2016
DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2015.1119763
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modelling and optimization of the velocity profiles at the draft tube inlet of a Francis turbine within an operating range

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The pair (m = 0, n = 0.278) is obtained based on numerical simulations for Francis runner available in the hydropower plant as shown in Figure 5b. The same values are yielded based on the experimental data of the GAMM Francis model [20]. A constant swirl-free velocity profile corresponds to the classical design of the runner blades.…”
Section: The Old and New Solutions For A Francis Runnermentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The pair (m = 0, n = 0.278) is obtained based on numerical simulations for Francis runner available in the hydropower plant as shown in Figure 5b. The same values are yielded based on the experimental data of the GAMM Francis model [20]. A constant swirl-free velocity profile corresponds to the classical design of the runner blades.…”
Section: The Old and New Solutions For A Francis Runnermentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Locally, where the meridian velocity matches the swirl-free velocity the circumferential velocity vanishes. The swirl-free velocity profile practically remains unchanged at all operating points [16,20] being unique for each runner. One can approximate the swirl-free velocity with a linear equation v sf = n + mq where q is the discharge fraction.…”
Section: The Old and New Solutions For A Francis Runnermentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Lyutov [9] described a coupled optimization of runner and draft tubes, where their geometries were varied simultaneously, allowing to achieve a 0.3% higher efficiency gain compared to single-runner optimization. Ciocan [10] presented a draft tube optimization from part to full load, using a parameterized velocity field at the tube entry based on a swirl-free velocity profile for the runner. Eisinger [11] reported an automatic draft tube optimization, but no coupling of the inflow conditions with the attached runner was present.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The flow energy which is not converted by the runner is ingested by the drat tube of the hydraulic turbines [8]. A fraction of this residual energy is converted back into potential energy along to the draft tube [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%