Best Practice Catalog

Penstocks and Tunnels

Revision 1.0, 12/06/2011

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

Prepared by

MESA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Chattanooga, TN 37402

and

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6283
managed by
UT-BATTELLE, LLC
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 2

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

Contents
1.0 Scope and Purpose ............................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Hydropower Taxonomy Position ..................................................................................... 4
1.1.1 Components .............................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Summary of Best Practices .............................................................................................. 7
1.2.1 Performance/Efficiency & Capability - Oriented Best Practices .............................. 7
1.2.2 Reliability/Operations & Maintenance - Oriented Best Practices ............................ 7
1.3 Best Practice Cross-references ......................................................................................... 8
2.0 Technology Design Summary.............................................................................................. 8
2.1 Material and Design Technology Evolution .................................................................... 8
2.2 State of the Art Technology ............................................................................................. 9
3.0 Operation and Maintenance Practices ................................................................................ 10
3.1 Condition Assessment .................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Operations ...................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Maintenance ................................................................................................................... 12
4.0 Metrics, Monitoring and Analysis ..................................................................................... 16
4.1 Measures of Performance, Condition, and Reliability ................................................... 16
4.2 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 17
4.3 Integrated Improvements................................................................................................ 17
5.0 Information Sources: .......................................................................................................... 19

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 3

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

1.0 Scope and Purpose

This best practice for penstocks, tunnels, and surge tanks addresses how innovations in
technology, proper condition assessments, and improvements in operation and maintenance
practices can contribute to maximizing overall plant performance and reliability. The primary
purpose of a penstock or tunnel is to transport water from the intake and deliver it to the
hydraulic turbine in the powerhouse. Once the water has been delivered to the turbine, it is
then released downstream into the discharge channel.

1.1 Hydropower Taxonomy Position

Hydropower Facility Water Conveyances Penstocks, Tunnels, & Surge Tanks

1.1.1Components
Penstocks: Penstocks are pressurized conduits that transport water from the first
free water surface to a turbine. Penstocks can be either exposed or built integral
with the dam structure as shown in Figure 1. Characteristics of functional
penstocks are structural stability, minimal water leakage, and maximum hydraulic
performance. Specific features of a penstock system include:
Main Shell Material: Typically penstock shells are constructed of large
round steel cross-sections. Fabricated welded steel is generally considered
to be the better option when dealing with larger heads and diameters;
however, pre-stressed or reinforced concrete, glass-reinforced plastic
(GRP), and PVC plastic pipes are also utilized.
Shell Linings and Coatings: The protective membrane applied to the
interior (linings) and exposed exterior surfaces (coatings) which provide
corrosion protection and water tightness.
Connection Hardware: Includes rivets, welds, bolts, etc.
Unrestrained Joints: Includes expansion joints or sleeve-type couplings
spaced along the penstock span to allow for longitudinal expansion of the
pipe due to changes in temperature.
Air Valves: The primary function of air valves is to vent air to and from
the penstock during both operating conditions and watering/dewatering of
the penstock.
Control Valves: Includes bypass, filling, shutoff valves, and gate valves
used during watering and dewatering, redirecting flows, emergency
shutoff, etc [2].
Manholes and Other Penetrations: Includes items directly attached to the
penstock and exposed to the internal pressure such as manholes, air vents
and, filling line connections.

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 4

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

Above Ground Supports: Includes saddles, ring girders, and anchor/thrust

blocks which are susceptible to settlement or movement. The shell
material and exterior coating are also more likely to experience premature
failure at support locations due to high stresses and surface irregularities
and should be periodically inspected.
Surrounding soil backfill or concrete encasement for below ground
structures
Appurtenances: Includes transitions, bends, tees, elbows, and reducers.
Appurtenances are especially susceptible to excessive vibrations, aging,
and lining loss.
Dewatering Drains: Drains located typically at low points along the
penstock span used during dewatering. Since drains are prone to blockage
or leakage, regular inspection and cleaning of drains should be
implemented [2].
Instrumentation: Any instrumentation associated with water conveyance
components such as penstocks and tunnels. This can include pressure
relief systems, emergency gate control system, and valve operators.

Figure 1: Exposed Penstocks at the Appalachia Hydroelectric Plant, Polk County, Tennessee

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 5

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

Figure 2: Penstock Integral with Dam Structure

Tunnels: Tunnels are underground passageways commonly in rock used to carry

water for power between two points. A typical arrangement is to convey water for
power in a tunnel at low head, followed by a transition to a steep penstock to the
powerhouse, with surge handled in a surge tank at the transition. A tunnel can be
pressurized or unpressurized. Unpressurized tunnel flow is similar to open
channel flow. This document addresses tunnels with pressurized flow. Depending
on the condition of the surrounding rock or available tunneling technology,
tunnels can be lined with concrete, shotcrete, or unlined. Different linings and
rock conditions will determine the amount of water leakage and head loss through
tunnels.
Surge Tanks: The surge tank is an integral part of the penstock system whose
purpose is to help provide plant stability and minimize water hammer by limiting
the rise and fall of pressure within the penstock. Surge tanks are also used to help
regulate flow and improve turbine speed regulation. There are two categories of
surge tanks: conventional open surge tank and closed air cushion surge chamber.
The open surge tank can have various shapes (horizontal area as a function of
elevation) and overflow arrangements. Any space that may be temporarily
occupied by water during transient operation should be regarded as a surge tank
(e.g. aeration pipe, gate shaft, access shaft). The air cushion chamber can reduce
the total volume of the tank and can be designed for less favorable topographic
conditions; however, maintenance may be needed for compressed air
compensation. Surge tanks are typically excavated underground and lined with
steel plate, wood, or reinforced concrete. They experience issues similar to that of
penstocks such as deterioration or corrosion of tank material, breakdown in
coatings and linings, and damage or deterioration to tank mechanical
appurtenances. Figure 3 shows an example of a surge tank erected on the ground
surface.
In some hydropower stations, the tailrace also consists of pressurized tunnels with
or without surge tanks.

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 6

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

Figure 3: Steel Surge Tank at Isawa II Power Station in Japan

1.2 Summary of Best Practices

1.2.1Performance/Efficiency & Capability - Oriented Best Practices

Routine monitoring and recording of head loss through penstocks and tunnels.
Trend head loss through penstocks and tunnels, comparing Current Performance
Level (CPL) to Potential Performance Level (PPL) to trigger feasibility studies of
major upgrades.
Maintain documentation of Installed Performance Level (IPL) and update when
modification to components is made (e.g. replacement of lining or coating,
addition of slot fillers).
Include industry acknowledged up-to-date choices for penstock and tunnel
component materials and maintenance practices to plant engineering standards.

1.2.2Reliability/Operations & Maintenance - Oriented Best Practices

Develop a routine inspection and maintenance plan.
If the exterior surface of the penstock is not already coated, provide exterior
coating to protect penstock shell and extend life.
Routinely inspect exterior supports or anchor blocks for signs of settlement or
erosion. Misalignment of the penstock could also indicate slope stability issues or
settlement.
Regularly inspect joints for leakage, corroded or missing rivets or bolts, cracked
welds and for concrete penstocks deterioration of waterstops or gaskets.

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 7

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

If build-up within the penstock is present, recommend high-pressure cleaning. If

organic build-up is a persistent problem, recommend replacing liner with a
fouling release type product.
Repair/replace interior liners as required to prevent shell corrosion and extend the
penstock shell life.
Routinely inspect tunnels for signs of erosion or leakage.
Water hammer or transient flow is an unavoidable and critical issue in any
pressurized water conveyance system. Water hammer can result from any load
variations, load rejections, operating mode changes, unit startup and shutdown,
and operational errors. Water hammer and transient flow can cause major
problems ranging from noise and vibrations to pipe collapse and total system
failure. Therefore, water hammer protection devices such as surge tanks, air
chambers, air valves, and pressure relief valves should be routinely inspected to
ensure they are functioning properly. In addition, flow and load control devices
such as the governor, turbine wicket gates, and penstock control valves should be
routinely checked to prevent water hammer incidences. If found to be suspicious,
measurements and further investigation should be immediately performed.

1.3 Best Practice Cross-references

Civil Trash Racks and Intakes Best Practice
Civil Leakage and Releases Best Practice
Civil Flumes/Open Channels Best Practice
Civil Draft Tube Gates Best Practice

2.0 Technology Design Summary

2.1 Material and Design Technology Evolution

Coatings and linings for penstocks provide protection for the shell material and are critical to
the performance and longevity of the penstock [6]. Coating and lining technology has rapidly
evolved in recent years. Penstocks in many hydroelectric facilities have not been re-lined in
several years or have only applied local repairs to the original linings. For this reason, it is
crucial that plants perform routine evaluations as to the condition of both linings and coatings
so as to avoid costly repairs or loss of revenue due to unscheduled shutdowns.
Historically, coal tar liners have been used to line the interior of penstocks. From the 1800s
to 1940 a molten coal tar was used with a 15 to 20 year expected life span. However, these
liners became brittle with time which led to cracking. Coal tar enamels became readily used
after 1940 with an expected life span of 20 to 30 years. These liners were discontinued after
the 1960s due to health and environmental concerns over high Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) levels. Between 1960 and 1980, coal tar epoxies were used; however, due to thinner
applications, these liners had only a 15 year life span. It was not till the 1980s that high

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 8

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

performance 100% epoxies were used (25 to 30 year life expectancy) [5]. Innovations in
epoxy liners are rapidly evolving. Liners were originally used only to provide corrosion
protection and water tightness; however, recent innovations in silicone and epoxy liners can
provide resistance to build-up due to organic growth, reduction in frictional resistance, and
an increase in water flow rate performance. Also, newer liners have longer life expectancies
and limit costly maintenance or repair expenses.
Tunneling technology has also evolved over the last decades. In the 1950s most pressurized
tunnels and shafts were steel lined. Today, there are specialized techniques and design
concepts for unlined, high-pressure tunnels, shafts, and air cushion surge chambers which
have been developed and well-practiced in Europe and China. The cost of lining a meter of
tunnel is often two to three times the cost of excavating the tunnel; therefore, new tunneling
technology significantly saves in cost and construction time. This allows for the design of a
larger cross-sectional area of tunnel with lower flow velocity. Larger tunnels are more
tolerant of falling rocks and minor blockage along the tunnel floor given there is a rock trap
at the end of the headrace tunnel. This trade-off in tunnel design and construction may not
increase the head loss or leakage; however, the condition of the tunnel should be routinely
inspected to prevent serious collapses or local tunnel blockages.

2.2 State of the Art Technology

Penstocks are pressurized conduits designed to transport water from the first free water
surface to the turbine with maximum hydraulic performance. By using state of the art
technology for new liners such as silicone-based fouling release systems, the surface
roughness of the penstock interior can be reduced (i.e. minimize frictional resistance) and
organic buildup can be limited thus reducing head loss through the system. Advancement in
computer modeling technology has also yielded more accurate penstock designs for
hydrodynamic loading limiting head loss, reducing water hammer effects, and extending life
expectancy of both liners and shell material. In addition computer modeling allows for more
accurate design for updated seismic criteria per modern building codes.
It is important to periodically collect performance data on penstocks, tunnels, surge tank and
associated components. Instrumentation technology is rapidly evolving and improving in
accuracy and reliability. By using state-of-the-art technology, hydroelectric facilities can
monitor pressure levels, movement, flow, temperature, stress, and strain. These
measurements can alert plant personnel to any changes in performance levels or required
maintenance. Also reliable performance data can be used to determine upgrade or
modernization opportunities for water conveyance systems such as penstocks and tunnels.
State of the art tunneling technology allows for a larger excavation volume which reduces the
flow velocity and thus reduces hydraulic head losses. The innovative containment principles
and permeability control measures (e.g. grouting) used in tunnel design and construction can
minimize water leakage through the rock mass.

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 9

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

3.0 Operation and Maintenance Practices

3.1 Condition Assessment

Since penstocks, tunnels, and surge tanks are exposed to occasional severe service conditions
and are expected to perform reliably for extended periods of 50 years or more, they are prone
to the following maintenance issues:
Deterioration of linings and coatings
Corrosion/thinning of steel penstock shell and other steel components
Leaking at joints/couplings
Erosion or cavitation
Organic growth on interior surfaces
Localized buckling
Air vent blockage or pressure relief valve malfunction
Foundation settlement
Slope instabilities
Sedimentation
Condition assessments of penstocks, tunnels, and surge tanks are conducted primarily by
visual examination and physical measurements. The purpose of these inspections is to
determine structural integrity, life expectancy, and necessary improvements of the
conveyance components. Most parts of these components will be difficult to inspect.
Typically, the interior inspections will require dewatering and will present a hazardous
working environment, with poor ventilation, slippery surfaces, and steep inclines. Inspection
of some components may require the use of divers or remote-controlled video equipment
(e.g., remote-operated vehicles, or ROVs). If a penstock is buried or integral with the dam
structure, an exterior inspection is not possible. Where exposed, the penstock exterior should
be inspected during full operating pressure to detect any leakage [9]. Visual inspection
typically includes assessments of corrosion, coatings, rivets/joints, general alignment,
foundation conditions, and stability of supporting and adjacent earth slopes. Non-destructive
examination (NDE) testing, which should be performed on penstocks where accessible,
includes shell thickness measurements and dimensional measurements for alignment,
ovalling, and bulging. Additionally, concrete structures must be inspected for excessive
cracking and pitting. Baseline crack maps should be prepared so that new or worsened
conditions can be observed and documented [1].
It is important to schedule routine and thorough inspections of all penstock, tunnel, and surge
tank components. This will help identify any defects or other maintenance issues. Through
proper inspection, any unscheduled shutdowns for maintenance or repair can be minimized.

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 10

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

When developing an inspection program, an important step in the planning phase is to

acquire critical design and operating histories. This can include, but is not limited to, the
initial design criteria, geotechnical/foundation information, as-built drawings, construction
information, operation history, and records of previous maintenance issues [5].
Once a comprehensive history of the penstock, tunnel, and surge tank performance has been
acquired, personnel can develop an inspection plan. A schedule should be implemented to
periodically monitor maintenance issues. These inspections should be conducted at least once
every five years [2].
Several factors can affect how often inspections of penstocks and tunnels should occur,
including age, accessibility, public safety or environmental concerns, construction, and
previous maintenance problems [2]. An efficient and comprehensive inspection plan, specific
for each facility, should be developed after carefully considering all contributing factors. As
previously noted, inspections of penstock and tunnel components generally require
dewatering of the system. Therefore, inspections would ideally occur during scheduled unit
outages to minimize system down time. See Tables 2-1 and 2-2 in Steel Penstock Coating
and Lining Rehabilitation: A Hydropower Technology Round-Up Report [5] for additional
guidance in developing an inspection program.

3.2 Operations
Periodic flow measurements should be obtained to determine that the water conveyance
system is functioning optimally. It is also important to routinely monitor changes in pressure
within the water conveyance system.
Performing a hydraulic transient analysis consists of computer simulation of the water
conveyance system and turbine-generator units to calculate pressure at all critical locations in
the system [2]. The maximum operating pressures within the system can be determined
through load rejection testing. Testing should be performed for a full range of operating
conditions. The scope of measurement during the transient testing should include continuous
records for the following:
Pressures at the chosen points along the tunnel, penstock, immediately upstream and
downstream of the turbine, and along the outlet tailrace tunnel;
Pressures within the turbines: spiral case, head cover, under runner, and in the draft
tube;
Wicket gate openings;
Angles of runner blades for the Kaplan turbines;
Strokes of penstock control valves;
Speed of turbine units;
Torques acting on the coupling;

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 11

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

Axial hydraulic thrust;

Displacement and vibration of bearings.
The recorded data is very important for transient investigation and analysis. In addition, the
following parameters are to be recorded intermittently during steady-state operations before
and after transient conditions. Note that these values should agree with the corresponding
values recorded continuously.
Water levels in head reservoir and tailrace;
Wicket gate openings and angle of runner blades for Kaplan turbines;
Pressures in penstock, upstream and downstream of the powerhouse, and the tailrace
tunnel;
Pressures within the turbines: spiral case, head cover, under runner, and in the draft
tube;
Electric current and voltage in the generator;
Angular speed of turbine units.
When observed and computer simulated values fit well with each other, the program of
measurements and investigations could be shortened or revised. By determining the
maximum and minimum operating pressures, a comparison to the original system design can
be made which can help to identify significant operational changes and potential upgrade
needs.
In addition, it is important to ensure that the penstock emergency gates are functioning
properly, i.e. gates open and close freely with no binding or leakage. Emergency gate tests at
balanced head should be performed on an annual basis and every 5 to 10 years for
unbalanced head. Opening/closing times and operating pressure should be recorded for future
testing comparison [2].
During plant operations, it is important to routinely inspect the exterior surfaces of penstocks
for signs of leakage while penstock is under hydrostatic pressure. If any leaks are discovered,
the source should be promptly identified and repair performed. Leakage not only increases
head loss over time, it may be indicative of more severe issues such slope instability,
foundation movement, penstock misalignment, severe corrosion, or joint failure.

3.3 Maintenance
Penstocks and tunnels carry water from the intake to the generator and introduce head loss to
the system through hydraulic friction and geometric changes in the water passageway such as
bends, contractions, and expansions. Reduction of these losses through upgrades or
replacement can improve plant efficiency and generation. However, because of the relatively
small available efficiency improvements, these actions are unlikely to be justifiable on the
grounds of reducing head losses alone [8]. Therefore, upgrading or replacing penstock and

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 12

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

tunnel structures will typically be economically viable only if the plant is already scheduled
for a shutdown to address other related improvements or maintenance concerns.
Although upgrades to penstocks and tunnels will have a minor effect on generation
efficiency, maintenance and life-extending repairs of these structures are very important.
Since any unscheduled repair generally requires dewatering of the system with subsequent
loss of power production, any plant shutdowns to repair penstock and tunnel structures will
have a significant effect on plant availability and generation.
Evaluating head loss in penstocks and tunnels can point to ways of increased plant efficiency.
Head loss can be caused by joints and bends, changes in diameter, and roughness and
irregularities of conveyance structures. The geometry of a penstock or tunnel structure is not
easily modified. Therefore, decreasing head losses by removing or reducing the number of
existing joints and bends is not usually an economically viable undertaking. However, if
replacement of a penstock or tunnel structure is required for other maintenance reasons, a
detailed evaluation of rerouting the waterway to increase efficiency would be warranted. In
this case, the penstock or tunnel material and diameter should also be a design consideration.
Friction Factors for Large Conduits Flowing Full [3] gives Darcy friction factors for
different conduit materials and construction types as a function of Reynolds number (Re).
These friction coefficients are directly proportional to the total frictional head loss.
Therefore, if replacement is required, selection of lower friction material and construction
types would be integral in reducing head loss through the penstock or tunnel structure. Head
losses are also proportional to the square of the velocity, so the appropriate diameter should
be verified. This is particularly important at older facilities where the hydraulic capacity
requirements of the penstock or tunnel structure may have changed over time.
The internal surface roughness of penstocks contributes to head loss and can often be reduced
to yield an increase in efficiency. In one plant studied where the penstock is 130 feet long a
net gain of head of 0.65 feet could be realized by replacing the riveted penstocks with welded
steel, spun-tar lined penstocks. The generation gain would be more than one million kWh per
year [8]. Surface roughness reductions can also be achieved by coating the inside of the
penstock. Many different coating materials are available and the use of a specific material
type will be dependent on project-specific needs. Some coatings not only improve surface
roughness but can also prevent organic buildup. These coatings, such as silicone-based
fouling release systems, should be considered where bio-fouling is a design consideration.
Surface roughness may also be reduced by scrubbing and cleaning the interior of the
penstock, removing buildup of foreign material such as invasive zebra mussels as shown in
Figure 4. In one study, the surface roughness of two identical steel conduits was examined.
One conduit surface was considered quite smooth while the other had accumulated
significant organic buildup. The average Darcy friction factors under normal operating
conditions were calculated at 0.13 for the smooth pipe and 0.20 for the pipe with buildup [3].
By restoring similarly affected penstocks to their original surface conditions, plant operators
could expect comparable results, possibly reducing friction head losses by up to 35%, as in
the case study.

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 13

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

Figure 4: Invasive Zebra Mussels on Steel Surface

Head loss in tunnels can be caused by similar hydraulic phenomena that affect head loss in
penstocks such as sharp bends in routing, variations in diameter, and surface roughness of the
tunnel wall. Tunnels can be both lined and unlined, and the roughness of the wall relative to
its cross-sectional dimensions is fundamental to the efficiency with which it will convey
water [10]. Typical causes of head loss in tunnels that have the potential for efficiency
upgrades include rock fallout in unlined tunnels, significant and abrupt changes in rock
tunnel diameter, and organic buildup. Slime growth in tunnels can be a serious
problemone plant is on record as losing 3% of maximum power due to this [8]. It should
be noted that by relieving one problem, others may emerge. Removing organic buildup can
expose rough linings or rock walls that have comparable head loss characteristics. Perhaps
the best technique for improving efficiencies in tunnels is to decrease surface roughness by
either filling in large cavities in the rock wall with grout or installing some type of lining. A
major modification for substantial reduction in head loss is the installation of concrete lining
(or to a lesser extent a paved invert) in a formerly unlined tunnel [8]. Lining or grouting the
tunnel wall can result in an increase in efficiency by reducing leakage into the surrounding
rock which can reduce the available generation flow.
Penstock shell thickness measurements need to be taken and monitored periodically to
identify losses in thickness, which must then be compared with minimum acceptable
thickness values. If shell thinning exceeds acceptable values for structural integrity,
corrective actions must be taken [9]. Deteriorated penstocks may be rehabilitated by patching
at localized areas of need, lining with a material such as fiberglass to reinforce the structure
of the penstock, or replacing the existing penstock [7].

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 14

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

Figure 5: Exposed Portion of Penstock at Center Hill Hydro Plant in DeKalb Co., Tennessee

Another concern for penstock structural integrity is ovalization or out-of-roundness due to

improper installation or design. If this occurs, the penstock diameter should be measured at
various locations along its length and recorded to help monitor any geometric changes. Other
possible structural problems that must be carefully monitored include penstock alignment,
pinhole leaks, and localized shell buckling. Additionally, it is important to carefully inspect
the shell liner for protrusions, caused by organic growth, marine organisms (e.g., mussels),
and degradation of the linings or coatings all of which can impede water flow [2].
Ultrasonic devices can be utilized for determining shell thickness and rivet integrity. There
have also been advances in remote-controlled video equipment (e.g., ROVs) for use in
inspections of penstocks and intakes where access is limited that allow for safe and efficient
inspections. Portions of penstocks that cannot be dewatered or readily dewatered should be
periodically inspected by a diver or an ROV. For more information on non-destructive testing
methods see Steel Penstocks [9].
After the inspection, an evaluation should be done to determine if corrective actions need to
be taken and what is the best way to implement them. The evaluation of penstock and tunnel
components should be performed by a qualified individual or team to determine the systems
reliability to perform per the original design criteria and to make recommendations for future
inspection frequency and areas of focus.
The key to improving system performance through penstock and tunnel component
rehabilitation can be summarized as follows: 1) Development of an inspection/maintenance
program based on individual system needs; 2) Effective implementation of the inspection
program; 3) Proper evaluation of inspection results; 4) Recommendations for rehabilitation
and repairs with focus on efficiency improvements and service life extension; and 5)

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 15

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

Execution of upgrades and repairs with limited system shutdown time. Establishing a proper
maintenance program can reduce the occurrence of unscheduled shutdowns and efficiency
losses in penstock and tunnel components.

4.0 Metrics, Monitoring and Analysis

4.1 Measures of Performance, Condition, and Reliability

The fundamental equations for evaluating efficiency through penstocks and tunnels is the
Darcy-Weisbach equation for head loss due to friction and the equation for head loss due to
minor losses from geometric irregularities such as gate slots and bends. Avoidable head
losses can be directly related to overall power/energy loss and subsequent loss of revenue for
the plant. These equations are defined as follows:
Avoidable head loss due to friction, hf (ft), from the Darcy-Weisbach equation:

Where: f is the difference in Darcy friction factors computed for the existing
roughness conditions and roughness conditions after potential upgrade
L is the length of the conveyance component (ft)
V is the average flow velocity or flow rate per cross-sectional area (ft/s)
D is the hydraulic diameter (ft)
g is the acceleration due to gravity (ft/s2)

Avoidable head loss due to minor losses (e.g., gate slots), hm (ft):

Where: K is the difference in minor head loss coefficients computed for existing wall
irregularities from gate slots and for conditions with irregularities removed by use
of slot fillers after potential upgrades.
V is the average flow velocity or flow rate per cross-sectional area (ft/s)
g is the acceleration due to gravity (ft/s2)

Other key values required to complete the computations for avoidable head losses include the
dimensionless Reynolds number, Re, Darcy friction factor, f, kinematic viscosity, v (ft2/s),
and equivalent roughness (ft). If the Reynolds number and relative roughness of the
penstock shell or tunnel interior are known, the Darcy friction factor can be determined using
either the Moody diagram or the associated Colebrook-White equation. If exact relative
roughness measurements are unavailable, an approximate Darcy friction factor can be
determined by comparing the existing conditions with charts found in publications such as
Friction Factors for Large Conduits Flowing Full [3], which provide data of measured Darcy
friction factors for various construction materials.

Avoidable power loss, P (MW), associated with hf or hm:

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 16

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

P = Q h / 737,562
Where: Q is the average volumetric flow rate through the plant (ft3/sec)
is the specific weight of water (62.4 lb/ft3)
h is the avoidable head loss
737,562 is the conversion from pound-feet per second to megawatts

Avoidable energy loss, E (MWh), associated with hf or hm:

E = PT
Where: P is the avoidable power loss (MWh)
T is the measurement interval (hrs.)

Avoidable revenue loss, R ($), associated with hf or hm:

R = ME E

Where: ME is the market value of energy ($/MWh)

E is the avoidable energy loss

4.2 Data Analysis

Determination of the Potential Performance Level (PPL) will require reference to the flow
characteristics of the modified geometry and/or surface roughness of the penstock or tunnel
components. The PPL will vary for each plant. However, the maximum PPL will be based on
the flow characteristics of the most efficient available upgrade.
The Current Performance Level (CPL) is described by an accurate set of water conveyance
component performance characteristics determined by flow and head measurements and/or
hydraulic modeling of the system.
The Installed Performance Level (IPL) is described by the water conveyance component
performance characteristics at the time of commissioning or at the point when an upgrade or
addition is made. These may be determined from reports and records of efficiency and/or
model testing at the time of commissioning or upgrade.
The CPL should be compared with the IPL to determine decreases in water conveyance
system efficiency over time. Additionally, the PPL should be identified when considering
plant upgrades. For quantification of the PPL with respect to the CPL, see Quantification for
Avoidable Losses and/or Potential Improvements Integration: Example Calculation.

4.3 Integrated Improvements

The periodic field test results should be used to update the unit operating characteristics and
limits. Optimally, these would be integrated into an automatic system (e.g., Automatic
Generation Control), but if not, hard copies of the data should be made available to all
involved personnel particularly unit operators, their importance emphasized, and their
ability to be understood confirmed. All necessary upgrades or maintenance (penstock re-

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 17

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

lining, penstock cleaning, etc) and methods to routinely monitor unit performance should be
implemented.

Integration: Example Calculation

A theoretical hydroelectric plant has three girth-welded steel penstocks integral with the dam
structure. The interior of the penstocks has significantly corroded over time. The hydraulic
properties of each penstock are as follows:
Length = 600 ft
Diameter = 14 ft
Average flow = 2200 cfs
Average velocity = 14 ft/s
If the penstocks are treated with a silicone-based coating system, the decrease in head loss
can be calculated as follows:
Surface roughness of existing penstocks (corroded steel w/ welded girth joints) = 0.005 ft
Relative roughness of existing penstocks = (0.005 ft) / (14 ft) = 3.6 x 10-4
Surface roughness of silicone coating = 0.000005 ft
Relative roughness of silicone coating = (0.000005 ft) / (14 ft) = 3.6 x 10-7
Re = (14 ft/s)(14 ft) / (1.0 x 10-5 ft2/s) = 1.9 x 107
From the Moody diagram:
fexisting = 0.016
fsilicone = 0.008 f = 0.016 0.008 = 0.008
The decrease in head loss per penstock:
hf = (0.008) [(600 ft) / (14 ft)] [(14 ft/s)2 / 2(32.2ft/s2)] = 1.04 ft
The decrease in head loss in all three penstocks:
hf = 3 (1.04 ft) = 3.13 ft
The increase in power production can be calculated as:
P = (2200 cfs)(62.4 pcf)(3.13 ft) / 737,562 = 0.583 MW
At an estimated market value of energy of $65/MWh, and assuming the plant produces
power 75% of the time, the market value of increased power production can be calculated as:
0.75 (0.583 MW)($65/MWh)(8,760 hours/year) = $250,000/year
This analysis indicates an available energy and revenue increase over the performance
assessment interval.

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 18

 HAP Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels

5.0 Information Sources:

Baseline Knowledge:
1. Bureau of Reclamation, Veesaert, Chris J., Inspection of Spillways, Outlet Works and
Mechanical Equipment, National Dam Safety Program Technical Seminar Session XVI,
February 2007.
2. Bureau of Reclamation, McStraw, Bill, Inspection of Steel Penstocks and Pressure Conduits,
Facilities Instructions, Standards, and Techniques, Volumes 2-8, September 1996.
3. Bureau of Reclamation, Friction Factors for Large Conduits Flowing Full, A Water
Resources Technical Publication, Engineering Monograph No. 7, Reprinted 1992.
4. Pejovic, Boldy and Obradovic, Guidelines to Hydraulic Transient Analysis. Gower
Publishing Company, Brookfield, Vermont. 1987.
5. Hydro Life Extension Modernization Guide, Volume 3: Electromechanical Equipment, EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2001. TR-112350-V3.
State of the Art:
6. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Steel Penstock Coating and Lining
Rehabilitation: A Hydropower Technology Round-Up Report, Volume 3, TR-113584-V3,
2000.
7. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Civil Works for Hydroelectric Facilities
Guidelines for Life Extension and Upgrade, ASCE Hydropower Task Committee, 2007.
8. Kahl, Thomas L., Restoring Aging Penstocks, Hydro Review, December 1992.
Standards:
9. EPRI, Increased Efficiency of Hydroelectric Power, EM-2407, Research Project 1745-1,
Final Report, June 1982.
10. ASCE, Steel Penstocks, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 79, 1993.
11. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Engineering and Design Tunnels and
Shafts in Rock, EM 1110-2-2901, May 1997.
12. USACE, Engineering and Design Hydraulic Design of Reservoir Outlet Works, EM 1110-
2-1602, October 1980
It should be noted by the user that this document is intended only as a guide. Statements are of a
general nature and therefore do not take into account special situations that can differ
significantly from those discussed in this document.

Rev. 1.0, 12/06/2011 19