0
Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Coupled Multipoint Shape Optimization of Runner and Draft Tube of Hydraulic Turbines

[+] Author and Article Information
A. E. Lyutov

Department of Mathematics and Mechanics,
Novosibirsk State University,
2 Pirogova Street,
Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
e-mail: lyutov.alexey@gmail.com

D. V. Chirkov

Institute of Computational Technologies SB RAS,
6 Academic Lavrentjev Avenue,
Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
e-mail: chirkov@ict.nsc.ru

V. A. Skorospelov

Sobolev Institute of Mathematics SB RAS,
4 Academic Koptyuga Avenue,
Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
e-mail: vskrsp@math.nsc.ru

P. A. Turuk

Sobolev Institute of Mathematics SB RAS,
4 Academic Koptyuga Avenue,
Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
e-mail: turuk@math.nsc.ru

S. G. Cherny

Institute of Computational Technologies SB RAS,
6 Academic Lavrentjev Avenue,
Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
e-mail: cher@ict.nsc.ru

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received December 19, 2014; final manuscript received May 15, 2015; published online June 25, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Kwang-Yong Kim.

J. Fluids Eng 137(11), 111302 (Nov 01, 2015) (11 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1769; doi: 10.1115/1.4030678 History: Received December 19, 2014; Revised May 15, 2015; Online June 25, 2015

This paper suggests a method of simultaneous multi-objective shape optimization of hydraulic turbine runner and draft tube (DT) with the objective to increase turbine efficiency in wide range of operating points (OPs). Runner and DT are the main sources of energy losses in hydraulic turbines. Coupling runner and DT in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis enables correct statement of boundary conditions for efficiency evaluation, while simultaneous variation of these components allows more flexible adjustment of flow passage geometry. Detailed runner parameterization with 28 free geometrical parameters and DT parameterization with nine free parameters are given. Optimization problem is solved using multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA). For each variation of runner and DT shapes, flow field in wicket gate (WG), runner, and DT is simulated using steady-state Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations with k-e turbulence model. Energy-based boundary conditions are used for the calculations, allowing determination of efficiency of the whole turbine in correspondence with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard. Formulations of multiple OP efficiency objective functions and constraints are discussed in detail. To demonstrate the advantages of simultaneous runner and DT variation, two optimization problems are solved for a medium specific speed Francis turbine. Namely, single runner and coupled “runner–DT” optimizations are carried out. It is shown that optimized runner–DT geometry outperforms the result of single runner optimization by about 0.3% in terms of average efficiency, showing the potential of the developed approach to improve multiregime turbine characteristics in practical design optimization problems.

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

References

Cherny, S. G., Chirkov, D. V., Lapin, V. N., Lobareva, I. F., Sharov, S. V., and Skorospelov, V. A., 2005, “3D Euler Flow Simulation in Hydro Turbines: Unsteady Analysis and Automatic Design,” Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, Vol. 93, Springer, Germany, pp. 33–51. [CrossRef]
Cherny, S. G., Chirkov, D. V., Lapin, V. N., Sharov, S. V., Skorospelov, V. A., and Pylev, I. M., 2006, “Unsteady Flow Computation in Hydroturbines Using Euler Equations,” Turbomachines: Aeroelasticity, Aeroacoustics, and Unsteady Aerodynamics, Torus Press Ltd., Moscow, pp. 356–369.
Cherny, S. G., Bannikov, D. V., Chirkov, D. V., Demianov, V. A., Pylev, I. M., Skorospelov, V. A., and Stepanov, V. N., 2008, “Automatic Optimal Shape Design of Hydroturbine Flow Passage,” Proceedings of the HYDRO 2008, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Bannikov, D. V., Yesipov, D. V., Cherny, S. G., and Chirkov, D. V., 2010, “Optimization Design of Hydroturbine Rotors According to the Efficiency-Strength Criteria,” Thermophys. Aeromech., 17(4), pp. 613–620. [CrossRef]
Pilev, I., Sotnikov, A., Rigin, V., Semenova, A., Cherny, S., Chirkov, D., Bannikov, D., and Skorospelov, V., 2012, “Multiobjective Optimal Design of Runner Blade Using Efficiency and Draft Tube Pulsation Criteria,” Proceedings of the 26th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems.
Semenova, A., Chirkov, D., Lyutov, A., Cherny, S., Skorospelov, V., and Pylev, I., 2014, “Multi-Objective Shape Optimization of Runner Blade for Kaplan Turbine,” Proceedings of the 27th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems.
Kurosawa, S., and Nakamura, K., 2009, “Design Optimization of a High Specific Speed Francis Turbine Using Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm,” Int. J. Fluid Mach. Syst., 2(2), pp. 102–109. [CrossRef]
Flores, E., Bornard, L., Tomas, L., Liu, J., and Couston, M., 2012, “Design of Large Francis Turbine Using Optimal Methods,” Proceedings of the 26th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems.
Enomoto, Y., Kurosawa, S., and Kawajiri, H., 2012, “Design Optimization of a High Specific Speed Francis Turbine Runner,” Proceedings of the 26th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems.
Eisinger, R., and Ruprecht, A., 2001, “Automatic Shape Optimization of Hydro Turbine Components Based on CFD,” Seminar “CFD for Turbomachinery Applications,” Gdansk, Poland, pp. 101–111.
Puente, L., Reggio, M., and Guibault, F., 2003, “Automatic Shape Optimization of a Hydraulic Turbine Draft Tube,” Proceedings of the International Conference CFD2003, Vancouver, BC.
Marjavaara, B., and Lundström, T., 2007, “Hydraulic Turbine Diffuser Shape Optimization by Multiple Surrogate Model Approximations of Pareto Fronts,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 129(9), pp. 1228–1240. [CrossRef]
McNabb, J., Devals, C., Kyriacou, S. A., Murry, N., and Mullins, B. F., 2014, “CFD Based Draft Tube Hydraulic Design Optimization,” 26th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems, pp. 1–10.
Jošt, D., and Lipej, A., 2011, “Numerical Prediction of Non-Cavitating and Cavitating Vortex Rope in a Francis Turbine Draft Tube,” Strojniški Vestnik—J. Mech. Eng., 57(6), pp. 445–456. [CrossRef]
Mauri, S., 2002, “Numerical Simulation and Flow Analysis of an Elbow Diffuser,” Ph.D. thesis, EPFL No. 2527.
Galván, S., Reggio, M., and Guibault, F., 2013, “Inlet Velocity Profile Optimization of the Turbine 99 Draft Tube,” ASME Paper No. FEDSM2013-16473. [CrossRef]
Susan-Resiga, R. F., Muntean, S., and Ciocan, T., 2014, “Improving Draft Tube Hydrodynamics Over a Wide Operating Range,” Proc. Rom. Acad. Ser. A: Math., Phys., Tech. Sci., Inf. Sci., 15(2), pp. 182–190.
Susan-Resiga, R., Ciocan, G., Anton, I., and Avellan, F., 2006, “Analysis of the Swirling Flow Downstream a Francis Turbine Runner,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 128, pp. 177–189. [CrossRef]
Susan-Resiga, R., Muntean, S., Avellan, F., and Anton, I., 2011, “Mathematical Modeling of Swirling Flow in Hydraulic Turbines for the Full Operating Range,” Appl. Math. Model., 35, pp. 4759–4773. [CrossRef]
EPRI, 2000, “Hydro Life Extension Modernization Guides: Volume 2: Hydromechanical Equipment,” Palo Alto, CA.
Čelič, D., and Lipej, A., 2011, “Verification of Numerical Analysis of Hydraulic Turbines With a Modal Test Data,” NUMECA International's User Meeting, Brussels, Belgium.
IEC Standard 60193, 1999, Hydraulic Turbines, Storage Pumps and Pump-Turbines—Model Acceptance Tests, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kyriacou, S. A., Weissenberger, S., Grafenberger, P., and Giannakoglou, K. C., 2010, “Optimization of Hydraulic Machinery by Exploiting Previous Successful Designs,” Proceedings of the 25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems.
Gubin, M. F., 1973, Draft Tubes of Hydro-Electric Stations, Amerind Publishing, New Delhi, India.
Skotak, A., Mikulasek, J., and Obrovsky, J., 2009, “Development of the New High Specific Speed Fixed Blade Turbine Runner,” Int. J. Fluid Mach. Syst., 2(4), pp. 392–399. [CrossRef]
Cherny, S. G., Sharov, S. V., Skorospelov, V. A., and Turuk, P. A., 2003, “Methods for Three-Dimensional Flows Computation in Hydraulic Turbines,” Russ. J. Numer. Anal. Math. Model., 18(2), pp. 87–104. [CrossRef]
Rogers, S. E., Kwak, D., and Kiris, C., 1991, “Steady and Unsteady Solutions of the Incompressible Navier–Stokes Equations,” AIAA J., 29(4), pp. 603–610. [CrossRef]
Balint, D., Muntean, S., Anton, I., and Susan-Resiga, R., 2005, “A New Mixing Interface Approach for Turbulent Swirling Flows in Hydraulic Turbines,” Sci. Bull. “Politeh.” Univ. Timisoara, Trans. Mech., 50(64), pp. 113–120.
Panov, L. V., Chirkov, D. V., Cherny, S. G., Pylev, I. M., and Sotnikov, A. A., 2012, “Numerical Modeling of Steady-State Cavitational Flow of Viscous Fluid in Francis Hydroturbine,” Thermophys. Aeromech., 19(3), pp. 415–427. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Head losses in Francis turbine components versus relative discharge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Peak efficiency versus specific speed for Francis turbines [20]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Turbine flow passage with cross sections 1–5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Angular deviation function Φ˜(u,v) for Francis runner

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Variation of RZ-projection of Francis runner

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

DT parameterization

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

DT shape construction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Computational domain and mesh in WG, runner, and DT cone inlet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Computational domain: DT

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Efficiency hill diagrams: experimental and computed on basic and fine meshes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Optimization procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Efficiency hill diagram of the initial turbine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Pareto fronts for optimization runs Opt01 and Opt02

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Initial and optimized runners

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of initial and optimized DTs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Efficiency hill diagrams of initial and optimized flow passages for n11 = 70

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Component losses in OP2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Meridian (Vm) and circumferential (Vu) velocity profiles downstream the runner in OP1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Meridian (Vm) and circumferential (Vu) velocity profiles downstream the runner in OP2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

DT skin friction lines in OP2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Axial velocity distribution at DT outlet in OP2

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