ECONOMIC SURGE TANK DESIGN BY SOPHISTICATED

HYDRAULIC THROTTLING

STEYRER PETER

Verbundplan GmbH
P.O.B. 161, 5021 Salzburg, Austria
Tel. (++43-662) 8682-22353
Fax (++43-662) 8682-165
e-mail: steyrerp@verbundplan.co.at

ABSTRACT
The author reports on an economic surge tank design for of the hydraulic system of
high-head, peak-load storage power plants. The operation of storage power plants
requires a completely free operation without any restrictions on changes in loading or
flow of neither the pumps nor the turbines. Examinations of traditional, simple shaft-
or chamber-type surge tanks show their ineffectiveness due to the required chamber
volume and the resulting costs. This demand led to the development of a more
effective throttling device in connection with dual chamber surge tanks. Several surge
tanks with this sophisticated system of the so-called reverse-flow throttle are already
under operation in Austria.

Keywords: Free operation, differential surge tank, unsteady flow, reverse flow throttle,
damping of oscillation

SELECTION OF SURGE TANK TYPE

The principle demand on a surge tank is to compensate the mass oscillation of the
water flow in the pressure tunnel of load changes of turbines and/or pumps, whereas
the construction type in connection with a suitable throttling device should effect in a
most powerful damping of the amplitude already in the very first period of oscillation.

Partial or full-load rejection leads to on upsurge oscillation, whereby the maximum

pressure is limited by the bearable stress of the concrete lining of the power tunnel.
Load demand, however is followed by a downsurge oscillation and the damping
effect of the throttling device should avoid reaction on the turbine or pump. In this
case the minimum pressure must not come below the elevation of the power tunnel.

For the design of the Häusling pumped-storage power plant and later for rebuilding of
a new waterway of Gerlos high-head power plant an investigation for the most
economic type of surge tank fulfilling the operational requirements has been carried
out. Four types of surge tanks with different throttling devices were investigated with
a specific computer software developed by Verbundplan and the results compared.

- (type 1) Shaft surge tank with orifice

- (type 2) Chamber surge tank with symmetric orifice
- (type 3) Differential surge tank with asymmetric orifice
- (type 4) Differential surge tank with reverse flow throttle
The obvious different characteristics and damping effects of chamber surge tanks
and differential types are compared as for example in figure 1 for a single load case
full load rejection. The graphs simply show the benefit of differential surge tanks due
to the much more effectiveness in damping of the oscillation.

Fig. 1: Different Characteristics and Damping Effect

SELECTION OF A SUITABLE THROTTLING DEVICE

Shaft surge tanks (type 1) and simple chamber surge tanks (type 2) usually are
equipped with simple throttle blends or asymmetric orifices. For the latter the ratio of
upsurge to downsurge losses varies from 1:2 about to 1:3 depending on the
geometric construction.
New methods were required to get this ratio up higher for economical surge tank
design. Such asymmetric reacting throttling devices can be used in principle only with
differential surge tanks (type 3). These consist of two separate hydraulic systems:
The lower chamber narrows at the end to a ventilation pipe with much smaller
diameter, leading upward into the upper chamber. The second system consists of the
upper chamber and shaft. The throttling device is located at the bottom of the shaft
and dramatically retards emptying of the shaft and the upper chamber. The pressure
is controlled by the level in the ventilation pipe which drops very fast, because as it
empties suddenly and unhindered into the lower chamber.
The so-called reverse flow throttle was developed based on an idea of Thoma. It
consists of a steel torus similar to a spiral casing of a Francis turbine (fig. 2). The
downsurge oscillation produces a vortex flow which stabilizes within a few seconds.
The water is forced to exit the torus through a small connection pipe rectangular to
the plane of the vortex flow and is discharged into the lower chamber. This change of
flow direction results in very high pressure losses, these are 20 – 50 times higher
than in reverse direction (type 4).

Fig. 2: Surge Tank with Reverse Flow Throttle

ECONOMY OF SURGE TANKS IN COMPARISON

For the Häusling pumped storage plant the difference between maximum and
minimum reservoir level is 110 m. For comparison of the 4 types of surge tanks the
extreme pressure in the power tunnel was the common criteria for calculating the flow
resistance of the throttling device.
The dimension of the shaft and the elevation for upper and lower chamber was
expected the same for all kinds of chamber type surge tanks. The shaft surge tank is
not directly comparable but it would have been needed a vertical shaft with diameter
15,0 m, a height of 190 m, and a volume of 33.600 m³. The results for the other three
types are shown in the following table:
 Surge tank Type Load- Upper Chamber Lower Chamber
case Volume % Volume %
2-chamber surge tank 2 1 4623 m³ 109 3226 m³ 128
with symmetric orifice 2 7219 m³ 171 5496 m³ 218
2-chamber differential 3 1 3452 m³ 82 2841 m³ 113
tank with asymmetric 2 5639 m³ 134 4697 m³ 187
orifice (ratio 1:3)
2-chamber differential 4 1 2316 m³ 55 1990 m³ 79
tank with reverse flow 2 4223 m³ 100 2516 m³ 100
throttle (ratio 1:30)

The investigation for combined loading cases (fig. 3) shows that by using a modern
reverse flow throttle (type 4) the volume for the lower chamber can be decreased to
at least less than half the size, the volume for the upper chamber to less than two
third in comparison to type 2.

Fig. 3: Loading cases for comparison of different surge tanks

For a similar figuration of hydraulic system the same comparison was done with a
difference of only 20 m between maximum and minimum reservoir level. The results
show the same or even a greater improvement by use of a surge tank with reverse
flow throttle:

Surge tank Type Load- Upper Chamber Lower Chamber

case Volume % Volume %
2-chamber surge tank 2 1 4191 m³ 71 3226 m³ 127
with symmetric orifice 2 7415 m³ 126 7635 m³ 299
2-chamber differential 3 1 3545 m³ 60 2841 m³ 111
tank with asymmetric 2 6324 m³ 107 5011 m³ 197
orifice (ratio 1:3)
2-chamber differential 4 1 3159 m³ 54 1990 m³ 78
tank with reverse flow 2 5889 m³ 100 2549 m³ 100
throttle (ratio 1:30)
As a result of these investigations and economic reasons a reverse flow throttle was
installed lately at Gerlos power station [6] where the reservoir level varies by only by
15 m (in operation since 1993).

NATURE TESTING
The efficiency of the reverse flow throttle has been tested several times at all six
established plants by nature testing. The reverse flow throttles are equipped with five
electric (E1 – E5) and two hydraulic (H1, H2) pressure measurement devices.

Fig. 4: Measurement Devices for Monitoring of Reverse Flow Throttle

The results obtained during a resonance load case at Häusling power plant for
example show that the vortex flow stabilizes nearly immediately (fig. 5). The pressure
in the axis of the torus (E3, E4) is lowered about 135 m(1,35 N/mm²) within 20 s. The
pressure along the circumference of the spiral casing (E1, E2) reacts much slower.
The measured graph of H2 corresponds exactly to E3, E4 and the graph of H1 to E1,
E2. The rapid increase in pressure differential between the graphs shows the
dramatic flow resistance caused by the vortex. In the following upsurge oscillation
there is nearly no difference in pressure. This shows that in the reverse flow direction
only form losses are produced. The computer model results compare well with the
measured graphs.
 Fig. 5: Nature Test – Resonance loading case in turbine mode

CONCLUSION
At present six differential surge tanks with reverse flow throttle are under operation at
high-head power plants in Austria, with wide spread of varying differences in
reservoir level and turbine/pump discharge. All of them work satisfactorily and it is to
recommend to make already in the design stage an economic comparison weather
such a sophisticated design could mean an improvement to a new project.

Power Plant Kaunertal Malta Mayrhofen Rosshag Häusling Gerlos

Owner TIWAG ÖDK TKW TKW TKW TKW
Installed T 390 MW 730 MW 345 MW 230 MW 360 MW 200 MW
Capacity P 290 MW 240 MW 360 MW
Maximum T 53 m³/s 80 m³/s 92 m³/s 50 m³/s 65 m³/s 42 m³/s
Discharge P 2 m³/s 36 m³/s 50 m³/s
Torus Diameter 6,4 m 8,2 m 7,8 m 6,3 m 7,4 m 6,0 m
Resistance Ratio 1:50 1:28 1:17 1:17 1:29 1:31

TIWAG Tiroler Wasserkraft AG ÖDK Österr. Draukraftwerke TKW Tauernkraftwerke

REFERENCES:
(1) SEEBER G.: "Das Wasserschloß des Kaunertal-Kraftwerkes" Schweizerische
Bauzeitung, Zürich, 1970/1
(2) HEIGERTH G.: "Drossel- und Differential-Wasserschlösser von Regelkraftwerken
mit freier Betriebsführung" Thesis, Vienna University of Technology, 1970
(3) GSCHAIDER F., EWY G., HEIGERTH G.: "Triebwasserführung, Wasserschlösser
und Bachbeileitungen der Zemmkraftwerke" Österreichische Zeitschrift für
Elektrizitätswirtschaft ÖZE, Jg. 25, Heft 10, 1972
(4) GSPAN J.: "Untersuchungen an der hydraulischen Rückströmdrossel von
Wasserschlössern"
Wasserwirtschaft 69, Heft 12, 1979
(5) HEIGERTH G., STEYRER P.: "Surge tanks for Peak-Load and Pumped-Storage
Power Plants – Development and Realization" XXIV IAHR-Hydraulic Congress,
D-011, Madrid, 1991
(6) STÄUBLE H., STEYRER P.: "The First Stage to Refurbishing Power Station
Gerlos" Tunnel, Gütersloh, 1994
(7) STEYRER P., SAMETZ L.: "Surge Tanks with Reverse Flow Throttle"
International Symposium on Pumped Storage Development, Nanjing, 1994