1 | Program Name or Ancillary Texteere.energy.gov Water Power Peer Review Hydropower Advancement Project CH 3.1.1.1 Brennan T. Smith Oak Ridge National

1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov

Water Power Peer Review

Hydropower Advancement Project

CH 3.1.1.1

Brennan T. Smith

Oak Ridge National [email protected] 3, 2011

2 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov

Purpose, Objectives, & Integration

• HAP Vision– Accelerated Improvement of U.S. Hydropower Asset

Performance and Value

• Prioritized DOE Objectives for the HAP1. Improved Estimate of Increased Energy Availability from US

Hydropower Assets

2. Identification of barriers to increased energy availability

3. Identification of DOE Hydropower Technology Research Priorities for Improved Asset Performance and Value

4. Development and Dissemination of Best Practices, Assessment, and Analysis Tools to Maximize US Hydropower Asset Performance and Value


Technical Approach

• High-Level Requirements for the HAP– Metrics and Targets for Hydropower Asset Condition and

Performance– Standardized Assessment Methodology and Tools used by

experienced hydropower professionals– Analyses and Trending of sampled facility results to

characterize the state of the U.S. hydropower inventory– Stakeholder Acceptance of Targets, Metrics, and Methods

• Key Concepts– Asset owners/operators are primary sources of quantitative and

qualitative information used in the assessments.– Anonymous Aggregated Reporting enables individual facilities to

compare their results to the collection of assessed facilities– No ranking of hydropower facilities!


Technical Approach – Roles

Request for Information to Hydropower Industry & StakeholdersSolicitation/Awards for Hydropower Facility AssessmentsContract & Deliverable Management for Awardees

HAP Team

DOE HQ - Overall Leadership & OutreachRajesh Dham, Project Leader

Michael Spray, Project Tracking

ORNL - Process Development & Technical Support

Brennan Smith, Technical Leader

Qin Fen Zhang, Process Development Lead

Postdoctoral Mechanical Engineer TBD - Efficiency & Reliability Analysis

Suresh Santhanvannan, Condition and Performance Database, NHAAP Linkages

Mesa & Associates - Condition Assessment Support

Hydro Performance Processes Inc. - Performance Assessment Support

Sentech/SRA-Oak Ridge - Web Support, Technical Editing, Workshop Support

Golden Field Office - Solicitations and Procurement

Best Practices Catalog Drafts (Components)Assessment Manual DraftComponent Condition Rating WorkbooksDemonstration Assessments (Condition)

Best Practices Catalog Drafts (Special)Performance Assessment Process DraftPlant UC/Load Allocation CalculatorDemonstration Assessments (Performance)


Technical Approach - Products

Phase I of the HAP will produce online documentation and tools to support the assessment process . . .

Best Practices Catalog

Assessment Manual•Process Guidance•Component Rating Workbooks•Performance Calculator

Hydropower Technology Taxonomy

Phase I Demonstration Assessment Reports•Center Hill•Rhodhiss•Flaming Gorge

. . . Phase II will produce reports that provide insight into the state of existing U.S.

hydropower assets Public Report of more than 50 Nationwide Assessments•Project configuration and assessment summaries •Overall and component-level trends in condition across many projects•Trends in water-use efficiency, constraints across many projects•Correlations between efficiency, condition, and production•Summary of opportunities for and barriers to upgrade/improvement

Underrevision

Non-Public Business-Sensitive Assessment Report Archive•Controlled by Non-Disclosure Agreements•Individual Project Performance and Condition Ratings•Project and Component Condition Database•Project Performance Database•Flow and Generation Data


Technical Approach

Hydropower Facility

1. Headwater/Reservoir

1.1 Siltation and Dredging Devices

1.2 Line Diffusers

1.3 Surface Water Pumps

2. Dam/Weir

2.1 Spillways/Weirs

2.2 Sluiceways/Low level Outlets

2.3 Non-Overflow Dams

2.4 Fish Passage

3. Water Conveyance

3.1 Intakes

3.2 Trash Racks

3.3 Penstocks/Tunnels

3.4 Flumes/Open Channels

3.5 Emergency Closure Gates/Valves

3.6 Draft Tube Gates

4. Powerhouse

4.1 Power Train Equipment

4.1.1 Turbine

4.1.1(a) Francis Turbine

4.1.1(b) Propeller/Kaplan Turbine

4.1.1(c) Pelton Turbine

4.1.2 Governor

Speed Sensing Devices

Control Devices

Power Amplification element (Servomotor)

4.1.3 Generator

Stator

Rotor

Generator Shaft

Thrust Bearing

Guide Bearings

Ventilation & Cooling system

Brakes and Jacks

4.1.4 Exciter

4.1.5 Transformer

4.1.6 Circuit Breakers

4.2 Balance of Plant/Auxiliary Components

4.3 Powerhouse Structures

5. Tail water6. Switch Yard 7. Navigation Locks

Hydropower Technology TaxonomyHydropower Facility



1.2 Line Diffusers


2. Dam/Weir

2.1 Spillways/Weirs



2.4 Fish Passage

3. Water Conveyance

3.1 Intakes

3.2 Trash Racks





4. Powerhouse


4.1.1 Turbine



Spiral Case

Stay Vanes

Stay ring

Wicket Gates

Runner Blades

Runner Hub without/with Blade Trunnion

Runner Cone

Discharge/Throat Ring

Draft Tube

Main Shaft

Head Cover

Guide Bearing

Mechanical Sealing


4.1.2 Governor


Control Devices


4.1.3 Generator

Stator

Rotor

Generator Shaft

Thrust Bearing

Guide Bearings


Brakes and Jacks

4.1.4 Exciter

4.1.5 Transformer



4.2.1 Instruments & Controls

4.2.2 Powerhouse Crane

4.2.3 Station Power System

4.2.4 Compressed Air System4.2.5 Raw Water (Cooling) System4.2.6 Lubrication System 4.2.7 Drainage & Dewatering System

4.2.8 Fire Protection

4.2.9 Potable Water System

4.2.10 Drainage and Dewatering System

4.2.11 HVAC

4.3 Powerhouse Structures 5. Tail water6. Switch Yard7. Navigation Locks• Provides physical and functional

hierarchy for Best Practices, Ratings, and Component Condition Database

• Standardization of scoring is key to meaningful analyses and trending

• Provides consistent nomenclature for facility characterization, reporting and team/assessor communication

• Color-coded to indicate HAP coverage and Corps/Reclamation HydroAMP alignment

Hydropower Facility



1.2 Line Diffusers


2. Dam/Weir

2.1 Spillways/Weirs



2.4 Fish Passage

3. Water Conveyance

3.1 Intakes

3.2 Trash Racks





4. Powerhouse


4.1.1 Turbine



Spiral Case

Stay Vanes

Stay ring

Wicket Gates

Runner Blades

Runner Hub without/with Blade Trunnion

Runner Cone

Discharge/Throat Ring

Draft Tube

Main Shaft

Head Cover

Guide Bearing

Mechanical Sealing


4.1.2 Governor


Control Devices


4.1.3 Generator

Stator

Rotor

Generator Shaft

Thrust Bearing

Guide Bearings


Brakes and Jacks

4.1.4 Exciter

4.1.5 Transformer



4.2.1 Instruments & Controls

4.2.2 Powerhouse Crane

4.2.3 Station Power System

4.2.4 Compressed Air System4.2.5 Raw Water (Cooling) System

4.2.6 Lubrication System4.2.7 Drainage & Dewatering System4.2.8 Fire Protection4.2.9 Potable Water System4.2.10 Drainage and Dewatering System4.2.11 HVAC

4.3 Powerhouse Structures

5. Tail w ater

6. Switc h Yard

7. Navig ation Locks


Technical Approach

Best Practices Catalog (BPC)•Concepts

Functional requirements Typical configurations for components Efficiency role of components Reliability role of components Concise history of technological evolution State-of-the-art for components Brief summary of component material and

manufacturing constraints Typical O&M requirements References to testing protocols

•Components covered Turbines (Francis, Propeller, Pelton) Generators Conveyances Main Transformers Trash Racks Instrumentation and controls for condition

monitoring Instrumentation and controls for automation

•Special Topics Uncontrolled water leakage Flow releases Operational impacts of environmental

mitigation systems

Condition Rating Workbooks•Excel Workbook files

User (assessor) fields to enter component scoring

Predefined rating scales for ease of use and consistency among different assessors

Automated roll-up with weighting factors from partscomponentsunitsfacility aggregate scores

Help files and field provide additional guidance

•Components covered Turbines (Francis, Propeller, Pelton) Generators Conveyances Main Transformers Trash Racks Instrumentation and controls (condition

monitoring and Automation)

•Rating structure Component specific weighting factors for

parts (e.g. wicket gates, head cover, shaft, …)

Weighted scores for Age, Physical Condition, Technology Level, Operating Impact, and Maintenance Demands


Technical Approach

HAP Performance Levels & Assessment

1940’s Francis Technology

Retrofit withhub baffle aeration

Computationally engineered auto-aerating turbine

80% < < 88%

75% < < 85%

85% < < 92%

Wear & TearWQ Mitigation

Upgrade

Installed Performance Level (IPL)

Current Performance Level (CPL)

Potential Performance Level (PPL)

Turbine Component Example from Plant X Unit Y

What about performance in terms of reliability?


Technical Approach

Plant Performance CalculatorUsed to establish long-term (M>>8760) production potential baseline under assumption of flexible unit commitment, perfect dispatch, and scenarios of (installed, current, potential) unit efficiencies

Currently Excel-based solver implementation, but will leverage Optimization Toolbox solver in the future.

Performance Assessment


Plan, Schedule, & Budget

Schedule• Initiation date: March 2010• Planned completion dates:

– Phase I – Process Development – Dec 2011– Phase II – Nationwide Assessments – Dec 2012– Phase III – Upgrade Feasibility Studies – TBD, contingent on funding

• Milestones:– Draft BPC and Assessment Manual – Sep 2011 (delayed, but near complete)– Demo Assessments at Center Hill and Rhodhiss - Field Reports Complete

Sep 2011– Flaming Gorge Demo Assessment delayed pending Reclamation approvals– Request for Info to Industry with BPC & Manual Publication – November 2011– Assessment Team solicitation issued – February 2012 – Assessment Awards – April 2012– Training Workshop – May 2012– Assessments Completed – Sep 2012– Analysis and Reporting – Dec 2012


Plan, Schedule, & Budget

Phase I Phase I Phase IIFY10-11 FY12 FY12

Expenditures Estimate Estimate

ORNL $820K $125K $960K--Mesa $450K $500K* $220K--HPPi $125K $50K $130K--Sentech $404K $50K $50K

Assessment Awards $2,500KTOTALS $1,799K $725K $3,860K

TOTAL PHASE I & II FY10-FY12 $6,384KBudget History

FY2009 FY2010 FY2011

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share

0 0 $3,285,000 0 $1,915,000 0**

*includes Flaming Gorge Demo Estimate

**USACE-Nashville and Duke Energy provided in-kind support to host Center Hill and Rhodhiss demos, respectively, and provided historical operations data.


Accomplishments and Results

FINDINGS:

•Turbine Runners are candidates for rehabilitation or replacement. A more modern hydraulic design and improved methods of delivering aeration through the runner will provide significant efficiency improvements.•Wicket Gates, Stay Vanes, Spiral Case may yield efficiency improvements via surface rehabilitation and re-profiling.•Draft Tube may yield efficiency improvements from surfacing, shaping, and slot fillers.•Aging generator may see efficiency gain via air cooler and ventilation upgrades.•Improved shaft vibration sensing could improve bearing performance, reliability•60 years of service through a personnel efforts to maintain the plant. 1950’s technology in general could be improved for better efficiency and reliability.

Center Hill Assessment Demonstration

• Awaiting hourly data from Corps for Performance Analysis

• Condition Rating in Progress with updated HAP Tables


Accomplishments and Results

FINDINGS:

•Improved hydraulic design and aeration through the turbine runner may provide significant efficiency improvements. •86 year-old cast iron runners (Units 1 and 3) are expected to be at the end of their service life, and are candidates for replacement. •Stay vanes may see efficiency improvement via surface rehabilitation and re-profiling.•Some efficiency improvements from draft tube modifications, but slot fillers are not applicable (no gates)•1920’s technology (e.g. cast iron runners) still in use--opportunities at Rhodhiss to use updated technology to not only improve unit efficiency and performance but also reliability.

Rhodhiss Assessment Demonstration

• Performance Analysis in progress

• Condition Rating in Progress with updated HAP Tables


Challenges to Date

• Industry Priorities:– Asset managers are focused on reliability. Separating efficiency

from reliability is not credible. What is appropriate DOE role?– Industry focuses on licensing challenges—upgrades are always

controlled by licensing risk management more than efficiency cost-benefit

– Capital allocation—incremental hydropower does not compete well with large chunks of baseload capacity expansion or quick-payback flexible gas-fired generation.

• Lessons learned– HAP will need to address absence of monitoring data and estimate

value of monitoring– Asset management and operations staff are aware of conditions and

upgrade opportunities—HAP focus should allow for interview/cataloging as much as direct inspection.

– Hydropower operations data for performance assessment may have longer lead time than anticipated


Next Steps

FY12 Next Steps• RFI issue Nov 2011 to gather feedback on proposed assessment—

consider alternative procurement methods• Technical Expert Review of BPC and Manuals

– Enhanced collaboration of Corps and Reclamation to leverage HydroAMP and HMI experience for non-federal assets

• Resolve process for performance assessment on many assets—individual assessments or core team assessments?

Additional Opportunities• Apply performance and condition assessment to FY10 ARRA-funded

upgrade projects• Apply performance and condition assessment to multiple projects in

Optimization Toolset Demos• Interface with industry initiatives for operational excellence• Long-term program for collaborative benchmarking based on HAP

database

Documents

1 | Program Name or Ancillary Texteere.energy.gov Water Power Peer Review Hydropower Advancement Project CH 3.1.1.1 Brennan T. Smith Oak Ridge National