Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Flow simulation and efficiency hill chart prediction for a Propeller turbine

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2010 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 12 012040

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/12/1/012040)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 181.115.128.61
This content was downloaded on 10/03/2015 at 20:51

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012040 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012040

Flow simulation and efficiency hill chart prediction

for a Propeller turbine
T C Vu1, M Koller2, M Gauthier1 and C Deschênes3
1
Andritz Hydro Ltd. 6100 Transcanadienne, Pointe Claire, H9R 1B9, Canada,
2
Andritz Hydro AG Hardstrasse 319, 8021 Zürich, Switzerland
3
Laval University, Laboratory of Hydraulic Machinery (LAMH) 1065 Avenue de la
Médecine, Québec, G1V 0A6, Canada

E-mail : thi.vu|[email protected]
Abstract. In the present paper, we focus on the flow computation of a low head Propeller turbine
at a wide range of design and off-design operating conditions. First, we will present the results on
the efficiency hill chart prediction of the Propeller turbine and discuss the consequences of using
non-homologous blade geometries for the CFD simulation. The flow characteristics of the entire
turbine will be also investigated and compared with experimental data at different measurement
planes. Two operating conditions are selected, the first one at the best efficiency point and the
second one at part load condition. At the same time, for the same selected operating points, the
numerical results for the entire turbine simulation will be compared with flow simulation with our
standard stage calculation approach which includes only guide vane, runner and draft tube
geometries.

1. Introduction
Due to the growing demand for hydro-electric energy production, the requirements on low-head hydraulic
turbines are changing. The need for increased power output and annual energy production of modernized and new
power plants often involve the extension of the operating region of the turbines towards both full load and part load
conditions. In these off-design operating regions, the flow in the turbine is characterized most of the time by time-
dependent hydraulic phenomena, which are difficult to be simulated accurately by steady state flow computation. In a
low head water turbine, the draft tube has to convert a high amount of kinetic energy of the flow leaving the runner
which leads to a high energy loss in comparison with others turbine components. The highly swirling and
decelerating flow in the draft tube makes the flow simulation of this component very difficult. Therefore performing
flow simulation and predicting the efficiency of a low head water turbine for the whole range of operating conditions
is a challenging task.
Andritz Hydro participates in the Consortium of Hydraulic Machines at the ‘Laboratoire de Machines
Hydrauliques (LAMH)’ of Laval University in Québec, Canada. This research consortium aims at the creation of a
comprehensive database of flow measurements in low-head water turbines for a wide range of operating conditions.
In the first research project of the consortium, CRD AxialT, the flow in a propeller turbine model has been
investigated in detail by model measurements on the university test rig [1]. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show various
locations of flow measurement in different operating points using different measurement techniques. These state-of-
the-art techniques for measuring the flow in a hydraulic turbine have been developed and applied by the university
[2], [3], [4], [5]. For the project partners, the huge set of steady and unsteady flow measurements in a low-head
turbine model is a very valuable database to increase their knowledge of the flow phenomena in this type of turbines
and to validate and improve their numerical flow simulation tools.
The AxialT turbine has a semi-spiral casing with two intake channels, 24 stay vanes, 24 guide vanes and a 6-
bladed Propeller runner. The draft tube has a short cone, an unsymmetrical elbow and one pier. Special attention has
been paid to the blade geometries of the old runner model. All 6 blades of the model were individually measured. As
described by Nicolle et al. [6], the blade shapes of the AxialT model runner slightly differ from each other. The
influence of these small differences in runner blade geometry could have an impact on the result of the numerical
flow analysis. As the experimental results are obtained with a runner model with 6 different blade geometries, we
should perform the CFD simulation with a set of meshes representing the runner with all six different blade


c 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd 1
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012040 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012040

geometries. A simple approach which allows us to take into account all the 6 different blade geometries is to average
them all and create new average blade geometry.
In the present paper we focus on the steady state flow computation. First, we will present the results on the
efficiency hill chart prediction of the entire AxialT turbine using the average blade geometry and a discussion on the
consequence of using different blade geometries for the CFD simulation. Secondly, the flow characteristics of the
entire turbine will be investigated and compared with experimental data at different measurement planes. Two
operating conditions are selected, OP3 near the best efficiency point and OP1 at part load condition. At the same time,
for the same selected operating points, OP1 and OP3, the numerical results for the entire turbine simulation will be
compared with flow simulation with our standard stage approach which includes only guide vane, runner and draft
tube geometries.

Fig. 1 Locations of flow measurements in

CRD AxialT propeller turbine model
Fig. 2 Normalized efficiency hill chart of the
AxialT propeller turbine model

Fig. 3 Contour of geometry deviation of individual blade compared to the main average blade geometry

2. Problem setup
2.1 AxialT runner blade geometry
The geometry of the propeller model runner was measured by IREQ-Hydro Quebec. For more detailed
information, please see [6]. Using our own runner blade geometry design tool, we have created new blade
geometry by averaging the 6 individual blade geometries. Figure 3 shows the geometry deviation of each
individual blade compared to the main averaged blade. The scale varies from -0.5% to +0.5% of the throat
diameter. The average deviation of all blades is about 0.3%. The most deviated one is the blade #1 with a
maximum value of -0.5% at the blade leading edge. For the model throat diameter of 380mm, this deviation

2
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012040 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012040

corresponds to -1.9mm. The blades #3 and #4 have the least deviation of about 0.15 % which takes place at the
leading and trailing edge regions. According to IEC code which allows a maximum of ±0.1% deviation [8], we
could not use any geometry among the six blades to simulate accurately the AxialT turbine flow behavior. Beside
the variation on the blade geometry, the six blades have different tip clearances with the shroud. The tip
clearance varies from 0.03% to 0.12% of the throat diameter. We keep an average blade tip clearance of 0.07%
for all flow simulations in this paper.
2.2 CFD setting for coupled steady-state simulations of entire AxialT propeller turbine model
The computational flow domain for CFD simulation in the entire AxialT turbine model, as shown in Fig. 4,
comprises the semi-spiral casing, the stay vanes, one guide vane, one runner blade and the draft tube. Grid
generation for the spiral casing and stay vanes was made with the commercial grid generator ANSYS ICEM-
CFD providing tetrahedral elements with prism layers resolving the boundary layer near the walls. For other
components of the turbine, guide vane, runner and draft tube, the grid generation was made with in-house
automatic mesh generators providing H- and O-type hexahedral meshes. The guide vane is over-hanging from 20
degree opening to the maximum opening at full load. The gap configurations due to over-hanging guide vane
and the runner tip clearance are taken care of by the mesh generator. Only one guide vane and one runner blade
channel are generated for the computation. The complete computational grid of the entire propeller turbine
simulations contains about 4×106 nodes. The generated meshes are intended to be used with k-epsilon turbulence
model which requires a y+ value varying from 30 to 100 for the first node near solid wall. Meshes for the casing
and draft tube have a minimum angle about 10 degrees while meshes for the guide vane and runner have a
minimum angle about 5 degrees and a high grid aspect ratio due to the presence of gap of the runner and of the
overhang guide vane. The CFD simulation for efficiency hill chart prediction uses our standard stage approach
which includes only guide vane, runner and draft tube geometries (Fig. 5). In such case, the inlet region of the guide
vane channel is not at the usual stay vane – guide vane interface, but it is placed further upstream allowing a uniform
incoming flow from the inlet to fully develop. For the sake of simplicity, we call this standard set up Stage2 because
there are 2 stage interfaces, Guide vane – Runner and Runner – Draft tube, used in this computation.
The commercial flow solver ANSYS CFX v12.1 is used for performing the flow analysis. Steady-state time-
discretization with a constant pseudo-time step and the so called ‘high-resolution’ space-discretization (mostly
2nd-order-accurate) has been applied. Turbulence is modeled by the standard k-ε model. The connections
between different sub-domains – from casing to guide vanes, from guide vane to runner and from runner to draft
tube – have been modeled by circumferential-averaging stage-interfaces. Two operating points at rated net head
have been analyzed with these entire turbine simulations: OP 1 in part load and OP3 near best-efficiency point,
see Fig. 2. The flow rate measured in the model test has been specified at the inlet normal to the boundary
surface. Averaged static pressure has been set at the outlet boundary at the end of the draft tube extension box. In
this setting, the head, the hydraulic power at the rotating runner and so the calculated hydraulic efficiency result
from the simulation

Fig. 4 Computational flow domain Fig. 5 Computational flow domain Fig. 6 Measurement plane
for full turbine simulation for Stage 2 simulation locations near the runner

3
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012040 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012040

3. Efficiency hill chart prediction

Ideally, the computational flow domain for CFD simulation of a hydraulic turbine should comprise the entire
turbine assembly. For steady state simulation, in order to save CPU time, it is preferable that the computational
flow domain would be divided into two flow domains. The first one would include casing and stay vanes. The
second domain would include guide vane, runner and draft tube. There is an advantage of dividing the entire
turbine into two computational flow domains. The casing and stay vanes assembly, which are fixed components,
requires only one simulation for a given operating condition to determine the component head loss. For
subsequent operating conditions, the head loss of the casing and stay vanes assembly can be calculated simply by
assuming that their losses are proportional to the square of the flow rate. For the guide vane, runner and draft
tube assembly, the flow analysis has to be performed for all operating conditions of interest with corresponding
guide vane opening positions. This approach has been successfully validated for Francis runners and can be
found in [7].
We have performed several CFD simulations to compute the efficiency hill chart of the AxialT turbine with
different variations of the runner blade geometry. For most of the time, the computation was made for a range of
guide vane opening from 20 to 44 degree with an increment of 2 or 3 degrees. The n11-value used in the
experimental investigation is 124. At the guide vane inlet, we specify a uniform flow and an inlet flow angle
matching the flow orientation at the stay vane exit. The computation starts with a guessed flow rate. There is a
procedure to iterate the flow rate for a specific guide vane opening during the course of the simulation until the
computed head of the entire turbine matches with the prescribed turbine head. The turbine head is calculated by
adding the useful work produced by the runner, and the head losses of all individual turbine components. The
average blade geometry runner was chosen for the first calculation. At the beginning, the computation was
performed for a turbine head of 10m which is our standard turbine head used for low head turbines. Then we
performed a second computation for 7m turbine head which is the turbine head during the test in the laboratory.
We obtained the same results from the computations with both turbine heads. Figure 7 shows the comparison of
the predicted turbine efficiency against the experimental data for a wide range of operating conditions. The
normalized flow rate varies from 0.75 to 1.15. The numerical prediction matches very well with the lab data in
terms of the efficiency level and the position of the best efficiency point. This good correlation validates our
approach of using the average blade geometry to represent a runner with 6 different blades. Figure 7 shows also
the efficiency prediction for blade #1 which has the largest geometry deviation in the group. It is interesting to
note that the position of the BEP of blade #1 is shifted to the left about 4% compared to the one of the average
blade and the efficiency at the BEP is slightly higher of about 0.25 % compared to the average blade efficiency.
For blade #4 which has the least geometry deviation in the group, the shift of the BEP to the left is smaller, about
2%. For the last computation, we have chosen blade #2 which has a positive geometric deviation at the blade
trailing edge region as opposed to the two blades #1 and #4, which both have a negative deviation at the blade
trailing edge. This time the BEP location of blade #2 is shifted to the right compared to the one of the average
blade.

Fig. 7 AxialT turbine efficiency with different blade Fig. 8 Head losses of individual components with
runner geometries different blade runner geometries

4
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012040 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012040

The head loss of the entire turbine can be broken into head losses of individual components as shown in Fig.
8 for the whole range of the turbine operating conditions. It indicates clearly that the shape of the efficiency hill
chart of a low head turbine is governed by the performance curve of the draft tube. While the runner loss varies
smoothly over the wide range of operating condition, the head loss of the draft tube varies sharply near the BEP.
We can find that the position of the lowest energy loss in the draft tube corresponds with the location of the BEP
of the turbine as shown in Fig. 7. The location of the lowest draft tube loss associated with the Blade #1 runner is
also shifted 4% to the left compared to the lowest draft tube loss associated with the average blade runner. The
head loss of the blade #1 runner is overall slightly smaller then the one of the average blade runner. This explains
the higher efficiency of the blade #1 runner. The loss of the casing-stay vane assembly, which is similar for all
blade runner geometries, increases with the flow rate Q11. On the contrary, the guide vane head loss decreases
with flow rate Q11 due to a small flow passage between the guide vanes at part load condition. The guide vane
loss is quite similar for all blade runner geometries and it is shown here only for the average blade computation.

3. CFD simulations of the entire AxialT propeller turbine model

The CFD simulation in the entire turbine model geometry including casing, stay vanes, guide vanes, runner and
draft tube is performed for two selected operating points, OP1 at part load condition and OP3 near the best efficiency
point. The OP1 condition corresponds to the guide vane opening of 25 degrees and the OP3 condition corresponds to
the guide vane opening at 33 degrees. For this computation, we imposed the turbine flow rate obtained from the
model test with a uniform velocity distribution at the casing inlet. The turbulence intensity was set to 2% at the inlet.
Concurrently with the full turbine computation, we performed CFD simulations with the Stage2 computation domain
as described above for the same operating conditions, OP3 and OP1. We used the same flow rate imposed by the
model test with a uniform flow angle of 45 degrees at the inlet of the guide vane. The turbulence intensity was set to
1% at the guide vane inlet.
The following is the comparison of the CFD results obtained from both setups against the experimental data. Figure
6 shows the location of several planes upstream and downstream of the runner used for comparison: the STV-GV
interface (r = 0.25m), the GV-RN Interface (corresponding to the measurement plane #3) and the runner
outlet/draft tube cone planes (Planes #5a, #5b and #5c). In all figures, the velocity has been normalized by the
average axial velocity at the turbine throat.

4.1 Results and discussion for operating point OP1 at part load (α = 25°)
At the STV-GV interface (Fig. 9), the velocity profiles from the two flow simulations are plotted in order to
verify if the imposed uniform flow at the inlet for the Stage2 calculation is valid. A good correlation is obtained
for the radial component distribution suggesting that the position of guide vane inlet of the Stage2 simulation is
adequate.

Fig. 9 Axial and tangential velocity profiles at Fig. 10 Axial and tangential velocity profiles at the
the STV-GV interface – OP1 GV-RN interface Plane 3 – OP1

5
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012040 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012040

Fig. 11 Axial and tangential velocity profiles at Fig. 12 Axial and tangential velocity profiles under
the DT inlet Plane 5a – OP1 the hub Plane 5b – OP1

Fig. 14 Turbulence intensity profiles inside the

Fig. 13 Axial and tangential velocity profiles inside
DT cone Plane 5c – OP1
the DT cone Plane 5c – OP1
Overall, for the OP1 condition, the results from the full turbine and Stage2 simulations match quite well with
the phase-averaged velocity measurements. At the GV-RN interface (Fig. 10), the full turbine simulation
correctly predicts the phase-averaged axial velocity profile, while slightly under-predicting the tangential
velocity of the flow. The Stage2 simulation predicts the velocity profiles quite well, although it tends to
overshoot the tangential velocity and to under-predict the axial velocity near the hub, with the reverse
phenomenon at the shroud.
The velocity profiles at the 5a, 5b and 5c measurement planes (Fig. 11, 12 and 13) show that neither type of
simulation can be said to be better predicting the flow in the draft tube cone. At 5a (Fig. 11), the CFD velocity
profiles more or less match up to the measured data. However, downstream planes 5b and 5c show that the
predicted tangential velocities are lower than measured. Also, while the axial component profiles match up pretty
well over most of the 5b and 5c planes, the predicted behavior under the hub did not match up very well to
measured data, even to the point where the CFD results show a large region of counter-flow under the hub, at the

6
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012040 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012040

5c plane. Figure 14 shows the distribution of the turbulence intensity at the plane 5c. The numerical results from
both flow simulations are about 40% of the experimental data.
Finally, the velocity contours at the draft tube outlet obtained with both simulations are very similar and compare
well with the experimental velocity contour (Fig. 15 and 16). The measured mass flow distribution for the two
draft tube channels is 23.1% and 79%. We obtain a distribution of about 22% - 78% for the full turbine and
21.5% - 78.5 % for the Stage2 simulation.

Full turbine simulation Stage2 simulation

Fig. 15 Experimental velocity

Fig. 16 Computed velocity contour at Draft Tube Outlet – OP1
contour at Draft Tube Outlet – OP1

4.2 Results and discussion for operating point OP3 near BEP (α = 33°)
At the STV-GV interface for the operating point OP3 (Fig. 17), we find the same similarity as observed for
the operating point OP1. Figure 18 shows the predicted axial and tangential velocity profiles at the GV-RN
interface. While both simulations are very close to the measured axial velocity profile, neither simulation
predicts with precision the measured tangential velocity profile. The full turbine solution under-predicts while
the Stage2 over-predicts.
The velocity profiles at the 5a plane (Fig. 19) show that the full turbine simulation is a better predictor of
both the axial and tangential measured velocity profiles than the Stage2 simulation. The Stage2 solution under
predicts the tangential velocity profile near the draft tube wall. The same tangential velocity defect is observed
for the planes 5b and 5c as shown in Fig. 20 and 21. At the same planes 5b and 5c, the full turbine velocity
profiles match up well with the measured velocity profiles near the draft tube wall while it is rather the Stage2
simulation that seems to be better at predicting the velocity profiles near the hub region. One noteworthy
difference between the two simulations is the inability for the full turbine simulation to predict the “surge” in
tangential velocity near the center (at about r=0.02-0.03 m), which the Stage2 simulation has no trouble catching.
Also, the full turbine simulation predicts a large area of flow recirculation directly under the hub (Fig. 20), which
we found surprising because of the measurement plane’s proximity to the hub. Figure 22 shows the distribution
of the turbulence intensity at the plane 5c for the OP3 condition near the BEP. It is surprising to see that the
turbulence intensity profile obtained from the full turbine computation is several times smaller compared to the
experimental data and the result from Stage2 simulation. This could explain the different results from the two
simulations at the hub region.

Fig. 17 Axial and tangential velocity profiles at the Fig. 18 Axial and tangential velocity profiles at
STV-GV interface – OP3 the GV-RN interface Plane 3 – OP3

7
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012040 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012040

Fig. 19 Axial and tangential velocity profiles at the Fig. 20 Axial and tangential velocity profiles –
DT Inlet Plane 5a – OP3 Plane 5b – OP3

Fig. 22 Turbulence intensity profiles inside the DT

Fig. 21 Axial and tangential velocity profiles – Plane 5c
Cone
- OP3
Plane 5c – OP3

Figures 23 and 24 show a comparison of the velocity contours at the draft tube outlet. The measured mass
flow distribution for the two draft tube channels is 38.1% and 52.8%. The values are the percentage of mass flow
in one channel (measured and integrated from LDV data) compared to total mass flow measured on test rig.
Since LDV measurements did not cover the full cross-section, the sum of both values is not 100%. While the two
types of simulation are moderately close in terms of mass flow distribution, about 36% - 64% for the full turbine
and 32% - 68 % for the Stage2, the flow pattern show little similitude between the 2 flow simulations and the
experimental data.

8
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012040 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012040

Full turbine simulation Stage2 simulation

Fig. 23 Experimental velocity

Fig. 24 Computed velocity contour at Draft Tube Outlet – OP3
contour at Draft Tube Outlet – OP3

4. Conclusion
In the present paper, we have presented flow simulations of a low head Propeller turbine at various design
and off-design conditions. We have demonstrated that creating an average blade runner to represent a model
runner with different geometry variation is a valid and simple approach allowing us to predict correctly the
efficiency hill chart of this particular runner and we have shown the consequence of geometry deviation on the
efficiency hill chart prediction. It is crucial to model the correct geometry, even small deviations in runner blade
geometry could lead to inaccurate results (e.g. when taking blade 1 instead of the averaged blade). Obviously, we
will perform comparative CFD simulations with a computational domain including 6 different blade geometries
for further validation. Also, we have performed comparative simulations with the full turbine and Stage2 flow
domains. Both computations give relatively similar results, but the difference found in the draft tube flow prediction
in OP3 has to be investigated. One of the possible reasons is the difference in the turbulence intensity level developed
at the runner outlet which leads to different results in the velocity profile below the hub.
The steady state CFD analysis shows reliable results for the analysis of global turbine characteristics for a range of -
25% to +15% of the flow rate from the BEP, as demonstrated in our efficiency hill chart prediction, given that the
appropriate geometry is used. However, details of flow patterns (e.g. swirl and backflow in hub wake) are not exactly
predicted. In such case, an unsteady simulation is necessary, especially in the draft tube, where time-dependent flow
phenomena with different timescales exist, which has major impact on the performance of low head water turbines.
However, results of these investigations will be presented in a subsequent publication.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the participants on the Consortium on Hydraulic Machines for their support
and contribution to this research project: Alstom Hydro Canada Inc., Andritz Hydro, Edelca, Hydro-Quebec,
Laval University, NRCan, Voith Hydro Inc. Our gratitude goes as well to the Canadian Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council who provided funding for this research. A special thanks to IREQ – Hydro
Quebec having provided us the AxialT geometry in a requested specific format. The in-house automatic mesh
generators for distributor, runner and draft tube are from the project Gmath, a collaborative R&D project
between École Polytechnique de Montréal and Andritz Hydro Ltd.

9
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012040 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012040

Nomenclature
2
Aref Area of draft tube outlet section [m ] Q Flow rate [m3/s]
BEP Best efficiency point Q11 Unit flow rate Q11 = Q/D2H0.5
cx Horizontal velocity component in direction of Ox r Radius [m]
[m/s] RN Runner
cref Reference velocity at DT outlet cref = Q/Aref [m/s] STV Stay vanes
CS Spiral casing vr Radial velocity component [m/s]
D Throat diameter of the turbine [m] va Axial velocity component [m/s]
DT Draft tube vt Circumferential velocity component [m/s]
GV Guide vanes w Axial velocity component [m/s]
n11 Unit speed n11 = nD/H0.5 α Guide vane opening angle [°]
OP Operating point η Hydraulic efficiency
Ox Horizontal reference axis pointing towards tail ref Index referring to the operating point near
water best-efficiency point
Oz Vertical reference axis, turbine axis

References
[1] Deschênes C, Ciocan G D, De Henau V, Flemming F, Huang J, Koller M, Arloza F N, Page M, Qian R and
Vu T C 2010 General overview of the AxialT Project: a partnership for low head turbine developments
25th IAHR Symp. on Hydr. Mach. and Syst (Timisoara, Romania)
[2] Gagnon J M, Iliescu M, Ciocan G D and Deschênes C 2008 Experimental Investigation of Runner Outlet
Flow in Axial Turbine with LDV and Stereoscopic PIV 24th IAHR Symp. on Hydr. Mach. and Syst.
(Foz do Iguassu, Brazil)
[3] Beaulieu S, Deschênes C, Iliescu M and Fraser R 2009 Flow Field Measurement Through the Runner of a
Propeller Turbine Using Stereoscopic PIV 8th Int. Symp. on Particle Image Velocimetry – PIV09
(Melbourne, Australia)
[4] Gouin P, Deschênes C, Iliescu M and Ciocan G D 2009 Experimental Investigation of Draft Tube Flow of
an Axial Turbine by Laser Doppler Velocimetry 3rd IAHR Int. Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation
and Dynamic Problems in Hydr. Mach. and Syst. (Brno, Czech Republic)
[5] Duquesne P, Iliescu M, Fraser R, Deschênes C and Ciocan G D 2010 Monitoring of velocity and pressure
fields within an axial turbine 25th IAHR Symp. on Hydr. Mach. and Syst. (Timisoara, Romania)
[6] Nicolle J, Labbé P, Gauthier G and Lussier M 2010 Impact of blade geometry differences from CFD
performance analysis of existing turbines 25th IAHR Symp. on Hydr. Mach. and Syst. (Timisoara,
Romania)
[7] Thi C Vu and Safia Retieb 2002 Accuracy assessment of current CFD tools to predict hydraulic turbine
efficiency hill chart 21st IAHR Symp. on Hydr.Mach.and Syst.(Lausanne, Switzerland)
[8] IEC Code 60193 - Hydraulic turbines, storage pumps and pump-turbines – Model acceptance tests 2nd
edition

10