Presentation on theme: "Case of HPP Blanca, Slovenia Jernej Mazij, Litostroj Power d. o. o"— Presentation transcript:
1WATER HAMMER CONTROL ANALYSIS IN KAPLAN TURBINE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT Case of HPP Blanca, Slovenia Jernej Mazij, Litostroj Power d.o.o. CIGRE 2011Pržno, 16. –
2Content• Water hammer control• Computational method• Numerical and field test results• Conclusions
3Water hammer control (1) Alteration of operational regimes Regulation of the wicket gate and runner blade manoeuvres.(2) Installation of surge control devices in the systemIncreased turbine unit inertia, surge tank, air cushion surgechamber, pressure-regulating valve, pressure-relief valve,rupture disc, aeration pipe, air valve.(3) Redesign of the flow-passage system layoutConduit profile and dimensions, position of system components.
4Computational method 1) Elastic water hammer theory Transmission of pressure waves.(2) Rigid water hammer theoryIncompressible liquid and rigid pipe walls.Rigid water hammer is described by the one-dimensionalBernoulli equation for unsteady flow which is solvedsimultaneously with the dynamic equation of the turbine unitrotating masses, taking into account the turbine characteristics.
5Computational methodCriteria for potential danger of full water column separation under the turbine head cover(1) Turbine head cover pressure criterionThe computed absolute pressure should be larger than the vapour pressure.(2) Axial hydraulic thrust criterionThe maximum negative axial hydraulic thrust shall be less than the total weight of rotating parts of the unit and the damaging axial hydraulic thrust acting upwards.
6Computational method Axial hydraulic thrust criterion Maximum permissible axial hydraulic thrust acting in the negative direction:The damaging axial hydraulic thrust acting upwards:
7Numerical and Field Test Results Layout of the HPP Blanc with turbine runner diameter D = 5,0 m
8Numerical and Field Test Results Rigid water hammer analysis I(1) Normal operating regimes- turbine start-up- load acceptance- load reduction- normal shut-down of the unit- load rejection under governor control- mechanical quick-stop- emergency shut-down
9Numerical and Field Test Results Rigid water hammer analysis II(2) Emergency operating regimes- partial turbine runaway- emergency shut-down with inoperativerunner blades(3) Catastrophic operating regimes- turbine runaway (on-cam)- maximum turbine runaway (off-cam)
10Numerical and Field Test Results Prototype measurements- turbine start-up- testing of the turbine speed sensing device- load acceptance- load reduction- load rejection under governor control- mechanical quick-stop- electrical emergency shut-down- testing of auxiliary governor hydraulic system
11Numerical and Field Test Results Load rejection under governor control (P = 10,5 MW)
12Numerical and Field Test Results Emergency shut-down (P = 16,6 MW)
13Conclusions (1) The rigid water hammer theory can be used for plants with relatively short inlet and outletconduits.(2) Water column separation under the turbinehead cover can be indicated by the axialhydraulic thrust criterion.
14Conclusions (3) There is a reasonable agreement between the computed and measured magnitudesof the scroll case pressure head, turbinerotational speed and negative axial hydraulicthrust.(4) Larger discrepancies between the com-puted and measured traces of the turbinerotational speed and axial hydraulic thrustoccur at small wicket gate openings.