Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Power Plants A Hydro Power Technology Round-Up Report, Volume 2

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydropower Plants
A Hydropower Technology Round-Up Report, Volume 2
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3)
and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of this
publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI.
This notice supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the
document prior to publication.
Rehabilitating and Upgrading
Hydropower Plants
A Hydropower Technology Round-Up Report,
Volume 2
TR-113584-V2
Final Report, November 1999
EPRI Project Manager

M.A. Blanco
EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
HCI Publications
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins
Drive, P.O. Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (800) 313-3774.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 1999 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
HCI Publications
410 Archibald Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64111
Principal Investigators
J.C. Phillips, P.E.
C. Vansant, P.E.
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Rehabilitation and Upgrading Hydro Plants: A Hydropower Technology Round-Up Report,

Volume 2, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1999. TR-113584-V2.
iii
REPORT SUMMARY
Owners of aging hydropower plants are confronted with an array of project and technology
options for rehabilitating or upgrading their facilities and are making large capital investment
decisions at a time of increasing competitive pressures. Ensuring that investments in plant are
optimal requires a thorough understanding of the technologies, approaches and strategies
available for rehab and upgrading—as well as the risks associated with these projects. This
volume of EPRI’s Hydropower Technology Roundup report presents techniques and practices,
lessons learned, and examples of the rehabilitation and upgrading of hydropower plants.
Background
Hydropower plant owners and operators are rehabilitating and upgrading hydro plants to increase
the value of output, add capacity, improve reliability, reduce operating and maintenance expense,
extend plant life, and comply with environmental and safety regulations or voluntarily-imposed
standards. Some owners have adopted formal, comprehensive programs; others employ a plant-
by-plant, unit-by-unit, component-by-component approach. Significant funds are being expended
to prepare facilities around the world “for the 21st century”. Although not intended to provide
exhaustive coverage of the issues, this second volume of the Technology Roundup Report can
help hydropower mangers understand the state-of-the-art in rehabilitation and upgrading in the
global hydropower community and learn from others’ experience. For a comprehensive
treatment of hydropower rehabilitation and upgrading see EPRI report GS-6419, Volumes 1-3,
Hydropower Plant Modernization Guide, which is currently being updated.
Objective
• To describe the spectrum of contemporary hydropower rehabilitation and upgrade programs
and projects
• To summarize the technologies and methodologies involved in such programs or projects
• To present “lessons learned” and the state-of-the-art
Approach
The investigators assembled and reviewed recent pertinent conference reports, publications,
other literature, and audiotapes of roundtable discussions on hydropower rehabilitation and
upgrade programs. They contacted individuals known to have significant experience in the
selected areas and invited them to share additional information and perspectives. They chose
example applications and case studies for presentation involving hydro facilities of all ages,
types, and sizes, located in North America and worldwide. To the extent appropriate, they made
generalizations concerning the applicability and benefits of the strategies and technologies
implemented in these applications.
v
Results
Numerous successful improvements to hydro systems, plants, units, and individual components
are identified and described in the report. Specific plant components rehabilitated or upgraded
include turbines, water passage and conveyance facilities, generators, governors and controls,
and auxiliary systems and equipment. Numerous “lessons learned” gleaned from the literature or
offered by contributors are presented to assist others in the consideration or application of these
strategies and technologies.
EPRI Perspective
Faced with cost competition, increasing environmental standards, and on-going licensing
requirements, hydropower plant owners need to know about the technology options available and
under development to make their facilities more compliant, protective of the environment, and
competitive. They need information about the benefits and costs of alternative technologies and
the successful practices and strategies used for their implementation. EPRI’s Hydropower
Technology Roundup report series will provide a clearinghouse for worldwide information on
key topics and new and emerging technologies, including case studies and contacts. This volume
presents an overview of research, practices, lessons learned, and some examples regarding the
rehabilitation and upgrading of hydropower plants. Technology Roundup reports are published
several times a year.
TR-113584-V2
Keywords
Controls
Generators/Motor-Generators
Governors
Rehabilitating(ion)
Turbines/Pump-Turbines
Upgrade(ing)
vi
EPRI Licensed Material
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks and acknowledgment is made to those individuals and organizations whose
assistance and gracious input were key to the development of this report. The following
contributors provided information and perspectives via personal communication:
Michael Bahleda - American Electric Power Service Corporation, Columbus, Ohio

Martin A. Bauer - U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California
Paul A. Bernhardt - Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Syracuse, New York
Lawrence D. Chapman - Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee
William H. Colwill, Ph.D. - American Hydro Corporation, York, Pennsylvania
Bob D. Foster - Lower Colorado River Authority, Buchanan Dam, Texas
Matthew E. Gass, P.E. - Hetch Hetchy Water and Power, Moccasin, California
Nick M. Hawley, P.E., C.E. - BC Hydro, Burnaby, British Columbia
Dan Jarvis - AmerenUE, Eldon, Missouri
David C. Kee, P.Eng. - Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario
Robert J. Knowlton, P.E. - New York Power Authority, White Plains, New York
Hans F. Naeff - ABB Power Generation, Inc., Littleton, Colorado
Niels M. Nielsen, P.Eng. - BC Hydro, Burnaby, British Columbia
Steven C. Onken, P.E. - Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District, Oroville, California
Jiri Spidla, Ph.D. - CKD Blansko Engineering a.s., Blansko, Czech Republic
The assistance of Marla Barnes and Catherine Bennett at HCI Publications for providing
reference materials and permitting the use of HCI files was essential to the research for this
report and is acknowledged, with appreciation.
vii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1-1
Situation ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
Trends in Rehabilitation ...................................................................................................... 1-2
Report Organization............................................................................................................ 1-2
Reference........................................................................................................................... 1-2
2 REHABILITATING AND UPGRADING HYDRO PLANTS ................................................... 2-1

Objectives of Hydro Rehabilitation and Upgrading .............................................................. 2-1
Scope of Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects............................................. 2-2
Turbines and Pump-Turbines......................................................................................... 2-2
Generators and Motor-Generators ................................................................................. 2-2
Governors, Controls, and Auxiliary Systems .................................................................. 2-2
Civil Works..................................................................................................................... 2-2
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Hydro Modernization Program ...................................... 2-3
1998 Rehabilitation Benchmarking Survey ......................................................................... 2-3
Gains in Capacity and Efficiency......................................................................................... 2-4
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 2-5
Rehabilitation ................................................................................................................. 2-5
Upgrade or Upgrading.................................................................................................... 2-6
Modernization ................................................................................................................ 2-6
Redevelopment.............................................................................................................. 2-6
Refurbishment................................................................................................................ 2-6
Replacement.................................................................................................................. 2-6
Repowering.................................................................................................................... 2-6
Retrofit ........................................................................................................................... 2-6
Uprating ......................................................................................................................... 2-7
Overhaul ........................................................................................................................ 2-7
References ......................................................................................................................... 2-7
ix
3 TURBINES AND PUMP-TURBINES.................................................................................... 3-1

Planning for Turbine Rehabilitation or Upgrade .................................................................. 3-1
Model and Acceptance Testing........................................................................................... 3-2
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)................................................................................. 3-3
Reaction Turbines .............................................................................................................. 3-3
Francis Turbines and Pump-Turbines ............................................................................ 3-3
Solving Draft Tube Hydraulic Instability in a High-head Turbine Upgrade .................. 3-3
Pump-Turbine Design................................................................................................ 3-4
Medium-Sized Plant Upgraded for Capacity .............................................................. 3-4
Large Conventional Plant Upgraded for Capacity ...................................................... 3-5
Upgrading a Small, Old Unit ...................................................................................... 3-6
Cylinder Gates........................................................................................................... 3-7
Two Pumped Storage Plant Upgrades ...................................................................... 3-7
Fixed - Blade Propeller and Kaplan Turbines ................................................................. 3-8
Major Plant Upgrade - Kaplan Units .......................................................................... 3-8
Upgrading a Medium-Sized Propeller Turbine ........................................................... 3-9
Rehabilitation of Small Propeller Turbines ................................................................. 3-9
Submersible Replacement Units.............................................................................. 3-10
Upgrading Large Turbines for Fish-Friendliness ...................................................... 3-10
Reaction Turbines - Common Elements....................................................................... 3-11
Draft Tubes ............................................................................................................. 3-11
Vibration and Resonance ........................................................................................ 3-11
Impulse (Pelton) Turbines................................................................................................. 3-11
Upgrading Small Pelton Units...................................................................................... 3-13
Pelton Turbine Upgrade Program................................................................................ 3-13
Civil Works Improvements in Conjunction with Turbine Upgrades .................................... 3-14
Rehabilitation of a Powerhouse Resulting in Improved Turbine.................................... 3-14
Replacement of Penstocks to Improve Turbine Performance....................................... 3-14
Penstock Replacement Integrated with Turbine Rehabilitation..................................... 3-15
Lessons Learned .............................................................................................................. 3-16
References ....................................................................................................................... 3-17
4 GENERATORS AND MOTOR-GENERATORS ................................................................... 4-1

Rehabilitation and Upgrade Practices ................................................................................. 4-1
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Approach ................................................................. 4-1
x
Mechanical Aspects to Generator Upgrade.................................................................... 4-2

Pitfalls of Generator Rehabilitation and Upgrade............................................................ 4-3
Generator Protection...................................................................................................... 4-3
Upgrading Generators at a Major Plant .......................................................................... 4-4
Correcting Generator Rotor Roundness ......................................................................... 4-5
Replacement of Exciters with Generators ...................................................................... 4-5
Thrust Bearing Cooling System Upgrade ....................................................................... 4-6
Experience with Stator Iron ............................................................................................ 4-6
Developing Technologies.................................................................................................... 4-6
Insulation Systems ......................................................................................................... 4-6
High Voltage Generators................................................................................................ 4-7
Variable (Adjustable) Speed Machines........................................................................... 4-7
Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................ 4-7
References ......................................................................................................................... 4-8
5 GOVERNORS, CONTROLS, AND AUXILIARIES ............................................................... 5-1

Governors and Controls...................................................................................................... 5-1
Control of a Remote Plant in a Small System................................................................. 5-1
Control of a Major Pumped Storage Plant ...................................................................... 5-2
Automation of a Medium-Sized, Conventional Plant....................................................... 5-2
Control of a Large System ............................................................................................. 5-3
Automation of a Large, Conventional Peaking Plant....................................................... 5-3
Governor Controls Upgrade at a Pumped Storage Plant ................................................ 5-4
Upgrading Controls at a Major, Remotely-Operated Plant.............................................. 5-4
Electric Servomotors ...................................................................................................... 5-5
Wicket Gate Latches ...................................................................................................... 5-5
Auxiliaries ........................................................................................................................... 5-5
Plant Upgrade Focused on Controls and Auxiliaries....................................................... 5-6
Auxiliary Equipment Replacement Program ................................................................... 5-7
Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................ 5-7
References ......................................................................................................................... 5-8
6 EVALUATION, PLANNING, MANAGEMENT, AND IMPLEMENTATION............................ 6-1

Approaches to Strategic Management and Planning .......................................................... 6-1
Overall Asset Management Program ............................................................................. 6-1
xi
Investor-Owned “Utility” Generation Investment Perspective.......................................... 6-1

Economic Evaluation, Planning, and Prioritization .............................................................. 6-2
Risk-Based Analysis of Hydro Improvements................................................................. 6-2
Large System Hydro Improvement Programs ..................................................................... 6-2
Electricité de France (EDF) ............................................................................................ 6-2
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) ................................................................................. 6-3
Companhia Energética de São Paulo (CESP)................................................................ 6-3
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)........................................................................... 6-4
Small Hydro Upgrade Programs in Predominately Thermal Systems ................................. 6-5
Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)......................................................................... 6-5
Duke Power ................................................................................................................... 6-6
American Electric Power Corporation (AEP) .................................................................. 6-6
Project Planning and Management ..................................................................................... 6-6
Hydro-Quebec - Beauharnois Plant................................................................................ 6-6
Small Plant Upgrade - Washington Water Power (WWP)............................................... 6-7
Planning a Comprehensive Plant Rehabilitation - Seattle City Light (SCL)..................... 6-7
Commercial Arrangements, Procurement, “Partnering” ...................................................... 6-8
Sharing Risk between Owner and Supplier .................................................................... 6-9
New Approaches to Funding Government Hydro Improvements (U.S.).......................... 6-9
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) ................................................................................. 6-9
BC Hydro ..................................................................................................................... 6-10
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)......................................................................... 6-10
Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)....................................................................... 6-10
Landsvirkjun - Partnering in an Expedited Repowering ................................................ 6-11
Ontario Hydro (OH) ...................................................................................................... 6-11
Lessons Learned .............................................................................................................. 6-12
References ....................................................................................................................... 6-13
A CONTACT-LIST ..................................................................................................................A-1
Owners ...............................................................................................................................A-1
Suppliers - Turbines............................................................................................................A-3
Suppliers - Generators........................................................................................................A-3
Suppliers - Governors and Controls....................................................................................A-3
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects Discussed in this Report ......... 1-3
Table 2-1 Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects (in order of mention in
text) ................................................................................................................................. 2-8
Table 2-2 Capacity and Efficiency Improvements (in order of decreasing MW prior to
upgrade) ........................................................................................................................ 2-14
xiii
1
INTRODUCTION
In 1998, as part of its core program in the hydroelectric generation area, EPRI initiated the
“Hydropower Technology Round-Up” project. The objective of the project is to prepare periodic
“Tech Round-Up” reports to disseminate useful, world-wide information related to hydro power
technological advancements.
The scope of the investigation brought to you in this report has been broad, including both U.S.
domestic and international utilities and companies having international experience. This report
presents an overview of research, practices, lessons learned, and some examples regarding
environmental solutions to lubrication, specifically, utilizing self-lubricating materials and
environmental lubricants at hydro facilities. Part 2 presents an overview of techniques and
practices, lessons learned, and some typical examples regarding the rehabilitation and upgrade of
hydro plants.
Situation
The onset of the competitive market for generation of electricity in North America and elsewhere
has intensified interest in maximizing the economic efficiency of conventional and pumped
storage hydro plants. Customer choice initiatives, the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas
emissions, and ever-stricter environmental regulations have increased the focus on the
environmental compatibility of hydro generation. At the same time, market prices for energy and
generating capacity are relatively low and are projected to remain so for the foreseeable future,
as markets move to open pricing.
To sustain hydro’s efficiency and competitiveness requires implementation of improved, more

cost-effective maintenance and operating practices and the commitment to applying
technological advancements. Furthermore, consideration of plant rehabilitation and upgrading to
increase the value of output, minimize environmental risks, reduce operating expenses, and
extend maintenance intervals and overall service life are key to the sustained viability of hydro
resources.
Significant investment is often needed to improve many hydro plants—particularly older,

conventional plants—to restore or sustain efficiency and competitiveness, and to meet
environmental objectives. However, economic justification of needed investments is often very
difficult. Recent improvements in technology, particularly in the areas of hydro-turbine and
component design and manufacture, control equipment and instrumentation, and improved life
and maintenance management, have greatly enhanced the prospects for increasing production
and economic efficiency, and extending the life, of existing hydro plants.
1-1
Introduction
Trends in Rehabilitation
An industry benchmarking survey conducted in conjunction with the HydroVision 98 conference

held July 1998 in Reno, Nevada, provides a good sampling of general approaches and practices
being implemented by hydro owners, primarily in North America, with regard to plant or
component rehabilitation. A total of 66 rehabilitation projects were reported. The survey report
presents statistics on the reasons for rehabilitation, strategies employed, economic and
prioritization criteria, contracting arrangements, and quality control and testing methods.
Leading the list of project components approved for rehabilitation are turbine runners and
miscellaneous components, generator stator windings and miscellaneous components, excitation
systems, and governors. [1]
Report Organization
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Section 2 - Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants
Section 3 - Turbines and Pump-Turbines
Section 4 - Generators and Motor-Generators
Section 5 - Governors, Controls, and Auxiliaries
Section 6 - Evaluation, Planning, Management, and Implementation
Many hydro rehabilitation and upgrade programs and projects have been initiated or successfully
completed, substantially improving the economic efficiency and reliability of hydro plants.
Table 1-1 presents the programs and projects discussed in this report.
Each section contains a “lessons learned” subsection, presenting some general guidance based on
the experience of the contributors.
References are listed at the end of each report section. Lists of contacts for various owners,
suppliers, and manufacturers involved in programs and projects discussed in this report are
contained in Appendix A of this report.
Reference
1. Hydro Rehabilitation Practices: What’s Working in Rehabilitation. HCI Publications, Kansas

City, MO, 1998.
1-2
Introduction
Table 1-1
Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects Discussed in this Report
Program, Project, or State (U.S.), Owner Section

Powerhouse Province (Canada), No(s).
or Country
Arnprior Ontario Ontario Hydro 4
Asset Management British Columbia BC Hydro 6
Austin Texas Lower Colorado River Authority 6
Auxiliary Equipment Texas Lower Colorado River Authority 5
Replacement
Beauharnois Québec Hydro-Québec 6
Bennetts Bridge New York Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. 3
Berrien Springs Michigan American Electric Power Corp. 3
Big Creek 1 California Southern California Edison 3
Boundary Washington Seattle City Light 6
Bradley Lake Alaska Alaska Industrial Development 5
and Export Authority
Buchanan Texas Lower Colorado River Authority 6
Búrfell Iceland Landsvirkjun 6
California Water Project California California Water Project 5
Castaic California Los Angeles Dept. of Water & 5
Power
Chippewa Falls Wisconsin Northern States Power 3
Clam River Wisconsin Northwestern Wisconsin 3
Electric Co.
Forbestown California Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation 3
District
Fort Peck No. 1 Montana U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3
Great Falls South Carolina Duke Power 3
Holm California Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 3
Hydro Improvement France Electricité de France 6
Hydro Modernization Tennessee and Tennessee Valley Authority 2,6
several adjacent
states
Hydro Modernization Several states in American Electric Power Corp. 6
eastern Mid-west
Hydroelectric Life Extension Texas Lower Colorado River Authority 6
Inks Texas Lower Colorado River Authority 6
John Hollis Bankhead Alabama Alabama Power Co. 3
Jupiá Brazil Companhia Energética de São 6
Paulo
Kirkwood California Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 6
Lookout Shoals North Carolina Duke Power 4
Major Rehabilitation Many states U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 4,5,6
Muddy Run Pennsylvania PECO Energy 3,5
New Moccasin California Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 3
1-3
Introduction
Table 1-1
Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects Discussed in this Report (continued)
Program, Project, or State (U.S.), Owner Section

Powerhouse Province (Canada), No(s).
or Country
Nine Mile Washington Washington Water Power 6
Osage Missouri AmerenUE 5
Porjus Sweden Vattenfall 4
Robert Moses Niagara New York New York Power Authority 3
Robert S. Kerr Dam Oklahoma Grand River Dam Authority 5
Rocky Reach Washington Public Utility District No. 1 of 3,4
Chelan County
Säckingen Germany Rheinkraftwerk Sackingen AG 5
Shasta California U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 4,6
Small Plant Rehabilitation North Carolina, Duke Power 6
South Carolina
Stechovice Czech Republic Czech Power Company CEZ, 3
a.s.
Tafjord K2 Norway Tafjord Power Co. 3
Trängslet Sweden Stora Power AB 5
Tuxedo North Carolina Duke Power 3
Twin Branch Indiana American Electric Power Corp. 3
Wanapum Washington Public Utility District No. 2 of 3
Grant County
Yale Washington PacifiCorp 3
1-4
2
REHABILITATING AND UPGRADING HYDRO PLANTS
World-wide, many hydro plants, particularly older plants, are undergoing rehabilitation and
upgrading. Plants and facilities being rehabilitated or upgraded are of all types. The reasons for
and the scope, objectives, and costs of rehabilitation and upgrade programs and projects are
wide-ranging.
This report presents techniques and practices, lessons learned, and some typical examples
regarding the rehabilitation and upgrading of hydro plants. Table 2-1 lists the rehabilitation and
upgrade programs and projects discussed.
A comprehensive treatment of the subject of hydro plant rehabilitation and upgrading may be
found in EPRI’s Hydropower Plant Modernization Guide (three volumes) published in 1989. [1]
EPRI plans to replace the 1989 guide with new guidelines for plant life extension and
modernization. The first volume of the new guidelines is expected to be published in 1999. [2]
Objectives of Hydro Rehabilitation and Upgrading
Each hydro rehabilitation or upgrading program or project has its own, sometimes unique,
objectives. Among possible objectives are:
• Extending life
• Halting or decelerating deterioration
• Increasing generating capacity
• Improving efficiency
• Reducing risk of catastrophic failure
• Reducing forced outages or unscheduled down time
• Improving ability to control equipment via
– remote control
– automation
• Improving ability to deliver “ancillary services”
• Improving ability to meet river flow or reservoir level requirements
• Matching unit performance characteristics to load or water availability, including removing
“bottlenecks” in cascade hydro systems
• Improving plant/personnel safety
• Reducing potential for environmental degradation
2-1
Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants
• Enhancing water quality

• Reducing fish mortality
• Reducing operations or maintenance costs
• Reducing frequency of overhauls, scheduled down time
• Reducing undesirable running characteristics, such as vibration
• Avoiding obsolescence problems such as lack of manufacturer support or unavailability of
replacement parts
• Meeting legal/licensing requirements
Scope of Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects
Hydropower rehabilitation programs and projects can be directed toward the restoration or
improvement of any or all plant components or equipment. An incomplete list includes:
Turbines and Pump-Turbines
Runners, impeller-runners, nose cones, seals, wearing rings, equalizing lines and valves, shafts,
stuffing boxes, wicket and cylinder gates and operating mechanisms, stay vanes, draft tube
liners, bearings, bushings, head covers, spiral or scroll cases, discharge rings, bottom rings,
nozzles and needle valves, deflectors, brakes, and seals.
Generators and Motor-Generators
Shafts, stator windings, stator cores, rotor windings, field poles, spiders, brushes, slip rings,
bearings, circuit breakers, meters, exciters, amortisseur windings, cooling/ventilation systems,
and grounding.
Governors, Controls, and Auxiliary Systems
Hydraulic systems, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, condition and
performance monitoring instruments, meters, alarms, communications, cables, flowmeters,
remote terminal units (RTUs), plant and unit programmable logic controllers (PLCs), voltage
regulators, synchronizing equipment, servomotors, station electrical service, transformers,
switch-gear, buses, circuit breakers, transmission, plant cooling systems, compressed air systems,
dewatering systems, heating-ventilation-air conditioning (HVAC) systems, fire protection,
potable water supply, sanitary systems, contaminant containment and removal facilities or
equipment, and powerhouse cranes and hoists.
Civil Works
Intakes, gates, tunnels, surge tanks, penstocks, turbine or isolation valves, tailraces, dams,
spillways, spillway gates, powerhouse structures, trash removal systems, bulkheads, and exterior
cranes and hoists.
2-2
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Hydro Modernization Program
TVA’s “Hydro Modernization Program” is a 15-year program that will involve 88 conventional
hydro units. In TVA’s program, the scope of a hydro improvement is described by the alternative
terms “rehabilitation” or “uprate,” as outlined below. [3] “Rehabilitation” normally includes the
following work items:
• Refurbishment of main exciters
• Replacement of pilot exciters and field rheostats
• Replacement of generator neutral switchgear and reactors
• Replacement of generator relaying
• Repair of thrust and guide bearings
• True-up of generator and turbine shafts
• Refurbishment of wicket gates
• Replacement of wicket gate bushings
• Refurbishment of Kaplan servomotors
• Refurbishment of throat ring
• Refurbishment of discharge and wear rings
An “uprate” in TVA’s program implies the following work items:
• Replacement of runners on all units
• Re-insulation of all field poles
• Rewinding of approximately 75% of the units
• Replacement of core iron on approximately 15% of the units
• Improvement of generator cooling and ventilation
• Replacement of approximately 30% of generator leads and buses
• Replacement of approximately 60% of the main transformers
• Replacement of approximately 20% of the generator switchgear
1998 Rehabilitation Benchmarking Survey
An industry benchmarking survey conducted in conjunction with the HydroVision 98 conference

held July 1998 in Reno, Nevada, provides a good sampling of general approaches and practices
being implemented by hydro owners, primarily in the United States, with regard to plant or
component rehabilitation. For purposes of the survey “rehabilitation” was defined with respect to
“major powerhouse equipment, its components, and its auxiliaries” as:
“…the restoration of an item(s) on an infrequent basis, through a process of

repair/modification or replacement, for the purpose of extending life, improving
reliability, and/or reinstating or improving performance. “Rehabilitation” of major
powerhouse equipment should include such items as: turbine runner replacement or
runner repair/modification where the runner is removed, generator rotor and/or stator
rewinds, circuit breaker and governor replacement, and unit transformer rewind or
replacement.” [4]
2-3
The survey had 29 hydro owner or operator respondents from the following countries: United
States (21), Canada (3), Canada/United States (2), Australia (1), Ghana (1), and United Kingdom
(1). A total of 66 rehabilitation projects were reported. [4]
The various project components were approved for rehabilitation in the following percentages
(rounded to nearest percent):
Turbine runners 74%
Miscellaneous turbine components 69%
Stator windings 60%
Excitation systems 53%
Miscellaneous generator components 47%
Governors 45%
Station auxiliary electrical systems 43%
Data acquisition and control systems 36%
Switchgear/main unit transformers 35%
Generator rotor 33%
Station auxiliary mechanical systems 33%
Electrical leads or bus 31%
Powerhouse bridge/overhead crane 26%
Stator cores 24%
Main unit transformers 22%
Turbine water passage/penstocks 16%
Gains in Capacity and Efficiency
The HydroVision 98 benchmarking survey report indicates significant improvements in

capacities and efficiencies resulting from turbine and generator rehabilitations, as follows:
Percent of Projects With Percent Increase Percent Increase
Reported Increases Average Range
Turbine Capacity 42 23.8 1-230
Generator Capacity 29 20.1 1-67
Turbine Efficiency 22 6.1 3-15
Generator Efficiency 3 1.5 1-2
2-4
The benchmarking survey report also presents statistics on the reasons for rehabilitation,
strategies employed, economic and prioritization criteria, contracting arrangements, and quality
control and testing methods. [4]
Table 2-2 presents the capacity and efficiency gains realized or expected as a result of the
rehabilitation and upgrade programs and projects discussed in this report. For three of the
projects, realized or expected annual energy gains (in lieu of efficiency gains) are known and are
presented. The programs and projects for which capacity, efficiency or annual energy gains are
known represent a total of more than 10,000 MW of capacity. The capacity and efficiency gains
presented on Table 2-2 can be summarized as follows:
• The combined capacity gain is approximately 1400 MW, or nearly 14%
• The largest project capacity gain is 325 MW (Robert Moses Niagara)
• The largest capacity gain per unit is 33 MW (Shasta)
• The maximum efficiency gain is 14%
• The average efficiency gain weighted by capacity is 3.2%
The annual average energy gains known are 13%, 23%, and 61%. The 13% annual average
energy gain is for a large plant (Beauharnois); the 23% and 61% gains are for small plants.
Definitions
Within the hydropower industry, the terms “rehabilitation” and “upgrade” or “upgrading,”
among others, are employed to indicate the nature, extent, or result of an improvement to a hydro
plant or component. These several terms often appear to be used interchangeably.
Several of these “improvement” terms are defined, as nouns, below. In this report, those terms
are intended to have the meanings given, except when the terms appear in the names of specific
programs or projects, or in the titles of papers or articles. No claim is made that the given
definitions are generally accepted by the industry, nor that the terms are mutually exclusive. The
terms may not have counterparts in non-English languages.
Rehabilitation
The restoration of an old plant, unit, or component through a process of repair, modification, or
replacement, for any of several purposes including extending life, improving reliability, and/or
reinstating or improving performance [definition adapted from Hydro Rehabilitation Practices:
What’s Working in Rehabilitation]. [4] “Rehabilitation” suggests restoration to a more or less “as
new” condition, improving on the present performance, capability, or reliability but without
significant change or addition of capacity or capability to the original design.
2-5
Upgrade or Upgrading
The substantial modification of an existing plant for any of several purposes including:
increasing capacity or efficiency; improving control, safety, reliability, or environmental
compatibility; or reducing operation or maintenance cost. “Upgrade” suggests achievement of
significant improvement in the performance or capability of features or components compared to
the original design.
Modernization
The act or process of making a plant, unit, or component modern in appearance and capability
using existing civil structures; particularly refers to installing up-to-date instrumentation and
controls, and bringing the facility into compliance with current safety and environmental
standards.
Redevelopment
New construction of an existing plant, including replacement or substantial modification of civil,

mechanical, and electrical components [definition from Hydro Rehabilitation Practices: What’s
Working in Rehabilitation]. [4]
Refurbishment
The overhaul or repair of a unit or a component, including replacement of worn or degraded

parts.
Replacement
The substitution of a unit or component for another.
Repowering
The replacement of existing units with new units, normally of greater capacity or higher
efficiency.
Retrofit
The act or process of providing a unit or component with parts, devices, or equipment not
available at the time of original manufacture.
2-6
Two additional definitions follow, which are not necessarily considered to be improvements
per se:
Uprating
The designation of an increased capacity rating of a plant, a unit, a turbine, or a generator for any
reason but typically resulting from the addition or improvement of equipment, a change in
operation, or an increase in available flow.
Overhaul
The planned disassembly, cleaning, repair, lubricating, and reassembly of a unit or component.
References
1. Hydropower Plant Modernization Guide. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA: June 1989. Report GS-6419.
2. “EPRI Plans New Guidelines for Plant Life Extension, Modernization,” Hydro Review,
November 1998, p. 80.
3. L. D. Chapman, Tennessee Valley Authority, personal communication, October 1998.
4. Hydro Rehabilitation Practices: What’s Working in Rehabilitation. HCI Publications,

Kansas City, MO, 1998.
2-7
Table 2-1
Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects (in order of mention in text)
Program, State (U.S.), Owner Section Scope of Program or Project No. of MW [b] Status Cost Source
Project, or Province No(s). Units [c] $million [e]
Powerhouse [a] (Canada), or [d]
Country
Hydro Tennessee Tennessee Valley 2,6 variously: runner replacement, other 88 in per com
Modernization * and several Authority turbine modification, generator prog.
adjacent rewinding, other generator
states modification, controls upgrades
Forbestown * California Oroville-Wyandotte 3 runner replacement, other turbine 1 36 comp. 0.64 ASCE 93
Irrigation District modification 1991 per com
Yale * Washington PacifiCorp 3 runner replacement, other turbine 2 125 comp. ASCE 97
modification, generator modification, 1996
controls upgrade
Robert Moses New York New York Power 3 runner replacement, other turbine 13 2275 in 280 HR 4/98
Niagara * Authority modification prog.
2006 per com
Bennetts Bridge * New York Niagara Mohawk 3 runner replacement, other turbine 1 7.5 comp. 1.0 ASCE 93
Power modification 1990 per com
Corporation
Great Falls * South Duke Power 3 turbine replacement, generator 2 6 comp. ASCE 93
Carolina modification, controls upgrade 1992
Stechovice * Czech Czech Power 3 pump-turbine and motor-generator 2->1 42 comp. HV paper
Republic Company CEZ, replacement 1997 per com
a.s.
Muddy Run * Pennsylvania PECO Energy 3,5 impeller-runner replacement, other 8 880 comp. 40 ASCE 97
pump-turbine modification, controls 1998
upgrade HR 4/96
HR 9/98
2-8
Table 2-1
Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects (in order of mention in text) (continued)
Powerhouse [a] (Canada), [d]
or Country
Rocky Reach * Washington Chelan County 3,4 runner replacement, other turbine 11 1380 in 116 ASCE 97
PUD modification, generator prog.
modification, controls upgrade HR 4/97
John Hollis Alabama Alabama Power 3 runner replacement, other turbine 1 46 comp. 4 HR 9/98
Bankhead * Company modification 1998
Chippewa Falls * Wisconsin Northern States 3 runner replacement, other turbine 6 21.6 comp. ASCE 93
Power modification 1995
HR 11/98
Twin Branch * Indiana American Electric 3 turbine and generator replacement 6->8 7.3 comp. ASCE 93
Power Corporation 1992+ per. com
Berrien Springs * Michigan American Electric 3 turbine and generator replacement 4->12 7.2 comp. HR 11/98
Power Corporation 1997+ per.com.
Wanapum * Washington Grant County PUD 3 runner replacement, other turbine 10 900 in 75 ASCE 97
modification prog.
Big Creek 1 * California Southern California 3 runner replacement, other turbine 2 36 comp. CF
Edison modification 1993?
Tafjord K2 * Norway Tafjord Power 3 runner replacement, controls 2 28 comp. 3 CF

Company upgrade
Holm * California Hetch Hetchy 3 runner replacement, other turbine 2 150 comp. 1.5± H&D 2/98
Water and Power modification 1993 per com
Kirkwood * California Hetch Hetchy 3 runner replacement, other turbine 2 84 comp. 1.3 H&D 2/98
Water and Power modification 1997 per com
New Moccasin * California Hetch Hetchy 3 runner replacement 2 112 in .9 H&D 2/98
Water and Power prog. expected per com
1999
2-9
Table 2-1
or Country
Clam River Wisconsin Northwestern 3 turbine modification in conjunction 1 comp. 0.3+ ASCE 97
Wisconsin Electric with powerhouse reconstruction 1995
Company
Fort Peck No. 1 Montana U.S. Army Corps of 3 penstock replacement, flow meter 3 105 comp. 18.5 ASCE 93
Engineers installation 1992
Tuxedo * North Duke Power 3 runner replacement, penstock 2 5 comp. ASCE 93
Carolina replacement 1991
unnamed 4 generator rotor modification and comp. HV paper
repair
Shasta * California U.S. Bureau of 4,6 runner replacement, generator 3 328 in 21 HR 9/98
Reclamation rewinding, other generator prog.
modification per. com
2002+
Arnprior Ontario Ontario Hydro 4 generator modification for stiffness 2 70 comp. HR 5/95
1993
Lookout Shoals * North Duke Power 4 replacement of turbine-driven 2 0 comp. ASCE 97
Carolina exciter with generator 1996
Major Many states U.S. Army Corps of 4,5,6 comprehensive rehabilitation, 450+ ASCE 93,
Rehabilitation Engineers economic evaluation, stator iron 95 and 97
replacement
HV audio
Porjus Sweden Vattenfall 4 high-voltage generator 1 11+ comp. HR 11/98
(prototype test) 1998
HRW 5/98
per com
Bradley Lake Alaska Alaska Industrial 5 governor control reprogramming 4 120 comp. HR 12/95
Development and
Export Authority 1993
2-10
Table 2-1
Program, State (U.S.), Owner Section Scope of Program or Project No. of MW Status Cost Source
Project, or Province No(s). Units [b] [c] $million [e]
or Country
Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma Grand River Dam 5 controls upgrade, automation 4 114 comp. 0.6 HR 4/96
Dam Authority 1995
California Water California California Water 5 controls upgrade in 1.0+ HR 4/96
Project Project prog.
Osage Missouri AmerenUE 5 controls upgrade, automation 10 212 comp. ASCE 93
1992 HR 4/97
per com
Castaic California Los Angeles Dept. 5 controls upgrade 6 1440 comp.? 0.9 HV paper
of Water & Power
Trängslet Sweden Stora Power AB 5 new control system 3 330 comp. 1.5 HRW 8/96
1987
Säckingen Germany Rheinkraftwerk 5 controls upgrade, automation 4 80 comp. 17 HRW 9/97
Säckingen AG 1997
Auxiliary Texas Lower Colorado 5 replacement and modernization of 6 270 in ASCE 97
Equipment River Authority various auxiliary systems plants prog.
Replacement 1999
Asset British BC Hydro 6 preparation of asset management 9746 ongoing HR 4/98
Management Columbia plans, identification of improvement per com
opportunities, prioritization of
projects
Hydro France Electricité de 6 economic evaluation in identifying 23100 ongoing HRW
Improvement France and prioritizing rehabilitation winter 95
projects
Jupiá * Brazil Companhia 6 to be determined 14 1411 planned HRW 10/96
Energética de São
Paulo
2-11
Table 2-1
Program, State (U.S.), Owner Section Scope of Program or Project No. of MW Status Cost Source
Project, or Province No(s). Units [b] [c] $million [e]
or Country
Hydroelectric Life Texas Lower Colorado 6 economic evaluation of 6 270 in HR 2/98
Extension River Authority rehabilitation and upgrade projects, plants prog. per com
project planning 2005+
Small Plant North Duke Power 6 project justification and in HV audio
Rehabilitation Carolina, prioritization prog.
South
Carolina
Hydro Several American Electric 6 project planning and prioritization 17 900+ in HV audio
Modernization states in Power Corporation plants prog. per com
eastern Mid-
west
Beauharnois * Québec Hydro-Québec 6 variously: runner replacement, 38 1666 in C1500 HR 12/97
generator rewinding, controls prog.
upgrade 2002+
Nine Mile * Washington Washington Water 6 turbine and generator replacement, 2 6.8 comp. ASCE 93
Power controls upgrade 1995?
Boundary Washington Seattle City Light 6 comprehensive rehabilitation of 6 1051 in 88 ASCE 97
entire plant prog.
2008
Inks * Texas Lower Colorado 6 runner replacement, generator 1 11.4 comp. 6.4 HR 2/98
River Authority rewinding, controls upgrade 1997
Buchanan * Texas Lower Colorado 6 runner replacement, generator 2 25 in 11.5 HR 2/98
River Authority rewinding, controls upgrade prog.
1999
Austin * Texas Lower Colorado 6 runner replacement, generator 2 15.0 comp. 10.4 HR 2/98
River Authority rewinding, controls upgrade 1994
Búrfell * Iceland Landsvirkjun 6 partnering, runner replacement, 6 210 in HV paper
generator modification, controls prog.
upgrade
2-12
Table 2-1 Footnotes:
a. Asterisk (*) indicates program or project is listed in Table 2-2 Capacity and Efficiency Improvements
b. Capacity of units rehabilitated or upgraded (or planned to be rehabilitated or upgraded) prior to the work; capacities are presented for comparison and may be nominal values
c. Status noted as follows: planned - planned or scheduled

ongoing - continuing
in. prog. -in progress, year indicates expected completion date, where known
comp. - completed; year indicates completion date, where known
d. Cost of program or project in US$ unless otherwise noted
e. Sources noted as follows:

ASCE (year) - Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower
CF - Concepts for the Future (1994), HCI Publications
H&D (issue/year) - Hydropower & Dams
HR (month/year) - Hydro Review
HRW (month or issue/year) – HRW
HV paper - paper presented at HydroVision 98 Conference, Reno, Nevada
HV audio - audiotape of session at HydroVision 98 Conference, Reno, Nevada
per com - personal communication
2-13
Table 2-2
Capacity and Efficiency Improvements (in order of decreasing MW prior to upgrade)
Program or Project Owner Section No. of Type of Capacity Capacity Capacity Efficiency Cost
No(s). Units Units Prior After Gain Gain [b] $million
(MW) [a] (MW) [a] (MW) [c]
Robert Moses Niagara New York Power Authority 3 13 Francis 2275 2600 325 1-2% 280
Beauharnois Hydro Québec 6 27 Francis 1666 13% [d] C1500
11 propeller
Jupiá Companhia Energética de 6 14 Kaplan 1411 308
São Paulo
(22/unit)
Rocky Reach Public Utility District No. 1 3,4 7 Kaplan 1280 1316 36 116
of Chelan County
4 propeller
-> Kaplan
Wanapum Public Utility District No. 2 3 10 Kaplan 900 1125 225 75
of Grant County
Muddy Run PECO Energy 3,5 8 pump- 800* 864* 64* 4% pump 40
turbine
4% gen
Hydro Modernization Tennessee Valley 2,6 varies
Authority
Completed to date: 23 700+ 850+ 152 5.7%
Total program: 88
Shasta U.S. Bureau of 4,6 3 Francis 328 426 98 21
Reclamation
Búrfell Landsvirkjun 6 6 Francis 230 300 70 4%
Holm Hetch Hetchy Water and 3 2 Pelton 150 169 19 4% 15±
Power
Yale PacifiCorp 3 2 Francis 100* 140* 40* 9%
2-14
Table 2-2
Capacity and Efficiency Improvements (in order of decreasing MW prior to upgrade) (continued)
(MW) [a] (MW) [a] (MW) [c]
New Moccasin Hetch Hetchy Water and 3 2 Pelton 112 115 3 1.2% .9
Power expected expected
Kirkwood Hetch Hetchy Water and 3 2 Pelton 84 86 2 2.5% 1.3
Power
John Hollis Bankhead Alabama Power 3 1 propeller 46* 52* 6* 4
Company
Stechovice Czech Power Company 3 2->1 pump- 42 53/50 8
CEZ, a.s. turbine [e]
Forbestown Oroville-Wyandotte 3 1 Francis 36.3 40.7 4.4 7.1% 0.64
Irrigation District
Big Creek 1 Southern California 3 2 Pelton 36 unkwn unkwn 14%
Edison Company dbl. runner
Tafjord K2 Tafjord Power Company 3 2 Pelton 28 34 6 6% 3
Buchanan Lower Colorado River 6 2 Kaplan 25 34 9 11.5
Authority
Chippewa Falls Northern States Power 3 2 Kaplan 21.6 24+ 2+ 10%
Company 4 Kaplan ->
propeller
Austin Lower Colorado River 6 2 Kaplan 15.0 17.3 2.3 10.4
Authority
Inks Lower Colorado River 6 1 Francis 11.5 14.9 3.4 6.4
Authority
Bennetts Bridge Niagara Mohawk Power 3 1 Francis 7.5 9.9 2.4 10.5% 1.0
Corporation dbl. disch.
Twin Branch American Electric Power 3 6 ->8 Francis to 7.3 4.8 (2.5) 61% [d]
Corporation semi-
Kaplans
2-15
Table 2-2
Capacity and Efficiency Improvements (in order of decreasing MW prior to upgrade) (continued)
(MW) [a] (MW) [a] (MW) [c]
Berrien Springs American Electric Power 3 4->12 Francis to 7.2 7.2 0

Corporation semi-
Kaplans
Nine Mile Washington Water 6 2 Francis 6.8 20 13.2 23% [d]

Power
quad-
runner
dbl. draft
Great Falls Duke Power Company 3 2 Francis 6 8 2
Tuxedo Duke Power Company 3 2 Francis 5 8 3
Lookout Shoals Duke Power Company 4 2 Francis 0 0.8 0.8
Totals (approximate) 175 10,300 1400
Table 2-2 Footnotes:
a. Capacity (MW) values do not necessarily represent official plant or unit ratings and should be considered “nominal;” capacity (MW) values given are known or understood to
represent maximum output, except that values noted with an asterisk (*) are known to represent best efficiency output
b. Nominal improvement in maximum (best gate) efficiency except as noted; see [d]
c. Cost of program or project in US$ unless otherwise noted
d. Improvement in annual generation
e. Pump input/turbine output
2-16
3
TURBINES AND PUMP-TURBINES
Many very old hydroturbines are still operating; some of them are more than 100 years old, and
some are virtually unchanged from the originals. Large, reversible pump-turbines first installed
in the United States in the 1960s were of relatively primitive design, reflecting the developing
technology at that time. Most hydro plant rehabilitation and upgrade projects involve the turbines
(or pump-turbines) and result in significant improvements in capacity, efficiency, and reliability.
Planning for Turbine Rehabilitation or Upgrade
The scope of a program for turbine (or pump-turbine) rehabilitation or upgrade would normally
include: [1]
• Development of specifications
• Specification solicitation
• Bid evaluation
• Award
• Procurement of new equipment
• Disassembly of existing equipment
• Installation of new components
• Re-assembly
• Equipment acceptance testing
• Commercial operation
Existing turbines should be thoroughly tested prior to developing a specification for

rehabilitation; such testing should include measurement of: [1]
• Turbine shaft runout
• Head cover vibration
• Wicket gate and gate mechanism vibration
• Guide and thrust bearing temperatures
• Hydraulic performance characteristics determined by index testing
3-1
Visual inspection of the following components and areas of the existing turbines is
recommended: [1]
• Cavitation areas, specifically the runner and the throat or discharge ring
• All water passage surfaces, for surface cracks
• Wicket gate and gate operating linkage clearances
• Rotating and stationary wearing ring clearances
• Main shaft packing box and wicket gate stem packing condition
• Main shaft guide bearing clearances
Model and Acceptance Testing

Homologous model testing is generally recommend for the replacement of turbine runners in
large turbines or for plants that have numerous identical turbines. While the cost of homologous
testing is high (typically many hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more) small gains in
efficiency resulting from model testing will justify the cost of the test where the involved
capacity is large. EPRI’s Guide for Hydraulic Machinery Model Testing may be a useful
reference. [2]
There are several, alternative approaches to model testing: (1) partnering, where the prototype
guarantee output and efficiency are selected from observation of the manufacturer’s model test;
(2) competitive model testing, where the proposed designs of two or more manufacturers are
tested and compared at an independent laboratory; and (3) comparative model testing, where a
model of the existing turbine and a model of a new or upgraded turbine are tested at the model
test stand under the same conditions to ascertain the probable improvement. [3]
Competitive model testing has been used by several major hydro owners. For large installations,
competitive model testing can sharpen competition. EPRI’s manual The Value of Competitive
Model Testing in the Bid Evaluation Process for Hydroelectric Turbomachinery provides an
extensive discussion and analysis of competitive model testing. [4]
Several major hydro owners have a policy to conduct absolute efficiency tests to determine the
acceptance of rehabilitated, upgraded, or new turbines. Such tests are often problematic because
accurate water flow measurement is required. [5,6] It is difficult to perform a code-compliant test
in the field. The Tennessee Valley Authority is working with its turbine manufacturing partner to
try to resolve this problem. [5]
Ontario Hydro requires acceptance tests using the Gibson or the current meter method,
depending on the site. The accuracy of these tests is considered to be +2%. [7]
The New York Power Authority (NYPA) is upgrading all thirteen units at its Robert Moses
Niagara Power Plant. NYPA retains the option to test any and all upgraded turbines for
acceptance using ultrasonic flowmeters. The turbine supply contract provides that penalties may
be assessed against the supplier for failure of a turbine to meet the performance guarantees.
NYPA is also required to test the performance of each upgraded turbine using Gibson and/or
index testing methods; the purpose of these tests is to develop rating tables to determine the
division of Niagara River flow between NYPA and Ontario Hydro. [8]
3-2
Model testing and prototype acceptance testing are performed under the test codes of the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) or the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. [9]
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
CFD is finding more applications in the design of new Francis turbines and pump-turbines to
investigate flow conditions and to improve flow characteristics in lieu of, prior to, or in
conjunction with physical model testing. CFD has been used to simulate and analyze flow in
turbine rehabilitation projects, in order to identify opportunities for improving wicket gate and
stay vane shapes, for example. Excellent results can be obtained by working CFD together with
model tests. In a case of a propeller unit upgrade, where (as is typical) draft tube geometry
cannot be modified and draft tube losses are a significant part of overall turbine efficiency,
numerical analysis can simulate the interaction of the runner and draft tube so as to develop a
runner design with maximum efficiency at the correct flow. CFD can accurately predict the
power output of a new runner installed in an existing turbine. However, CFD is limited in its
ability to predict performance of the turbine or pump-turbine. Where absolute efficiency is
required, physical model testing is necessary. The question of whether CFD will eventually
replace physical model testing has been raised. [10]
Reaction Turbines
Francis Turbines and Pump-Turbines
Very old turbines are relatively inefficient due to their design. In particular, relatively little
attention was paid to avoiding head loss in water passageways in early plants. Unfortunately,
correcting or rebuilding waterways (intakes, penstocks, spiral cases, and draft tubes) is often not
cost-effective, so an upgraded unit must frequently be placed in a less than ideal setting. Runner
settings are often too high by modern standards, resulting in excessive cavitation.
In Francis runners, efficiency improvements can often be obtained by reshaping (grinding)

runner vane edges. Cutting back runner tips can also increase the runner vent area, admitting
more flow. For existing runners, restoration of runner vane surfaces to original shape can provide
a dramatic improvement in performance and power; cavitation repairs (overlays) over the life of
the units can in some instances significantly choke the runner. Frequently, templates of the
original runner vane contours no longer exist.
Solving Draft Tube Hydraulic Instability in a High-head Turbine Upgrade
Control of air flow to the draft tube can be an important consideration in a turbine upgrade. The
Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District’s Forbestown Powerhouse, in California, contains a
single, Francis unit under almost 800 ft (250 m) of net head. The unit was placed into operation
in 1963. The upgrade began in 1989 with the installation of a new runner. The new runner did
not meet the efficiency guarantee and experienced hydraulic instability in the draft tube at low
loads, causing rough operation. Air venting through the 6-in. (15-cm) opening in the hollow shaft
3-3
smoothed operation at all loads but reduced power and efficiency. A redesigned nose cone failed
to stabilize the draft tube swirl. The hollow shaft was then plugged with a steel plate having a
2-in. (5-cm) opening; this admitted sufficient air to stabilize the flow without reducing power or
efficiency. Finally, in 1991, the original, mild steel wicket gates were replaced with new stainless
steel gates of the original design; the original gates were badly eroded and the surfaces distorted
due to welding and grinding. The results of the entire upgrade were that maximum turbine output
(in MW equivalents) increased to 40.7 MW from 36.3 MW and peak turbine efficiency increased
to 91.4% from 84.3%. Turbine output was determined by assumed generator efficiency. [11,12]
Pump-Turbine Design
The design of pump-turbines is a more complex process than the design of conventional,
one-way Francis turbines. Pump-turbines should be designed with special attention to meeting
the demands of the system. It is essential to combine computer design techniques with
homologous model tests. There are significant conflicts in designing for good performance in
both turbine and pump modes. The challenge frequently is to maximize turbine power as
constrained by motor capacity. Design technique involves special contouring at the blade pump
inlet. Maximum pumping head is higher than maximum turbine head, due to hydraulic losses;
suitable blade angles for high pump head cause inefficiencies in turbining, particularly at low
heads. Cavitation in turbining does not normally limit the design, but cavitation is critical at high
head pumping and will affect the blade angles. It is necessary to compensate for fluid-structure
interactions, including penstock pressure rise under full load rejection. Wicket gate vibrations
can be caused by runner pressure pulsations causing resonance; a close gap between wicket gates
and the runner exacerbates this problem. Within these constraints, the designer has some leeway
to favor turbine vs. pump performance, or high power vs. high efficiency. [13]
Medium-Sized Plant Upgraded for Capacity
PacifiCorp’s Yale Project, located in Washington State, was a “bottleneck” on its river system.
The plant has two Francis units. Output was limited by the turbines to 67 MW; the generators
were rated at 73 MW. The turbine runners were upgraded to match the generator output. The
owner specified certain efficiencies and capacities to be guaranteed. No model test was
performed. The upgrade consisted of: replacing the runners with new runners designed by
interactive computer, with lengthened runner bands; modifying stationary wheelcase
components; removing and replacing the discharge ring; re-machining the stationary seal rings;
re-babbitting and modifying bearing shoes for a new high pressure oil lift system; replacing
packing; refurbishing servomotors; rebuilding bearing oil pumps; re-tubing oil coolers;
cleaning/painting generator stator and rotor; upgrading the plant busbar; testing generator
components; replacing insulation; installing new solid-state excitation, electronic speed sensors,
and a new PLC control system; and rebuilding breakers. Comparison of the results of index
testing of the upgraded units and the original units indicated an efficiency improvement of about
9% at the best efficiency point. The capacity at best efficiency point was increased by over
20 MW. [14]
3-4
Large Conventional Plant Upgraded for Capacity
The New York Power Authority (NYPA) is upgrading the 13 Francis units at the Robert Moses
Niagara Power Plant. Five units have been upgraded, and the sixth is in progress. NYPA plans to
complete one unit each year unit all units have been upgraded. The original maximum output of
each unit was 175 MW at a head of 300 ft (90 m). Earlier studies suggested that output for peak
purposes could be increased by 15 per cent. The main objective was to achieve a significant
capacity increase while balancing among efficiency, output, and cost. NYPA’s special concern
was to maintain efficiency, since the plant provides 10% of the electricity consumed in New
York State; analysis indicated that a 1% decline in plant efficiency would cost $100 million.
[8,15]
NYPA’s upgrade program calls for new runners, modifications to draft tube liners, increased
wicket gate stroke, upgrade of generators and cooling systems, replacement of transformers, and
improvements to other electrical equipment. The generator stators had been rewound in 1980s;
the current program includes new field poles on some generators, increasing capacity of
ventilation systems, and new stator air coolers and bearing heat exchangers. The original
excitation system was replaced with digital solid static exciters. Penstocks and scroll cases are
being repainted. The work scope varies slightly from unit to unit depending on each machine’s
specifications and condition, and problems discovered after disassembly. [15]
NYPA determined to select the turbine manufacturer on the basis of competitive model testing
and to pay for the modeling costs of competitive finalists. NYPA established a series of
“checkpoints” at which project economics would be re-evaluated before proceeding further.
NYPA’s specifications, issued in 1988, allowed turbine manufacturers to propose a replacement
runner with best gate between 168 MW and 183 MW. Bids would be established using NYPA’s
“Niagara Project Simulation Model” that simulates the Robert Moses plant’s hourly operation.
NYPA modified the simulation model program for use on a personal computer (PC) and gave
the program to manufacturer-bidders for their use in preparing proposals and evaluating
guarantees. Six bids were received in the initial round. Based largely on price and the economic
value estimated by the simulation, NYPA selected two manufacturers for the competitive
model test. [15]
An independent laboratory was chosen to test the competing manufacturers’ model turbines. The
independent laboratory fabricated a homologous model of the intake, penstock, spiral case, stay
ring, and draft tube. The intake and penstock were included in the model to accurately define
flow conditions entering the turbine because model performance guarantees were based upon the
actual inflow conditions to the units. The independent laboratory also built and tested a model of
the existing turbines for comparison. Testing included: efficiency over a large net head range;
wicket-gate torque, including torque with one gate unrestrained; cavitation; hydraulic thrust;
runaway speed; pressure pulsations in the penstock, spiral case and draft tube; and shaft torque
fluctuations. [8,15]
In 1991, the first turbine was upgraded and tested extensively before a decision was made to
proceed with upgrading additional turbines. Absolute efficiency was measured employing
four-path, two plane acoustic flowmeters that had been installed in 1988 for on-line efficiency
monitoring. The upgraded turbines installed to date have efficiencies 1-2% higher than original
machines and capacities nearly 30 MW higher at the best efficiency points. Inspection of the first
3-5
upgraded unit has shown virtually no cavitation after five years of operation. [15] The turbine
and generator ratings of the upgraded units are 200 MW and 215 MVA, respectively. By 2006,
NYPA expects to have spent about $280 million upgrading all thirteen units at the Robert Moses
plant. [16]
Upgrading a Small, Old Unit
Unit 2 at Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation’s (NMPC) Bennetts Bridge Hydro Development
in New York State is a 7.2-MW, horizontal Francis, double discharge turbine with a direct-
connected synchronous generator, 1914 vintage, subsequently converted from a frequency of
25 Hz to 60 Hz. By the early 1990s, the severely pitted, cracked condition of the runner and
several other deficiencies in the turbine and generator led to a decision to upgrade the unit. The
principal goal was to extend life, but it was hoped also to increase capacity and efficiency. The
stator had been last rewound 20 years ago, and the generator was in need of complete
refurbishment. The governor and spiral case were good condition, and the significant leakage
through wicket gates was not a major concern since minimum downstream flow was needed in
any case for the fishery.
Upgrading the turbine consisted of replacing the runner, turbine shaft, wicket gate bushings, and
linkage. Wicket gates and operating ring, governor regulating shafts, packing collars, connecting
rod pins, and turbine bearings were refurbished. The new runner had more and longer buckets,
and a larger discharge area than the original. The head cover and bottom ring were modified.
Replacement of the turbine shaft was necessary to accept the higher horsepower loading of the
new runner. The maximum capacity increased from 7.5 MW to 9.9 MW, and the efficiency at
best gate increased by over 10%.
A few problems that arose during the Unit 2 work are noteworthy. Rebuilding of the distributor
was attempted in the field, but fitting problems led to parts being shipped to the manufacturer’s
shop for rework. For the subsequent units, fit-up problems were avoided by performing the
distributor work in the manufacturer’s shop in the first place. A problem with the Unit 2 work
was how to handle the 32-ton (29,000-kg) flywheel; ultimately it was blocked in place and
presented no major problem in reassembly. A piece broke from one of Unit 2’s draft tube elbows
during disassembly when the elbow, with a bolt left in the mounting flange, was lifted by a
crane. A metal-stitching process was used to rejoin the broken piece to the body of the elbow.
The success with the work on Unit 2 led to rehabilitating and upgrading the other three units at
Bennetts Bridge. The four unit upgrades at Bennetts Bridge resulted in an average capacity
increase of over 33% and an average efficiency increase of over 6%.
NMPC served as the general contractor for all the Bennetts Bridge upgrades and for similar
rehabilitation and upgrade projects at other plants. Separate contracts were let for the turbine and
the generator work. The arrangement was satisfactory, although there were occasional instances
of forces called to other jobs, with minor schedule effects. Subsequent downsizing of the
company’s workforce has reduced NMPC’s ability to complete rehabilitations in a timely
manner while performing normal maintenance activities; consequently, some current jobs are
being bid out. [17,18]
3-6
Cylinder Gates
In considering upgrading two 3-MW Francis units at its Great Falls plant, Duke Power evaluated
replacing the existing cylinder gates with more efficient wicket gates. However, conversion to
wicket gates would have required considerable concrete excavation and could not be justified.
Installation of new turbines with cylinder gates was chosen over unit retirement or new units
with wicket gates. The generator insulation was upgraded, and improved controls were installed.
Unit output increased to 4 MW. [19]
Two Pumped Storage Plant Upgrades
The redevelopment of the 42-MW, 210-m head Stechovice Pumped Storage Plant in the Czech
Republic raised the capacity to 50 MW and increased efficiency. One unit (with a single-stage
pump-turbine) replaced two units (each with a two-stage pump and turbine on a common shaft),
with a drastic increase of submergence to minimize cavitation. This resulted in the need for an
unusual, S-shaped pump suction/turbine draft tube. The two original 1.7-m diameter penstocks
were joined into a new 2.2-m diameter penstock at approximately the level of the turbine
distributors of the former units. Extensive transient studies indicated the need for a surge tank in
the upper penstock. Ecological requirements included self lubricated housings for the wicket
gates and gate operating mechanism, exhaustion of oil vapors from bearings, installation of oil
leakage sensors, all stainless water piping, and asbestos-free sealing materials.
Extensive model tests were conducted on the new pump-turbine. The entire S-tube was included
in the homologous hydraulic model because the manufacturer’s performance guarantee included
losses in the S-tube. Higher than normal values of pressure pulsation occurred in the S-tube
during low load model turbine operation (below 70%); low-load operation was important to the
owner. An air injection solution appeared uneconomic. The solution was the addition of fins in
the S-tube combined with natural air admission. A no-cavitation condition was confirmed by the
tests.
A field acceptance test was conducted by an independent contractor. Discharge was measured by
propeller meters in both of the upper penstocks; the accuracy of the prototype flow measurement
by propeller meter is considered to be 1.2%. All efficiency guarantees were met. At
commissioning, problems with rough pressure pulsations and rotor vibrations occurred in the
synchronous condensing operating mode. The solution was to decrease cooling water discharge
to the runner/impeller seals and to open the connecting pipe between the suction cone and the
spiral case. Condensing operation is now satisfactory in both directions.
The Stechovice acceptance tests showed significant shifting of the flow and power vs. head
relationships in the pumping mode (some 2-3% greater discharge and power at the same head in
the operating range) than predicted by International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 995.
[20] This could be a potential problem for the motor-generator if proper allowance is not made.
This phenomenon has been observed at other pumped storage plants in the Czech Republic.
Other formulae for converting model-to-prototype performance have been developed from model
and field acceptance tests of pump-turbines and are being proposed. [21,22]
3-7
PECO Energy has upgraded the eight pump-turbines (rated 110 MW as turbines) and the plant
controls at the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Plant, in Pennsylvania. The impeller-runners were
replaced by a new design. The average cycle efficiency has increased by approximately 10%.
The project also included replacing the unit main bus, installing static exciters, and upgrading the
relay protection system. The project cost was about $40 million. [23]
The Muddy Run impeller-runner vendor was selected by competitive model testing. The owner
specified how relative value of the rehabilitated pump-turbines would be calculated. [24]
At the start of the job, the anticipated pump-turbine upgrade was limited to impeller-runner and
wicket gate replacement; in the end, the head covers, bottom ring, turbine bearing, and bearing
housing all were replaced. Self-lubricating bushings were installed. The runner-impeller crown
and band were cast stainless steel, with integral machined upper and lower seals. The buckets
were formed from stainless plate. New, reshaped stainless wicket gates were installed. The
wearing rings were replaced with a labyrinth style. The new head covers provided more rigidity
in the bearing housing area; the bearing was lowered for stiffness and is of a new type, allowing
easier access and adjustment. The stay ring was modified for stress reduction. Before-and-after
index and capacity tests were performed. The upgrade achieved an increase of 4% in pumping
efficiency, a decrease of 3.5% in pumping power, an increase of 4% in turbine efficiency, and an
increase of 8 MW in output at the best efficiency point. [25]
Fixed - Blade Propeller and Kaplan Turbines
Major Plant Upgrade - Kaplan Units
Upgrading the Rocky Reach Plant on the Columbia River in Washington State includes replacing
the runners of all 11 original turbines. The original Units 1-7 turbines were six-bladed Kaplan
units rated at 140,000 hp (104 MW); the original Units 8-11 turbines were five-bladed fixed-
blade propeller units rated at 177,000 hp (132 MW). All major components will be replaced,
rehabilitated, or upgraded. Transformers, generator breakers, and excitation systems are being
replaced.
The new Units 1-7 runners are six-bladed Kaplan runners. The blades are stainless, with setting
and diameter unchanged. The discharge rings are being overlaid and restored to shape. Thrust
bearings are being modified for adequacy under the most adverse operating conditions expected.
Generator stator sole plates are being replaced, governor systems refurbished, main pumps
replaced, the volumes of oil sump and accumulator tanks increased, and regulator and unit
controls replaced with modern digital technology.
Emphasis in the upgrade is on protection for fish, particularly downstream-migrating juvenile
salmon. Most fish pass through Units 1-3, so these units will be last of Units 1-7 to be upgraded,
in order to allow application of the latest “fish friendly” technology. The upgraded Units
1-7 turbines were first modeled as standard Kaplans, then remodeled to test a number of fish-
friendly features such as closure of hub-blade gaps by a spherical inner blade surface adjoining
the hub, and matching pockets in the upper cylindrical part of the hub. Attempts were made to
simulate fish movement in the 1:20-scale model using inert plastic particles of slightly lighter
than water materials. [26] Tests of the first unit upgraded indicated a fish mortality rate of only
5% compared to the estimated 15% historical rate at Rocky Reach. [27]
3-8
Units 8-11 will have new five-bladed Kaplan runners. Shaft systems will be modified to permit
blade control. Stay vanes will be modified, distributors refurbished, new greaseless bushings
installed, and discharge rings replaced with larger diameter, stainless steel rings affording a
lower runner setting. Other work will include replacement of generator stators, thrust bearings,
and governor oil systems, and the installation of new digital governors and PLC controls.
The diameters of the Units 8-11 runners will be increased by 5%, and a semi-spherical discharge
ring will be installed. The runner chamber will be redesigned. The runner will have a fully
spherical upper hub surface. A power increase of 15% is expected. Opening tendency for the
blades at all operating conditions is required. The Units 8-11 turbine work was sole-sourced to
the manufacturer of Units 1-7 for practicality and continuity. An independent confirmation of the
manufacturer’s model test results will be required. Further work was done to increase efficiency
at full load. CFD analysis led to model testing of stay vane modification. A difficult construction
will be the tapered extension of the lower head cover to match the top diameter of the hub of the
new runner.
The Units 8-11 runner blades will be single-piece castings each weighing 14 tons; a disadvantage
of the single-piece castings is that the runner must be disassembled for shipment to the site. A
new governor system, with higher oil pressures and new servomotors, will be installed. Wicket
gates and operating mechanisms will be reused. All bushings will be greaseless. A digital
governor and PLC system for unit controls will be installed. Thrust and guide bearings will
be replaced for increased weight and thrust. Removal of the imbedded discharge ring and
re-imbedment of a new discharge ring and associated parts will be challenging. To minimize
outage time, work is planned to occur simultaneously at the draft tube, the turbine and the
generator levels of the units. [26]
Upgrading a Medium-Sized Propeller Turbine
Alabama Power Company upgraded the single unit at its John Hollis Bankhead Plant. The
six-bladed propeller runner and the discharge liner were replaced. The wicket gates and
servomotors were refurbished. The rated capacity increased from about 46 MW to over 52 MW.
The upgrade project cost about $4 million. [28]
Rehabilitation of Small Propeller Turbines
The expense of homologous model testing cannot normally be justified for runner replacements
at small plants. Northern States Power’s Chippewa Falls Plant in Wisconsin had six 3-MW
Kaplan units, each with an antiquated water passage design. Proposals were obtained from
manufacturers for six new runners that were identical in shape; two of the runners would be
Kaplans and four would be fixed-blade propellers. The manufacturers provided guaranteed
efficiencies based on test results from their “closest” models. The known efficiency of a given
turbine design that has been modeled can be adjusted, within limits, in accordance with the
differences in model-to-prototype features; e.g., wicket gate height, wicket gate pin circle
diameter, stay vanes, intake, draft tube, and runner centerline elevation. The changes in
efficiency can be estimated by calculating relative head losses or by the results of model tests of
alternative designs, if available. The manufacturers’ adjustments to the performances of their
3-9
respective models could be verified for reasonableness based upon the model-to-prototype
differences. The most competitive manufacturers proposed to perform a limited model test of the
new runner and wheelcase with the existing draft tube, in order to demonstrate efficiency prior to
manufacture of the prototypes. In this way, the owner was reasonably assured of a good design
and could evaluate bid prices based on expected performance. Also, the two Kaplan units were
manufactured first so that index testing could establish the optimum blade angle for the four
fixed-blade propeller units. [29] The plant is currently rated at 24 MW. [27]
Submersible Replacement Units
American Electric Power (AEP) has installed a total of 20 submersible, adjustable-blade,

semi-Kaplan units with cylinder gates, at two old plants. At the Twin Branch Plant in Indiana,
AEP replaced six multi-runner, open flume units with eight submersible units. The submersible
units were selected from among proposals offering a variety of units on the basis of the following
evaluation criteria: minimizing structural modification and need for cofferdams, optimizing use
of standard components, simplifying maintenance procedures and access, and optimizing control
of unit operations. The cofferdam required with several options was a critical cost factor. The
additional efficiency of double-regulated units could not be justified economically; single on-off
controls provided the best return on investment. The choice of submersibles allowed phased
installation, delaying replacement of some units. The scope of supply included the turbine-
generators, turbine seats, conical draft tubes, cylinder gates, hydraulic gate activators,
accessories, and spare parts. The generators are 600-kW induction types; the use of induction
generators required consideration of plant location and capacity with respect to the bulk power
system. The turbines have planetary speed increasers to match the generator speeds.
The arrangement of two submersible units per bay was tested in a hydraulic model. With the
addition of flow deflector plates behind each cylinder gate, the model indicated good hydraulics
without modification of the flumes. The main advantages of the submersible units are simplicity
and ease of installation; total installation was from above, eliminating the need for cofferdams.
The capacity rating of the Twin Branch plant decreased from 7.3 MW to 4.8 MW, but energy
production increased significantly. [30]
AEP performed a similar upgrade at its Berrien Springs Plant, in Michigan. Twelve 600-kW
submersible units identical to the Twin Branch replacement units replaced four open-flume,
Francis camel-back units with quad runners, with essentially no change in plant capacity. Fish
mortality was a concern at Berrien Springs; AEP estimates that the upgraded plant has resulted in
a 4 to 5% reduction in mortality, due to the greater distance between runner blades and the
reduced plant hydraulic discharge. [27]
Upgrading Large Turbines for Fish-Friendliness
The development of “fish friendly” hydroturbines is proceeding under the joint sponsorship of
the U.S. Department of Energy, several industry sponsors, and EPRI. Some owners of major
hydro facilities are incorporating “fish friendly” features into designs of replacement units. New
Kaplan turbine designs are incorporating features such as smaller clearances, spherical discharge
ring surfaces, and spherical surfaces at the blade-hub interface (created by pockets in the hub) to
3-10
reduce fish mortality; the hub pockets tend to cause undesirable hydraulic disturbances, however.
Wicket gate clearance and configuration relative to the bottom ring in propeller units can be
designed to reduce fish mortality. An example is the Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant
County’s Wanapum Project on the Columbia River in Washington State. The design of the
Kaplan replacement runners being installed at Wanapum includes hub pockets, and the design
was changed from five to six blades in order to reduce the disturbance at the pockets to
acceptable levels. The wicket gates were matched to the stay vanes to reduce obstacles and
improve flow characteristics, as well as to reduce the potential for fish strikes. In general,
minimizing cavitation also enhances the survival of fish passing through a turbine. [31]
Reaction Turbines - Common Elements
Draft Tubes
Poor draft tube performance is normally of the most concern in optimizing the performance of an
upgraded reaction turbine. The most difficult situations involve old, Francis double-runner
designs with draft tubes having flow mergers and tight curves. Flow decelerates (expands) in the
draft tube, and the hydraulic problems are exacerbated by sharp turns and irregularities. New
computer tools for dealing with draft tube hydraulics are being developed. [32]
Vibration and Resonance
Modern runners are designed and fabricated to eliminate hydraulic and mechanical imbalance.
When a new runner causes vibration, resonance is almost always present. Examples are
powerhouse structural vibrations resulting from a change in runner speed or number of blades,
penstock vibrations resulting from amplification of the blade pass frequency or from draft tube
pressure pulsations, self-excited pressure pulsations in the runner clearance area produced by the
seal design, and pounding on the draft tube wall by the runner-produced draft tube vortex. There
are many modes of vibration. Solutions can be as simple as “de-tuning” a structure by stiffening
its support. Vibrations caused by the draft tube vortex are most difficult to correct; predictive
capabilities are not available for use in design. Treating the problem will require a means of
predicting flow phenomena in the entire system, including penstocks. [32]
Impulse (Pelton) Turbines
Most impulse turbines are of the Pelton type. Since all impulse turbines referred to by sources
used for this report are believed to be of the Pelton type, “Pelton” will be used hereinafter.
In Pelton turbine upgrades, a careful examination of the existing design is needed. Poor designs
are evident in cracking of buckets and deficient performance. The most important design
considerations are in the wheel. Design considerations are:
• Proper layout
• Optimum combination of speed, pitch circle diameter (PCD), and net head
• Optimum bucket size
3-11
• Correct inlet position and outlet angles

• Turbine housing space and baffle plate arrangement
• For two-jet turbines, optimum angle between jets
Old Pelton runners often have bolt-on buckets and poor inlet hydraulics. Wear and tear reduces
efficiency. A common problem is too high speed as a result of frequency change; runner speed
greatly changes efficiency. The runner design compromises between structural and hydraulic
designs. Many Pelton wheels must tolerate frequent load cycles.
The rotation of discharge water due to too small a ratio of PCD to bucket size loses efficiency.
Turbine housing is critical, especially for horizontal turbines. Space is needed, especially at the
upstream end of the housing, so that water (highly aerated) can effectively escape the wheel and
drain to the pit. Proper baffle plate design prevents interference of the discharge water with the
runner and the jet. Too close placement of nozzles with respect to the runner circumference
causes interference. An increase of nozzle spacing from 55° to 75° for a two-jet unit greatly
increased efficiency. At the Big Creek No. 1 Powerhouse, in California, two double, single-
nozzle, Pelton units were upgraded with new runners and replacement nozzles. The PCDs were
reduced by 8 in to optimize conditions at the rated net head and speed. The turbine housings
were widened and extended on the upstream end for drainage. The governors had to be relocated.
Special baffles were installed in the housings. The efficiency at best power increased by about
14%, and the best efficiency point occurred at a higher output. [33]
Upgrading Pelton turbines can often be economic. Most vertical impulse units have peak
efficiencies at 65% of full load. Old machines often have lower speeds and larger buckets than
modern design. Also, bucket shapes often become distorted after years of repair, without
templates or experienced personnel. This points to new runners. Commissioning tests of original
equipment often indicate efficiencies higher than supported by runner model performance; this
means that gains from replacement runners will be greater than expected based on comparison
with the “tested” performance of existing runners when first commissioned. Older units tend to
be robust (conservative design); this often allows an uprating without changing components due
to size or stress. [34]
A checklist for Pelton turbine upgrades is: [34]

• Turbine/generator shafting and coupling limits
• Needle servomotor design and limits
• Needle and nozzle seat enlargement limits
• Spiral distributor sizing
• Runner pit sizing and venting
• Waterway sizing
• Existing versus upgraded nozzle water speed
Note: increasing turbine discharge will reduce net head, causing a rise in the “phi” ratio of
PCD to nozzle velocity; this can often be beneficial to efficiency.
3-12
• Runner and bucket sizing

• Needle imbalance
• Overspeed, deflectors and governor changes
Note: the position of the deflector must be considered if the jet is enlarged.
• Runner stresses
Upgrading Small Pelton Units
The Tafjord K2 Plant in Norway has two, double-horizontal, two-jet Pelton turbines, rated
originally at 14 MW at 375 m net head. Upgrade of the plant involved: replacement of the
original bolt-on bucket runners with new stainless monocast runners, with a slight adjustment of
PCD; new shafts redesigned for a more suitable coupling arrangement; increased angle between
the jets; new housings; overhaul of gate-type penstock-operated inlet valves; new control
equipment; new, high pressure, digital governor systems; and refurbishment of other
components. The output of each unit was raised to 17 MW, and efficiencies increased by about
6%. The total cost was about US$3 million. [33]
Pelton Turbine Upgrade Program
Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHW&P) has undertaken a program to modernize seven Pelton
turbines (all 6-jet vertical machines) in three powerhouses in California. In the Holm
Powerhouse, new runners and jet protectors have been installed on the two units, raising the unit
ratings from about 75 MW to 88 MW. Turbine jet diameters were enlarged by 6%. Based on
original commissioning (Gibson) tests, runner replacement could not be justified. Recent tests
using acoustical flowmeters indicated otherwise, however. The purchase order for the new units
was set to performance at high load, with potential liquidated damages based on performance to
assure a favorable project benefit to cost ratio. The expected payback period is less than three
years at a cost of about $80 per kW.
HHW&P’s Kirkwood Powerhouse has three units. Two were originally installed in 1964. The
third was added in the late 1980s with the requirement that the runners of all three units be
interchangeable, thus foregoing advantages of state-of-the-art design. The units recently operate
at maximum flow about four months of year; this has increased erosion. Two replacement
runners have been installed with nozzle enlargements showing advantages.
Due to foundation problems, rehabilitation of HHW&P’s New Moccasin Plant includes

construction of a new powerhouse. Each of the two units has its own penstock, with full load loss
equal to 12% of head. The units are often equally loaded to reduce head loss, but this is at less-
than ideal loads, well below peak efficiency. There is no advantage to nozzle enlargement due to
low load factors. Two new runners will be supplied, possibly to be combined with a project to
reduce penstock friction losses. After that, to take advantage of higher head, modification of
operating speed will be considered to better match rpm and nozzle velocity. [6,34]
3-13
Civil Works Improvements in Conjunction with Turbine Upgrades
At older hydro plants, the rehabilitation or upgrade of civil works, including structures,
waterways and related equipment, is most often performed to increase project safety, prevent
severe failure, or reduce operating or maintenance cost. Major civil works improvements are
usually costly and often have environmental and licensing implications. However, some civil
works improvements, particularly those that involve waterways, can complement turbine
rehabilitations and upgrades. In any turbine upgrade, the competency of conduits, valves, and
trashracks under the new flow and pressure conditions must be examined.
Rehabilitation of a Powerhouse Resulting in Improved Turbine
The Unit 3 powerhouse at Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Company’s Clam River project had
been added to the original powerhouse in an existing spillway bay in 1967. The Unit 3
powerhouse suffered severe substructure cracking and movements; in 1988, Unit 3 was taken out
of service for safety reasons. Lack of original construction drawings was a hindrance in
evaluating a course of action. Demolition and replacement of the Unit 3 powerhouse was
considered. A team approach among the owner, engineer, and construction contractor led to an in
situ reinforcement and stabilization plan. The problem was poor substructure concrete on a
foundation of compacted silt. The rehabilitation essentially consisted of construction of a
structural liner in the turbine pit and reinforcement of the draft tube to support and transfer loads
to the foundation. Included were reshaping of the turbine pit and draft tube to improve hydraulic
efficiency; corners were rounded, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standards for draft tube
design were applied. Minor adjustment of the draft tube geometry was made in the field. An
analysis indicated that temporary bracing would not be required for the construction, thus
reducing cost and saving time. The adjacent units continued to operate during construction. [35]
Replacement of Penstocks to Improve Turbine Performance
The penstocks at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Fort Peck Power Plant No. 1 in Montana
were replaced in 1990-92. Power Plant No. 1 had been placed in service in 1943. Among the
several purposes of the penstock replacement was to increase plant capacity by increasing flow
efficiency. Power Plant No. 1 consists of a low-level intake, a reinforced concrete tunnel
750 m long, a surge tank, a riveted steel pressure tunnel 1000 m long trifurcating into three
penstocks, and three Francis turbines and their generators. Each of the penstocks has a surge
tank. The units were uprated to their present ratings of 43.5 MW, 18.2 MW, and 43.5 MW in the
mid 1970s.
Following the uprating of the units, computer model studies indicated that the penstock surge
tanks could be overtopped; this led to discharge and loading rate restrictions. Restriction of the
surge tank orifices was considered, but the penstocks first had to be tested for increased
pressures. For a variety of reasons, the penstocks were found inadequate. In 1981, a consultant
recommended that full head operation of the plant could best be achieved by restriction of the
surge tank riser orifices and replacement of the penstocks. In 1989, planning to replace the
penstocks began. In 1990, the plant was taken out of service when settlement readings indicated
an intolerably low safety factor for the penstock rivets. It was decided to replace the unit
3-14
isolation valves as well and to make the small unit’s penstock the same diameter as the other
two, anticipating installation of a larger unit in the future. The tunnel coal tar lining was removed
and the tunnel repainted; the Corps discovered that the most effective way to remove coal tar
enamel is ball-peening at 3-4 in. (8-10 cm) intervals. The contractor tried robotic-type equipment
for painting, but the riveted plate construction made this unsuccessful; however, the test showed
the robotic painting system would work on welded steel. The surge tanks, runners, draft tubes,
and scroll cases were repainted. Acoustic flow meters were installed in penstock sections. The
plant was out of service for 2-1/2 years for the upgrade. [36]
Penstock Replacement Integrated with Turbine Rehabilitation
Duke Power’s Tuxedo Plant in North Carolina is a two-unit, 5-MW, 1920s vintage plant with a
head of 287 ft (87 m). The penstocks are of wood stave construction. A section of the main
penstock was washed out in 1987. Duke replaced the penstocks and turbine runners in the early
1990s. The size of the replacement main penstock was dependent upon the characteristics of the
upgraded turbines.
The main penstock, originally 8 ft (2.4 m) in diameter, runs about 4700 ft (1400 m) from the
project dam to a concrete surge tank. Two short, 5-ft (1.5-m) diameter penstocks lead from the
surge tank to the powerhouse; these penstocks have concrete anchor blocks. The penstocks rest
on cast-in-place concrete cradles. The combination of wood stave construction and concrete
cradles allowed the penstocks to accommodate considerable lateral movement and settling. The
5-ft penstocks were replaced in the 1940s with new Douglas Fir wood stave pipe.
In 1987, an embankment slope fill failure ruptured a 75-ft (23-m) length of the main penstock.
Fortunately, the headgate had been closed, limiting the release of water. Failure of the
embankment may have been caused by leakage. Retirement of the plant was considered as well
as plant rehabilitation or upgrade. Replacement and relining of the main penstock were
considered. Duke Power decided to replace the penstocks and to rehabilitate the plant to extend
its life. Steel replacement penstocks were considered, but wood stave construction was selected
in consideration of its past performance, the limited access for construction in rugged terrain, the
ability to accommodate movement, and the proven construction. Hydraulic analysis indicated
that the diameter of the main penstock could be reduced to 7 ft (2.1 m); this was crucial to the
economic justification. The new penstocks are creosote-treated Douglas Fir tongue-and-groove
staves girded by steel bands ¾ in. (19 mm) in diameter, supported by heavy timber cradles on
pre-cast concrete pads.
The penstocks leaked excessively upon first pressurization. Duke Power began around-the clock
monitoring, and placed plastic sheeting and concrete below the penstock in selected areas to
divert water. The leakage declined with gradual swelling of the wood staves. Testing of the
rehabilitated turbines and new penstock, including load rejection testing, indicated the new
penstocks were more stable and water-tight than the old. The plant now can produce 8 MW.
Testing indicates no release of penstock creosote to the water. Penstock leakage has been well
within acceptable rates, with only minor sloughing of the bed. Despite limited experience with
wood stave construction, the project was successful. The plant rehabilitation was completed at
$730 per kW. The life expectancy of the rehabilitated plant is 40 Years. [37]
3-15
Lessons Learned
• Rehabilitating or upgrading hydroturbines using modern, fabricated runners works well.
Runners must be custom-designed for the particular site. Custom designing is greatly
enhanced by finite element flow and structural analysis. Use of runners designed for one site
at another site can be disastrous.
• A competent model program can achieve the maximum benefit from a turbine or pump-
turbine upgrade over the life of the upgraded units. Physical model testing is necessary to
accurately predict prototype efficiency. CFD cannot account for small changes in efficiency
which, for large units, have a large effect on value.
• For optimum results in turbine upgrades, attention must be paid to water passages. Wicket
gate height and shape, stay vane, and discharge ring modification can have demonstrable
economic benefits and should be considered.
• In a rehabilitation or upgrade program, each component should be evaluated in detail.
• The draft tube is the most troublesome component in turbine upgrades. Draft tube design and
performance analysis remain as the principal challenges to achieving optimum results.
• A experimental nitrite coating of Pelton runner buckets for erosion protection was
unsuccessful due to the high velocity impacts of pebbles and stones.
• Experience has shown that IEC 995 formulae for converting homologous model performance
to prototype performance may result in too low a discharge and power in the pumping mode.
The effect could be excessive load on the motor at low heads.
• Semi-homologous models can often accurately demonstrate flow in portions of the turbine,
e.g., the draft tube, saving time and expense compared to development of a fully homologous
model turbine.
• Original commissioning acceptance tests by the Gibson method often overestimated turbine
efficiency; use of the results of such tests could significantly underestimate the potential
improvement from a turbine upgrade.
• The cost of upgrading Pelton turbines can be as low as $100 per kW. Prioritizing Pelton
upgrades in favor of machines with highest head, highest load factor, highest diameter-to-
bucket width ratio, and lowest efficiency is suggested.
• Forcing the inter-changeability of Pelton runners is an uneconomic approach.
• Old Pelton runner buckets that appear to have good contours and smooth finish surfaces may
in fact be relatively inefficient due to distortion of surface shape over the years caused by
repairs.
• A thorough supplier quality control program is vital to the success of any rehabilitation or
upgrade project. Building the rehabilitated distributor in the manufacturer’s shop can
significantly reduce fit-up problems in the field.
• A complete field alignment of a rehabilitated unit can be invaluable in terms of ease of
assembly, bearing life, etc.
3-16
References
1. T. W. Clippinger, “Rehabilitation of Existing Hydro, Our Oldest Natural Resource,” source

and date unknown.
2. Guide for Hydraulic Machinery Model Testing. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA: June 1988. Report AP-5876.
3. B. Mahe and V. De Henau, “Recent Trends in Francis Turbine Uprating,” Concepts for the
Future, HCI Publications, 1994, p. 85.
4. The Value of Competitive Model Testing in the Bid Evaluation Process for Hydroelectric
Turbomachinery. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA: July 1985. Report
EM-4174.
5. L. D. Chapman, Panel Session (audiotaped): “Great Ideas in Rehab,” HydroVision 98

Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
6. M. E. Gass, Hetch Hetchy Water and Power, personal communication, October 1998.
7. D. C. Kee, Ontario Hydro, personal communication, October-November 1998.
8. R. J. Knowlton, New York Power Authority, personal communication, October-November

1998.
9. ASME Hydro Power Technical Committee, The Guide to Hydropower Mechanical Design.
HCI Publications, Kansas City, MO, 1996, pp. 3-2, -21, -24, -26, -29.
10. V. De Henau, M. Sabourin, Y. Labrecque, and B. Papillon, “Hydraulic Turbine Design: Will
Computer Simulations Replace Model Testing?,” Hydro Review, September 1998, p. 54.
11. S. C. Onken, “Turbine Uprating and Incremental Gains Made With Each Change,”
Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1993, Volume 3, p. 2006.
12. S. C. Onken, Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District, personal communication, November

1998.
13. W. H. Colwill and S. A. Chacour, “Pump-Turbine Upgrades: Measuring the Benefits of New
Designs,” Hydro Review, November 1996, p. 38.
14. S. M. Murray and F. B. Siebensohn, “Yale Hydroproject Upgrade,” Proceedings of the

International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997,
Volume 3, p. 1641.
15. R. J. Knowlton, P. W. Ludewig, and J. H. Phillips, “Ensuring Optimum Performance From

the Machines,” Hydro Review, April 1998, p. SR8.
3-17
16. J. L. Ford and J. Grzan, “Challenging Change: NYPA Rehabilitates Robert Moses Power
Plant,” Hydro Review, April 1998, p. SR2.
17. P. A. Bernhardt, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, personal communication,

October 1998.
18. P. A. Bernhardt, “Rehabilitation of Unit #2 at Bennetts Bridge Hydro,” Proceedings of the

Volume 3, p. 1607.
19. T. A. Jablonski, “Replacement Of Great Falls Units 1 & 2 Hydro Turbines,” Proceedings of
the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993,
Volume 3, p. 1537.
20. IEC Publication 995, International Electromechanical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland,

1991.
21. J. Spidla, “Rehabilitation of Stechovice Pumped Storage Plant,” Paper presented at

HydroVision 98 Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
22. J. Spidla, CKD Blansko Engineering a.s., personal communication, October-November 1998.
23. “PECO Energy Completes Rehab At Conowingo, Muddy Run,” Hydro Review,
September 1998, p. 66.
24. F. R. Harty, Jr., J. Geuther, T. Jenkins, and T. Callahan, “Evaluating and Specifying Pumped
Storage Upgrades,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 3, p. 1683.
25. J. L. Kepler and T. W. Jenkins, “Case Study for the Upgrade and Rehabilitation of a Pumped
Storage Installation - Muddy Run Powerhouse,” Proceedings of the International Conference
on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 3, p. 1591.
26. J. J. Hron, C. A. McKee, A. Bramati, and G. Rossi, “Rocky Reach Kaplan Turbine
Replacement,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American
27. E. Fulton, “Preparing for the Twentieth-First Century: Environmental Protection,

Efficiency,” Hydro Review, November 1998, p. 10.
28. “Alabama Power Completes Upgrade at Bankhead Hydro Plant,” Hydro Review,
September 1998, p. 66.
29. M. Holmberg, B. Zawacki, D. R. Froehlich, and J. Singleton, “Upgrade of the Chippewa

Falls Hydroelectric Turbines,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993, Volume 3, p. 1545.
3-18
30. R. E. Dool and S. M. Abelin, “Upgrading of AEP’s Twin Branch Hydroelectric Plant,”
31. J. J. Hron, J. B. Strickler, and J. M. Cybularz, “Wanapum Kaplan Turbine Replacement,”

32. W. H. Colwill, American Hydro Corporation, personal communication, October 1998.
33. P. Ligaard, “Modern Technology Successfully Applied in Pelton Turbine Upgrades,”

Concepts for the Future, HCI Publications, 1994, p. 77.
34. M. E. Gass, “Modernization and Performance Improvements of Vertical Pelton Turbines,”

Hydropower & Dams, Issue Two, 1998, p. 25.
35. J. Dahlberg, W. Forsmark, and J. VanHoven, “Clam River Dam Unit 3 Powerhouse
Rehabilitation,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American
36. R. W. Bockerman and D. F. Miller, “Fort Peck - Power Plant No. 1 Penstock Replacement,”
37. W. A. Maynard, “Replacement of the Wood Stave Penstock and Turbine Runners at Tuxedo
Hydro Plant,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American
3-19
4
GENERATORS AND MOTOR-GENERATORS
Generators and motor-generators are complex, electromechanical machines that suffer electrical
and mechanical stress and deterioration. Windings and cores are especially subject to
degradation, resulting in lost efficiency. Generators at old hydro plants often are neglected and
may have operated since the early 1900s with the original windings. The common element of
rehabilitating or upgrading generators and motor-generators is rewinding. The predominate
causes of failure are failure of stator winding insulation, deterioration of stator core pressure and
inter-laminate insulation, and field coil insulation problems. The number of engineers
experienced in generator insulation has dwindled. Problems often are not realized until too
late. [1]
Rehabilitation and Upgrade Practices
A proactive approach to rewinds is suggested. For success in rewinds, begin assembling

information before there is a problem. Define alternative strategies: continued upkeep;
refurbishment to “good as new”; upgrade by refurbishment plus redesign to improve output,
efficiency and temperature control; or replacement with a new or reconditioned machine. Key
questions are:
• What is the machine’s present condition and how much longer can it operate?
• Is existing monitoring adequate to determine the machine’s condition?
• What would be the total cost for repair after a sudden failure vs. a planned repair based on
existing condition?
• Can the unit be operated at a higher output?
• What is the ranking of urgency of this machine among all generators?
A survey of U.S. owners indicates a large majority are unprepared to answer those five
questions. A comprehensive discussion of tests, recommended contractual and monitoring
procedures, and common pitfalls in generator rewinding is presented in “Hydro Generator
Rewinds: Planning for Success,” Hydro Review, May 1996. [1]
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Approach
In upgrading any hydro unit, the capacities of all power train components, i.e., turbine, generator,
shafts, bearings, stator windings, rotor poles, generator cooling systems, bearings, and structural
components should be evaluated. TVA first analyses the upgrade potential from the turbine side,
by establishing a maximum output based upon head and flow. Then the remainder of the power
train is reviewed to identify limitations. [2]
4-1
Several tests are recommended in an assessment of the potential for upgrading a generator. A
controlled heat run can be used to predict cooling requirements at uprated load. Machine losses
can be segregated into components by speed-no-load, open circuit, and short-circuit tests. Pole
saturation tests can determine potential loading of field poles. Historic test reports and outage
reports may provide useful information. Testing can accurately measure fixed (windage, friction,
and core) and variable (copper and stray) losses. Computer models can provide good assessments
if sufficient, reliable data are available. Caution is advised that post-commissioning
modifications may have altered “original” values. [2] The standard for generator testing in the
United States is American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (ANSI/IEEE) 115. [3] EPRI’s Hydropower Plant Modernization Guide addresses the
application of generator test results to rehabilitation and upgrading. [4]
TVA measures heat transfer through generator air coolers, electrical heat within the machine,
contribution from bearing friction, and heat conducted through housing to/from the outside
environment. The variation of stator and field temperature rise with the square of the respective
current is essentially linear and can be plotted to predict temperature rise at higher loads.
However, since the relationship of field temperature rise to the square of the current is less linear
than for the stator, additional margin for field temperature rise is recommended. ANSI code
allows a temperature rise of 90°C for Class F insulation. (TVA limits Class F temperature rise to
80°C.) TVA attempts to test at 50% and 100% load, with heavy reactive loading.
Design changes will affect heat losses. For example: rewinding changes copper lossthe effect
of changes in copper area can be estimated; changing fan and baffles changes windage loss, not
easily estimated by hand calculation; and changing pole dimensions or configuration changes
field copper loss. To raise the loading limit requires measures such as higher class insulation,
upgraded ventilation (which may affect air cooler performance), improvement of air coolers, or
shimming behind pole bodies to decrease air gap; this latter measure requires expert advice
concerning the effect on reactances and other electrical circuits, and potential mechanical
problems. ANSI standards limit air cooler outlet temperature to 40°C for temperature rise
purposes; this may be a consideration during warmer months. [2]
Mechanical Aspects to Generator Upgrade
In addition to the obvious electrical considerations in any upgrade, there are mechanical
considerations which are often overlooked due to the general conservative approach to design of
older units. The most obvious potential problem is the case in which parts are structurally
defective or cracked. In other cases, sound materials may not be capable of assuming higher
stresses. When evaluating a unit for upgrading, the following components must be considered:
rotor shaft (increased torque from higher loads, increased tension from heavier rotating parts),
coupling bolts (increased shear and axial stress), and rotor spider (increased torque, bending, and
tension stresses). Older castings were often of relatively poor quality. The weight of pole pieces
to be supported is important; the spider suffers tensile stress due to rotation combined with
bending. Overspeed stress must be considered, although there is no full-load torque. Rim
attachments and pole piece connections must be checked. A thorough material evaluation should
be made. Mechanical components are generally re-used. There is a concern for material
uniformity in older steel castings, particularly large castings with highly variable thickness. The
hub-to-spider arm area is particularly vulnerable in old castings.
4-2
In one case, a rotor had been shipped for rehabilitation; severe cracking in the hub-to-spider arm
area was noticed after the pole pieces had been removed and sandblasting had occurred. In this
case, thorough investigation of the rotor spider was undertaken, additional surface cracks were
found, and a detailed stress and fracture mechanics review was performed. Fabrication or casting
of a new spider was considered, but, due to time constraints, it was decided to cut out and weld
repair all visible cracks. The repair took about three weeks. [5]
Pitfalls of Generator Rehabilitation and Upgrade
The most commonand costlypitfalls are: being surprised by a failure; rewinding a generator
as-built when an upgrade could have been accomplished for about the same cost; ordering the
“maximum output possible” without any idea of other factors (such as turbine capability);
requiring insufficient rehabilitation time in order to minimize lost output; and not being aware of
recent changes in standards, notably revised temperature rise standards. For example, the
permissible rise for Class B insulation is 80°C (75°C above 7000 volts), and a new Class F
standard has been added. Suggested remedies are:
• Monitor and gather machine condition information in advance
• Allow sufficient time for a quality rehabilitation job (four months for small projects after
bidding; one year for large machines including 3-5 months for bidding and evaluation)
• Match the manufacturer to proven capability for the type and size of machines
• Evaluate quality in bid evaluations
• Pre-qualify bidders based on results of tests
Some owners ask pre-qualified contractors to supply samples of winding materials for tests and
design checks and to provide references involving the same rewinding materials and insulation
system. Operating characteristics such as current loading, rated voltage and voltage stress of the
insulation to ground, stator core length, operating temperature, and starts/load cycles of the
reference units should match the project units. Less important are rpm, kVA, power factor (PF),
and frequency. A good specification is invaluable. Careful handling of materials and windings at
the job site is important. Close inspection is required. Verification testing should not be waived
to hasten restart. Comprehensive monitoring and testing should begin immediately after re-
commissioning. [1]
Generator Protection
Generally, older generators have protection shortcomings. There are risks in not providing
adequate protection. Hydro generator protection can be enhanced using digital technology.
Generators require protection not only from short circuits but also from abnormal electrical
conditions, e.g., over-excitation, over-voltage, loss of field, unbalanced currents, reverse power,
and abnormal frequency. Multifunctional digital relaying is an ideal way to upgrade protection;
required features can be supplied in a single package. Communication with the relays can be
installed, and metering quantities within the relays can be accessed. [6]
4-3
Upgrading Generators at a Major Plant
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is upgrading three of the five units at its Shasta Project, in
California, at a total cost of about $21 million. Upgrade of the first generator has been
completed; the machine is operating satisfactorily as limited by the existing turbine to 125 MW.
The second unit is scheduled for completion in 1999, also to operate with the existing turbine.
The third unit is scheduled for completion in 2000. Reclamation’s original plan was to replace
the third unit’s runner during its generator upgrade, then replace the first and second units’
runners later, but the first runner replacement (third upgraded generator unit) may be delayed.
Prior to the upgrade, the plant was rated at 578 MW; the present rating is 625 MW.
The Shasta units may be loaded at a rate from no-load to maximum as limited only by the
allowed rate of wicket gate opening. Cycling is normally twice-per-day, but more often during
emergencies. When water is plentiful, the units may operate at full load for a month or more.
The Shasta generators were installed in 1943 and originally rated 75,000 kVA, 13.8 kV, unity
PF, 60 Hz, 138.5 rpm. The generators have direct-connected exciters and are self-ventilated with
top-mounted axial fans and water cooling. The machines were rewound in 1969-71, when they
were re-rated for continuous service at 86,350 kVA, 0.97 PF, 60°C temperature rise. Structural
additions to the rotor assemblies in 1978-80 allowed operation to 125,000 kVA, but the machines
were limited to slightly lower loads due to electrical and thermal conditions. Reclamation
determined that with new turbines, the generator outputs of Units 3, 4, and 5 could be increased
to 142,000 kW at unity PF. Reclamation then did a detailed analysis of the frequency of loading
and the absolute limit of the units; unit operation was modeled based on hydrologic and flow
data. Benefits were estimated for three levels of improvement:
Rewind Improvement Annual Benefit
to nameplate capacity $5.3 million
to current operating level 0.5 million (incremental)
to 142 MW (upgraded) 0.8 million (incremental)
Total $6.6 million
Economic justification was based on energy only since the applicable power contracts are limited
to the sale of energy. The upgrade work includes:
• Replacement of armature windings and stator cores for 80°/75°C temperature rise for output
of 142,000 kVA at unity PF
• Replacement or re-insulation of field windings for operation at 100°C temperature rise at
rated output
• Installation of redesigned rotor fans and shroud systems, static exciters, and static voltage
regulation and excitation control systems
• New turbine coupling bolts
• Addition of dowel pins to the rotor hub key systems
• Installation of segmented main thrust bearings with high-pressure lubrication to allow for
rapid restart
4-4
The upgraded generators are required to be capable of (1) charging the transmission line without
becoming self-excited or unstable at not less than 107,000 kVAR at zero PF under-excited and
(2) absorbing load of 80,000 kVAR at zero PF over-excited without exceeding temperature rise
limitations. The guaranteed generator efficiency is 98.70%, to be confirmed by heat run tests.
(Reclamation calculates generator efficiencies to 0.01%.) Sensors were installed as part of the
upgrade, as were instruments for checking shaft runout and vibration. Reclamation specified that
maximum efficiency be at full load and rated power factor.
In planning the upgrade, the initial step was to collect data from existing generators including
dimensions, measured temperature rises, field voltage and currents at rated load, open circuit
field characteristics, losses, and reactances. The contractor analyzed the data by a proprietary
computer program, calibrating output to match the existing machines and calibrating the flux
distribution in the air gap. In these analyses, the more data gathered, the better the design.
The computer simulation achieved a new design with least intervention in the existing machine.
Replacement of the stator winding and core provided the best opportunity to maximize efficiency
and output. Analysis included a mechanical analysis. During dismantling, some of the tightening
bolts expected to be reused were found to be broken; this resulted in redesign of the bolts using
high-grade steel, thus reducing the number of bolts and the cost of bolt replacement. [7,8]
Correcting Generator Rotor Roundness

Where generator rotors have insufficient stiffness to counteract the stator-rotor magnetic
attraction, the roundness of rotors can deteriorate, introducing unbalanced forces. At its Arnprior
Generating Station, Ontario Hydro (OH) had rewound the generator rotors twice since being
placed in service in 1976. Out-of-roundness of one machine was causing inward movement of
the stator by 0.005 in. (0.13 mm) at each passing of the high spots of the oval rotor. This in turn
caused cracking of the upper generator bracket and galling of the sole plate radial keys. The
variances of rotor and stator shapes were 0.093 in. (2.4 mm) and 0.138 in. (3.5 mm),
respectively. OH decided to shrink the rotor rim to the spider to increase stiffness. Reinforcement
of the spider was required to withstand the shrink. The work included removal and modification
of the spider, including repair of cracks. OH’s air gap monitoring system was used to provide
rotor roundness readings. Two heatings were required to achieve the desired roundness of the
shrunk-fit rim. With the modified rotor in service, shaft runout decreased from 0.015 in
(0.38 mm) to 0.004 in (0.10 mm). Another unit was similarly modified with a higher shrink.
OH has permanently mounted a computer-based air gap reading system onto both units. [9]
Replacement of Exciters with Generators

The Lookout Shoals Plant in North Carolina was the first plant to be rehabilitated under Duke
Power’s hydro project modernization program. Normal head on the plant is in the 70-75 ft
(21-22 m) range. A particular problem at Lookout Shoals was that discharge from any of the
three main turbines could not be reduced to the minimum flow required for downstream fishery
purposes without subjecting the unit to rough operation. The solution was to replace the plant’s
two hydraulic turbine-driven direct-current exciters with two new 500 kVA (600 rpm)
alternating-current generators, in order to satisfy the minimum flow requirements while
providing supplemental generation. The exciters were redundant with the turbine-driven exciter
on a main unit. Additional work included upgrading the servomotors, the wicket gate operating
system, and the actuators on the penstock isolation valves.
4-5
The new generators were anchored to the existing sole plates, and their shafts were connected to
the existing turbine shafts. The new generators were connected to the plant’s 480-volt auxiliary
electrical system. Special attention was paid to possible shaft vibrations and avoidance of
harmonic frequencies in the generators. Testing at the manufacturer’s facility included a 200%
speed test (1200 rpm). The work was accomplished during the main plant rehabilitation, and the
new generators are included in the new plant control system. The units were installed by plant
support forces in 1996. [10]
Thrust Bearing Cooling System Upgrade
At the Rocky Reach Plant, the thrust bearings are cooled by gravity-flow water systems, with
flows of 250 gpm (16 liters per second). In the original systems, cooling water flow continued at
unit shutdown, stiffening the lubricating oil and subsequently causing excessive wear on the
bearings. Furthermore, silt from river water clogged the orifice flow-measuring device. The
Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County installed magnetic flowmeters to eliminate the
silt clogging problem and automatic flow shutoff valves to stop flow at unit shutdown. A
10-ft (3-m) length of supply pipe was cut out, and the new shutoff valve, flowmeter, and
automatic flowmeter bypass were inserted. The total cost of materials was less than $5000 per
unit. It is intended to apply the same technique to solving identical problems with the high flow,
main generator cooling water systems. [11]
Experience with Stator Iron
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has some 350 hydro generators and has rewound
perhaps one-third of them. There have been problems with brittle, damaged stator iron. One
rewinding project was delayed in progress when the stator iron was unexpectedly found to be in
poor condition. Subsequently, the Corps has included stator iron replacement as an optional item
in the cost estimate and justification of all rehabilitation and upgrade projects; when the
generator is disassembled, the decision to replace the stator iron can be made without modifying
authorizations or contracts. [12]
Developing Technologies
Insulation Systems
Hydro generator design always involves a tradeoff between stator insulation thickness (more is
better for insulation life) and generator size (smaller is less expensive). Development of new
insulation systems using corona-resistant materials and thinner (higher stress) insulation that
would provide equal protection and reduce generator size has been claimed. A manufacturer
partnered with two utilities to test stator bars; in one test, 40 bars with thinner insulation were
included in a rewind to compare to the standard product; the bars were instrumented with
temperature detectors, and partial discharge detectors were inserted. The physical integrity of
insulation systems is important to resist damage from installation or operating vibrations.
Voltage endurance tests are most crucial. The corona-resistant, composite materials tested are
reported to be competent and available for use in generator rewind projects. [13]
4-6
High Voltage Generators
The high-voltage generator is a relatively new development now in commercial operation at the
Porjus Plant, in Sweden. The Porjus generator output is at transmission voltage, 45 kV,
eliminating the need for a step-up transformer. The high-voltage transformer increases unit
efficiency and reduces the risks and problems associated with the presence of oil, e.g.,
containment and fire. At new plants, elimination of the need for transformer bays reduces civil
works cost. More installations of high-voltage generators are planned. [14,15,16]
Variable (Adjustable) Speed Machines
Improvements in control technology have lead to investigation and trial of variable- or

adjustable-speed hydroelectric (ASH) units. ASH has especial promise in pumped storage
installations, which are usually relatively high-capacity units with large changes in head, and
which can benefit in particular from the ability to regulate output in the pumping mode without
significant loss of efficiency. Evaluation of ASH would not normally be considered for
rehabilitations and upgrades of most hydro plants due to the high cost of specialized converter
systems. While promising for improvement of system power quality and extension of ancillary
benefits, ASH can also enhance system voltage stability and frequency control. Electronic
controls enhance the feasibility of ASH motor-generators. [17] For a comprehensive discussion
of ASH technology, reference to EPRI’s report Application of Adjustable-Speed Machines in
Conventional and Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Projects is suggested. [18]
Lessons Learned
• Retain a generator specialist for upgrade projects that could affect the generator.
• Focus on reducing generator size (maximum rpm) in Pelton upgrades.
• Be prepared for the need to replace iron in the stator core; much time and cost can be saved if
optional contractual provisions are made in advance.
• Generator overcooling/over-ventilation is better than under-cooling/under-ventilation.
• Evaluation of each generator component modification should be made to ensure that each
component modification is necessary or cost-effective.
• Examine and analyze mechanical generator parts early; the design or condition of mechanical
components may limit the upgrade potential unless modifications are made. Minimal material
properties should be assumed, due to the variability of material in castings; destructive
testing may provide misleading results for the same reason. Cracks are hard to see in old,
rough-surface castings.
4-7
References
1. H. F. Naeff, “Hydro Generator Rewinds: Planning for Success,” Hydro Review, May 1996,
p. 44.
2. M. S. Poteet and G. O. Keith, “Cooling and Uprate Analysis of Hydro Generators,”
3. ANSI/IEEE 115-1983. Test Procedures for Synchronous Machines.
4. Hydropower Plant Modernization Guide. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA: June 1989. Report GS-6419.
5. W. G. Moore, “Mechanical Considerations for Uprate and Rehabilitation of Hydro-
Generators,” Paper presented at HydroVision 98 Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
6. C. J. Mozina, “Upgrading Hydroelectric Generator Protection Using Digital Technology,”
7. M. A. Bauer and C. Millet, “Project Spotlight: Uprating Generators at Shasta Powerplant,”
Hydro Review, August 1998, p. 104.
8. M. A. Bauer, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, personal communication, October 1998.
9. G. Haines, “Improving the Air Gap Mechanical Stiffness Of a Hydrogenerator,”
Hydro Review, May 1995, p. 66.
10. D. N. Summers, B. L. Sigmon, S. G. Powell, J. C. Sigmon, and E. M. Brinson, “Replacement
of DC Exciter with AC Generator,” Proceedings of the International Conference on
Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 3, p. 1633.
11. B. M. Bickford and D. H. Garrison, “Creative Problem Solving at Rocky Reach,”
Hydro Review, April 1997, p. SR22.
12. J. A. Norlin, Panel Session (audiotaped): “Rehabilitation II - Lessons Learned,”
13. R. E. Draper and R. H. Rehder, “Hydro Generator Insulation Improvements through
Extended Use of Corona Resistant Materials,” Proceedings of the International Conference
on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 3, p. 2160.
14. K. Isaksson and T. Karisson, “Technology for the Future: Development of a New
Generator,” HRW, May 1998, p. 23.
15. H. F. Naeff, ABB Power Generation, Inc., personal communication, October 1998.
16. “A New Turbine; A New Generator,” Hydro Review, November 1998, p. 14.
17. E. Kita, Y. Ohno, T. Kuwabara, and A. Bando, “Gaining Flexibility, Value with Adjustable-
Speed Hydro,” HRW, Winter 1994, p. 18.
18. Application of Adjustable-Speed Machines in Conventional and Pumped Storage
Hydroelectric Projects. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA: November 1995.
Report TR-105542.
4-8
5
GOVERNORS, CONTROLS, AND AUXILIARIES
Governors and controls are often included in hydro plant rehabilitation or upgrade projects.
Properly operating governors and controls are not only important for plant efficiency and
reliability but also for plant safety. Modern, digital equipment can greatly reduce the human
effort in operating and monitoring a hydro plant while enhancing reliability. Some rehabilitation
and upgrade projects have focused primarily on governors and controls.
Auxiliary systems are also essential to a well-functioning, safe hydro plant. Unfortunately, these
systems may often be neglected in favor of power train components. Some hydro owners have
specific programs to upgrade auxiliary systems. Under certain circumstances, consideration
should be given to rehabilitating or upgrading auxiliary systems prior to the rehabilitation or
upgrade of the major plant components.
Governors and Controls
Modern governors and electronic controls can enhance the capability of units to operate at
maximum efficiency or to maintain constant discharge, under changing head conditions. [1]
Modern control systems use intelligent electronic devices and microprocessor-based protective
relays. Deregulation is forcing utilities to increase the degree of automation of hydro plants.
Expert automation systems can help and can be installed during the rehabilitation or upgrade of
units or major components. [2]
Control of a Remote Plant in a Small System
The Bradley Lake Plant in Alaska has two 60-MW Pelton turbines under a head of
1085 ft (330 m), supplied by a 3.6-mile (5.8-km) tunnel. The plant is remotely controlled and
normally unmanned. Each unit has six needle valves operated in pairs, depending on load. Speed
control is augmented by a deflector on each valve. The digital governor had formerly been
programmed to control each needle independently. The turbines suffered power swings when
shifting between two- and four- or between four- and six-valve operation. These power swings
often exceeded 10% of unit capacity, due to the combination of the long tunnel and the small
load. It was infeasible to install a surge tank to dampen flow changes. What was needed was a
new way to control flow, to keep flow constant while valves were opened or closed.
Elimination of the power swings was solved by programming the governor using an “error and
equalizing” algorithm in the governor logic. This is believed to be the first time such logic has
been applied to governing impulse turbines. Adjustments to the needles keep flow and power
nearly constant through the transition period while the needles are being opened or closed.
5-1
Governors, Controls, and Auxiliaries
Common operation now is to block-load power. Sometimes during volatile situations, six needles
are kept open under pure deflector control. Potential limitations to this type of operation are that
(1) an even number of jets is needed and (2) machine bearings must be capable of accepting
unbalanced loading. [3]
Control of a Major Pumped Storage Plant
At PECO Energy’s eight-unit, 880-MW Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project in Pennsylvania,
the original control system was replaced in order to eliminate parts and service problems with the
original system, reduce unit downtime, provide better information, reduce the potential for major
failures, and improve unit performance and operating results. New unit instrumentation includes:
wicket gate position; flow; exciter volts and amps; governor and thrust bearing oil levels;
governor accumulator tank level; stator, oil and bearing temperatures; motor-generator phase
current; motor-generator voltage; vibration at the motor-generator guide bearing, thrust bearing,
and pump-turbine guide bearing; speed in rpm; and motor-generator MW, MVAR, and MWh.
Plant instrumentation includes voltage, nitrogen pressure, transformer oil temperature, fire
system header pressures, RTU and host computer temperatures, forebay and tailrace levels,
and breaker air pressures. Alarm values are monitored for these variables. There are total of
496 analog inputs, 8 analog outputs, 824 digital inputs, and 160 digital outputs. The new system
was installed in parallel with continued control by the original system; the new system was tested
between pumping and generating periods. Generator output is controlled to within one MW and
plant output to within two MW. Normal unit operating limits are 50% low gate, 90% maximum
gate, and 110 MW maximum load. Each unit normally provides 25 MW of system regulation
following an area control error signal. [4]
Automation of a Medium-Sized, Conventional Plant
The Robert S. Kerr Dam of the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) is a 114-MW plant in
Oklahoma, with four generators each rated at 30 MVA driven by Kaplan turbines. The plant
operates as a peaking plant. The plant had obsolete excitation equipment, causing poor unit start-
up rates. Also, the plant had a history of lightning problems and under-capacity control cables.
The need to replace the excitation equipment led to a plan to automate the plant. GRDA decided
to replace existing relay equipment with PLCs and to convert to fiber-optic cable. The PLCs are
capable of recognizing small differences in unit characteristics. Each unit is now connected to
central supervisory control which automatically and optimally allocates load among the units.
Close control of gate and runner blade positions prevents large load swings and is easier on the
units. Output can be kept relatively steady, reducing wear on the blade mechanisms and
problems with foaming in governor oil. Trouble-shooting of the control system can be performed
by PC at plant or via modem. An extensive alarm system was added; if trouble occurs, the
system readily identifies problems, thereby quickening maintenance response and reducing down
time. The total cost was $600,000. The benefits are unlimited load control, elimination of ground
faults, annunciation, and enhanced troubleshooting. New brushless exciters have reduced losses.
Startup rates are 97%, with less maintenance. The plant has experienced several lightning strikes
without effect on the PLCs. [4]
5-2
Control of a Large System
The California Water Project (CWP) annually delivers 3.5 million acre-ft (4.3 x 10 9 m3) of water
and generates 5.1 million MWh. CWP has 700 miles (1100 km) of aqueduct. Operation of the
water system requires coordination of dozens of gates with pumping and generating units.
CWP’s greatest challenge concerned control strategies and centralizing control.
The original control system was installed in 1968-72. By the 1990s, the control system was
obsolete, and CWP had run out of spare parts. The new control system includes 300 RTUs and
other components to be connected by fiber-optic networks to digital controls. The system was
installed by in-house staff to maximum their exposure to the system, but an important benefit
was that involved CWP personnel also aided with the definition of hardware-software-processor
links due to their familiarity with the CWP facilities and functions. The new RTUs have high
reliability, and spare parts inventories will be minimized; contracts for spare part repair and
replacement were written into the original supply agreements with all suppliers. CWP plans to
develop a system for automatic recognition and response to alarms using “expert system”
technology to capture decades of operating and maintenance experience in the new control
system. Potential benefits are increased efficiency, more flexibility, lower maintenance, and
higher reliability. The key to the project’s success is considered to have been careful planning
and management. [4]
Automation of a Large, Conventional Peaking Plant
Automation of AmerenUE’s Osage plant, a 212 MW conventional peaking plant located in

Missouri, was driven by rising operation and maintenance costs and by the need to improve
efficiency and flexibility to prepare for competition; the result has been greater efficiency, lower
cost, and safer operation. The economics of automation turned largely on wage and benefit
savings. The plant has eight main units and two house units. The main units have paired
governor oil systems. Prior to automation, the units were started and stopped by operators
locally, synchronized from the plant’s central control room, and loaded and controlled by “raise”
and “lower” pulses from the remote dispatch center through the plant RTU and PLC. The PLC
balanced load among all main units. Because of the time required for startup, several units were
always kept synchronizing for spinning reserve in case of emergencies.
The comprehensive automation project included: a new digital control system for automatic start,
synchronizing, loading, and shutdown; a new PLC-based digital governor system; a static
excitation system (replacing motor-driven exciters) including automatic voltage regulation;
automatic synchronizing equipment; interfaces with the remote dispatch center; a digital, PLC-
based control center that allows each unit to be totally started and stopped locally by one-button
operation; stand-alone synchronizing control for each unit; a new motor-operated gate lock
system; level switches for automatic starting of plant sump pumps; automatic air pressurizing of
governor oil accumulator tanks; comprehensive monitoring and alarm of possible fire conditions
throughout the plant; and a new SCADA system allowing total control from the plant control
room by interface with the unit control centers, interfacing with the RTU, balance-of -plant data
acquisition, VAR and voltage control of units, load control, alarms, and data logging and
archiving.
5-3
Presently, the units are normally loaded from central dispatch. River flows govern loading, and
plant staff calculate river influences and communicate them to central dispatch. After nearly six
years, the automation equipment has performed as expected; there has been no lost generation
due to the automation equipment. Now, in emergencies, units are quickly loaded from standstill
to 85% gate; normal startup is to 10 MW minimum operating load. Plant staffing has been
reduced from about 60 positions before automation to under 30 positions today. [5,6,7]
Governor Controls Upgrade at a Pumped Storage Plant
The Castaic Pumped Storage Plant of the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP)
has six reversible units rated at 240 MW and one conventional unit rated at 55 MW. New
controls were needed not only to improve operations but also to qualify the units for spinning
reserve service. The existing governor system included a mechanically driven actuator and
electrical control circuits utilizing solid state components driven mostly by analog signals. Speed
regulation was difficult; the units “hunted” when interfacing with the automatic generation center
(AGC), and units sometimes dropped load. Plus, the system required extensive maintenance, and
the original manufacturer advised that some parts may be discontinued.
New digital hydraulic actuator controllers were installed. This improved speed regulation. Speed
sensing at low speeds was provided by new zero-velocity pick-ups, and at high speeds by a
potential transformer signal from a generator phase. The new speed control is very responsive;
two ramp rates can be set. LADWP uses 2 MW per pulse for normal operation and 7 MW per
pulse for AGC operation. Automatic dispatch is of high quality; responsiveness and reliability
are improved. The new system allows automatic transfer from synchronous condensing to
generation when low frequency is detected; this qualifies the plant as spinning reserve. The total
purchase and installation cost was $150,000 per unit. Installation took 10 weeks for first unit and
6 weeks for the second unit. The plant is more competitive in a “deregulated” market. [8]
Upgrading Controls at a Major, Remotely-Operated Plant
Replacing antiquated, mechanical/analog plant controls with digital controls can improve
operating efficiency, permit better coordination with other plants, and produce a range of
information. A successful control system requires not only good hardware and software but also
project management that understands and designs for the needs of the people that will use it. At
the 330-MW Trängslet Plant in Sweden, a new control system was necessitated by a flooding of
the old system and lack of confidence in the reliability and integrity of that system when
restored. The plant is operated remotely from a dispatch center responsible for operating some
25 unmanned power stations and associated bulk power facilities. A new digital system was
designed to: optimize load among the plant’s three units; perform water flow calculations for
each unit, including measurement of water levels and head losses; record events and timing;
provide information on operating conditions and automatic report printouts of energy values; and
adapt to the remote control center. Careful attention was paid to planning and scheduling in view
of the importance of Trängslet’s availability to the power system.
The new control system is “distributed,” i.e., one in which the hardware and functions are
divided among the units and located as close to the process as possible. There are six
computers—one for each unit, and one each for water level sensors, station service, and
man-machine interface. Operators in the remote control center can stop and start units, close with
5-4
synchronizing, trip breakers, and load active and reactive power. Wicket gate positions, voltages,
power, indications, fault signals, and energy metering pulses are transmitted to the remote center.
In 1992, the equipment was upgraded in several ways, including addition of instrumentation for
tunnel outlet water level measurement and equipment for dam failure, with separate equipment
for alarm sending. Overall, station efficiency improved 0.5% beyond expectations. The cost of
the upgrade was about US$1.5 million. [9]
Electric Servomotors
In Japan, electric servomotor systems have been developed and implemented to replace oil-based
gate operating systems; over 60 systems have been installed on small and medium-sized Francis
turbines. Electric servomotors up to 55 kW are available; this is sufficient for a 5-second gate
closure of a 60-MW turbine under a head of 100 m or a 90-MW turbine under a head of 200 m.
The advantages of electric servomotor systems are freedom from dealing with hydraulic oil, easy
maintenance, and relative compactness. Reliability has been high, reducing the need for
redundant systems; today’s systems have a DC battery bank standby only. The basic design was
developed in the 1980s and has not changed significantly, but features have been improved with
experience.
Application of electric servomotor systems is being extended to Kaplan and Pelton turbines.
Problems with the complexity of Kaplan blade control have been solved; electric servomotors
have been installed at Kaplan units as large as 20 MW. Application to Pelton turbines has been
relatively difficult due to the fast deflector closing speed required in an emergency; this calls for
a very large capacity servomotor. A system equipped with a energy storage spring arrangement
has been devised and installed at both horizontal and vertical Pelton turbines.
The need for fast, emergency shutdown is a significant limitation to the application of electric
servomotor systems. Wider application seems to require development of a more powerful and
compact energy storage system. [10]
Wicket Gate Latches
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has developed a new type of wicket gate “latch” system
to hold the gate operating ring closed during shutoff. Customarily, such devices are designed to
withstand the force due not only to the opening torque on the closed gates caused by water
pressure but also to opening servomotor thrust. TVA’s latch is designed to withstand only the
water force. Thus, it is much smaller and can be installed on the head cover without
disassembling the unit. TVA plans to patent the device. [11]
Auxiliaries
Auxiliary systems include cranes and hoists, fire protection, grounding, compressed air, HVAC,
sump/drainage, potable water supply, sanitary, station electrical, lighting, and others. All these
systems are important in a well-maintained plant. Antiquated or faulty auxiliaries can be
hazardous and cause disproportionate maintenance attention. Any hydro plant improvement
program should consider the rehabilitation or upgrade of auxiliary systems. Auxiliaries that are
5-5
essential to a rehabilitation or upgrade project—e.g., powerhouse crane and station electrical,

compressed air, water, and sanitary systems—should be thoroughly tested and, if necessary,
repaired, rehabilitated, or upgraded prior to the primary project. [12,13]
Plant Upgrade Focused on Controls and Auxiliaries
Modernization of the 30-year old 80-MW Säckingen Plant in Germany was driven by
competition and the need to produce at lower cost as a competitive electricity market emerges in
Europe. A rehabilitation and modernization program considered every aspect of plant operations.
The result was a change in equipment, operating methods, personnel, and management designed
to meet cost targets. Control upgrades were needed to maximize generation from available river
flow. Other problems to be corrected were: the risk of fire in the auxiliary power supply; the
shutting down of units caused by erratic control of air volume in governor accumulators;
inefficient trashrack cleaning machines; and insufficient information in the control center to
analyze failures.
An extensive upgrade was selected not only to correct deficiencies but to provide for full
automation. Each element was evaluated and re-evaluated for economic value. Major work on
turbine runners or generator primary components was not required. The primary work items
were:
• Replacement of most of the low-voltage auxiliary supply system with a fully redundant DC
supply system
• Replacement of rotating exciters with static exciters
• Installation of digital generator and transformer protection systems
• Replacement of turbine governors, start-stop controls, and monitoring systems with digital
equipment
• Minor improvement of turbine hydraulic controls
• Replacement of turbine monitoring sensors
• Installation of new trashrake systems
• Replacement of central control and monitoring with digital equipment
• Implementation of a level controller system for automatic operation
The owner considered not only price and quality but also customer service and communications
variables in selecting equipment suppliers; quality control requirements were adjusted
commensurate with the reputation and experience of each supplier.
Worker input, ideas and incentives were considered in the designing and planning program; a
worker whose idea saved over US$500,000 was awarded US$6000. Workers have been awarded
over US$35,000 for ideas saving some US$1.5 million during the project. The plant began with
39 staff; the target is now 15. The station is fully automated and attaining envisioned
efficiencies. The actual cost was US$17 million (60% of budget). The owner expects full cost
recovery in seven years. [14]
5-6
Auxiliary Equipment Replacement Program
The Lower Colorado River Authority has adopted an auxiliary equipment replacement program
for its six hydro plants. The plants’ reciprocating air compressors have been replaced with rotary
screw compressors, manually-lubricated pumps are being replaced with self-lubricating pumps,
and unit remote controls have been upgraded. [15]
Lessons Learned
• Make sure that powerhouse cranes, crane systems, and all other auxiliaries are ready for the
outage. Cranes, or crane rails or supports, may need to be rehabilitated or upgraded prior to
the unit upgrade, to remedy deficiencies or to increase capacity.
• Think ahead when rehabilitating systems. Failure to take advantage of an opportunity to

uprate the voltage on a powerhouse crane caused much additional cost and inconvenience
when the station service voltage was raised later.
• Dealing with the effect of automation on plant personnel is critical. Valued employees should
be given as much notice as possible of planned changes affecting them. The automation
planning process should take personnel into consideration. The participation of plant
personnel in the planning process is very important and may provide cost-saving ideas.
• Drawings and prints at plants are often not up-to-date. Major renovations provide the impetus
and opportunity to upgrade the blueprint system.
• Choose software that can be supported for at least five years.
• Select standard (“off-the-shelf”) hardware whenever possible.
• An in-house person proficient in the hardware and software should be on-site or readily
available for the first year. Small “glitches” and minor irritations can be dispensed with as
they occur.
• Use in-house personnel whenever practical during the installation of a control system to
familiarize them with the equipment.
• Keep the system as simple as possible. Minimize the input and output points. Don’t merely
try to duplicate the prior system.
• Consider being aggressive with control upgrades. It may be economical to upgrade controls
on a system basis in advance of turbine rehabilitations and upgrades; this advanced timetable
could result in realization of enhanced flow control and increased production at the earliest
opportunity.
5-7
References
1. O. Moeller, Panel Session (audiotaped): “Rehabilitation II - Lessons Learned,” HydroVision
98 Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
2. D. J. Dolezilek, “Innovative Instrumentation and Control System Designs Optimize

Hydropower Operations,” Paper presented at HydroVision 98 Conference, Reno, NV
(July 1998).
3. T. A. Bauman and D. P. Stead, “Software-Based Governor Control Helps Manage Power

Swings,” Hydro Review, December 1995, p. 44.
4. C. S. Rogers, J. Webb, and J. Gant, “Hydro Automation: Finding the Right Approach,”
Hydro Review, April 1996, p. 16.
5. S. Duxbury and R. W. Ferguson, “Automation of the Osage Hydroelectric Plant,”

6. R. A. Spicer, D. Dunlop, D. Jarvis, and W. Byers, “Managing the ‘People Part’ of Hydro
Automation,” Hydro Review, April 1997, p. 18.
7. D. Jarvis, AmerenUE, personal communication, October 1998.
8. M. Moulay and M. Schoof, “Governor Control Upgrades - Castaic Pumped Storage Power
Plant - Los Angeles Department of Water & Power,” Paper presented at HydroVision 98
9. S. Andersson, “A Retrofit That Worked: Upgrading Trängslet Station’s Controls,” HRW,

August 1996, p. 16.
10. H. Tanaka, S. Sugimoto, and H. Tomiyasha, “Experiences and Developments of Electric

Servomotor Systems for Hydraulic Turbine Control,” Paper presented at HydroVision 98
Conference, Reno, NV (July 19980.
11. “TVA Develops New Wicket Gate Latches,” Hydro Review, November 1998, p. 68.
12. J. A. Norlin, Panel Session (audiotaped): “Rehabilitation II - Lessons Learned,” HydroVision

98 Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
13. G. Lewis, Panel Session (audiotaped): “Great Ideas in Rehab,” HydroVision 98 Conference,
Reno, NV (July 1998).
14. B. Lorenz and U. Baum, “Hydro Modernization: Optimizing Economics at an Existing

Plant,” HRW, September 1997, p. 10.
15. B. D. Foster, “Strategic Hydropower System Rehabilitation,” Proceedings of the

Volume 2, p. 1507.
5-8
6
EVALUATION, PLANNING, MANAGEMENT, AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Owners of systems having many hydro plants have developed a variety of programs and
procedures for evaluating, planning, managing, and implementing rehabilitations and upgrades.
Selected examples are presented.
Approaches to Strategic Management and Planning
Overall Asset Management Program
BC Hydro has developed and is implementing an integrated asset management program. BC

Hydro’s Asset Management Group has prepared asset management plans for all of BC Hydro’s
generating facilities. In developing the plant asset plans, management strategies for maintenance,
operations, risk, and improvement are documented. The plans identify the improvement
opportunities that are most important to profitable operation. The “risk” factors include such
issues as dam safety, lost opportunity, oil spills, seismic damage, and fire. Plant management
teams become the “owners” of—and advocates for—the asset plans. The plant asset plans are
integrated into a “fleet” asset management plan for BC Hydro’s Generation Business Unit.
Improvement projects are prioritized, generally according to economics, but other factors such as
social and environmental values are considered as well. The goal is to optimize investment
among all generation facilities. BC Hydro has identified the energy gains potential from each
category of plant improvement, i.e., efficiency improvement, operations improvement, plant
redevelopment, reduction of hydraulic losses, increased head, and additional capacity. BC Hydro
is working on identifying the costs of “ancillary services” in order that total power services can
be “unbundled” for marketing and sale on the most economically-sound basis possible. [1,2]
Investor-Owned “Utility” Generation Investment Perspective
Competitiveness in generation requires alternative strategies for economic evaluation of

alternative courses of action. Investment is being scrutinized and challenged in the face of large
uncertainty in the future market values of energy, capacity, and ancillary services. Particularly in
the United States, uncertainty concerning the effects of future regulation (licensing) must be
addressed, as well. There are no longer long-term power contracts or guaranteed rates.
Disposition of assets must be considered. Conservatism in valuing future benefits, and long-term,
life-cycle analyses tied to license expiration or remaining equipment or facility life, are required.
6-1
Evaluation, Planning, Management, and Implementation
A generating asset such as a hydro plant can be categorized as competitive, marginal or

uneconomic. A project is “competitive” when anticipated future revenues exceed the total of
future costs plus any unrecovered sunk costs. Continued operation of an “uncompetitive” project
is “economic” when future revenues exceed future costs. For “uneconomic” projects, investment
should be minimized or avoided, and aggressive cost recovery schemes—including divestiture
and decommissioning—should be pursued.
Since there is little certainty of the future, analyses need to be done from a sensitivity or range
perspective. Facility replacement plans should identify the costs of major equipment and
components over the near term. Either future power service values need to be very
conservatively projected or a very short-term capital recovery period should be imposed. Most
attention should be paid to marginal and uneconomic projects, for which the least-cost or least-
risk option should be identified. Putting a value on a possible sale or divestiture can be very
challenging, particularly because potential buyers may have entirely different financial structures
and ownership advantages or disadvantages than the present owner. Political and social
considerations often influence project disposition. In the United States, the range of possible
licensing outcomes is a major factor in deciding whether to pursue a new license; approaches to
resolve contentious issues early in the relicensing process can be very worthwhile. [3]
Economic Evaluation, Planning, and Prioritization
Risk-Based Analysis of Hydro Improvements
Risk-based analyses are often applied in asset management programs to evaluate unit or
component continued maintenance, refurbishment, or replacement. These methods use failure-
probability curves where probability of failure is related to component life. Such curves are
developed from industry experience. For a specific, existing facility, a condition assessment is
performed. Actual age, remaining life span, and condition are then used to determine current
probability of failure. Risk and consequence costs are multiplied to estimate the expected cost of
failure. An annual cash flow of costs and benefits can then be developed for alternative
strategies, for comparison. Usual alternatives to consider are continued operation as is, focused
or preventative maintenance, instrumentation and condition monitoring, rehabilitation, upgrade,
and replacement. [4]
Large System Hydro Improvement Programs
Electricité de France (EDF)
EDF is the largest producer of electricity in the world. Hydro represents about 1/5 of EDF’s
capacity. The reliability and flexibility of EDF’s hydro resources are very important. Failure and
poor performance can result in notable operation and economic problems. Half of EDF’s hydro
is over 20 years old. EDF has a continuous program of major maintenance and rehabilitation.
The technical aspects are effective and straightforward. The challenge is economic—how to deal
with the growing emphasis on competition and cost-effectiveness as well as social responsibility.
6-2
For any proposed rehabilitation, the first step is a thorough evaluation of the effect of the project
on the plant and its operations, costs, and benefits. EDF has identified the following variables:
• Project expenses - external contractors, internal resources, procurement
• Increases in operating expense
• Additional taxes and other derivative expenses
• Expenses from loss of generation
• Increased energy production
• Improved plant efficiency
• Enhanced provision of system services
• Expense savings - reduced maintenance costs, reduced downtime, reduced personnel costs,
improved reliability
• Secondary economic gains - improved system reliability, socioeconomic benefits at site,
increased downstream water sales
EDF discounts the time series of all costs and benefits (present worth analysis). A rehabilitation
or upgrade project is profitable when discounted costs are less than discounted benefits. This
allows EDF not only to choose among alternatives but also to optimize the timing of a project;
postponement in expectation of future increased energy values has been shown in some cases to
be the preferred solution even when “engineering” analysis indicates immediate rehabilitation is
warranted. This approach provides an orderly, consistent way of evaluating and prioritizing the
many possible rehabilitation projects at EDF’s hydro facilities in order to maximize the overall
economic benefit. [5]
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
TVA’s Hydro Modernization Program has designated 88 units for rehabilitation or upgrade, of
which 23 units have been completed. The average age of the units in the program is over
50 years. The combined capacity of the completed units has increased by a total of 152 MW
(average 22% increase), and a 5.7% increase in efficiency has been achieved. All these units
received new runners. The program is re-evaluated annually. Funding for hydro improvements
competes against funding for thermal generation.
Prioritization of projects within the TVA system is based on equipment condition and upgrade
possibilities, as well as economics. TVA relies heavily on model tests in the early phases of a
project to support the economics before committing; the model can then be “tweaked” for
improvements. A “Hydro Modernization Team” plans and designs modernization projects, and
an “Outage Management Team” implements and manages the outage. [6,7]
Companhia Energética de São Paulo (CESP)
CESP is a state-controlled, predominately hydro utility in Brazil. CESP has developed a

comprehensive approach to evaluating prospective rehabilitation and upgrade projects.
Considered are load growth and shape, hydrology, alternative power costs, and trends in
6-3
generating technologies. The product is an investment strategy that cost-effectively determines

the appropriate level of strategic and peak-load capability for the utility, addresses major
maintenance and upgrade opportunities, and evaluates expansion alternatives. Attributes of
CESP’s system that are important factors in evaluating hydro improvements are that (1) most of
the utility’s hydro is cascaded, so that events at one plant often affect other plants and (2) flood
control and water supply are important functions of the hydro reservoirs.
The 1411-MW Jupiá Plant accounts for 15% of CESP’s capacity. The plant has 14 Kaplan units
of late 1960s-early 1970s vintage. Due to extensive use, the plant has suffered increased
breakdowns, primarily in the generators. Outages at Jupiá constrain the operations of upstream
plants with higher hydraulic capacities, increasing the frequency of choosing between
curtailment or spilling water; these operational constraints have implications for flood control, as
well.
CESP recently evaluated refurbishment, upgrade, and additional units at Jupiá. Economic values
were assigned to the direct and indirect costs and benefits of the various options. A reservoir
model with monthly time-step simulations was used in the evaluation. Firm energy was valued at
the cost of system-wide marginal expansion, including long-term and short-term investment, and
operation and maintenance costs. Secondary energy was valued against the price of energy that
can be obtained from CESP’s federal supplier; this price is less than 10% of the long-term cost.
In this way, the value of additional capability and the cost of upgrade outages were determined.
The selected option was to upgrade two units per year to gain 22 MW per unit This will help to
relieve limitations on upstream plants, increasing the firm energy value. Details of the upgrade
are to be determined. [8]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
The Corps has undertaken numerous rehabilitations and upgrades of its hydro facilities. Each of
these projects requires a specific appropriation from Congress. Typical projects include
rebuilding or replacing turbine runners and rewinding generators; of some 350 generators, the
Corps has rewound approximately one-third. The Corps employs extensive risk-based analysis to
evaluate potential plant improvements. The risk-based analyses are based on component survival
curves. [9]
The Corps’ current Major Rehabilitation Program places great emphasis on maintaining and
improving reliability. Projects to improve efficiency are given relatively low priority. The Corps
defines “hydropower equipment reliability” as
“…the extent to which the generating equipment can be counted on to perform as

originally intended. This encompasses 1) the confidence in soundness or integrity of the
equipment based on maintenance costs and forced outage experience, 2) the output of the
equipment in terms of measured energy, power, efficiency, and availability, and 3) the
dependability of the equipment in terms of remaining service life (retirement of the
equipment).” [10]
6-4
Rehabilitation projects compete for scarce funds and require a uniform method of documentation
and justification considering economic, environmental and engineering aspects. Projects are
categorized as: (1) restoring lost efficiency, (2) restoring lost capacity, (3) restoring lost
availability, (4) increasing remaining service life, and (5) improving efficiency. The life cycle
benefits of a major rehabilitation project must exceed the cost, and each component must be
incrementally justified. [11] The cost of the Major Rehabilitation Program is expected to reach or
exceed $450 million. [9]
The Corps has developed standard techniques to evaluate equipment degradation or deterioration
in order to prioritize repairs and replacements. The rate of change of actual labor and materials
costs (relative to inflation) is an indicator of reliability. Trends for future costs are determined
from project records. Replacement of low cost items necessary for production is usually justified
on this basis alone. Evaluation of efficiency and capacity requires analysis of performance, by
testing. Original and current performance levels are compared to establish degradation.
Degradation of availability can be determined from records; continued degradation can be treated
as an objective risk with sufficient supportive information.
The Corps attempts to quantify risk for an objective analysis by estimating annual probabilities
that equipment will need to be replaced or rebuilt; this is akin to insurance mortality analyses.
Curves based upon “average” experience are adjusted up or down in accordance with a specific
component’s Condition Indicator (CI). CI values are assigned to each component based on
inspection and test data. CI values in mid-range require no adjustment. A low CI value,
indicating “poor condition or worse,” would increase the probability of retirement. The Corps is
working with other large utilities to increase its database for stator windings and turbine runners
and to locate or develop databases for other kinds of equipment, e.g., transformers and circuit
breakers. [10,12]
The Corps continues to review its methods. A risk-based “Major Maintenance and
Rehabilitation” program for reliability and efficiency improvements at hydro plants has been
developed and recommended. [11]
Small Hydro Upgrade Programs in Predominately Thermal Systems
Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)
LCRA has an approved, 10-year Hydroelectric Life Extension Program, but requires an
extensive evaluation of any individual project before that project is funded. The evaluation is
made on the basis of economic comparison to gas turbines, since LCRA’s hydro plants perform
the same peaking role as gas turbines. LCRA works with suppliers to develop 10%+ project cost
estimates before requesting funding. In general, project payback periods are five years or less.
LCRA reservoir and hydro operations provide water for municipal, agricultural, and industrial
use; in estimating the energy gains from prospective rehabilitation or upgrade projects, water
availability for hydro generation is modeled from a 50-year record, but “good” water years are
discounted so as to produce a conservative result. Most generation is peaking; water is accounted
for by system controllers as fuel. LCRA is investing in improving the river basin gauging system
in order to improve flow predictability.
6-5
LCRA develops a comprehensive “Project Configuration Document” that identifies all work
packages for each improvement project and assigns responsibilities. This document identifies the
roles of all involved personnel and is especially helpful in the frequent event of personnel
changeover. There are significant advantages to having plant operating and maintenance
personnel heavily involved in hydro rehabilitations or upgrades. [13,14]
Duke Power
Duke Power initiated an upgrade program to transform its fleet of small hydro plants into an
efficient, reliable, remotely controlled system that would enhance peaking and ancillary services.
Hydro upgrade projects are prioritized on the basis of condition, potential improvement, and the
need to effect river (flow) management. Each hydro improvement project is evaluated and
economically justified on a unit-by-unit basis before final approval and commitment of
funds. [15]
American Electric Power Corporation (AEP)
AEP is a large, predominately fossil-based system with 16 conventional hydro plants and one
combined pumped storage/conventional plant. Most of the conventional plants are small, old
plants that operate essentially run-of-river; a few have limited peaking capability. AEP’s hydro
modernization program consists of some 70 capital projects over a 10-year period, prioritized on
the basis of return on investment, payback period, and regulatory requirements. Improvements
implemented at various plants include: complete replacement of the turbines and generators with
packaged submersible units for reliability, reduction of operating cost, and life extension;
replacement of runners at the combined plant for improved performance and additional capacity;
and improved controls for remote operation and for meeting environmental and license
requirements such as run of river operation.
AEP plans ahead five years, with continuing reassessment of its plan; new projects are added to
the list and others are re-prioritized. AEP’s Hydro Group has a budget that complies with
corporate objectives; within the hydro budget, hydro managers determine where resources can be
most effectively applied. The objective is to improve the “hydro system.” The Hydro Group is
part of the Fossil and Hydro Operations organization within Power Production. This
administrative arrangement has given the hydro program more visibility within AEP, while
heightening competition for resources. [16,17]
Project Planning and Management
Hydro-Quebec - Beauharnois Plant
The 38-unit, 1666-MW Beauharnois Plant is a very important generating asset to Hydro-Québec.
The plant produces approximately 12 million MWh per year, with all available units generating
most of the time. In the early 1990s, Beauharnois began a C$1,500,000,000 extended
modernization program that is expected to continue for more than a decade. The emphasis of the
program is on improving efficiency (more MWh) and safety, and reducing maintenance cost.
6-6
Careful planning is required, with particular attention given to minimizing the loss of generation
due to scheduled outages. The program is reviewed and adjusted annually. Maximum use is
made of in-house forces, with work intensifying during low-flow periods. Design staff are
integrated with field upgrade staff; proximity reduces cost considerably. Beauharnois
management has open purchase orders with suppliers up to C$1 million. Thus far, the plant’s
annual generation has increased by about 13%, and plant operation and maintenance cost has
been reduced by about 35%. [18,19]
Small Plant Upgrade - Washington Water Power (WWP)
WWP’s Nine Mile Hydroelectric Development in Washington State contained four 3.4-MW
quad-runner, double draft tube, horizontal Francis units, constructed in 1910. WWP evaluated
some 200 alternatives for plant rehabilitation and upgrade. The selected scheme was to replace
two units and to install new or upgraded controls, a new substation, and related equipment. The
capacity of each replacement unit is about 10 MW. Other improvements were new trashracks
and intake gates, replacement of the common gate hoist with individual unit fixed gate hoists for
quicker operation of the intake gates, and extension and stabilization of the intake structure.
Economic screening criteria were based on discounted cash flow over a 35-year period.
Economic indicators were: Net Present Value (NPV - the total of after-tax cash flows discounted
back to present-day dollars using the owner’s weighted average cost of capital); Internal Rate of
Return (IRR - the discount rate that brings a cash flow back to a zero NPV); and the Profitability
Index (PI - a benefit-cost ratio calculated by dividing the present value of benefits by the present
value of the capital costs). IRR and PI are considered the most useful indicators to prioritize
projects where capital is limited. Total replacement of two units equaled the highest NPV of
alternatives and had the highest IRR.
A detailed schedule was developed identifying over 300 activities, grouped by contract. The
schedule is to be updated at least quarterly. Attention was paid to maintaining existing units on
line and to consideration of projected river flows. The benefit of a detailed schedule is to better
define and identify critical cost items.
WWP served as construction manager; the project involved eight procurement and six
construction contracts. The advantages to WWP were to accommodate long lead time equipment
purchase, to permit in-house forces to install equipment where appropriate, to expand the cross-
section of contractors, to increase flexibility, and to enhance application of value engineering
techniques at different project stages. The result was the economical extension of the life of an
old project, with an annual energy increases of about 23%. [20]
Planning a Comprehensive Plant Rehabilitation - Seattle City Light (SCL)
SCL has begun a comprehensive rehabilitation of its Boundary Hydroelectric Project. The
original project, completed in 1967, included four Francis units; two units were added in 1986
for a total rated plant capacity of 1051 MW. The plant provides 30 to 45% of the utility’s needs
for generation and has the lowest costs of any SCL generating facility. The Boundary
Rehabilitation Program has a estimated cost of $88 million and is scheduled for completion
in 2008.
6-7
An SCL task force developed a plan for the comprehensive rehabilitation of the entire project.
Planning began with a detailed inspection and assessment of every component of the plant (some
1400 in all), complemented by discussions with operation and maintenance staff and review of
drawings. Basic information and design data, and inspection and testing information and
assessments were compiled in an extensive database. A focused, intensive testing and monitoring
program to complement the information on hand was implemented in 1996; additional detailed
testing will be carried out during the design process as appropriate. The result was a conclusion
that, while the condition of components was acceptable overall, condition was marginal in
critical cases and rehabilitation was justified.
Specific maintenance, repair, modification, replacement or upgrade measures were

recommended for 800 of the 1400 items. Redesign of critical systems was required because
current standards were not met; for example, there was insufficient redundancy in station electric
service. Issues were identified that needed to be addressed globally throughout the project
(e.g. oil containment, safety lockout, and tagging provisions, and development of as-built
information). From these elements was developed a conceptual plan for rehabilitation of the
project.
The Boundary Rehabilitation Program was developed under the City of Seattle’s Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) Program. CIP narratives and budget sheets were developed to
conform with the CIP process, including an overall budget through 2008 and a detailed budget
for the initial 2-year cycle 1997-98. Ultimately, the Program was approved by SCL management
and the City Council.
A project Concept Plan for planning and design was developed by first assessing the 800 work
items and grouping them into some 300 tasks in consideration of optimum work packaging for
design, procurement, and construction. These tasks were incorporated into the database and
described. Among key principles embodied in development of the Concept Plan were that: work
was to be organized by area, i.e., by equipment or system rather than by engineering discipline
(39 areas defined); work had to be coordinated with scheduled unit outages; and significant
scheduling and design efforts were required at the beginning of the program. The Concept Plan
allows tasks to be assigned to either SCL, the consultant, or both. The focus is on an extensive
database for labor scheduling and costs. As new tasks are defined, the database is updated. [21]
Commercial Arrangements, Procurement, “Partnering”
Many owners of hydro systems are adopting “partnering” arrangements with manufacturers,
suppliers and consultants for the procurement and installation of new equipment or for the design
or management of modernization projects, in lieu of traditional “arms-length” contracts.
Partnering approaches are particularly attractive where the work is non-standard and may entail
hidden risk.
Equipment leases can be employed in rehabilitations and upgrades. Typically, an equipment

supplier (say a generator manufacturer) will install and lease its equipment to the hydro plant
owner for a fixed period of time, with ownership to transfer to the owner at the expiration of the
lease period. This amounts to a supplier-financing arrangement, in which the supplier rather than
the owner puts up money up-front.
6-8
Engineering-procurement-construction (EPC) contracts are being used for rehabilitation and

upgrades. In EPC, a single entity performs the functions under one agreement. The agreement
could be a standard “arms-length” contract, or the EPC could proceed under a “partnering” type
of arrangement.
Whatever contractual form is employed to provide design, supply, installation, or construction
services for plant rehabilitation or upgrading, advance planning is advised for the turnover of the
equipment from the contractor/supplier to the owner. The owner should have in place the
requisite operating and maintenance procedures and be prepared to assume full responsibility for
the unit or component at the agreed-to time. Depending upon the nature of the work, the agreed-
to-scope of work should include supplier or manufacturer training of the owner’s operations and
maintenance staff. The article “Q&A: Returning a Unit to Service after Overhaul” in the
November 1998 issue of Hydro Review may be of relevant interest. [22]
Some owners are requiring suppliers of control or other computer-based equipment to certify that
their equipment is free of any potential “Y2K” problem. [9]
Sharing Risk between Owner and Supplier
The value of many large rehabilitation or upgrade projects far exceeds the cost of the work.
Specifications with large evaluations for efficiency and power drive competing suppliers to
stretch guarantees. Some owners will seek to recover lost revenues if equipment fails to meet
guarantees, while suppliers need to limit risk in accordance with the value of their contracts. The
relative inaccuracy of prototype acceptance tests further exacerbates the problem. Much effort is
necessary and warranted to develop a specification and contract that is tailored to the specific
project and acceptable to both owner and supplier. Experience with prior projects is the key to
contracting for and executing a successful project. [23]
New Approaches to Funding Government Hydro Improvements (U.S.)
A 1995 policy change by the Bureau of Reclamation regarding its interpretation of existing
legislation allows the agency to accept contributions from its customers to fund hydro
improvements. In Reclamation’s Central Valley Project (CVP), the Shasta Project upgrade is
being funded through an agreement among Reclamation and its local CVP customer utilities.
Reclamation and its CVP customers have also entered into an agreement for customer funding of
CVP operation and maintenance.[24,25] The Corps of Engineers is seeking to establish
arrangements with the federal power marketing agencies to fund hydro improvement
projects. [26]
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
TVA has had a favorable experience partnering with key suppliers in hydro rehabilitations and
upgrades. Partnering allows the parties to adopt and commit to common goals and strategies, for
the mutual good. Partnering agreements are initially competed for by a bidding process, and rates
and prices for individual work packages are negotiated. There are provisions for monetary
bonuses and penalties for the supplier. Benefits are shared when an improvement target is
exceeded. A long-time problem has been agreement on turbine acceptance criteria and testing;
TVA is making progress negotiating this issue with its turbine manufacturer partner. [7]
6-9
BC Hydro
Since 1995, BC Hydro has had a partnering arrangement with a major supplier of hydro turbines
and generators for an expected 1995 value of C$150 million of improvement work. The
arrangement includes 70% of all work related to turbines in upgrades and to turbines and
generators in additions. BC Hydro selected its partner following negotiations with three
manufacturers who were invited to submit proposals based on expressions of interest. BC Hydro
believes that the arrangement thus far has proven beneficial; they have been able to negotiate
some very fair prices. The arrangement does not provide for bonuses or incentives to the
supplier. [2,27]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
The Corps frequently partners with its construction contractors. This approach has been very
successful; as of 1995, partnering had been employed some 150 times with no resulting
litigation. Partnering is also suggested with respect to the participation of interest groups in the
Corps’ waterpower development projects and has been used to resolve environmental conflicts,
and in technology transfer programs.
The Corps views “partnering” as:
“…the creation of a relationship that promotes achievement of mutually beneficial goals.

It involves an agreement in principle to share the risks involved in completing a project,
and to establish and promote a nurturing partnership environment. … [Partnering] does
not create any legally enforceable rights or duties.” [28]
Partnering success depends upon cooperation and teamwork, and upon the personal
commitments of the individuals comprising the project management team. Partners should
develop a joint statement of goals and common objectives. Processes to resolve disputes, head
off problems, and evaluate performance should be identified. [28]
Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)
LCRA partners with its major suppliers, including its hydroturbine supplier. The partnering
arrangements are under service agreements. LCRA and its partners share the risk involved in
each project. LCRA is very pleased with partnering, believing that partnering results in reduced
cost to LCRA in the long run, including consideration of “down time.” Terms and conditions are
negotiated before proceeding. Typically, penalties (liquidated damages) are assessed for failure
to meet deadlines, and bonuses are awarded for exceeding guaranteed performance. [13]
LCRA’s partnership agreement with its turbine supplier has applied to the upgrading of the Inks
and Buchanan projects. Inks Unit 1 was upgraded during 1992-1997; the work included a turbine
runner replacement, generator rewinding, and replacement of the governor, switchgear, and the
plant lighting system, at a cost of $6.4 million. The upgrade increased the capacity of Unit 1 to
14.9 MW, from 11.5 MW. The Buchanan upgrade is underway, scheduled for completion in
1999; the planned work elements include the replacement of the turbine runners, generator
rewinding, and replacement of the governors for Units 1 and 2, and the replacement of plant
6-10
switchgear and the lighting system. The estimated cost of the Buchanan work is $11.5 million;
the capacities of Units 1 and 2 are expected to increase to 16.9 MW, from 12.5 MW. LCRA had
accomplished a similar upgrading of its Austin project Units 1 and 2 in 1988-1994, prior to the
partnership agreement; the combined capacity of the two units increased to 17.3 MW, from
15.0 MW. The Austin upgrade cost $10.4 million. [14]
Landsvirkjun - Partnering in an Expedited Repowering
Landsvirkjun provides 93% of Iceland’s generation, most of it from hydro. The utility faces a
rapidly growing power demand due to industrial load growth, and so repowered the Búrfell
Hydro Plant on a fast-track schedule. The Búrfell upgrade was challenging with respect both to
time and hydraulic constraints.
The Búrfell Plant was constructed in 1969-72 with six units and a total initial capacity of
210 MW. With increased flow diverted into the river, Búrfell had become a bottleneck. In 1990,
a planned 100-MW expansion was postponed in favor of a plan for a major upgrading. In 1991,
the six generator stators were rewound to a rating of 46 MVA. The process of upgrading the six
turbines began in 1995. The upgrade included new runners, with the existing casings to be used.
Study indicated that maximum power and flow would be limited by penstock transient pressures
and the generator ratings, so it was decided to further increase generator output to 50 MW.
The turbine manufacturer has developed loss analysis software based on a large model data base;
combining the results of this program with CFD allows development of a “’virtual’ prototype hill
curve” without homologous modeling. When Landsvirkjun’s rising power demand dictated a
shorter implementation time for the project, it was decided to forgo the homologous model in
favor of design solely by CFD, with the constraints that wicket gate height, length of runner
band, and runner diameter could not be altered. The existing draft tubes were not optimum, so
the runner and draft tube interaction had to be modeled together with CFD. Manufacturing
engineering was begun before completion of the CFD analyses. Then, it became obvious that
modification of the draft tube would be beneficial. In order to determine the effects of draft tube
modification on efficiency, it was decided to perform a model test focusing on the low pressure
side of the turbine. The model was homologous with respect to the runner and draft tube but not
with respect to upstream components. Many engineering steps continued in parallel with the
“semi-homologous” model tests. The tests confirmed the CFD runner design and fixed the draft
tube modification. Combining the use of CFD with the semi-homologous model test saved
critical time in the schedule. The pressure of time was met by a trustful, extremely cooperative,
flexible relationship between owner and supplier. [29]
Ontario Hydro (OH)
OH typically contracts for hydro equipment in the traditional way. Contracts with turbine
suppliers provide for penalties for failure to (1) meet model development or runner delivery
schedule or (2) achieve specific model or prototype performance. Bonuses are paid if model
performance exceeds the guaranteed weighted mean efficiency; the formula for weighted mean
efficiency is specified in the contracts. [30]
6-11
Lessons Learned
• There are many instances where rehabilitation or upgrade seems to make engineering sense
but cannot be justified economically. In such cases, the optimum course may be to continue
routine operation and maintenance; the merits of rehabilitation or upgrading may be
evaluated at a future date if and when there is an increase in forecasted energy and capacity
values. In some cases, the economic course may be to continue operation with minimal
maintenance until equipment fails, followed by abandonment or decommissioning.
• Future uncertainty should be recognized in hydro planning and economic analysis by
adopting a life cycle economic approach with considerable sensitivity analysis.
• In today’s changing market for generation and related services, owners of generation
facilities need to be very flexible and to deal with uncertainty in managing assets and asset
investment. Significant risk must be assumed. It is not a “given” that investing or spending to
increase hydro energy production is the optimum action.
• The cost of lost generation and capacity during hydro rehabilitation and upgrade projects can
be considerable and should be taken into account in project justification and planning.
• Adoption of a system approach to hydro upgrades focused on optimizing the “use of
resources” can avoid some of the competition for funding with other “company” programs.
Viewing rivers as subsystems should be encouraged, in order to optimize the use of the
resource within license and good stewardship constraints.
• Particularly for upgrades designed to increase capacity (power), a complete system analysis
should be made, checking each component for “weak links.” The resulting plant or unit
capacity will be determined by the “weakest” component and could be limited by a
component or device that would have been relatively inexpensive to upgrade or replace at the
time of the capacity upgrade.
• Each step of a project should be thoroughly thought through, with attention to detail. Be
prepared for anything to go wrong. Experience has shown that seemingly insignificant items
can cause delay and cost.
• Specifications should provide for the testing, removal, and proper disposal of lead paint “just
in case;” don’t assume that all the lead paint on the original equipment has been eroded
away.
• Many references and contributors stressed the advantages of involving regular operations and
maintenance staff in the planning and execution of rehabilitations and upgrades. This will
enhance the staff’s acceptance and understanding. If operations and maintenance personnel
have time to study the equipment, they can often be very effective at finding solutions and
improvements. Employee recognition or awards programs for offering ideas and suggestions
have proven to be beneficial.
• Large organizations should involve their procurement staff in improvement projects very
early in the planning process, in order to ensure that quality is adequately valued in
procurement.
• Up-to-date drawings of plant structures, equipment, and systems should be assembled and
made available at the onset of a rehabilitation or upgrade project.
6-12
• Documents pertinent to a rehabilitation or upgrade should be centrally located and secured.

Make sure that someone on the project team is responsible for document management.
Develop a uniform file system, preferably electronic, that applies to all projects.
• Think about data management; an infinite amount of data can be obtained, but the amount of
data can be overwhelming and is not all needed.
• Involve dispatching people in rehabilitation and upgrade projects, so that they understand the
capabilities of the equipment and the special requirements that may exist as to river (flow)
management.
• Integrate design and field staffs for maximum effectiveness and efficiency.
• Provide adequate operator training before an upgraded unit or component is returned to
service.
• Celebrate success with all involved personnel.
• An owner acting as its own “general contractor” is responsible for and must pay special
attention to staffing and scheduling.
• Supplier proposals and bids should be thoroughly evaluated by an owner representative
proficient in the type of work and familiar with the equipment; eliminating misunderstanding
or uncertainty before the work is awarded will minimize the need for costly post-award
changes.
• Resolve any potential problems with suppliers regarding equipment performance verification
as early as possible.
• The use of liquidated damages (but not bonuses) in Pelton turbine rehabilitations is sufficient
to get the best result.
• Include provisions in supply contracts for protection from “Y2K” problems.
• Teamwork among consultant, owner, and contractor or supplier is extremely important.
• Designate a single individual (project manager) as the focal point for all parties; the
individual should be dedicated to keeping the job moving smoothly and on schedule and
budget.
• Where there is “customer participation” or other outside interest in a project, keeping all
parties informed of progress and direction is very important to sustain their support.
• Pay attention to the disconnection and reconnection of “common” systems that serve other
units or components.
• Be wary of repairing or retrofitting parts of systems. The cost of a few such repairs can
exceed the cost to replace the entire system.
References
1. N. M. Nielsen and N. M. Hawley, “Developing a Strategy for Meeting Competition’s

Challenges,” Hydro Review, April 1998, p. 26.
2. N. M. Hawley and N. M. Nielsen, BC Hydro, personal communication, October 1998.
6-13
3. S. C. Lubben, “Hydro Economics in Light of Industry Restructuring,” Proceedings of the

Volume 1, p. 321.
4. H. W. de Meel, “Risk-Based Asset Management,” Paper presented at HydroVision 98

5. M. Dupuy, “Hydro Refurbishments: Making the Economic Choice,” HRW, Winter 1995,
p. 10.
6. L. D. Chapman, “Lessons Learned and the Rehabilitation of the Historic Norris Hydro
Plant,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 3, p. 1704.
7. L. D. Chapman, Tennessee Valley Authority, personal communication, October 1998.
8. D. S. Ramos, P. H. Marques, and J. G. Mazzon, “Finding Economically Sound Hydro

Upgrade Opportunities,” HRW, October 1996, p. 10.
9. J. A. Norlin, Panel Session (audiotaped): “Rehabilitation II - Lessons Learned,”

Hydro Vision 98 Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
10. J. A. Norlin, “Reliability Analysis of Hydropower Equipment,” Proceedings of the

Volume 1, p. 47.
11. T. Vo, J. Norlin, B. Mahan, and D. Moser, “Risk-based Applications for Maintenance and
Rehabilitation at Hydroelectric Generating Stations,” Proceedings of the International
Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, Volume 3, p. 1659.
12. J. A. Norlin, “Hydropower Major Rehabilitation Projects,” Proceedings of the International

Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1995, Volume 3, p. 2129.
13. B. D. Foster, Lower Colorado River Authority, personal communication, October 1998.
14. B. D. Foster, “Hydro Rehab: Committing to the Future,” Hydro Review, February 1998,
p. 10.
15. G. Lewis, Panel Session (audiotaped): “Great Ideas in Rehab.” HydroVision 98 Conference,
16. M. Bahleda, Panel Session (audiotaped): “Great Ideas in Rehab,” HydroVision 98

17. M. Bahleda, American Electric Power Service Corporation, personal communication,

October-November 1998.
18. G. Leroux, “Preserving the Past, Securing the Future at Beauharnois,” Hydro Review,
December 1997, p. SR2.
6-14
19. G. Leroux, Panel Session (audiotaped): “Rehabilitation II - Lessons Learned,” Hydro

Vision 98 Conference, Reno, NV (July 1998).
20. J. A. Kurras, R. Zilar, E. Schlect, R. A. Hokenson, and J. H. Rutherford, “Re-powering Nine

Mile Hydroelectric Project,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower,
21. S. J. Hayes and V. M. Kobayashi, “Conceptual Planning for Rehabilitation of the Boundary
Hydroelectric Project,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower,
22. “Q&A: Returning a Unit to Service after Overhaul,” Hydro Review, November 1998, p. 82.
23. W. H. Colwill, American Hydro Corporation, personal communication, October 1998.
24. M. A. Bauer and C. Millet, “Project Spotlight: Uprating Generators at Shasta Powerplant,”
Hydro Review, August 1998, p. 104.
25. M. A. Bauer, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, personal communication, October 1998.
26. C. L. Chapman, Panel Session (audiotaped): “Rehabilitation II - Lessons Learned,”

27. N. M. Nielsen, “Upgrades and Additions to BC Hydro’s Powerplants with a Manufacturing

Partner?,” Concepts for the Future, HCI Publications, 1994, p. 113.
28. B. S. Price, “A Case for Partnering to Maximize Waterpower Development,” Proceedings of

the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993,
Volume 1, p. 613.
29. G. Gislason, M. Haas and M. Sallaberger, “Upgrading of Búrfell Hydro Powerplant: Success
Based on Flexibility and Cooperation,” Paper presented at HydroVision 98 Conference,
30. D. C. Kee, Ontario Hydro, personal communication, October-November 1998.
6-15
A
CONTACT-LIST
Owners
Alabama Power Co. Birmingham, Alabama 205-250-1000
Alaska Industrial Development Anchorage, Alaska 907-269-3000

and Export Authority
AmerenUE St. Louis, Missouri 314-554-2873
American Electric Power Corp. Columbus, Ohio 614-223-1000
BC Hydro Burnaby, British Columbia 604-528-1600
California Water Project Sacramento, California 916-653-4313
Companhia Energética de Brazil

São Paulo
Czech Power Company CEZ, a.s. Czech Republic
Duke Power Charlotte, North Carolina 704-594-0887
Electricité de France France
Grand River Dam Authority Vinita, Oklahoma 918-256-5545
Hetch Hetchy Water and Power Moccasin, California 209-989-2130
Hydro-Québec Montreal, Québec 514-289-2211
Landsvirkjun Iceland
Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Los Angeles, California 213-481-4211

Power
Lower Colorado River Authority Austin, Texas 512-473-3200
New York Power Authority White Plains, New York 212-468-6000
A-1
Contact-List
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. Syracuse, New York 315-474-1511
Northern States Power Eau Claire, Wisconsin 715-839-2962
Northwestern Wisconsin Grantsburg, Wisconsin 715-463-5371

Electric Co.
Ontario Hydro Toronto, Ontario 416-592-5711
Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation Oroville, California 916-534-1221

District
PacifiCorp Portland, Oregon 503-731-2000
PECO Energy Darlington, Maryland 410-457-2700
Public Utility District No. 1 Wenatchee, Washington 509-663-8121

of Chelan County
Public Utility District No. 2 Ephrata, Washington 509-754-3541

of Grant County
Rheinkraftwerk Säckingen AG Germany
Seattle City Light Seattle, Washington 206-625-3000
Southern California Edison Co. Rosemead, California 818-302-1212
Stora Power AB Sweden
Tafjord Power Co. Norway
Tennessee Valley Authority Chattanooga, Tennessee 423-751-0011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon 503-808-4200

Hydroelectric Design Center
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado 303-236-3292
Vattenfall Sweden
Washington Water Power Spokane, Washington 509-489-0500
A-2
Contact-List
Suppliers - Turbines
Alstom Electromechanical Aurora, Colorado 888-342-5522

(formerly GEC Alsthom)
American Hydro Corp. York, Pennsylvania 717-755-5300
CKD Blansko Engineering, a.s. Blansko, Czech Republic
General Electric Canada Inc. Québec, Québec 514-485-4049
Hitachi America, LTD. Tarrytown, New York 914-524-6640
Kvaener Hydro Power, Inc. San Francisco, California 415-392-6461
Sulzer USA Inc. San Francisco, California 415-441-7230
Voest-Alpine M.C.E. Salisbury, North Carolina 704-647-9276
Voith Hydro, Inc. York, Pennsylvania 717-792-7000
Suppliers - Generators
ABB Power Generation Inc. Littleton, Colorado 303-730-4000
Alstom Electromechanical Aurora, Colorado 888-342-5522

(formerly GEC Alsthom)
General Electric Canada Inc. Québec, Québec 514-485-4049
Hitachi America LTD. Tarrytown, New York 914-524-6640
National Electric Coil Columbus, Ohio 614-488-1151
Siemens Westinghouse Milwaukee, Wisconsin 414-475-3358
Suppliers - Governors and Controls

ABB Power Generation, Inc. Denver, Colorado 303-730-4000
Hitachi America, LTD. Tarrytown, New York 914-524-6640
Sulzer Hydro Ltd. Switzerland
Toshiba International Corp. San Francisco, California 650-737-6672
Woodward Governor Co. Loveland, Colorado 970-962-7518
A-3

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Power Plants A Hydro Power Technology Round-Up Report, Volume 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Power Plants A Hydro Power Technology Round-Up Report, Volume 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydropower Plants

A Hydropower Technology Round-Up Report, Volume 2

Final Report, November 1999

EPRI Project Manager

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

This report was prepared by

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

Rehabilitation and Upgrading Hydro Plants: A Hydropower Technology Round-Up Report,

Michael Bahleda - American Electric Power Service Corporation, Columbus, Ohio

2 REHABILITATING AND UPGRADING HYDRO PLANTS ................................................... 2-1

3 TURBINES AND PUMP-TURBINES.................................................................................... 3-1

4 GENERATORS AND MOTOR-GENERATORS ................................................................... 4-1

Mechanical Aspects to Generator Upgrade.................................................................... 4-2

5 GOVERNORS, CONTROLS, AND AUXILIARIES ............................................................... 5-1

6 EVALUATION, PLANNING, MANAGEMENT, AND IMPLEMENTATION............................ 6-1

Investor-Owned “Utility” Generation Investment Perspective.......................................... 6-1

To sustain hydro’s efficiency and competitiveness requires implementation of improved, more

Significant investment is often needed to improve many hydro plants—particularly older,

An industry benchmarking survey conducted in conjunction with the HydroVision 98 conference

The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

Section 2 - Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

Section 3 - Turbines and Pump-Turbines

Section 4 - Generators and Motor-Generators

Section 5 - Governors, Controls, and Auxiliaries

Section 6 - Evaluation, Planning, Management, and Implementation

1. Hydro Rehabilitation Practices: What’s Working in Rehabilitation. HCI Publications, Kansas

Program, Project, or State (U.S.), Owner Section

Program, Project, or State (U.S.), Owner Section

Objectives of Hydro Rehabilitation and Upgrading

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

• Enhancing water quality

Scope of Rehabilitation and Upgrade Programs and Projects

Turbines and Pump-Turbines

Generators and Motor-Generators

Governors, Controls, and Auxiliary Systems

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Hydro Modernization Program

1998 Rehabilitation Benchmarking Survey

An industry benchmarking survey conducted in conjunction with the HydroVision 98 conference

“…the restoration of an item(s) on an infrequent basis, through a process of

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

Gains in Capacity and Efficiency

The HydroVision 98 benchmarking survey report indicates significant improvements in

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

New construction of an existing plant, including replacement or substantial modification of civil,

The overhaul or repair of a unit or a component, including replacement of worn or degraded

The substitution of a unit or component for another.

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

3. L. D. Chapman, Tennessee Valley Authority, personal communication, October 1998.

4. Hydro Rehabilitation Practices: What’s Working in Rehabilitation. HCI Publications,

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

Tafjord K2 * Norway Tafjord Power 3 runner replacement, controls 2 28 comp. 3 CF

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

Rehabilitating and Upgrading Hydro Plants

Table 2-1 Footnotes:

c. Status noted as follows: planned - planned or scheduled