Air Demand Behind Emergency Closure Gates
Air Demand Behind Emergency Closure Gates
Air Demand Behind Emergency Closure Gates
net/publication/233162257
CITATIONS READS
7 445
1 author:
Ismail Aydin
Middle East Technical University
41 PUBLICATIONS 247 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ismail Aydin on 15 February 2015.
ISMAIL AYDIN, Assoc. Prof., Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey
ABSTRACT
Pressure drop and consecutive air demand behind high head gates during emergency closure is studied by physical and mathematical models. Measure-
ments are done on hydraulic model of a leaf gate installed in the intake structure of a penstock. Local loss coefficients are determined as functions of
Reynolds number and gate openings from measurements of discharge and piezometric levels at static positions of the gate. A mathematical model for
the unsteady flow due to closing gate is formed by applying the integral continuity and energy equations on control volumes upstream and downstream
of the gate. Dimensionless numbers relevant to the problem are obtained by dimensional analysis of the governing equations. Timewise variations of
air discharge in the ventilation shaft and pressure behind the gate are obtained from numerical solution of the model equations. The relative air demand
is computed over substantial ranges of dimensionless parameters and some design considerations are discussed.
RÉSUMÉ
La chute de pression et l’appel d’air induit derrière les vannes amont de hautes chutes pendant une fermeture d’urgence sont étudiés avec des modèles
physique et mathématique. Les mesures sont réalisées sur un modèle hydraulique de vantail de vanne installé dans la prise d’eau d’une conduite
d’amenée. Les pertes de charge locales sont déterminées comme fonctions du nombre de Reynolds et les ouvertures de vanne à partir des mesures de
débit et des hauteurs piézométriques relevés pour des positions statiques de la vanne. Un modèle mathématique de l’écoulement instationnaire dû à
la fermeture de vanne est réalisé en appliquant les équations intégrales de continuité et d’énergie aux volumes de contrôle à l’amont et à l’aval de la
vanne. Les nombres sans dimension appropriés sont donnés par l’analyse dimensionnelle des équations. Les variations temporelles du débit d’air dans
le puits de ventilation et de la pression derrière la vanne sont donnés par la solution numérique du modèle. L’appel d’air relatif est calculé pour une
large gamme de paramètres adimensionnels et certains aspects de conception sont discutés.
1 Introduction fied according to the type of flow pattern (Falvey 1980). The flow
patterns which develop depend on the air flowrate to water
Leaf gates are preferred in large cross-sectioned intake and outlet flowrate ratio, slope of the conduit and existance of a hydraulic
structures under high heads for ordinary discharge control and jump. In a penstock initially water fills the whole system, flow is
emergency closure operations owing to ease in construction and single component. During gate closure all types of multicompo-
maintenance. However, leaf gates may be subjected to large nent air-water flows may exist temporarily at certain sections, and
downpull forces and severe vibration as a result of high speed finally after complete closure of the gate, single component flow
fluid around the gate lip and low pressures due to suction induced of air starts from the gate region and continues until water is to-
by high momentum fluid downstream of the control section tally drained from the penstock. It is not practical and fortunately
(Naudascher 1991). Common application to reduce suction and not necessary to study the specific patterns of air-water flows that
adverse effects of it is aeration of the downstream face of the gate may develop during gate closure for investigation of the overall
by means of ventilation shafts located immediately after the gate. air demand problem.
From design point of view different categories of air-water flow In the design of ventilation shaft the maximum airflow rate must
in closed conduits may be considered depending on the mecha- be estimated first. Appropriate dimensioning and determination
nisms that create the air demand. In the present study, falling wa- of the pressure drop across the shaft allows estimation of the re-
ter surface elevation behind a high head leaf gate during emer- duced pressure acting on downstream of the gate which is an es-
gency closure and the consequent insufflation of air and the pres- sential parameter in the analysis of the structural components
sure drop are investigated. As the gate is closed, water flowing which must withstand the imposed loads. The pressure down-
into the intake from the reservoir is gradually decreased. Reduc- stream of the gate must be prevented from becoming too low as
tion in discharge upstream of the gate is almost syncronized with cavitation damage may result during prolonged periods of opera-
the gate motion even in emergency closures. However, decelera- tion. It is not allowed but if the pressure in the water body drops
tion of fluid downstream of the gate, where a big volume maybe below the vapor pressure of water, water column separation and
flowing, is not at the same rate as the upstream, water volume in rejoining may occur which induces water hammer problems. An-
the penstock continues to flow through the turbine in the power other consequence of low pressure is increased downpull force
plant by inhaling air from the ventilation shaft. Large amounts of acting on the gate, which must be added to dead weight in the
air may enter through the ventilation shafts in a short time period design of hoisting mechanisms.
to maintain volumetric continuity so as to prevent large negative Steady state air demand has been the subject of papers by Sharma
pressures behind the gate. 1976, Robben and Rouve 1984, Fuentes and Garcia 1984, and
Multicomponent, air-water, flow in a closed conduit can be classi- Jaramillo 1988. Falvey 1968 introduces a method for time depen-
Revision received December 13, 2000. Open for discussion till August 31, 2002.
where ∆he is the entrance loss, ∆hg is the head loss mainly due to where Rp (=DUp/ν) is the Reynolds number in the penstock.
separated flows around the gate slots when the gate is fully open,
∆hd is the total head loss including friction and local losses from
2.3 Steady flow case for partially opened gate
the gate region down to the tailwater. Above mentioned head
losses are expressed as When the gate is lowered to reduce the discharge, flow section
downstream of the gate is contracted and pressure is reduced by
U g2 U2 increased velocity. A large vortex structure recirculating on top
∆h e = H 1 − h 2 + = Ke g (2) of the contracted section is formed. In the present model the con-
2g 2g
tracted section (section-3 in Fig.1) is located just under the venti-
lation shaft. When the Froude number at section-3 is sufficiently
U g2 high, a submerged hydraulic jump is formed introducing addi-
∆h g = h 2 − h 3 = K g (3) tional energy losses. Later, as the water level in the shaft goes
2g
below the tunnel ceiling, air enters from the shaft and a free-sur-
and rewriting (1) for ∆hd, faced hydraulic jump is observed. At early stages of aeration, air
is well mixed with water by the hydraulic jump which occupies
U 2p the whole cross section. As the gate is continued to close, air
∆h d = H 1 − ∆h e − ∆h g − H 4 = K d (4) volume in the system increases, the jump moves down, and a
2g
stratified flow of air and water separated with a distinct interface
In the above equations Ug is the average velocity of flow under develops.
the gate lip (section-2), Up is the average flow velocity in the pen- Local losses around the gate should be reformulated to include
stock, Ke, Kg and Kd are local loss coefficients. Equations (2) and the changes in flow patterns due to geometric constriction at par-
(3) are solved for Ke and Kg respectively using the curves fitted tial gate openings. Equation (1) is modified to incorporate addi-
to measured data sets (Fig.2), and the results are expressed as tional head losses.
44732 H 1 − ∆h e − ∆h g − ∆h j − ∆h d = H 4 (8)
K e = 0.105 + (5)
Rg
Here, ∆hg represents local losses due to gate at partial openings,
∆hj is the head loss due to the hydraulic jump, ∆he and ∆hd are the
same as before. To determine the gate losses, energy equation can
be written between the reservoir and section-3.
U c2
H 1 − ∆h e − ∆h g = h 3 + (9)
2g
Fig.3 Flow depths at the vena contracta Fig.4 Gate region local loss coefficients at partial gate openings
Q g = A g C d 2g (H 1 − h 3 − ∆h o ) (16.a)
where
−1 / 2
C d = K g + K e y 2 + 1 / C c2 (16.b)
and
(Q o2 + 2Q g Q o ) K e
∆h o = 2 (16.c)
2g A
t
and the water level at section-3 can be written as
SI
b= (21.c)
g∆t
S Q n −1 (Q o + 2Q o Q g ) K g 1
2
Pa
c = h3+ − H1 − I I − + 2 (21.d)
γw g∆t 2g 2
A g A c
Fig.6 Comparison of computed and measured water levels in the ven- The penstock region has two inflow sections and one outflow sec-
tilation shaft tion. The inflows are through the gate opening and ventilation
shaft. The integral energy equation for the penstock including the
three active sections can be written as
where H1 and Hc represent the total heads in the reservoir and in
the contracted section, respectively. After substitution of head ∂ U2
loss expressions in terms of discharges and dividing by γw one ∫
∂t p 2g
+ z γ w d∀ = H c Q I γ w + H s Q s γ s − ∆h j Q I γ w
can write (22)
− ∆h d Q p γ w − H 4 Q p γ w
S I ∂Q
2
Q 2I Q g2
= H1 − K e
I
− K − h3 where subscript s indicates ventilation shaft, Hs is the total head
2g ∂t 2gA 2t
g
2gA g2
at the exit from the shaft into the penstock and Qp is the discharge
(18)
Q g2 P in the penstock. Initially, the ventilation shaft is filled with water
− − a Q I therefore subscript s indicates properties of water, later as air en-
2gA c γ w
2
ters into the system s indicates properties of air. Evaluating the
integrals and dividing each term by γw one obtains
where SI is the slenderness parameter of the intake structure de-
1 ∂ 2 ∂ γ
fined as
2g ∂t
( )
Q p S w + (z w ∀ w ) = H c Q I + H s Q s s − ∆h j Q I
∂t γw
dx (23)
SI = ∫ (19) KdQp
I
A − Q 2p − H 4 Q p
2gA 2p
in which x is the axial distance, A is the cross-sectional area. Pa
is the air pressure on the water surface in the ventilation shaft or where Sw is the slenderness parameter of water filled volume of
in the tunnel at section-3. The elevation head, z, in the integral the penstock, zw is the elevation of the centroid of the water filled
term in equation (17) is dropped since the intake is always full of volume, and w is the volume of water in the penstock. Using for-
water thus z is unvarying in time. Substituting (13) into (18) ward differences to express the time derivatives and regrouping
one can write
S I ∂Q I P Q2 K Kg 1
= H 1 − h 3 − a − I 2e + 2 + 2 aQ 2p + bQ p + c = 0.
g ∂t γ w 2g A t A g A c (24.a)
(20)
(Q o2 + 2Q o Q g ) K g 1
+ + 2 Sw K Qp
2g A 2 a= + d 2
g Ac (24.b)
2g∆t 2g A p
aQ 2I + bQ I + c = 0. (21.a)
penstock responds with a time lag since the ventilation shaft sup-
plying air volume into the penstock relieves the breaking action (Q 2m / 2g )S p
of the closing gate. The link between the intake and the penstock Hr = (27.b)
(Q 2m / 2g )S p + z p ∀ p
is maintained by the volumetric continuity equation written at the
interface of the two volumes.
Tc Q m
Tr = (27.c)
Qs = Q p − Q I (25) ∀p
where Qs is the volumetric flow rate in the ventilation shaft. The two dimensionless groups Hr and Tr scaling the unsteady
Equations (21), (24) and (25) are solved iteratively starting from terms in (27.a) are similarity parameters of the flow in the pen-
full gate opening to complete closure. In this iteration cycle, when stock for a given design, that is for a given set of head loss coeffi-
the ventilation shaft discharge is evaluated, the pressure at the cients. Hr is the ratio of the initial kinetic energy to the total (ki-
bottom end of the shaft can be obtained by writing the unsteady netic+potential) energy of the fluid in the penstock. When the
energy equation through the shaft. penstock is horizontal Hr receives the value of unity for the datum
shown in Fig.1 and thus dropping the second unsteady term in
U 2 L ∂U s (27.a). Tr is the ratio of closure time to the time necessary for a
Ps = Pa + γ w L w − K fw s − w (26.a) fluid particle to travel from the gate to the tailwater. For large
2g g ∂t
values of Tr the fluid particles are able to travel down to the
tailwater, transporting the latest dynamic properties into down-
U 2 L ∂U s stream regions and assisting the appropriate reduction in dis-
Pa = − γ a (K s + K fa + 1) s + a (26.b) charge. The flow rates in the intake and penstock regions are
2g g ∂t
close with low inflow rate from the ventilation shaft and the case
may be classified as ‘slow closure’. However, when the Tr value
where Lw is the length of water column in the shaft, Kfw is the is small the gate may close so fast that the downstream sections
frictional loss coefficient due to water column, Ks is the shaft en- may receive no information about the latest dynamic properties
trance loss coefficient, Kfa is the frictional loss coefficient due to at gate region since no fluid particle arrives and the flowrate is
air, La is air filled length of the shaft and Us is the velocity in the not adjusted properly, seeking additional volume flow from the
shaft. ventilation shaft to compensate the deficiency in water discharge.
This last case may be classified as ‘rapid closure’.
3.3 Application of dimensional analysis to unsteady flow in the
penstock 4 Results and Discussions
Before any attempt to the solution of the governing equations, The mathematical model described above is used to compute the
dimensional analysis is performed to determine the relevant discharges through the intake, the penstock and the ventilation
dimensionless groups. Dimensionless quantities are defined as shaft during emergency closure of the gate. The intake discharges
follows: for steady and unsteady cases are almost the same. The maximum
difference between steady and unsteady values for Tr=2 is less
Q H t γs than 1%. Therefore, for practical calculations (Tr>2) QI can be
Q+ = H+ = t+ = γ s+ =
Qm Hm Tc γw evaluated from (15) and (16), solution of (21.a) may not be re-
(26c) quired. Although this conclusion can be generalized to all intake
∀w Sw zw structures, as an exceptional case, if the slenderness parameter of
∀ +w = S +w = z +w =
∀p Sp zp the intake region, SI, is large enough, the unsteady term in (20) is
magnified and the unsteady QI can be greater than steady QI.
The flow rates in the shaft for the normal operation discharge
Subscript m refers to the initial (fully open gate) condition, Hm is (0.031m3/s) and for the runaway discharge (0.041m3/s) at an
the initial (maximum) total head in the penstock, Qm is the initial emergency closure speed of Tc=10s are shown in Fig.7. Until the
(maximum) discharge in a closure operation, Tc is the closure full breaking action of the gate is applied, the discharge in the
time, zp is the elevation of the centroid of the penstock, Sp is the shaft is small. The maximum of the air discharge is observed near
Fig.7 Timewise variation of air discharge in the ventilation shaft Computed air demand, Qa, normalized by the initial water dis-
charge in the penstock, Qm, is given in Fig.9. This chart is pro-
the complete closure at about 8% and 16% gate openings for the duced by varying the closure speed, Tc, only for the two initial
normal operation and runaway discharges, respectively. When the (normal operation and runaway) discharges corresponding to Hr
initial discharge is large, the breaking action starts earlier (Fig.6) values of 0.527 and 0.658 respectively. It can be seen that the
requiring larger maximum air discharges at an earlier stage of relative air demand Qa/Qm increases rapidly for Tr<2.
closure. To investigate the effect of the length of the penstock on the air
An example of transient pressure measured at the shaft exit (point demand, three different penstock lengths (L=1, 3.4, 9.5 m) are
t in Fig.1) is shown in Fig.8 together with the computed one. The considered with the normal operation discharge (Fig.10). For the
difference between computed and measured values is in the range extreme cases of very rapid and very slow closures air demand
of experimental accuracy. In the unsteady measurements it is becomes identical for all penstock lengths. However, around the
practically difficult to keep the model reservoir water level con- critical values of Tr=2 air demand differs significantly for vari-
stant during the gate closure owing to finite size of the model res- able penstock lengths.
ervoir. This results in timewise variation of H1 value and thus Air demand and the pressure drop behind the gate are affected
affects the flowrate and the pressure. As it is seen from Fig.7 and also by the ventilation shaft dimensions. As the shaft length in-
Fig.8 computations are continued for a while after the complete creases or diameter decreases the frictional losses increase. In-
closure of the gate until airflow in the system stops. creased friction loss results in negative pressure behind the gate
The air velocity along the centerline in the ventilation shaft is with reduced air discharge. Relative air demand and the associ-
computed from the total and static head records. Measured air ated minimum pressure heads are shown in Fig.11 as functions of
discharge values are obtained by integrating the power-law veloc- the dimensionless shaft length. Le is effective shaft length in-
ity distribution along the shaft cross-section. In the design of a creased to include the local losses. For Le/Ds>40 the reduction in
ventilation shaft the maximum air discharge during the fastest air discharge and the associated increase in pressure drop is
closure with the maximum initial discharge in the penstock must noticable.
be considered. Thus, ‘air demand, Qa’ can now be defined as the Air flow rate for the normal operation discharge computed with
variable speed gate closure is shown in Fig.12. In the first half of
Fig.8 Pressure behind the gate Fig.9 Air demand as function of closure speed