See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251781667

Transient numerical simulation of a horizontal shaft tube bulb turbine

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

3 292

4 authors, including:

Helmut Benigni Helmut Jaberg

Graz University of Technology Graz University of Technology
67 PUBLICATIONS   159 CITATIONS    111 PUBLICATIONS   333 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Josef Lampl
Voith Hydro GmbH
3 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Waterhammer Analysis of Hydraulic Systems View project

Design and Optimization of Mixed Flow Pumps View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Helmut Benigni on 18 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Numerical simulation of a
horizontal shaft tube bulb turbine

Helmut Benigni, Helmut Jaberg Josef Lampl, Erwin Franz

Institute for Hydraulic Fluidmachinery Kössler GmbH
University of Technology Hydro Electric Power Plants
Kopernikusgasse 24 Hauptstrasse 122-124
A-8010 Graz / Austria A-3151 St. Georgen / Austria

Introduction
The investigation of the flow through a horizontal shaft bulb turbine and the comparison with the results achieved at
a closed loop turbine test stand are the topic of the present paper. The draft tube highly influences the performance
of bulb turbines. To save building costs (e.q. civil parts), the whole machine configuration was optimised and
investigated in order to become shorter – this is of practical interest for the design of new machines but also for the
rehabilitation of existing ones.
During the last years computational fluid dynamics (CFD) have been used routinely within the R&D process of
hydraulic machinery. By means of CFD the development time of turbines can be reduced considerably and most of
the time- and cost-intensive experimental investigations can be skipped. Normally, commercial codes Reynolds-
averaged Navier-Stokes equations combined with a two-equation robust turbulence model are used for engineering
applications. For time saving purposes, the stationary mode with interfaces between stationary and rotary parts as
well as the use of a lot of averaging techniques are standard.

3-blade runner (near machine optimum)

2.3
pstat_Runner=16°_GuideVane=15° / p_outlet_def
2.2
pstat_Runner=16°_GuideVane=25° / p_outlet_def
2.1
pstat_Runner=16°_GuideVane=35° / p_outlet_def
Static_Pressure/Pdef_outlet, Total_pressure/Pdef_outlet

2
pstat_Runner=16°_GuideVane=45° / p_outlet_def
1.9
ptot(stgnFrame)_Runner=16°_GuideVane=15° / p_outlet_def
1.8 ptot(stgnFrame)_Runner=16°_GuideVane=25° / p_outlet_def
1.7 ptot(stgnFrame)_Runner=16°_GuideVane=35° / p_outlet_def
1.6 ptot(stgnFrame)_Runner=16°_GuideVane=45° / p_outlet_def
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
Energy recovery: kinetic
0.7 energy to static pressure
0.6
0.5
0 Inlet and guide vane 1 Runner 2 Draft tube 3
Interface stator/runner Interface runner/draft-tube
Domain standardised length
Fig. 1 – Total and static pressure along a 3-blade runner bulb turbine
In this work, the predictive quality of CFD has been carefully validated by the comparison of numerical and
experimental data of the existing geometry. Reasonable correlation was the motivation to optimise the hydraulic
shape by means of numerical flow simulation. To carry out single-phase calculations, but also to get accurate
information on cavitation and sigma values, the validated method of histogram analysis known from pump
development by the Astroe team [5] was used .
The runner geometry given has been realised in several machine configurations all over the world in three- and four-
blade runner configurations. For both installations different operating points were calculated in order to validate the
existing geometry and the runner-guide vane correlation for all runner positions. Thus, a wide range of measured
shells was investigated and not only the single operating points. The basis of those comparisons are measurements
of the machine configuration on a closed loop turbine test stand. The draft tube of a hydraulic turbine is a significant
part of the machine configuration, where kinetic energy is converted into static pressure – and this energy recovery
strongly effects efficiency. In Fig. 1 the mass flow averaged pressure (static and total pressure in stationary frame) is
lined out versus the length, where the domains of numerical simulation always run in a standardised way, between
zero and one. In the section of the draft tube the encreasing static pressure is clearly lined out. The operating point is
near the optimum of the 3-blade runner configuration with the optimum guide vane position of 35 degrees, which is
lined out in red. In general, the flow in the draft tube is characterised by self-excited unsteadiness, e.g. vortex
shedding or vortex rope, as well as by externally forced unsteadiness induced by rotor blades [4]. The model runner
diameter was D=340 mm with a specific speed of nq=201 min-1 near the best point for the 4-blade runner
configuration with 16 guide vanes.

1. Experimental analysis
The experimental data for the two configurations were carried out on a closed loop turbine test stand, which ensures
efficiency with measurement errors smaller than +/-0.2 % and repeatable single efficiencies of about +/- 0.1%. The
closed circuit allows to adjust any absolute pressure (0.1 bar up to 5 bar absolute) in the tailwater tank, to simulate
any cavitation conditions. The motor generator (turbine output) is equipped with a frictionless bearing assembly.

2. Numerical analysis
For the numerical simulation of the turbine the commercial CFD-software package ANSYS CFX 5.7 and CFX 10
were used. For the runner, the guide vane and the draft tube structural grids were generated, for the final complete
machine simulation also an additional inflow area was modelled with an unstructured grid. Nearly all calculations
were carried out on the parallel calculation cluster of the TU Graz (56 CPU´s, Compaq DEC Alpha ES45, 16GB
RAM/node, operating system UNIX) with the 64-Bit solver version. The total calculation time for all calculations
was approx. 40.000 CPUh. The process was automated and for most of the calculations the results reached the
residium target before the iteration maximum. For the turbulence modelling, finally, the SST-model (Menter [8],[2])
was chosen for the stationary points of the shell and the transient calculations. In the beginning of the project several
turbulence models (e.g. k-ε model of Launder and Spalding with logarithmic wall functions [7]) were tested for
stationary operating points and for transient simulation, calculations with new turbulence models (e.g. SST-SAS [9])
are ongoing. The settings used were already tested at the institute several times before, in order to simulate hydraulic
machines, and show results very close to reality [4].

2.1 Grid generation

The grid generation is a time-consuming part of the simulation. For the numerical simulation a runner grid with
332.400 nodes per passage, a guide vane with 218.700 nodes per passage and half a draft tube with approx. 600.000
nodes were used. These are all structured hexaeder grids with corresponding wall compressions. With a distance of 1
or 2 degrees a total of approx. 30 (!) runner-position (see Fig. 2 top/left and right) grids for the three- and four-blade
configuration was generated. The high number of runner positions results from operating points ranging from the
lowest (Q11 = 700 [l/s]) up to four times higher operating points (Q11 = 3750 [l/s]), which cover the whole range of
runner adjustments. The data assigned (‘step’ – surface files) were imported to Pro-engineer® and preprocessed,
grid generation was carried out with TASCgrid v2.12 . The enlargement of the blades on the hub, based on casting
requirements, was modelled as well, although the effect on the simulation is low, as the bulk of the flow, where
energy is converted, concentrates on higher radii. For all runner grids the tip clearence between the runner blade and
the shroud was modelled and realised with 15 layers (see Fig. 2 – top middle).
The turning of the guide vane was modelled with 5°-distances, starting with 10° and going up to 80°, and a grid for
the blade geometry including the casted enlargement of the hub was generated. Only for very high angles the casted
enlargement was neglected because of the needs of grid generation (see Fig. 2 bottom left and middle).

Fig. 2 – Top left: 4-blade runner nearly closed, top middle: tip clearence boundary layer, top right: runner fully open
bottom left: guide vane left 15° – bottom middle: 75° – bottom right: unstructured inlet region for full machine simulation

For the comparison of small and large inlet regions, a second series of grids for the whole passage was generated.
For full machine simulation, all 16 guide vanes were calculated. Therefore, an unstructured inflow area grid (with
the complete bulb) was generated with CFXBuilt 5.6 (see Fig. 2 bottom right).

Fig. 3 – Left: different draft tubes – right: grid structure, rotor stator interfaces displayed in red and pink (exploded view)

The draft tube was given special attention, as it is very important for the simulation of this type of machine. A fully
scripted structured hexaeder grid was generated with TASCgrid V12.1 for both investigated draft tubes, including
downstream water with a total of 600.000 nodes. The downstream water causes an abrupt growth of the
enlargement, an extension of the simulation area and thus well-defined flow conditions at the end of the draft tube,
as the hard boundary outflow condition is set at the downstream water exit. So, there is no influence of the outflow
condition on the flow distribution in the draft tube.The full machine simulation yields to a grid with 8025039 nodes
at 9313384 elements. Unlike the simulation with the full 360° guide vane, the runner and the draft tube, the shell
was carried out with a model with one guide vane (22.5°), one runner passage (90°) and half of the draft tube (180°).
Thus, a maximum of possible periodic and symmetric boundaries was used. With these settings the influence of the
pier is disregarded – grid size amounts to 1259265 nodes at 1195212 elements (only hexaeder).

2.2 Pre- and Postprocessing

Boundary conditions were set in the same way, according to the institute’s experience with other simulations. As the
solver gives mass flow highest priority, we used a mass flow boundary condition at the inlet and a pressure
boundary condition at the outlet. So, mass flow was constant and the pressure head resulted from the calculations,
which means vertical cuts through the shell. For the solver we used CFX10 – the latest software version.
For the sigma estimation the pressure on the blade was written out and spread on for histogram anlysis: This method
was developed by Astroe and was cross-checked several times [5]. pHistogram is the value, when the pressure at a
certain percentage of the blade surface exhibits pressures lower than pHistogram. This value is transferred to a sigma
denomination (see nomenclature). Theoretically, the conclusion for σHISTOGRAM =-σInstallation is, that this percentage of
the blade surface is cavitating. Experimental values: σCFD, HISTOGRAM, 0.005 is equivalent to 1.2 *σSTANDARD.

3. Results
This operating point with Q11 = 1700 [l/s] has the highest measured efficiency of all calculated operating points of
the 4-blade runner. In the diagram the efficiency measured is lined out with the grey line. It can clearly be seen, that
the best behaviour related to the cavitation shows with heads lower than 1.2 of the design head. Both, efficiency and
sigma are very close to the experimental results and show the same tendencies towards the bordering regions of the
shell. Best values are achieved with a runner position of 17 degrees.

Flow rate Q11=1700

1.0100 16
1.0000 Shell cut - Experiment

0.9900 14
LR15_eta_total
0.9800
0.9700 LR16_eta_total 12
0.9600
σHisto_0.002/σHisto_def

LR16.5_eta_total
0.9500 10
eta / eta_max_design

LR17_eta_total
0.9400
0.9300 LR18_eta_total 8
0.9200
LR15_sigma_(pHisto_0.002)
0.9100 6
0.9000 LR16_sigma_(pHisto_0.002)

0.8900 4
LR16.5_sigma_(pHisto_0.002)
0.8800
LR17_sigma_(pHisto_0.002)
0.8700 2
0.8600 LR18_sigma_(pHisto_0.002)
0.8500 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
H Def / H Design

Fig. 4 – Normalised efficiency and pHistogram for the4-blade runner configuration (near shell optimum)
3.1 Inlet variation

As far as this point is concerned, two variations of the inlet region are investigated – because of different space
requirements of the generator. The area factor between the two variants is 1.8. For both variants the pier (see Fig. 2
down / right) was neglected. Strong differences could only be detected at higher flowrates. In Fig. 5 the standardised
efficiency and the absolute delta of the efficiency are outlined for a Q11 of 3000. Around the investigated head
(H_Def / H_OperatingPoint =1) a difference of the total machine efficiency of 1 % could be estimated. This results
from higher losses with higher velocities of the fluid in the bulb passage.

3-blade runner, flow rate Q11=3000, small vs. large inlet

1.01
1 7
0.99
0.98 6
0.97
0.96 5
LR31_eta_total_small_inlet
0.95 LR31_eta_total
eta / eta_max

delta eta [%]

0.94 LR29_eta_total_small_inlet 4
LR29_eta_total
0.93
LR27_eta_total_small_inlet
0.92 3
LR27_eta_total
0.91 LR25_eta_total_small_inlet
0.9 LR25_eta_total 2
0.89 LR25_delta_eta
LR27_delta_eta
0.88 1
LR29_delta_eta
0.87
LR31_delta_eta
0.86 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
H_Def / H_OperatingPoint

Fig. 5 – Inlet comparison of 3-blade runner configuration

3.2 Flow through the runner

In order to get an impression of how good the runner works, the meridional velocity (cm) was analised on different
planes around the runner – to be presented in this paper for three different operating points (Q11=800, Q11=1700 and
Q11=2800) for the 4-blade runner configuration.
The planes were situated in the different CFD-domains of the model (see Fig. 6 top left), the first plane (labelled
with 0.97) was situated near the stator-rotor (frozen rotor) interface in the stator domain on the normalised domain
length of 97%. The next three planes were situated in the runner domain at 10% (in front of the blades), 65% and
90% (after the runner) of the normalised domain length (labelled with 1.1, 1.65 and 1.9). The last plane was situated
after the frozen rotor interface of the runner-draft tube connection in the draft tube domain at 3% of the domain
length, labelled with 2.03.
All the planes are located on standardised domain lengths that thus are not planar in radial direction. Each of the
operating points has its local optimum, the flow rates differ by more than 300%.
For all operating points a homogeneous velocity distribution in front of the runner exists, which indicates a good
guide vane geometry and is lined out in Fig. 6 with the red and green lines corresponding to the coloured planes in
the picture on the top of Fig. 6. This could also be detected when – for each turbine component – the efficiency in
relation to the total efficiency was compared to other hydraulics.
After the runner there could be seen a cm-distribution with nearly the same value over the whole radius. This also
means, that the runner works fine over its height and that only little fluid transportation in radius direction is needed,
which can be found out by comparing the velocity in radial direction (not shown). After the hub, where the rotor-
draft tube interface is located, the cm is coloured in yellow. In the middle of the draft tube velocities are very low –
this area is also one of the most unsecure parts of the steady state simulation.
 1.5 097_Q11=800_Runner=4_GuideVane=50 097_Q11=1700_Runner=17_GuideVane=35
Plane position: domain length
097_Q11=2800_Runner=31_GuideVane=25 1.1_Q11=800_Runner=4_GuideVane=50
0.97 1.1 1.65 1.9 2.03
1.4 1.1_Q11=1700_Runner=17_GuideVane=35 1.1_Q11=2800_Runner=_GuideVane=25
1.65_Q11=800_Runner=4_GuideVane=50 1.65_Q11=1700_Runner=17_GuideVane=35
1.3
1.65_Q11=2800_Runner=31_GuideVane=25 1.9_Q11=800_Runner=4_GuideVane=50
1.2 1.9_Q11=1700_Runner=17_GuideVane=35 1.9_Q11=2800_Runner=31_GuideVane=25
2.03_Q11=800_Runner.=4_GuideVane=50 2.03_Q11=1700_Runner=17_GuideVane=35
1.1
2.03_Q11=2800_Runner=31_GuideVane=25

1
Q11=800 Q11=1700 Q11=2800
0.9
cm / cm_max

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Radius HUB to SHROUD

Fig. 6 – Velocity distribution around the runner, different operating points

3.3 Draft tube stationary and transient calculations

The steady state simulation exhibits a wide range of regions with low velocity fields after the hub (see Fig. 6 and
Fig. 7 top left). One of the important aspects for shorter draft tube construction are separation zones and the
correlated efficiency losses. In Fig. 3 bottom left some of the tested geometries are shown. Because of the
remarkable discrepancies [4] known, a transient simulation was carried out additionally.
For the transient simulation presented in this paper the SST-model of Menter was used, with an implicit time
discretion scheme and second order accurate time integration. A steady state calculation was used as initial guess for
the transient calculation of the full 360° model simulation. After 3 revolutions of the runner the result was
considered as periodic in time.
The file size was to large for Windows or Linux PC-systems and the post-processing on the UNIX machine was not
that easy, as the latest software version for our Unix systems is without graphical interface. So, for some additional
post-processing, third-party software (paraview.org) was used.

Experience from built-in situations shows, that separation effects of short building draft tubes (with large opening
angles) have an influence on the efficiency up to several percent of the total efficiency. With a high discharge
operating point in the transient simulation the calculation shows a separation near the wall. Also, strong changes of
the flow distribution in the center (compare Fig. 7 – three pictures top right) can be seen in the transient simulation.
In the center of the draft tube remarkable discrepancies could be found as compared to known experimental flow
distribution of a comparable bulb turbine configuration [4]. The calculation still underpredicts the mixing of the
runner wake flow with the main flow. Reflections on this effect are given in [4] and [10].

The hydraulic design reaches best efficiency when the separation and reattachment of the fluid in the draft tube is in
balance and so the diffusor has its best efficiency – the highest amount of transformation of velocity energy into
static pressure. At modern low pressure turbines the amount of retransferable energy is about 0.5 % to 5% of the
hydraulic energy [6].
 stationary trn050 trn100 trn150

4-blade runner near optimum

transient

separation

Fig. 7 – Velocity in a short draft tube, same operating point stationary and transient

4. Conclusion and outlook

With the help of commercial CFD-codes the investigation of an existing geometry of a horizontal bulb turbine was
carried out. For the better understanding of the flow through the passages they were analised and modified, having
in mind the idea to build a shorter turbine configuration, i.e. a shorter draft tube.
For different operating points of the blade geometry, installed as 3- and 4-blade configurations, all significant
hydraulic variables were calculated, including a histogram pressure analysis for the sigma estimation. An excellent
correlation between experimental data, carried out on a closed turbine test loop, and the simulation data could be
estimated for different operating points. For the separation zones near the wall of the draft tube also a transient
calculation was carried out to proof the findings in comparison to other simulated hydraulics.
For an improvement of the whole configuration the quality of the runner was investigated and analised as well.

For future research, transient calculations are to be carried out, including the new SST-SAS-model of Menter [9],
which should yield an improvement for the better reattachment of the flow which separates from the draft tube wall.
Nomenclature

1 ⎧⎪ ⎡ ρ ⎛ Q& ⎞ ⎤ ⎫⎪
2
Head H
H Net _ Head = ⎨ tot ,Inlet
p − ⎢ p + ⎜ ⎟ ⎥⎬
ρ ⋅g ⎪ 2 ⎜⎝ A ⎟⎠ ⎥ ⎪
stat ,outlet
⎢⎣ ⎦⎭
⎩
Sigma σHISTOGRAM pHistogram − ptot ,outlet
σ HISTOGRAM =
ptot ,inlet − ptot ,outlet
Area A
Specific speed nq Q
nq = n ⋅ 0.75
H Def
Efficiency eta η
QModel
Standardised discharge Q11 Q11 =
H Model ⋅ DModel
2

DModel
Standardised rotational speed n11 n11 = n Model
H Model

References
1. Avellan, F., “Flow investigation in a Francis draft tube: The Flindt Project”, Proceedings of the Hydraulic Machinery and
Systems 20th IAHR Symposium,Charlotte, August 7-9, 2000.
2. CFX, “Documentation of Ansys CFX5.7”, PDF-files of the documentaion on installation CD, Ansys Inc., 2004.
3. Gehrer, A., Egger A., Riener J., “Numerical and Experimental Investigation of the draft tube flow downstream of a bulb
turbine”, Proceedings of the 21st IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machines and Systems, Lausanne, September 9-12, 2002.
4. Gehrer, A., Benigni, H., Köstenberger, M., “Unsteady Simulation of the Flow Through a Horizontal-Shaft Bulb Turbine”,
Proceedings of the 22nd IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Maschines and Systems, Stockholm, 2004.
5. Gehrer, A., Benigni, H., Penninger, G., “Dimensioning and Simulation of Process Pumps”, Karlsruhe Pump Users
Technical Forum, Preprints 15-4, VDMA, 2004.
6. Giesecke, J., Mosonyi, E., „Wasserkraftanlagen”, ISBN 3-540-64907-7, 2. Auflage, Springer Verlag, 1998.
7. Launder, B. E. , Spalding, D. B., „Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence”, Academic Press, London and New
York, ISBN 0-12-438050-6, 1972.
8. Menter, F.R., “Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications”, AIAA-Journal, 32 (8), 1994.
9. Menter, F.R., Egorov, Y., “A Scale-Adaptive Simulation Model using Two-Equation Models”, AIAA 2005-1095, 2005.
10. Ruprecht, A., Maihöfer, M., Heitle M., Helmrich, T., “Simulation of vortex rope in a turbine draft tube”, Proceedings of
the 21st IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machines and Systems, Lausanne, September 9-12, 2002.

The Authors
Helmut Benigni, Dr. Dipl.-Ing. Studies of mechanical engineering at the Technical University of Graz, specialisation in
numerical simulation, dissertation in optimisation of hydraulic machines.

Helmut Jaberg, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Studies of aeronautical engineering in Stuttgart, Munich and Southampton, head of a pump
development division and a business unit at KSB, head of the Institute for Hydraulic Fluidmachinery, Technical University of
Graz.
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Numerical simulation of a
horizontal shaft tube bulb turbine

HYDRO 2006
International Conference and Exhibition
Maximizing the Benefits of Hydropower
Porto Carras, Greece, 25-27 September 2006

Dr. Helmut Benigni KÖSSLER Ges.m.b.H.

Institute for Hydraulic Fluidmachinery Hydro Electric Power Plants
Technical University of Graz / Austria St. Georgen / Stfd. / Austria
helmut.benigni@hfm.tugraz.at office@koessler.com
1
BULB TURBINE 1
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Horizontal ‚Bulb turbine‘ Inlet Perspectific view:

4-blade runner
Bulb with pier configuration
Specific speed near
nq=200 rpm (4-blade Guide vane
runner near optimum) Runner

3- and 4-blade runner config. Draft tube

Outlet
Measured shell for diff. setup‘s

1
2
Q
nq = n ⋅ 3
4
H
Head H

Pelton

Experimental analysis:
Francis
Closed turbine test stand, efficiency
errors smaller than +/- 0.2%

Kaplan
Repeatable single efficiency +/- 0.1%
Bulb turbine
Motor / generator: frictionless bearing
assembly
Source: VOITH Specific speed

2
BULB TURBINE 2
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Draft tube energy recovery

Kinetic Æ Static presssure

3-blade runner (near machine optimum)
2.3
Flow in the draft tube is 2.2
pstat_Runner=16°_GuideVane=15° / p_outlet_def

pstat_Runner=16°_GuideVane=25° / p_outlet_def
2.1
characterised by self- pstat_Runner=16°_GuideVane=35° / p_outlet_def

Static_Pressure/Pdef_outlet, Total_pressure/Pdef_outlet
2
excited unsteadiness: 1.9
pstat_Runner=16°_GuideVane=45° / p_outlet_def

ptot(stgnFrame)_Runner=16°_GuideVane=15° / p_outlet_def
1.8 ptot(stgnFrame)_Runner=16°_GuideVane=25° / p_outlet_def
- Vortex rope (internal) 1.7 ptot(stgnFrame)_Runner=16°_GuideVane=35° / p_outlet_def
1.6 ptot(stgnFrame)_Runner=16°_GuideVane=45° / p_outlet_def

- Rotor blades (external) 1.5

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
Energy recovery: kinetic
0.7 energy to static pressure
0.6
0.5
0 Inlet and guide vane 1 Runner 2 Draft tube 3
Interface stator/runner Interface runner/draft-tube
Domain standardised length

Red line: near optimum

3
BULB TURBINE 3
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Numerical Simulation (1/2)

Different runner positions 30 runner positions

Software Hardware used Approx. 40.000 CPU/h

Pro-engineer, Ansys CFX 5.7 | CFX Cluster of TU (64 CPUs, RISC 64bit,
10, CFXbuilt, TASCgrid 1.25 GHZ – 4 CPUs per 1 node with 16-
Different grid sizes, different setups 32 GB RAM, OSF 1 / TRU UNIX) with
the 64-bit program-version
Automized pre-phase, solve- and Scripted Postprocessing on PCs 3,2
post-processing phase GHz 2GB RAM | Windows 2000, with
SST-model (Menter), Local time step the 32-bit programm-version
4
BULB TURBINE 4
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Numerical Simulation (2/2) 15 positions: 10-80°

Assembling
Full machine simulation:
8.02 Mio. nodes (all 360°)
Model with one guide
vane (22.5°), one runner
passage (90°) and half of
the draft tube (180°): grid
size amounts to 1.26 Mio.
nodes (only hexaeder).

5
BULB TURBINE 5
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Efficiency and Sigma (p_Histogramm)

Experimental data Flow rate Q11=1700

1.0100 16
1.0000 Shell cut - Experiment

0.9900 14
LR15_eta_total
0.9800
0.9700 LR16_eta_total 12
0.9600

σHisto_0.002/σHisto_def
LR16.5_eta_total
0.9500 10
eta / eta_max_design

LR17_eta_total
0.9400
0.9300 LR18_eta_total 8
0.9200
LR15_sigma_(pHisto_0.002)
0.9100 6
0.9000 LR16_sigma_(pHisto_0.002)

0.8900 4
LR16.5_sigma_(pHisto_0.002)
0.8800
LR17_sigma_(pHisto_0.002)
0.8700 2
0.8600 LR18_sigma_(pHisto_0.002)
0.8500 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
H Def / H Design
Highest measured efficiency

6
BULB TURBINE 6
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Histogramm Analysis CPU-speed: 0.6 vs. 1.0

Statistical evaluation of the pressure distribution:
Analysis developed by Astroe team pHistogram − ptot ,outlet
σ =
ptot ,inlet − ptot ,outlet
Checked several times HISTOGRAM

1
total[] pressure []

0.9

0.8
Histogramm analysis Cavitation model
0.7

1
Norm. total pressure

0.6

total []pressure []
0.9
Standardised

0.5
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.3

Norm. total pressure

0.6

0.2
0.5

Standardised
0.1
0.4

0 0.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Norm. total are a [%] 0.2
Standardized total area [%]
0.1

Numerical outlier, 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Norm. total are a [%]
No area cavitation Log. standardised total area [%]

7
BULB TURBINE 7
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Different Inlet Region

Generator: diff. space requirements, pier neglected
Total efficiency difference approx. 1%, area fac. 1.8
3-blade runner, flow rate Q11=3000, small vs. large inlet

1.01
1 7
0.99
0.98 6
0.97
0.96 5
LR31_eta_total_small_inlet
0.95 LR31_eta_total
eta / eta_max

delta eta [%]

0.94 LR29_eta_total_small_inlet 4
LR29_eta_total
0.93
LR27_eta_total_small_inlet
0.92 3
LR27_eta_total
0.91 LR25_eta_total_small_inlet
0.9 LR25_eta_total 2
0.89 LR25_delta_eta
LR27_delta_eta
0.88 1
LR29_delta_eta
0.87
LR31_delta_eta
0.86 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
H_Def / H_OperatingPoint

8
BULB TURBINE 8
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Flow through the Runner

1.5 097_Q11=800_Runner=4_GuideVane=50 097_Q11=1700_Runner=17_GuideVane=35
Plane position: domain length
097_Q11=2800_Runner=31_GuideVane=25 1.1_Q11=800_Runner=4_GuideVane=50
0.97 1.1 1.65 1.9 2.03
1.4 1.1_Q11=1700_Runner=17_GuideVane=35 1.1_Q11=2800_Runner=_GuideVane=25
1.65_Q11=800_Runner=4_GuideVane=50 1.65_Q11=1700_Runner=17_GuideVane=35
1.3
1.65_Q11=2800_Runner=31_GuideVane=25 1.9_Q11=800_Runner=4_GuideVane=50
1.2 1.9_Q11=1700_Runner=17_GuideVane=35 1.9_Q11=2800_Runner=31_GuideVane=25
2.03_Q11=800_Runner.=4_GuideVane=50 2.03_Q11=1700_Runner=17_GuideVane=35
1.1
2.03_Q11=2800_Runner=31_GuideVane=25

Flow rate: min.Æmax. 300%

1
Q 11=800 Q 11=1700 Q 11=2800
0.9
cm / cm_max

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 Runner works fine over it‘s

0 0.25 0.5
height Æ no fluid transportation
0.75 1
Radius HUB to SHROUD
in radial direction is needed

9
BULB TURBINE 9
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Transient calculation Data:

-1000 files, each 1600 MB / trn-file (full model incl.
Stationary total inlet area), fine grid result file 3GB
-1500 files, each 350 MB / trn-file (4 rev.), normal
grid, result file 700 MB

Separation Transient

4-blade runner near optimum

10
BULB TURBINE 10
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Transient Calculation
1 1
0.9998
0.9996
0.998
0.9994
0.9992

H(Def)_value/H(Def)_value_max
0.999 0.996
0.9988
value/value_max

0.9986 Q_norm
0.994
0.9984
H(Moment)_norm
0.9982
0.998 0.992
H(Drall)_norm
0.9978
0.9976 eta_LA+LR+SR1+SR2_norm_Filter2
0.99
0.9974
H(Def)_norm_Filter2
0.9972
0.997 0.988
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
revolution

11
BULB TURBINE 11
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006

Summary
Excellent correlation between experimental and
simulation data
Machine optimisation for shorter draft tube

12
BULB TURBINE 12
 Benigni, Jaberg, Lampl, Franz 2006
View publication stats

Thank you for your attention !

ÆKoessler @ Technical exhibition : No. 74

ÆWork is ongoing with other setups (e.g. turbulence model)

http://www.hfm.tugraz.at | http://www.koessler.com

13
BULB TURBINE 13