1.

Introduction
The penstock constitutes a major expense in the total Small-Hydro budget. It is therefore
important that the pipe used is carefully chosen to minimize both life time running costs and
initial purchase cost. A penstock is characterized by materials, diameter, wall thickness and
type of joint. The diameter is selected to reduce frictional losses and therefore energy losses
within the which also depends on a trade-off between penstock cost and power losses
Selecting as small a diameter as possible to minimize cost and selecting as large a diameter as
necessary to minimize losses. A simple criterion for diameter selection is to limit the head
loss to a certain Percentage that is a loss of power (head) of 4% is usually acceptable. The
wall thickness is selected to accommodate the pressures encountered during plant operation.

2. Penstock
The penstock pipe transports water under pressure from the forebay tank to the turbine
(Figure 2.1), where the potential energy of water is converted into kinetic energy in order to
rotate the turbine. The penstock is often the most expensive item in the project budget – as
much as 40 percent is not uncommon in high-head installations. It is therefore worthwhile to
optimize its design in order to minimize its cost. Basically, the trade-off is between head loss
and capital cost [1]. A penstock is characterised by materials, diameter, wall thickness and
type of joint.

Figure 2.1 Mini-Hydro Scheme

2.1 Material
Several factors should be considered when deciding which material to use for a particular
penstock design pressure, that is, the roughness of the pipe’s interior surface, method of
joining, weight, ease of installation, accessibility to the site, design life, maintenance, weather
condition, availability, relative cost, and likelihood of structural damage [2]. The most
commonly used materials for a penstock are mild steel, high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
and unplasticized polyvinyl chloride (uPVC) because of their suitability, availability, and
approvability. The uPVC exhibits excellent performance over mild steel and HDPE in term of
least friction loses, weight, corrosion, cost, etc.

Table 2.1 Materials used in pressure pipes

Young’s modulus Coefficient of Ultimate tensile
Material of elasticity E linear expansion strength (N/m2) n
(N/m2) a (m/m ºC) E6 E6
Welded steel 206 12 400 0.012
Polyethylene 0.55 140 5 0.009
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 2.75 54 13 0.009
Asbestos cement n.a 8.1 n.a 0.011
Cast iron 78.5 10 140 0.014
Ductile iron 16.7 11 340 0.015

Table 2.1 shows the main properties of the penstock materials. Some of these properties are
typical only; particularly the values of the Hazen Williams coefficient which depends on the
surface condition of the pipe.

2.2 Diameter of Penstock

The optimum diameter of penstock is computed based on minimizing the total annualized
cost of the penstock comprising of annualized expenditure on penstock and annual loss of
revenue for power loss caused by head losses in the pipe. The power available from the flow
Q and head H is given by the equation [2]:
P=QHγη
Where: Q = the discharge (m3/s),
H = the net head (m),
γ =¿ the specific weight of water (kN/m3)
η=¿the overall efficiency

The net head equals the gross head minus the sum of all losses, including the friction and
turbulence losses in the penstock, that are approximately proportional to the square of the
velocity of the water in the pipe. For smaller diameter penstock, the expenditure on penstock
will be less but, this will have higher head loss leading to higher energy and revenue loss.
Similarly, the larger diameter penstock will have less head loss resulting in more energy
generation and higher revenue but, will have more installation cost leading to higher annual
cost of penstock. Therefore, head loss in penstock effects the determination of optimum
diameter of penstock [3].
A simple criterion for diameter selection is to limit the head loss to a certain percentage. Loss
in power of 4% is usually acceptable. A more rigorous approach is to select several possible
diameters, computing power and annual energy. The present value of this energy loss over
the life of the plant is calculated and plotted for each diameter (Figure 2.2). In the other side
the cost of the pipe for each diameter is also calculated and plotted. Both curves are added
graphically and the optimum diameter would be that closest to the theoretical optimum.
Actually, the main head loss in a pressure pipe are friction losses; the head losses due to
turbulence passing through the trashrack, in the entrance to the pipe, in bends, expansions,
contractions and valves are minor losses. Consequently, a first approach will suffice to
compute the friction losses, using for example the Manning equation.

hf n2 Q 2
=10.3 5.333
L D
0.1875
n2 Q2 L
(
D= 10.3
hf )
If we limit hf at 4H/100, D can be computed knowing Q, n and L, by the equation
0.1875
n2 Q 2 L
D=2.69 (H )

Optimum Diameter

2.3 Wall Thickness

The wall thickness required depends on the pipe material, its ultimate tensile strength (and
yield), the pipe diameter and the operating pressure. In steady flows - discharge is assumed to
remain constant with time - the operating pressure at any point along a penstock is equivalent
to the head of water above that point. The wall thickness in this case is computed by the
equation:
P1 D
e=
2σf

Where: e = Wall thickness in mm

P1= Hydrostatic pressure in kN/mm2
D = Internal pipe diameter in mm
σ f = Allowable tensile strength in kN/mm2
In steel pipes the above equation is modified by
P D
e= 1 +e s
2 σf k f

Where: e s= extra thickness to allow for corrosion

k f = weld efficiency
k f = 1 for seamless pipes
k f = 0.9 for xray inspected welds
k f = 1.0 for xray inspected welds and stress relieved
e s = allowable tensile stress (1400 kN/mm2)

The pipe should be rigid enough to be handled without danger of deformation in the field.
ASME recommends a minimum thickness in mm equivalent to 2.5 times the diameter in
metres plus 1.2 mm. Other organisations recommend as minimum thickness in=(D+508)/400,
where all dimensions are in mm. In high head schemes it can be convenient to use penstock
of uniform diameter but with different thicknesses as a function of the hydrostatic pressures.

A certain area of the penstock can remain under the Energy Gradient Line and collapse by
sub-atmospheric pressure. The collapsing depression will be given by
e 3
Pc =882500
D( )
Where: e = Wall thickness (mm)
D = Diameter of the pipe (mm)
This negative pressure can be avoided by installing an aeration pipe with a diameter in cm
given by

Q
d=7.47
√ √Pc
provided Pc ≤ 0.49 kgN/mm2; otherwise d = 8.94 √ Q

Sudden changes of flow can occur when the plant operator or the governing system opens or
closes the gates rapidly. Sudden changes of flow can occur when the plant operator or the
governing system opens or closes the gates rapidly. The pressure wave which occurs with a
sudden change in the water’s velocity is known as waterhammer; and although transitory, can
cause dangerously high and low pressures whose effects can be dramatic: the penstock can
burst from overpressure or collapse if the pressures are reduced below ambient. The surge
pressures induced by the waterhammer phenomenon can be of a magnitude several times
greater than the static pressure due to the head, and must be considered in calculating the wall
thickness of the penstock.

The pressure wave speed c (m/s) depends on the elasticity of the water and pipe material
according to the formula
10−3 K
c=

√
1+
KD
Et
where: K = bulk modulus of water (2.1x109 N/m2)
E = modulus of elasticity of pipe material (N/m2)
D = pipe diameter (mm)
t = wall thickness (mm)

The time taken for the pressure wave to reach the valve on its return, after sudden closure is
known as the critical time.
2L
T=
c
For instantaneous closure- the pressure wave reaches the valve after its closure the increase in
pressure, in metres of water column, due to the pressure wave is
c ∆v
P=
g
∆
where v is the velocity change

If the change in velocity occurs in more than ten times the critical time T, little or no
2L
overpressure will be generated and the phenomenon may be ignored. In between, if T> , Ps
c
will not develop fully, because the reflected negative wave arriving at the valve will
compensate for the pressure rise. In these cases, the Allievi formula may compute the
maximum overpressure:
N N2
∆ p=P0
2( √
±
4
+N )
where P0 is the hydrostatic pressure due to the head and
LV0 2
N= ( )
g P0t
where: V0 = water velocity (m/s)
L = total penstock length (m)
P0 = gross hydrostatic pressure (m)
t = closing time (s)
The total pressure experienced by the penstock is P = P0 +∆p
The waterhammer problem becomes acute in long pipes, when the open channel is
substituted by a pressure pipe all along the trace. For a rigorous approach it is necessary to
take into consideration not only the elasticity of fluid and pipe material, as above, but also the
hydraulic losses and the closure time of the valve.

3. Equations
Water losses energy as it flows through a pipe, fundamentally due to the following:
3.1 Loss of head due to friction (hf)
T Darcy and Weisbach, applying the principle of conservation of mass to a control volume a
certain volume of fluid in a pipe, between two sections perpendicular to its axis derived the
following equation, valid for incompressible and steady flows, travelling through pipes:
hf 10.3 ∙ n2 ⋅ Q 2
=
L D 5.333
Where: L = length of pipe (m)
D =pipe diameter(m)
V = the average velocity (m/s)
g = the gravitation alacceleration (9.81 m/s2).

3.2 Losses due to turbulence

Water flowing through a pipe system, with entrances, bends, sudden contraction and
enlargements of pipes, racks, valves and other accessories experiences, in addition to the
friction loss, a loss due to the inner viscosity. This loss also depends of the velocity and is
expressed by an experimental coefficient (K) multiplying the kinetic energy (v2/2g).

a. Loss of head by sudden contraction (Kc, hc)

Due to sudden contraction, the streamlines converge to a minimum cross-section called the
vena contrata and then expand to fill the downstream pipe

Table 3.1 Head loss co-efficient for sudden contraction

d 1 /d 2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 5.0
Kcontration(Kc 0 0.25 0.35 0.4 0.5
)
(Where d 1 /d 2=ratio of large to small pipe diameter)
K c =0.42(1−d 12 /d 22)
v 22
h c =K c ( )
2g
(v ¿ ¿ 1−v 2 ) 2
h ex= ¿
2g

v1 = water velocity in the smaller pipe.

b. Trash rack (or screen) losses (Kt, ht) (Figure 3.1)

Figure 3.1

1 b +t Q 1
v 0= ( )
K t b S sin α
2
t 43 v 0
ht =K t ()
b 2g
( ) sin α

Where: ht = Screen head loss (m)

Kt = Resistance coefficient
t = Bar thickness (mm)
b = Width between bars (mm)
vo= Approach velocity (m/s)
g = Gravitational constant (9.8 m/s^2)
α = Angle of inclination from horizontal

c. Loss of head at the entrance (Ke,he):

An entrance to the pipe is otherwise an extreme case of sudden contraction from a forebay to
the mouth of the penstock. (Figure 3.2)

Figure 3.2

v e2
h e=K e ∙( )
2g
 Q
v e=
π R2
d. Loss of head in bends (Kb,hb)(Figure 3.3):

Figure 3.3

v b2
h b=K b ( )
2g
Q
v b=
π R2

e. Loss of head through valves (hv) (Figure 3.4)

Figure 3.4

v v2
h v =K v ( )
2g
Q
v v=
π R2

f. Loss Head (hl):

h f +ht + he +hb +h v + hex
g. Net Head (hn):
h n=H−h f −ht −he −h b−h v −hex

Conclusion
To conclude, first of all the material for penstock is selected according to the ground
conditions, accessibility, weight, jointing system and cost. Second, the diameter of penstock
is selected to reduce frictional losses within the penstock to an acceptable level. The last, the
wall thickness should be considered and it is selected to resist the maximum internal
hydraulic pressure, including transient surge pressure that will occur.

References
[1] Best Practice Catalog Penstocks and Tunnels MESA ASSOCIATES, INC. Chattanooga, TN
37402
[2] Saket, Dr. R.K.. (2008). Design, Development and Reliability Evaluation of Micro Hydro Power
Generation System Based on Municipal Waste Water. Proceedings of the IEEE Electrical Power and
Energy International Conference: 2008 (EPEC 2008). 1 - 8. 10.1109/EPC.2008.4763355.
[3] Singhal M. K., Arun Kumar. Optimum Design of Penstock for Hydro Projects Vol. 4, No. 4, 2015,
pp. 216-226. doi: 10.11648/j.ijepe.20150404.14