occurred to enable improved future
management of the system. The paper describes the development of the model and the
validation of the model with limited data. The conclusions of the investigation of the
incident and the subsequent modelling exercise are:
(a) the electrical control of the intake gate should be physically protected from
accidental interference which might result in a gate trip;
(b) the intake gate should be prevented from closing in a time interval less than a
specified threshold value.

1 INTRODUCTION

The objective of the present paper is to describe a transient event that occurred in 2009 at
a medium-sized hydro-electric scheme and the subsequent modelling of this event.
Although, there are a number of generic software packages available for modelling fluid
transients, a specific computational model, that more faithfully represented the boundary
conditions of the system, was developed. In addition, one of the key issues in this case
study was the development of a model that reasonably represented the system with
limited measured data. The numerical model of the fluid transients has been developed
using an EXCEL spreadsheet, enabling ‘what-if’ scenarios to be explored arising from
various operating regimes at the hydroelectric scheme. At present, there is no measured
waterhammer data available to verify the model described below, thus the issue of
validating the model is explored below.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

There are many investigations in the literature of waterhammer incidents in hydroelectric

power stations. For example, the Ogiwa power plant built in 1936 in Tokyo, Japan
experienced a transient event in 1960 which caused a rupture of one of the penstocks at
the power station resulting in the loss of life of three workers; the waterhammer event
was attributed to operator error and malfunctioning of equipment (1). To prevent such

© BHR Group 2015 Pressure Surges 12 379

incidents, hydro-electric penstocks are frequently protected by surge tanks, as illustrated
in Fig. 1, which cushion the penstock against excess pressures caused by changing flow
conditions. Under transient flow conditions, the water level in the surge tank fluctuates
up and down until damped out by friction.

Surge tank
Area A 2
+Z
hf

Reservoir Surge tank

Tunnel Area A 1
v

Turbines

Fig. 1 Definition sketch of surge tank

Much has been published on the performance of surge tanks in full-scale installations. As
far back as 1933, Gibson et al. compared the results of a simple surge tank on a full-scale
hydro-electric sysem at Tallulah Falls, Georgia with the numerical predictions (2).
Goodhue, H.W. in 1943 compared the performance of a differential surge tank at
Apalachia, Tennessee with the computational results (3). Bratfisch et al. in 1955 showed
good agreement between calculated pressure transients at the Owens Gorge Power Plant
using the graphical method and the test data measured with calibrated Bourdon gauges
(4). In 1963, Pearsal undertook a series of experiments to evaluate the performance of
various types of laboratory-scale surge tank and also compared a number of
computational methods with measured data (5). Noguueira in 1989 compared numerical
and physical models of surge tank performance and concluded that physical model
studies of surge tanks could be conducted using Froude similarity (6). Tănasel et al. in
2010 analysed the free surface level variation in a surge tank and in the secondary shafts
of a complex hydro electrical scheme with two headraces and four secondary intakes (7).
Vereide commenced a 4-year project in 2012 to undertake in-situ measurements of
existing surge tanks in Norway to develop, calibrate and validate physical and numerical
models of these surge tanks (8). In addition, the optimization of surge tank throttling is
being examined as part of this research project.

3 DESCRIPTION OF HYDROELECTRIC SCHEME

The hydroelectric scheme is schematically illustrated in Fig. 2. The system consists of a

concrete gravity dam and reservoir, a 398m long, 4.88m diameter tunnel through which
water flows from the reservoir for onward conveyance to a short penstock feeding the
turbines. The turbines are rated at approximately 40 m3/s each, giving a maximum flow
through the installation of circa 80 m3/s when two turbines are operating. Flow to the
turbines can be controlled at the upstream end of the tunnel by an intake gate in the dam,
and at the downstream end by inlet valves to each of two turbines. The system is
protected at the downstream end by a 19.96 m diameter surge tank and at the upstream
end by a small air vent (2.25m2 in plan area). The surge tank effectively acts as a pressure
relief on the system, damping any upsurge in the event of a sudden deceleration in flow
at the turbines, while the air vent mitigates transients in the system during a downsurge
following sudden closure of the intake gate.

380 © BHR Group 2015 Pressure Surges 12

 197.5

19.96 m

189.6
T.W.L. 186.3

Gate Air vent Surge tank

Reservoir 4.88 m

167.3

398 m

Inlet valves
Turbines

Fig. 2 Schematic of hydroelectric scheme

4 MODEL DEVELOPMENT

The starting point in the development of a model of the hydroelectric scheme was the
formulation of a spreadsheet model of the classical reservoir-pipe-turbine system,
protected by a surge tank, as shown schematically in Fig. 3.

Surge tank
Area A2
+Z
hf

Reservoir Surge tank

Intake Pipeline Area A 1
v

Turbines

Fig. 3 Conceptual model of reservoir-pipe-turbine system protected by a surge tank

Notation:
L = pipeline length
V = fluid velocity
A1 = cross-sectional area of pipe
A2 = plan area of surge tank
g = acceleration due to gravity
hf = head loss due to friction (fLv2/2gd)
z = water level in surge tank
t = time following initiation of transient event
Qturbine = flow through turbines

In the hydroelectric system shown in Fig. 3, under steady operating conditions, the water
level in the surge tank will be at an elevation hf below the reservoir level due to friction
and fitting losses. Consider the sudden closure of the control valves in this system. As the
valves close, the flow along the pipeline is directed up into the surge tank, resulting in a
rise in elevation of the water surface in the surge tank. As the water level in surge tank
rises above the reservoir level, the column of water in the pipe decelerates, eventually
reaching zero velocity. The out-of-balance head between the surge tank and the reservoir,
at the time of zero water velocity in the pipeline, results in the fluid column reversing in

© BHR Group 2015 Pressure Surges 12 381

direction, flowing out of the surge tank, and bifurcating towards the turbines and the
upstream reservoir. Eventually, this mass oscillation of the water column is damped out
by friction, and static equilibrium is restored.

The two equations describing this transient motion through the system are the
conservation of fluid momentum and conservation of fluid mass (continuity). The
momentum equation describes how the deceleration (dv/dt) of the fluid in the pipeline
that occurs as a result of the friction/fitting losses (hf) and the rise/fall in the elevation of
the free water surface in the surge tank (z). The continuity equation simply states that,
under transient flow conditions, flow through turbines is simply the sum of the flow
along the pipeline plus the flow from the surge tank.

Momentum equation

௅ ௗ௏

௚ ௗ௧
 ൅ ‫ ݖ‬േ  ݄௙  ൌ Ͳ (1)

Continuity equation

ௗ௓
‫ܣ‬ଵ ܸ ൌ  ‫ܣ‬ଶ ௗ௧  ൅  ܳ௧௨௥௕௜௡௘ (2)

Exact solutions to these equations are only possible for simple boundary conditions. For
more realistic situations, approximate solutions can be developed by numerical methods
such as finite difference formulations of equations (1) and (2). Solution of equation (1)
by finite difference yields the water velocity in the intake tunnel at time t + 't:

ௗ௏
V t + 't = V t +
ௗ௧
߂– 1(a)

Solution of equation (2) by finite difference yields the water level in the surge tank at
time t + 't:

ௗ௓
Z t + 't = Z t + ௗ௧
߂– 2(a)

The errors associated by the use of first order methods such as the Euler scheme given by
equations 1(a) and 2(a) can be minimised by using an appropriate computational time
step or alternatively employing higher-order methods such as the Runge-Kutta ( 9).

5 MODEL DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Text-book case study

The flow and pressure along the pipeline at any time following a transient event (e.g.
valve closure) can be determined by solving the momentum and continuity equations.
Exact or analytical solutions are only possible for simple systems (e.g. assuming no
friction, hf = 0). For more realistic systems, only approximate or numerical solutions are
possible. The starting point in the development of the surge model of the hydroelectric
scheme was to model the ‘standard’ textbook case study. The ‘standard’ textbook case
consists of examining the hydraulic transients generated in a reservoir-pipe-turbine
system following sudden load rejection by the turbines. The case chosen is presented in
reference (10). The data relevant to this case are:

382 © BHR Group 2015 Pressure Surges 12

Pipe diameter = 1.25 m
Pipe length = 200 m
Pipe friction factor f = 0. .04 [Note f = 0.01 is used in textbook, but this relates to the
‘British’ friction formula 2flv2/gd, in contrast to the ‘American’ friction formula
(flv2/2gd)]
Steady flow to turbines = 2.0 m3/s
Surge tank diameter = 4 m

The transient water level in the surge tank computed by model developed for this case
study is shown in Fig. 4. A comparison of the textbook values and the computed values
from the developed excel model is shown in Table 1.

Fig. 4 Computed water level in surge tank for textbook case [10]

Table 1 Comparison of the textbook values with the corresponding excel

spreadsheet values
Time (s) Water level in surge tank (m) Water velocity in pipe (m/s)
Model Textbook Model Textbook
0 -0.866 -0.866 1.63 1.63
5 -0.11024 -0.11 1.46538 1.47

By definition, approximate or numerical solutions of the governing differential equations

have some in-built error and it is then a question of minimising that error so that the error
is within an acceptable tolerance. The principal parameter that contributes to the error in
this type of numerical scheme is the size of the time step (dt), large time steps resulting in
correspondingly large errors in the computed transient water levels and velocities. Since
exact solutions to the differential equations are possible for simplified assumptions, such
as a frictionless system, one approach to ensuring that the time step chosen for a given
system is appropriate is to compare the computational output from the computational
model, assuming a frictionless system, with the corresponding analytical or exact
solution.

5.2 Hydro-electric case study

The relevant data for the hydroelectric system in question are shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 5(a)
shows the computed water level variation in the hydroelectric scheme, resulting from a
sudden load rejection by the turbines using a time step of 1s. Examination of the trace
shows that, when compared to the exact or analytical solution, the first peaks match well,
but there is divergence between the numerical model and the exact solution in the
subsequent oscillations due to numerical damping of the water level trace. When the time
step is reduced to 0.125 s, there is much better agreement between the two water level
traces (Fig. 5(b).

© BHR Group 2015 Pressure Surges 12 383

 Fig. 5 (a) Water level variation in surge tank at hydroelectric scheme for a sudden
load rejection by turbines operating at 80 m3/s, assuming no friction, time step 1s

Fig. 5 (b) Water level variation in surge tank at hydroelectric scheme for a sudden
load rejection by turbines operating at 80 m3/s, assuming no friction, time step
0.125s

6 TRANSIENT EVENT AT HYDROELECTRIC SCHEME

6.1 Description of incident

The intake gate adjacent to the reservoir was accidentally tripped, causing an intake of air
through the vent shaft and a surge in the pressure tunnel feeding the hydroelectric
installation. There were no alarms or indications prior to the trip to indicate any issues
with the intake gate. Water exited the vent shaft adjacent to the intake house
approximately 30 seconds after the gate tripping, lifting the grating on the vent and
blowing in one window in the intake house. In a post-incident investigation, it was found
that an operator undertaking routine maintenance in the valve intake house had
accidentally triggered the gate control, thereby initiating closure of the gate. The time
sequence of events is summarised in Table 2.

384 © BHR Group 2015 Pressure Surges 12

 Table 2 Time sequence of events following tripping of intake gate at
hydroelectric scheme
Time (seconds) Event
0 Intake gate tripped
15 Tunnel at intake gate unprimed
(Level detector located at intake gate)
37 Tunnel at intake primed
(water surge vents to atmosphere)
43 Tunnel at intake gate unprimed
45 Dam stilling basin high level alarm – vented
water has already flowed downstream of dam
78 Turbines are wound down
244 Inlet valves to turbine closed

6.2 Modelling of transient event

The key operating water levels during this event are shown in Fig. 6. In essence, the
intake gate was accidentally closed, resulting in a loss of flow to the turbines and the
generation of an oscillation in the water column between the surge tank and the air vent.
The objective of developing the numerical model described below was to try and model
this event as closely as possible so that various operating scenarios could be examined
with a view to mitigating any pressure transients in the reservoir-tunnel-turbine system
arising from such a future eventuality.

189.6
W.L. 187.05

Surge tank
Reservoir Gate Air vent

167.3 39 m3 /s

Inlet valves
Turbines
137.05

Fig. 6 Water levels and flows prior to transient event at hydroelectric scheme

The excel spreadsheet model described above that was developed for the ‘standard’
textbook reservoir-pipe-surge tank, for a transient event arising from load rejection by the
turbines, was modified to model more accurately the actual transient event that occurred
at the hydroelectric scheme, as follows:
(i) Inclusion of air vent, adjacent to reservoir, in model;
(ii) Initiation of transient event by closure of the intake gate.

Since, in this case, a transient event resulted from the sudden deceleration of the flow
through the gate, it is important to consider the parameters influencing the discharge
through the intake gate. The discharge through the gate at any given time (t seconds)
following initiation of gate closure is a function of:
(i) the head of water overlying the gate;
(ii) the coefficient of discharge for the gate;
(iii) the flow area beneath the gate at time t.

© BHR Group 2015 Pressure Surges 12 385

The head of water overlying the gate can be considered the vertical distance from the free
water surface to the centroid of the gate at time t. The discharge coefficient for the gate is
a function of the shape of the gate, the degree of openness of the gate and the head of
water overlying the gate. It is difficult to precisely quantify the integrated effect of all
these parameters during closure of the gate without actual measured data. Thus, the
computational model below makes the simplifying assumption of a linear closure, i.e. the
flow through the intake gate decreases linearly with time from the start of the gate
closing (time t = 0 seconds) until gate is finally closed (at time tc seconds).

Following sudden closure of the intake gate, the water column in the air vent is drawn
down and flows into the tunnel to try to compensate for the loss of flow due to the gate
closing. As the out-of-balance head between the water level in the surge tank and the air
vent increases, the water column in the tunnel decelerates, reaches zero velocity and
eventually reverses in direction. During the flow reversal, the outflow from the surge
tank bifurcates through the turbines (if still open) and into the tunnel. The model assumes
the worst case scenario, that is, all outflow from the surge tank discharges into tunnel
causing the largest upsurge through the air vent adjacent to the intake gate.

7 COMPUTATIONAL OUTPUT

On the day of the transient event, the intake gate was accidentally tripped, causing an
inflow of water from the air vent shaft and a surge in the pressure tunnel. One turbine
was operating at the time, at an approximate flow of 39 m3/s. It is estimated that the
intake gate closed within 15 – 22 seconds and that water vented from the air intake in a
time interval 22s - 30s after the intake gate was tripped. Anecdotal evidence is that water
discharged from the air vent to about window height in the adjacent intake house.

The computational model was run to simulate these events:

steady flow of 39 m3/s, gate closure time of 20 s.

The computational output illustrating the transient water levels in the air vent following
closure of the intake gate is shown in Fig. 7. Note that all levels shown are relative to the
steady water level prior to the transient event (187.05m). Following closure of the gate,
the water level in the air vent falls to a level of about 8m below the initial level. The
periodic time of the mass oscillation in the tunnel is about 14s and the computational
model suggests that a reflection of the wave from the surge tank occurs before closure of
gate at a time of 20s. Following closure of the gate, there is a sharp increase in the water
level in the air vent, reaching a peak height of about 7m above the initial steady water
level in the air vent or about 4.5m above ground level at the air vent at a time of about 28
seconds after the start of gate closure. This computational output correlates reasonably
well with the findings of the report into incident.

The model was re-run for slower gate closure times with one turbine running at 39 m3/s.
Figures 8, 9 and 10 show the computed transient water levels in the air vent shaft for gate
closure times of 40s, 60s and 120s respectively. Examination of the figures shows that
slowing the gate closure reduces considerably the magnitude of the peak water level and
delays its time its time of occurrence. For the water to discharge above ground level from
the air vent shaft, the transient peak water level would have to reach a height of about
2.5m above its initial steady level and clearly, in the case of figures 8, 9 and 10, this does
not occur.

386 © BHR Group 2015 Pressure Surges 12

A further computational run was undertaken to examine the effects of gate closure times
with two turbines running at a combined flow of approximately 80 m3/s. The transient
water levels in the air vent shaft are shown in figures 11, 12, 13 and 14 for gate closure
times of 20s, 40s, 60s and 120s respectively. Examination of the figures shows that, in
the case of a gate closure time of 20s, with two turbines running at a flow of 80 m3/s, the
water column in the air vent shaft would discharge to an approximate height of 10m
above the adjacent ground level. At a gate closure time of 40s, with two turbines running
at a load of 80m3/s, the upsurge from the air vent shaft would reach a height of about 1m
above ground level; for gate closure times of 60s and 120s, the upsurge in the air vent
shaft would not reach ground level.

Fig. 7 Water level in air vent relative to steady level, closure of intake gate in 20s –
steady flow 39 m3/s

Fig. 8 Water level in air vent relative to steady level, closure of intake gate in 40s –
steady flow 39 m3/s

Fig. 9 Water level in air vent relative to steady level, closure of intake gate in 60s –
steady flow 39 m3/s

Fig. 10 Water level in air vent relative to steady level, closure of intake gate in 20s –
steady flow 39 m3/s

© BHR Group 2015 Pressure Surges 12 387

Fig. 11 Water level in air vent relative to steady level, closure of intake gate in 20s –
steady flow 80 m3/s

Fig. 12 Water level in air vent relative to steady level, closure of intake gate in 40s –
steady flow 80 m3/s

Fig. 13 Water level in air vent relative to steady level, closure of intake gate in 60s –
steady flow 80 m3/s

Fig. 14 Water level in air vent relative to steady level, closure of intake gate in 120s
– steady flow 80 m3/s

8 CONCLUSIONS

Waterhammer control is essential to ensure the safe operation of hydroelectric power

plants. Rigid waterhammer theory can be used for the analysis of such plants with
relatively short inlet and outlet conduits. Normal and catastrophic operating regimes
should be analysed at the design stage of such installations.

An incident resulting from the accidental closure of the intake gate to the penstock of a
hydroelectric scheme has been presented above. A numerical model of this incident and

388 © BHR Group 2015 Pressure Surges 12

other operating scenarios has been developed enabling ‘what-if’ analysis to be
undertaken. For example, what would be the consequences of sudden intake closure with
one or two turbines operating? For a 20s gate closure time, with one turbine operating, no
water would be discharged from the air vent, whereas with two turbines operating, water
would discharge to atmosphere.

The computational model has been validated with other published data and by
comparison with analytical solutions for simple boundary conditions. While no measured
transient data was available in this case, anecdotal evidence from the transient incident
has been used to corroborate the computational output. This case study illustrates the
need to take pro-active measures such as the prevention of the accidental sudden
reduction of the flow to the turbines (e.g. preventing sudden intake closure) and the
installation of physical mechanisms to control the rate of gate closure in the event of
accidental tripping (e.g. pneumatic actuator on intake gate to control its rate of closure).

REFERENCES

1. Bonin, C. C. (1960) Water-Hammer Damage to Oigawa Power Station, J. Eng. Gas

Turbines Power 82(2), 111-116.
2. Gibson, A.H. and Cowen, W. (1933) ‘A comparison of the results of observations on
surge tank installations and on their scale models, Proc. ICE, paper 4887, Jan 1933,
327-351.
3. Goodhue, H.W., Smart, R.L. and Meyer, A.A. (1943) The design of recent TVA
projects, VIII, Apalachia and Ocoee No. 3, Civil Engineering (New York), vol. 13,
no. 10, Oct., 465-468.
4. Bratfisch, A.E. and Cartwright K.O. (1955) Water-Hammer calculations and test
results – Owens Gorge Power Plant Penstocks, Hydraulic Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers and American Water Works Association at the Diamond
Jubilee Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, 1955.
5. Pearsall, I.S. (1963) Comparative experiments on surge tank performance, Proc. Inst.
Mech. Engrs., vol. 177, no.35, 1963.
6. Nogueira, A.A. et al. (1989) Alto Lindso Hydraulic circuit: Design and Physical
Modelling, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Pressure Surges,
Cambridge, U.K., 163-177.
7. Tănase1, N.O., Isbăúoiu1, E.C. (2010) ‘Transitory flow in a complex hydroelectric
scheme with multiple intakes and water tanks D M Bucur1, C M Ghergu1, 25th
IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing IOP Conf.
Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12.
8. Vereide, K, Design of surge tanks, Centre for Environmental Design of Renewable
Energy, Norway, http://www.cedren.no/Portals/Cedren/WP62_Vereide_301014.pdf
9. Chapra, S. and Canale, R. (2014) Numerical Methods for Engineers, McGraw-Hill
Science.
10. Douglas, J.F., Gasiorek, J.M. and Swaffield, J.A., (1985) Fluid Mechanics, Second
Edition, Longman Scientific & Technical.

© BHR Group 2015 Pressure Surges 12 389