Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Related content

- Performance analysis of micro-class
Study on the effect of the runner design Francis hydro turbine by CFD
Enkhtaivan Batmunkh and Young Ho Lee
parameters on 50 MW Francis hydro turbine - Mechanical impact of dynamic phenomena
in Francis turbines at off design conditions
model performance F Duparchy, J Brammer, M Thibaud et al.

- Multidisciplinary design optimization on the

To cite this article: Ujjwal Shrestha et al 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1042 012006 splitter blade of high head Francis turbine
Y H Song, P C Guo, L G Sun et al.

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 123.20.246.245 on 20/08/2019 at 19:51

Current Research in Hydraulic Turbines (CRHT) VIII IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1042 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1042/1/012006

Study on the effect of the runner design parameters on 50 MW

Francis hydro turbine model performance
Ujjwal Shrestha1, Zhenmu Chen1 and Young-Do Choi2*
1
Graduate School, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mokpo National University, Youngsan-Ro,
Cheonggye-Myeon, Muan-Gun, Jeonnam, 58554, South Korea
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of New and Renewable Energy Technology
Research, Mokpo National University, Youngsan-Ro, Cheonggye-Myeon, Muan-Gun, Jeonnam, 58554,
South Korea
* Corresponding author ([email protected])
Abstract
Francis hydro turbine is the dominant turbine in the hydropower generation. Francis turbine has been
installed at most 60% of the hydropower in the world at present. Although the basic design for the
Francis turbine has various method regarding the specific speed. The runner meridional shape varies
with different specific speed. Despite having, the basic design but there is still some room for the
optimization. In this study 50 MW, Francis hydro turbine with specific speed 323 m-kW was designed
and considered for the optimization. The various parameter as runner meridional shape (curve profile
of hub, shroud, leading edge and trailing edge), blade angle and its distribution, blade thickness, runner
inlet width that has been considered for the optimization of the runner for enhancement of the
performance.
Keywords: Francis hydro Turbine, Design, Meridional Shape, Blade Angle.

1. Introduction
Francis hydro turbine has a wide range of operating condition from low head to high head. There have
been lots of study on the high head Francis runner but unfortunately, there is not sufficient study on
low head Francis runner. Due to lack of study on low head Francis turbine the exploitation of low head
potential energy is limited and mainly depend on the axial turbine. The low head Francis runner has
different characteristics than the high head one. The difference between low head and high head
Francis runner is the dependency of the flow discharge with rotational speed, which is inverse in high
head Francis Runner, and direct with low head Francis runner [1]. Francis runner design is influenced
by numerous parameter due to the shape complexity and nature of the three-dimensional flow. The
major parameter for the design of Francis runner is rotational speed of the turbine, guide vane height,
meridional shape of the runner, runner inlet and outlet diameter, blade angle, blade angle distribution
from leading edge to trailing edge, thickness distribution profile [2]. Every power plant has its own
specification for turbine design to operate at maximum efficiency. In this article, the effect of runner
design parameters on the performance of the turbine has been discussed. The specification of the 50
MW Francis turbine is shown in the table 1.
Table 1: Parameter of 50 MW Francis Turbine.

Parameter Value
Head 38.7 m
Discharge 132 m3/s
Power 46.3 MW
Rotational Speed 150 rpm
Specific Speed 323 m-kW

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
Current Research in Hydraulic Turbines (CRHT) VIII IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1042 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1042/1/012006

2. Turbine Blade Design Parameter

Many runner design parameters affect the turbine performance. Runner meridional shape, blade angle
distribution, and thickness distribution in developing the blade shape has a major contribution to
increase or decrease the performance of the turbine. Based on non-dimensional specific speed, Francis
turbine design parameter is determined. P Henry and M Hussain Khan [3] [4] have used the equation 1
for determination of non-dimensional specific speed. The parameters for the meridional shape are the
function of the non-dimensional specific speed.

 Q/
 3
(1)
4
(2.E )

2.1. Meridional Shape

The meridional shape is the main concern with blade shape and design. The meridional shape has an
influence on the flow characteristics of runner. The meridional shape of the runner is varied according
to the specific speed of the runner. The meridional shape is generated from the equation developed by
BOVET [3]. The meridional shape can adjust according to the need of the turbine shape. The curve for
the meridional shape generally belongs to above curve family represented by equation 2.

3
y 16 x  x
 1 (2)
ymax 3 3 l  l 

The characteristics curve shown in figure 1 represent the curve profile for hub and shroud with the
variable with x represents the length of the curve. The maximum vertical height of the curve at the 25%
of the total length of the curve. Similarly, with help of the characteristic curve, the meridional shape
for the 50 MW Francis runner has been generated in Blade Gen ANSYS 18.1 [5].The l and r are the
length and radius, subscript i and e represent hub and shroud profile respectively, and subscript 1 and 2
represent leading edge and trailing edge respectively. However, in the meridional shape, the shroud

Figure 1: Characteristic curve for Flow Channel Figure 2: Nomenclature of the Meridional
Shape
profile length is 25% of the total length of the curve, which is the location of maximum camber.

The empirical dimension of meridional shape as shown in figure 2 can be calculated by using
equations 3 to 8 [3]. After calculating the empirical values, it is should be converted to the real
physical value by using some constant and represented by the upper case in figure 2. The constant

2
Current Research in Hydraulic Turbines (CRHT) VIII IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1042 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1042/1/012006

value will vary according to the required runner dimension. It can determine with help of energy
coefficient and discharge coefficient of the runner.

b  0.8(2  ) (3)

li  3.2  3.2(2  ) (4)

xe  0.52  0.2 (5)

le  2.4  1.9(2  ) (6)

0.18
r1i  0.4 
 (7)

1
r2 e 
0.96  0.2 (8)

3. Numerical Method
The commercial CFD software ANSYS CFX 18.1 [5] has been used to perform all the analysis of the
turbine. The analysis of both one pitch and the full domain has been conducted. The accuracy of the
simulation is dependent on the parameters such as numerical scheme, computational grid quality,
boundary condition and proper turbulence model. The casing and draft is unstructured grid consists of
a tetrahedral pyramid and prism elements. Stay vane and guide vane consists of unstructured
hexahedral elements from ANSYS ICEM 18.1 [5]. Hexahedral elements for the runner is generated
from ANSYS TURBOGRID 18.1 [5].

Table 2: Boundary Conditions for Analysis

Analysis Type Steady State

Turbulence Model SST
Inlet Total Pressure
Outlet Static Pressure

Walls No slip

Working Fluid Water at 250C

Figure 3: Full Domain Analysis

The result of the mesh independency test has been shown in figure 4. The efficiency and power output
for the different mesh number has been normalized by the efficiency and power output of fine mesh.
The deviation of normalized efficiency and power with respect to the variation of a mesh is less than
10%. From the mesh independency test, the minimum node number for the simulation is 450000 to
reduce the result deviation less than 0.5%. Similarly, the result of turbulence model test is presented in
figure 5. In turbulence model test the efficiency and power output have been normalized by efficiency

3
Current Research in Hydraulic Turbines (CRHT) VIII IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1042 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1042/1/012006

and power output of SST turbulence model. The difference in the normalized efficiency and power
output is less than 5%, which is compared with six different turbulence model. From the mesh
independency and turbulence model test it can be verified the result of the simulation.

1.01 1.04
1.01 1.08
1 1 1.03
1.06

P/PSST
η/ηSST
0.99 1.02

P/Pfine mesh
η/ηfine mesh

0.99
0.98 1.04 1.01
0.97 0.98 1
1.02
0.96 0.97 0.99
1

K-Epsilon

K-Omega
SST

BSL

Eddy Viscosity

RNG K-Epsilon
0.95

Transport
0.94 0.98
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 η/ηsst
Node Number
P/Psst
η/ηfine mesh P/Pfine mesh

Figure 4: Mesh Independency Test Figure 5: Turbulence Model Test

4. Result and Discussion

4.1 Blade Angle distribution
The inlet and outlet blade angle is vital for the proper runner design. The conventional way of the
designing considered the inlet blade angle is fixed from the hub to shroud and outlet angle vary with
the diameter. However, in the low head Francis runner, both inlet and outlet blade angle varies from
hub to shroud. The inlet and outlet blade angles are calculated as per the equation 9 and 10
respectively [6]. The inlet and outlet blade angle are dependent upon the diameter of the runner. At the
shroud, the inlet and outlet blade angle is nearly equal due to the minimum difference in the inlet and
outlet diameter whereas in the hub due to the high difference inlet and outlet angle deviation is also
high.

120 120 Profile 1

Profile 2
100 100 Profile 3
Profile 4
Blade Angle in degree

Inlet Blade Angle

Profile 5
Blade Angle in degree

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
Layer Span from hub to shroud
Layer span from leading edge to trailing edge

Figure 6: Blade angle variation from shroud to Figure 7: Blade angle distribution from LE to TE
hub

Beside inlet and outlet angle, the shape of the runner is dependent on blade angle distribution from
leading and trailing edge. The beta angle distribution for the low head Francis runner is not determined
exactly. As shown in figure 7 there are six types of beta angle distribution from the leading edge to
trailing edge of the runner. Profile 1 is the rear blade loading profile, which means the decrease in the
blade angle initially and gradually increases towards the outlet. Profile 2 is the front blade loading

4
 Current Research in Hydraulic Turbines (CRHT) VIII IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1042 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1042/1/012006

which angle distribution increases at the inlet and gradually decreases at the outlet. Profile 4 is the
linear distribution from an inlet to outlet. In figure 8, the blade cross section of 2 and 4 is shown which
indicate that the variation of the blade shape with change in the blade angle distribution from an inlet
to outlet.

 D1 B1   D1* N 60 gH th 
cot 1     (9)
Q  60  D1* N 

Q
A2
tan  2  (10)
 D2* N
60

(0.2243,1.0043)

Figure 8: Blade cross section for profile 2 and profile 4 at mid-span

4.2 Thickness Distribution

The thickness distribution of the runner plays the vital role in the strength and performance of the
runner. The smooth thickness distribution reduces the friction losses and flow separation in the runner
[7]. There is three thickness profile variation, which has been studied and shown in figure 9. The
thickness distribution is with positive, negative and neutral variation from leading edge and trailing
edge.
(0.7171,0.7735)

8
Normal Layer thickness (cm)

7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Span from leading edge to trailing edge
Thickness Profile 1 Thickness Profile 2
Thickness Profile 3

Figure 9: Thickness distribution from leading edge to trailing edge

4.3 Performance
The performance of the runner is affected by the blade angle distribution. The front loading blade
profile shows the better performance compare to the other cases as shown in figure 10. The blade
angle distribution for strictly increasing and decreasing from the inlet to outlet has the adverse effect
on the efficiency due to the swirl flow at the outlet of the runner. The blade angle must follow the front
blade loading for the better efficiency and minimization of the swirl flow in the outlet. However, the

5
Current Research in Hydraulic Turbines (CRHT) VIII IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1042 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1042/1/012006

profile 3 has highly poor performance in comparison to the other blade loading profiles as shown in
figure 10. The sudden decrease in the performance of the profile 3 is due to the swirl flow in the draft
tube. The flow angle decreases to a minimum value in the mid-span and suddenly start to rise, which is
the main cause of the swirl flow at outlet and sudden pressure drop in the mid-span. In profile 6, blade
angle after the mid-span is slightly lesser than the outlet angle and it slight effect on the pressure drop
at that specific location. Therefore, the blade angle of the runner throughout span should be greater
than the outlet blade angle to minimize the swirl flow and have the smooth pressure drop in the blade.
The negative thickness profile has better performance but the low power generation than thicker blade
profile as shown in figure 11. Rather than the thicker blade, a thinner blade has the better streamline
flow by reduction of secondary flow at the suction side to enhance the performance of the runner by
0.1 %. The pressure drop in the suction side of the thicker blade is less than the thinner one. Overall,
the uniform thickness blade performance is better than thicker and thinner profile. The effect of the
thickness is not significant to improve the performance of the drastically but slight improvement has
been possible from the thickness of the blade.

95

90
Efficiency (%)

85

80

75

70

65
Profile 1

Profile 2

Profile 3

Profile 4

Profile 5

Profile 6

Figure 10: Efficiency versus blade angle distribution profile

91.8 61
91.78 60.5
91.76 60
Efficiency (%)

91.74 59.5
Power

91.72 59
91.7 58.5
91.68 58
91.66 57.5
91.64 57
Thickness Profile Thickness Profile Thickness Profile
1 2 3
Efficiency Power

Figure 11: Efficiency and power versus thickness distribution profile

The swirl flow in the draft tube is shown in figure 12, which implies the reason for profile 2 of having
better performance. The comparison of the outward flow in the draft tube in figure 12 clarifies that
with blade angle distribution such as profile 3 has the most swirl flow because the blade angle at the
mid-span is lower than the outlet blade angles. Figure 13 shows the flow angle at the draft tube inlet
from the hub to the shroud of the front loading, rear loading, and no loading. There is not any
difference in the flow angle at the outlet of the runner in three different loading. However, the

6
Current Research in Hydraulic Turbines (CRHT) VIII IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1042 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1042/1/012006

circumferential velocity at the outlet of the runner indicates the difference between the three types of
blade loading. In an ideal case, the circumferential velocity should be zero at the outlet for the Francis
runner for maintaining the uniform flow. Figure 14 indicates that the circumferential velocity at the
outlet is approximately zero with the slight deviation in the case of front loading.

Flow direction

Profile 2

Profile 3

Figure 12: Streamline in the draft tube

200
180
160
140
Flow Angle

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized Span from hub to shroud

Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 5

Figure 13: Flow angle versus normalized span

16
12
Circumferential velocity (m/s)

8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Radius from hub to shroud (m)
Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 5

7
Current Research in Hydraulic Turbines (CRHT) VIII IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1042 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1042/1/012006

Figure 14: Circumferential velocity versus radius

5. Conclusion
After the studying various blade loading profile, it is concluded that blade loading had the direct
impact on the performance. The better performance runner can be designed by following the front
blade loading profile. The swirl flow in the draft is suppressed when the blade angle throughout the
span is greater than outlet blade angle. When the blade angle at any span is lesser than outlet blade
angle causes a change in the curvature of the runner blade causing drastic pressure loss in the runner.
Additionally, the better performance and uniform flow in the runner is achieved by front blade loading
with blade angle throughout span is greater than outlet blade angle.

Acknowledgement
This work has supported by the New and Renewable Energy of the Korea Institute of Energy
Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the Korean Government Ministry of
Trade, Industry and Energy (No. 20163010060350).

Nomenclature
 Non-dimensional Specific Speed
 Angular Speed of Runner
Q Volumetric Flow Rate
E Specific Hydraulic Energy
N Rotational Speed of Runner
β1 Inlet Blade Angle
β2 Outlet Blade Angle
D1 Inlet Diameter of Runner
B1 Inlet Width of Runner
D2 Outlet Diameter of Runner
D1* Variable Inlet Diameter with Meridional Plane
D2* Variable Outlet Diameter with Meridional Plane

Reference
[1] Ardanuy J F and Fraile-Mora J J 2006 Variable speed hydro generation: Operational aspects and
control IEEE Transactions on energy conversion 21 pp 569-574.

[2] Brekke H 2001 Hydraulic turbines design,erction and operation NTNU

[3] Henry P and Hussain Khan M 1997 Francis Turbine Runner: Blade Design in Hydraulic Design of
Hydraulic Machinery, Wiltshire, Avebury pp 329-372.

[4] Eyup K Salih K Nuri Y and Furkan A 2016 A numerical case study: Bovet approach to design a
Francis turbine runner 8th International Conference on Sustainability in Energy and Buildings,
Turin pp 885-894

[5] ANSYS Inc., "ANSYS Customer Portal," [Online]. Available:

https://support.ansys.com/AnsysCustomerPortal. [Accessed 10 1 2018].

[6] Chen Z, Singh P M and Choi Y D 2016 Francis turbine blade design on the basis of port area and
loss analysis Energies 9 pp 164-171.

[7] Padurean I 2004 Analytical method of the representation of the runner's blade thickness from the
Francis turbine in International Conference on Hydraulic Machinery and Hydrodynamics

8
Current Research in Hydraulic Turbines (CRHT) VIII IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1042 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1042/1/012006

Romania.