Structural Design of a Surface Hydropower Plant

Maria Catarina Serôdio Lamego

Supervisor: Prof. Rui Vaz Rodrigues

Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical
University of Lisbon
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
November 2014

ABSTRACT
The structural design of hydropower plants depends on numerous factors. Due to the nature and size
of these structures, not only are these responsible for a high economic impact, but also a high social
and environmental impact.
Therefore, it is essential to define an accurate structural design in reinforced concrete, in order to
ensure the overall stability of the structure.
This dissertation aims to analyse and verify the global and internal stability of a structural block of a
hydroelectric power station. So, it was necessary to define the structural materials and determine the
reinforcement of several structural elements, taking into account the actions on the structure.
Throughout the paper, simplified models and general rules for the design of reinforced concrete
structures are used, as well as their applicability in larger-scale structures is discussed.
In addition, the results were compared with a structural analysis of a three-dimensional model in
SAP2000.

KEYWORDS: Hydropower plant; Reinforced concrete; Stability; Modelling; Hydrostatic pressure;

Collapse; Cracking.

1. INTRODUCTION Secondly, the block global stability is assessed

by determining safety coefficients (sliding;
1.1 MAIN GOALS
uplift; toppling) and the stresses in the
This work aims to evaluate the structural foundation.
stability of the group block no. 3 (out of 4) of a
Then, it is evaluated the internal stability of the
hydroelectric power station. The geometric
structure based on simple models and by
definition of the complete structure is present
designing some reinforced concrete elements.
in general arrangement drawings. Note that
In this dissertation, the following elements are
the block no. 3 is separated from adjacent
evaluated: (i) the slabs and beams of the
blocks by construction joints, therefore it is
floors; (ii) the upstream wall; (iii) the columns
structurally independent.
and support beams of the crane rail; (iv) the
To do so, it is firstly executed the block three- buttresses of the downstream wall; and (v) the
dimensional geometric model, so that the draft tube. Based on these models, the
structural weight can be estimated.

-1-
reinforcement of the elements (i) to (v) is
shown in reinforcement detail drawings.
Lastly, it is used the SAP2000 software to
compare the results.
1.2 BACKGROUND
According to the ASCE 1989 [1], there are two
types of hydropower plants: (i) surface and (ii)
underground power plants.
The powerhouse type selection depends on
factors, such as:
o The water conduit length and head
developed: in order to make the most
economical solution possible, the distance
between the dam and the hydroelectric
power station should be the lowest
possible;
o Geological constraints: plants must be
always founded on rock to ensure the
stability of the structure;
o Topographic constraints: the form of the
land has a great impact on the location of
the plant (eg. steep banks can lead to
expensive excavations and stability
problems).
o The tailwater level: a high level might rule
out indoor surface type power plants;
o Other constraints related
environmental, social and economic
aspects.
2. 3D MODELLING
Using AutoCAD software, it was built the three
dimensional model of the block, shown in figure
1.
Figure 1: 3D model of the block no.3 of the
hydropower plant
3. STRUCTURAL MATERIALS
The durability of a reinforced concrete
structure must be taken into account in its
design, in order to ensure that it operates
adequately, without unforeseen maintenance/
repair costs during its working life.
Since this is an important structure (working
life of 100 years and structural class S6,
according to EC2), it is used structural steel
S500. The concrete in each zone of the
structure was chosen bearing in mind different
needs (resistance, low heat of hydration, low
permeability, among others).
According to the norm NP EN 206-1, the
to concrete specifications are shown below ( table
1).
Table 1: Concrete specification of each element
Element Concrete Specification
C25/30; XC3 (P); Cl
Floor Slabs and Beams
0.40; Dmax25; S3
Upstream Wall
Columns and support
C30/37; XC4 (P); Cl
beams of the crane rail
0.40; Dmax25; S3
Buttresses
Draft Tube
4. DESIGN SITUATIONS AND
COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS
According to the Portuguese Regulation on
Dams Safety (RSB), the design of a structure
should take into account a (i) current scenario
and a (ii) failure scenario.
4.1 DESIGN SITUATIONS
The current scenario (CS) corresponds to
combinations of actions with a high probability
of occurrence during the working life of the
-2-
structure under normal hydrological conditions.
This situation is characterised by a
downstream average water level (AWL) of
16.77 meters. The occurrence of an average
earthquake (AE), under normal hydrological
conditions (AWL), is also defined as a current
scenario.
The failure scenario (FS) corresponds to a
combination of actions with a low probability of
occurrence during the working life of the
structure under exceptional hydrological
conditions. This situation is characterized by a
downstream maximum high water level
(MHWL) of 27.66 meters. The occurrence of a
maximum earthquake (ME), under normal
hydrological conditions (AWL), is also defined
as a failure scenario.
All the scenarios are also defined by a flow
rate of 800 [m3/s] and a water level of 130
meters at the upstream reservoir.
Table 2: Design scenarios to evaluate the
stability of the structure
Global Stability Internal Stability
o AWL (CS)
o AWL”+”AE (CS) o AWL (CS)
o AWL”+”ME (FS) o MHWL (FS)
o MHWL (FS)
4.2 LIMIT STATES
4.2.1 Ultimate Limit States (ULS)
The most relevant limit states to check for
global stability are:
o Loss of equilibrium of the structure due to
uplift by water pressure (UPL);
o Loss of equilibrium of the structure (as a
rigid body) due to toppling and/or sliding
(EQU);
o Failure or excessive deformation of the
ground (GEO).
When it comes to ULS for internal stability, it
should be verified that internal failure or
excessive deformation of the structure and its
members does not occur. In this case, the
strength of construction materials governs.
According to the Eurocode – Basis
Structural Design:
o When considering a limit state of static
equilibrium of the structure (EQU), it shall
be verified (1):
(1)
o When considering a limit state of rupture
or excessive deformation of a section or a
member (STR and/or GEO), it shall be
verified (2):
(2)
4.2.2 Serviceability Limit States (SLS)
The verification of SLS is related not only with
the proper functioning of the structure, but also
with its appearance and comfort to its users.
Therefore, it shall be verified (3):
(3)
The common serviceability limit states are: (i)
stress limitation; (ii) crack control; and (iii)
deflection limitation.
According to the EC2 part 1-1, stresses should
be limited both for steel (σs≤0,8fyk) and
concrete (σc≤0,6fck).
When it comes to crack control, the crack width
(wk) must be limited as recommend by EC2
part 1-1 and EC2 part 3.
Deflections were mainly controlled by checking
basic ratios span/effective depth.
In this paper, it was only considered the
characteristic combination for SLS verification.
5. ACTIONS
In this dissertation, the following actions were
considered: (i) dead loads; (ii) live loads; (iii)
hydrostatic pressures; (iv) hydrodynamic
pressure; (v) uplift pressure; and (vi) seismic
action.
6. GLOBAL STABILITY
The overall stability is based on the hypothesis
that the structure moves as a rigid body and it
is generally ensured by the structure self-
weight.
6.1 SLIDING
Verification against failure by sliding is
provided by (4):
of
(∑ ) ( )
∑
(4)
The structure is founded in gneiss (Φ=45⁰) and
weighs (ΣV) 305 448 [kN]. In table 3, it is shown
the other forces considered.
-3-
 Table 3: Forces considered for verification Table 6: Bending moments considered for
against failure by sliding verification against failure by toppling
Force Design Bending Moment
Action Design Situation
[kN] Situation [kNm]
AWL 2 953 048
AWL 22 933 Mstb
Hydrodynamic MHWL 977 965
Pressure
MHWL 20 635 AWL 312 797
AWL”+”AE 606 893
AE - horizontal 15 272 Mdst
AWL”+”ME 900 990
Seismic AE - vertical 3 394 MHWL 281 446
Action ME - horizontal 30 545

ME- vertical 6 788 In table 7, it is shown the toppling analysis.

AWL 167 066 Table 7: Verification against failure by toppling

Uplift
Design ∑
Pressure MHWL 246 998 ≥FSD
Situation ∑
AWL 9.44
CS 1.5
In table 4, it is shown the sliding analysis. AWL”+”AE 4.87
AWL”+”ME 3.28
Table 4: Verification against failure by sliding FS 1.2
MHWL 3.47
Design Situation (ΣV-U)tgΦ/ΣH ≥FSDΦ
AWL 6.03
CS 1.5 6.4 STRESSES IN THE FOUNDATION
AWL”+”AE 3.62
AWL”+”ME 2.59 It is necessary to verify (7):
FS 1.2
MHWL 2.83
(7)

Since the structure is founded in gneiss,

6.2 UPLIFT
σadm=30 [MPa].
Verification against uplift failure is provided by
(5): According to [5], it shouldn’t be allowed tension
on the foundation, since this could result in
∑
(5) cracks, and consequently lead to the structure
instability.
In table 5, it is shown the uplift analysis.
Stresses must be calculated using (8), except
Table 5: Verification against uplift failure when this causes tension. In that case,
Design stresses should be recalculated using (9).
(ΣV)/U ≥FSF
Situation
AWL (CS) 1.83 1.3 (8)
MHWL (FS) 1.24 1.1

( )
(9)
6.3 TOPPLING
where is the compressed length of the
Verification against failure by toppling is
foundation and is the vertical resultant of the
provided by (6):
forces.
∑
∑
(6)

In this case, the self-weight helps stabilizing

the structure, whereas the seismic action, the
𝑥
uplift pressure and hydrodynamic pressures Lcomprimido

are responsible for the structure jusante

destabilization. L

Figure 2: Illustration of a partially compressed

foundation
-4-
In tables 8 and 9, are presented the stresses in The beams have a height of 1.15 [m] and a
the foundation for a non-seismic combination width of 0.80 [m] in the x direction (V1) and of
and a seismic combination. Concerning the 0.40 [m] in the y direction (V2). The slabs loads
failure scenario for the non-seismic are supported by the beams. While beams V1
combination (MHWL), stresses had to be (x) are considered fixed on both ends, beams
recalculated, in order not to exist tension. V2 (y) are supported by beams V1.
Table 8: Stress verification for non-seismic It is essential to ensure minimal reinforcement
combination - bending (10) and shear (11):
Non-seismic Combination
Design Stress (10)
Scenario [kN/m2]
σupstream 98.2 √
AWL ( ) (11)
(CS) σdownstream 248.4
MHWL σupstream 0.0 In order to control cracking, it should also be
(FS) σdownstream 182.7 used a minimum amount of bonded
reinforcement (12):

Table 9: Stress verification for seismic (12)

combination
Seismic Combination Since beams V1 can be considered as indirect
Design Stress supports, it is also important to add supporting
Scenario [kN/m2] reinforcement (13) to shear reinforcement (14).
AWL”+”AE σupstream 57.2
(CS) σdownstream 281.0 (13)
AWL”+”AE σupstream 16.1
(FS) σdownstream 313.6 (14)

7. INTERNAL STABILITY Regarding SLS, crack width should not

7.1 FLOOR SLABS AND BEAMS surpass 0.4 [mm]. The reinforcement
considered verified this criterion (table 11).
The thickness of the floor slabs is 0.35 [m] and
its concrete cover is 0.035 [m], since it regards Table 11: Crack width in the floor elements
an exposure class XC3 (table 4.4N of EC2 part wk
Element
1-1). [mm]
Slab 0.26
The length of the spans equals 8.4 [m] and 5.7
Beam V2 0.29
[m] in each direction. It was considered a live
load of 15.0 [kN/m2] [4]. Beam V1 0.37

Using Bares tables for a design load of 34.31

[kN/m2], the slab forces and the respective Stress limitations were also verified (table 12).
number of bending bars necessary to ensure Table 12: Stresses in the floor elements
ULS safety were determined. σs σc
Element
Table 10: Forces and reinforcement needed in [MPa] [MPa]
the slabs of the floors Slab 275.2 9.5
MSd As
Panel Direction 2 Beam V2 299.9 7.4
[kNm/m] [cm /m]
28.1 2.18 Beam V1 334.0 10.6
x
-93.4 7.45
Lateral
67.5 5.32
y 7.2 UPSTREAM WALL
-107.3 8.61
14.7 1.14 Due to a XC4 exposure class, the upstream
x
-62.0 4.87 wall has a concrete cover of 50 [mm].
Central
57.9 4.54
y
-107.3 8.61 Using a cantilever model subjected to
hydrostatic pressures, the main bending
-5-
moments were determined. The most relevant Table 16: Stresses in the upstream wall
section is the fixed one for the failure scenario σs σc
Section
(MHWL). [MPa] [MPa]
Table 13: Forces in the upstream wall in the h=2.20m 187.6 16.4
failure scenario h=2.70m 179.7 8.5
Hydrostatic h=3.20m No crack 0.5
Design Elevation MSd
Pressure
Situation 2
[m] [kN/m ] [kNm/m]
7.3 COLUMNS AND SUPPORT BEAMS
27.66 0.0 0.0
OF THE CRANE RAIL
21.50 61.6 428.6
FS For a XC4 exposure class, it is adopted a
13.80 138.6 4 881.3 concrete cover of 0.05 [m], both for the beams
9.55 181.1 10 889.2 and the columns.
The beam (1.0x1.5 [m2]) is simply supported at
According to [7], it is required to use a both ends and is subjected to moving loads
shrinkage and temperature reinforcement to (equivalent to 4 wheels per beam). Using
minimize cracking. In this case, it was used a specific tables for moving loads [8], the
mesh #φ20//0.20 in the inner face of the wall. correspondent forces were determined for
maximum loads.
The wall is also subjected to axial loads. Since
axial forces are beneficial, it is only considered Table 17: Maximum forces in the support beams
of the crane rail
the crane rail and the wall self-weight.
MSd.max VSd.max
Plane
In table 14, it is shown the reinforcement [kNm] [kN]
needed in order to verify ULS. yz 2 961.4 2 073.8
xy 156.6 110.4
Table 14: Longitudinal reinforcement to verify
ULS
2
Elevation [m] MRd [kNm] As1 [cm /m] For the y-z plane, it is required a bending
9.55 11 185.8 3φ32//0.20 120.60 reinforcement of 49.90 [cm2] and a shear
13.80 6 205.8 φ32//0.20 40.20 reinforcement of 18.52 [cm2/m]. To minimize
21.50 4 620.7 φ25//0.20 24.54
cracking (12), it is required a minimum
reinforcement of 13.97 [cm2/m/face].
For the verification of the shear resistance, it is
only required the minimum shear
Regarding the columns, it was considered a
reinforcement (11).
cantilever model subjected to biaxial bending.
The loads considered were the ones that
Regarding SLS and according to EC2 part 3, caused higher forces in the column.
for a tightness class 1, crack width limitation is
Likely to other elements, it must be ensured a
defined as a function of the ratio of the
minimum longitudinal reinforcement (15):
hydrostatic pressure to the wall thickness of the
structure (h). (15)
The reinforcement considered for ULS did not
In this case, it is required 35.20 [cm2].
verify this criterion, so it had to be increased
(table 15). In order to verify ULS (table 18), it was adopted
Table 15: Crack width in the upstream wall 6φ25 for y-direction and 6φ20 for x-direction
h wk Wmax (per face).

[m] [mm] [mm] Table 18: Maximum forces in the support

columns of the crane rail
2.20 0.17 0.18
MSd.y,max MSd.x,max NSd
2.70 0.19 0.20 Column
[kNm] [kNm] [kN]
3.20 0.00 0.20 Top 6 178.4 - 4 198.8
Base 5245.8 264.2 4 650.3
Stress limitations were also verified (table 16).
-6-
To verify the shear resistance, it is only 7.4 BUTTRESSES OF THE
required the minimum shear reinforcement DOWNSTREAM WALL
(11).
According to [4], elements subjected to water
Note that, to design the column corbel it should percolation, must have a minimum concrete
be used a strut-and-tie model. cover of 0.075 [m].
The cross section considered for calculation
purposes is shown in figure 4.

Figure 3: Corbel strut-and-tie model

Using this type of model, it is required 42.80

[cm2] for the corbel reinforcement. Figure 4: Cross-section considered in
calculations (dimensions in meters)
Regarding SLS, crack width should not
surpass 0.3 [mm]. The beams reinforcement Considering a cantilever model subjected to
had to be slightly changed in order to verify hydrostatic pressures, the axial bending of the
this criterion (table 19). element is characterized by a bending moment
equal to 440 202 [kNm] and an axial force
Table 19: Crack width in the support elements of equal to 56 789 [kN], for a failure scenario.
the crane rail
wk Using a plastic analysis, it was adopted a
Element reinforcement which has a resistant moment of
[mm]
Beams
724 087 [kNm] (φ32//0.20 along the buttresses
0.30
Columns 0.19
and φ25//0.20 along the downstream wall).
In addition to the shear reinforcement, it is also
Stress limitations were also verified ( table 20). important to determine the supporting
reinforcement (13).
Table 20: Stresses in the support elements of
the crane rail Regarding SLS and according to EC2 part 3,
σs σc for a tightness class 1, crack width is limited to
Element 0.2 [mm].
[MPa] [MPa]
Beams 249.2 9.9 The reinforcement considered for ULS verified
Columns 171.4 15.1 this criterion (wk=0.17 [mm]).
Stress limitations were also verified ( table 21).
According to [11], the maximum horizontal
Table 21: Stresses in the buttresses of the
displacement in support columns of crane rails downstream wall
cannot exceed the ratio H/300, i.e. σs σc
approximately 28.0 [mm]. Through a SAP2000
[MPa] [MPa]
modeI, it was confirmed that this criterion was
not verified. The use of rock nails in the 95.2 4.8
upstream wall is a possible solution. In this
case, it would be necessary φ25 nails 2.5 [m] 7.5 DRAFT TUBE
apart from each other with a minimum length of
According to [4], elements subjected to fast-
6.0 [m].
flowing water, must have a minimum concrete
cover of 0.10 [m].
Using specific tables for pipes [8], the draft
tube forces were calculated for two different

-7-
situations: (i) when it’s full (subjected to Note 2: The beams reinforcement varies in each floor, so it
won’t be presented (it is shown in detail drawings).
hydrostatic pressures); and (ii) when it’s empty
Table 23: Upstream wall longitudinal
(subjected to maximum vertical loads and uplift reinforcement
pressure).
pw1
Upstream Wall
P=qL P=qL
2
Section As1 [cm /m]

h=2.2m 3φ32//0.10 (241.3)

h=2.7m φ32//0.20 + φ25//0.20 (64.8)

U U
pw2 h=3.2m φ25//0.20 (24.5)
q

Figure 5: Actions when the draft tube is full

Table 24:
Subpressão (U) Columns and support beams (of the
pw1
P=qL P=qL crane rail) longitudinal reinforcement
Crane Rail
2
Supporting element As1 [cm ]

U U Beams 5φ32 + 4φ25 (59.8)

pw2
q
Columns 6φ25(y) + 6φ20(x) (96.6)
Subpressão (U)
Figure 6: Actions when the draft tube is empty
Table 25: Buttresses longitudinal reinforcement
The forces in the draft tube vary along its Buttresses of the Downstream Wall
center line, but it is generally required 2
Element As1 [cm /m]
2φ25//0.20 for its longitudinal reinforcement.
Buttresses φ32//0.20 (40.2)

Regarding SLS, crack control can be Wall φ25//0.20 (24.5)

determinant when comparing to ULS. The high
thickness of the concrete cover results in an
The draft tube reinforcement is also variable
increase of the amount of reinforcement
along its center line, but it is generally required
needed. If the concrete cover was decreased
2φ25//0.20.
by half (0.05 [m]), it would only be required
about 60% of the reinforcement. The reinforcement of all elements is
represented in reinforcement detail drawings.

8. CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT
SOLUTIONS 9. SAP2000 MODELLING
In tables 22 to 25, it is shown a summary of the In order to assess the structure overall
amount of longitudinal reinforcement used in behavior, it was built a 3D model in SAP2000.
the analyzed elements, in order to verify ULS Thus, it was possible to compare the results
and ELS. obtained with simplified models previously
described.
Table 22: Slabs longitudinal reinforcement
Slabs of the Floors
As
Direction Face 2
[cm /m]
(+) # φ10//0.20 (3.9)
x
(-) # φ10//0.20 (3.9)
(+) # φ10//0.20 + φ8//0.20 (6.4)
y
(-) # φ10//0.20 + φ10//0.20 (7.9)
Note 1: This reinforcement corresponds to the last floor.
The reinforcement of the remaining floors is shown in
detail drawings. Figure 7: 3D SAP2000 model of the block no.3

-8-
In general, the adopted solution described
previously was suitable for the forces obtained
using SAP2000.
There were minor differences that most likely
are due to the difference between the support
conditions assumed in both methods. While
SAP2000 is able to calculate the stiffness of
each structural element, in simplified models
approximations were considered.
However, it is important to bear in mind that it
is possible to consider limited redistribution
and for that reason no change in
reinforcements is needed.
10. CONCLUSION
The design of complex structures, such as
hydropower plants must be carefully done, in
order to enable structural safety and proper
operation. Not only is conception important,
but also the material selection, execution,
quality control and inspections are important
steps to take into account when designing and
building a structure.
Regarding the structure overall stability, we
can conclude that uplift is the scenario that
leads to the lowest safety coefficients. This is
why an accurate calculation of concrete
volumes is essential.
Regarding the structure internal stability, we
can conclude that, in many cases, the SLS
verification (crack control) is determinant while
using EC2. A higher thickness of concrete
cover results in higher amounts of
reinforcement, which sometimes seems
excessive, when comparing to other countries
regulations. However, a higher thickness might
prevent a more hazardous consequence
(water erosion).
All in all, the adoption of simplified models
represent an acceptable method for designing
concrete reinforcements, as the results
obtained with the three dimensional model in
SAP2000 were similar. Nevertheless, SAP
results viability depends on the finite element.
The existing differences between the results
are linked to the support conditions assumed
in simplified models.
To sum up, general rules and principles for
common structures, studied throughout this
master’s degree, can be applied to more
complex structures as a first approach.
-9-
Nonetheless, proper adjustments and
verifications must be carried out.
11. REFERENCES
[1] ASCE (1989), Civil Engineering Guidelines for
Planning and Designing Hydroelectric
Developments, Volume 3: Powerhouses and
Related Topics, New York;
[2] Ramos, H.M. (2010), Fundamentos e
Orientações no Projecto de Aproveitamentos
Hidroeléctricos, Texto de apoio à disciplina de
Estruturas e Aproveitamentos Hidráulicos, IST;
[3] Camelo, A. (2011), Durabilidade e Vida Útil das
Estruturas Hidráulicas de Betão e de Betão
s
Armado, 1ª Jornadas de Materiais na
Construção;
[4] Eletrobrás (2003), Critérios de Projeto Civil de
Usinas Hidroelétricas;
[5] Quintela, A.C. (1988), Hidraúlica Aplicada II, IST;
[6] Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures, Part
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, EN
1992-1-1:2004;
[7] ACI 350-01 – Code requirements for
environmental engineering concrete structures;
[8] Isnard,V., Grekow,A., Mrozowicz,P., Formulario
del Ingeniero: Metodos practicos de calculo de
obras de ingeniería, Urmo S.A. Ediciones;
[9] Appleton, J. (2013), Estruturas de Betão, Volume
1, Edições Orion;
[10] Gomes, A., Vinagre, J. (1997), Estruturas de
Betão I – Tabelas de Cálculo, Volume III, IST;
[11] SIA 261/1 (2003) - Actions sur les structures
porteuses – Spécifications complémentaires,
SIA Zurich;
[12] Camara, J. (2012), Folhas de Apoio às Aulas –
Estruturas de Betão I, Instituto Superior Técnico;
[13] Branco, F., Correia, A. (1990), Modelação de
Fundações na Analise Estrutural, Relatório
CMEST Dt 02/90;
[14] Eurocode – Basis of structural design, EN
1990:2002;
[15] Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures,
Part 3: Liquid retaining and containment
structures, EN 1992-3:2006;
[16] Eurocode 8 - Design of structures for
earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN 1998-
1:2004;
[17] Almeida, J. (2012), Modelos de Campos de
Tensões para Betão Estrutural – dos
Fundamentos à Aplicação em Projecto - lição de
síntese apresentada no âmbito de provas de
agregação, IST;
[18] APEB (2008), Guia para a utilização da norma
NP EN 206-1: A especificação do betão;
[19] Appleton, J., Marchão, C. (2012), Folhas de
Apoio às Aulas – Estruturas de Betão II, IST;
[20] DECivil, Tabelas de cálculo da disciplina de
Dimensionamento de Estruturas, IST.