0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Impulse Turbine Injector Design Improvement Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

[+] Author and Article Information
D. Benzon, A. Židonis

Lancaster University Renewable Energy Group,
Engineering Department,
Engineering Building, Bailrigg,
Lancaster, Lancs LA1 4YR, UK

A. Panagiotopoulos

Lancaster University Renewable Energy Group,
Engineering Department,
Engineering Building, Bailrigg,
Lancaster, Lancs LA1 4YR, UK;
National Technical University of Athens,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
9 Heroon Polytechniou,
Zografou, Athens 15780, Greece

G. A. Aggidis, J. S. Anagnostopoulos

National Technical University of Athens,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
9 Heroon Polytechniou,
Zografou, Athens 15780, Greece

D. E. Papantonis

National Technical University of Athens,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
9 Heroon Polytechniou,
Zografou, Athens 15780, Greece

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 10, 2014; final manuscript received November 26, 2014; published online January 20, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Edward M. Bennett.

J. Fluids Eng 137(4), 041106 (Apr 01, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1123; doi: 10.1115/1.4029310 History: Received March 10, 2014; Revised November 26, 2014; Online January 20, 2015

This study utilizes two modern computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software packages (ansys®cfx® and ansys®fluent®) to analyze the basic geometric factors affecting the efficiency of a typical impulse turbine injector. A design of experiments (DOEs) study is used to look at the impact of four primary nozzle and spear design parameters on the injector losses over a range of inlet pressures. Improved injector designs for both solvers are suggested based on the results and comparisons are made. The results for both CFD tools suggest that steeper injector nozzle and spear angles than current literature describes will reduce the losses by up to 0.6%.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

British Hydropower Association (BHA), 2010, “Hydropower: Opportunities, Challenges & Sharing Best Practice. The British Hydropower Association Perspective,” Last accessed Apr. 1, 2014, http://www.ciwem.org/media/142437/The%20British%20Hydropower%20Association%20Perspective.pdf
Pelton, L. A., 1880, U.S. Patent No. 223,692.
Crewdson, E., 1920, U.K. Patent No. 155,175.
Gilkes, 2014, “Gilkes Turgo Impulse Hydro Turbine,” Last accessed Apr. 1, 2014, http://www.gilkes.com/user_uploads/turgo%20paper2.pdf
Lancaster University Renewable Energy Group (LUREG), 2014, “Hydro Resource Evaluation Tool: Engineering Options,” Last accessed Apr. 1, 2014, http://www.engineering.lancs.ac.uk/lureg/nwhrm/engineering/index.php?#tab
Perrig, A., Farhat, M., and Avellan, F., 2007, “High Speed Flow Visualisation of an Impinging Jet on a Pelton Turbine Bucket,” ASME Paper No. FEDSM2007-37628. [CrossRef]
Perrig, A., Avellan, F., Kueny, J.-L., Farhat, M., and Parkinson, E., 2006, “Flow in a Pelton Turbine Bucket: Numerical and Experimental Investigations,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 128(2), pp. 350–358. [CrossRef]
Perrig, A., Farhat, M., Avellan, F., Parkinson, E., Garcin, H., Bissel, C., Valle, M., and Favre, J., 2004, “Numerical Flow Analysis in a Pelton Turbine Bucket,” Proceedings of the 22nd IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems, Paper No. LMH-CONF-2004-002.
Fiereder, R., Riemann, S., and Schilling, R., 2010, “Numerical and Experimental Investigation of the 3D Free Surface Flow in a Model Pelton Turbine,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Timişoara, Romania, Sept. 20–24.
Jost, D., Lipej, A., and Meznar, P., 2008, “Numerical Prediction of Efficiency, Cavitation and Unsteady Phenomena in Water Turbines,” ASME Paper No. ESDA2008-59563. [CrossRef]
Jošt, D., Mežnar, P., and Lipej, A., 2010, “Numerical Prediction of Pelton Turbine Efficiency,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Timişoara, Romania, Sept. 20–24, Vol. 12, p. 012080.
Anagnostopoulos, J. S., Koukouvinis, Ph. K., Stamatelos, F. G., and Papantonis, D. E., 2012, “Optimal Design and Experimental Validation of a Turgo Model Hydro Turbine,” ASME 2012 11th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, ASME Paper No. ESDA2012-82565. [CrossRef]
Koukouvinis, Ph. K., Anagnostopoulos, J. S., and Papantonis, D. E., 2011, “SPH Method Used for Flow Predictions at a Turgo Impulse Turbine: Comparison With Fluent,” World Acad. Sci. Eng. Tech., 79(55), pp. 659–666.
Gupta, V., and Prasad, V., 2012, “Numerical Investigations for Jet Flow Characteristics on Pelton Turbine Bucket,” Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng., 2(7), pp. 364–370. [CrossRef]
Rossetti, A., Pavesi, G., Ardizzon, G., and Santolin, A., 2014, “Numerical Analyses of Cavitating Flow in a Pelton Turbine,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 136(8), p. 081304. [CrossRef]
Correa, J., De Andrade, J., and Asuaje, M., 2012, “A Preliminary Analysis of a Turgo Type Turbine CFD Simulation Designed With an Integrated Dimensional Methodology,” ASME Paper No. FEDSM2012-72018. [CrossRef]
Correa, J., De Andrade, J., Croquer, S., Jeanty, F., and Asuaje, M., 2012, “Design Procedure for a Turgo Type Turbine Using a Three-Dimensional Potential Flow,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68807. [CrossRef]
Aggidis, G. A., and Židonis, A., 2014, “Hydro Turbine Prototype Testing and Generation of Performance Curves: Fully Automated Approach,” Renewable Energy, 71, pp. 433–441. [CrossRef]
Židonis, A., Panagiotopoulos, A., Aggidis, G. A., Anagnostopoulos, J. S., and Papantonis, D. E., 2014, “Parametric Optimisation of Two Pelton Turbine Runner Designs Using Computational Fluid Dynamics,” J. Hydrodyn., Ser. B (in press).
Klemetsen, L. E., 2010, “An Experimental and Numerical Study of the Free Surface Pelton Bucket Flow,” M.Sc. thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Perrig, A., 2007, “Hydrodynamics of the Free Surface Flow in Pelton Turbine Buckets,” Ph.D. thesis, Ecole polytechnique federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Veselý, J., and Varner, M., 2001, “A Case Study of Upgrading of 62.5 MW Pelton Turbine,” Proceedings of the International Conference, IAHR.
Peron, M., Parkinson, E., Geppert, L., and Staubli, T., 2008, “Importance of Jet Quality on Pelton Efficiency and Cavitation,” Proceedings of the IGHEM, International Conference on Hydraulic Efficiency Measurements, Milan, Italy, Sept. 3–6, pp. 1–9.
Patel, K., Patel, B., Yadav, M., and Foggia, T., 2010, “Development of Pelton Turbine Using Numerical Simulation,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Timişoara, Romania, Sept. 20–24, Vol. 12, p. 012048.
Gass, M., 2002, “Modification of Nozzles for the Improvement of Efficiency of Pelton Type Turbines,” Proceedings of the HydroVision Conference.
Staubli, T., and Hauser, H. P., 2004, “Flow Visualization-Adiagnosis Tool for Pelton turbines,” Proceedings of the IGHEM 2004, Lucerne, Switzerland, July 14–16, pp. 1–9.
Zhang, Zh., and Casey, M., 2007, “Experimental Studies of the Jet of a Pelton Turbine,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part A, 221(8), pp. 1181–1192. [CrossRef]
Ansys®,2010, “ansys CFX Powerful Computational Fluid Dynamics Software for Process and Product Design Optimization,” Last accessed Apr. 1, 2014, http://www.ansys.com/staticassets/ansys/staticassets/resourcelibrary/brochure/ansys-cfx-brochure.pdf
Ansys®, 2011, “The ansysFluent Package Combines Deep Physics and Years of Simulation Development Expertise to Solve CFD Challenges—Right Out of the Box,” Last accessed Apr. 1, 2014, http://www.ansys.com/staticassets/ansys/staticassets/resourcelibrary/brochure/ansys-fluent-brochure-14.0.pdf
Barstad, L. F., 2012, “CFD Analysis of a Pelton Turbine,” M.Sc. thesis, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Zoppe, B., Pellone, Ch., Maître, Th., and Leroy, P., 2006, “Flow Analysis Inside a Pelton Turbine Bucket,” ASME J. Turbomach., 128(3), pp. 500–511. [CrossRef]
Ansys®, 2010, “ansys CFX-Pre User's Guide,” Last accessed Apr. 1, 2014, ftp://ftp.stru.polimi.it/incoming/Mirzazadeh/cfx%20docs/cfx_pre.pdf
Ansys®, 2011, “ansysFluent User's Guide,” Last Accessed Apr. 1, 2014, http://cdlab2.fluid.tuwien.ac.at/LEHRE/TURB/Fluent.Inc/v140/flu_ug.pdf
Thake, J., 2000, The Micro-Hydro Pelton Turbine Manual: Design, Manufacture and Installation for Small-Scale Hydro-Power, ITDG Publishing, London, UK.
Stat-Ease®, 2013, “design-expert® 9 Software,” Last accessed Apr. 1, 2014, http://www.statease.com/dx9.html
Nesiadis, A. V., Anagnostopoulos, J. S., and Papantonis, D. E., 2013, “Study of the Injector Design in Impulse Hydro Turbines,” Proceedings of the 11TH ICNAAM 2013, ICNAAM 2013, Rhodes, Greece, Sept. 21–27, Vol. 1558, pp. 2297–2300.
Nechleba, M., 1957, Hydraulic Turbines, Their Design and Equipment, Artia, Prague, Czech Republic.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Two-dimensional (2D) injector geometry showing fixed and variable operational and geometric parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Turbulence model study carried out in ansys fluent®

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Fluent mesh independence study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

CFX mesh independence study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

2D mesh of an injector containing approximately 120,000 elements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Injector losses versus spear travel (expressed as flow rate). cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Injector losses versus pressure head. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Injector losses versus spear width. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Flow rate versus spear travel. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Injector loss contours for nozzle and spear angles at mass flow rate = 10 kg/s. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Injector loss contours for nozzle and spear angles at mass flow rate = 20 kg/s. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Injector loss contours for nozzle and spear angles at mass flow rate = 30 kg/s. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Injector loss contours for nozzle and spear angles at mass flow rate = 40 kg/s. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison between the initial and improved injector geometries using CFD results at five different openings. cfx® at H = 250 m—(a) and fluent® at H = 150 m—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison between the original 90 deg/50 deg and improved 110 deg/70 deg nozzles with the same maximum flow rate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Jet velocity profile comparison for original 90 deg/50 deg nozzle and spear design and the improved 110 deg/70 deg design: (a) 90-50 openings 1–5 and (b) 110-70 openings 1–5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Arithmetic jet velocity variance comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Velocity field comparison for (a) small (90/50) and (b) large nozzle and spear angles (110/70)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Velocity magnitude contours for spear curvatures (a)–(d): (a) negative curvature, (b) positive curvature, (c) large positive curvature, and (d) double curvature

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Injector losses for spear curvatures A–D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Impact of scaling on injector losses

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In