Hindawi Publishing Corporation

International Journal of Rotating Machinery

Volume 2015, Article ID 679576, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/679576

Research Article
Flow Modeling in Pelton Turbines by an Accurate
Eulerian and a Fast Lagrangian Evaluation Method

A. Panagiotopoulos,1,2 A. Cidonis,1 G. A. Aggidis,1

J. S. Anagnostopoulos,2 and D. E. Papantonis2
1
Lancaster University Renewable Energy Group and Fluid Machinery Group, Engineering Department, Engineering Building,
Bailrigg, Lancaster, Lancashire LA1 4YW, UK
2
School of Mechanical Engineering, Laboratory of Hydraulic Turbomachines, National Technical University of Athens,
9 Heroon Polytechniou, Zografou, 15780 Athens, Greece

Correspondence should be addressed to G. A. Aggidis; [email protected]

Received 26 June 2015; Accepted 21 October 2015

Academic Editor: Robert C. Hendricks

Copyright © 2015 A. Panagiotopoulos et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

The recent development of CFD has allowed the flow modeling in impulse hydro turbines that includes complex phenomena like
free surface flow, multifluid interaction, and unsteady, time dependent flow. Some commercial and open-source CFD codes, which
implement Eulerian methods, have been validated against experimental results showing satisfactory accuracy. Nevertheless, further
improvement of accuracy is still a challenge, while the computational cost is very high and unaffordable for multiparametric design
optimization of the turbine’s runner. In the present work a CFD Eulerian approach is applied at first, in order to simulate the flow
in the runner of a Pelton turbine model installed at the laboratory. Then, a particulate method, the Fast Lagrangian Simulation
(FLS), is used for the same case, which is much faster and hence potentially suitable for numerical design optimization, providing
that it can achieve adequate accuracy. The results of both methods for various turbine operation conditions, as also for modified
runner and bucket designs, are presented and discussed in the paper. In all examined cases the FLS method shows very good
accuracy in predicting the hydraulic efficiency of the runner, although the computed flow evolution and the torque curve exhibit
some systematic differences from the Eulerian results.

1. Introduction Hydrodynamics method [7] or other in-house codes like the

Fast Lagrangian Simulation (FLS) [8, 9] that were developed
The design of Pelton and other impulse type turbines was to solve specific flow problems.
based on existing know-how, and any design improvements At first, the Eulerian mesh-type methods were used in
were mainly conducted after extensive experimental testing order to simulate the flow in Pelton turbines. Several papers
by the trial-and-error method. In recent years significant have been published investigating the flow in the injector
effort has been directed towards a better understating of [10–12], in the stationary buckets [4], and in the rotating
the details of the complex unsteady flow in the runner, runner [2, 5], as well as analyzing specific flow mechanisms
with the aid of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) like cavitation [13].
and modern numerical modeling [1]. Commercial software In most cases, commercial CFD software was used as
has been developed and used based on Eulerian mesh- it can simulate the flow with adequate accuracy, in order
type codes like Ansys-CFX [2, 3] and Ansys-Fluent [4, 5] to calculate the hydraulic efficiency and evaluate the geo-
that are designed to simulate the flow in various physical metrical characteristics of the turbine. Nevertheless, the
problems. Also, a number of noncommercial software tools computational cost is too high to be used for multiparametric
have been developed like the Open FOAM [6], as also design optimization, where thousands of flow evaluations
various Lagrangian approaches, like the Smoothed Particle are required to obtain an optimum design solution. Other
2 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

meshless simulation methods based on the Lagrangian ap- for the volume fraction of the secondary phase that has the
proach have also been developed. The most popular one is the following form:
Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) methodology [14, 15],
𝑛
the computational cost of which is, however, comparable 1 𝜕
to the Eulerian methods, while further development and ̇ − 𝑚𝑞𝑝
[ (𝑎𝑞 𝜌𝑞 ) + ∇ ⋅ (𝑎𝑞 𝜌𝑞 𝜐𝑞⃗ )] = ∑ (𝑚𝑝𝑞 ̇ ), (1)
𝜌𝑞 𝜕𝑡 𝑝=1
validation are needed to improve its accuracy.
In order to reduce the computational cost, a particu- where 𝑚𝑝𝑞 ̇ is the mass transfer from phase 𝑝 to phase 𝑞 and
late method based on the Lagrangian approach has been 𝑚𝑞𝑝̇ the opposite and 𝑎𝑞 is the volume fraction and 𝜌 the
developed by the Laboratory of Hydraulic Turbomachines, density. The present application of Fluent-VOF software for
NTUA [8, 9]. This Fast Lagrangian Simulation (FLS) method flow simulation in Pelton runners is analyzed in Section 4.
introduces appropriate adjustable terms in the flow particle
equations to approximate the various viscous and pressure
effects of their trajectories. 2.1. Fast Lagrangian Simulation Method. The Fast Lagrangian
Simulation (FLS) [8, 9] is a single-phase flow simulation
The aim of the present paper is to evaluate the perfor-
method, and it is based on the tracking of a representative
mance and accuracy of the FLS method by comparing the
number of fluid particles in order to model and calculate the
results against the corresponding ones of the Ansys-Fluent
flow pattern and the energy exchange in the rotating runner
commercial software [16, 17] that uses the Volume-of-Fluid
of impulse hydro turbines. The exact water-air interface
(VOF) technique to simulate the jet and free surface flow
pattern is not required for such computations, though the
in the runner. The accuracy of the latter has been validated
flow width on the bucket surface could be estimated from the
against experimental results in Pelton runners [18–21].
properties of the tracked particles.
In the present study, the appropriate computational The water jet is being separated into discrete particles,
domain, mesh density, and settings of the VOF technique as shown in Figure 1, and their equations of motion are
are at first investigated to achieve the best compromise of numerically integrated until they exit from the inner bucket
accuracy and computational cost. Then, an initial test case is surface. The jet is considered ideal, that is, with uniform
defined including the exact geometrical characteristics of a initial velocity, and the flow frictionless. Also, due to the
Pelton model runner installed in the laboratory. The FLS and periodic symmetry conditions only two consecutive buckets
Fluent software are applied to various operating condition were modeled.
cases of this turbine, and for runners of different design, in The fluid particle equations are solved in a rotating
order to compare their numerical performance based on the orthogonal system of reference and are expressed in Cartesian
time history of torque development and on the hydraulic coordinates as follows (bucket rim is on the 𝑥𝑦 level):
efficiency of the runner.
𝑑2 𝑥
2. Numerical Modeling of the Flow = 𝑓𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑦) ,
𝑑𝑡2
Two computer codes were used for the simulation of the 𝑑2 𝑦 𝑑𝑧
complex flow in a rotating Pelton runner, the commercial = 𝑓𝑦 (𝑥, 𝑦) + 𝜔2 𝑦 + 2𝜔 , (2)
𝑑𝑡2 𝑑𝑡
software Fluent and the in-house software FLS. The Fluent
code [16] is capable of solving multiphase flow problems with 𝑑2 𝑧 𝑑𝑦
2
= 𝑓𝑧 (𝑥, 𝑦) + 𝜔2 𝑧 − 2𝜔 ,
free surfaces, which are highly relevant to impulse turbines. It 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
is based on the spatial discretization of the Reynolds Averaged
Navier-Stokes equations on a computational mesh using where 𝜔 is the angular rotation speed of the runner and 𝑓𝑥 , 𝑓𝑦 ,
cell-centered numerics (finite volumes) and offers flexibility and 𝑓𝑧 are the additional terms, functions of the local surface
in choosing between segregated based and coupled based geometrical characteristics.
solver. The particle motion equations do not contain particle
The two-fluid-flow (air and water) problem with free interaction or mechanical losses terms and hence they cannot
surface, like the Pelton runner case, is being solved using reproduce the real flow picture in the bucket. For this reason,
the established Volume-of-Fluid (VOF) method. VOF is an the FLS model introduces a number of additional terms in
Eulerian-Eulerian method based on tracking and locating order to account for the various hydraulic losses (impact,
the fluid-fluid interface. An additional factor, the volume friction, and change direction), as well as for the pressure
fraction, is introduced which represents the percentage of effects that control the spreading of the surface flow in the
each fluid volume in every cell. The method can model two or bucket, which are activated after the impact of a particle on
more immiscible fluids by solving a single set of momentum the bucket surface. More specifically, the friction losses on the
equations and tracking the volume fraction of each of the bucket surface are modeled as reduction of particle kinetic
fluids throughout the domain. energy by a factor analogous to the square of particle velocity
and to sliding distance; hence the particle velocity magnitude
For the two-phase (water-air) flow in Pelton runners
after a time step Δ𝑡 becomes
the air is defined as the primary phase and the water as
secondary, so as the tracking of the interface between them
is accomplished by the solution of a continuity equation 𝑉𝑝󸀠 ≈ 𝑉𝑝 ⋅ (1 − 𝐶𝑓 ⋅ 𝑉𝑝 ⋅ Δ𝑡) . (3)
International Journal of Rotating Machinery 3

Rotation axis

𝜃0

Δ𝜃

(a) (b)

Figure 1: FLS modeling: jet discretization and jet-bucket interaction starting angle (a); surface flow simulation and representation (b).

The energy losses at the jet impact on the bucket are taken
analogous to the square of the normal to the surface particle
velocity component, and this gives
Jet
flow
𝑉𝑝󸀠 2
≈ 𝑉𝑝 ⋅ (1 − 𝐶𝑖 ⋅ cos 𝜑𝑖 ) , (4)

where 𝜑𝑖 is the particle impingement angle.

The progressive change of particle’s path direction (and
momentum) as it slides along the curved bucket surface also →
V1 Splitter line
causes minor energy losses, which are modeled using a term
similar to the impact losses: 𝜑
r
→
VS
𝑉𝑝󸀠 ≈ 𝑉𝑝 ⋅ (1 − 𝐶𝑝 ⋅ cos2 Δ𝜑) , (5)
→
where Δ𝜑 is the angular change in direction of the sliding V2
→󳰀
V2
particle during the time step Δ𝑡.
The adjustable coefficients 𝐶𝑓 , 𝐶𝑖 , and 𝐶𝑝 are introduced
Figure 2: Sketch of surface flow spreading modeling.
in the above modelling equations (3)–(5) so as they can be
tuned in order to match the results with the corresponding
ones obtained by more accurate CFD methods or by exper-
imental studies. This constitutes an important feature of the which are iteratively optimized from generation to genera-
FLS model that can significantly improve the reliability and tion.
accuracy of its results, at almost no additional computer cost. It must be noted that some secondary flow mechanisms
Finally, in order to model the pressure effects on the developed during the jet-runner interaction, like the jet cut
surface flow spreading and evolution, a particle acquires at or the attached flow at the back face of the bucket, are not
the impact point an artificial “spreading” velocity component modeled by the FLS method. However, their effect on the
perpendicular to its impacting plane (𝑉𝑆⃗ , Figure 2), while energy transfer and hydraulic efficiency of the runner are
its main velocity component is correspondingly reduced to taken into account in an implicit manner through the above
preserve kinetic energy. The magnitude of this spreading adjustable terms. More details on the model formulation and
velocity depends on the radial and circumferential position its regulation procedure, as well as on the parametric design
of a particle in the jet cross section, and it is determined by of the runner, can be found in [8].
two corresponding additional adjustable coefficients [8]. The application of the FLS model for the simulation of
The first tuning of the above coefficients has been carried the jet-runner interaction in Pelton turbines requires only
out with the aid of available experimental data in a Pelton a mathematical/numerical description of the inner bucket
turbine model, so as to minimize the squared differences surface, and since it does not use a computational mesh, it can
between the measured and the computed characteristic be very easily adapted to any design or operation data of the
curves of turbine efficiency [8]. This problem was solved with runner. Also, a specific postprocessing algorithm is developed
an optimization software based on evolutionary algorithms, and used for the presentation and comparison of FLS results
considering these coefficients as free variables, the values of (e.g., Figure 1).
4 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

Figure 3: Pelton model turbine and its runner installed at the LHT.

3. Test Case The comparison of FLS and Fluent results was initially
performed for the reference operating conditions of the
The geometrical characteristics of the Pelton model turbine Pelton turbine: one injector is operating with nozzle stroke
used as a reference case correspond to a Pelton turbine 12 mm, which corresponds to the best efficient point (BEP) of
installed in the LHT, at the National Technical University the runner with one injector, according to the experimental
of Athens (Figure 3) [22]. The pitch diameter of the runner results. The rotation speed was 1000 rpm, the diameter of the
is 400 mm, and the axis is horizontal with two injectors of jet was 12 mm, and its axial velocity was uniform and equal to
36 mm nozzle diameter. The net head, the rotational speed, 44.45 m/s. For modeling purposes, the velocity profile of the
and the nozzle stroke can be adjusted for experimental rea- jet is taken uniformly.
sons according to the IEC standards [23]. The runner contains
22 buckets which were designed and constructed in the lab, 4. Accurate Eulerian Flow Evaluation
based on old literature guidelines [24], as shown in Figure 4.
Therefore the achieved efficiency of the turbine is smaller The basic steps for the numerical simulation with a mesh-
than that suggested in more recent bibliography [25], which type Eulerian method of Fluent software are the design of
refers to the state-of-the-art turbines. Nevertheless, all geo- the appropriate 3D geometry, the construction of the grid
metrical characteristics of modern runners and buckets are covering the whole domain, and the solution of the system
included, and hence the flow mechanisms that take place dur- of flow equations. The simulated geometry is designed using
ing the interaction of the free jet with the runner are the same. the SolidWorks 12 commercial software, and it was essential
Although the Pelton turbine is installed at the labo- to avoid very small edges and narrow faces or volumes.
ratory test rig and the total efficiency of the turbine has The geometry was separated into two domains, the rotating
been measured experimentally, a direct comparison between domain, which contains the buckets, and the stationary
numerical and experimental results is not easy. The mea- domain from where the free jet is injected. Due to the
sured efficiency represents the total efficiency of the turbine heavy computing requirements and thanks to the periodic
including all losses according to the IEC standards [23], symmetry of the runner, only two consecutive buckets were
while only the hydraulic efficiency of the runner can be modeled (Figure 5). Also, only the half symmetric part of
calculated numerically. So, the comparison would require the domain was considered, a common practice in modeling
the estimation of minor losses like the losses in the nozzle, Pelton turbines.
the mechanical losses, and the windage losses caused by the
movement of the runner and its interaction with the misty 4.1. Torque and Efficiency Calculation. The hydrodynamic
environment into the casing. These losses highly depended torque and the hydraulic efficiency of the runner are com-
on the quality of the turbine construction, the geometrical puted after completing the evaluation of a jet-bucket interac-
characteristics of the casing, and the type of the bearings. So, tion flow, starting from the moment of impingement until the
their estimation would introduce considerable uncertainty evacuation of the bucket.
to an experimentally derived efficiency of the runner. For During the unsteady flow simulation the total torque on
this reason, the present work focuses on the comparison a bucket is calculated at every time step (or its tangential
and evaluation of the performance and accuracy of the two position 𝜑) by adding the torque on the inner surface of
software tools, when used for Pelton turbines analysis and the first bucket to the torque on the backside of the second
design. The provided detailed geometric data of the runner bucket, as shown in Figure 5. The latter is developed due to
(Figure 4) can be used as benchmark for the validation and the adherence of a jet portion after it is cut by the bucket
evaluation of other numerical modelling tools and methods. (Coanda effect), and also due to possible interference between
International Journal of Rotating Machinery 5

B
55
25

R28.8
A A
150

97 67 Dj Section A-A
10.0 ∘
53.5 5.0
R31
90.0∘
R5 29.5
16.2
5

5.0
45 8.0 5.0 20.0
B
10.0
107
(a) (b)

R100
Section B-B
R130 R90
R146

R200.0 R253
∅12.0 R236.7
∅16.0
10.0 ∘ 6.4∘

174.2

10.0∘
53

5.0
42.2
(c)

Figure 4: Details of the runner design [22].

the back surface of the bucket and the outflow water from the The torque curve of one bucket against the rotating angle
first bucket is repeated periodically every 360∘ /𝑁𝑏 , where 𝑁𝑏 is the total
number of buckets (22 in this case). The sum of the torque
360 values of all curves for every angular position represents the
𝑇𝑟 (𝜑) = 𝑇in (𝜑) + 𝑇𝑏 (𝜑 + ), (6)
𝑁𝑏 torque curve of the runner. So the total mechanical energy
transferred to the shaft during one rotation can be calculated
where 𝑇𝑟 is the torque in a single bucket, 𝑇in and 𝑇𝑏 are the from the equation:
360
torque at the inner and backside surfaces, respectively, and 𝑊=∫ 𝑇 (𝜑) 𝑑𝜑, (7)
𝑁𝑏 is the number of buckets on the runner (22 for this case). 0
6 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

type can decrease the accuracy of the results, a very dense

Second bucket mesh was used at the area of high importance. The minimum
and maximum cell volume are 1.1 × 10−12 m3 and 1.5 × 10−8 m3 ,
respectively.
Moreover, a study about the appropriate mesh size was
carried out in order to achieve independency between the size
Surfaces where of the mesh and the accuracy of the results. The same case
the torque
with the same settings was simulated for four different sizes
is calculated
of tetrahedral mesh. The densest mesh consists of about 5.16
million elements and it was found that the maximum possible
accuracy in terms of the calculated efficiency was achieved.
The efficiency dependence on the mesh density is represented
in Figure 7.
From the above results it can be deduced that the
independency was achieved for meshes with more than 2.4 M
First bucket
cells. For the present simulations, a mesh with approximately
2.8 M cells was adopted to ensure the accuracy of the results.
The simulations were carried out using a four-core Intel
Figure 5: Two consecutive half buckets used to calculate the total Xeon, 3.4 GHz, and 16 GB RAM. The CPU-time was almost
runner torque. proportional to the size of the mesh and for the 2.4 M cells it
is about 3.2 days.
The torque variation curves on a bucket obtained using
where 𝑇(𝜑) is the torque on a single bucket and 𝜑 the angular different density meshes are presented in Figure 8, where the
position of the runner (𝜑 = 𝜔 ⋅ Δ𝑡, Δ𝑡 is the time step and 𝜔 angular position of the bucket is taken zero at its vertical
is the angular speed). or normal to the jet position (Figure 1). At the start of jet-
The runner power is then calculated as runner interaction (−40∘ ) a negative torque can be observed
caused by the interaction of the jet with the back surface
𝑊⋅𝜔 of the bucket. At this stage the jet is starting entering the
𝑃= (8)
360 bucket moving almost in parallel with the back surface, thus
causing there a high pressure region, as shown in Figure 9,
while the power of the water jet is responsible for the negative torque. Just afterwards, the torque
𝜋𝜌 2 3 is increasing as more water interacts with the inner surface.
𝑃𝑤 = 𝐷 𝑢 , (9) At an angle of about −22 degrees the second bucket begins
8 jet jet
to interact with the jet, leaving less water to move towards
where 𝜌 is the water density and 𝑢jet , 𝐷jet are the velocity and the first bucket. This reduced amount of water that moves
diameter of the jet. towards the first bucket is not smooth due to divergence of
Finally, the hydraulic efficiency of the runner is defined as the jet caused by Coanda effect (Figure 10). This diverged
portion of water hits the first bucket at around −10 degrees,
𝑃
𝜂= . (10) causing an irregular increment of the torque (Figure 8). After
𝑃𝑤 this point, the developed torque decreases smoothly as the
water is leaving the bucket, until evacuation completes at +30
4.2. Computational Grid and Accuracy of Results. The com- degrees. The total jet-runner interaction period lasts about
putational grid was made using the Ansys Workbench com- 70∘ rotational angle of the runner.
mercial software package after an extensive investigation due
to its strong influence on the final speed of the simulation 4.3. Turbulence Modeling and Computational Details. During
and the accuracy of the results. The elements around the the simulations using Fluent many different settings were
rotating buckets and the cylindrical jet were tetrahedral and tested, some of which had strong influence on the results.
hexahedral, respectively, as shown in Figure 6. In addition, an The 3D single precision solver was selected in order to
inflation layer was adjusted at the inner and backside faces of reduce the computational cost as no important difference
the buckets in order to reduce the 𝑦+ value below 50 when was observed compared to double precision simulation. The
the 𝑘-𝜔 turbulence model is used. The inflation consists of 5 appropriate model for the simulation is the Volume-of-Fluid
layers of hexahedral cells with very small thickness placed at (VOF), with pressure-velocity coupling solution method. The
the region where the boundary layer is being developed. pressure-based coupled scheme increases the computation
The quality of the mesh is acceptable as the minimum time but provides a much more stable and reliable solution
orthogonal quality is 0.15 while the average is 0.87. Since compared to the SIMPLE or PISO schemes. The transient flow
the position of the jet changes transiently it is not possible is simulated both as inviscid and as turbulent using the 𝑘-
to refine the shear layer; therefore the entire mesh had to 𝜔 SST model, in order to assess the impact of the friction
be fine enough to have minimum impact on the simulated and turbulent losses on the efficiency. The time step was
efficiency. In addition, as the unstructured tetrahedral mesh constant and equal to 5 𝜇s, which corresponds to 0.03 degrees
International Journal of Rotating Machinery 7

Stationary domain
(structured mesh)

First bucket
Rotating domain
(unstructured mesh)
Second bucket

Figure 6: Computational domain and structure of the 3D mesh.

101.2 50
45
101
40
Normalised efficiency (%)

100.8 35
30
Torque (Nm)

100.6
25

100.4 20
15
100.2 10
5
100
0
−45 −35 −25 −15 −5 5 15 25
99.8 −5
0 1 2 3 4 5 Bucket angular position (deg.)
Number of cells in millions
0.65 M cells mesh 2.43 M cells mesh
Figure 7: Runner efficiency response to mesh refinement. 1.24 M cells mesh 5.16 M cells mesh

Figure 8: Individual torque curves of mesh refinement simulations.

of runner rotation angle, while the maximum number of

iterations was set to 10, as suggested in the literature [17]. The was set to 10−4 , while the rest residuals were always below
solution was not influenced by the time step as soon as the 10−5 .
continuity residuals were under 10−3 even if most of the time The highest flow velocities in the computed field cor-
during simulation they were close to 10−4 , where the residuals respond to the free jet velocity, which is about 45 m/s. In
target was set. The continuity residuals target for convergence addition, the coupled implicit scheme was used, and therefore
8 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

Pressure
contour 2
150000
135000
120000
105000
90000

(Pa)
75000
60000
45000
30000
15000
0

Figure 9: High pressure development at the backside while the jet is entering the bucket.

Figure 10: Diverged flow moving towards the first bucket.

the Courant number had a minor effect since the point Gauss- 100
Seidel scheme used is unconditionally stable, according to the 90
linear stability theory. Consequently, the default value of 200 80
was used while different values have negligible influence in 70
the solution. 60
Torque (Nm)

Finally, the possible effect of surface tension was consid- 50

ered by using the “continuum surface force” model, which 40
is available in Fluent platform. However, and in agreement 30
with the literature [2], the implementation of this model has 20
negligible effect on the simulated flow in a Pelton runner. 10
Moreover, the Weber number of the relatively high velocity 0
flow in the bucket is large (>50), and only at the last −10
evacuation stage, where the remaining water forms very thin −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
and separated films on the bucket surface, the Weber number Bucket angular position (deg.)
may be considerably reduced. But the contribution of this
Inviscid 88.3%
stage to the energy exchange and the developed torque is
k-𝜔 SST 84.8%
minor. Consequently, the surface tension effects are ignored
in the simulations. Figure 11: Comparison of inviscid and turbulent flow numerical
A comparison between the torque curves calculated with results.
inviscid and 𝑘-𝜔 SST turbulence model is shown in Figure 11.
As can be observed in this figure, the developed torque
is slightly lower for the turbulent flow simulation, while
the corresponding efficiency is about 3.5% reduced (84.8% the friction losses at the flow boundary layer along the inner
compared to 88.3% of the inviscid flow). This is mainly due to bucket surface, and the impact losses of the entering jet flow.
International Journal of Rotating Machinery 9

5. FLS Method Application and 100

90
Comparison with VOF 80
70
Tracking of about 5000 fluid particle trajectories using a time

Torque (Nm)
60
step for integration of 2 × 10−5 sec was found to produce sta- 50
tistically accurate results for all cases examined in the present 40
study. A complete flow evaluation requires about 10 CPU sec 30
in a modern PC, which is almost 4 orders of magnitude less 20
than the corresponding evaluation time using Fluent. This 10
significant advantage of the FLS method allows its application 0
for multiparametric design optimization studies of impulse −10
turbine runners, in conjunction with modern optimization −45 −40 −35 −30 −25 −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25
software. Bucket angular position (deg.)
After completion of the fluid particles tracking, the FLS VOF method 88.3%
postprocessing algorithm computes the runner performance FLS method 88.5%
in terms of the developed torque on the blades and the Figure 12: Comparison of the computational results for the refer-
hydraulic efficiency of the runner, while it can also calculate ence point.
the local forces exerted on the blade during the energy
conversion procedure. The mechanical energy transferred to
each bucket is obtained from the equation of conservation of
angular momentum [8]:

1
𝑊 = 𝜌𝑄𝑢 (𝑅run 𝑢jet − ∑𝑟𝑤 ), (11)
𝑁 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖

where 𝑄𝑢 is the cumulative flow that enters each bucket, 𝑅run

is the runner pitch radius, and 𝑤𝑖 is the tangential velocity Water
deviation
component of particle 𝑖 at the moment it exits the bucket
at radial distance 𝑟𝑖 . 𝑁 is the total number of fluid particles Jet
spread
that interact with a single bucket. The hydraulic efficiency
of the runner can then be obtained as the ratio of the
developed mechanical power divided by the corresponding
net hydraulic power at the inlet, as in (10).
The performance and accuracy of the FLS method are
evaluated by comparing its results with the corresponding Figure 13: Water deviation close to the solid surface calculated with
ones of Fluent software, for a number of different cases. The Fluent.
comparison is based on the computed values of the runner
hydraulic efficiency, the pattern of the torque curve, and the
distribution of the surface flow on the inner bucket face. At of the FLS method to model secondary mechanisms, like the
first, the comparison is carried out for the design point of previously mentioned negative torque at the beginning of the
the laboratory model turbine, for which the coefficients of the interaction with the jet, and the Coanda effect, thus resulting
FLS model are calibrated. in a smoother torque curve. Another minor phenomenon is
Next, two cases with different flow rates, one lower a small radial deviation of the jet caused when it is cut at
and one higher, were simulated maintaining the remaining the bucket tip, as shown in Figure 13. The amount of deviated
parameters constant. An additional simulation took place water hits the next bucket at a slightly different time (earlier),
for different head and rotating speed of the turbine that and this may explain the slightly higher torque values of the
corresponds to a smaller specific speed of the runner. Also, VOF in the increasing part of curve of Figure 12.
in another test case the geometry of the runner was changed In addition to the torque results, the spreading rate of the
by reducing the number of buckets from 22 to 18. Finally, a surface flow on the inner bucket surface is also considered
comparison is made for another Pelton runner with different in order to adjust the spreading model coefficients of the
bucket design. FLS method. In Figure 14 an isosurface is being represented
with green color as it is calculated by Fluent, whereas the
5.1. Comparison at the Reference Test Point. Firstly, the com- black lines are the orbits of the particles obtained by FLS. It
putational results of the reference test point (BEP) using FLS can be observed that the surface flow pattern on the solid
and Fluent are being compared with each other. In Figure 12 surface calculated from Fluent and FLS is quite similar, but
the resulted total torque in one bucket is compared. It can the spreading rate shows certain differences. After an analysis
be observed that the agreement between the curves is good, of the particles’ orbits and the velocity fields obtained by the
as the general shape and the maximum torque are the same. two methods it was ascertained that two main reasons cause
The small differences can be explained due to the inability this difference.
10 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

Figure 14: Water phase comparison of FLS (black lines) and Fluent (green areas) simulations.

Firstly, the jet flow as computed by VOF exhibits a signif- 140

130
icant spread just before it reaches the bucket (Figure 13), due 120
to the high pressure field developed in the impact area below. 110
Consequently, the flow path lines follow a smooth curved 100
90
Torque (Nm)

orbit before reaching the bucket surface, with the curvature 80

radius being analogous to the radial position with respect to 70
60
the jet axis. On the other hand, all flow particles of the FLS 50
method move straight until they hit the inner bucket surface 40
and then change direction instantly to flow parallel to the 30
20
bucket surface. Therefore, during the first interaction stages a 10
flow particle modeled by FLS travels a longer distance to reach 0
−10
to a particular position on the surface than the corresponding −45 −35 −25 −15 −5 5 15 25
one simulated by Fluent. Moreover, the small impact losses of Bucket angular position (deg.)
the flow are accounted for at the impact point thus reducing
the particles’ velocity when they hit the bucket, whereas this VOF, 135% load, 86.7% VOF, 50% load, 91.2%
is taking place more progressively with Fluent simulation. FLS, 135% load, 86.4% FLS, 50% load, 91.3%
For the above reasons, the spreading rate of the surface Figure 15: Comparison of VOF and FLS method for off design
flow is computed lower of the FLS at the first jet-runner turbine operation conditions.
interaction stages, while the outflow as it is being calculated
from Fluent starts earlier (Figure 14). To compensate for
this difference, the variation limits of the coefficients of the cases at different operating points of the turbine are sim-
spreading model are properly regulated, by using proper ulated, by changing the flow rate (loading) of the runner.
constraints during the optimization procedure of the set of All other design and operation characteristics remain the
FLS coefficients for the reference case, in order to match same except of the jet diameter, which depends on the nozzle
also as best as possible both the torque variation curve opening (or spear valve stroke) of the injector. The first case
and the hydraulic efficiency. As a result, the subsequent is for smaller nozzle stroke which corresponds to 50% of the
interaction stage becomes faster with the FLS simulation, and design point flow, while the second is for higher nozzle stroke
the evacuation of the bucket happens a little earlier (about 7∘ and 135% of the design flow. The torque curves and the runner
in Figure 12). efficiency values computed by VOF and FLS methods are
In spite of the inability of FLS method to simulate presented in Figure 15.
accurately all flow details and mechanisms, the resulting Τhe shape of the torque curves shown in this figure is
hydraulic efficiency of the runner is almost equal to that of similar to those at the reference point (Figure 12), but the
Fluent (88.3% compared to 88.5%, Figure 12). This confirms maximum torque is, as expected, analogous to the loading of
the capability of the regulated FLS model to reproduce the runner. The agreement between the FLS and Fluent results
satisfactory main flow characteristics (e.g., torque curve) and is also good in both cases, with the differences of the FLS
also to implicitly take into account the effects of all secondary curves being again at the same regions (nonnegative torque at
flow mechanisms on the efficiency. the beginning, smoother curve, slightly displaced to the right,
and faster bucket evacuation).
5.2. FLS Performance for Different Turbine Loading. In order Moreover, in both cases the calculated efficiency by the
to evaluate further the FLS method performance, two test FLS method is again very similar to that of the VOF method,
International Journal of Rotating Machinery 11

160 100
140 90
80
120
70
100

Torque (Nm)
Torque (Nm)

60
80 50
60 40
30
40
20
20 10
0 0
−20 −10
−45 −40 −35 −30 −25 −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 −45 −35 −25 −15 −5 5 15 25 35
Bucket angular position (deg.) Bucket angular position (deg.)
VOF method 85.9%
VOF method 88.2%
FLS method 85.8%
FLS method 88.5%

Figure 16: Comparison of VOF and FLS methods for higher Figure 17: Comparison of VOF and FLS method for different runner
hydraulic head. design of 18 buckets (from 22).

with the differences being 0.1% and 0.3% (Figure 15), namely, stage of jet-runner interaction, which becomes longer. As a
within the order of numerical solution accuracy of Fluent result, the last part of outflow leaves the bucket lips at less
software. It is noted that the increased efficiency of the runner optimum velocity, and in addition, more water exits from the
at smaller flow rates is due to the inviscid simulation of the cutout area. For this reason, the hydraulic efficiency of the
flow, in which the increased friction losses that have a thinner runner becomes substantially lower, almost 2.5 percentage
free surface flow along the bucket are not accounted. On the units as computed by Fluent (from 88.3% in Figure 12 to
other hand, the obtained reduction of the efficiency higher 85.9%).
than the design flow rate is due to a different mechanism: This efficiency reduction is again reproduced well by the
during the evolution of the free surface flow on the bucket FLS method, as shown in Figure 17. As can be observed in
surface a portion of water may leave the bucket through the this graph, the shape of the torque curves is also similar to the
cut edge area, as shown in Figure 14, but not with optimum previous cases, but the deviation of FLS and Fluent values in
(minimum) outflow velocity, thus causing a small drop in the higher torque area (−20 to +5 degrees, Figure 17) becomes
overall efficiency of the runner. This phenomenon becomes more pronounced.
more intense for higher flow rates, due to the wider spread of These results support the previous discussion, according
the surface flow on the bucket. to which the irregularity of the VOF curve in this area was
attributed to the Coanda effect and the impact of the back
5.3. FLS Performance for Different Hydraulic Head. In this flow from the previous bucket. The peak of the torque curve
case, the inlet water pressure was increased by 56% (from is now displaced to higher angular positions of the bucket,
100 m of the reference point), which corresponds to exit jet at about −3∘ , compared to about −10∘ in the reference case
velocity of 55.7 m/s. The higher jet velocity requires higher (Figure 12). On the other hand, the FLS does not simulate
rotating speed of the runner, which is calculated equal to this mechanism; hence its torque curve remains smooth and
1250 rpm in order to maintain the same jet/runner speed ratio reaches maximum at about −13∘ , as in the reference case.
as in the reference point. The torque curves calculated by
FLS and VOF methods are shown in Figure 16. The shape 5.5. Models Performance and Comparison for Different Bucket
of the curves and the calculated efficiencies are similar with Design. The Fluent-VOF and FLS models were finally applied
that corresponding to the reference point, while the only to simulate the flow in a modified runner design obtained in
differences are the higher values of torque caused due to the [5]. The new runner is drastically different in terms of the
increased kinetic energy of the jet. The agreement between bucket shape, including changes of the main dimensions, the
FLS and Fluent results is again very good, with the same scheme of the cut, and the exit angle, as shown in Figure 18.
small systematic differences in the pattern of torque curve, In addition, the number of buckets was 20 and their position
and runner efficiency that differs only 0.3 percentage units was changed in terms of the radial distance from the center
(Figure 16). and their inclination.
The higher attainable efficiency of this new runner is
5.4. FLS Performance for Modified Runner Design. Finally, confirmed by both Fluent and FLS computations, while its
a modified runner design was obtained by reducing the value obtained by the FLS exhibits again close agreement
number of buckets from 22 to 18. In this case the angular with the Fluent value, being only 0.5% higher (95% compared
distance between two consecutive buckets becomes 22.2% to 94.5%). However, the differences on the torque curves
larger, while the amount of water jet that interacts with each compared in Figure 19 are more pronounced than in the
bucket is also equally increased. This affects mainly the latest reference runner, especially in the beginning of the jet impact,
12 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

Table 1: Comparison of FLS and Fluent computational results.

Case description Discharge (% of BEP) Net head (m) Runner speed (rpm) Number of buckets Eff. VOF (%) Eff. FLS (%)
Reference point 100 100 1000 22 88.3 88.5
Low flow rate 50 100 1000 22 91.2 91.3
High flow rate 135 100 1000 22 86.7 86.4
High hydraulic head 100 156 1250 22 88.2 88.5
Modified runner 100 100 1000 18 85.8 85.9
Different bucket design 100 100 1000 20 94.5 95.0

(a) (b)

Figure 18: Comparison of the reference bucket (a) and the modified bucket design (b).

110 about −15 degrees, in agreement to available experimental

100 results [19], but at reduced impact velocity, causing reduced
90
80
peak torque values and delayed evacuation of the bucket.
70 Although a different tuning of current FLS coefficients could
Torque (Nm)

60 mitigate the above deviations, the present results indicate that

50 further development of the FLS model may be required in
40 order to take into account the effects of this important flow
30 mechanism. The structure and philosophy of the FLS method
20
10
facilitate the introduction of such new relations.
0
−10 5.6. Summary of Runner Efficiency Results. The results for
−45 −35 −25 −15 −5 5 15 25 the hydraulic efficiency of the runner obtained from the
Bucket angular position (deg.) various test cases carried out in this study are concentrated
VOF method 94.5%
in Table 1. As it can be seen, the agreement is in all cases very
FLS method 95.0% satisfactory, with maximum deviation of only 0.5 percentage
Backside torque (VOF) units. Considering the much faster flow evaluation by the FLS
algorithm, these results support its important advantage for
Figure 19: Comparison of VOF and FLS methods for a new being used for multiple evaluations, as required in parametric
modified runner design. performance studies and numerical design optimization of
Pelton turbines.

(at about −35 degrees), in the area of the maximum torque 6. Conclusions
(−15 to −5 degrees), and to the end of the interaction (after
+10 degrees). This work aims to validate the capability of a particulate
These discrepancies were investigated by examining the numerical method, the Fast Lagrangian Simulation (FLS)
characteristics of the flow in the new runner as computed algorithm, to reproduce in a reliable and accurate way the
by the VOF method, and it was found that the attachment very complex flow created during the jet-runner interaction
of the flow at the backside of the new bucket is much in Pelton turbines.
more pronounced. A much larger portion of the jet flow The method was compared with a more accurate Eulerian
remains attached there causing substantial torque due to mesh-type VOF method, which has been validated in various
the Coanda effect, as shown in Figure 19 (backside torque previous works and proved to provide satisfactory results.
curve at −35 degrees). Afterwards, this diverged portion The FLS model is tuned based on the numerical results at a
of water hits the leading bucket at an average angle of reference operation point of a laboratory model turbine, and
International Journal of Rotating Machinery 13

then it is applied, together with the Eulerian method, to a [9] J. S. Anagnostopoulos, P. K. Koukouvinis, F. G. Stamatelos, and
number of different test cases, by modifying the flow rate, the D. E. Papantonis, “Optimal design and experimental validation
hydraulic head and the number of buckets, and the bucket of a Turgo model hydro turbine,” in Proceedings of the ASME 11th
design of the runner. Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis
In all these cases the hydraulic efficiency values obtained (ESDA ’12), vol. 2, pp. 157–166, Nantes, France, July 2012.
by the FLS method showed very good agreement with the [10] T. Staubli, A. Abgottspon, P. Weibel et al., “Jet quality and Pelton
Eulerian method results, while the predicted evolution of the efficiency,” in Proceedings of the Hydro International Conference
on Progress—Potential—Plans, Lyon, France, 2009.
free surface flow in the bucket, in terms of time variation of
the developing torque, was also satisfactory. [11] R. Fiereder, S. Riemann, and R. Schilling, “Numerical and
The present results are very encouraging towards the experimental investigation of the 3D free surface flow in
a model Pelton turbine,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and
implementation of the FLS tool to perform multiparametric
Environmental Science, vol. 12, no. 1, Article ID 012072, 2010.
and multiobjective design optimization studies in modern
[12] D. Benzon, A. Židonis, A. Panagiotopoulos, G. A. Aggidis, J.
Pelton runners at very low computational cost. Further
S. Anagnostopoulos, and D. E. Papantonis, “Numerical inves-
validation tests are needed using different runner and bucket tigation of the spear valve configuration on the performance
shapes for a better and more general adjustment of the FLS of Pelton and Turgo turbine injectors and runners,” Journal of
coefficients, while further development in order to take into Fluids Engineering, vol. 137, no. 11, Article ID 111201, 2015.
account the effect of other important mechanisms like the [13] A. Rossetti, G. Pavesi, G. Ardizzon, and A. Santolin, “Numerical
backside flow could enhance the accuracy of its results. analyses of cavitating flow in a pelton turbine,” Journal of Fluids
Finally, the presented results, along with the provided Engineering—Transactions of the ASME, vol. 136, no. 8, Article
detailed geometric dimensions of the Pelton model runner, ID 081304, 2014.
can constitute a benchmark set of data for the validation and [14] J.-C. Marongiu, F. Leboeuf, J. Caro, and E. Parkinson, “Free
evaluation of other numerical modelling tools and methods. surface flows simulations in Pelton turbines using an hybrid
SPH-ALE method,” Journal of Hydraulic Research, vol. 48, no.
1, pp. 40–49, 2010.
Conflict of Interests [15] P. Κoukouvinis, Development of a meshfree particle method
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests for the simulation of steady and unsteady free surface flows:
application and validation of the method on impulse hydraulic
regarding the publication of this paper.
turbines [Ph.D. thesis], National Technical University of Athens,
Athens, Greece, 2012.
References [16] ANSYS, ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide, Release 15, ANSYS,
Canonsburg, Pa, USA, 2013.
[1] A. Židonis and G. A. Aggidis, “State of the art in numeri- [17] ANSYS, ANSYS Fluent User Guide, Release 15, ANSYS, Canons-
cal modelling of Pelton turbines,” Renewable and Sustainable burg, Pa, USA, 2013.
Energy Reviews, vol. 45, pp. 135–144, 2015.
[18] A. Perrig, Hydrodynamics of the free surface flow in Pelton
[2] L. F. Barstad, CFD analysis of a Pelton turbine [M.S. thesis], turbine buckets [Ph.D. thesis], Swiss Federal Institute of Tech-
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, nology, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2007.
Norway, 2012. [19] A. Perrig, F. Avellan, J.-L. Kueny, M. Farhat, and E. Parkinson,
[3] A. Santolin, G. Cavazzini, G. Ardizzon, and G. Pavesi, “Numer- “Flow in a Pelton turbine bucket: numerical and experimental
ical investigation of the interaction between jet and bucket in investigations,” Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 128, no. 2, pp.
a Pelton turbine,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical 350–358, 2006.
Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, vol. 223, no. 6, [20] E. Parkinson, C. Neury, H. Garcin, G. Vullioud, and T. Weiss,
pp. 721–728, 2009. “Unsteady analysis of a Pelton runner with flow and mechanical
[4] B. Zoppé, C. Pellone, T. Maitre, and P. Leroy, “Flow analysis simulations,” International Journal on Hydropower and Dams,
inside a pelton turbine bucket,” Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 101–105, 2006.
128, no. 3, pp. 500–511, 2006. [21] L. E. Klemetsen, An experimental and numerical study of the free
[5] A. Zidonis, A. Panagiotopoulos, G. A. Aggidis, J. S. Anag- surface Pelton bucket flow [M.S. thesis], Norwegian University of
nostopoulos, and D. E. Papantonis, “Parametric optimisation Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 2010.
of two Pelton turbine runner designs using CFD,” Journal of [22] F. G. Stamatelos, J. S. Anagnostopoulos, and D. E. Papanto-
Hydrodynamics, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 840–847, 2015. nis, “Performance measurements on a Pelton turbine model,”
[6] J. R. Rygg, CFD analysis of a Pelton turbine in openFOAM Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A:
[M.S. thesis], Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Journal of Power and Energy, vol. 225, no. 3, pp. 351–362, 2011.
Trondheim, Norway, 2013. [23] International Electrotechnical Commission, “Hydraulic tur-
[7] J. C. Marongiu, E. Parkinson, S. Lais, F. Leboeuf, and J. Leduc, bines, storage pumps and pump-turbines—model acceptance
“Application of SPH-ALE method to pelton hydraulic turbines,” tests,” Standard IEC 60193, International Electrotechnical Com-
in Proceedings of the 5th International SPHERIC Workshop, pp. mission, 1999.
253–258, Manchester, UK, June 2010. [24] M. Nechleba, Hydraulic Turbines: Their Design and Equipment,
[8] J. S. Anagnostopoulos and D. E. Papantonis, “A fast Lagrangian Artia, Prague, Czech Republic, 1957.
simulation method for flow analysis and runner design in [25] J. Thake, The Micro-Hydro Pelton Turbine Manual: Design, Man-
Pelton turbines,” Journal of Hydrodynamics B, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. ufacture and Installation for Small-Scale Hydro-Power, ITDG
930–941, 2012. publishing, London, UK, 2000.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Copyright of International Journal of Rotating Machinery is the property of Hindawi
Publishing Corporation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.