# A Systematic Operation Program of a Hydropower Plant Based on Minimizing the Principal Stress: Haditha Dam Case Study

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Description of the Dam with an Integrated Powerhouse

## 3. 3-D Finite Element Modeling

#### 3.1. Numerical Method

^{®}. This program environment was based on a continuum finite element analysis. Every derivative in the set of governing equations was replaced directly by a set of algebraic matrices written in terms of the field variables (e.g., stress, displacement) at discrete points in 3-D. The formulation of the 3-D model involves the connection of the ANSYS-static structural component, which represents 3-D Haditha earthfill dam model with the ANSYS-CFX model component, including one vertical Kaplan turbine unit of the powerhouse.

#### 3.2. Models Validation

#### 3.3. Hydraulic Analysis of a 3D Numerical Modeling of One Kaplan Turbine Unit

#### 3.4. 3-D Numerical Modeling of the Dam–Powerhouse–Reservoir–Foundation System

- The 3D solid elements were used to model the earthfill dam body, foundation bed, and abutments in connection to the concrete part in the region near the turbine boundary and mesh was refined to represent the small details of the turbine boundary, as shown in Figure 4.
- The upstream reservoir was represented by three-dimensional fluid elements.
- The meshing details used in the Haditha Kaplan turbine model is shown in Table 3.

## 4. Application Results and Discussion

- (1)
- The first stage of the hydraulic performance results is related to the application of the 3-D numerical finite volume turbine model by considering the operation of one vertical Kaplan turbine unit in the powerhouse of the Haditha dam that runs in different water levels and discharge ranges. The results include velocity flow lines, pressure distribution in the turbines, and a total estimated head at the turbine inlet compared with the upstream water level.
- (2)
- The second stage of the results is that obtained from the integration of 3-D numerical finite element dam models with 3-D numerical finite volume turbine models. The results cover all the possibilities that may arise from the operation of the powerhouses, including maximum and minimum water levels for the case of full inlet gates openings. The results of the 3-D dam models include principal stresses distributions in both dams and powerhouses.

#### 4.1. Turbine Model Simulations

^{3}), Q is water discharge(m

^{3}/s), g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s

^{2}), H is the water head(m), and η is the efficiency of the hydropower.

_{t}is the water head of turbine (m), g is the acceleration gravity (9.81 m/s

^{2}), p

_{1}is the upstream pressure (pa), p

_{2}is the downstream pressure (pa), V

_{1}is the upstream velocity (m/s), V

_{2}is the downstream velocity(m/s), z

_{1}is the upstream elevation (m), and z

_{2}is the downstream elevation (m). Section 1 and Section 2 are defined as the upstream and downstream measurements of the turbine, respectively. The determined behavior of the hydraulic turbine models is based on a dimensional analysis. Laboratory developments and model tests can guarantee the hydraulic behavior and the turbine efficiency (Iryo and Rowe 2003). The International Electrotechnical Commission standards 60193 and 60041 define all the simulation rules [37,38]. The specific speed of a turbine based on these standards is defined in the following formula [35,39]:

_{n}is the net head of the turbine. The parameter n

_{QE}is known as the specific speed, which is a general relationship that combines the main parameters governing geometrically similar turbines operating under dynamic conditions.

#### 4.2. Dynamic Analysis Results of the Dam Model Connected with the Turbine Model

## 5. Conclusions

- Operation of the 3-D turbine model under various upstream water levels and discharge ranges enables a detailed analysis of the hydraulic characteristics of the reaction (Kaplan) turbines by evaluating the pressure pattern and velocity flowline distribution inside the turbine unit. A comparison of the total inlet head evaluated from running the turbine model with the upstream water level is used to validate the simulation from the turbine model.
- The stress fluctuation in the dam body is proportional to the distance from the turbine region. Therefore, building the powerhouse as an integral part of the dam is more efficient than using a separate powerhouse. However, this condition affects the stress fluctuations, due to powerhouse operation on the dam body.
- Running turbines had an insignificant effect on the values of the minimum principal stress. This is because the distance between the turbines is far from the region of the minimum stress value.
- Due to the turbine running and fluctuations in principal stresses, the cone and outlet of the turbine unit of the powerhouse are the most affected regions.
- Increasing the turbine outlet elevation with regard to the turbine blade elevations protects the turbine unit from cavitation.
- Applying the control program for operating the six turbines in the powerhouse of Haditha dam shows that the minimum principal stresses can be obtained, and the operation scenario can increase the life time of Haditha dam–powerhouse–foundation system.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Lessard, J.; Murray Hicks, D.; Snelder, T.H.; Arscott, D.B.; Larned, S.T.; Booker, D.; Suren, A.M. Dam design can impede adaptive management of environmental flows: A case study from the Opuha Dam, New Zealand. Environ. Manag.
**2013**, 51, 459–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Aydan, Ö.; Uehara, F.; Kawamoto, T. Numerical Study of the Long-Term Performance of an Underground Powerhouse Subjected to Varying Initial Stress States, Cyclic Water Heads, and Temperature Variations. ASCE Int. J. Geomech.
**2012**, 12, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Caetano de Souza, A.C. Assessment and statistics of Brazilian hydroelectric power plants: Dam areas versus installed and firm power. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2008**, 12, 1843–1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ledec, G.; Quintero, J.D. Good Dams and Bad Dams: Environmental Criteria for Site Selection of Hydroelectric Projects; Latin America and Caribbean Region Sustainable Development Working Paper Series, No. 16; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; Volume 16, p. 21. [Google Scholar]
- Sousa Júnior, W.C.; Reid, J. Uncertainties in Amazon hydropower development: Risk scenarios and environmental issues around the Belo Monte dam. Water Altern.
**2010**, 3, 249–268. [Google Scholar] - Locher, H. Environmental issues and management for hydropower peaking operations. Small Hydro Power News
**2005**, 22, 15–19. [Google Scholar] - Akpinar, A.; Kömürcü, M.H.; Kankal, M. Development of hydropower energy in Turkey: The case of oruh river basin. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2011**, 15, 1201–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wei, S.; Zhang, L. Vibration analysis of hydropower house based on fluid-structure coupling numerical method. Water Sci. Eng.
**2010**, 3, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Al-Juboori, A.M.; Guven, A. Hydropower plant site assessment by integrated hydrological modeling, gene expression programming and visual basic programming. Water Resour. Manag.
**2016**, 30, 2517–2530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Heckelsmueller, G.P. Application of variable speed operation on Francis turbines. Ing. Investig.
**2015**, 35, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Palla, A.; Gnecco, I.; La Barbera, P.; Ivaldi, M.; Caviglia, D. An integrated GIS approach to assess the mini hydropower potential. Water Resour. Manag.
**2016**, 30, 2979–2996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gui, M.-W.; Chiu, H.-T. Seismic response of Renyitan earth-fill dam. J. Geoengin.
**2009**, 4, 41–50. [Google Scholar] - Anup, K.C.; Thapa, B.; Lee, Y.H. Transient numerical analysis of rotor-stator interaction in a Francis turbine. Renew. Energy
**2014**, 65, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bahrami, S.; Tribes, C.; Devals, C.; Vu, T.C.; Guibault, F. Multi-fidelity shape optimization of hydraulic turbine runner blades using a multi-objective mesh adaptive direct search algorithm. Appl. Math. Model.
**2016**, 40, 1650–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bouaanani, N.; Paultre, P.; Proulx, J. A closed-form formulation for earthquake-induced hydrodynamic pressure on gravity dams. J. Sound Vib.
**2003**, 261, 573–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Qian, Z.; Yang, J.; Huai, W. Numerical simulation and analysis of pressure pulsation in Francis hydraulic turbine with air admission. J. Hydrodyn. Ser. B
**2007**, 19, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, R.; Mao, F.; Wu, J.Z.; Chen, S.Y.; Wu, Y.L.; Liu, S.H. Characteristics and control of the draft-tube flow in part-load Francis turbine. J. Fluids Eng.
**2009**, 131, 21101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pennacchi, P.; Borghesani, P.; Chatterton, S. A cyclostationary multi-domain analysis of fluid instability in Kaplan turbines. Mech. Syst. Signal Process.
**2015**, 60, 375–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, H.; Zhang, L. Numerical simulation of cavitating turbulent flow in a high head Francis turbine at part load operation with OpenFOAM. Procedia Eng.
**2012**, 31, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kim, J.; Yoon, J.C.; Kang, B.-S. Finite element analysis and modeling of structure with bolted joints. Appl. Math. Model.
**2007**, 31, 895–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yang, Y.; Chen, J.; Xiao, M. Analysis of seismic damage of underground powerhouse structure of hydropower plants based on dynamic contact force method. Shock Vib.
**2014**, 2014, 859648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dai, F.; Li, B.; Xu, N.; Zhu, Y.; Xiao, P. Stability evaluation on surrounding rocks of underground powerhouse based on microseismic monitoring. Shock Vib.
**2015**, 2015, 937181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fenves, G.; Chopra, A.K. Simplified earthquake analysis of concrete gravity dams: Separate hydrodynamic and foundation interaction effects. J. Eng. Mech.
**1985**, 111, 715–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Watanabe, H.; Kikuchi, K.; Cao, Z. Vibration modes of a rockfill dam based on the observations of microtremors and an earthquake. Thammasat Int. J. Sci. Technol.
**1996**, 1, 22–37. [Google Scholar] - Lotfi, V. Seismic analysis of concrete gravity dams by decoupled modal approach in time domain. Electron. J. Struct. Eng.
**2003**, 3, 102–116. [Google Scholar] - Jafari, M.K.; Davoodi, M. Dynamic characteristics evaluation of Masjed-soleiman embankment dam using forced vibration test. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6 August 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Mircevska, V.J.; Bickovski, V.; Garevski, M. A 3D nonlinear dynamic analysis of a rock-fill dam based on IZIIS software. Acta Geotech. Slov.
**2007**, 4, 16–32. [Google Scholar] - Lipej, A.; Jošt, D.; Meznar, P.; Djelic, V. Numerical prediction of pressure pulsation amplitude for different operating regimes of Francis turbine draft tubes. Int. J. Fluid Mach. Syst.
**2009**, 2, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jošt, D.; Lipej, A. Numerical prediction of non-cavitating and cavitating vortex rope in a francis turbine draft tube. Stroj. Vestn. J. Mech. Eng.
**2011**, 57, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dakoulas, P. Longitudinal vibrations of tall concrete faced rockfill dams in narrow canyons. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
**2012**, 41, 44–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Adamo, N.; Al-Ansari, N. Mosul dam full story: Safety evaluations of mosul dam. J. Earth Sci. Geotech. Eng.
**2016**, 6, 185–212. [Google Scholar] - Sissakian, V.K.; Adamo, N.; Al-ansari, N. A comparative study of mosul and haditha dams, Iraq: Geological conditions. Earth Sci. Geotech. Eng.
**2018**, 9040, 35–52. [Google Scholar] - Liu, S.; Li, S.; Wu, Y. Pressure fluctuation prediction of a model Kaplan turbine by unsteady turbulent flow simulation. J. Fluids Eng.
**2009**, 131, 101102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vilanova, M.R.N.; Balestieri, J.A.P. Modeling of hydraulic and energy efficiency indicators for water supply systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2015**, 48, 540–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Samora, I.; Hasmatuchi, V.; Münch-Alligné, C.; Franca, M.J.; Schleiss, A.J.; Ramos, H.M. Experimental characterization of a five blade tubular propeller turbine for pipe inline installation. Renew. Energy
**2016**, 95, 356–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Temiz, A. Decision Making on Turbine Types and Capacities for Run-of-River Hydroelectric Power Plants a Case Study on Eglence-1 Hepp. Master’s Thesis, İzmir Institute of Technology, İzmir, Turkey, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Feintuch, P. The international electrotechnical vocabulary of the international electrotechnical commission. Meta
**1989**, 34, 539–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Becker, D. Harmonizing the International Electrotechnical Commission Common Information Model (Cim) and 61850; Technical Report; Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI): Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Muis, A.; Sutikno, P.; Soewono, A.; Hartono, F. Design optimization of axial hydraulic turbine for very low head application. Energy Procedia
**2015**, 68, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Slootweg, J.G.; de Haan, S.W.H.; Polinder, H.; Kling, W.L. General model for representing variable speed wind turbines in power system dynamics simulations. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
**2003**, 18, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]

**Figure 1.**(

**a**) Location map of Haditha dam on the Euphrates river, (

**b**) Haditha dam coordinates, and (

**c**) Haditha dam layout.

**Figure 2.**(

**a**) Downstream of Haditha dam with a spillway and power station outlets, and (

**b**) visualization of the 3-D model of the vertical Kaplan unit with full dimensional details.

**Figure 4.**The concrete part of Haditha dam includes the spillway and powerhouse, and the 3-D FE model of the Haditha dam, includes the turbine units.

**Figure 5.**Example of the graphical presentation of (

**a**) the velocity flow lines and (

**b**) the pressure distribution in the Haditha turbine unit.

**Figure 7.**(

**a**) The concrete part of Haditha dam with numbering the turbines and (

**b**) the 3-D numerical model transforming the pressure pattern from the Haditha turbine model to the boundary of turbine unit number 6.

**Figure 8.**The selected points to measure the principal stress and its distribution in the concrete part of Haditha dam in maximum drawdown with six turbines operating.

**Figure 9.**The principal stress values in the selected points of the Haditha dam body due to running three turbine units at a maximum upstream water level.

**Figure 10.**Control program for the running turbines in the Haditha powerhouse based on minimizing the principal stress.

Unit | ||

Location of Haditha dam | 34°12′25″ N 42°21′18″ E | |

Dam Dimensions | ||

Dam height | m | 57 |

Length | m | 9000 |

Hydraulic Information’s | ||

Type of turbines | Vertical Kaplan | |

Number of units | 6 | |

Install capacity | MW | 6 × 110 = 660 |

Length of unit | m | 67.35 |

Flood level | m | 150.2 |

Maximum drawdown in upstream water level | m | 129 |

Downstream water level | m | 107.3 |

Maximum powerhouse discharge | m^{3}/s | 6 × 339 = 2034 |

**Table 2.**The ANSYS-CFX turbine model validation compared with the Newmark numerical method results, and the ANSYS dam model validation compared with Masjed–Soleiman (MS) embankment dam (forced vibration test).

ANSYS-CFX | Newmark Numerical Method | ANSYS-CFX | Newmark Numerical Method | ANSYS | Forced Vibration Test |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Velocity vector V (m/s) | Velocity vector V’ (m/s) | Pressure distribution P (kPa) | Pressure distribution P’ (kPa) | Frequency f’ (Hz) | Frequency f’ (Hz) |

0 | 0 | −475 | −480 | 3.58 | 3.5 |

4.9375 | 5 | −160 | −160 | 3.91 | 3.9 |

9.875 | 10 | 155 | 160 | 4.38 | 4.4 |

14.8125 | 15 | 470 | 480 | 4.75 | 4.7 |

19.75 | 20 | 785 | 800 | 6.21 | 6.1 |

24.6875 | 25 | 1100 | 1120 | 7.02 | 6.9 |

29.625 | 30 | 1415 | 1440 | 8.17 | 8.1 |

34.52625 | 35 | 1730 | 1760 | ||

39.5 | 40 |

Mesh Details of Turbine and Dam Models | Nodes | Elements | Max. Aspect Ratio | Minimum Orthogonal Quality | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Haditha Kaplan turbine | water | 9785833 | 2174630 | 10.706 | 0.23896 |

turbine | 1808946 | 401988 | 10.706 | 0.23896 | |

Haditha dam | foundation | 1596798 | 967068 | ||

water | 572656 | 315930 | |||

Left embankment side | 396880 | 224558 | |||

Right embankment side | 126394 | 71282 | |||

Concrete part includes powerhouse and spillway | 1842786 | 1215094 |

**Table 4.**Hydraulic data of the Haditha powerhouse turbine, including up-stream water levels (U/S.W. L), the flowrate (Q), the velocity (V), and the rotational speed of the turbine runner (N).

No. | U/S.W. L (m) | Net Head (m) | N_{QE} | Q (m^{3}/s) | V_{einlet} (m/s) | N (rad/s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Haditha Turbine | ||||||

1 | 129 | 18.5 | 0.6779 | 100 | 1.5038 | 3.3520 |

2 | 134.3 | 25.5 | 0.5800 | 118 | 1.7744 | 3.3586 |

3 | 139.6 | 32.5 | 0.5155 | 136 | 2.0451 | 3.3353 |

4 | 144.9 | 39.5 | 0.4689 | 151 | 2.2707 | 3.3326 |

5 | 150.2 | 46.5 | 0.4331 | 169.5 | 2.5489 | 3.2839 |

No. | U/S.W. L (m) | Q (m^{3}/s) | V_{inlet} (m/s) | v^{2}/2g (m) | p/γ (m) | Z (m) | E_{inlet} = v^{2}/2g + p/γ + Z | Error % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 129 | 100 | 1.5038 | 0.12 | 23.71 | 105.25 | 129.08 | 0.06 |

2 | 134.3 | 118 | 1.7744 | 0.16 | 28.98 | 105.25 | 134.39 | 0.07 |

3 | 139.6 | 136 | 2.0451 | 0.21 | 34.47 | 105.25 | 139.93 | 0.24 |

4 | 144.9 | 151 | 2.2707 | 0.26 | 37.54 | 105.25 | 143.06 | 1.27 |

5 | 150.2 | 169.5 | 2.5489 | 0.33 | 46.22 | 105.25 | 151.80 | 1.06 |

^{2}/2g is the velocity head at the inlet of turbine, p/γ is the pressure head at the turbine inlet, Z in the average elevation head at the turbine inlet, and E

**is the total head calculated at the turbine inlet.**

_{inlet}**Table 6.**Statistical analysis of the principal stress results of the Haditha dam according to the running turbines at maximum and minimum upstream water levels.

Minimum Water Level | Inlet | Mid Inlet | Outlet | Mid Outlet | D/S Spillway | mid Crest | l.s Crest | e.l.s. Crest | Min | Max |

Maximum (kPa) | −181 | −103 | −83 | 67 | 39 | 79.2 | 25.9 | 41 | −963 | 1311 |

Minimum (kPa) | −215 | −184 | −138 | 41 | 20 | 70.0 | 20.1 | 21 | −964 | 1086 |

Difference (kPa) | 33.7 | 81.1 | 55 | 26 | 18 | 9.2 | 5.8 | 20 | 0.1 | 225 |

Percent (%) | 18.54 | 78.49 | 66 | 38 | 47 | 11 | 22 | 49 | 0.01 | 17 |

Maximum Water Level | Inlet | Mid Inlet | Outlet | Mid Outlet | D/S Spillway | mid Crest | l.s Crest | e.l.s. Crest | Min | Max |

Maximum (kPa) | −17 | −68 | −121 | 80 | 29 | 95 | 77 | 35 | −966 | 1400.8 |

Minimum (kPa) | −39 | −125 | −160 | 45 | 18 | 73 | 56 | 9 | −966 | 1048.0 |

Difference (kPa) | 21 | 56 | 38 | 34 | 10 | 21 | 20 | 26 | 0.3 | 352.8 |

Percent (%) | 125 | 81 | 31 | 43 | 37 | 23 | 27 | 74 | 0.03 | 25.19 |

Principal Stress Range (kPa) | Ranking | Indicator |
---|---|---|

1000 ≤ σ_{max} ˂ 1100 | Excellent | |

1100 ≤ σ_{max} ˂ 1200 | Good | |

1200 ≤ σ_{max} ˂ 1300 | Acceptable | |

1300 ≤ σ_{max} ˂ 1400 | Not acceptable |

_{max}is the maximum Principal stress.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Li, J.; Ameen, A.M.S.; Mohammad, T.A.; Al-Ansari, N.; Yaseen, Z.M.
A Systematic Operation Program of a Hydropower Plant Based on Minimizing the Principal Stress: Haditha Dam Case Study. *Water* **2018**, *10*, 1270.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091270

**AMA Style**

Li J, Ameen AMS, Mohammad TA, Al-Ansari N, Yaseen ZM.
A Systematic Operation Program of a Hydropower Plant Based on Minimizing the Principal Stress: Haditha Dam Case Study. *Water*. 2018; 10(9):1270.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091270

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Li, Jing, Ameen Mohammed Salih Ameen, Thamer Ahmad Mohammad, Nadhir Al-Ansari, and Zaher Mundher Yaseen.
2018. "A Systematic Operation Program of a Hydropower Plant Based on Minimizing the Principal Stress: Haditha Dam Case Study" *Water* 10, no. 9: 1270.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091270