Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Accident at Russia's Biggest Hydroelectric -Heavy waterhammer 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
msquared48,

I think BigInch was making the point that engineers needed to be reminded of the need to do a dynamic analysis on a system. Because many do not understand how to do it and are unwilling to pay for a specialist to do the analysis and design they ignore it. Well the perhaps the russians got lazy or skimped on the dynamic analysis. there 90 people who wished they hadnt.

Check out your design codes. they all say that the design pressure should include for surge. Without a surge analysis how do you know what your design pressure is? you cant guess it.

 
Of course surge should be considered. I never said that it shouldn't. But it does not mean that there will be a surge tank in every hydraulic system.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
 
Official version is that accident wasn't caused by water hammer.
 
Hello everybody:

If the machine hall was completely flooded, I can understand the failures on units 7 and 9 while they were running but, at the same time, I wonder what about units 1, 8 and 10? Where they out of service at the moment of the disaster?

There is no mention of their state after the accident. It seems (as it is shown in the slides) that units 8 and 10 are OK.
 
Apperently a Russian guest professor from the tech. uni. of DK claims that he warned the (late) director of the plant 15 years ago (personally he says) that this could happen

He says the accident was caused bevibrations at a critical frequency link but its in Danish and not a water hammer:

Link to article (in Danish sorry):


A brief summary is that he claims the plant was overloaded and that the high velocities cause virabration at a critical frequency. He, furthermore says, that an original 1/10 test mopdel did not included the 200 metres pipe that leads the water from the reservoir to the turbines.

Its likely that the plant was overloaded since it was going to break the production record of 2006

Best regards
Morten
 
Seems like the same (overall) conclusion - although poor maintenance apperantly amplified the problem until it bacame a disaster.

Best regards

Morten
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor