0
Research Papers: Fundamental Issues and Canonical Flows

Numerical Investigation of the Spear Valve Configuration on the Performance of Pelton and Turgo Turbine Injectors and Runners

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

Engineering Department,
Engineering Building,
Lancaster University Renewable Energy Group
and Fluid Machinery Group,
Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4YR, UK

A. Panagiotopoulos, J. S. Anagnostopoulos, D. E. Papantonis

School of Mechanical Engineering,
National Technical University of Athens,
9, Heroon Polytechniou Street,
Zografou, Athens 157 80, Greece

G. A. Aggidis

Engineering Department,
Engineering Building,
Lancaster University Renewable Energy Group
and Fluid Machinery Group,
Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4YR, UK
e-mail: g.aggidis@lancaster.ac.uk

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received December 5, 2014; final manuscript received May 6, 2015; published online June 25, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Edward M. Bennett.

J. Fluids Eng 137(11), 111201 (Nov 01, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1728; doi: 10.1115/1.4030628 History: Received December 05, 2014; Revised May 06, 2015; Online June 25, 2015

This paper uses two modern commercial cfd software packages to compare the performance of a standard and improved impulse turbine injector developed in a previous study. The two injector designs are compared by simulating the two-dimensional (2D) axis-symmetric cases as well as full three-dimensional (3D) cases including the bend in the branch pipe and the guide vanes. The resulting jet profiles generated by these simulations are used to initialize the inlet conditions for a full Pelton and Turgo runner simulation at different operating conditions in order to assess the impact of the injector design on the performance and efficiency of a real impulse turbine. The results showed that the optimized injector design, with steeper nozzle and spear angles, not only attains higher efficiencies in the 2D and 3D injector simulations but also produces a jet which performs better than the standard design in both the Pelton and the Turgo runner simulations. The results show that the greatest improvement in the hydraulic efficiency occurs within the injector with the improved design, showing an increase in efficiency of 0.76% for the Turgo 3D injector and 0.44% for the Pelton 3D injector. The results also show that in the case of the 3D injector, the improved injector geometry produces a jet profile which induces better overall runner performance, giving a 0.5% increase in total hydraulic efficiency for the Pelton case and 0.7% for the Turgo case.

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

References

Pelton, L. A., 1880, “Pelton Water Wheel,” U.S. Patent No. 223,692.
Crewdson, E., 1920, “Improvements in Water Turbines,” UK Patent No. 155,175 (A).
Gilkes, “Gilkes Turgo Impulse Hydro Turbine,” Last accessed May 6, 2015, http://www.gilkes.com/user_uploads/turgo%20paper2.pdf
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, pp. 165–168. [CrossRef]
Fiereder, R., Riemann, S., and Schilling, R., 2010, “Numerical and Experimental Investigation of the 3D Free Surface Flow in a Model Pelton Turbine,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., 12(1), p. 012072. [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.
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 Paper No. ESDA2012-82565, pp. 157–166. [CrossRef]
Jost, D., Lipej, A., and Meznar, P., 2008, “Numerical Prediction of Efficiency, Cavitation and Unsteady Phenomena in Water Turbines,” ASME Paper No. ESDA2008-59563, pp. 157–166. [CrossRef]
Jošt, D., Mežnar, P., and Lipej, A., 2010, “Numerical Prediction of Pelton Turbine Efficiency,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., 12(1), p. 012080. [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. Technol., 79(55), pp. 659–666.
Gupta, V., and Prasad, V., 2012, “Numerical Investigations for Jet Flow Characteristics on Pelton Turbine Bucket,” Int. J. Emerging Technol. Adv. Eng., 2(7), pp. 364–370.
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, pp. 327–337. [CrossRef]
Correa, J., De Andrade, J., Noguera, R., 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, pp. 2039–2052. [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]
Veselý, J., and Varner, M., 2001, “A Case Study of Upgrading of 62.5 MW Pelton Turbine,” Proceedings of the International Conference IAHR, pp. 1–10.
Peron, M., Parkinson, E., Geppert, L. R., and Staubli, T., 2008, “Importance of Jet Quality on Pelton Efficiency and Cavitation,” IGHEM 2008, pp. 1–9.
Patel, K., Patel, B., Yadav, M., and Foggia, T., 2010, “Development of Pelton Turbine Using Numerical Simulation,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., 12(1), p. 012048. [CrossRef]
Gass, M., and HetchHetchy Water, 2002, “Modification of Nozzles for the Improvement of Efficiency of Pelton Type Turbines,” Proceedings of the HydroVision Conference, pp. 1–7.
Staubli, T., and Hauser, H. P., 2004, “Flow Visualization—A diagnosis Tool for Pelton Turbines,” IGHEM 2004, 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]
Benzon, D., Židonis, A., Panagiotopoulos, A., Aggidis, G. A., Anagnostopoulos, J. S., and Papantonis, D. E., 2015, “Impulse Turbine Injector Design Improvement Using Computational Fluid Dynamics,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 137(4), p. 041106. [CrossRef]
ANSYS®, 2010, “ANSYS CFX Powerful Computational Fluid Dynamics Software for Process and Product Design Optimization,” Last accessed May 6, 2015, http://www.ansys.com/staticassets/ANSYS/staticassets/resourcelibrary/brochure/ansys-cfx-brochure.pdf
ANSYS®, 2011, “The ANSYS Fluent Package Combines Deep Physics and Years of Simulation Development Expertise to Solve CFD Challenges-Right Out of the Box,” Last accessed May 6, 2015, http://www.ansys.com/staticassets/ANSYS/staticassets/resourcelibrary/brochure/ansys-fluent-brochure-14.0.pdf
Židonis, A., Panagiotopoulos, A., Aggidis, G. A., Anagnostopoulos, J. S., and Papantonis, D. E., 2015, “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, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
Perrig, A., 2007, “Hydrodynamics of the Free Surface Flow in Pelton Turbine Buckets,” Ph.D. thesis, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland, No. EPFL_TH3715.
Barstad, L. F., 2012, “CFD Analysis of a Pelton Turbine,” M.Sc. thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
Zoppe, B., Pellone, Ch., Maître, Th., and Leroy, P., 2006, “Flow Analysis Inside a Pelton Turbine Bucket,” ASME J. Turbomachinery, 128(3), pp. 500–511. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Typical spear valve injector configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Spear travel/nozzle diameter (a) against flow rate for 90-50 and 110-70 designs with polynomial fit curves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Injector domain geometry using 110-70 nozzle/spear design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

3D mesh of a complete geometry assembly for the 90-50 nozzle/spear design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Magnified view of the mesh at the nozzle exit and spear tip

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Image of the 3D injector simulation with the reference locations: P—reference plane at the distance of two nozzle opening diameters from the nozzle exit, H—horizontal line for 2D profiles, and V—vertical line for 2D profiles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of 90-50 injector jet axial velocity profiles at a distance of two nozzle diameters from the nozzle exit

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of 110-70 injector axial jet velocity profiles at a distance of two nozzle diameters from the nozzle exit

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Vector plot of secondary velocities in the flow before the spear holding vanes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Vector plot of 90-50 injector design secondary velocities in the free jet at a distance of two nozzle opening diameters from the nozzle exit

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Vector plot of 110-70 injector design secondary velocities in the free jet at a distance of two nozzle opening diameters from the nozzle exit

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Optimized Turgo runner computer aided design (CAD) design [8]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Isosurface at water volume fraction 0.5 for the 3D 110-70 injector jet profile—peak torque timestep

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison between 90-50 and 110-70 injector performance for the Turgo setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison between 90-50 and 110-70 injector performance for the Turgo setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of 90-50 injector design jet velocity profiles at a distance of two nozzle diameters from the nozzle exit

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Optimized Pelton runner installed in the Lab [26]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Isosurface at water volume fraction 0.5 for the 3D, 110-70 injector jet profile, colored by velocity in the stationary domain—peak torque timestep (left) and bucket evacuation phase (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparison between 90-50 and 110-70 injector performance for the Pelton setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Comparison between 90-50 and 110-70 runner performance for the Pelton setup

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