IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Effects of a rectifier on the hydraulic
Influence of axial water jet size on RVR mitigation stability of the draft tube
L J Yang, J Zhang, C M Yan et al.
in draft tube of Francis turbine - Vortex rope interaction with radially
protruded solid bodies in an axial turbine:
a numerical study
To cite this article: S Khullar et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1079 012027 H Holmström, J Sundström and M J
Cervantes

- Formation of Rotating Vortex Rope in the

Francis-99 Draft Tube
N Sotoudeh, R Maddahian and M J
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Cervantes

This content was downloaded from IP address 46.2.234.154 on 17/09/2023 at 22:06

31st IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1079 (2022) 012027 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1079/1/012027

Influence of axial water jet size on RVR mitigation in draft

tube of Francis turbine

S Khullar1, *, S Kumar1, K M Singh1, M J Cervantes2 and B K Gandhi1

1
Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, IIT Roorkee, India
2
Division of Fluid and Experimental Mechanics, Department of Engineering Sciences
and Mathematics, LTU, Sweden
*skhullar@me.iitr.ac.in

Abstract. The present work investigates the effect of the axial water jet nozzle size on the
unsteady pressure fluctuations arising from RVR formation in the draft tube of a Francis turbine
operating at part load. The results compare two different nozzle diameter jets for their effect on
the pressure pulsations and pressure recovery in the draft tube. Simulations were carried out at
four jet injections varying from 2% to 10% of the main discharge. The study also presents the
changes in the net effective area and average swirl in the draft tube with the introduction of the
water jet.

1. Introduction
Hydroelectric power plants are a clean, renewable, and highly efficient energy source. They are also
used to provide grid stability due to their ability to alter the operating point easily. Thus, modern
hydraulic turbines are frequently subjected to sub-optimal operating conditions far from their design
point [1]. These operating conditions are reported to cause an abrupt increase in hydraulic losses, fatigue
loading, and increased pressure pulsations [2]. These detrimental effects are more severe in singly
regulated Francis turbines designed for one specific design point. The primary source of hydraulic loss
is the presence of flow instabilities such as vortices, stagnant regions, or flow reversals in the draft tube
[3].
The flow ingested by the draft tube at off-design conditions often has a high residual swirl. This
swirling decelerating flow in the draft tube leads to a helical precessing vortex, known as rotating vortex
rope (RVR) [4]. This vortical structure precesses the draft axis at about 0.2-0.4 times the runner
frequency and leads to severe pressure pulsations and hydraulic losses [5]. The deficit in axial
momentum at the draft tube center is responsible for the development of the RVR. The axial water jet
injection in the draft tube was proposed to mitigate the RVR and associated pulsations. The idea was to
increase the axial momentum in the central region and eliminate the reverse flow regime responsible for
the formation of RVR [6]. The initial studies reported water injection to be more effective than existing
methods [6-8]. However, the methodology is relatively new and requires extensive investigations before
implementation in actual prototypes. The effect of physical parameters of the nozzle on the velocity and
pressure fields of an actual bend-type draft tube also needs a clear understanding.
The present work numerically investigates the effect of the axial jet size on the mitigation of the
RVR and unsteady pressure fluctuations arising due to its formation. The simulations were performed
on a 1:14.35 scaled Francis turbine model of a low head Francis turbine operating at a hydropower plant
in India. The results compare the two jet sizes for their effect on the pressure pulsations and pressure

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
31st IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1079 (2022) 012027 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1079/1/012027

recovery in the draft tube. The study also presents the changes in the net effective area and average swirl
in the draft tube with the introduction of the water jet.

2. Numerical model and methodology

The complete turbine unit from the spiral casing to the draft tube outlet was modeled for the present
simulations. The turbine unit consists of 24 stay vanes, 24 guide vanes, and 14 runner blades. A
schematic of the complete turbine unit is shown in figure 1(a). The runner outlet diameter (D) of the
scaled-down model is 200 mm, and it is designed to operate under a net head of 1.05 m. The speed factor
(nED) of the prototype and the scaled-down model is 0.517, calculated as per IEC60193 [9]. The test rig
design process is discussed in previous work by the authors [10]. The runner cone of the turbine unit
was modified to accommodate the passage for water injection. The optimum runner cone profile was
selected after extensive simulations on three different designs with and without water jet injection
[11,12]. The nozzle diameter of 18 mm was the maximum that could be achieved without significantly
altering the runner cone profile. The length of the runner cone was kept the same as the original runner
cone. The finalized runner cone had a stabilizing passage at the nozzle exit.
In the present analysis, the two runner cones with different size nozzles are compared to determine
the effect of jet size on RVR mitigation using axial jet injection. The two nozzle designs are
geometrically similar and are shown in figure 1(b-c). The first nozzle has a diameter of 12.7 mm and
the second nozzle has a diameter of 18 mm. The exit area of the second nozzle is almost double that of
the first one. These diameters are 6.35% and 9% of the runner outlet diameter. The smaller and larger
diameter jets are referred to as J1 and J2, respectively, in the remaining text.

Figure 1. (a) A schematic of the complete turbine (b) Nozzle J1 (12.7 mm) (c) Nozzle J2 (18 mm).

A complete hexahedral mesh of the turbine components was prepared using ANSYS ICEM. The
minimum quality of the mesh was kept above 0.3. The transient numerical simulations were performed
using ANSYS CFX. The time step for the simulations was kept equivalent to 1o of runner rotation. The
pressure corresponding to the net head of the turbine unit was defined at the inlet boundary. At the outlet,
an opening-type boundary condition was prescribed. The spiral casing and the draft tube domains were
stationary, while the runner domain was given a rotational speed of 500 rpm. The water jet was injected
at 2%, 5%, 8%, and 10% of the main flow through the turbine unit. The SST k-ω model was used for the
closure of turbulence quantities. The discretization of advection terms and turbulence numeric and
temporal terms was done using second-order accurate schemes. The GCI method [13] was used to
conduct the mesh independence test. The details regarding the mesh parameters, numerical setup
validation, and the mesh independency test can be found in previous works by the authors [12]. The
choice of numerical setup parameters was validated by performing simulations on the Francis-99 test
case for which the data is available in the open domain.
Figure 2 shows twelve monitor points in the draft tube cone at which the pressure data was monitored
for carrying out the spectral analysis. These monitor points were placed in three horizontal planes, DT1,
DT2, and DT3, as shown in figure 2(b). The plane DT0 is at the draft tube inlet. The central post-

2
31st IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1079 (2022) 012027 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1079/1/012027

processing plane in the draft tube, on which the velocity contours are drawn, is also shown in figure
2(a).

Figure 2. Monitor points and post-processing plane in the draft tube.

The chosen operating point for analysis is a part load (PL) turbine operation with a fully developed
RVR. Figure 3(a) shows the discharge and efficiency at different guide vane openings of the turbine
unit. The flow rate at the PL is 77.5% of that observed at point A in figure 3(a) (max. efficiency point).
The axial velocity contour, pressure, and zero axial velocity iso-surfaces at the chosen operating point
are shown in figure 3(b-c). The contour represents the dimensionless velocity va* defined as

va
va*  (1)
 Rref

where va is the axial velocity,  is the runner angular velocity, and Rref is the runner outlet radius. The
axial velocity contour shows a reverse flow regime at the center of the draft tube. This reverse flow
regime and rotating flow induce a large shear region rolling up to form the vortex rope. This is visualized
in figure 3(c) using the pressure and zero axial velocity iso-surface. The pressure iso-surface visually
confirms the presence of RVR rolled up around the stagnant region.

Figure 3. (a) Discharge and efficiency curve for different guide vane openings (A: max efficiency
point, B: PL operating point) (b) Axial velocity contour (c) Pressure (99.4 kPa) and zero axial velocity
iso-surface at the chosen operating point.

3. Results and Discussion

The influence of jet size on the velocity and pressure field in the draft tube is discussed in this section.
The simulation results with 2%, 5%, 8%, and 10% water jet discharge are presented. The influence of

3
31st IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1079 (2022) 012027 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1079/1/012027

jet size on the axial velocity field and swirl number is discussed first. The effect of jet size on pressure
pulsations and pressure recovery in the draft tube is also presented.
3.1. Axial Velocity Field
The axial velocity contours on the post-processing plane for the two jet sizes are shown in figure 4. The
main flow direction is downwards, and hence, the positive velocities represent the reverse flow regime
in the draft tube. The instantaneous velocity contours highlight the interaction of the water jet with the
reverse flow regime. The water jet started losing its energy as it moved downstream in the flow field.
The penetration extent of the jet J1 was greater than J2 as J1 had higher velocity and hence, higher
momentum at the runner exit. The water jet targets the stagnation region at the draft tube center, which
is responsible for the formation of RVR at the part-load operation. The extent of the stagnant region
reduces in the draft tube cone with increased jet discharge. At 10% injection, the contours show the
water jet eccentric to the draft tube axis.

Figure 4. Axial velocity contours for different jet injections (i-v) at the post-processing plane for jets
(a)J1 and (b) J2.
The effect of the jet discharge on the net effective area is presented in figure 5. The figure shows the
results at four different horizontal planes in the draft tube cone, as shown in figure 2(b). The net effective
area was evaluated using MATLAB code. It is the fraction of the total area of the plane which has the
axial velocity in the direction of the main flow. It can be observed that jet J1 resulted in comparatively
better elimination of the stagnant region at low jet discharges (2% and 5%). The jet J2, at discharges of
2% and 5%, was merely able to push the stagnant region downstream, resulting in a reduction of
effective area at planes DT2 and DT3. The maximum improvement in the effective area was observed
in planes DT0 and DT1, validating the practicality of the water jet.
However, contrasting results were obtained for the two jets for high jet discharges of 8% and 10%.
The stagnation region in the center of the draft tube cone was eliminated by the jet J2 as the normalized
effective area reached unity for all the planes. For the jet J1, the effective area at plane DT3 was reduced

4
31st IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1079 (2022) 012027 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1079/1/012027

at higher jet discharges. The axial velocity contours in figure 4 show an additional reverse flow regime
at the draft tube bend due to the impact of the high-velocity jets. This reverse flow regime was larger
for the jet J1 and reached the draft tube cone leading to a reduction in effective area. The results indicate
that the maximum velocity of the water jet should not reach the draft tube bend as it leads to reverse
flow regimes due to the reflection of the water jet.

Figure 5. Effective area in draft tube cone for jets (a)J1 and (b) J2.

Figure 6. Variation of swirl number in draft tube cone for jets (a)J1 and (b) J2.

The average swirl number (S) was also evaluated at the four horizontal planes. The swirl number is
the ratio of the axial flux of the tangential momentum to the axial flux of the axial momentum, and for
the present analysis, it was evaluated as

R
2
  v va 2 r dr
S 0 (2)
R
R   va2 2 rdr
0

where va is the axial velocity and v is the tangential velocity component. The swirl number calculated
considering the direction of the velocity components was negative. However, only the swirl number
magnitude is of relevance, and hence, the absolute value of the swirl number was used in the present
analysis. The results obtained using equation (2) are summarized in figure 6.

5
31st IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1079 (2022) 012027 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1079/1/012027

The swirl number increases at all planes except DT0 for 2% jet injection. The influence of the 2%
water jet was limited to the upper plane, resulting in only a slight increase in axial momentum. The
reduction in the size of the stagnant region led to higher tangential momentum and hence, higher average
swirl. For the jet J1, the increase in swirl number for planes DT2 and DT3 continued for 5% injection.
The swirl number decreased for higher jet injections because of much higher axial momentum at the
draft tube center due to jet injection.
3.2. Pressure pulsations and recovery
The pressure pulsations were quantified using the fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the pressure data
recorded at monitor points in the draft tube cone. Figure 7 shows the frequency spectra of the pulsations
obtained at two monitor points in the draft tube cone. The maximum amplitude and the corresponding
frequency are also marked in the figure. The frequency was made non-dimensional with the runner
rotation frequency (fn). The pressure pulsation amplitudes were normalized with respect to the net head
available using the following relation:
100( p  p )
p*  (3)
 gH
The synchronous (Psyn) and rotational (Prot) pressure pulsation components were evaluated using the
procedure outlined by Bosioc et al.[7], are also plotted in figure 7. These pulsation components were
also normalized with the available pressure head similar to Eq. (3).

Figure 7. FFT of the pressure data at monitor points in the draft tube function of the jet flow rate
together with the synchronous (red dash line) and rotating (blue dash line) component for jets (a)J1
and (b) J2.

6
31st IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1079 (2022) 012027 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1079/1/012027

The results show that for jet J1, the maximum reduction in pulsation magnitudes was obtained for
2% water injection in the draft tube cone. The pulsation amplitudes were reduced by around 80% and
65% for DT11 and DT21, respectively. With a further increase in jet discharge, the pulsation magnitudes
increased with amplitudes higher than that obtained without any jet injection. For jet J2, the pulsations
started to reduce with the introduction of jet and were non-existent for 5% jet injection. The magnitude
of pulsations started to increase for high jet discharges similar to jet J1, but the magnitude of pulsations
was much lower than J1.
The increase in pulsation magnitudes at higher jet discharges is mainly due to the synchronous
component of pulsations. This suggests that although the jet could destroy the coherence and strength
of the vortical structure, its interaction with the main flow increased axial perturbations. This
amplification of axial perturbations was more for high-velocity jet J1. The impact of the water jet at the
draft tube bend for high jet discharges may have further amplified the synchronous pressure pulsations.
The increase in the rotational component of pulsations at 5% injection for J1 and 8% injection for J2
was due to water jet rotation around the draft tube axis. The jet is being issued from a rotating hub, and
at moderately high velocities, the jet becomes eccentric to the axis. This self-rotation of the water jet led
to a higher rotational component of the pulsations.
Figure 8 shows the variation in pressure recovery in the draft tube cone for different jet discharges
at the planes DT1, DT2, and DT3. The calculations are based on the average pressure ( p ) in the planes
obtained directly from the numerical results. The pressure recovery coefficient CR was calculated using
the relation
( p  p DTO )
CR  (4)
1 2
 vavg
2
where p DT 0 is the average pressure of the plane DT0, ρ is the water density, and vavg is the bulk mean
velocity at plane DT0, neglecting the jet and flow reversal area. The results show that the small area jet
J1 had a positive influence on pressure recovery at planes DT1 and DT2 for all rates of jet injection. For
plane DT3, the pressure recovery decreased for 8% and 10% injection due to flow reversal at the bend.
The decrease in the effective area resulted in a loss in pressure recovery.

Figure 8. Pressure recovery coefficient in draft tube cone for jets (a)J1 and (b) J2.
For jet J2, the pressure recovery only improved for plane DT1 at all jet discharges. The pressure
recovery in-plane DT2 and DT3 decreased at first for 2% and 5% injections because the effect of the jet
was only limited to the upper two planes. The stagnation region still existed at the lower half of the draft
tube cone. The reverse flow regime was eliminated at higher jet discharges, resulting in improved
pressure recovery at all planes.

7
31st IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1079 (2022) 012027 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1079/1/012027

4. Concluding remarks
Numerical simulations were performed to quantify the effect of the axial water jet size employed to
mitigate RVR in the draft tube of a Francis turbine operating at part load. The results showed that the
small diameter jet was more effective in eliminating the central reverse flow regime due to higher axial
momentum. The average swirl in the draft tube cone was also reduced more for this jet. However, the
high velocity of the small diameter jet led to an additional reverse flow region at the draft tube bend,
which led to a reduction of the net effective area of the draft tube cone. The impact of the high-velocity
water jet combined with its self-rotation led to increased pressure pulsations. The spectral analysis
showed that the large diameter and low-velocity water jet suppressed the pressure pulsations better. The
results further emphasized that the jet velocity should be controlled so that the water jet should not reach
the draft tube bend.
Acknowledgment
We would like to show our gratitude to the Central Power Research Institute (CPRI), India, for providing
financial assistance to this project under grant no. CPR-1133-MID. The authors are also thankful to
Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL), India, for sharing the details of turbine design.

References
[1] Trivedi C, Gandhi B K and Michel C J 2013 Effect of transients on Francis turbine runner life: A
review, J. of Hydraulic Research 51(2) 121-132.
[2] Dörfler P, Sick M and Coutu A 2012 Flow-Induced Pulsation and Vibration in Hydroelectric
Machinery: Engineer’s Guidebook for Planning, Design and Troubleshooting (Springer
Science & Business Media).
[3] Mauri S, Kueny J L and Avellan F 2004 Werlé–Legendre separation in a hydraulic machine draft
tube, J. of Fluids Engineering 126 976–980.
[4] Kumar S, Cervantes M J and Gandhi B K 2020 Rotating vortex rope formation and mitigation in
draft tube of hydro turbines–A review from experimental perspective, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 136 110354.
[5] Rheingans W 1940 Power swings in hydroelectric power plants, Trans. ASME 62 171–184.
[6] Susan-Resiga R, Vu T C, Muntean S, Ciocan G D and Nennemann B 2006 Jet control of the draft
tube vortex rope in Francis turbines at partial discharge, In Proc. 23rd IAHR Symposium on
Hydraulic Machinery and Systems, Yokohama, Japan, 67–80.
[7] Bosioc A I, Susan-Resiga R, Muntean S and Tanasa C 2012 Unsteady pressure analysis of a
swirling flow with vortex rope and axial water injection in a discharge cone, J. of Fluids
Engineering 134(8).
[8] Juposhti H J, Maddahian R and Cervantes M J 2021 Optimization of axial water injection to
mitigate the rotating vortex rope in a Francis turbine, Renewable Energy 175 214–231.
[9] Standard IEC 60193 1999. Hydraulic Turbines, Storage Pumps and Pump-Turbines—Model
Acceptance Tests.
[10] Kumar S, Khullar S, Cervantes M J and Gandhi B K 2021 Turbine test rig to investigate flow
instabilities in draft tube, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 774
012111.
[11] Khullar S, Kumar S, Singh K M, Cervantes M J and Gandhi B K 2021 Influence of the runner
cone design on the pressure fluctuations in the draft tube of a low head Francis turbine, IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 774 012110.
[12] Khullar S, Singh K M, Cervantes M J and Gandhi B K 2022 Influence of runner cone profile and
axial water jet injection in a low head Francis turbine at part load, Sustainable Energy
Technologies and Assessments 50 101810.
[13] Celik I B, Ghia U, Roache P J, Freitas C J, Coleman H, Raad P E 2008 Procedure for estimation
and reporting of uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications, J. of Fluids Engineering
130(7).