CANADIAN ELECTRICAL ASSOCIATION Hydraulic Power Section March, 1990 Montreal, Quebec HEADGATE REHABILITATION KW. Faisst Ontario Hydro SUMMARY This paper identifies several options for restoring the closing and sealing capabilities of headgates in older hydraulic plants. The study applies to vertical-lift, fixed-wheel, downstream-seal-type gates, which no longer close under their own weight due to deteriorated rolling and sliding surfaces. Site-specific solutions are presented, which were developed on the basis of drop test results, gate and gain Inspections, friction force calculations and hydraulic model studies.“ The solutions’ include: wheel and bearing replacements, seal modifications, roller path repairs and modifications to the gate bottom. . Key Words: Headgates, Vertical Lift Gates, Hydraulic Gates, Emergency Closure, Water Intakes 0293H1.0 2.0 21 INTRODUCTION Headgates in hydraulic plants are usually situated at penstock or scroll case inlets (Figure 1), where they serve two distinct functions. First and foremost, the gates are intended as safety devices to shut off the water supply to the turbine in case of an emergency, ¢.g., station fire, unit runaway, penstock rupture. Secondly, the gates are used as convenient isolation barriers to enable inspections and repairs of the penstock or the turbine during a unit shutdown. As safety devices, the gates must be self-closing under their own weight and at full unit flow. As Isolation barriers for a dewatered unit, the gates are expected to retain the forebay water with minimum seal leakage (preferably without cindering). Emergency closures of headgates to stop hydraulic generating units are infrequent. However, when such emergencies do occur, reliable gate operation is essential, since headgate closure constitutes the last resort to protect the plant from flooding or other destruction. At Ontario Hydro, annual drop tests are now conducted to demonstrate that the headgates close under full unit flow. These tests have shown that the self-closing capability at a number of older plants no longer exists. Subsequent inspections revealed deterioration in the gate's rolling and sliding elements, which would result in excessive friction forces, thus preventing gate closure. To restore reliable headgate operation at these plants, several rehabilitation concepts and improvements were developed. These concepts and ideas could also be of use to other utilities facing similar headgate problems at their hydro-electric plants. BACKGROUND Headgate Type and Sizes The headgates identified as having closing problems are fixed wheel, vertical lift gates with downstream seals and sloped gate bottoms as shown in Figure 2. They are installed in generating units of 20 to 60 MW capacity, with up to three headgates per unit. Size ranges and operating parameters for the identified problem headgates are shown in Table 1. These gates were all supplied and installed between 1930 and 1955 and have the following design features: ~ Gates completely submerged. ~ Riveted gate construction featuring double end girders with the wheels between them. 0293H2.2 2.3 ~ Side seals and top seals consisting of formed brass strips, bent over 32 mm diameter rubber hoses and attached to the downstream side of the skin plate (Figures 3 and 4). ~ Bottom seal by metal to metal contact between the gate lip and the sil] beam. ~ Gate wheels made of cast tron with chill-hardened rims, slightly crowned. ~ Hheel bearings consisting of self-lubricating bushings rotating on concentric axles (Figure 3), ~ Gates equipped with one pair of side guide rollers at the bottom and four back guide shoes. ~ Roller paths made of hot rolled plain carbon steel, aligned to a tolerance of *0.8 mm over 3 m. ~ Motor shaft of gate hoist (cable drum type) equipped with a solenoid-operated brake for holding, and a fan brake for lowering. Headgate Operation Headgates are used either fully open or fully closed. During normal plant operation, the gates are suspended in a poised position above the Penstock inlets by the hoist cable which is wound around the cable drum. The solenoid-operated holding brake prevents the drum from rotating. If the solenoid becomes de-energized (e.g., by an overspeed Signal), it releases the holding brake and the gate begins to descend. In the downward mode, the cable drum is driven by the weight of the gate only, which unwinds the hoist cable until the gate arrives at the bottom. “The fan brake keeps the lowering speed within safe limits. Lifting the gate is accomplished by an electric motor via speed reduction gears driving the cable drum. In an emergency shut-off, the wicket gate position switch in the unit brake circuit is bypassed and all headgates at a given unit are dropped simultaneously. If the gates are used for unit isolation (dewatering), they are lowered in still water, t.e., wicket gates closed and penstock full. Priming a dewatered penstock 18 accomplished by lifting one headgate by about 10 cm off the sill and allowing the penstock to fill. This initial lifting exerts maximum loading on the hoist mechanism, because the gate in this condition is subjected to maximum hydrostatic pressure. Maintenance History Typically the subject headgates were removed from the gate slots every 15 to 20 years for sandblasting and recoating. At the same time, the gates were also inspected for structural integrity and repaired as required. Repairs included: rivet head welds, freeing seized wheel bearings, straightening deformed seals and replacing deteriorated rubber hoses under the seals. 0293H2.4 3.0 3.1 3.2 Performance History There 1s no documented commissioning record showing that the headgates closed under flow when they were new, although headgate closing Problems have been documented as far back’ as the 1930's. The standard approach tn dealing with the problem was to add weight to the gates, 2-9. concrete or pig iron. The additional ballast seemed to help in the short term, but a few years later the problem situation reoccurred and became progressively worse. Sometimes, even more weight was added; however, the lifting capacity of the gate hoist clearly was the limiting factor of this practice. Instrumented drop tests were carried out in 1956 at the Chenaux Generating Station. Subsequent analysis of the obtained force measurements showed that the net vertical force available to complete Closure was unduly small. The maximum measured hoist load during priming was 280 per cent of the gate submerged weight. Adding more ballast to the gates was clearly not an option in this case, because the hoist rating was already exceeded by 35%. No inspections were Performed at the time to check the condition of the rolling and sliding components. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT Methodology In an attempt to obtain a more accurate and complete picture of the gate closing problem at the identified plants, and to establish some order of priority for future rehabilitation work, it was decided to take the following steps: Perform drop tests to find out how far the gates go down. Carry out inspections to assess deteriorations and deficiencies. = Compute and analyze forces acting on the problem gates. ~ Conduct a hydraulic model study to visualize gate movement under flow and to investigate hydraulic downpull. Drop Tests Headgate drop tests were carried out at full unit flow, {.e., with the wicket gates blocked at 100%. All headgates of a given unit were released simultaneously by push button control from the hoist house. The following parameters were recorded: ~- Head pond level ~ Hoist load = Gate position 0293H3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 ~ Scroll case pressure - Unit output with headgates in final position. (If the water flow became too small to maintain an electric output, the generator circuit breaker was opened.) The hoist load was measured with a strain gauge balance and was plotted on a strip chart, together with gate position as a function of time. The headgates typically came to a stop at some distance above the sill, with enough water flowing under the hung-up gates to keep the unit on line. The only way to drop the gates all the way down to the sill from this position was to refill the penstock by closing the wicket gates. Inspections Inspection Techniques Inspections were generally performed only on one headgate of a given unit, usually on the gate which stayed open the most in the drop test. Sectional service gates were installed upstream of this gate to enable dewatering of the penstock, with the neighbouring headgates in the down position. This always provided an opportunity to observe gate leakage (from the downstream side) of the closed gates. The first part in the inspection procedure was to verify free movement of the gate in the gate slot. For this purpose, the gate was raised and lowered while checking side and back clearances and observing gate travel. The wheels usually did not rotate in this operating mode, because they were not pressed against the roller path. The gate was then removed from the gate slot and laid down flat (skin plate up) on the headworks deck. This enabled a detailed inspection of Seals, wheels, wheel alignment, side rollers, back guides and gate bottom lip. Wheel alignment was checked with a tight wire along the wheel trains. Seal protrusion relative to the wheel crowns was checked with a tight wire across wheel pairs. Wheel rim pitting was recorded on a mold. With the gate removed from the gate slot, the gains could readily be inspected from top to bottom using a suspended, motorized inspection platform. Wear patterns, material loss and surface deterioration on the embedded rolling and sealing surfaces were recorded on plastic molds. Photographs 1 to 4 show some typical headgate inspection scenes Inspection Results Specific inspection results varied from site to site; however, a number Of findings were common to all of the inspected installations. They are as follows: 0293HGate Seals The side seals always showed excessive wear especially in the bottom half of the gate. The brass seal profile was usually flattened and had a shiny wear surface (up to 20 mm wide). Seal profile changes are compared in Figure 5. Seal protrusions relative to the wheel crowns varied within *4 mm. Local indentations of up to 6 mm were observed in the side seals and the top seal. Corner joints between side seals and top seal were generally deformed and misaligned, and this situation would always result in gate leakage. Rubber hoses under the side seals were often found to be plugged with debris (cinder) and deteriorated. Brass seal strips were always free of marine growth. Gate Bottom Lip The bottom lip surface of most gates was found to be uneven and rough with local material loss of up to 6mm. This would result in bottom leakage. Wheels Gate wheels with lubrication lines always rotated freely. This was not consistently the case for wheels without them. The wheel rims had lost their crown and the tread surface was generally rough, with local surface depressions of up to 4 mn. Wheel alignment as measured by a tight wire over the wheel trains was off by as much as 4 mm on the largest gates. The smaller gates had better wheel alignments (1.5 mm). Wheel diameters on some gates varied from nominal wheel size to 6 mm undersize. Side Rollers Generally, one side roller was free to rotate while the other was seized on its axle. The free roller was typically worn and under size: whereas, the seized roller showed no wear or material loss. Gains The embedded steel surfaces were generally covered with crusts of marine growth (barnacles), sometimes up to 20 mm thick. Inspections performed after a full flow drop test clearly showed the tracks left by the gate wheels, the seals and the side rollers. The roller path usually showed significant material loss. At one installation, material loss was up to 8 mm. Material loss on the seal path was less Pronounced, only up to 2 mm. A typical condition of deterioration is depicted in Figure Sb. At several installations, the grooves produced by the side rollers were up to 2 mm deep 0293H3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 At Abitibi Canyon GS a sample of the roller path was cut out and analyzed by Ontario Hydro's Research Division. They found that the steel used for the roller path fabrication was grade UNS G10150 hot rolled plain carbon steel meeting the requirements of ASTM specification A830. This material has only modest strength and wear resistance (tested yield strength only 27% of wheel contact stress). It is also highly susceptible to under-deposit pitting corrosion in neutral or mildly alkaline natural waters. Si11_and Lintel The condition of both the sill and the lintel varied greatly from site to site ranging from even and smooth to grooved and rough. Gain Bottom Corners At two sites, excessive accumulation of debris was observed on the sill in the gain corners. This would prevent complete gate closure, since the gate end girders would sit on this build up. Problem Analysis Seal Friction The inspections have conclusively shown that the gates are riding too hard on the side seals due to material loss on the wheel treads and the roller paths (Figure 5b). This reduces the benefit of the wheels. In essence, the gates perform more like "sliders" and, hence, experience additional sliding friction. The brass seal has such a stiff profile that it is quite capable of carrying a major portion of the hydrostatic load. Furthermore, sliding friction along the two sides is likely uneven. This would tilt the gate into an off-plumb position on its downward travel, since the top of the gate can move freely to either side (no side rollers at the top). With the wheel tracks aligned off-plumb, the gate would immediately steer to one side, and would experience excessive lateral friction on the side rollers and the wheel hubs. Mechanism of Roller Path Deterioration Roller path deterioration as shown in Figure 5b is likely caused by excessive wheel contact stresses and bio-fouling. Calculations show that the Hertz contact stresses between wheel rim and roller path exceed the yield strength of the roller path steel plate by at least 250%. In practice, this would produce plastic deformation of the roller path during initial use, resulting in a wheel groove of the same shape as the wheel crown 0293H3.5 4.0 4 Bio-fouling is caused by barnacles (marine growth) which attach themselves to the steel surfaces and grow protective crusts around themselves. The steel surface under the barnacle crusts are reduced to iron oxide in this process. When a headgate 1s dropped under flow, barnacles and the layer of iron oxide below the barnacles are crushed by the wheels. This exposes bare metal and attracts new barnacle growth, hence, the destructive cycle is repeated. The seal paths deteriorate In a similar way since the leading edges of the brass seals act as scrapers on the seai paths. Scraping also exposes bare metal which then attracts new growth. Repetition of this process over many years can lead to significant material loss as depicted in Figure 5b Force Analysis All forces acting on a headgate are a function of gate position with the exception of gate weight. The “almost closed" position is the one of most interest since friction forces are maximum and hydraulic downpull can be considered negligible. With the existing situation, it fs not possible to separate the Friction force components (seal, bearing, rolling, side roller) in an accurate manner, because of unknown wheei/seal load-sharing and unknown side loads. However, for a typical rehabilitated headgate and roller path arrangement which is properly guided, these forces can be broken down and expressed as a percentage of submerged gate weight as follows: Submerged Gate Weight 100% (down) Bearing friction including side loads 70% Cup) Seal friction 5% (up) Rolling friction 5% Cup) Downpul1 approx 0 Net Closing Force 20% (down) In the above analysis, bearing friction is based on self-lubricating bushings with a friction coefficient of 0.12. Seal friction is based on PTFE - coated rubber "J" - seals with a friction coefficient of 0.10. REHABILITATION CONCEPTS Implementation Plan The overall objective of the planned rehabilitation projects is to restore the self-closing and sealing capabilities of the headgates, without energy production losses. Headgate rehabilitation work will, therefore, be synchronized with unit overhauls. 0293H4.2 4.3 44 Rehabilitation solutions will depend on the nature and the extent of deterioration, and may involve any or all of the following activities: - Refurbishing of roller path and seal face ~ Replacement of seals - Replacement of wheels and bearings - Addition of one pair of side rollers - Addition of deflector vanes ~ Modification of gate bottom to alter hydraulic downpull Roller Path and Seal Faces The principal roller path material requirements are: strength, corrosion resistance and straightness. The choice of material for roller path refurbishment will, therefore, be a high strength, Corrosion and wear resistant stainless steel, such as type 630, ordered to ASTM specification A693 and heat-treated to the H1150 condition. The seal face requires only moderate wear resistance, but must be non-bio-fouling and corrosion resistant, to provide a clean contact Surface with the J-type replacement ‘seal. Figure 6 shows three rehabilitation options, including a weld repair option (possibly using robotic welding and grinding). The concept of Figure 6b would require in-situ machining to prepare an accurate surface for stainless steel plates. In the option shown in Figure 6c, the material loss on the old roller path is filled back with: grouting prior to mounting a single new plate on top. . ~ Seal Replacements Replacing the existing brass seals with PTFE-coated J-type seals would appear to be the most obvious requirement in the rehabilitation work. This type of seal would substantially reduce seal friction. Also, it has molded corner pieces, thereby, eliminating corner leakage. However, the J-seals work only on smooth, corrosion-resistant surfaces which must remain free of barnacles. Therefore, the seal faces on the gains and the lintel will have to be refurbished too. J-seals on clean Seal surfaces will also eliminate the requirement for cindering. Wheel Replacements The Inspection showed that wheel deficiencies essentially pertain to the rim portion of the wheel, e.g., loss of material, rough tread Surface, and out of round. The rest’ of the wheel appeared to be in good shape and reusable. The intent, therefore, is to provide only one unit of a plant with new wheels. This will free one set of old wheels for machine shop work in preparation for the next unit. Material choices for replacement wheels are: 0293H4.5 4.6 47 - Chilled cast iron as per original specification. ~ Stainless steel type 630, precipitation hardened to condition #1150. Options for reusing the existing wheels include shrinking or casting new stainless steel rims to the old wheels. Bearings The selection of bearings will be site specific and will depend on the weight of the gate in water and the wheel load. Self-lubricating bushings (properly protected and greased) would be the preferred choice because of their simplicity and reliability. In order to reduce friction between wheel hubs and gate end girders due to lateral loads, self-lubricating side washers are proposed. In cases where the net closing force ts smaller than 20% of the submerged gate weight, it is intended to use roller bearings in a few wheel pairs of a given gate. This provision is expected to be most effective in increasing the net closing force, since friction developed in a roller bearing is about 8 to 10 times smaller than in a journal bearing. Roller bearings will also help to reduce the hoist load when cracking a gate open for priming. The proposed roller bearing arrangement 15 shown in Figure 7. The wheels will be equipped with eccentric axles to enable accurate wheel alignment. This will ensure that the gate load due to the hydrostatic force 1s evenly spread over all wheels. The axle material will be high strength stainless steel, type 416 MX. Side Rollers All headgates require a second pair of side rollers at the gate top to Prevent tilting to one side. It would appear that headgates rarely move down in a straight line, even if seal and wheel friction is equal on both sides, because of Flow-induced bias to one side. Deflector Vanes Gain corners on the sill tend to accumulate debris (stones, bolts, rivets, silt) because of local flow eddies set up by the gain geometry. Provision 1s required to flush the area clean, otherwise, the gate will rest on this debris and will fail to seal. This could be accomplished by flow diversion vanes attached to the gate bottom. Model tests would be required to verify the concept. 0293H4.8 5.0 Gate Bottom Changes A headgate model study is currently being conducted at Ontario Hydro's Flow Systems Laboratory. The purpose of this study is to determine if the hydrodynamic characteristics can be modified so that hydraulic downpull becomes a significant force for gate closure. The intent is not necessarily to change the magnitude of the downpull (limited because of hoist capacity), but to alter the location where the maximum downpull occurs in relation to gate opening. Since the problem headgates get hung-up in the 5 to 10% opening range, it would be desirable to maximize hydraulic downpull in this region. CONCLUDING REMARKS Headgate rehabilitation requires a firm commitment to safety and plant reliability. The extent of rehabilitation work should be assessed on a site specific basis, depending on the nature and degree of deteriorations, as well as the life expectancy of a given plant. Technical and financial evaluations will be required to compare short-term with long-term solutions. -10- 0293HACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to thank Mr. K. Reid for his assistance in completing this Paper. Also, acknowledgement is given to all the associated departments within Ontario Hydro who were involved in performing headgate drop tests, inspections and data analysis. 0293HTABLE | Size and Operating Range of Headgates with Closing Problems Unit Generating Capacity 20 to 60 MW Gate Size (Area) 15 to 62 m* Head on Sill 10 to 28 m Nass of Gate 10 to 80 Mg Max. Hydrostatic Force 1 to 13 MN Number of Wheels per Gate 8 to 18 Maximum Wheel Load 125 to 722 KN Wheel Diameter 400 to 840 mm Gate Lifting Speed 1.2 to 1.5 m/min Gate Lowering Speed 1.7 to 4 m/min 0293HaSLYA VL ages ASNOHYAAOd INA yIV —- luvadvai ~ SAOMTY3H 8 5 8 “ 8 g 8 2 z é 2 2 8 5 8 2 ° g z & 5 2 3 3 é 4 y gfz 2 BIEHOISTING macHNERY, worst House: ELEVATION be af 4 gE } ' row § : Le eace or 5 8 eecce® parm | z i Sk lololeloioje ee VIEW OF GATE LOOKING DOWNSTREAM TYPICAL HEAD GATE DESIGNSEALING FACE AND FACE OF ROLLER PATH Bann BRASS OVER S2nm @ RUBGER HOSE Sae-/040, SKIN PLATE: 33mm iw PLACE SELF-LUBRICATING BRONZE. Rass wasnen Sae-s100 KEEPER PLATE- CAST MOM WHEEL WITH: cnneeo ano chowneo roeam. END GIRDERS. SIE ROLLER. baen Gui0E- row FigURE-3 SECTIONAL PLAN OF WHEEL ASSEMBLY ANO GATE GUIDESseme race ano tact of — eee 2.4mm BRASS SEAL OVER 32mm # RUBBER HOSE | -———_ MEADGATE SKIN PLATE Figure - 4 SECTION OF LINTEL SEAL£ puare sein PLarE- wees oumere noses ZSSS x - wneee | i i | N ae (b) FiguRe-§ PLAN VIEW SECTION OF ROLLER PATH AND SIDE SEAL (o) New (b) AFTER 85 YEARS OF SERVICEEXISTING PLATE fo) $$ wevoine Ano GRINoING (6) 8 PLATES Bowe Ano BOLTED To EXISTING PLATE AFTER MACHINING fe) 55 PLATE once ano BOLTED To EXISTING PLATE ii om AFTER GRoUTING < KK Foe SA << FIGURE ~6 ROLLER PATH REHABILITATION CONCEPTS.x GUSTS paaeeeh pare * Na SS) EiguRe~7 ROLLER BEARING WHEEL ASSEMBLY