Home

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

Water hammer caused by closure of turbine safety spherical valves

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article. 2010 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 12 012096 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/12/1/012096) View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details: IP Address: 80.14.0.31 The article was downloaded on 29/07/2011 at 14:18

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012096

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012096

Water hammer caused by closure of turbine safety spherical valves

U Karadi1, A Bergant2 and P Vukoslavevi1

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Montenegro Dorda Vaingtona nn, Podgorica, 81000, Montenegro 2 LitostrojPower d.o.o., Litostrojska 50, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia
E-mail: uros.karadzic@ac.me
Abstract. This paper investigates water hammer effects caused by closure of spherical valves against the discharge. During the first phase of modernisation of Peruica high-head hydropower plant (HPP), Montenegro, safety spherical valves (inlet turbine valves) have been refurbished on the first two Pelton turbine units. The valve closure is controlled by the valve actuator (hydraulic servomotor). Because the torque acting on the valve body is dependent on flow conditions the valve closing time may vary significantly for different flow velocities (passive valve). For the passive valve the torques acting on the valve body should be considered in the valve model. The valve closing time results from numerical simulation. On the contrary, for the active valve the valve closing time is assumed prior to simulation. The spherical valve boundary condition is incorporated into the method of characteristics (MOC) algorithm. The staggered (diamond) grid in applying the MOC is used in this paper. The passive valve boundary condition is described by the water hammer equations, the valve equation that relates discharge to pressure head drop and the dynamic equation of the valve body motion (torque equation). The active valve boundary condition is described by the first two equations, respectively. Standard quasi-steady friction model is used for estimating friction losses in plants tunnel and penstocks. Numerical results using both the active and the passive spherical valve models are compared with results of measurements. It has been found that the influence of flow conditions on the spherical valve closing time is minor for the cases considered. Computed and measured results agree reasonably well.

1. Introduction
Water hammer is occurrence of pressure rise or drop in penstocks of hydropower plants and pumping stations due to change in flow velocity. Water hammer loads must be kept within the prescribed limits because they can disturb operation of hydraulic system and damage systems components. During construction of new or modernization of existing hydropower plants detailed water hammer analysis is required in order to get maximum and minimum pressures as one of the most important parameters in the design process of the plant components. In hydropower plants water hammer is induced by turbine load acceptance and reduction, load rejection under governor control, emergency shut-down and unwanted runaway, and closure and opening of the safety shutoff valves. This paper investigates water hammer effects caused by closure of safety spherical valves against the discharge. In the first part of the paper mathematical tools for solving water hammer equations are presented. The water hammer is described by continuity and momentum equations and equations describing boundary elements (reservoir, valve, surge tank, turbine). Two different models of valve closure are introduced; passive, where closure time is dependent on torques that act on the valve body and active, where closure time is specified in advance. In the second part of the paper comparisons of numerical and experimental results are made for both passive and active spherical valve models. It is shown that the influence of flow conditions on the spherical valve closing time is minor for the cases investigated. It is also concluded that numerical models show satisfactory agreement with results of measurement.

c 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd

25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012096

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012096

2. Theoretical model
Water hammer is the propagation of pressure waves along the pipeline resulting from a change in flow velocity. For most engineering applications simplified water hammer equations are appropriate (Chaudhry [1]),

H a2 Q + =0 t gA x 1 Q f Q| Q | H + + =0 x gA t 2 gDA2

(1)

(2)

where, H = piezometric head (head), t = time, a = pressure wave speed, g = gravitational acceleration, A = pipe area, Q = discharge, x = distance along the pipe, f = Darcy-Weisbach friction factor and D = pipe diameter. Quasi-steady approach to estimate friction losses in systems penstocks and tunnel is satisfactory for slow transients considered in this paper. Equations (1) and (2) are solved by the method of characteristics (MOC) using staggered numerical grid (Wylie and Streeter [2]). At a boundary (reservoir, spherical valve), a device-specific equation is used instead one of the MOC water hammer compatibility equations. 2.1 Spherical valve boundary condition Turbine inlet valves are used as safety elements in the system. Their main function is to close penstock in case of emergency conditions such as turbine runaway and pipe damage, and in case of regular repair of turbine components. The instantaneous discharge through spherical valve (Qu,t) can be determined from the following equation,

Qu ,t =

2 KD A 2 g (H u ,t H d ,t ) 2 v 1 KD

(3)

where, KD = spherical valve discharge coefficient, Av = valve area (Av = Dv2/4), Hu,t = head upstream the valve, Hu,d = head downstream the valve, Dv = nominal valve diameter. Equation (3) is valid both for passive and active valve model. Functional dependency of the discharge coefficient KD and the angle of the valve opening is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Spherical valve discharge coefficient KD ( = 00 valve fully open, = 900 valve fully closed) The active valve closure model is straightforward and well explained in standard water hammer books (Chaudhry [1], Wyile and Streeter [2]). On the contrary, the passive valve closure model is not that straightforward and will be explained as follows. For the case of passive valve closure model a dynamic equation of the valve body motion (torque equation) have to be considered in the model, (4) d 2

dt 2

= M

25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012096

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012096

where, J = moment of inertia of valve rotating parts,

M = sum of all torques that act on the valve body.

(5)

Figure 2 shows schematic servomotor mechanism of Peruica HPP spherical valve. The hydraulic servomotor mechanism angle 2, positions s and e are,

2 = cos1

e L

R sin ( + 1 ) L

s = R cos( + 1 ) + L sin 2

(6) (7)

e = e0 + (s s0 ) tan

Fig. 2 Servomotor mechanism of the spherical valve (R = 580 mm, s0 = 940 mm, e0 = 400 mm, L = 1320 mm, 1 = 400, = 40) Sum of all torques that act on valve body during closure period is as follows,

M = M

+ M hs M fr M fd M ds

(8)

where, Mh = hydraulic torque, Mhs = hydraulic servomotor torque, Mfr = shaft bearing friction torque, Mfd = fluid damping torque due to the valve body motion in the fluid, Mds = valve disk sealing torque due to friction between the valve seal and the pipe wall. The hydraulic torque Mh is defined by following expression (Guins [3], Bergant and Sijamhodi [4]),

M h = KT Dv3

1 Q2 2 K D 2 gAv2

(9)

where, KT = hydrodynamic torque coefficient. The hydraulic servomotor torque Mhs derived for the layout of the mechanism shown in Fig. 2 is

M hs = Fhs R sin ( 2 90 + 1 + )
where, Fhs = hydraulic servomotor piston force whose detailed derivation can be found in Karadi [5]. The shaft bearing friction torque Mfr is

(10)

25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012096

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012096

M fr = b

where, b = shaft bearing friction coefficient, Db = shaft bearing diameter, Rb = resultant force in the shaft bearing due to action of the hydrodynamic force Fh, weight of the submerged valve body Gv and piston force Fhs. Hydrodynamic force is expressed by the following equation (Bergant and Sijamhodi [4]), (12) 1 Q2

Db Rb 2

(11)

Fh = K F Dv2

2 K D 2 gAv2

where, KF = hydrodynamic force coefficient. The fluid damping torque is (Ellis and Mualla [6]),

M fd =

120 K 2 dt fd

Dv5 d

(13)

where, Kfd = fluid damping coefficient. The valve disk sealing torque is applied at closed position of the valve and it is (Kovalev [7]),

M ds = sbs Ds2 g (H u ,t H d ,t )

(14)

where, s = valve disk sealing friction coefficient, bs = valve disk seal width, Ds = valve disk seal diameter. Valve coefficients KD, KT, KF, Kfd, direction of hydrodynamic force and conditions downstream of the valve as well, for particular type of valve, are obtained from the model tests (Ellis and Mualla [6], Strohmer [8]). Knowing conditions downstream of the valve during the closure period is very important because of possible occurrence of cavitation phenomena and column separation. Equations (1) to (4) are solved simultaneously in the passive valve closure model. The unknowns are discharge through the valve Qu,t, head at the upstream Hu,t and the downstream end of the valve Hd,t, and angle of the valve opening . The valve closing time tc is result of simulation.

3. Peruica HPP flow-passage system

Peruica HPP flow-passage system is a complex system comprised of a concrete tunnel (LT = 3335 m, DT = 4.8 m), orifice type surge tank (orifice head loss coefficients: in = 1.65 and out = 2.48 during inflow and outflow, respectively) of cylindrical cross-section (DST = 8.0 m) with an expansion at elevation z = 611.0 m (DST = 12.0 m) and overflow (elevation: zov = 628.0 m; width of the overflow weir: bov = 7.98 m with discharge coefficient ov = 0.4) and three parallel steel penstocks with horizontal-shaft Pelton turbines built at their downstream ends (Fig. 3). The maximum water level at the intake is 613 m and the minimum one is 602.5 m. The penstock I feeds two turbine units (A1 and A2) with rated unit power of 39 MW each, penstock II feeds three turbine units (A3, A4 and A5) of 39 MW each and penstock III feeds two units (A6 and A7) of 59 MW each. A new turbine unit (A8) with a rated power of 59 MW is to be installed in the near future. The length of each penstock is 1920 m, 1966 m and 2014 m, respectively. The respective equivalent penstock diameter (Chaudhry [1]) is 1965 mm, 2160 mm and 2570 mm. Calculated pressure wave speeds are as follows, aT = 1354 m/s, aI = 1148 m/s, aII = 1123 m/s and aIII = 1152 m/s. The Pelton wheel diameter of units A1 to A5 is Dk = 2400 mm and for units A6 and A7 is Dk = 2100 mm. The turbine inlet spherical valve diameters are Dv = 1000 mm for units A1 to A5 and Dv = 1200 mm for units A6 and A7. Two valves belong to each 2-wheel turbine unit. The valves are equipped with a passive actuator comprised of a hydraulic servomotor that is closed by water pressure from the penstock and opened by oil pressure from the hydraulic pressure unit. The nominal closing time of the spherical valves is tc = 200 s. Main characteristics of the Pelton turbine units are presented in Tab.1 below.

25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012096

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012096

Fig. 3 Layout of Peruica HPP, Montenegro Table 1 Characteristics of Pelton turbine units Rated unit power Rated net head Pr (MW) Hr (m) 39 526 39 526 59 526 The polar moment of Number of wheels inertia of the unit per turbine unit rotating parts J (tm2) 2 168.8 2 168.8 2 200 Closing time of the Stroke of the needle Needle smax (mm) tc (s) 150 85 195 80 166 80

Turbine unit A1,A2,A3,A4 A5 A6,A7 Turbine unit A1,A2,A3,A4 A5 A6,A7 Turbine unit A1,A2,A3,A4 A5 A6,A7

Rated speed nr (min-1) 375 375 428 Number of needles per turbine wheel 1 1 2 Opening time of the needle to (s) 30 30 50

Influential quantities have been continuously measured during transient operating regimes including pressure at the upstream and the downstream end of spherical valves, spherical valve opening angle, stroke of the needle, stroke of the jet deflector and turbine rotational speed. These measurements have been carried out on turbine units A1 and A2. During closure of the spherical valves against the discharge the Pelton turbine nozzles stay in their open position without influence on transient regime.

4. Comparisons of numerical and field test results

Various transient operating regimes have been performed in the plant during commissioning of the turbine units A1 and A2, including the unit start-up, load acceptance and reduction, load rejection under governor control and emergency shut-down, and closure of turbine safety valve against the discharge. In this paper results of measurements and corresponding numerical simulations for the case of simultaneous closure of two safety spherical valves against the discharge on turbine unit A1 are presented; turbine unit A2 was at standstill. Closure of two spherical valves against the discharge has been done for two different initial discharges, the maximum discharge (Test SVA1Q100) and half of the maximum discharge through the 2-wheel turbine unit A1 (SVA1Q50). The main initial parameters for these two tests are shown in the Tab.2. Initial discharges are determined according to measured openings of the nozzles and the available net head.

25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012096

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012096

Test SVA1Q100 Test SVA1Q50

Table 2 Main initial parameters Initial discharge in Steady friction Intake level penstock factor zR (m) QI (m3/s) f (-) 8.04 0.0107 605.4 4.11 0.0112 606.2

Closing time for active valve model tc (s) 200 197

Head and discharge during transient regimes have been computed using the staggered grid based MOC code with a basic time step of t = 0.040 s. Computed and measured results are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Numerical and measured heads at the upstream end of the spherical valve, angle of the valve opening and calculated change of discharge through the valve for Test SVA1Q100 are presented in Fig. 4. For Test SVA1Q100 the maximum measured head of Hmax = 560.58 m occurred at the end of valve closing period with a head rise of H = 25.8 m. The maximum calculated head obtained by the active valve model is Hmax = 558.5 m with head rise of H = 22.6 m. Passive valve model gives the maximum head of Hmax = 561.1 m and head rise of H = 25.2 m. Numerical model with active valve gives a little lower value of the maximum head compared to the results of measurement but with their occurrence at the end of the closing period. During the valve closing period the active valve model predicts negligible pressure fluctuations (Fig. 4a). In contrast to the active valve model, the passive valve model shows better agreement with the results of measurement during the valve closing period. The maximum head occurs few seconds prior to the complete valve closure (Fig. 4b). After the valve is fully closed, the passive valve model simulates pressure trace reasonably well but with little attenuation. On the other hand, the active valve model gives higher head values with amplitudes that attenuate rapidly. After a time of about 300 seconds the model shows excellent agreement with measured data (Fig. 4a). The calculated closure time for the passive valve model is equal to the selected active valve model closure time of tc = 200 s (Fig. 4c). A numerical value of the valve angle opening excellently matches the measured data till t = 160 s. After this moment the spherical valve begins to decrease discharge more rapidly (Fig. 4d) and consequently higher pressure fluctuations at the upstream end of the valve occur (Fig. 4b). These fluctuations influenced the water side of the hydraulic servomotor and are the source for differences between measured and calculated values of the valve angle opening. Passive valve numerical model simulates effects of hydraulic servomotor very well.

Fig. 4 Comparison of heads at the upstream end of the spherical valve (datum level z = 65.8 m; time step t = 0.04 s). Closure of two spherical valves against the maximum turbine unit discharge (Test SVA1Q100)

25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012096

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012096

Numerical and measured heads at the upstream end of the spherical valve, angle of the valve opening and calculated head at the downstream end of the valve for Test SVA1Q50 are presented in Fig. 5. The maximum measured head for Test SVA1Q50 is Hmax = 560.6 m with head rise of H = 22.1 m. The maximum head values and head rises given by the two numerical models are Hmax = 549.9 m and H = 11.4 m for the active valve model, and Hmax = 551.9 m and H = 13.4 m for the passive valve model. The passive valve model shows better agreement with measured data during and after the valve closure period (Fig. 5b) compared to the results obtained by the active valve model (Fig. 5a). For both investigated cases (Tests SVA1Q100 and SVA1Q50) the maximum measured and calculated heads are much less than the maximum permissible head of 602 m. The calculated valve closure time for Test SVA1Q50 is tc = 194 s and it is three seconds shorter than the measured valve closure time of 197 s (Fig. 5c). The initial penstock head at the upstream end of the spherical valve, in this case, has a higher value than for Test SVA1Q100 and initiates greater discharge towards hydraulic servomotor. Consequently, a little shorter valve closure time occurs. It may be concluded that hydraulic servomotor orifice is set adequately so the valve closing time is always about 200 s regardless the hydraulic loads on the valve body during valve closure against the discharge or in still water. Another interesting outcome of simulation is the computed head trace at the downstream end of the valve (Fig. 5d). During the closing period a shape of this head trace is similar to the shape of the discharge trace (Fig. 4d). In addition, it may be observed that at the beginning of the transient event the values of the downstream and the upstream end heads are practically the same. After some time, the downstream head decreases slowly in the first two thirds of the closing period and in its last third decreases fairly quickly until it reaches the datum level (Fig. 5d).

Fig. 5 Comparison of heads at the upstream end of the spherical valve (datum level z = 65.8 m; time step t = 0.04 s). Closure of two spherical valves against the half of the turbine unit discharge (Test SVA1Q50)

5. Conclusion
Numerical results obtained for two different numerical valve closure models are compared with the results of field measurements. The valve closure is modeled as active when the closing time is assumed prior to simulation and passive when the valve closing time results from numerical simulation taking into account the dynamic equation of the valve body motion. It has been found that flow conditions do not have a significant impact on the

25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012096

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012096

spherical valve closure time for the cases investigated in this paper. Developed numerical models show reasonable agreement with measured results.

Nomenclature
A Av a bov bs D Db Dk Ds DST Dv e Fh Fhs f Gv g H Hd,t Hu,t J KD KF Kfd KT L M Mds Mfd Mfr Mh Mhs n P Pipe area [m2] Valve area [m2] Pressure wave speed [m/s] Width of the overflow weir [m] Valve disk seal width [m] Pipe diameter, diameter [m] Shaft bearing diameter [m] Wheel diameter [m] Valve disk seal diameter [m] Surge tank diameter [m] Nominal valve diameter [m] Valve piston position [m] Hydrodynamic force [N] Hydraulic servomotor piston force [N] Darcy-Weisbach friction factor [-] Weight of the valve body [N] gravitational acceleration [m/s2] Piezometric head, head [m] Head downstream of the valve [m] Head upstream of the valve [m] Moment of inertia [kg m2] Spherical valve discharge coefficient [-] Hydrodynamic force coefficient [N/m3] Fluid damping coefficient [-] Hydrodynamic torque coefficient [N/m3] Hydraulic servomotor arm, pipe length [m] Torque [N m] Valve disk sealing torque [N m] Fluid damping torque [N m] Shaft bearing friction torque [N m] Hydraulic torque [N m] Hydraulic servomotor torque [N m] Turbine rotational speed [s-1] Power [W] Q Qu,t R Rb Re s t tc to x z Discharge [m3/s] Discharge through the valve [m3/s] Hydraulic servomotor lever arm [m] Resultant force in the shaft bearing [N] Reynolds number (= VD/) [-] Valve piston position, stroke of the needle [m] Time [s] Valve closing time, needle closing time [s] Needle opening time [s] Distance along the pipe [m] Water level, elevation [m] Angle of the valve opening [-] Initial hydraulic servomotor mechanism angle [-] Hydraulic servomotor mechanism angle [-] Shaft bearing friction coefficient [-] Overflow discharge coefficient [-] Valve disk sealing friction coefficient [-] Kinematic viscosity [m2/s] Surge tank inflow coefficient [-] Surge tank outflow coefficient [-] Water mass density [kg/m3] Initial hydraulic servomotor cylinder angle [-] Subscripts: Maximum Overflow Reservoir Rated Surge tank Tunnel Initial conditions Penstock number

1 2 b ov s

in out

max ov R r ST T 0 I,II,III

References
[1] Chaudhry M H 1987 Applied Hydraulic Transients (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company) [2] Wylie E B and Streeter V L 1993 Fluid transients in systems, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs [3] Guins G V 1968 Flow characteristics of butterfly and spherical valves (ASCE) J. of the Hydraulics Division 94(HY3) 675-90 [4] Bergant A and Sijamhodi E 1994 Hydraulic transients caused by shutoff valves Conf. on Hydropower plants (Budapest, Hungary) pp 331-41 [5] Karadi U 2008 Modelling of complex boundary conditions for transients in hydraulic systems PhD Thesis University of Montenegro Faculty of Mechanical Engineering (Podgorica, Montenegro, Serbian) [6] Ellis J and Mualla W 1984 Dynamic behaviour of safety butterfly valves Water Power & Dam Construction 36(4) 26-31 [7] Kovalev N N 1984 Handbook of hydraulic machinery (Mainostroenie, Leningrad, SSSR, Russian) [8] Strohmer F 1977 Investigating the characteristics of shutoff valves by model tests Water Power & Dam Construction 29(7) 41-46