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

net/publication/337258508

Optimal Rotational Speed of Kaplan and Francis Turbines with Focus on Low-
Head Hydropower Applications and Dataset Collection

Article  in  Journal of Hydraulic Engineering · November 2019

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001643

CITATIONS READS

16 2,937

1 author:

Emanuele Quaranta
European Commission
58 PUBLICATIONS   757 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

CFD simulations of turbulent flow field around porous cylinders View project

Optimization of hydraulic turbines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Emanuele Quaranta on 27 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Optimal Rotational Speed of Kaplan and Francis
Turbines with Focus on Low-Head Hydropower
Applications and Dataset Collection
Emanuele Quaranta, Ph.D. 1

Abstract: The rotational speed estimation of Francis and Kaplan turbines is of primary importance in the design of hydropower plants.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Emanuele Quaranta on 10/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

However, most rotational speed equations were conceived for power outputs higher than 1 MW, i.e., for heads typically higher than 10 m for
Kaplan turbines and 50 m for Francis turbines. Therefore, the accuracy of these equations is low when applied to reaction turbines with power
outputs below 1 MW (mini-hydropower), which means the personal know-how of hydropower companies is generally used to select
rotational speed. In light of this, a database composed of hundreds of full-scale Francis and Kaplan miniturbines was collected. Full-scale
data were used in combination with the Buckingham π-theorem to determine a nondimensional equation for the rotational speed estimation of
collected turbines. Flow rate and head were used as input variables. The dimensional analysis was also extended to high-head Kaplan and
Francis turbines. A universal equation valid for both Francis and Kaplan turbines was obtained. Finally, the dimensionless terms obtained
from the analysis were proposed as characteristic numbers for the selection of the hydraulic turbine type. The new equations were proposed as
engineering tools for the design of hydroturbines. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001643. © 2019 American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Introduction all countries (Laghari et al. 2013); indeed, it is estimated that in

Electricity generation from renewable energy sources represents
an important strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
(European Commission 2009a, b). Among renewable energy, hy-
dropower is the most-used and ancient renewable source.
Hydropower plants exhibit some advantages over other renew-
able plants like wind and solar power plants. Hydropower is more
responsive to load-management requirements, while pump-storage
power plants can consume electricity in low-demand and low-price
periods, and supply it during periods with high energy demand.
Furthermore, hydropower output is easier to predict than the power
generated by solar and wind plants, except in the case of long dry
periods (Bodis et al. 2014).
Being hydropower a mature technology, its future will consist of
(Kougias et al. 2019): (1) the optimization of existing hydro-
schemes [e.g., vortex rope control ( Resiga et al. 2010)] and devel-
opment of more flexible plants, like pumping stations for load
management; (2) large hydropower plant development in emerging
countries, an option not always feasible due to political instability,
lack of technical resources, and inefficient electrical grids in these
contexts; and (3) the installation of smaller hydropower plants, like
mini- and micro-hydroplants (Bodis et al. 2014).
Mini-hydroplants have power outputs of P ≤ 1 MW, whereas
micro-hydroplants have outputs of P ≤ 100 kW (Quaranta and
Revelli 2015). Mini- and micro-hydrosites are present in almost
1
Researcher, Dept. of Environment, Land and Infrastructure Engineering,
Politecnico di Torino, Turin 10129, Italy; Scientific Researcher, Dept. of
Water and Marine Resources, European Commission, Joint Research Center,
Ispra 21027, Italy. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7781-3526. Email:
quarantaemanuele@yahoo.it; emanuele.quaranta@ec.europa.eu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 9, 2018; approved
on April 10, 2019; published online on October 14, 2019. Discussion
period open until March 14, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429.
rivers, irrigation canals, and at old millsites there is a significant
amount of mini- and micro-hydropower potential with head differ-
ences H of a few meters, and flow rates Q ranging between 10−1
and 101 m3 =s (ESHA 2014; Quaranta and Müller 2018; Quaranta
and Revelli 2018).
Regarding the installation of smaller hydropower plants, gravity
water wheels are generally used for head differences below 6 m and
flow rates below 4 m3 =s, with power outputs typically less than
40 kW (Quaranta and Revelli 2018). Gravity water wheels can
be subdivided into overshot (Quaranta and Revelli 2015), breast-
shot (Quaranta and Revelli 2017), and undershot water wheels
(Quaranta and Müller 2018). Hydrodynamic screws (Nuernbergk
and Rorres 2013; Lubitz et al. 2014) are employed for head differ-
ences below 6 m, flow rates below 8 m3 =s, and power outputs
generally below 100 kW. Reaction turbines, i.e., micro–Kaplan
and micro–Francis turbines (Bozhinova et al. 2013), have been
effectively used above 50 kW, because water wheels and hydrody-
namic screws would require very large diameters and widths.
Action turbines, like Pelton and Banki turbines, are also good al-
ternatives due to their simplicity with respect to reaction turbines.
However, action turbines are not convenient for heads of few me-
ters; the head loss between the turbine outlet and the tailrace is
comparable with the head difference, and low flow rates can be
discharged, resulting in low power output.
The estimation of the optimal rotational speed N of previous
hydropower converters is of primary importance to achieve optimal
efficiency and good working conditions. The rotational speed
of overshot water wheels and Archimedes screws is a function
of the diameter (Quaranta and Revelli 2015; Lubitz et al. 2014;
Nuernbergk and Rorres 2013), while the rotational speed of
undershot/breastshot water wheels depends on the head difference
and inflow velocity (Quaranta and Müller 2018). Rotational speed
of action turbines and floating/stream water wheels has to be ad-
equate for the optimal exploitation of flow momentum (de Siervo
and Lugaresi 1978; Quaranta 2018). Instead, the rotational speed

© ASCE 04019043-1 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 04019043

 estimation of reaction turbines is not intuitive, because a series of
additional phenomena occur with respect to action/gravity turbines,
like cavitation, resonance, eddies, and pressure gradients (Resiga
et al. 2010; Trivedi and Cervantes 2017). During recent decades,
empirical equations have been proposed to estimate a preliminary
value of N for Kaplan and Francis turbines (see subsequent section
in this paper). However, as this paper will prove, these equations
do not work well within the mini- and micro-hydropower fields.
This is because of their empiricism and because most of them are
not completely based on a dimensional analysis.
To this end, this paper proposes an equation to better estimate
the rotational speed of micro– and mini–Kaplan and Francis
turbines. Secondly, the equation was extended to high-head Kaplan
and Francis turbines (P > 1 MW). This is important because
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Emanuele Quaranta on 10/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
preliminary dimensions of reaction turbines are estimated from
typical turbomachinery numbers (e.g., the specific speed), which
depend on the rotational speed (de Siervo and de Lava 1976, 1977;
Schweiger and Gregori 1987; Lugaresi and Massa 1987). To obtain
the new rotational speed equation, a dimensional analysis was
conducted using N, H, Q, and fluid properties as dependent var-
iables. Full-scale turbines were collected for validation purposes
(Tables S1 and S2) from the scientific literature, hydropower com-
panies, and managers of hydropower plants. Table S1 lists the
mini–Kaplan turbines, for head differences ranging between 1 and
17 m, flow rates from 0.03 to 34 m3 =s, and power outputs within
1–1,000 kW. Table S2 lists the mini–Francis turbines, for head
differences ranging between 3 and 150 m, flow rates from 0.07
to 7 m3 =s, and power outputs within 4–1,200 kW.
Rotational Speed of Kaplan and Francis
Turbines: A Literature Survey
One well-known rotational speed equation of Kaplan turbines was
published in de Siervo and de Lava (1977). It correlates the specific
speed N s , a function of N in revolutions per minute (rpm), to the
head difference H (m)
P0.5
N s ¼ N 1.25 ¼ 2419H−0.489 ð1Þ
H
where P = turbine power in kW; N = rpm; and H is expressed in
meters. These units will be the same for all the equations presented
in this paper. Eq. (1) exhibited R2 ¼ 0.79 when applied to the
database collected from de Siervo and de Lava (1977).
In 1987, Schweiger and Gregory (1987) developed Eq. (2), with
R2 ¼ 0.91
920650 920650
H ¼ 2.058 ¼
2.058 ð2Þ
Nq 0.5
N Q0.75 H
Based on full-scale data, Eqs. (1) and (2) can predict the rota-
tional speed with an average discrepancy δ ¼ ðnest -nreal Þ=nreal of
about 30%, where nest is the estimated rotational speed by the
equation, and nreal is the full-scale one.
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Austegard
and Schumacher 2011) proposed to estimate the rotational speed as
shown in Eq. (3) as follows:
pffiffiffiffi
H ¼ 370 H ð3Þ
Other equations similar to Eqs. (1) and (2) are present in the
literature, but with no substantial difference in the obtained N value
(Baggio 2015).
© ASCE 04019043-2
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 04019043
Instead, for Francis turbines, de Siervo and de Lava (1976)
proposed Eq. (4)
P0.5
Ns ¼ N ¼ 3470 H −0.625 ð4Þ
H1.25
with R2 ¼ 0.90.
Ten years later, Lugaresi and Massa (1987) proposed the follow-
ing equation, with R2 ¼ 0.87
 
Q0.5 638
Nq ¼ N 0.75 ¼ 0.512 ð5Þ
H H
In addition to previous equations, Kecel et al. (2017) conducted
a literature review on Francis turbines for the selection of their
rotational speed. Six equations have been collected (including
equations from hydropower companies) where the specific speed
N s was expressed as a function of the head difference. All the
equations gave similar results to Eq. (5).
Previous equations were generally obtained by interpolating
data of full-scale turbines for power output P > 1 MW, and the
estimated rotational speed varies slightly among the equations.
Their strong advantage is that the head difference H and the flow
rate Q are known, and thus the rotational speed N (rpm) can be
easily calculated. However, their weakness is that not all the terms
included in the equations are dimensionless. Indeed, when Eqs. (1)
and (5) are applied to the mini– and micro–Francis and Kaplan tur-
bines collected in this paper, the rotational speed is generally over-
estimated. For example, the average discrepancy is δ ¼ 158%
by using Eq. (1) for micro–Kaplan turbines and δ ¼ 69% by using
Eq. (1) for mini–Kaplan turbines, and δ ¼ 325% by using Eq. (4)
for micro–Francis turbines and δ ¼ 118% by using Eq. (4) for
mini–Francis turbines [Eqs. (1) and (4) proposed by de Siervo
and de Lava (1976, 1977) are specifically considered in this paper
because the original turbine dataset was included in their paper].
Method
The Buckingham π-theorem was applied to express, in dimension-
less terms, the rotational speed of mini–reaction turbines as a func-
tion of flow rate and head.
Because at the beginning of the design process of a hydroplant
the flow rate Q and the head difference H are known, the rotational
speed can be supposed to be dependent on head, flow rate, and
physical fluid properties
N ¼ fðH; Q; μ; ρ; gÞ ð6Þ
where N (rpm) is a frequency, i.e., the inverse of a time; μ =
dynamic viscosity of water (N s m−2 ); ρ = water density; and
g ¼ 9.81 ms−2 is the gravitational acceleration. Using H, g and
ρ as independent variables, Eq. (6) becomes
 
N Q μ
pffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ f pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 ; pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi → N  ¼ fðQ ; Re−1 Þ ð7Þ
2gH 2gH H ρH 2gH
H
pffiffiffi
The coefficient 2 was included so that the Torricellian velocity
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2gH appeared. Inpffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Eq. (7) the rotational frequency N was
normalized by T ¼ 2gH =H. The term T represents the inverse
of the time employed by a fluid particle to flow freely along the
head difference H, as it would occur in a Pelton turbine with
the nozzle diameter equal to the penstock diameter, and without
friction. At the right-hand side, the flow rate was normalized to
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Fig. 1. Normalized rotational speed versus normalized flow rate for (a) mini–Kaplan and mini–Francis turbines (P < 1 MW); and (b) large turbines.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Emanuele Quaranta on 10/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(Data from de Siervo and de Lava 1976, 1977.)

the corresponding flow rate that would flow across a transversal
section of area H2 (or a circular section of diameter H, approxi-
mately). These terms are similar to the unitary rotational speed
and unitary flow rate commonly used in reaction turbines, with
the exception that the head H was used in Eq. (7) instead of the
turbine diameter D (Brekke 2001; Heckelsmueller 2015). The third
term is the Reynolds number (Re), which in this analysis was ne-
glected for the following motivations (assumption confirmed in the
results): (1) Re is > 107 (considering head difference H > 2 m),
which implies fully turbulent regime in pipes and turbines (turbu-
lent transition occurs at about Re ¼ 2,300), and therefore scale
effects due to turbulence are negligible; (2) the effects of the Re
number are perceived on the turbine efficiency rather than on its
rotational speed (Avellan 2004); and (3) the only variable of interest
contained in Re is H, which is already present in the other dimen-
sionless terms.
In the next section, this analysis will be applied to the collected
miniturbines and to the big turbines already listed in de Siervo and
de Lava (1977, 1976), determining the best-fitting equations aimed
at estimating the rotational speed.
Results and Discussion
Collected data are reported in Table S1 (mini–Kaplan turbines) and
Table S2 (mini–Francis turbines), and plotted in Fig. 1(a) using
dimensionless terms. Instead, Fig. 1(b) depicts the large Kaplan and
Francis turbines (P >1 MW) listed in de Siervo and de Lava (1976,
1977), respectively. It can be seen that the best-interpolating expres-
sion is the power law expressed in Eq. (8)
for Francis turbines. Also, in this case a single equation can be con-
sidered valid, suggesting a universal behavior.
As it can be seen from Fig. 1, the dimensionless rotational speed
decreases with the increase in the dimensionless flow rate. The
highest Q values are for Kaplan turbines, which have the highest
reaction ratio. Indeed, higher Q values correspond to higher flow
rates Q and smaller heads H, approaching the field of Kaplan
turbines. In the next sections, Kaplan and Francis turbines will
be analyzed separately in order to achieve more specific and accu-
rate equations for the hydraulic design.
Kaplan Turbines
Fig. 2 depicts the data reported in Table 1 (mini−Kaplan turbines).
The best-interpolating values of α and β are α3 ¼ 32.68 and
β 3 ¼ −0.399, respectively. The value of R2 is 0.95, and the average
discrepancy between the actual rotational speed and that estimated
by Eq. (8) with α3 and β 3 is δ ¼ 13%.
Furthermore, Eq. (8) was extended to the high-head Kaplan
turbines listed and processed in de Siervo and de Lava (1977).
By using the same coefficients α3 and β 3 found for mini-Kaplan,
the average error would be 31%, which is practically the same
as that obtained by using Eq. (1) (de Siervo and de Lava 1977).
Instead, by using the best-fitting coefficients, α4 ¼ 26.8, β 4 ¼
−0.38, R2 ¼ 0.86, and δ ¼ 23%.
Francis Turbines
Eq. (8) was applied to the collected mini−Francis turbines reported
in Table 2. The best coefficients were found to be α5 ¼ 31.379

N  ¼ α1 Qβ 1 ð8Þ

Considering Francis and Kaplan turbines with P < 1 MW, the

best-fitting constants are α1 ¼ 43.307 and β 1 ¼ −0.315. The value
of R2 is 0.97, and the average discrepancy between the actual
rotational speed and that estimated by Eq. (8) is δ ¼ 18%, or, more
specifically, δ ¼ 19% for Kaplan turbines and δ ¼ 18% for Francis
turbines. Surprisingly, the interpolating equation is valid for
both Francis and Kaplan turbines, suggesting an almost universal
behavior [Fig. 1(a)].
Considering the large Kaplan and Francis turbines listed and
processed in de Siervo and de Lava (1976, 1977), respectively
[Fig. 1(b)], the best-fitting coefficients are α2 ¼ 32.185 and β 2 ¼
Fig. 2. Normalized rotational speed versus normalized flow rate for
−0.321, with R2 ¼ 0.93 and an average discrepancy of δ ¼ 24%,
mini–Kaplan turbines (P < 1 MW).
or, more specifically, δ ¼ 27% for Kaplan turbines and δ ¼ 19%

© ASCE 04019043-3 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 04019043

 Table 1. Coefficients and accuracy of proposed equations
Turbine Power (MW) α β R2 Δ (%)
Francis+Kaplan <1 43.31 −0.32 0.97 18
Francis+Kaplan >1 32.19 −0.32 0.93 24
Kaplan <1 32.68 −0.399 0.95 13
Kaplan >1 26.80 −0.38 0.86 23
Francis <1 31.38 −0.34 0.92 17
Francis >1 20.32 −0.36 0.98 11

Table 2. Minimum and maximum limit of N  for Kaplan and Francis

turbines
N Kaplan Francis
Fig. 3. Normalized rotational speed versus normalized flow rate for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Emanuele Quaranta on 10/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

N < N min

More units required Kaplan turbine required mini–Francis turbines (P < 1 MW).
N  ¼ N min 60 450
N  ¼ N max 450 3,000
N > N max Francis turbine required Pelton turbine required 
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiN 2ðrpsÞ ¼ 1, itpisffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
considering obtainedpthat Q ¼ Q= 2gH H2 ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðHA= 2gH H ÞN ¼ ðHA= 2gH H 2 Þð 2gH =HÞ ¼ A=H2 . This
dimensionless ratio is expected to be higher for Kaplan turbines
and β 5 ¼ −0.34, with an average discrepancy of δ ¼ 17% and
than for Francis turbines, because Kaplan turbines are used for
R2 ¼ 0.92. Subsequently, Eq. (8) was also applied to the high-
smaller heads with respect to Francis turbines and higher flow rates
head Francis turbines reported in de Siervo and de Lava (1976).
(i.e., higher A). Indeed, when N  ¼ 60 [i.e., N  ðrpsÞ ¼ 1], Q
By using the best-fitting coefficients α6 ¼ 20.32 and β 6 ¼ −0.36,
(which becomes A=H 2 ) is 0.1 for Kaplan turbines and 0.01 for
R2 was 0.98 and the average difference was δ ¼ 11%. Table 1 re-
Francis turbines, confirming the validity of the analysis.
ports the obtained coefficients with the proper accuracy for each
For Kaplan turbines, the smallest N  (rpm) was 27.5 [i.e., power
turbine type.
plant of Mecamidi (2018) in Table S1], at H ¼ 2 m and a flow of
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
23.5 m3 =s, i.e., NðrpsÞ 2gH =HÞ ∼0.5. Instead, the maximum N 
General Discussion and Practical Implications was 974 at a head of 18.6 m and a flow rate of 1.4 m3 =s. Only 17
turbines exhibit N  < 60, a value that typically occurs at heads be-
In the preceding section, proper equations were identified for the
low 4 m and flow rates higher than 10 m3 =s (20 mc/s average).
rotational speed selection of Francis and Kaplan turbines, with a
Turbines with N  < 60 represent very high specific-speed Kaplan
focus on power outputs below 1 MW. A single equation was iden-
turbines, thus N  ¼ 60 can be considered the lower limit for a
tified for both turbine types, suggesting a universal behavior when
Kaplan turbine; below it, more units are required. Meanwhile, only
flow rate and rotational speed are normalized as described in seven turbines are located at N  > 600, corresponding to heads
Eq. (7). In order to achieve more accurate equations, Francis and
higher than 12 m and a flow rate below 3 m3 =s; in any case, a maxi-
Kaplan turbines were then elaborated separately. The achieved dis-
mum limit of N  could be reasonably estimated as N  ¼ 450. For
crepancies between the estimated and real speeds were practically
higher N , Francis turbines would be more adequate.
below 20%. When gearboxes or power electronics are used in order
The same reasoning can be made for Francis turbines. The
to have a rotational speed independently from the grid frequency,
maximum limit for N  could be identified as N  ¼ 3,000 (Fig. 3),
Eq. (8) can be effectively used as a design tool. Additionally, Com-
which typically occurs at heads higher than 80 m and flow rates
putational Fluid Dynamic simulations could be run to optimize it a
below 1 m3 =s (0.5 mc/s average), which represents the overlapping
second time. When the power takeoff is conceived to be a function
zone with Pelton turbines. Instead, a lower limit can be taken
of the grid frequency and number of poles of the generator, Eq. (8)
as equal to N  ¼ 450, corresponding to flow rates higher than
can be considered an executive design tool for the selection of the
2 m3 =s (2.7 mc/s average) and heads below 20 m (10 m average),
rotational speed when the number of poles is below 10 (i.e., rota-
which is the range of Kaplan turbines. The previous results are de-
tional speeds higher than 600 rpm). This is because, in this range,
picted in Table 2. Finally, it is interesting to observe that rotational
the percentage difference between two consecutive rotational
speed isolines (N = constant) are generated when the normalized
speeds is higher than 20%.
rotational speed is plotted versus the head difference (similarly
Furthermore, it should be noted that certain values of the dimen-
to literature studies). These isolines approach a single line when
sionless terms N  and Q could have both a physical meaning
the head difference is substituted by the normalized flow rate.
and an engineering application. The velocity N in Eq. (8) was
expressed in rpm instead of revolutions per second (rps) in order
to make it easier to be applied in practical applications. In any
Conclusions
case, the dimensionless
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi speed N  could be written in rps, so that
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
NðrpmÞ=ð 2gH =HÞ ¼ 60 NðrpsÞ=ð pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi =HÞ. One interesting
2gH In the present paper a dimensional analysis was conducted to obtain
situation occurs when NðrpsÞ=ð
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2gH =HÞ ¼ 1 [i.e., N  ðrpmÞ ¼ a shortcut equation to estimate the rotational speed of Kaplan
60], which implies H= 2gH ¼ 1=N. This means that the time and Francis turbines. The achieved equation was a power law
of one revolution of the turbine equals the time employed by a water involving the normalized rotational speed N  and the normalized
particle to freely fall along the head H. In this way, the water volume flow rate Q .
V discharged by the turbine refers to the water volume contained The achieved equation was applied to a set of mini–Kaplan and
in the pipe, i.e., V ¼ AH, in which A is the pipe transversal section Francis turbines collected in the literature and from hydropower
in m2 . Therefore, the discharged flow rate becomes Q ¼ AH N (rps). companies, and to the large turbines already listed in two scientific
Substituting this expression is the dimensionless flow rate, and papers. The best-fitting equation was a power law that estimated the

© ASCE 04019043-4 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 04019043

 rotational speed of mini–Kaplan and Francis turbines with an
average discrepancy of 13% and 17%, respectively. By using prop-
erly fitted coefficients, the average error was 23% and 11% for
high-head Kaplan and Francis turbines (i.e., power higher than
1 MW). Furthermore, it was found that a single equation could
be used for Francis and Kaplan turbines; although the discrepancy
was slightly higher with respect to the discrepancy achieved by
using specific equations for each turbine kind, it can nonetheless
be considered adequate, suggesting a universal behavior. Therefore,
the obtained equations can be used for the selection of the optimal
rotational speed of reaction turbines, with better accuracy than
existing equations.
Finally, it was observed that the dimensionless speed can be
used to define the range where Francis and Kaplan turbines can
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Emanuele Quaranta on 10/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
be employed; the range is 60 < N  < 450 for Kaplan turbines
and 450 < N  < 3,000 for Francis turbines.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study
appear in the published article.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to explicitly thank the following hydropower
companies (HCs) and irrigation consortia (IC) for their direct con-
tribution to data collection and personal communications: Est-Sesia
(IC), Zeco Hydropower (HC), Orengine (HC), 45Engineering
(HC), and Ghiggia Ingegneria d’Impianti (HC) (not all the realized
turbines of these HCs were included in this paper). Thanks also to
Koessler (HC) for its database.
Supplemental Data
Tables S1 and S2 are available online in the ASCE Library (www
.ascelibrary.org).
References
Austegard, A., and O. Schumacher. 2011. “Kaplan turbine from remote
hydroLight.” Accessed October 15, 2018. http://www.remotehydrolight
.com.
Avellan, F. 2004. “Introduction to cavitation in hydraulic machinery.”
In Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Hydraulic Machinery and Hydrodynamics.
Timisoara, Romania: Politehnica Univ. of Timişoara.
Baggio, D. 2015. “Micro Kaplan turbine preliminary design.” Master’s
thesis, Dept. of Ingegneria Energetica, Università degli Studi di Padova.
Bodis, K., F. Monforti, and S. Szabo. 2014. “Could Europe have more mini
hydro sites? A suitability analysis based on continentally harmonized
geographical and hydrological data.” Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev. 37: 794–808.
Bozhinova, S., D. Isliakov, G. Müller, V. Hecht, and S. Schneider. 2013.
“Hydropower converters with head differences below 2.5 m.” Proc.
Inst. Civ. Eng. Energy 166 (3): 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1680/ener
.11.00037.
Brekke, H. 2001. Hydraulic turbines design, erection and operation.
Trondheim, Norwey: Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology.
de Siervo, F., and F. de Lava. 1976. “Modern trends in selecting and
designing Francis turbines.” Water Power Dam Constr. 28 (8): 28–35.
de Siervo, F., and F. de Lava. 1977. “Modern trends in selecting and design-
ing Kaplan turbines.” Water Power Dam Constr. 32 (12): 40–48.
de Siervo, F., and A. Lugaresi. 1978. “Modern trends in selecting and
designing Pelton turbines.” Water Power Dam Constr. 30 (12): 40–48.
© ASCE 04019043-5
View publication stats J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 04019043
ESHA (European Small Hydropower Association). 2014. Small and micro
hydropower restoration handbook. Athens, Greece: National Technical
Univ. of Athens.
European Commission. 2009a. “RES Directive 2009/28/EC of the
European Parliament and on the Council of 23 April 2009 on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable.” Off. J. Eur. Union.
52 (L140): 0016–0062.
European Commission. 2009b. “Directive 2009/29/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive
2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission
allowance trading scheme of the Community.” Off. J. Eur. Union.
52 (L 140): 0063–0087. https://doi.org/10.3000/17252555.L_2009
.140.eng.
Heckelsmueller, G. P. 2015. “Application of variable speed operation on
Francis turbines.” Ingeniería e Investigación 35 (1): 12–16. https://doi
.org/10.15446/ing.investig.v35n1.44995.
Kecel, S., H. G. Yavuzkan, and A. Sozen. 2017. “Examination of flow
effects in Francis turbine models with different numbers of rotor
blades.” J. Polytech. 20 (1): 241–249. https://doi.org/10.2339/2017
.20.1.241-249.
Kougias, I., et al. 2019. “Analysis of emerging technologies in the hydro-
power sector.” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 113: 109257.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109257.
Laghari, J., H. Mokhlis, A. H. A. Bakar, and H. Mohammad. 2013.
“A comprehensive overview of new designs in the hydraulic, electrical
equipments and controllers of mini hydro power plants making it
cost effective technology.” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 20:
279–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.002.
Lubitz, D., M. Lyons, and S. Simmons. 2014. “Performance model of
archimedes screw hydro turbines with variable fill level.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 140 (10): 04014050. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943
-7900.0000922.
Lugaresi, A., and A. Massa. 1987. “Designing Francis turbines: trends in
the last decade.” Water Power Dam Constr. 39 (11): 23–32.
Mecamidi. 2018 “Reference_hydraulic_power_plants.” Accessed November
1, 2018. http://www.mecamidi.com/.
Nuernbergk, D., and C. Rorres. 2013. “Analytical model for water inflow
of an Archimedes screw used in hydropower generation.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 139 (2): 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900
.0000661.
Quaranta, E. 2018. “Stream water wheels as renewable energy supply in
flowing water: Theoretical considerations, performance assessment and
design recommendation.” Energy Sustainable Dev. 45 (Aug): 96–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2018.05.002.
Quaranta, E., and G. Müller. 2018. “Sagebien and Zuppinger water wheels
for very low head hydropower applications.” Hydraul. Res. 56 (4):
526–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2017.1397556.
Quaranta, E., and R. Revelli. 2015. “Output power and power losses
estimation for an overshot water wheel.” Renewable Energy 83 (1):
979–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.05.018.
Quaranta, E., and R. Revelli. 2017. “Hydraulic behavior and performance
of breastshot water wheels for different numbers of blades.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 143 (1): 04016072. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943
-7900.0001229.
Quaranta, E., and R. Revelli. 2018. “Gravity water wheels as a micro
hydropower energy source: A review based on historic data, design
methods, efficiencies and modern optimizations.” Renewable Sustain-
able Energy Rev. 97 (Dec): 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser
.2018.08.033.
Resiga, R., S. Muntean, V. Hasmatuchi, I. Anton, and F. Avellan. 2010.
“Analysis and prevention of vortex breakdown in the simplified
discharge cone of a Francis turbine.” J. Fluids Eng. 132 (5): 051102.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001486.
Schweiger, F., and J. Gregori. 1987. “Development in the design of Kaplan
turbines.” Water Power Dam Constr. (Nov): 16–20.
Trivedi, C., and M. Cervantes. 2017. “Fluid-structure interactions in Francis
turbines: A perspective review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Rev. 68: 87–101.
J. Hydraul. Eng.