Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Email address:
mksalfah@iitr.ac.in (Singhal M. K.), akumafah@iitr.ac.in (Arun K.)
Abstract: Penstock, a closed conduit, is an important component of hydropower projects. Various methods are available for
optimum design of penstock. These methods are either based on empirical relations or derived analytically by optimizing the
friction loss in the penstock. These formulae produce different values of penstock diameter for same site.
site In this study,
formulae available for penstock design have been compared to review their suitability. A new method has been developed for
the optimum design of penstock based on minimizing the total head loss comprising
omprising of friction and other losses.
losses By using new
developed method, diameter and annual cost of penstocks for few Hydro Electric plants of varying capacity have been worked
out and reduction in annual cost of penstocks
penstock have been found in comparison to penstock cost for these projects.
Keywords: Friction Losses, Total Head Losses, Annualized Penstock Cost, Optimum Diameter of Penstock
1. Introduction
Hydropower, a renewable
enewable and mature energy source
utilizes water from higher to lower altitude to generate power.
Hydro Power is one of the proven, predictable
predic
and cost
effective sources of renewable energy. Hydropower system
(Fig 1) comprises of hydro source, diversion/storage system,
water conductor system (channel/tunnel/penstock),
(channel/tunnel/
power
house building, generating and control equipment.
equipment Penstock
is a conduit or tunnel connecting
necting a reservoir/forebay to hydro
turbine housed in powerhouse building for power generation.
It withstands the hydraulic pressure of water under static as
well as dynamic condition. It contains the closing devices
(gates /valves) at the starting (just
just after reservoir/forebay)
reservoir/forebay
and at the tail end just before turbine to control the flow in
the penstock. The penstock material may be mild steel, glass
reinforced plastic (GRP), reinforced cement concrete (RCC),
wood stave, cast iron and high density polyethylene (HDPE)
etc. However, in the most of the cases, mild steel has been
used for penstock since long due to wider applicability and
availability. The penstock cost contributes an appreciable
percentage towards the total civil works cost of the
hydroelectric project. By optimizing the penstock diameter,
maximum energy generation can be obtained at minimum
cost.
The aim of present study is to develop the new relation for
the optimum design of penstock by considering all types of
losses in the penstock.
2. Relations Available
vailable for Optimized
Design
esign of Penstock
Various researchers have proposed the methodology and
relations for the optimum design of penstock. These relations
are either empirical relations developed by analyzing and
correlating statistical data of existing/installed projects
designed as per past practice
ractice or derived analytically by
minimizing annual penstock cost considering friction loss.
The available analytical relations considered only friction
loss whereas in addition to friction loss, there are other losses
such as losses at specials (bends, transition piece,
tri/bifurcation etc.), losses at valves and inlet which are not
De = (
D = 0.72 Q
(2)
D = 0.71 P
/H
(3)
0.72P 0.43
H r 0.63
(8)
/H
(9)
W C Hr
(10)
= ((1 + int)
1)/(int (1 + int)
(11)
D22/3 =
0.52P 0.43
H r 0.60
(5)
ks e fl S e j b
a r (1 + n s )
(4)
K=
De =
D = 1.517 Q . /H
D = 1.12 Q
De =
(7)
4Q
)0.5
0.125*3.14(2gH r )0.5 )
(1)
D = 0.176 (P /H )
217
(6)
2.36106 Q3 n2 e pf Cp
[1.39 Ce + 0.6Cc + (121H Cs (1+ i)) / ( ej )] p
(12)
218
Singhal M. K. and Arun Kumar: Optimum Design of Penstock for Hydro Projects
Capacity (kW)
Discharge (m3/s)
25
100
50
200
500
1500
1500
1500
13000
24900
0.17
0.38
0.38
0.48
1.38
1.84
2.12
4.88
23.75
68.02
360
105
200
120
120
138
170
121
156
2260
31.25
49.16
53.45
80.60
48.94
95.35
85.20
38.44
78.00
44.92
1000
3200
5400
23000
60000
45000
1.90
3.06
3.65
20.50
37.18
37.46
700
191
365
1653
8190
4184
127.50
118.42
191.37
127.54
191.57
149.00
4000
2500
5000
5000
81000
1.34
1.45
1.66
1.70
34.07
870
453
960
1250
350
380.00
204.35
358.40
363.18
289.00
Project
Category A Projects
1
Dugtu
2
Gaundar
3
Kuti
4
Kotijhala
5
Wachham
6
Debra
7
Dhera
8
Gaj
9
Nyikgong
10
Kamlang
Category B Projects
11
Baram
13
Divri
14
Sarbari-ii
12
Keyi
15
Thru
16
Phunchung
Category C Projects
17
Jirah
18
Ditchi
19
Luni-II
20
Luni-III
21
Pemashelpu
Warnick
Sarkaria
Fahlbusch
USBR
Bier
ASCE
0.38
0.53
0.53
0.58
0.91
1.01
1.07
1.55
2.82
4.64
0.27
0.37
0.26
0.37
0.73
0.79
0.84
1.36
2.24
4.34
0.29
0.44
0.44
0.50
0.85
0.98
1.05
1.59
3.51
5.94
0.31
0.41
0.29
0.40
0.82
0.86
0.92
1.55
2.47
4.92
0.33
0.45
0.45
0.48
0.81
0.85
0.92
1.48
2.76
4.79
0.27
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.68
0.66
0.73
1.35
2.49
4.94
0.16
0.25
0.17
0.27
0.52
0.64
0.67
0.97
1.91
3.48
0.53
0.70
0.69
0.73
1.23
1.26
1.37
2.19
3.90
6.62
0.91
0.95
1.03
1.64
2.86
4.92
1.00
1.22
1.27
2.68
3.34
3.41
0.56
0.96
0.90
2.18
2.64
2.67
0.99
1.26
1.38
3.26
4.39
4.41
0.60
1.03
0.95
2.34
2.79
2.84
0.84
1.05
1.07
2.45
3.06
3.16
0.63
0.81
0.78
2.06
2.54
2.69
0.46
0.82
0.84
2.01
2.66
2.58
1.23
1.52
1.54
3.41
4.15
4.32
0.88
1.14
1.07
2.50
2.90
3.05
0.79
0.86
0.87
0.87
3.11
0.53
0.62
0.60
0.60
2.25
0.83
0.87
0.93
0.94
4.20
0.53
0.65
0.61
0.61
2.31
0.63
0.70
0.70
0.70
2.78
0.40
0.48
0.45
0.46
2.15
0.53
0.57
0.61
0.60
2.44
0.91
1.02
1.00
1.01
3.77
0.67
0.80
0.68
0.76
2.74
7.00
Analytical
Moffat
6.00
Warnick
Diameter (m)
5.00
Sakaria
4.00
Fahlbusch
USBR
3.00
Bier
2.00
ASCE
1.00
Voetsch
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
Discharge (cumec)
Analytical
Moffat
Diameter(m)
Warnick
3
Sakaria
Fahlbusch
USBR
Bier
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
ASCE
Discharge (cumec)
4.00
Diameter (m)
Warnick
3.00
Sakaria
Fahlbusch
2.00
USBR
1.00
Bier
ASCE
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Discharge (cumec)
30.00
35.00
0
0.00
219
40.00
Voetsch
L v2 n 2
R 4/3
(13)
220
Singhal M. K. and Arun Kumar: Optimum Design of Penstock for Hydro Projects
10.29 Q2 n 2 L
D16/3
(14)
L f v2
h =
2gD
(15)
h=
0.0826 f Q 2 L
D5
(16)
.,
(17)
h f = (1/1000 )L K s
v1.9
D1.1
(18)
h f = 0.002586 L K s
v1.9
D1.1
(19)
(20)
n = 0.0896 f D1/3
(21)
0.002586 L K s
V 1 .9
0.0826 L f Q 2
=
D1 . 1
D5
(22)
(23)
221
Penstock
Diameter D (m)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
Penstock Discharge
Q (m3/s)
0.03
0.11
0.25
0.44
0.69
2.75
6.18
10.99
17.17
24.73
33.66
43.96
55.64
68.69
83.11
98.91
116.08
134.63
154.55
175.84
Relative
Roughness (k/D)
0.0004500
0.0002250
0.0001500
0.0001125
0.0000900
0.0000450
0.0000300
0.0000225
0.0000180
0.0000150
0.0000129
0.0000113
0.0000100
0.0000090
0.0000082
0.0000075
0.0000069
0.0000064
0.0000060
0.0000056
Reynolds
number (106)
0.35
0.70
1.05
1.40
1.75
3.50
5.25
7.00
8.75
10.50
12.25
14.00
15.75
17.50
19.25
21.00
22.75
24.50
26.25
28.00
Darcy Weisbach
coefficient (f)
0.01750
0.01500
0.01450
0.01350
0.01150
0.01000
0.00980
0.00950
0.00920
0.00900
0.00890
0.00880
0.00850
0.00845
0.00840
0.00835
0.00830
0.00820
0.00810
0.00800
Manning
coefficient (n)
0.008075
0.008392
0.008828
0.008936
0.008560
0.008960
0.009490
0.009803
0.010012
0.010208
0.010416
0.010590
0.010614
0.010770
0.010910
0.011037
0.011151
0.011222
0.011282
0.011334
Scobey
coefficient (ks)
0.778030
0.714748
0.719513
0.689443
0.600556
0.559704
0.571207
0.569882
0.564339
0.562229
0.564619
0.565779
0.552966
0.555536
0.557537
0.559062
0.560180
0.557548
0.554561
0.551261
(24)
v2
v2
v2
+ kg + k b
+ ky
2g
2g
2g
v2
v2
v2
+ kv + k tre
2g
2g
2g
(25)
(26)
(27)
222
Singhal M. K. and Arun Kumar: Optimum Design of Penstock for Hydro Projects
v2
fLv2
+ ko
2gD
2g
(28)
(29)
Project
Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Pemashelpu
Debra
Kotijhala
Divri
Sarbari-ii
Dhera
Nyikgong
Gaundar
Ditchi
Jirah
Wachham
Luni-II
Gaj
Luni-III
Kuti
Baram
Dugtu
Keyi
Phunchung
Thru
Kamlang
Total
1.38
0.59
0.62
0.79
1.72
0.68
0.41
0.50
2.53
6.50
0.46
6.67
0.35
8.58
0.94
3.01
1.70
4.56
10.54
22.12
3.75
1.21
1.45
1.49
1.62
1.91
1.99
2.00
2.14
2.22
2.29
2.45
2.68
3.15
3.44
3.74
5.49
11.52
12.96
28.08
42.75
50.30
2.55
2.46
2.45
2.41
2.34
2.32
2.32
2.29
2.27
2.26
2.23
2.19
2.13
2.09
2.06
1.91
1.66
1.63
1.40
1.30
1.26
. ,
(30)
. ,
(31)
For any project, the length of penstock and gross head are
site specific parameters. These will remain same while
carrying out various trials in order to determine optimum
diameter of penstock. Therefore, term on right hand side of
eqn. (31) shall be constant. By replacing right hand side in
eqn. (31) as constant (kt ), the resulting eqn. is shown as eqn.
(32).
T8: = k 3 h
(32)
= 1.39DD C L
(36)
(37)
pr De
2 e j
(38)
0.1 H De
2 e j
(39)
(40)
(41)
(34)
(35)
(33)
223
0.1 H D 2e
(1 + i ) L
2 ej
(42)
224
Singhal M. K. and Arun Kumar: Optimum Design of Penstock for Hydro Projects
121HDe2 Cs (1 + i)
L
ej
(43)
+ CB: + CH9
121 HD e C s (1 + i )
L
ej
2
(45)
(46)
P = 9.81 Q T8: e
(49)
De =
( Ep + Et )
D
=0
(50)
(51)
(48)
(44)
Putting the values of Cex, Ccl and Csp from eqn. (34), eqn.
(36) and eqn. (43) respectively in eqn. (44), Texp may be
computed as per eqn. (45).
Texp = 1.39 De C e L + 0 .6 De C c +
Et = 9.81Q kt
0.0826 f Q2 L
* e Pf 8760 Cp
D5
(52)
(47)
2
121HCs (1 + i )
0.0826 f Q 2
De 1.39Ce + 0.6Cc +
p L + 9.81Q k t
L e Pf 8760 Cp = 0
D
ej
D
(53)
L
O
K
121H Cs (1 + i) N
0.0826fQ 2
2D K1.39 C + 0.6CB +
N p L 5 x 9.81 Q k 3
L e P 8760 C9 = 0
ej
D6
K
N
J
M
After simplifying, eqn. (54) may be written as eqn. (55)
D7 =
0.0175 x 106 Q3 f e pf Cp k t
[1.39 Ce + 0.6Cc + 121 H Cs(1 + i) / e j ] p
(55)
(54)
D7 =
(56)
225
Table 5. Penstock Diameter and Annual Cost Saving As Per Developed Method for various HE projects.
Sl.
No.
Project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Pemashelpu
Debra
Kotijhala
Divri
Sarbari-ii
Dhera
Nyikgong
Gaundar
Ditchi
Jirah
Wachham
Luni-II
Gaj
Luni-III
Kuti
Baram
Dugtu
Keyi
Phunchung
Thru
Kamlang
Diameter as
provided at
site/DPR (m)
3.11
1.01
0.58
1.22
1.27
1.07
2.82
0.53
0.86
0.79
0.91
0.87
1.55
0.87
0.53
1.00
0.38
2.68
3.41
3.34
4.64
Diameter as per
new developed
relation (m)
3.56
1.14
0.66
1.38
1.43
1.20
3.18
0.60
0.97
0.89
1.02
0.97
1.73
0.97
0.59
1.09
0.41
2.87
3.58
3.47
4.79
% Increase
in
Diameter
14.31
13.75
13.67
13.41
12.90
12.77
12.76
12.56
12.44
12.35
12.14
11.87
11.38
11.11
10.86
9.71
7.53
7.18
4.96
3.77
3.31
7. Conclusion
The various relations available for optimum design of
penstock have been compared and it was observed that these
relations provide different values of optimum penstock
diameter resulting in different cost. Some of these relations
are based on minimizing annual cost of penstock considering
friction loss only whereas in practice other losses in penstock
also occurs and needed to be considered. In addition, the
different relations available for friction loss also provides
different values of losses in penstock. A new method has
been developed to optimize the design of penstock for hydro
power projects on the basis of minimizing annual project cost
considering total head loss (friction and other losses). All
these losses have been formulated using Darcy Weisbach
formula. The newly developed relation has been used for 21
hydro power projects with capacity ranging from 25 kW to
60 MW to find out the optimum diameter and compared with
results obtained as provided at site/DPR. By providing
penstock diameter as per new method, though the penstock
diameter increased in the range of 3.31 to 14.31%, it resulted
in the net saving in annual cost of penstock. The saving has
In % of cost of
penstock
9.714
9.044
8.939
8.639
8.048
7.892
7.882
7.655
7.528
7.418
7.188
6.896
6.377
6.098
5.842
4.737
2.922
2.674
1.318
0.782
0.613
Symbols Used
= density of penstock material
n = Mannings roughness coefficient
= permissible stress in penstock
a = cost of pipe in $ per lb
b = cost of 1 kWh of energy in $
C = capital cost of penstock installed per unit weight
Cp = cost of 1 kWh of energy
Ccl = cost of concrete lining / cum
Cc = unit rate of concrete lining
Ce = cost of excavation / cum for laying penstock
Cex = cost of excavation per unit length of penstock
Cs = cost of steel / kg
Csp = cost of penstock
D = Diameter of penstock
De = economic diameter of penstock
e = turbine/generator efficiency
ej = joint efficiency of penstock
226
Singhal M. K. and Arun Kumar: Optimum Design of Penstock for Hydro Projects
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]