FSI Francis MSthesis PDF

Masters Thesis in
FSI Analysis of Francis Turbines Exposed to Sediment

Erosion
Sailesh Chitrakar
July, 2013
Abstract
Sediment erosion is one of the key challenges in hydraulic turbines from a design and maintenance
perspective in Himalayas and Andes. Past research works have shown that the optimization of the
Francis turbine runner blade shapes can decrease erosion by a significant amount. This study conducted as a Masters Thesis has taken the proposed designs from past works and conducted a CFD
analysis on a single passage of a Francis runner blade to choose an optimized design in terms of erosion
and efficiency. Structural analyses have been performed on the selected design through one-way and
two-way FSI to compare the structural integrity of the designs.
Two types of cases have been considered in this thesis work to define the boundary condition of the
structural model. In the first case, a runner blade is considered to have no influence of the joint and
other stiffer components. In the second case, a sector of the whole runner has been modeled with
necessary boundary conditions. Both one-way and two-way FSI have been performed on the cases
for the designs. Mesh independent studies have been performed for the designs, but only for the first
case, whereas in the second case, a fine mesh has been used to make the analysis appropriate.
The loads have been imported into the structural domain from the fluid on the interfaces for one-way
FSI. In the case of two-way FSI, the Multi-Field Solver (MFX) supported by ANSYS has been used
to solve the coupled field analysis. A fully coupled FSI in ANSYS works by writing an input file in
the structural solver containing the information about the interfaces in the structural domain, which
is imported in the fluid solver. The interaction between the two domains is defined in ANSYS-CFX,
including the mesh deformation and solver setups. The results have been post-processed in CFX-Post,
where the results from both the fields are included. It has been found that the structural integrity of
the optimized design is better than the reference design in terms of the maximum stress induced in
the runner. The two-way FSI analysis has been found as an inevitable part of the numerical analysis.
However, with the advancement of the computational capability in the future, there could be a great
scope in the research field to carry out a fully-coupled transient simulation for the whole runner to
get a more accurate solution.
Keywords: Sediment erosion, one-way FSI, two-way FSI, Francis turbine
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Michel Cervantes for the continuous support, supervision, useful comments, remarks and engagement throughout this master thesis. Furthermore I
would like to thank Mr. Biraj Singh Thapa for providing me with all the necessary inputs in this
thesis work. His constant support, encouragement and belief towards me and my work made me do
the work effectively and punctually. I would also like to thank my program coordinator and lecturer,
Professor Damian Vogt for accepting my proposal of doing the thesis in Nepal.
Also, I would like to express my appreciation to all the members of the Turbine Testing Lab, whose
continuous care and support made my stay a pleasant one. I would also like to thank Professors Bhola
Thapa and Hari Prasad Neopane for their continuous motivation during the project.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents who motivated me and helped me complete my KTM works
while I was away in KU.
Contents
List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
1 Introduction
15
1.1
Background of the work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
1.2
Kathmandu University(KU) and Turbine Testing Lab(TTL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
1.3
Objective of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
1.4
Study methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
1.5
Scope of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
1.6
Outline of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
2 Hydro Turbines
18
2.1
Hydropower in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
2.2
Principles of hydro turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
2.3
Cavitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
2.4
Types of hydro turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
2.4.1
Pelton turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
2.4.2
Kaplan turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
2.4.3
Francis turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
2.4.4
Work done and efficiency of Francis turbine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
2.4.5
Francis turbines in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
3 Sediment Erosion
27
3.1
Materials behavior and coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
3.2
Sediment erosion in hydraulic machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
3.3
Sediment erosion in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
3.4
Erosion models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
3.4.1
32
Basic erosion models in ANSYS-CFX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Recent works - Review
34
4.1
CFD works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
4.2
FSI works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
4.3
Other relevant works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
5 FSI review
5.1
5.2
40
Coupled-Field Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
5.1.1
Sequential Method-Physics files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
5.1.2
Sequential Method-ANSYS multi-field solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
Strategy of FSI in ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
5.2.1
Set up ANSYS and CFX models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
5.2.2
Flag Field interface conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
Masters thesis - FSI analysis of Francis Turbines exposed to Sediment Erosion
5.3
5.2.3
Set up Master Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
5.2.4
Obtain the solution
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
Governing equations in FSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
6 CFD analysis
45
6.1
Sensitivity study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
6.2
Mesh convergence study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
6.3
Baseline case for the sensitivity analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
6.4
Effect of the physical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
6.4.1
Effect of the particle size on the erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
6.4.2
Effect of the particle shape on the erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
6.4.3
Effect of the particle behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
Effect of the numerical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
6.5.1
Effect of the residual criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
6.5.2
Effect of the turbulence models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
6.5.3
Effect of the erosion models and their parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
Comparison between the optimized and the reference blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
6.5
6.6
7 Structural analysis
57
7.1
Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
7.2
Boundary condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
7.2.1
Case I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
7.2.2
Case II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
7.3
FSI mesh study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
7.4
Results of One-way FSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
7.5
Case-I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
7.6
Case-II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
8 FSI analysis
68
8.1
Mesh deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
8.2
Interface setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
8.3
Solver Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
8.4
Post processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
8.5
Results of Two-way FSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
8.5.1
Case-I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
8.5.2
Case-II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
9 Conclusion
77
10 Future scope in the related field
79
Bibliography
80
11 Appendix-I - Some discrepancies with the design program (Khoj)
83
11.1 Direction of the inflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
11.1.1 Modification and influence on the result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
11.2 Guide vane outlet and runner inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
88
12 Appendix-II - Imposing cyclic symmetry boundary conditions in ANSYS
90
List of Figures
2.1
Co-ordinates and velocity triangles of a typical turbomachinery rotor
. . . . . . . . .
20
2.2
Cavitation due to contraction of a pipe and saturation pressure vs fluid temperature .
21
2.3
Cavitation along a passage with non-uniform area
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
2.4
Jet impingement into a bucket with corresponding velocity triangles . . . . . . . . . .
22
2.5
Section of a Kaplan turbine[6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
2.6
Some basic components of Francis turbines [4] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
3.1
Erosive wear mechanisms [5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
3.2
Erosive wear for various materials at different impingement angles . . . . . . . . . . .
28
3.3
Areas exposed to sediment erosion wear in Francis turbines [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
3.4
Sediment erosion wear in the Francis turbine guide vane and runners in Jhimruk [19] .
31
4.1
Hub, shroud and the blade passage from Turbogrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
4.2
CFX-pre setup file showing the blade passage and the mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
4.3
Sediment erosion rate density of the reference design[21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
4.4
FSI analysis layout used in the study [7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
LIST OF FIGURES
4.5
Boundary conditions of the runner used in the study [7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
4.6
Parametric study of the shape of the blades [26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
5.1
ANSYS multi-field solver process [24] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
5.2
Schematic of Fluid structure interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
6.1
Mesh convergence study for the factor ratio of 1.15, RMS of 1E-6 and y+ value on the
blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
6.2
Sediment erosion pattern for various mesh densities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
6.3
Effect of the size of the particle on the erosion pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
6.4
The erosion pattern for the particle diameter of 0.01 mm on both Pressure and Suction
side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
6.5
Average and maximum erosion rate density on the blade for various particle sizes . . .
50
6.6
Effect of the particle shape on the erosion pattern
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
6.7
Effect of the Mass flow rate on erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
6.8
Effect of the residual criteria for convergence on the blade loading . . . . . . . . . . .
52
6.9
Effect of the turbulence models on erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
6.10 Effect of the Erosion models on the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
6.11 Sediment erosion results for various shapes of the blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
7.1
Leading edge and trailing edge design for FEM [27] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
7.2
Comparison of the two domains with two cases (right one shows better mapping) . . .
58
7.3
The geometry modeling in Pro-E as described in the above procedure . . . . . . . . .
59
7.4
Boundary conditions used for the case I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
7.5
Boundary conditions used for the case II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
7.6
Mesh convergence study for structural analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
7.7
Result of one-way coupling for Case-I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64
LIST OF FIGURES
7.8
Result of one-way coupling (Stress distribution) for Case-II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
7.9
Result of one-way coupling (Stress distribution on the blade) for Case-II . . . . . . . .
66
7.10 Result of one-way coupling (Deformation) for Case-II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
8.1
Project schematic of the two-way FSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
8.2
Mesh of the two fields and mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
8.3
Convergence plot in CFX-solver for the FSI analysis in this study
. . . . . . . . . . .
72
8.4
Stress distribution on the blade from two-way FSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
8.5
Stress distribution on the runner from two-way FSI
75
8.6
Mesh deformation in the fluid domain from two-way FSI
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
11.1 Boundary Vector at the inlet with the given flow direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
85
85
11.4 Result of the two flow directions, unmodified (top) and modified(below) . . . . . . . .
87
11.5 Discrepancy between the results when only the runner and the full stage is modeled .
89
12.1 Choices of imposing cyclic symmetry property to the sector of the runner . . . . . . .
91
List of Tables
2.1
Major hydropower plants in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
2.2
Technical specification of Francis turbines installed in Hydro-power stations in Nepal .
26
3.1
Coefficients for Quartz-Aluminum using Tabakoff Erosion Model . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
4.1
Various CFX parameters used in the study[21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
List of abbreviations
KU
Kathmandu University
TTL
Turbine Testing Laboratory
FEM
Finite Element Method
FSI
Fluid Structure Interaction
NORAD
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
NEA
Nepal Electricity Authority
N P SHa
Net Positive Suction Head available
N P SHr
Net Positive Suction Head required
SST
Shear Stress Transport
CFD
Computational Fluid Dynamics
CSD
Computational Structural Dynamics
CMD
Computational Multi-body Dynamics
FEA
Finite Element Analysis
MFS
Multi-Field Solver-Single code
MFX
Multi-Field Solver-Multiple code
SST
Shear-Stress Transport
RANS
Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
APDL
ANSYS Parametric Design Language
List of symbols
Hydro Turbines Parameters

Htot
Total Head [m]
Acceleration due to gravity [m/s2 ]
Absolute velocity [m/s]
C1
Absolute velocity at the inlet [m/s]
Cx
Axial absolute velocity component [m/s]
C1
Circumferential absolute velocity component at the inlet [m/s]
C2
Circumferential absolute velocity component at the inlet [m/s]
U2
Tangential velocity of the runner at the outlet [m/s]
U1
Tangential velocity of the runner at the inlet [m/s]
Relative velocity [m/s]
Rotational speed [rad/s]
Time steps [s]
Flow rate (Discharge) [m3 /s]
Power [W]
Mechanical efficiency [-]
Overall efficiency [-]
Hydraulic efficiency [-]
Density [kg/m3 ]
10
List of symbols
FSI Parameters
Dynamic viscosity [N.s/m2 ]
Pressure [Pa]
ui
Cartesian component of velocity u in direction xi [m/s]
Ff (t)
Transient load vector defined for the fluid [N]
Fs (t)
Transient load vector defined for the solid [N]
Mass in the equation of motion [kg]
Stiffness in the equation of motion [N/m]
Damping in the equation of motion [N.s/m]
Km
A pseudo-structural stiffness matrix which is defined for the whole domain [N/m]
dm
Displacement of the mesh [m]
A parameter for checking convergence in a stagger iteration [-]
unew
Load components transferred at this iteration [-]
uold
Load components transferred at the previous iteration [-]
min
Convergence criteria in the stagger iteration [-]
Convergence criteria in the solver [-]
disp
Mesh stiffness [N/m]
Relative displacement of the mesh [m]
Cstif f
Model exponent [-]
Size of the mesh or the distance from the nearest boundary [-]
11
List of symbols
Erosion Parameters
E, W, Er
Erosion Rate
N
Number rate of the particle
mp
Mass of the particle
Finnie
Vp
Particle impact velocity
f ()
A dimensionless function of the impact angle which is in radian
Value of exponent
Tabakoff
0
Angle of maximum erosion
k1 k4 , k12
Model constants
V1 V4
Reference velocity
RT , VP N
Parameters for calculation
Bardal
C
Concentration of particles
Size coefficient of particles
Kmat
Material constant
Kenv
Environment constant
Vp
Velocity of the particle
12
List of symbols
Erosion Parameters
Tsuguo
Turbine coefficient at eroded part
Exponent for concentration
Exponent for size coefficient
Value of exponent
k1 , k2
Hardness coefficient of particles
k3
Abrasion resistant coefficient of material
Loss of thickness per unit time
Thapa
Km
Material factor
Khardness
Hardness factor
Kf
Flow factor
Kshape
Shape factor
Velocity of eroding particles
Loss of material
Efficiency after erosion consideration
a, b
Empirical constants
13
List of symbols
Units
m
Meter
mm
Milli meter
rad
Radian
MW
Mega Watt
Pa
Pascal
MPa
Mega Pascal
Celsius
kg
Kilogram
deg
Degree
rev
Revolution
min
Minute
sec
Second
atm
Atmosphere
mol
Mole
Newton
14
1
Introduction
1.1 Background of the work

Nepal is a land-locked country between India and China, blessed with a massive geographical diversity
and water resources. The chances of utilizing these resources in the form of hydropower development
are enormous, however, it has been seen that till date, only about 1% of the total feasible hydropower
has been harnessed [1]. Not only that different conditions are not supporting the installation of new
power plants here, but because of the excessive sediments in the Himalayan River, the damage of the
turbine components due to erosion has led to the loss of efficiency and even shut-down of many stations.
Sediment erosion in hydraulic turbines has become a major challenge from a design and maintenance
perspective in Nepal. Jhimruk Hydropower plant is one of such hydropower plants in Nepal affected by
an extensive amount of sediment erosion reducing the life span of turbine components. Similarly, other
power plants such as Marsyangdi, Panauti, Trishuli and Sunkoshi are affected by erosion. Research
works have been made to decrease erosion, either by coating or by minimizing the concentration of
sediments in the water. These research works are showing possibilities which are either inadequate or
unfeasible economically. However, research works based on design optimization of the turbines have
shown positive results to some extent. This study will focus on the reference (original) design of the
turbine runner and comparison of this with other optimized blades in terms of erosion. Most of the
works done previously accounted for the flow field around the blade only, and not the effect of the
flow field on the deformation of the blade or the effect of the deformation of the blade on the mesh
surrounding it. The results of Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI) could be inevitable in analyzing the
mechanical property of these blades.
Turbine Testing Laboratory (TTL) of Kathmandu University has been performing several research
on eroded blades and possible optimization techniques. The present Masters thesis is an effort to
consolidate the previous works done on the enhanced mechanical design of Francis turbines for better
handling of the sediment erosion by including the effect of FSI. This project is expected to bring
a positive change and advancement in the field of computational solutions of the turbine flow field
and structural integrity considering the sediment erosion damage. Having said the challenges faced
due to sediment erosion and the need of FSI to make a more detailed analysis of the computation,
making a successful FSI analysis is itself a challenge. There are only few studies made about the
one-way coupling techniques in Francis runner and even fewer about the fully-coupled solutions. The
15
16
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
fully-coupled analysis of the Francis runner exposed to sediment erosion will therefore, be a major
challenge in this project in terms of carrying out the simulation and validating the results. Thus, this
report will also contain some of the basic principles behind FSI and an example of conducting FSI in
ANSYS.
1.2 Kathmandu University(KU) and Turbine Testing Lab(TTL)

Kathmandu University is an autonomous, non-profitable, non-governmental institution established on
1991, dedicated to maintain high standards of academic excellence. Turbine Testing Lab (TTL) was
established in 2010-2011 inside the premises of KU with a financial support from NORAD and other
national industries. With 30 meter open head and 150 meter closed head, TTL is capable of testing
different hydraulic turbines up to 300 kW and conduct model tests for larger sizes. This laboratory
has strong motives on research, development, training and education sector. The establishment of the
laboratory and the various research works have managed to put a step on dealing with the challenges
faced by the hydro power stations for making a better future in Nepal in terms of the energy production
and efficiency.
The objectives and activities of the TTL according to [2] are :
Build competence and knowledge in Nepal and South Asia in terms of teaching and learning
facilities.
The laboratory of hydro turbines will carry out the certification of mini- and micro- turbines
sold on the regional market and does the model testing of turbines for larger power plant.
The research works will be held based on sand erosion, turbine and pump and maintenance of
the turbines.
Various projects will be held for students of the university in the related industries.
KU and TTL have been putting its effort into the development of hydro turbines exposed to sediment
erosion. They have also been collaborating with various national and international institutions and
companies to improve its research standards. Besides, several numerical tools and computational
softwares are being used for R and D of hydraulic turbines to characterize sediment particles and
design optimization of Francis turbine to minimize sediment erosion. Some of the current research
works carried out by this lab is discussed in [2] and [3].
1.3 Objective of this study

The principle objectives of this thesis are summarized below :
Analyze the results of the ongoing and the past studies focused towards the optimized hydraulic
design of Francis runner for a better sediment handling.
17
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduce the FSI based simulations of the Francis runner through one-way and two-way coupling
techniques to establish the mechanical integrity of the design, for both the conventional and the
optimized designs.
Make a comparative analysis of the results between CFD, one-way FSI and two-way FSI and
identify the level of significance of FSI in the field of Francis turbines.
1.4 Study methodology

This research work primarily focuses on performing FSI simulation in the premises of ANSYS for the
reference and the optimized Francis runners. The optimized runner was proposed in earlier studies [21],
which was known to have reduced erosion through CFD analyses, without influencing the efficiency.
These CFD analyses were validated through mesh and various parametric studies and a runner blade
having minimum erosion was chosen for structural analysis. The optimized runner blade was then
compared with the reference design through one way and two way FSI analysis for two different cases
of boundary conditions.
1.5 Scope of study

This study mostly covers the use of numerical tools for the design optimization of Francis runner blades
for better sediment handling. The CFD analysis was done in ANSYS-CFX including Turbo-grid for
mesh generation. The erosion parameters were used from the models supported by ANSYS whereas
validation of the model was done from various parametric studies including a mesh independence study
for the reference design. The FSI analysis was done in the static structural part of ANSYS Workbench.
MFX multi-field technique was used for conducting a two way FSI. This study is limited to a steady
simulation of a single runner blade by considering cyclic symmetricity of the model. Validation of the
results requires experimental data which is not included as a part of this thesis work.
1.6 Outline of the thesis

This thesis is organized in 10 chapters. Chapter 2 consists of some of the introductory part of hydro
turbines in general and in the context of Nepal. Chapter 3 contains a detail review of sediment erosion
in hydraulic machinery and its influence in Nepalese hydro power plants. This chapter also contains
some mathematical formulations of erosion models along with the models supported by ANSYS. The
studies made in the field of numerical analyses of turbines exposed to erosion by past researchers are
discussed in Chapter 4. Introduction about FSI and strategies of conducting FSI in ANSYS are shown
in Chapter 5. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 contains all the numerical analyses performed in this study along
with the results from these analyses. The analyses are divided in such a way that a CFD model was
created in the beginning and the same model was used in further chapters for one way and two way
FSI analyses. The discussion and conclusion from all the results are included in Chapter 9. Finally,
future scope in the related field is discussed in Chapter 10.
2
Hydro Turbines
Hydropower machineries are the machines that convert hydraulic power from the water to the mechanical power on the machine shaft. Like any other machines, these machines involves various losses
that arise partly in the machine itself and partly in the water transfer into and out of the machine
such as pipe friction losses, losses due to bends in pipes, gates, valves and losses due to abrupt and
gradual expansion and contraction of the pipes [4]. Some of the basic components of a hydropower
plant is listed below [4] :
A water diversion structure like a dam or a weir creating a gross head of water.
A penstock, which intakes the water from the dam and transports it to the turbines. Screening
is done in the intake, to prevent unwanted objects (debris and aquatic animals) entering into
the turbine.
Turbines and governing system.
Electrical generators, electrical control and switching equipment, equipment housing, transformers and electricity transmission lines.
Some of the other complementary components are the penstock gates, surge tank and a tail race
if the turbine exhaust water cannot be discharged directly (through the draft tubes) into the
river. Draft tubes are used to utilize the kinetic energy of the water leaving the turbine and
allows the turbine to be installed above the tailwater level without decreasing the available head
and hence, the available power.
2.1 Hydropower in Nepal

The first hydropower plant was established in Nepal on May 22 1911 in Pharping with the capacity
of 500 kW, which was one of the largest hydro-power projects in the south Asia during that time.
Since then up to now, Nepal has been able to harness 698 MW, which is not even 1% of the feasible
power potential of Nepal. Ironically, Nepal is blessed with immense water resources with the average
18
19
CHAPTER 2. HYDRO TURBINES
annual precipitation of approximately 1700 mm. The total annual average run-off from the nations
600 rivers flowing from high mountains is over 200 billion m3 [1].
Most of the power plants in Nepal are run-of-river type with energy available in excess of in-country demand during the monsoon season and deficit during the dry season [1]. Some of the major hydropower
stations of Nepal along with the organization and their capacity is given in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Major hydropower plants in Nepal
Station
Organization/company
Capacity
Kaligandaki A
Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA)
144 MW
Middle Marsyangdi
NEA
70 MW
Marsyangdi
NEA
69 MW
Kulekhani 1
NEA
60 MW
Khimti
Himal Power Ltd.
60 MW
Bhotekoshi
Bhotekoshi Power Company
36 MW
Kulekhani 2
NEA
32 MW
Trishuli
NEA
24 MW
Chilime
Chilime Hydro Power Company
22 MW
Gandaki
NEA
15 MW
Jhimruk
Butwal Power Company Ltd.
12 MW
2.2 Principles of hydro turbines

Any turbomachinery rotor can be represented by a system of equation known as Euler equation. In
the case of hydro turbines, it gives the relation between the total head (Htot ) and the velocity triangles
in the inlet and the outlet.
Htot .g = U2 .C2 U1 .C1
(2.1)
Where,
C2 : circumferential absolute velocity component at the outlet
C1 : circumferential absolute velocity component at the inlet
U2 : tangential velocity of the runner at the outlet
U1 : tangential velocity of the runner at the inlet
This Euler equation implies that in order to have a change in the total head, two ingredients are
necessary : tangential speed of the rotor and the change in the circumferential velocity component or
variation of the circulation between the inlet and outlet of the turbine.
20
x(m)
C2
U1
C1
W1
U2
W2
r
x
Flow passage
Relative streamline
Absolute streamline
Figure 2.1: Co-ordinates and velocity triangles of a typical turbomachinery rotor

In the case when U2 = U1 :
Htot .g = U.C
(2.2)
Depending upon the sign of C , the sign of Htot can be determined. When this value is positive,
it means that the energy is added to the fluid and such kinds of hydraulic devices are called pumps.
When this value is negative, it means that the energy is extracted from the fluid and such kinds of
devices are called turbines. The velocities triangles of a typical turbomachinery rotor is shown in
Figure 2.1. The absolute and the relative velocities at the inlet and the outlet can be split into axial
and circumferential components. From the figure, C2 < C1 i.e. Htot < 0, so this is a case of a turbine
where the energy is extracted from the fluid.
In the case of radial-axial turbines, the radius at the inlet is not identical to the radius at the outlet.
This means that the tangential speed of the rotor is different at the inlet and the outlet. Also, the axial
and the meridional co-ordinates are not the same and instead of the axial co-ordinate (x), meridional
co-ordinate (m) has to be referred.
2.3 Cavitation
Cavitation is one of the principle challenges in hydro turbines, which occurs when the local pressure
falls below the vapor pressure of the water. This happens due to an increase in velocity or an ambient
drop in pressure. The water vapor forms at the area of low pressure in the form of bubbles, which
when carried to areas of higher pressure, can collapse violently. This collapse induces high pressures
and sets up fatigue stresses in nearby bodies.
A general cavitation phenomenon is shown in Figure 2.2, assuming a section of a pipe where a fluid is
flowing at a certain temperature and pressure with a velocity C1 . By entering the contracted region,
from the conservation of mass, the velocity of the fluid C1 increases to C2 . From the Bernoullis
21
principle, when the velocity of the fluid increases, the pressure in the fluid will decrease to maintain
the constant total pressure. This figure also shows the dependency of the saturation pressure on
the fluid (water) temperature. As the pressure in the fluid is decreased, the fluid will evaporate
at lower temperature, which means the formation of bubbles. When the fluid reaches the normal
situation (uncontracted condition) again, the fluid starts to decelerate and the vapor bubbles start to
disappear. Because of the increase of the fluid pressure, the vapor bubbles implode sending out small
but very high pressure micro jets. These micro jets, when close to the material surfaces, blast away
the material. This process is shown in Figure 2.3. Cavitation in the system can be checked through
a measure provided by the manufacturers called as N P SHr (Net Positive Suction Head required).
This N P SHr is compared with N P SHa (Net Positive Suction Head available), which is a system
parameter indicating the head surplus at inlet before the saturation pressure is reached.
[0 ]
100
30
1
Saturation pressure
4.2
101.3
[]
Figure 2.2: Cavitation due to contraction of a pipe and saturation pressure vs fluid temperature
Area of the passage (A)

3
m
1
Blast of material
Figure 2.3: Cavitation along a passage with non-uniform area
2.4 Types of hydro turbines

Hydraulic turbines can be classified based on their degree of reaction, which is the ratio of the static
pressure drop across the runner to the static pressure drop across the stage. The Pelton turbine is an
22
impulse stage with all the pressure drop occurring across the stationary components and no pressure
drop across the runner. The reaction stages such as Francis and Kaplan turbines have a proportion
of the pressure drop in the rotor and a proportion of the pressure drop in the stator.
2.4.1 Pelton turbines

Pelton turbines are particularly suitable for high head applications. The rotor is in the form of a
circular disc with buckets which are driven by one or more nozzles delivering a jet perpendicular to
the buckets. An example of a jet impingement along with the velocity triangles are shown in Figure
2.4. At the inlet, the flow velocity is C1 and the tangential speed of the bucket is U . The relative flow
velocity then becomes W1 = C1 U . Since C1 = C1 at the inlet, such kind of arrangement gives the
maximum swirl (i.e. negative C ), thus giving maximum total head.
Figure 2.4: Jet impingement into a bucket with corresponding velocity triangles
2.4.2 Kaplan turbines

Kaplan turbines are axial reaction turbines used typically for low head applications. The vanes of the
runner are similar to those of axial-flow turbine rotors but designed with a twist in order to have a
free-vortex flow at the inlet and an axial flow at the outlet with the number of blades usually small
(4-6) [6]. In these type of turbines, the stagger angle can be controlled depending upon the load
condition to maintain optimum efficiency conditions. A typical section of a Kaplan turbine is shown
in Figure 2.5 whereas, the velocity triangles at the inlet and the outlet are similar to the one shown
in Figure 2.1 except that the tangential speed of the rotor at the inlet and the outlet are equal i.e.
U1 = U2 and also the axial component of the absolute velocity is constant i.e. Cx = constant.
23
Figure 2.5: Section of a Kaplan turbine[6]
2.4.3 Francis turbines

The principal difference between Pelton and Francis turbines is that only a part of the overall pressure
drop in Francis turbine occurs in the turbine entry, whereas the remaining pressure drop occurs in the
turbine itself. Some of the other characteristic features of the Francis turbines are [6] :
Unlike the Pelton turbine where only one or two buckets are in contact with the water at a time,
the flow in the Francis turbines completely fills all the passage in the runner.
Presence of pivotable guide vanes to control and direct the flow.
A draft tube is an integral part of the turbine added to the turbine exit.
The basic components of a vertical Francis turbine is shown in Figure 2.6. In practise, the turbines with
comparatively small dimensions are arranged with horizontal shaft whereas the vertical arrangement
is used for big dimensions [15]
Components of Francis turbines

In brief, components used in Francis turbines, with their functions.
Spiral casing
The spiral casing, also called as a volute transfers water from the penstock to the runner. The area of
cross-section of the volute is decreasing continuously in order to maintain a constant flow velocity.
Stay vanes
From the volute, the water passes through the stay vanes, whose main purposes are to conduct the
water towards the guide vanes and absorb the axial forces from the volute. These vanes are given a
favorable shape to have a minimum influence on the flow [7].
Guide vanes
The purpose of the guide vane is to regulate the flow into the turbine. This regulating mechanism
24
Figure 2.6: Some basic components of Francis turbines [4]

is accompanied with vane arms and links which is controlled by a governor system that controls a
servo motor connected to the guide vanes [7]. These vanes direct the flow onto the runner at the most
suitable angles with the help of this controlled automation.
Runner
In the runner, the angular momentum of the water is reduced and work is supplied to the turbine
shaft [6]. Runners with higher head require higher number of blades in order to reduce the individual
blade loading and seperation at the runner inlet during low loads [7]. The runners are usually made
of stainless steel.
Labyrinths
The leakage losses between the turbine runner and the cover can be minimized by placing labyrinth
seals such that the flow of the water from the gap is prevented. The labyrinth consists of a static seal
connected to the covers and a rotating part connected to the runner [7].
Draft tube
The draft tube collects the water from the runner and transfers them to the outlet gate. Its main
purpose is to convert the kinetic energy at the runner outlet to the pressure energy at the draft tube
outlet. It is a diffuser like structure where the flow is decelerating with the increased cross section.
2.4.4 Work done and efficiency of Francis turbine

Euler momentum equation can be used to determine the work done by a Francis turbine. Some of the
known quantities needed for this calculation are the gross head which is the difference of water levels
between the head race and the tail race (Hg ) and the loss of head in the penstock (Hf ). Hence, the
net or available head can be calculated through (Hg Hf ), i.e. difference between the total energy
available at the exit from the penstock and the total energy available at the exit from the draft tube.
This is also shown in the following equation [8]:

p
V2
p
V2
H=
+
+z
+
+z
(2.3)
.g 2.g
.g 2.g
penstock
draf t tube
25
The general expression for the work done according to Euler momentum equation is given by,
work done = .Q(C1 .u1 C2 .u2 )
(2.4)
Where,
Q = Discharge through the runner, m3 /s
When C2 = 0, the maximum output is obtained.
Hydraulic efficiency, h is given by the total power developed by the runner over the power supplied to
the turbine. If H is the net head, then input to the turbine is given by .g.Q.H. Hence, the following
equation can be achieved:
.Q(C! .u1 )
.g.H.Q
(2.5)
C1 .u1
g.H
(2.6)
Shaf t power(P )
P ower developed by the runner
(2.7)
Shaf t power
P
=
W ater power
.g.Q.H
(2.8)
h =
or,
h =
Mechanical efficiency,
m =
Overall efficiency,
0 =
0 = h m
(2.9)
Hence, the overall efficiency of the Francis turbine can be deduced as a product of hydraulic and
mechanical efficiencies.
2.4.5 Francis turbines in Nepal

Most of the major hydro-power stations in Nepal uses Francis turbines as the main conversion devices.
Kaligandaki A, which is the biggest power station of Nepal (144 MW) uses three 48 MW Francis
turbines with a head of 115 meters. Similarly, other hydro-power stations such as Marsyangdi, Middle
Marsyangdi etc. also uses Francis turbines. The technical specification of these turbines are shown in
Table 2.2.
26
Table 2.2: Technical specification of Francis turbines installed in Hydro-power stations in Nepal
Station
No. x Unit Power
Head [m]
No. of blades[-]
Diameter of runner [m]
Kaligandaki A
3 x 48 MW
115
13
2.306 -2.564
Middle Maryangdi
2 x 38 MW
96.5
13
2.256 max.
Marsyangdi
3 x 26 MW
13
1.93 -2.234
Bhotekoshi
2 x 22 MW
135.5
Jhimruk
3 x 4.2 MW
201.5
17
0.540 - 0.890
The turbines shown in the table above are continuously facing the problem of sediment erosion. More
about the erosion problem these turbines are discussed in Chapter 3.
3
Sediment Erosion
Erosion in general, is one of the many categories of wear caused by the impact of particles of solid
or liquid against the surface of an object. The mechanism of the erosive wear is quite similar to the
abrasive wear, but in the case of the abrasive wear, the eroding agent is much bigger in size and the
angle of impingement is lower. The erosive wear on the other hand, is accompanied with relatively
small particles with several number of wear mechanisms. These mechanisms are differentiated based
on the impingement angle, size, shape and speed of the particles and the mechanical properties of the
base material. The pictoral representation of these mechanisms are shown in the Figure 3.1.
Particle approaching the material
Impingement angle
Base material
Abrasive/cutting
erosion at Low impact
angle
Sa
Fatigue erosion at High

impact angle and low
speed
Plastic deformation,
flakes at high impact
angle for ductile
material
Brittle fracture at high

impact angle, brittle
material
Figure 3.1: Erosive wear mechanisms [5]
The figure explains how the erosion takes place depending on the orientation and the properties of the
27
28
CHAPTER 3. SEDIMENT EROSION
particles and the base material. These parameters also give the quantitative measure of the erosive
wear. For example, a low angle of impingement is favorable for the wear process as the particles are
drawn across the surface after the impact. Similarly, if the speed is low, then stresses at impact are
insufficient for plastic deformation or brittle fracture. In such cases, the wear by surface fatigue is
more probable depending upon the endurance limit of the base material. If the shape of the eroding
particle is blunt or spherical, the plastic deformation is more likely to occur, whereas, if the particles
are sharp, the cutting wear is more common. It has been seen that for the ductile mode, the maximum
erosive wear is generally found close to an angle of 30 whereas, for the brittle mode, the maximum
erosive wear is found around 90 of impingement angle [5].
3.1 Materials behavior and coatings

Materials having superior hardness are generally preferred in the context of sediment erosion but it
also significantly matters what impingement angles are the particles hitting the material. The most
common materials that are chosen are stainless steel and titanium- and nickel- alloys. Formation of the
martensites results in the improved hardenability and erosion resistance except at low impingement
angles and for the low alloy steels, the ferritic phase with sufficient spheroidal carbide to induce
strengthening is very effective against erosive wear. The various materials behavior and the effect of
the impingement angles is shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2: Erosive wear for various materials at different impingement angles
It can be seen from the figure that some materials such as cobalt having a very good erosion resistance
at a low impingement angle but one of the worst materials for high impingement angles. According
to a study made between a martensitic (13Cr4Ni) and an austenitic (21Cr4Ni) steels, it was seen that
the erosion resistance of 21Cr4Ni strengthened with Nitrogen is higher than the former one due to the
distribution of hard carbides in the matrix of stabilized austenite [9].
In applications where the working temperature is high, ceramics are gaining a particular interest due
29
to their excellent high temperature properties. However, these materials are brittle which might result
in the brittle fracture.
The prevention of the turbine components can be done by applying a coating on the surface. These
coating materials depend upon the exposed environment, for example whether the surrounding is
wet or dry (hot). The most common type of coating seen in the hydro turbines is the Tungstencarbide(WC-Co) coating which typically uses 86-88% WC and 6-13% Co [10]. These coatings have
excellent hardness, with better adhesion and large toughness.
3.2 Sediment erosion in hydraulic machinery

The erosion damages in hydraulic machineries can be differentiated for Pelton and Francis turbines.
In the case of Pelton turbines, the high velocity of the particles at the buckets is the main reason of
sediment erosion. At the inlet system i.e. manifold and valve, only a moderate effect of the sediment
is seen because of the low operating velocity. The effect of the sediment erosion is mostly seen in
the needle tip, seal rings in the nozzles and the runner buckets. Specially in the case of high head
turbines, the bombardment of the fine particles on the needle surface due to the strong turbulence
effect increases the rate of erosion. In the Pelton turbine runner, depending upon the size of particles,
the damages are seen in various parts of the runners. For the coarse particles, the damages are in the
area where the jet directly hits at the bucket surface and the surface damage is observed primarily due
to the hammering action rather than the cutting action. The fine particles on the other hand flow along
with the water inside the bucket and strike the surface towards the edge, causing erosion towards the
outlet. It is also reported that silts with small grain size damages mostly needles and nozzles whereas
the runner buckets have negligible damage. On the other hand, with the coarse particles, the Pelton
buckets are mostly eroded while the damage of the nozzles remains less serious [15].
In the case of Francis turbines, the most vulnerable regions to sediment erosion are shown in Figure
3.3. The erosion occurs in the stay vanes because of the secondary flows from the spiral casing causing
non-uniform flow angles at the inlet with high absolute velocities. The guide vane system is highly
affected by the sediment erosion due to the high absolute velocity and acceleration. The erosion of
guide vane can be classified into: turbulence erosion at the outlet region and facing plate due to high
velocity of fine particles, secondary flow erosion in the corner between guide vane and facing plates,
leakage erosion at the clearance between guide vane and facing plates and acceleration erosion due to
the separation of large particles from the streamlines of the main flow due to rotation of water in front
of the runner. The vortices generated from the secondary flow and the leakage flow from the guide
vane will eventually pass through the runner inlet causing damages at the inlet of the runner. In the
runner, the highest relative velocity occurs at the outlet region while the highest absolute velocity
and accelerations occurs at the inlet of the blade. Because of the high relative velocity at the outlet,
the particles moving towards the outer diameter in the runner will cause more erosion at the outlet.
Inlet region on the other hand is sensitive to incorrect pressure distribution between the pressure and
the suction side and any separation caused by this may cause severe local erosion at the inlet [16].
Labyrinth seals having small clearance and coarse particles may have erosion as well as abrasion effect.
Similarly, the area around the draft tube closer to the runner is exposed to high velocity which causes
sediment erosion in that region.
30
Runner
blades
Guide
vanes
Stay
vanes
Zones of sediment erosion
Figure 3.3: Areas exposed to sediment erosion wear in Francis turbines [19]
3.3 Sediment erosion in Nepal

The climatic and geographical scenarios of Nepal account for the degradation of the hydraulic turbine
components from erosion and sedimentation. These scenarios mainly include the tropical climate,
immature geology and the intense seasonal rainfall. It has been reported that Southeast Asia alone
contributes to two thirds of the worlds total sediment transport to oceans which makes the problem
of erosion and sedimentation even more challenging[16]. Ever since the first sediment data collection
started in Nepal in 1963 in Karnali river basin, sedimentology has emerged as an important task in
most of the recent hydropower projects in Nepal. The vulnerability of the sediments is usually judged
by the quartz content, as these materials have enough hardness to erode the turbine material. Results
show that the rivers in the Koshi basin have more than 60 percent quartz content in average with
more quartz particles in the east compared to the west [17]. Even with the well designed sediment
settling and flushing system, power plants like Marsyangdi, Khimti and Jhimruk have severe erosion
problem. Some of the erosive damages due to sediment in Jhimruk Power Plant are shown in Figure
3.4. Sediment erosion has not only reduced efficiency in hydro turbines, but has also caused various
problems during the operation and maintenance period. Some solutions regarding the change of the
material, coatings and the sediment trapping systems have been considered insufficient or unfeasible
[15], [16], [17].
The effect of the sediment erosion is not only limited to the context of the Himalayan region, but
it is also significantly seen in the Andes region in South America. A 22 MW Cahua hydro power
plant built in Peru can be taken as an example. It was seen that the sediment concentration exceeded
120,000 tons of sediment only after six weeks of operation with the average quartz content found to be
about 35 percent and feldspar found to be about 30 percent [16]. One of the recent solutions towards
preventing the sediment erosion is to improve the hydraulic design of the runner such that the effect of
the erosion remains minimum. Various studies made regarding the design optimization of the Francis
runner is discussed in Chapter 4.
31
Figure 3.4: Sediment erosion wear in the Francis turbine guide vane and runners in Jhimruk [19]
3.4 Erosion models

Prediction of the erosion in hydraulic turbines are done with the help of various erosion models. These
models can help in the design, operation and maintenance of the turbines for a specific site conditions.
The erosion models are mostly developed through particle dynamics or empirical and statistical relations obtained from experiments and experiences. The most fundamental form of the erosion model
is given by Equation 3.1.
Erosion = f (operating condition, properties of the particles, properties of the base material)
(3.1)
The expression for erosion was simplified in [11], which is given in Equation 3.2.
Erosion (velocity)m
(3.2)
Where m is the exponent of velocity. According to [12], the most general formula for the pure erosion
is give by Equation 3.3.
W = Kmat .Kenv .C.Vpm [mm/year]
(3.3)
Where W is the erosion rate in mm/year, Kmat is the material constant and Kenv is the environment
constant, C is the concentration of the particles and Vp is the velocity of the particle.
An erosion prediction was done based on 8 years of erosion data of 18 hydro-power plants in [13]
suggested Equation 3.4 to calculate erosion in turbines.
W = .C x .ay .k1 .k2 .k3 .V m [mm/year]
(3.4)
Where W is loss of thickness per unit time, is turbine coefficient at eroded part, V is relative flow
velocity, a is the average grain size coefficient on the basis of unit value for the grain size 0.05 mm.
The terms k1 and k2 are shape and hardness coefficient of sand particles and k3 is the abrasion resistant coefficient of the material. The exponent values x and y are for the concentration and the size
coefficient respectively.
32
According to [18], the erosion rate was estimated through laboratory tests of various turbine materials
under different test conditions. Equation 3.5 gives an empirical relation to predict the erosion rate for
16Cr5Ni, which is the most widely used turbine material.
y = 6E 5x3.13 [mg/kg]
(3.5)
Where x(m/s) is the velocity of eroding particles impinging at the angle of 45 and y is the loss of the
material in mg per kg of eroding particles striking the surface.
Recently, an erosion model was proposed in [14] that could estimate both absolute erosion rate
(mm/year) and corresponding reduction in efficiency (% per year) of Francis runners due to suspended particles. This model was termed as the improved version of the two former models. The final
equation yielded by this model was given by Equation 3.6 and Equation 3.7.
Er = C.Khardness .Kshape .Km .Kf .a.(size)b [mm/year]
(3.6)
r = a.(Er )b [%/year]
(3.7)
Where Km is the material factor, Kf is the flow factor, Kshape is the shape factor and Khardness is
the hardness factor. a and b are the empirical constants defined as :
a = 351.35, b = 1.4976 for quartz content of 38%,
a = 1199.8, b = 1.8025 for quartz content of 60%, and
a = 1482.1, b = 1.8125 for quartz content of 80%.
3.4.1 Basic erosion models in ANSYS-CFX

There are two choices of erosion models in CFX, Finnie and Tabakoff. With a larger number of input
parameters, Tabakoff model provides more scope for customization, though the choice between these
two models depends on the types of simulation. The equations of these models are discussed below:
Model of Finnie
This model shows that the erosion is affected by the impact angle and the velocity given by:
E = kVpn f ()
(3.8)
Where,
E is a dimensionless mass,
Vp is the particle impact velocity and
f () is a dimensionless function of the impact angle which is in radian
n is the value of exponent which is usually in the range of 2.3 to 2.5 for metals.
33
Model of Tabakoff and Grant

In this model, the erosion rate E is determined from the following relation:
E = k1 .f ().Vp2 .cos2 ()[1 RT2 ] + f (VP N )
(3.9)
Where,
f () = [1 + k2 .k1 .2sin(
/2 2
)]
0
(3.10)
RT = 1 k4 .VP sin()
(3.11)
f (VP N ) = k3 .(VP sin())4

(
1 if 20
k2 =
0 if > 20
(3.12)
(3.13)
Where,
0 is the angle of maximum erosion
k1 to k4 , k12 and 0 are model constants and depend on the particle/wall material combination.
The Tabakoff model requires the specification of five parameters : k12 constant, 3 reference velocities
and the angle of maximum erosion 0 . An example of these parameters for Quartz-Aluminum is shown
in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Coefficients for Quartz-Aluminum using Tabakoff Erosion Model
Variable
Coefficient
Value
k12
k12
0.585
Ref velocity 1
V1
159.11 [m/s]
Ref velocity 2
V3
194.75 [m/s]
Ref velocity 3
V4
190.5 [m/s]
Angle of Maximum Erosion
25[deg]
4
Recent works - Review
The damage on hydraulic machineries due to sand erosion was initially studied in [17] and [18] through
various design aspects such as material selection, mechanics of material and hydraulics. This research
work led the path to carry out further investigations numerically and experimentally, which has now
become an integral aspect of the machinery design.
4.1 CFD works

The study of sediment erosion in hydro turbines has been conducted in a phD study in [16] including
experimental studies, numerical simulation, and field studies. The erosion rate was predicted for stay
vanes, guide vanes, and runner vanes of a Francis turbine for different shape, size and concentration
of the particle and operating conditions of the turbine.
The current research project will be based on a previous work regarding the hydraulic design of
Francis turbines exposed to sediment erosion [21]. It was shown in the study from CFD analysis
that the conventional methods of hydraulic design of Francis turbines can be improved to minimize
sediment erosion. The CFD analysis carried out in ANSYS-CFX contains various parameters shown
in Table 4.1. The generation of the mesh in Turbogrid, CFX setup and the result showing the erosion
rate density for a conventional design is shown in Figure 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. The simulations were done
for a single runner passage,where it was shown that the runner outlet diameter, peripheral velocity at
inlet, and blade angle distribution has the highest effect on the sediment erosion of Francis runners.
In order to create and optimize the design of Francis runners, a GUI matlab based program was
developed called as KHOJ, which made the optimization process much easier. More information
about this program can be found in [21].
Another complementary study was made in [19] where a CFD analysis was performed on a blade
runner. This study showed that the largest reduction of erosion was obtained by decreasing rotational
speed of the turbine. However, this increases the investment cost because of the larger size. An
alternative approach was also made, which showed that the reduction of erosion could also be made
by changing the blade angle distribution, and consequently, the energy distribution.
34
CHAPTER 4. RECENT WORKS - REVIEW
35
Figure 4.1: Hub, shroud and the blade passage from Turbogrid
Figure 4.2: CFX-pre setup file showing the blade passage and the mesh
Figure 4.3: Sediment erosion rate density of the reference design[21]
36
Table 4.1: Various CFX parameters used in the study[21]

Mesh
Mesh elements
268455
Factor ratio
Near wall element method
y + (Reynolds number = 500000)
Sediment
Quartz density
2.65 gm/cm3
Particle Molar Mass
1 kg/kmol
Particle Diameter
0.1 mm
Tabakoff erosion parameters

k12
0.586
Reference velocity 1
159.11 m/s
194.75 m/s
190.5 m/s
Angle of max. Erosion
25 deg
Particle coupling
One way coupling
Rotating domain (R1)

Angular Velocity
-1000 rev /min
Turbulence model
SST
R1 Blade/Hub/Shroud boundary detail
No Slip Wall
Inlet components
Mass flow rate
138.235 kg/s
Flow direction(cylindrical components)
0, 0.214349, 0.976757
Turbulence
Medium(Intensity = 5%)
Particle mass flow rate
0.07 kg/s
Particle position
Uniform injection
Uniform injection
1000 (Direct Specification)
Outlet
Relative pressure
1 atm
Pres. Profile Blend
0.05
Solver control
Max. Iterations
100
Residual tolerance
1E-4
37
4.2 FSI works

The need of FSI was felt when the material strength of the Francis runners was needed to be analyzed together with the hydraulic efficiency. However, the implementation of FSI has not been fully
established for the case of Francis turbines, specially when exposed to sediment erosion. A one-way
coupling strategy was presented in [7] to compare the structural integrity between the reference and
the optimized designs. The FSI analysis layout was made in ANSYS workbench as shown in Figure
4.4. The pressure load from CFX is exported to the structural analysis by defining a Fluid-Structure
interface. Also, the boundary conditions of the runner were defined as shown in Figure 4.5. The pressure distribution between the inlet and the upper labyrinth on the top side of the hub and underside
of the shroud were given by Equation 4.1. The pressure distribution at the surface of the hub between
the shaft and upper labyrinth seal is given by Equation 4.2. This unidirectional FSI was inadequate
as the deformations in the structure was not taken into account in the flow analysis.
p(r) = p(x) = .g.h(x) = (.g)(hi
k 2 . 2 2
(ri x2 ))[P a]
2.g
(4.1)
p(r) = p(x) = .g.h(x) = (.g)(hp
k 2 . 2 2
(rp x2 ))[P a]
2.g
(4.2)
The concept of a fully coupled FSI in Francis turbines has been introduced in a study [22] where a
strongly coupled partitioned equations are solved separately using different solvers, but are coupled
implicitly into one single module based on a reduced-order model. The proposed model is used to
predict the unsteady flow fields of a 3D complete passage, involving in stay, guide vanes, and runner
blades of a Francis turbine. Such reduced-order model is based on only a few displacement and
stress modes, which not only saves computing time but also enlarge the range of applications in
engineering [22]. This study has also shown that the numerical results when considering FSI shows
better concordance with the experimental results than when not considering FSI.
A two-way coupled FSI of a propeller turbine is seen to have been made in the premises of ANSYS to
determine the mechanical integrity of the turbine blades by varying the stiffness of the blades [23]. A
multi-field simulation has been used in this study as CFD and FEA solvers to exchange information
at the interface.
4.3 Other relevant works

In the present study, various optimized blades will be investigated, which were studied previously with
CFD in [26]. The blades were modified based on the blade angle distribution from inlet to outlet.
The graphical representation of these blades is shown in Figure 4.6. The shape 3 shows the linear
distribution of the blade angle, which is chosen as the reference design. All the other designs and the
results from the CFD are compared with this design. These blade shapes give an indication of how the
hydraulic energy is converted to mechanical energy along the stream-wise direction. A runner blade
design of shape 1 converts half of the hydraulic energy from the middle towards the outlet, whereas
shape 2 will convert the energy at the beginning of the blade till the middle. The result of this study
shows that the blade angle distributions of shape 4 and 5 have reduced erosion effects. Shape 4 will
38
Figure 4.4: FSI analysis layout used in the study [7]
Figure 4.5: Boundary conditions of the runner used in the study [7]
39
Blade angle distribution relative to the inlet
1
Shape 1
Shape 2
Shape 3
Shape 4
Shape 5
Stream wise span from inlet(1) to outlet(0)
Figure 4.6: Parametric study of the shape of the blades [26]

have reduced erosion by 60% but the efficiency will be adversely influenced. Shape 5 will have reduced
erosion by 20% without much changes in the efficiency. These shapes will be analyzed in this project,
now also by considering the structural aspect of the design, to see if the designed optimized blades
can sustain equal, more or less pressure loads compared to the reference design.
5
FSI review
Since the work is intended to be done in ANSYS, ANSYS coupled-field guide [24] is mainly referred
in this chapter.
5.1 Coupled-Field Analysis

A coupled-field analysis is a multidisciplinary engineering analysis where various independent fields
combine and interact together to solve a global engineering problem such that the result of one field
is dependent on the other field(s). The coupling can be either one-way or two-way. In the one way
coupling, the effect of one field is imposed on the other field but not the vice versa. In the fluidstructure analysis, when the stiffness of the structure is too large, the deflection of such structure
has a negligible impact on the flow field. Similarly, in the case of temperature-structure coupling,
the temperature field affects the structural field by generating the thermal strains, but the structural
strains have a negligible or no impact on the temperature field. For these types of applications,
a one-way coupling analysis is sufficient. The classical approach towards one-way FSI is that the
pressure distribution on the surface is calculated by CFD, which is exported to FEA to calculate the
stresses and deflections on the structure. The effect of the deflection of the structure on the flow field
surrounding the structure is neglected in the one-way FSI, hence this type of coupling strategy is also
called as a partially-coupled or a weak coupled analysis.
A two-way coupling method is a more complex case where all the fields has a significant influence over
each other. In the case of the fluid-structure analysis, when the deflection of the structure cannot
be neglected, or in the case of the induction heating (magnetic-thermal analysis), two-way coupling
strategy is essential.
According to the ANSYS coupled-field guide [24], the coupled-field analysis is of two types: Sequential
and Direct. The sequential method consists of two or more analyses of different fields, which are
executed sequentially. The direct method on the other hand consists of only one analysis in which a
coupled field element is used containing information from both the fields. Direct method is mostly
used when the coupled-interaction is highly nonlinear. Sequential method offers independent solving
40
41
CHAPTER 5. FSI REVIEW
of the different fields, providing more flexibility and efficiency when the coupled-interaction does not
have a high degree of nonlinearity. Coupling can be sequentially done either by a physics file or by
the multi-field solver (In the case of ANSYS, ANSYS-Multi field solver).
5.1.1 Sequential Method-Physics files

The physics analysis is based on a single finite element mesh across physics. Using the physics
environment, the loads are transferred explicitly external to the analysis. A physics file is read to
configure the database, a solution is performed, another physics field is read into the database, coupledfield loads are transferred and the second physics is solved.
5.1.2 Sequential Method-ANSYS multi-field solver

Multi-field solver provides a more robust, accurate and easy to use tool than the physics file-based
procedure. In this case, each physics is created as a field with an independent model and mesh. The
coupled loads are automatically transferred across dissimilar meshes by the solver. In ANSYS, the
multi-field solver can be implemented by two methods.
MFS-Single code
MFS code is used when the small models are used with all the physics field contained within a single
product executable. It uses an iterative coupling where each physics is solved sequentially and each
matrix equation is solved separately. The solver iterates between each physics until loads transferred
across the physics interface converge.
MFX-Multiple code
MFX code is used when much larger models are needed to be simulated compared to the MFS. It is
the enhanced version of ANSYS multi-field solver used for simulations with physics field distributed
between more than one product executable (eg. between ANSYS multiphysics or Mechanical and
CFX). A field solver runs different codes involved in the coupled-interaction. These fields are then
coupled using a form of iteration called stagger iteration. The solution loop now consists of two
loops. The multi-field time loop and the multi-field stagger loop. An example of the ANSYS multifield solver process for Fluid-Structure interaction between ANSYS mechanical and ANSYS CFX is
shown in Figure 5.2. The solution is divided into two different solvers, of which one is called master and
the other one is called slave. The master performs the coupling setup (reads all the MFX commands,
collects the interface meshes from the slave codes, does the mapping) and sends instructions (time
and stagger loop controls) to the slave executable. Contrarily, the slave code receives the coupling
information from the master code and sends the interface meshes to the master. In MFX, the ANSYS
code is always the master, and CFX code is always the slave. In the current study, MFX code will be
42
ANSYS Master
CFX Slave
Do Mapping
Time controls
Time loop
Stagger loop
Time loop
Stagger loop
Stagger controls(ANSYS to
CFX), Load transfers, Stagger
controls(bidirectional)
ANSYS
CFX
solver
solver
End Stagger loop
End Stagger loop
Time controls
End Time
loop
End Time
loop
Figure 5.1: ANSYS multi-field solver process [24]

used in order to implement the FSI because of the flexibility and the robustness it provides for the
fluid-structure coupling.
5.2 Strategy of FSI in ANSYS

The MFX solution can be carried out in ANSYS with the following sequential strategies :
5.2.1 Set up ANSYS and CFX models

As the MFX procedure consists of two independent solvers, the models needs to be made for each of
them. It consists of the geometry, the mesh, boundary conditions, analysis options, output options
etc.
43
5.2.2 Flag Field interface conditions

The load transfer between the two fields are done at the interface, where the information is shared
between the two different mesh through interpolation. To do this, a particular index is used to specify
the interfaces. In ANSYS, the surfaces are flagged by an interface number, whereas in CFX, the
surfaces are flagged by an interface name (FSIN).
5.2.3 Set up Master Input

Up till now, the set up procedures are done in the individual solvers and the parameters are related
to them separately. In this part, all the coupled-analysis set up is carried out. This includes, global
MFX controls, interface load transfer, time controls, mapping operations and stagger solutions.
5.2.4 Obtain the solution

After a valid set up is imposed, the program runs successfully and the post processing of the results
can be done in a similar way, as when the fields are solved independently.
5.3 Governing equations in FSI

The coupled fluid-structure interaction problem may be considered as a three field problem, i.e. fluid
flow, structural deformation and the moving mesh. These fields are governed by their respective
governing equations [25].
Navier-stokes equation
(ui ) + ..u.ui = p + ...ui + Ff (t)

t
(5.1)
Where,
u = velocity,
= density,
= dynamic viscosity,
p = pressure,
ui = cartesian component of velocity u in direction xi ,
Ff (t) = transient load vector defined for the fluid.
The equation of continuity for the incompressible flow is given by,
.
u =0
(5.2)
The equation of motion for an elastic structure can be written as :

+ C X + KX = Fs (t)
MX
(5.3)
44
Where,
X = displacement,
M = Mass matrix,
K = Stiffness matrix,
C = Damping matrix,
Fs (t) = Transient load vector defined for the solid.
And finally, the mesh movement in the fluid domain may be modelled as a pseudo structural problem
with its own dynamics with a spring based mesh movement, governed by [25],
Km .dm = fm (t)
(5.4)
Where,
Km = a pseudo-structural stiffness matrix which is defined for the whole domain,
dm = displacement of the mesh,
CFD
CSD
+1
CMD
Figure 5.2: Schematic of Fluid structure interaction
The schematic diagram of the representation of FSI is shown in Figure 5.2. The figure shows the
interaction between the three fields and boundary information shared between each domain. From
the fluid dynamics, using the Navier-Stokes equation for the incompressible flow, the pressure on the
boundaries of the structure is calculated. This pressure is exported to the structural dynamics and
using the equation of motion, the deflection of the structure is known. The deflection of the structure
results in the distortion of the mesh of the flow field surrounding the structure, which affects the
computation of the fluid dynamics. The displacement of the mesh is transfered to the fluid dynamics
and the pressure field is calculated for the next time step. Other than Computational Fluid dynamics
(CFD), CSD and CMD in the above diagram represents Computational Structural Dynamics and
Computational Multi-body Dynamics respectively.
6
CFD analysis
The objective of the CFD analysis in the context of this project is to build up a base for the FSI
analysis. This base is made from a detailed CFD analysis, such that the model could be used further
in the FSI studies. A CFD model independent of the mesh density will be chosen from the mesh
convergence study. Then, the same mesh will be used in the sensitivity study, where various physical
and numerical parameters affecting the solution will be tested. This is because most of the parameters
used in CFD are based on various assumptions to simplify the solution. The sediment passing through
the turbine could have various physical properties. By carrying out the sensitivity study, the effect
of the variation of the input parameters on the results could be studied. Also, by increasing the
tolerance of the residual criteria, the solution could be significantly affected. Following parameters
will be investigated in the sensitivity analysis :
Effect of the particle size (particle diameter)
Effect of the particle shape (particle shape factor)
Effect of the particle behavior (mass flow rate, concentration)
Effect of the erosion model
Effect of the numerical parameters such as convergence criteria and turbulence model
These parameters will undergo independent variations, which will be performed on a baseline case.
After performing the sensitivity study, the reference design will be compared with the 4 other optimized
designs in terms of blade shape and the blade showing the best erosion resistance without influencing
the efficiency will be chosen for the further studies.
45
46
CHAPTER 6. CFD ANALYSIS
6.1 Sensitivity study

In this chapter, the sensitivity study of the various CFD parameters will be performed. The objectives
of this study are :
To create a model whose solution is independent of the mesh density. This model will be used
as a baseline case throughout this chapter.
The baseline case will be subjected to various physical and numerical parameters. The influence
of these parameters on the solution will be studied.
To identify suitable parameters that needs to be used in the future studies. This mainly includes
the numerical parameters such as spatial and temporal distribution.
As the sediment erosion is the principle interest in this context, the comparison between the results
is done on the basis of the average erosion rate density on the blade. In ANSYS, the erosion of the
wall due to a particle is computed from the following relations:
ErosionRate = E N mp
(6.1)
where mp is the mass of the particle and N is the number rate. The overall erosion of the wall is then
the sum over all the particles. The erosion rate is in kg/s, but in the CFX-Post Processor, the results
are in the form of kg/s/m2 and named as Erosion Rate Density.
6.2 Mesh convergence study

The CFD analysis for determining the sediment erosion rate density is extremely sensitive to the mesh
density. Past studies show and support this fact of difficulty in making the solution independent of
the size of the mesh [19], [21]. A very small value of y+ is recommended in order to have an accurate
solution. However, to achieve such small value of y+ requires very fine mesh around the boundary,
which requires a massive computational time. In Turbo-grid, the near wall mesh refinement allows a
finer mesh around the blade, which can be controlled by changing the factor ratio. High value of the
factor ratio makes a finer mesh around the boundary, but it is also seen that it degrades the quality
of the mesh. A factor ratio of 2 was used in the previous studies to create a very low y+ value as
recommended in the studies. However, with this ratio, a very fine mesh was not possible because of
the very low quality of the mesh. With such large ratio, some of the other parameters, such as the
pressure field around the blade were affected.
A good quality mesh could be generated with lower value of the factor ratio, but higher mesh density
was needed in order to have a mesh independent solution. In this chapter, the factor ratio of 1.15,
1.25, 1.5 and 2 were studied. It was seen that the erosion rate density was very sensitive to the
change in the mesh type and size. However, in all the mesh type and size, the average erosion rate
density on the single blade was in the range of 6E-8 to 1.5E-7. At the factor ratio of 2, though the
convergence behavior was better than other cases, a low quality of mesh resulted in the termination
of the simulation for finer mesh.
47
This problem of mesh convergence for the other cases was treated by decreasing the residual criteria,
the RMS value from 1E-4 to 1E-6. The computational time by doing this increased a lot, but it
improved the convergence behavior, as shown in Figure 6.1. Here, the factor ratio was chosen to be
1.15 in order to have a better quality of mesh than that of the previous studies. After the target
mesh of 0.75 million node, the solution did not change much even at 2 million nodes. The better
convergence of the mesh than the previous studies was achieved due to:
The residual criteria for convergence was decreased from the RMS value of 1E-4 to 1E-6.
The modification made in the CFX parameter for the inlet angle. This is defined in Appendix-I
in Chapter 11.
This figure also shows the y+ values for various mesh nodes under study. For the most refined mesh,
the average value of y+ around the blade was about 37.
7
Mesh convergence study
x 10
Number of Nodes vs y+ value

2500
1.2
2000
1.15
Average y+ on the blade
Average Sediment erosion density on the blade
1.25
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
1500
1000
0.9
500
0.85
0.8
X: 2.04e+006
Y: 37.44
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Number of Nodes
1.6
1.8
2.2
6
x 10
0.5
1
1.5
Number of Nodes
2.5
6
x 10
Figure 6.1: Mesh convergence study for the factor ratio of 1.15, RMS of 1E-6 and y+ value on the
blade
The second reason can be explained from Figure 6.2, where the erosion pattern on the blade was
converging for the finer mesh. This contradicts the previous study, where the erosion almost vanishes
after the mesh was made very fine [21]. From these figures, it can be concluded that with the residual
target of 1E-6, the target mesh of 0.75 million node is sufficient for further study (FSI). However,
in order to study the erosion pattern better, the mesh of 1.25 million node was chosen to study and
compare the erosion behavior of the optimized blades.
6.3 Baseline case for the sensitivity analysis

In the sensitivity study, the physical and numerical parameters are varied one at a time, to avoid the
effect of other parameters on the solution. The parameters for the baseline case are selected based
on past experiences and results. Same parameters that were shown in Table 4.1 were used in this
48
Target mesh
20000
100000
500000
1250000
250000
750000
2000000
Figure 6.2: Sediment erosion pattern for various mesh densities

case. The target mesh of 0.75 million nodes was used for all the sensitivity studies. A mass flow rate
of 2.35 m3 /s was used for the whole passage. The speed and the direction of the flow at the inlet
was given from the design program Khoj. Some modifications were made in the inlet angle, whose
justification is provided in Appendix-I in Chapter 11.
6.4 Effect of the physical parameters

6.4.1 Effect of the particle size on the erosion
The diameter of the quartz particle was chosen to be 0.1 mm for the baseline case. The size was varied
between 0.01 mm to 1 mm to observe the effect of the particle diameter on the erosion pattern. Rest
of the parameters were made constant during this analysis.
The results of this analysis is shown in Figure 6.3 and 6.4. These figures represent the sediment
patterns on the blade on the pressure side, but since all of them have the same user specified range,
the comparison of the results cannot be made numerically. Hence, Figure 6.5 represents the average
erosion rate density and the maximum erosion that occurs at the particular size of the particle. It
can be seen from these results that when the particles are larger than 0.1 mm in diameter, the erosion
patterns are more concentrated on smaller area. The maximum erosion was found when the diameter
of the particle was 0.4 mm. At the diameter of 0.9 mm and 1 mm, the erosion is more concentrated
at the outlet region. On the suction side of the blade, no erosion effect was seen in any of the cases
49
Sediment erosion rate density

R1 Blade
0.1 mm
0.3 mm
0.5 mm
0.7 mm
1 mm
0.9 mm
Figure 6.3: Effect of the size of the particle on the erosion pattern
except when the diameter is 0.01 mm as shown in Figure 6.4. This shows that the size of the particle
has a significant but uneven influence on the erosion pattern.
6.4.2 Effect of the particle shape on the erosion

Particle shape factors defines whether the particles are spherical or elliptical. The X-section area
factor of 1 represents the particle of the spherical shape, which was taken in the baseline study. The
shape of the particles could however have variable shapes. Here, 2 other shape factors were taken into
PS
SS
Figure 6.4: The erosion pattern for the particle diameter of 0.01 mm on both Pressure and Suction
side
50
Average erosion rate density on the blade [kg/m2s]
x 10
Effect of the particle diameter on the erosion rate density
x 10
1
0.8
1.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Particle diameter [mm]
0.8
0.9
Maximum erosion rate density value on the blade [kg/m2s]
2.5
0
1
Figure 6.5: Average and maximum erosion rate density on the blade for various particle sizes
account. The non-uniformity of the shape was not considered in this study.
The result of this analysis is shown in Figure 6.6. The margin in the legend was made wider in order
to have a better picture of the differences in the results. The spherical particle was seen to have the
least effect on the erosion compared to the elliptical ones. However, there was not much difference in
the overall erosion pattern.
X-Section Area Factor = 1

Ave Erosion rate density = 8.77E-8
X-Section Area Factor = 0.5

X-Section Area Factor = 0.25

Figure 6.6: Effect of the particle shape on the erosion pattern
6.4.3 Effect of the particle behavior

The particles inside the domain can be enabled by defining the Particle Behavior and specifying
their properties on the inflow. Here, the particle velocity, injection position, diameter distribution
and mass flow rate need to be specified. By default, the injection of the particles is done randomly.
51
The direction of the particle is made identical to the direction of the fluid flow. The particle mass
flow rate was varied between 1 to 50 kg/s per machine. The particle diameter was kept constant (0.1
mm). The particles are uniformly injected with 1000 particles at the inlet. This number can also be
chosen as Proportional to mass flow rate where the number of particles per unit mass flow should be
specified.
The effect of the mass flow rate of the particle on the average erosion rate density on the blade is
shown in Figure 6.7. The erosion increases linearly with the mass flow rate. Since other parameters
like the injection position, number of particles and the diameter distribution were made constant, the
erosion patterns between these mass flow rate were the same.
Average Erosion rate density (kgm2s1)
4.5
Effect of the mass flow rate on Erosion
x 10
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Mass flow rate per passage (kg/s)
2.5
Figure 6.7: Effect of the Mass flow rate on erosion

Similarly, when the mass flow rate of the particle is kept constant and the concentration of the sediment
is increased by increasing the number of particles, the average erosion rate density increased linearly.
The mass flow rate and the concentration of the uniformly injected sediment particle have a linearly
proportional influence on the erosion. This can also be justified from Equation 6.1.
6.5 Effect of the numerical parameters

6.5.1 Effect of the residual criteria
The residual measures the local imbalance of each conservative control volume and it indicates whether
the equations have been solved or not. In CFX, the residuals are normalized to present a consistent
means of judging the convergence. There are few options in CFX for considering the convergence
criteria. The level of convergence required depends on the purpose of the simulation and can be implemented as MAX(maximum) or RMS(root mean square) normalized values of the equation residuals.
It is normally chosen between 1E-4 to 1E-6 for the RMS residual level. The comparison between these
two results are done by plotting the runner blade loading at 50% span shown in Figure 6.8. This figure
indicates that the two residual criteria 1E-4 and 1E-6 provides identical results. However, in the mesh
52
study, the RMS of 1E-6 shows better results in terms of the mesh independence study. Hence, the
RMS of 1E-6 was used as the erosion is more of the interest than other parameters in this project.
Blade loading at 50% span

1.4
Residual 1E04
Residual 1E06
1.2
1
Pressure (MPa)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Streamwise(01)
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 6.8: Effect of the residual criteria for convergence on the blade loading
6.5.2 Effect of the turbulence models

Turbulence models are used to predict the effects of turbulence in fluid flow without resolving the
small scale turbulent fluctuations. These models are based on RANS (Reynolds Averaged NavierStokes) equations. The most common eddy-viscosity models used are k , k and SST models.
For general purposes, the k model offers a good combination of accuracy and robustness. This
model is, however, not suitable for predicting the boundary layer separation and flows in rotating
fluids. The k based Shear-Stress-Transport(SST) model provides a more accurate prediction of
the flow separation under adverse pressure gradients. Since this model is developed to overcome the
deficiencies of both k and k model, SST model is more advanced. In Figure 6.9, the result of
these two models has been compared. The erosion predicted by the k model is less than that of
the SST model.
6.5.3 Effect of the erosion models and their parameters

Tabakoff erosion model for Quartz-Aluminum was used in the baseline study with the values of the parameters provided by ANSYS-CFX. It also supports Finnie erosion model as well as Tabakoff erosion
model for Quartz-Steel. These conditions were implemented to observe the variation in the results,
which are shown in Figure 6.10.
In the case of Finnies model, the erosion is a function of the impact angle and velocity, such that in
53
SST
Ave Erosion Rate Density

8.77E-8
k-
Ave Erosion Rate Density

8.25E-8
Figure 6.9: Effect of the turbulence models on erosion

CFX, the only parameter that could be changed explicitly is the value of the velocity power factor(n)
as shown in Equation 3.8. It can be seen from Figure 6.10 that the amount of erosion predicted by
this model is massive even when the value of n is 2 (ranges between 2.3 to 2.5 for metals). This shows
that Finnies erosion model for this case or the parameters provided is not acceptable.
The Tabakoffs erosion model seems to be more promising, specially for this application as the coefficients which are needed for the implementation of the model are already provided by ANSYS-CFX
for Quartz-Aluminum and Quartz-Steel. It could be seen from the figure that when Quartz-Steel is
chosen as the eroding and the eroded material, the amount of erosion is in average about 1.5 times
more than the Quartz-Aluminum model. This could be because of the higher density of the steel
compared to aluminum. The prediction of the erosion for the stainless steel, which is most commonly
used in the hydro turbines, could be more reliable in this case.
54
Tabakoff
Quartz-Aluminum
Average Sediment
erosion rate density on
the Blade:
8.77E-8 kg/m2s
Tabakoff
Quartz-Steel
Average Sediment
the Blade:
1.25E-7 kg/m2s
Finnie
Velocity power
factor, n = 2
Reference velocity = 1
m/s
Average Sediment
the Blade:
17.68 kg/m2s
Figure 6.10: Effect of the Erosion models on the results
6.6 Comparison between the optimized and the reference blades

The mesh independent model parameters were used to model all the optimized blades. Here, in order
to study the sediment erosion pattern correctly, the mesh with 1.25 million nodes and the factor ratio
of 1.15 was used for all the shapes with a RMS residual convergence target of 1E-6. In this case, two
results are of interest : erosion and efficiency. The average erosion rate density on the blade with the
erosion pattern and the efficiency are compared. The result of this analysis is shown in Figure 6.11.
In order to make it possible to plot the two variables in a single graph, the values are normalized with
that of the reference design. This means that the reference shape (shape-3) has the value of 1 for
both efficiency and erosion rate density, whereas the other shapes are in relative to this shape. For
convenience, their absolute values are also shown above the column, of which the erosion rate density
is in the order of 1E-8 and the unit of kg/m2 s. Also, the efficiency in percent is shown in the second
column. The values on the abscissa represent the shape number of the blades under study.
55
It can be seen from this comparative analysis that the efficiency of the blades does not vary much
with the change in the shape. However, the erosion rate density varies a lot. The blade shape 2 and 4
are the ones which show a decrease in the average erosion rate density on the blade compared to the
reference shape. The decrease in this quantity is as much as 21% for the case of shape-4. Hence, the
blade shape 4 is the most optimized blade in terms of erosion and efficiency and it is selected for the
FSI analysis.
However, it could be inferred from the mesh study that though the mesh convergence study was
performed on the reference blade, and the results were very sensitive to the type of the mesh generated,
it could be interesting to see how the types of mesh vary the results of other blades as well. This will
make the comparison more reliable as each of the CFX model will be independent of the mesh density.
It can be concluded that the erosion predicted by ANSYS CFX is mesh sensitive and requires a high
quality and high density to have a converging result. The mesh needs to be refined significantly
without disturbing the overall quality of the mesh. This was done in this project by reducing the
factor ratio, but making the mesh density large, so that both the criteria are met.
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
1,20
8,97
98,29
7,07
8,11 97,81
6,40
97,40
8,51
98,01
Figure 6.11: Sediment erosion results for various shapes of the blade
97,30
Comparison of the 5 blades
(E-8 kg/m2s)
Erosion pattern of
the blades
(%)
Efficiency
Average Erosion Rate Density
56
7
Structural analysis
The structural analysis was performed in Static Structural in Workbench. This chapter deals with
the modeling of the 3D geometry of the runner for the structural analysis and the first structural
analysis setup and results. This chapter primarily focuses on carrying out one-way FSI in ANSYS. The fully coupled analysis will be carried out in the next chapter. For both the cases in
this report, Structural Steel was chosen as the structural material having following properties :
Density
7850 kg/m3
Youngs Modulus
2E11 P a
Poissons Ratio
0.3
7.1 Geometry
The geometry of the blade was made with the help of the curve files in Pro Engineer. The leading
edge and the trailing edge were made from the instruction file of NTNU [27]. The leading edge was
designed in such a way that on the pressure side, the edge was rounded with quarter a circle whereas
on the suction side, it was rounded with an arc of thrice the radius of the leading edge. The trailing
edge was designed with a 30 degree angle on suction side with the end part chopped off to prevent the
breaking off due to the pressure fluctuation in the system.
LE
TE
Figure 7.1: Leading edge and trailing edge design for FEM [27]
The hub and the shroud were made from the respective curve files, providing the necessary thickness
57
58
CHAPTER 7. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
and the place for labyrinths. Before the assembly was made between these three parts, the hub was
cut into a single sector containing 1 out of the 17 blades. This was done in Pro-E by the following
sequence,
Only (360/17) of the total part was modeled. This was done by extruding out the unwanted
portion from the hub taking the reference of the blade profile. The blade profile at the first
section was imported. This was done at a separate datum plane such that the curves could be
projected to and away from the surface of the hub.
The profile section consists of curve made of points at the pressure side and the suction side of
the blade. This curve was patterned along the main axis with the value of (360/17 4) and
4 on the direction as shown in Figure 7.3, so the blade lies in the position close to the CFD
domain. By placing the blade in this position gave better mapping with the CFD domain than
when placed in the mid position. It can be verified from Figure 7.2, where cases with proper and
improper mappings have been shown. The first figure to the left shows that the fluid domain is
shifted upwards compared to the structural domain, whereas in the second figure, the fluid and
the structure are aligned more closely. Important thing to consider is the amount of decimal
places that needs to be provided in Pro-E, to maintain a consistency with ANSYS. The value of
(360/17) is not good in Pro-E because it will round-off the value in lower decimal places than
needed in ANSYS. The more precise value of 21.17646 was used.
The patterned curves were used to create a closed curve so that the extrude could be made as
shown in the figure 7.3. This was done by choosing two curves on the same side (Pressure side
in this case). A circle was made of arbitrary radius, but bigger than the hub diameter. This
circle was connected to the two curves tangentially through a line on the inlet side and through
a line connecting the center and the final point on the outlet side.
Similar process was done for the shroud. It was seen that when the sharp edges are included in
ANSYS while applying the cyclic boundary, the program could not recognize the boundary and
it terminated with an error. Hence, the sharp edges had to be cut in both hub and shroud.
Finally, the blade, the hub and the shroud were assembled together. Also, it was seen that a
single merged part was needed in ANSYS rather than three different parts. This was done by
importing the geometry file of each part as an independent file and saving as a part file rather
than the assembly file.
Fluid domain
Structural domain
Figure 7.2: Comparison of the two domains with two cases (right one shows better mapping)
59
Full Hub
Blade Profile
Profile duplicate at 4 degree
about the centre
Full Shroud
Profile duplicate at (360/17)-4

degree about the centre
Hub Sector
Shroud Sector
Arbitrary radius circle outside the
boundary
Figure 7.3: The geometry modeling in Pro-E as described in the above procedure
60
7.2 Boundary condition

Past research works on the Francis turbines have imposed various types of constraints for the structural
analysis. In some cases, only the runner blade was considered without modeling the hub and the shroud
and imposing fixed supports on the surface connecting them with the blade [28], [29]. Whereas, in
some cases [30], [31], full geometry of the runner was considered, but the hub and the shroud were
modeled with rigid supports, and their deformation was considered negligible with respect to the
deformation of the blades. However, performing this analysis requires high computational cost and
it is difficult to perform the mesh independent study for those models. Because of the symmetric
property of the structure, it is more convenient to perform the analysis on a single sector in the same
way as the CFD was done. The full analysis of the sector of the model by considering cyclic symmetry
condition and deformation of the whole structure was done in [7]. In the current study, two types
of the boundary conditions were imposed, which are discussed below. In this chapter, one way FSI
is done by importing the CFX pressure loads on the boundary walls. The fully coupled analysis are
discussed in Chapter 8 of the report.
7.2.1 Case I
This case consists a single blade of the runner with the following conditions :
Zero displacement (fixed support) of the surface connecting blade-hub and blade-shroud.
Rotational velocity about the z-axis with 104,7 rad/s.
Acceleration due to gravity (g).
Imported pressure load on the blade surface.
The reason behind conducting this analysis is to check the structural integrity of the blade without
the influence of the other stiffer components. This will be easier when the comparison has to be made
with the optimized blade. According to similar studies mentioned above, this type of analysis gives a
reasonable estimation of the stress induced by the flow on the blade. However, the maximum stress
could be less than the actual value because of the joint between the blade-hub and the blade-shroud.
This analysis will be used as a starting solution to see the stress distribution and the deflection of
the blade due to the pressure load from the flow field, without the influence of the other structural
components and the neighboring blades. The boundary conditions imposed in ANSYS are shown in
Figure 7.4.
7.2.2 Case II
This case consists of the following boundary conditions :
Zero displacement (fixed support) of the surface connecting the shaft and the hub.
61
Figure 7.4: Boundary conditions used for the case I

Rotational velocity about the z-axis with 104,7 rad/s.
Acceleration due to gravity (g).
Imported pressure load on the blade surface.
Imported pressure load on the hub and the shroud.
Cyclic symmetry of the whole component. This property could be defined in two ways.
From workbench, choosing the symmetry property and selecting the higher and the lower
boundaries of the symmetric body. Doing this requires a new cylindrical co-ordinate system
and the exact geometry on the higher and the lower side so the geometries and the mesh
are properly mapped.
By using commands in Mechanical (APDL). This can also be done in workbench itself by
writing the following commands,
/prep7
cyclic,17
/solu
Tolerances to map the faces can be chosen as per necessity.
Figure 7.5: Boundary conditions used for the case II

This analysis is expected to provide more accurate estimation of the stress distribution considering
the fact that the influence of the joints and the neighboring blades have been considered.
62
7.3 FSI mesh study

As the cyclic symmetry option was chosen in the static structural, without using the Mechanical
APDL, the use of the hexagonal mesh was not possible in the current release of ANSYS. Hence, the
mapped tetrahedron mesh was used to make the structural model of the blade and the unstructured
mesh was used in the other regions. The mesh convergence study was performed on the first case
only, and a relatively finer mesh was used to generate the results of the second case. The maximum
equivalent stress and the maximum total deformation on the blades were studied for the convergence
behavior. The result of this analysis for both the designs is shown in Figure 7.6.
For the reference design, after the mesh node count of 178575, the solution is relatively converging.
The change in the maximum stress is about 1% and that of the maximum total deformation is about
2%, after this mesh size. Hence, this mesh node, corresponding to the element size of 0.0025 m
was used to make the structural model of this design. On the other hand, for the optimized design,
comparatively finer mesh density was needed to have the converged solution. The mesh node count of
the mesh independent model was 361664 but the element size was only 0.0028 m. For the second case,
where the a sector of the full runner was modeled, the element size of 0.004 m was used in both the
designs. The reason for not conducting the mesh independence study for the second case was because
of the limitations in the computational capability. Roughly, an estimated mesh node count of more
than 2 millions is needed in order to have the mesh independent FEM model for the second case.
Mesh node count vs Results (Shape-4)
Mesh node count vs Results

Converged solution
12
Converged solution
12
10
10
8
6
6
4
0
0
50000
100000
150000
Max Equivalent stress (E6 Pa)
200000
250000
300000
Max Total deformation (E-6 m)
Reference design
350000
2
0
100000
200000
Max. Equivalent stress(E6 Pa)
300000
400000
500000
Max. Total Deformation(E-6 m)
Optimized design
Figure 7.6: Mesh convergence study for structural analysis
63
7.4 Results of One-way FSI

7.5 Case-I
The result of the mesh independent model of Case-I for one-way coupling is shown in Figure 7.7.
The maximum stress is found to be around 10.95 MPa in the reference design and 10.57 MPa in the
optimized design. The position of the maximum stress is in the trailing edge region connecting the
shroud for the reference design and connecting the hub for the optimized design. A comparatively high
amount of stress distribution is found on the corners for both the cases. This is because of the fixed
constraint provided to the surface connecting the hub and the shroud. As the hub and the shroud
are relatively rigid components, the results of this case is seen to predict the stress distribution very
closely. However, since the joint between the blade and these components are not considered and also
loads on these surfaces are not taken into account, the maximum stress on the runner and also on the
blade could have been under-estimated by a significant amount. Hence, it is of great importance to
consider the actual section of the runner to match the real condition more accurately. The results of
this case can be used to compare the structural integrity of the blades of various designs, where the
stress is independent of the other components.
7.6 Case-II
The result of the Case-II is shown in Figure 7.8, Figure 7.9 and Figure 7.10. The maximum stress
occurs at the connecting surface of the shaft and the hub, because of the fixed constraint defined on
this surface. The second maximum stress occurs at the leading edge, on the blade-hub region. On
comparing this result with Case-I, it can be seen that the maximum stress is not on the outlet region,
but it is on the inlet blade-hub region. The loads on the hub and the shroud are also imported on
the structure, due to which stress values are more than the previous case. The values of the pressure
load is maximum at the leading edge regions, due to which, the stress values are also maximum.
Besides, the connection between the blade and the other components induces stress concentrations,
which makes these regions prone to failure.
On comparing the results between the reference and the optimized design, it can be seen that the value
of the maximum stress is bigger in the reference design than in the optimized design. The maximum
stress on the reference design is around 179.3 MPa whereas 153.8 MPa for the optimized design.
Similarly, when only the stress on the blade is considered as shown in the figure 7.9, the maximum
stress on the reference design is 123.7 MPa whereas it is 114.9 MPa on the optimized design.
Similarly, in the figure 7.10, the deformation of the runner and the blade is compared. The maximum
overall deformation is seen in the hub towards the inlet due to high pressure load in that region, for
both the designs. The value of the maximum deformation is 0.087 mm for the reference design and
0.093 mm for the optimized design. When only the blades are considered, the maximum deformation
is towards the shroud-blade connection for both the designs. This value is also higher in the case of
optimized design, with 0.078 mm than in the case of reference design, with the value of 0.066 mm.
64
Reference design
Optimized design
Figure 7.7: Result of one-way coupling for Case-I
65
Reference design
Optimized design
Figure 7.8: Result of one-way coupling (Stress distribution) for Case-II
66
Reference design
Optimized design
Figure 7.9: Result of one-way coupling (Stress distribution on the blade) for Case-II
67
Reference design
Optimized design
Figure 7.10: Result of one-way coupling (Deformation) for Case-II
8
FSI analysis
ANSYS muti-field solver (MFX) was used to do the two-way FSI. This can be done either in the
Workbench or standalone applications. One example of the project schematic in Workbench for
conducting two way FSI is shown in Figure 8.1. Like the one-way FSI technique, two independent
models are needed for the two domains in this context. An input file is created from ANSYS structural,
which is imported in CFX, where all the solver parameters are set. One of the inevitable things while
conducting the two-way FSI is the deformation of the CFD mesh. The deflection of the structure
results in the deformation of the fluid mesh, which changes the flow field surrounding it. Hence, an
appropriate model of the mesh displacement and a sufficient value of the mesh stiffness have to be
chosen to avoid the folding of the mesh, which is very common in two way FSI. Some of the important
aspects to consider while conducting two-way FSI are discussed below:
8.1 Mesh deformation

Mesh deformation is an important component for problems with moving boundaries or moving subdomains. It is chosen as None when the steady CFD analysis was carried out. In the case of coupled
FSI, this motion has to be imposed. It can be done only in the fluid domain. By choosing the option
Region of Motion Specified in the Mesh Deformation option, it is possible to make the mesh outside
the structural domain move together with its deflection. This motion of the mesh could be determined
by the mesh motion model, which is limited to Displacement Diffusion in ANSYS. According to this
model, the displacements applied on a boundary is diffused to mesh points with the equation,
.(disp .) = 0
(8.1)
Where, is the displacement relative to the previous mesh locations and disp is the mesh stiffness.
This equation is solved at the start of each outer iteration. It can be inferred from this equation that
the relative mesh distribution of the initial mesh has been preserved. This means that the refinement
of the mesh at the boundary will remain fine after the deformation at the relative position.
68
69
CHAPTER 8. FSI ANALYSIS
ds.dat
Geometry, mesh and boundary

conditions
Fluid-Structure Interface
Input file (ds.dat) from workbench or
Tools > Write Input file for standalone
applications
Geometry, mesh and boundary

conditions for fluid analysis (Here,
simply .cfx file from the previous CFD
analysis has been imported)
Define Coupling time duration and time
steps
Mesh deformation on the respective
interfaces
Solver control parameters
Figure 8.1: Project schematic of the two-way FSI

The value of the mesh stiffness discussed above can be controlled by choosing an appropriate value.
This value can also be chosen such that the stiffness is more at the significant regions, such as near
the small volumes, or near boundaries. The mesh stiffness value for this case is chosen according to
the following relation,

disp =
1
a
Cstif f
(8.2)
Here a represents either the size of the control mesh volumes, or the distance from the nearest
boundary, depending upon the type of the option chosen. In any case, the stiffness of the mesh will
increase when this value will decrease. The rate at which this stiffness increases depends upon the
value of Cstif f , which represents the model exponent. The default value of this exponent is 10, which
can be altered according to the need of the problem. In the case when ANSYS Multi-field is chosen
for FSI, the mesh motion can be imposed on the wall boundaries. In this case, the mesh motion has
to be imposed on the blade, hub and shroud regions.
8.2 Interface setup

The load is transferred between the two domains at the interface. This is done through mapping of
the nodes of one mesh to the local coordinates of an element in the other mesh. In the case of two way
coupling, two mappings are performed; first to map the displacements from solid nodes to fluid nodes
and second to map the stresses from fluid to solid. ANSYS surfaces are flagged by interface numbers
70
(1,2...) and CFX surfaces are flagged by interface name (FSIN 1, FSIN 2...), these numbers and the
name on the two domains should represent the same boundary. A typical procedure of setting up the
interface for the blade is listed below :
In ANSYS Structural, choose Fluid Structure Interface and select the blade surface. This
interface will be given a number (Starting from 1)
When the input file is written for the structural case, or when the setup of the structural and
CFX are linked, the input from the structural can be read in the CFX in the Analysis type.
In the domain definition, choose the mesh motion to Regions specified. This will enable the
selection of the mesh motion option on the wall boundaries.
On blade, select the mesh motion to be ANSYS multi-field. Here, the selection of the appropriate
interface number can be selected. This should correspond to the number provided in structural.
The ANSYS Multi-field solver automatically transfers mesh-based quantities across dissimilar meshes.
However, it is better to have similar size meshes between the two fields, to ensure the correct mapping
between the fields. The quality of the mesh of the two fields is shown in Figure 8.2. The distribution
of the mesh is finer near the edges in the case of fluid, as this mesh was created from highly optimized
topology option from Turbo-grid. Hence, the quality of the mesh is better in the fluid domain.
CFD mesh
Structural mesh
Mapping of the two meshes

at the interface
Figure 8.2: Mesh of the two fields and mapping
71
8.3 Solver Setup

In the case of the coupled-field analysis, the iteration controls and the convergence criteria must be
set for each field of the coupled field solvers. A special type of iteration, called stagger iteration is
used to ensure the convergence of the quantities transferred between the two fields. At the end of
each stagger iteration, the ANSYS as the master checks the convergence of the quantities transferred
across the interface and the fields within each field solver. The stagger iteration continues unless
the maximum number of stagger iteration is reached, or when the convergence has occurred. The
convergence criteria for the stagger iteration can be chosen in the External Coupling tab, by defining
the minimum value of a function , given by the equation:
pP
(unew uold )2
pP
=
(8.3)
u2new
Where uold and unew are the load components transferred at the last and this stagger iteration respectively. The quantities are said to be converged when < min . By default, the value of min is set
to 0.01 in ANSYS.
In CFX-solver, a new plot called as ANSYS Interface plot appears, which shows the convergence behavior of the transferred loads after each stagger iteration. The variable value plotted on the y-axis
of this graph can be represented by e, where:
e=
log(/min )
log(10/min )
(8.4)
When < min , e < 0 in the plot and the convergence occurs. A convergence plot used in this
study is shown in Figure 8.3. The stagger iteration starts with the start of the simulation. The next
iterations are done as a normal CFD-solver, where the convergence occurs after reaching the RMS
residual criteria, or the maximum number of iterations set in the solver control. After the end of the
first stagger iteration, a new monitor plot appears, which shows the load transfer from CFD to the
structural. After the load is transferred, the flow field is disturbed and the solver tries to converge the
momentum and mass for the new deflected position of the blade. For each iteration, the value of e is
calculated from the Equation 8.4. The stagger iteration continues till the value of the parameter e is
negative. The figure shows that the convergence of the coupled-field analysis occurs after 6 stagger
iterations.
8.4 Post processing

The post processing in the two-way FSI can be done in CFD-post. Though CFD-post normally shows
results from the CFD analysis after the solver is finished, the two-way FSI by using ANSYS-CFX
facilitates the post-processing of the results, both from CFD and structural. In this case, the user can
choose to show results of either ANSYS, CFX or both. In the outline tree, two domains are shown,
one for the structure, and another for the fluid. However, ANSYS supports only those results from
the structural, which are stored in CFX results. The deflection of the structure is represented by
Total Mesh Displacement, which signifies by how much the mesh has been displaced from its initial
position. It can also represent the equivalent Von Mises Stress induced on the structure.
72
Stagger Iteration (SI) = 1
SI = 2
SI = 3
SI = 4
Figure 8.3: Convergence plot in CFX-solver for the FSI analysis in this study
73
8.5 Results of Two-way FSI

8.5.1 Case-I
The result of the two way coupling for the first case, when only the blade was considered, is shown
in Figure 8.4. Comparing this figure with the same case in one-way coupling, it can be seen that the
maximum stress is not towards the outlet region, but it is towards the inlet region, at the shroud-blade
connection. The value of the maximum stress is 12.45 MPa for the reference design and 16.15 MPa
for the optimized design. The value of the maximum stress increased by around 14% for the reference
design and by around 52% for the optimized design, compared to one-way FSI. The mesh and the
computational model were the same for this case between one-way and two-way coupling. Though the
region of the maximum stress is different between the two cases, the pattern of the stress distribution
looks similar. A large amount of stresses are induced on the zero displacement regions and also near
the mid-span of the outlet region as shown in both the figure.
8.5.2 Case-II
The stress distribution of the case-II for two way coupling is shown in Figure 8.5. The region of the
maximum stress is towards the blade-hub inlet region. A high stress distribution was found towards
the joint between the blade-hub and the blade-shroud. The value of the maximum stress is 916.8 MPa
for the reference design and 823.9 MPa for the optimized design. Compared to the one-way FSI, this
value is about 7 times big. This difference reflects the significance of conducting two way FSI in this
application.
In two way FSI, the deflection of the structure is represented by the deformation of the mesh of the
flow field surrounding it. Figure 8.6 shows the magnitude of the total mesh displacement around the
blade at three different stream-wise positions. It also shows the overall deflection of the CFD mesh
surrounding the blade. In the case of the reference design, the deformation of the mesh is maximum in
the shroud region. This figure only shows the local displacement value on the legend. On the runner
blade, the maximum deformation was found to be 0.37 mm. In the case of the optimized design, the
pattern of the deformation on the blade is quite different. Maximum deflection occurs towards the
inlet and the midspan of the outlet region. Though the maximum deformation on the blade is less
than the reference design (0.12 mm), the overall deformation of the CFD mesh is similar.
74
8.30E6
max
3.9E6
7.7E6
Reference design
1.25E7
1.25E7
max
6.12E6
max
6.12E6
9.61E6
9.61E6
Optimized design
Figure 8.4: Stress distribution on the blade from two-way FSI
75
Reference design
Optimized design
Figure 8.5: Stress distribution on the runner from two-way FSI
76
Reference design
Optimized design
Figure 8.6: Mesh deformation in the fluid domain from two-way FSI
9
Conclusion
The objective of this project work was to carry out the FSI analysis of reference and optimized
Francis runners exposed to sediment erosion. An optimized runner was chosen between 5 shapes
of the blade proposed by earlier studies based on the reduced erosion effect without affecting the
efficiency. The erosion effect was imposed in ANSYS-CFX with Tabakoff Erosion Model by building
a mesh independent model. Some assumptions were chosen to build the CFD parameters, such as
shape, size and concentration of the quartz particle in the flow. However, a sensitivity study was
made, where the effect of changing these parameters were observed. To do this, a baseline case was
initially established and a single parameter was varied at a time keeping other parameters constant.
The results of CFD were very sensitive to the size and distribution of the mesh. The CFD meshing
was done with the help of the ATM optimized topology in Turbogrid, which is known for generating
a high quality mesh but less freedom of choices. By decreasing the factor ratio, it was seen that the
convergence could be obtained in the results. A target mesh node count of 0.75 million node was
chosen for the FSI study, but in order to study the erosion pattern better, a mesh of 1.25 million node
was chosen for the CFD study. Among the five different runner blades, shape-4 (the physical meaning
of the shape was described in the figure 4.6) was seen to have reduced erosion effect by 21% without
affecting the efficiency. Hence, it was chosen for the further study.
The structural model of the blade and a sector of the runner was made in Pro-E, with the help of
the curve files generated from the Matlab Program. While generating the section of the runner, the
hub and the shroud regions were trimmed so as to map with the fluid model closely. Two types of
boundary conditions were considered, where the FSI analysis was performed on each of the cases. In
the first case, a single blade without the hub and the shroud were created, whereas in the second case,
the full geometry consisting of a sector with 1/17th of the total runner was developed. The results
showed that the stresses, which were plotted as the equivalent Von Mises Stress, were larger in the
second case than in the first case. This is due to the effect of the joints and the loads imposed on the
hub and the shroud, which were not considered in the first case.
One way FSI was conducted in Chapter 7 on both the cases and both the designs. A mesh independent
study was performed on the first case by considering a mapped tetrahedral mesh around the blade.
For the second case, a fixed size mesh was used in both the designs. FSI was imposed by importing
the loads from CFD on the surfaces of the structure. In one way FSI, the cyclic symmetric property
77
CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSION
78
of the blade was established by defining the high and the low periodic boundaries. Other boundary
conditions, such as rotational velocity, gravity, and fixed support on the surface connecting the hub
and the shaft were imposed. The results of one way FSI showed that the maximum stress on the
runner is less in the optimized design compared to the reference design, in both the cases. The value
of the maximum stress on the runner decreased by around 14%. On the contrary, the maximum
deflection of the runner increased by around 6%.
Two way FSI was conducted in Chapter 8 on both the cases and both the designs. This was done by
writing an input file from the structural case consisting of the same boundary condition as one way
FSI, but importing it into CFX on the specified boundaries. The deformation of the mesh on these
boundaries was selected with the provided mesh deformation model. The maximum number of stagger
iteration was chosen to be 10 but it was seen that the results converged after maximum 8 iterations.
The post processing for both the fields were done in CFX-Post. In the first case of boundary condition,
the maximum value of the stress increased by around 29% for the optimized design than the reference
design. However, in the second case, the value of the maximum stress decreased by around 10%.
Compared to one-way FSI, the value of the maximum stress was around 7 times bigger than when two
way FSI was performed. The difference in the results with the same mesh and boundary conditions
show the significance of conducting the fully coupled analysis in this field. This vast difference also
resulted because of the different ways of imposing the cyclic symmetry boundary condition to the
runner. It was seen that when the APDL command was used to make the cyclic property of the
sector, it resulted in mapping problems. This problem could be solved in Workbench Static Structural
by using the model > symmetry > cyclicsymmetry in the outline tree directly and selecting the
higher and the lower periodic boundaries. However, this option was not possible for the two way FSI
till the current release of ANSYS. Hence, for the two way FSI, APDL command was used to impose
the cyclic symmetry property. It was seen that using the APDL command not only shows the mapping
problem, but also overestimates the stresses by some amount. In that way, the results of the two-way
FSI could have escalated a bit more than expected, for the second case. A demonstration of the
comparison between the two ways of imposing the cyclic symmetry condition is shown in Appendix-II
in Chapter 12.
One more limitation in the ANSYS release was the restriction in selecting the type of the mesh. It
was seen that a model with a periodic symmetry property was unable to generate a hexagonal mesh.
In order to maintain the consistency in the type of the mesh, tetrahedral mesh was used for all the
cases. Creating hexagonal mesh could result in better mapping with the fluid interface because of the
similar type of the mesh.
10
Future scope in the related field
In the case of the CFD analysis, the mesh convergence study was performed on the reference
blade only. However, performing the study on all the blades will ensure the correctness of the
solutions as all the blades will be mesh independent.
In the case of the structural analysis, the mesh study was performed on the first case only, where
only a single blade was considered. It was seen that for the second case, about 2 million mesh
was needed to have a mesh independent solution. In order to perform the mesh study for this
case, a very high computational time is needed. Also, the hexagonal mapped mesh could be
generated from other meshing tools or softwares to have better results.
A single blade of the runner was considered in this study. The Matlab program which were used
to generate the curve files of the blade can also generate curve files and input parameters of the
guide and stay vanes. This can be useful to find erosion information on these regions, along with
their structural integrity.
This project still assumed the results to be steady. However, by considering the guide vanes,
the transient calculations could be done and the unsteady forces on the runner blades could be
known.
The material of the structure in this study was chosen to be Structural Steel. However, the
analysis has to be carried out for the exact material from which the manufacturing is done. The
most common materials that are chosen are stainless steel and titanium- and nickel- alloys.
Perfect mapping of the two domains (fluid and structure) has to be carried out. This will increase
the accuracy of the solution.
79
Bibliography
[1] Khadka, P., Khadka, B.S.,

Presentation on Hydropower development in Nepal,
Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA), 2011.
[2] Thapa, B.S., Thapa, B., Dahlhaug, O.G.,
Center of excellence at Kathmandu University for R and D and test certification of Hydraulic
turbines,
Proceedings of International Conference on Hydraulic Efficiency Measurement, India, 2010.
Current research in hydraulic turbines for handling sediments ,
Journal of Energy, 2012.
[4] Price, T., Probert, D.,
Harnessing Hydropwer: A Practical Guide,
Applied energy Vol 57, No. 2/3, Elsevier Science Ltd.,1997, pp. 175-251.
[5] Stachowiak, G.W., Batchelor, A.W.,
Abrasive, Erosive and Cavitation Wear,
Engineering Tribology(3-Edition), Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006, pp. 501-551.
[6] Dixon, S.L.,
Fluid Mechanics Thermodynamics of Turbomachinery,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1998.
[7] Paulsen, J.B.,
FSI-analysis of a Francis turbine,
Masters thesis, NTNU, 2012.
[8] Rajput, R.K., Chand, S.,
A Textbook of Hydraulic Machinery,
Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machines-Part-II, 1998.
80
81
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[9] Chauhan, A.K., Goel, D.B., Prakash, S.,

Erosion behavior of hydro turbine steels,
Indian Institute of Technology, 2007.
[10] Wood, R.J.K.,
Tribology of thermal sprayed WC-Co coatings,
International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials, 2010, p. 82-94.
[11] Truscott, G.F.,
Literature survey of abrasive wear in hydraulic machinery,
Wear, 1972, p. 29-50.
[12] Bardal, E., Korrosjon, Korrosjonsvern,
Trondheim : Tapir, 1985 (in Norwegian).
[13] Tsuguo, N.,
Estimation of repair cycle of turbine due to abrasion caused by suspended sand and determination
of desilting basin capacity,
Proceedings of international seminar on sediment handling technique, NHA, Kathmandu,1999.
Empirical modelling of sediment erosion in Francis turbines,
Journal of Energy, Volume : 41, 2012, pp. 386-391.
[15] Kjolle, A.,
Hydropower in Norway, Mechanical Equipment,
Survey, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, 2001.
[16] Neopane, H.P.,
Sediment Erosion in Hydro Turbines,
phD thesis, NTNU, 2010.
[17] Thapa, B., Shrestha, R., Dhakal, P., Thapa, B.S.,
Sediment in Nepalese hydropower projects,
Proceedings of International conference on the great Himalayas: Climate, Health, Ecology, Management and Conservation, Nepal, 2003.
[18] Thapa, B.,
Sand Erosion in Hydraulic Machinery,
phD thesis, NTNU, 2004.
[19] Gjosaester, K.,
Hydraulic Design of Francis Turbine Exposed to Sediment Erosion,
Masters Thesis, NTNU, 2011.
[20] Drtina, P., Sallaberger, M.,
Hydraulic turbines - basic principles and state-of-the-art computational fluid dynamics applications,
Sulzer Hydro AG, Zurich, 1999.
[21] Thapa, B.S.,
Hydraulic design of Francis turbine to minimize sediment erosion,
Masters thesis, Kathmandu University, 2011.
82
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[22] Wang, W.Q., He, X.Q., Zhang, L.X., Liew, K.M., Guo, Y.,
Strongly coupled simulation of fluid-structure interaction in a Francis hydro turbine,
International journal for numerical methods in fluids, Wiley Interscience, 2008, pg: 515-538.
[23] Schmucker, H., Flemming, F., Coulson, S.,
Two-way coupled fluid structure interaction simulation of a propeller turbine,
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems, Voith Hydro GmbH and Co. KG,
Germany, 2011.
[24] ANSYS Coupled-Field Analysis Guide,
ANSYS Release 10.0, 2005.
[25] Slone, A.K., Pericleous, K., Bailey, C., Cross, M.,
Dynamic fluid-structure interaction using finite volume unstructured mesh procedures,
Computers and Structures, pg: 371-390, 2001.
[26] Eltvik, M., Thapa, B.S., Dahlhaug, O.G., Gjosaeter, K.,
Numerical analysis of effect of design parameters and sediment erosion on a Francis runner,
Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Water Resources and Renewable Energy Development in Asia, Thailand, 2012.
[27] Wei, Z., Finstad, P.H., Olimstad, G., Walseth, E., Eltvik, M.,
High Head Hydraulic Machinery, compendium,
Water Power Laboratory, NTNU, 2009.
[28] Negru, R., Marsavina, L., Muntean, S.,
Analysis of Flow induced stress field in a Francis turbine runner blade,
Buletinul Institutului Politehnic Din Iasi (Bulletin of the Technical Institute of Iasi), 2011.
[29] Negru, R., Muntean, S., Marsavina, L., Susan-Resiga, R., Pasca, N.,
Computation of stress distribution in a Francis turbine runner induced by fluid flow,
Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Computational Mechanics of Materials, 2011.
[30] Saeed, R.A., Galybin, A.N., Popov, V., Abdulrahim, N.O.,
Modeling of the Francis turbine runner in power stations. Part II:stress analysis,
WIT Transactions of the Built Environment, Vol 105, 2009.
[31] Lais, S., Liang, Q., Henggeler, U., Weiss, T., Escaler, X., Eguasquiza, E.,
Dynamic Analysis of Francis Runners-Experiment and Numerical Simulation,
International Journal of Fluid Machinery and Systems, Vol 2, 2009.
11
Appendix-I - Some discrepancies with the design program (Khoj)
The curve files of the blades along with the boundary conditions needed for the CFX simulations
were taken from the Matlab design program called Khoj. More information about the theories and
executing the program can be found in the earlier papers [19] and [21]. In this thesis project, these
parameters and files were needed as inputs to conduct the CFD and FSI in later part of the project.
The output CFX parameters was provided in the following way:
Blades
17.000000
Flow rate
2.350000
Rotational speed
-1000.000000
Velocity components:
Between runner and guide vanes:
C_theta
0.976757
C_r
0.214349
C_z
0.000000
Between guide vanes and stay vanes:
C_theta
0.834840
C_r
0.550493
C_z
0.000000
At stay vane inlet:
C_theta
0.855737
C_r
0.517410
C_z
0.000000
These parameters provide information about the inflow conditions, rotational speed of the runner and
the direction of the flow towards the stay vane, guide vane and the runner inflow separately. These
parameters provide the freedom of modeling the runner independently or together with the stationary
components when needed. There have been few concerns raised during the use of these inputs, which
are discussed in this chapter. The results generated in the previous studies and the conclusions have
been modified accordingly.
83
CHAPTER 11. APPENDIX-I - SOME DISCREPANCIES WITH THE DESIGN PROGRAM (KHOJ)
84
11.1 Direction of the inflow

The Boundary Vector plot at the inlet for the given CFX parameters is shown in Figure 11.1. It
shows that the direction of the flow towards the inlet is not aligned properly.
Figure 11.1: Boundary Vector at the inlet with the given flow direction
The explanation of the direction of the flow is explained in Figure 11.2. The co-ordinate axes defined
here are according to the convention used in CFX. It can be seen that the tangential component of
the velocity should be in the direction of the rotation, which is negative. Also, the radial component
should be towards the inward direction, which is also negative in this case.
This misalignment was not only seen for the runner inlet, but even when the stationary components
were modeled, the flow vector was in the opposite direction, as shown in Figure 11.3. Here, both the
guide vane and the stay vane have been modeled and the inflow condition was given according to the
same file, but for the stay vane inlet. This can be more clearly understood for the stationary domain,
as there is no rotational component and with that, the absolute velocity should be aligned towards
the direction of the flow. It can be seen that the angle of the inflow looks acceptable, but the direction
has been misaligned.
85
Inlet
Outlet
Shroud
Hub
86
11.1.1 Modification and influence on the result

The modification was made in the CFX parameters file by changing the direction of the tangential
and the radial components. The modified parameters is shown below:
Blades
17.000000
Flow rate
2.350000
Rotational speed
-1000.000000
Velocity components:
Between runner and guide vanes:
C_theta
-0.976757
C_r
-0.214349
C_z
0.000000
Between guide vanes and stay vanes:
C_theta
-0.834840
C_r
-0.550493
C_z
0.000000
At stay vane inlet:
C_theta
-0.855737
C_r
-0.517410
C_z
0.000000
A significant effect was seen in the sediment erosion density plot. Major difference was seen when the
stationary components were modeled, as shown in Figure 11.4. With the provided information, no
erosion effect was seen on the turbine components, which indicates some errors in the CFX parameters.
On changing the direction as discussed above, the erosion pattern was seen profoundly and at the
expected places (Guide vane, stay vane inlet and runner outlet). Even when only the runner is
modeled, the erosion was seen in the bigger amount when the directions were modified than when
they were unmodified.
87
Before
No erosion!
Modified
Figure 11.4: Result of the two flow directions, unmodified (top) and modified(below)
88
11.2 Guide vane outlet and runner inlet

The curve files and the boundary parameters in the Matlab code had been designed so as to attain
the best efficiency condition. This suggests that the solution between the two cases, i) when only
the runner blade is modeled and ii) when the stationary components are modeled together with the
runner blade, should not vary much. This was not the case as the results, in terms of head, efficiency,
sediment erosion pattern and other results did not seem to match between the two cases, and also the
case when the guide vane and the blade were modeled. This discrepancy is shown in Figure 11.5. The
erosion density of the runner only case is higher than the full stage case. Also, when the stationary
components are modeled, the erosion is also seen towards the inlet of the runner. On witnessing other
plots, it was seen that the streamline of the flow in the two cases are different. The streamlines of
the latter case seems to be distorted which also affected the pressure distribution around the blade.
This directly affected the total head as it is mentioned in the figure that the total head was reduced
by 75% when the stationary components were modeled. Again, the CFX parameters were taken from
the same file and the curve files from the same design, which means that the results should not vary
by this amount. On further investigating, it was seen that the guide vane of the latter case was not
aligned in the correct position, i.e. at the designed condition. The output report file showed that the
guide vane was aligned in such a way that the flow at the inlet of the runner was at an angle of 72 ,
but in the case when only the runner was modeled, the flow at the inlet of the runner was at an angle
of 77 . This infers that the curve file of the guide vane represents the off-design condition and in order
to obtain the curve files at the best efficiency condition, the Matlab code has to be revised again.
With runner only
With Stay vane-Guide vane-Runner
Head : 205.6 m
Head : 153.22 m
89
Figure 11.5: Discrepancy between the results when only the runner and the full stage is modeled
12
Appendix-II - Imposing cyclic symmetry boundary conditions in
ANSYS
It was seen that the cyclic symmetry boundary conditions can be imposed in ANSYS Workbench by
either of the two ways :
From workbench, choosing the symmetry property and selecting the higher and the lower boundaries of the symmetric body. Doing this requires a new cylindrical co-ordinate system defined
and the exact geometry on the higher and the lower side so that the geometries and mesh are
properly mapped.
By using commands in Mechanical (APDL). This can also be done in workbench itself by writing
the following commands,
/prep7
cyclic,17
/solu
Tolerances to map the faces can be chosen as per necessity.
The solutions of the two options shown above were apparently different. In the latter case, when the
APDL command was used to impose the cyclic property to the runner, it resulted in some mapping
problems. One solution of removing this problem is to define certain tolerances for the mapped mesh.
But since this option could not get the robust solution, the former option was chosen. Here, by
defining the high and the low boundaries of the cyclic region, the problem of the mapping did not
persist. This comparison is shown in Figure 12.1. Also, it can be seen from the comparison that the
maximum stress predicted by the latter case is much more than the former case.
Although the results of the former case was adopted for one-way FSI, this option was not valid for the
two-way FSI till the current release. Hence, the latter option was chosen for that case. Though the
mapping problems could not be seen in the two way FSI, because the post processing is carried out in
CFX-Post, it is expected that the results of the analysis overestimated the stresses by some amount.
90
91
CHAPTER 12. APPENDIX-II - IMPOSING CYCLIC SYMMETRY BOUNDARY CONDITIONS IN ANSYS
Mapping problems
Figure 12.1: Choices of imposing cyclic symmetry property to the sector of the runner

FSI Francis MSthesis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FSI Francis MSthesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Masters Thesis in

FSI Analysis of Francis Turbines Exposed to Sediment

Background of the work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kathmandu University(KU) and Turbine Testing Lab(TTL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Objective of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Outline of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Principles of hydro turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Types of hydro turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Work done and efficiency of Francis turbine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Francis turbines in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Materials behavior and coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sediment erosion in hydraulic machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sediment erosion in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Basic erosion models in ANSYS-CFX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Recent works - Review

Other relevant works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sequential Method-Physics files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sequential Method-ANSYS multi-field solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Strategy of FSI in ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Set up ANSYS and CFX models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Flag Field interface conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Masters thesis - FSI analysis of Francis Turbines exposed to Sediment Erosion

Set up Master Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Obtain the solution

Governing equations in FSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mesh convergence study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baseline case for the sensitivity analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of the physical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of the particle size on the erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of the particle shape on the erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of the particle behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of the numerical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of the residual criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of the turbulence models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of the erosion models and their parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison between the optimized and the reference blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FSI mesh study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of One-way FSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Masters thesis - FSI analysis of Francis Turbines exposed to Sediment Erosion

Results of Two-way FSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 Future scope in the related field

11 Appendix-I - Some discrepancies with the design program (Khoj)

11.1 Direction of the inflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11.1.1 Modification and influence on the result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11.2 Guide vane outlet and runner inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 Appendix-II - Imposing cyclic symmetry boundary conditions in ANSYS

Masters thesis - FSI analysis of Francis Turbines exposed to Sediment Erosion

Co-ordinates and velocity triangles of a typical turbomachinery rotor

Cavitation due to contraction of a pipe and saturation pressure vs fluid temperature .

Cavitation along a passage with non-uniform area

Jet impingement into a bucket with corresponding velocity triangles . . . . . . . . . .

Section of a Kaplan turbine[6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some basic components of Francis turbines [4] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Erosive wear mechanisms [5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Erosive wear for various materials at different impingement angles . . . . . . . . . . .

Areas exposed to sediment erosion wear in Francis turbines [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hub, shroud and the blade passage from Turbogrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sediment erosion rate density of the reference design[21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FSI analysis layout used in the study [7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boundary conditions of the runner used in the study [7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parametric study of the shape of the blades [26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANSYS multi-field solver process [24] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .