INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 2. No. 6. November, 2010, Part II

OPTIMIZATION ON PENSTOCK DIMENSION OF AMPEL GADING HYDRO ELECTRICAL POWER, INDONESIA

Endang Purwati , Herlien Indra Wahyun
1 2 1 2

Water Resources Department, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Brawijaya University, Malang (INDONESIA)

ABSTRACT This paper studied the optimization dimension of penstock of hydro electrical power. The case study was at Ampel Gading, Tawangsari Weir at Grojogan River, Indonesia. The methodology consisted of dimensioning optimized penstock diameter due to hydraulics structure constraints. Diameter and thickness of the penstock were designed at this study. Result was used to build the hydraulic structure of hydro electrical power at this location. Key words: penstock; diameter; thickness 1. INTRODUCTION Local hydraulic phenomena to the vicinity of channel junction are of considerable practical importance as they may be effect the flow condition in the combining channel [1]. A circular cross section has long been recognized as a very efficient section for the transport of fluids. However, it does not imply that the same cross section is suitable for stimulating pipelines [2]. The question of solvability of pipe networks requires some clarification. There is no restriction on the number of the equality constraints and associated parameter calculations as long as a oneto-one relation is maintained [3]. Project of Ampel Gading hydro electrical power was intended to build a power station that used a natural potency advantage region. This research plan was to dimension penstock that was crucial part of water power electrical structure. Penstock was usually made of steel material which was able to sustain high pressure and bearer flow from the head race to turbine. The research constitute a diameters as a treatment and then analyzed an optimum diameter pipe (concordant to economical and technical aspect), and determined a thickness of pipe for tension control regarded to the permit tension. ( < ijin ). 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS Tawangsari Spillway at Bebek River and Grojogan Spillway at Grojogan River still at the region that could 3 use for supplying electric and it got a discharge of 5 m /s at Ampel Gading hydro electrical power. Gross head was 229,20 m to get up electrical power, set down at downstream river. The length of water way from storage to penstock L = 307 m. The power could be get up 9602.334 KW, so that was hoped to give electrical capacity addition. The steps of this study was to analyze 1) theoretical power; 2) theoretical diameter; 3) head losses that were instead of major and minor head losses, this section was intended to get effective head; 4) economical diameter of penstock, this section was carried out by analyzing water hammer and optimum diameter of penstock; 5) minimum thickness of penstock (pipe was made of steel). Some formulations were used to design penstock. The formulations that were used in this study were as below [4]: Daaland formula was used to calculate pipe diameter D = 0,176 ( P ) 0.466 . H eff Wave velocity was calculated with the formula:
c 1 w1 D g k E .

The formula of pipe thickness: 1 1 D .

Ec Eb Ep . t

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Theoritical power: P = 9,8 . Q. Heff (kw), Q = 5,0 m /s, hydraulic efficiency was 95 %, H brutto = 229,20 m, 0,466 Heff = 217,74 m. P = 9602,334 Kw = 12867,1276 HP. Diameter of penstock: D = 0,176. ( 12867,1276 ) = 1,18 m. 217,74
3

308 | www.ijar.lit.az

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 2. No. 6. November, 2010, Part II

Diameter of penstock due to empirical formula: 1,18 m. Economical diameter was trialed and was got at approximately 1,18 m and it was selected the economics one, the calculation was as Table 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Table 1. Total of head losses at UpStream
Dn (m) hf he hb hv hl 1,00 0,4934 0,103 0,103 0,310 1,009 1,20 0,3869 0,050 0,050 0,150 0,637 1,40 0,3151 0,027 0,027 0,081 0,450 1,60 0,2637 0,016 0,016 0,047 0,343 1,80 0,2254 0,001 0,001 0,030 0,257 2,00 0,1958 0,007 0,007 0,019 0,229

Table 2. Total of head losses at Down Stream

Dn (m) hf he hb hv hl 1,00 0,627 0,103 0,103 0,310 1,143 1,20 0,492 0,050 0,050 0,150 0,742 1,40 0,400 0,027 0,027 0,081 0,535 1,60 0,335 0,016 0,016 0,047 0,414 1,80 0,286 0,001 0,001 0,030 0,318 2,00 0,249 0,007 0,007 0,019 0,282

Table 3. Analyzing of economical pipe at Up Stream

Dn (m) minimum thickness (m) weight of pipe value of pipe 6 [@Rp.1,10 /ton] head losses (m) power losses (kw) energy losses (kwh) value of energy head losses [@Rp.168/kwh] Total value economical ranking 1,0 0,007 34,0770 34.077.000 1,009 44,497 384453,216 64.588.140 98.665.140 4 1,2 0,007 45,4606 45.460.600 0,637 28,092 242712,288 40.775.664 86.236.264 1 1,4 0,007 58,3668 58.366.800 0,450 19,845 171460,800 28.805.414 87.172.214 2 1,6 0,007 72,7958 72.795.800 0,343 15,126 130691,232 21.956.127 94.751.927 3 1,8 0,007 88,7476 88.747.600 0,257 11,334 97923,168 16.451.092 2,0 0,007 106,2220 106.222.000 0,229 10,099 87254,496 14.658.755

105.198.692 120.880.755 5 6

Table 4. Analyzing of economical pipe at Down Stream

Dn (m) minimum thichness (m) weight of pipe alue of pipe 6 [@Rp.1,10 /ton] head losses (m) power losses (kw) energy losses (kwh) alue of head energy losses [@Rp.168/kwh] Total value economical ranking 1,0 0,007 43,2900 43.290.000 1,143 50,406 435510,432 73.165.753 1,2 0,007 57,7512 57.751.200 0,742 32,722 282719,808 47.496.928 1,4 0,007 74,1468 74.146.800 0,535 23,594 203847,840 34.246.437 1,6 0,007 92,4768 92.476.800 0,414 18,257 157743,936 26.500.981 1,8 0,007 112,7412 2,0 0,007 134,9400

112.741.200 134.940.000 0,318 14,024 121165,632 20.355.826 0,282 12,436 107448,768 18.051.393

116.455.753 105.248.128 108.393.237 118.977.781 133.097.026 152.991.393 3 1 2 4 5 6

Table 5. Stress of Pipe

No I II a b c d Type of stress Strees of Tangent Strees paralel to pipe as Stress due to pipe position Stree due to the empty weight of pipe Stress due to the move between pipe and position Stress due to pressure force at the expand connection Stress (kg/cm ) 339,233 75,391 0,581 1183,443 36,346
2

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 309

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

4. CONCLUSIONS

Vol. 2. No. 6. November, 2010, Part II

Based on analyzing as above, economical diameter penstock was 1.40 m, the thickness = 7.0 mm and 2 2 stress was 1339.431 kg/cm (< ultimate stress = 1.400 kg/cm ). The result was due to the pressure of water hammer and it was controlled with the existing stress. REFERENCES 1. Chan-Lin Chin and David W. Murray. 1992. Variation of Velocity Distribution along Non uniform Open-Channel Flow. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol 118, No 7, page 993-1100 2. George C. Christodoulou. 1993. Incipient Hydraulic Jump at Channel Junction. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol 119 No 3, page 409-421 3. Yee Meng Chiew. 1992. Effect of Spoilers on Scour at Submarines Pipelines. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol 119 No 9, page 1311-1317 4. Weber, N.B. 1971. Fluid Mechanics for Civil Engineers. New York: John Wiley # Sons, Inc.

310 | www.ijar.lit.az