VA TECH HYDRO

Safety Engineering for the 423 MW-Pelton-Runners

at Bieudron
Paper to be presented at the
20th IAHR Symposium August 6 9, 2000 Charlotte, N.C. USA

Safety Engineering for the 423 MW-PeltonRunners at Bieudron

R. Angehrn1
VATECH ESCHER WYSS, Zurich, Switzerland
ABSTRACT
The extreme output and head conditions at Bieudron (3 x 423 MW, H = 1869 m) and the
unusual runner size (outer diameter 4.63 m) demanded above-average engineering effort
for runner development and design. Apart from developing profiles for best hydraulic efficiency the most demanding tasks at this stage were to meet the mechanical requirements of
the integrally cast runners mainly with regard to corrosion fatigue and cavitation behaviour.
Life cycle assessment and optimisation of the inspection periods rely on the stress results of
theoretical analysis by FEA. As a world novelty, the runner stress analysis is based on bucket
pressure distributions from laboratory measurements, carried out for the first time on a rotating runner. Initial experience after about 2000 hours of operation with each of the 3 turbines
can be summarized as successful: the measured hydraulic efficiency complies with the
guarantee figures. No signs of fatigue damage have been encountered up to now on the
exceptionally high-loaded runners.

INTRODUCTION
As scheduled, the new Swiss power station Bieudron 2 (3 x 423 MW, H = 1869 m) was successfully commissioned by the end of 1998 [1]. During the 1st year of operation until the end
of October 1999, the 3 units operated between 1500 and 2200 hours and the runner buckets
experienced up to 200 million load cycles by jet impingement. The extreme conditions in the
plant can be described, for example, by the maximum jet force which is only a little less than
1 Mega-Newton (1 MN). This value can best be envisaged as the deadweight of a modern
high speed locomotive which, however, would be hopping with high frequency from bucket
to bucket and not just rolling or resting on its rails. The question of how to design and manufacture runners for such demanding conditions is the main topic of this paper.

RUNNER DESIGN
Development of the turbines for Bieudron power plant meant a real step forward in the design of Pelton turbines [2]. The design requirements demanded new engineering and design tools, as well as a major extension of existing physical know-how on Pelton turbines.
Among a series of other special R&D tasks for Bieudron, three main studies may be mentioned:
1. On a single jet model turbine, a detailed experimental flow study was performed to develop the necessary knowledge for final selection of the basic turbine concept (three 5-jet
turbines instead of four 4-jet units) as well as for determination of the acceptable amount
of cavitation erosion [3, 4].
2. Optimisation of the complete turbine profile on a homologous vertical 5-jet model turbine;
determination of the prototype efficiency guarantees.
3. Detailed design study for all main turbine parts, mainly focused on the mechanical design
of the runners which is the main issue of this paper.
1

Richard Angehrn, Senior Engineer, VATECH ESCHER WYSS Ltd., Hardstr. 319 / P.O. Box, CH-8023 Zurich
Tel. (+41) 1 278 2406, Fax (+41) 1 278 2819, e-mail: richard.angehrn@vatew.ch
Pelton turbine engineering and supply was by the Groupement Cleuson-Dixence, GCD, comprising Hydro Vevey
and the former Sulzer Hydro, now VATECH ESCHER WYSS, as consortium leader

Some characteristic data are shown in Tables 1 and 2 as follows:

Table 2. Runner data
Table 1. Turbine data
Number of turbines
Rated plant output
Rated turbine output
Rated head
Synchronous speed
Runaway speed
Rated flow

3
1200 MW
423 MW
1869 m
428.6 min-1
756 min-1
25 m3/s

Jet pitch diameter

Number of nozzles

3993 mm
5

Outer diameter
Width of buckets
Number of buckets
Weight of runner
Weight of a bucket
Max. jet force
Centrifugal bucket force
at synchronous speed
Type of coupling
Material 3

4630 mm
620 mm
26
29000 kg
380 kg
944 kN
1470 kN
Friction type
stainless cast steel
G-X5 CrNi 13 4

MEASUREMENT OF PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

relative moment M [-]

Approximate pressure data can be gained from stationary measurements on individual

buckets [5, 6]. However, the pressure distribution on a rotating runner can only be determined with considerable outlay in instrumentation and data processing, since CFD is not yet
available. Measurements of unsteady pressure distribution were carried out on a Bieudron
model runner under homologous conditions in a test rig [7]. Fig. 1 shows a snapshot of
pressure distribution by jet impingement, as an example.
1
0.9 based on
strain gage
0.8 measurement
0.7 at bucket root
0.6
0.5
0.4
based on
integrated
0.3
pressure
0.2
measurement
0.1
0
0
8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72
runner rotation angle a []
Figure 1. Pressure distribution at the
Figure 2. Characteristic of bending moment at
instant of maximum loading; pmax
the bucket root during jet impingement.
corresponds to 21% of the net head
Comparison of the measured moment and the
pressure.
moment based on p-measurement.
Fig. 2 shows the relative bending moment at the bucket root as a function of rotation angle
or time. The curve is derived from bending moment measurements by strain gauges at a
bucket root, and the slightly deviating points are based on integration of the pressure signals
over the bucket. The coincidence at full impingement is nearly perfect. Some underestimation at jet entrance is due to lack of sensors near the inlet edges because of their thinness.
The data obtained on hydrodynamic load distribution is not project-related and forms an
important basis for design optimisation, also in connection with new manufacturing methods such as MicroGuss and FiberGuss [8, 9, 10]. As a world novelty, the runner design
stress analysis was based on bucket pressure distributions from laboratory measurements,
carried out for the first time on a rotating runner.
3

Cast in 1991 at Georg Fischer, Schaffhausen, Switzerland, shortly before closing of their steel foundry

FINITE ELEMENT STRESS ANALYSIS

c

b
max = 40 MPa

max = 34 MPa

3a) original design

3b) final designFigure
Figure 3. Maximum principal stress due to highest pressure loading at a net head of 1869 m
and a turbine power of 423 MW; the jet position angle with reference to the bucket rim plane is
nearly perpendicular (93).
At the time of carrying out this analysis, solid modelling based on 3D-CAD was not adequately developed. The geometry was defined based on B-spline surface definition [11], and creation of the 3D-mesh needed considerable manual effort. Due to the complex geometry and
large differences in wall thickness, modelling was carried out exclusively with tetrahedral
elements. The 10-node element used here is specially recommended by the FE software supplier for such applications, and gives better accuracy than 4-node elements, although with
substantially more computing outlay (8500 degrees of freedom or unknowns in the simultaneous equation system). For symmetry reasons, only one bucket half was modelled.
Finite element stress analysis was then carried out for centrifugal force loading and selected
pressure loading according to project conditions [1, 4]. Various geometrical alternatives were
computed. In the final design version the wall thickness was progressively increased (up to
40 %) along the bucket rim towards the root (b). As shown in Fig. 3b, this led to stress relieving at this point (b) and equalising of the stresses at the three most highly loaded locations
middle ridge fillet (a), bucket rim (b) and inlet edge (c). An interesting point is that originally
(Fig. 3a) the highest stress at (b) did not result from peak jet force and bending moment, but
occurred under the conditions shown here after the beginning of the unloading phase, with
bucket emptying obliquely outwards, in arrow direction. Due to the force exerted on the
bucket shells, extra loading is applied not only to the bucket rim (b) but also to the inlet edge
(c). Under centrifugal loading the wall thickness modification led to a 45% reduction in peak
stress at the bucket rim (b) of the final design, Fig. 3b.

FATIGUE EVALUATION AND LIFE TIME

In Fig. 4 the FEA stress results are compared with the results of a traditional analysis method
called PELTBE4. The differences, although not too large, need some clarification. The static
stress part (= mean stress) resulting from FEA is negligible at the mouth, average at the hot
spot (= root fillet of the middle ridge) and highest at the bucket rim. The PELTBE value lies
4

PELTBE is a computer programm for Pelton stress analysis based on beam theory

midway between the latter two. Keeping the explanations above in mind, this is understandable. The dynamic stress parts of FEA at the hot spot, mouth and rim are well equalised, this
being a quality label of the design. The PELTBE value, however, is at a 60% higher level. For
a better understanding, one has to be aware of the conservative PELTBE assumptions:
R=0
100

PELTBE hot spot

(middle ridge illet)

Stress Amplitude [MPa]

90

FEA hot spot (a)

80
70
107

60

40
30

26.5

20

17 16.5

16

10
0

50

100
150
200
Mean Stress [MPa]

109
1010
1011
load
cycles

250

(b)

FEA rim

(c)

contractuel
limit of stress
amplitude
sa = 27 MPa

108

50

FEA mouth

300

Figure 4. Bucket
design stress results
at 1869 m net head
and 423 MW.
PELTBE vs. FEAresults. The Haighdiagram defines
fatigue limits for cast
steel G-X5CrNi13 4
based on tests of the
Darmstadt Betriebsfestigkeit Laboratory,
LBF [12]. Samples
are taken from near
surface zones. Load
cycle numbers > 1E8
are extrapolated.

At the bucket root the section area and the area moment of inertia are calculated with a reduced profile width, namely with a width that corresponds to the thickness of the adjoining
disk. However, since the effective root stiffness at Bieudron is higher than usual the supporting width is larger than assumed.
Based on the stress analysis a runner lifetime of 80000 hours at full power, equivalent to
about 1010 load cycles, was indicated in the contract. Part-load hours are evaluated according to their reduced damaging effect compared with full power operation (Chapter 10).
The example shows a design optimisation step which was enabled by application of the
above-mentioned tools. The traditional method would not have allowed sufficiently deep insight into the problem to establish this improvement.

FINITE ELEMENT MODAL ANALYSIS VS. EXPERIMENT

The theoretical analysis (Fig. 5) assumes identical mass and stiffness of all buckets although
the reality is different. However, valuable information is obtained on the natural frequency
amplitudes of the basic bending vibration modes. Since with integrally cast runners the
buckets are not fully machined at rear, their geometry can deviate from the precise design
profile. This causes some scatter of the natural frequencies, and deviations from the theoretical analysis. This method shows up all modes in the frequency range of interest, whereas
measurement by hammer excitation normally does not. Namely the two lowest modes of
Fig. 5 were not contained in the response spectra.

HYDRAULIC EXCITATION SPECTRUM

Assuming that the bending moment characteristic (Fig. 2) determined on the model runner
is transferable to the full size prototype, the discrete Fourier spectrum of the bucket excitation
forces can be established (Fig. 6). Compared with previously published examples [13, 14], it
is advantageous for the Bieudron runners that the harmonics in the vicinity of the lowest

measured natural bucket frequencies (approx. 760 775 Hz, Fig. 9) have a 50 % higher order
number, namely i = 21 at 750 Hz and i = 22 at 785.8 Hz. Consequently, the relative amplitude
of the bending moment or stress at the bucket root is smaller (< 0.0003, Fig. 6). For this
reason, the dynamic stress characteristic (Fig. 7) contains less superimposed dynamic stress
than originally expected, thus increasing the runner safety. Nevertheless, careful detuning
was carried out, as explained in the following.
i =1

a=0

Bieudron 1st natural mode, f = 508 Hz

Bieudron 6th natural mode, f = 761 Hz

nd

Bieudron 2nd natural mode, f = 576 Hz

Bieudron 4th natural mode, f = 706 Hz

Bieudron 7th natural mode, f = 761 Hz

Bieudron 8th natural mode, f = 761 Hz

Figure 5. Calculated frequencies of the first 6 natural modes of bucket bending vibration:
f1 = 508 Hz, f2 = 576 Hz, f3 = 706 Hz, f4 = 761 Hz, f5 = 761 Hz, f6 = 762 Hz. i = number of
mode, n = i 1 = number of vibration node diameters nd.

bucket excitation spectra

1

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

moment M
moment M

relative amplitude

0.1

0.01

integers i of harmonics
of basic frequency
f1 = n/60*Z0
f1 = i*f1

00

5-jets

72
0

72

time
time

1-jet

0.001
0.0001

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

frequency [Hz]

Figure 6. Discrete Fourier spectrum of jet impingement force on prototype for 1 and 5-jet
operation (Z0 = 1 and 5), scaled up from model test. The frequency step for 1 and 5-jet
operation is 7.14 Hz and 35.72 Hz respectively.

DETUNING
The goal of detuning is to avoid resonance, in other words: to prevent a coincidence of the
natural frequencies of the bucket bending vibrations (Fig. 5) with multiples (or harmonics) of
the basic excitation frequency f1. Resonance would increase the superimposed stress B
(Fig. 7) since, due to low damping, a
B = superimposed
high dynamic magnification factor up
dynamic stress part
to 1000 is to be expected.
due to harmonic
A frequently asked question concerns
response
the added mass influence of the water.
J = dynamic stress part
This was investigated and answered
due to jets
during the course of earlier measure c = centrifugal stress
ments [13]. It was found that the added
a = stress amplitude
mass effect, lowering the natural frequencies, was compensated by the stif m = mean stress
fening effect due to the centrifugal
forces. Therefore, these effects are neFigure 7. Typical stress trace at a bucket root.
glected here.
The actual dynamic system, consisting
m3
m4
of 26 slightly different buckets coupled
m2
mass
m5
by the runner disk, is complex and difm1
ferent from the theoretically investigak3
k2
ted system in Chapter 6. In the past,
k4
k1
each bucket was regarded as a singlekc3
stiffness
k5
kc4
kc2
degree-of-freedom system, separated
kc5
kc1
from the others. Corrections of the
natural frequencies, if necessary, were
coupling
executed by grinding the rear of the
stiffness kci
bucket concerned. Subsequent checks,
however, sometimes revealed unexpected deviations. The reason is that the system cannot be separated as described
above. It must be analysed as a multidirection of the displacement cooridnate
degree-of-freedom system (Fig. 8).
Figure 8. The model for detuning is a multiTherefore, a new detuning procedure
degree-of freedom system
[15] was developed, initiated and sponsored by the former Sulzer Hydro. The aim was to optimise the process of final bucket grinding. Not only the natural frequencies should be regarded but also the final runner balancing
which has to meet the quality requirements of ISO 1940/1.
The new procedure is based on the principles of experimental modal analysis. Model identification is carried out by measurement of the dynamic flexibility matrix H. The elements hik of
the matrix H contain the response of the displacement coordinate i due to a unit excitation
(excitation with a unit force as amplitude) at the coordinate k with frequencies in the relevant
range. In practice, the matrix H is determined by
symm.
h ()11
hammering on a bucket in circumferential direction
h ()21 h ()22
and measuring the acceleration of the buckets in
H = H ()31 h ()32 h()33
the direction of the displacement coordinate. The

force of the hammer is also measured by an accel

eration sensor inside the hammer.

Fig. 9 shows the response curves derived from bucket dynamic flexibility measurement.
Multiple close resonances can be recognised which are caused by coupling of the slightly
different buckets. The model is identified by adapting the unknown parameters (masses and
stiffnesses) in a way which minimises the differences between measured and reconstructed
excitation. The difference (Fig. 9, 10) between the measured and calculated dynamic
flexibilities indicates the quality of the identified model. When the model is found to reflect
actual conditions sufficiently well, it can be used for predicting what happens if small mass
corrections are necessary by grinding, either due to imbalance of the runner or to correct
bad locations of the natural frequencies.
Detuning is mainly required on runners rotating at speeds higher than about 400 rpm in
turbines with 4 or more nozzles, where the bucket frequencies are relatively low (< 700 Hz).
Figure 9. Frequency response curves of
measured and simulated flexibility of a
bucket. Multiple close resonances can be
recognized which are caused by coupling
of the slightly different buckets.
Figure 10. The identification of the mathematical model is based on the adaption of
the unknown parameters (bucket mass,
stiffness) in a manner which minimizes the
differences between the measured and the
reconstructed excitation.
excitation

Pelton
runner

+ -

math.
model

deviation

response

NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING
The decision limits for NDT are strictly based on actual stress levels and on admissible flaw
size as determined by fracture mechanics. Quality control was carried out using UT, MT and
PT, whereas RT was applied only at the first quality control stage in the foundry.
Nine inspections by MT, three on each runner, were carrried out between commissioning in
1998 and the end of October 1999 without finding any inadmissible flaws or cracks.

SAFETY ASPECTS DURING OPERATION

AND MAINTENANCE
As typical with power stations for peak energy production, the Bieudron units operate over a
wide power range and go through several start-stop-cycles per day. Figure 11 shows the
distribution of service hours within five power ranges, averaged over all units.
In the following, some points are discussed concerning the possibilities of part load operation and the evaluation of service hours with regard to fatigue.

1.0

effective hours

0.8
corresponding Pmax-hours
0.6

Figure 11. Typical Bieudron

turbine load spectrum after
the first year of operation
since commissioning. Effective
hours and corresponding
Pmax hours.

0.4
0.2
0.0

ad
MW
MW
MW
MW
no lo 0-100 1-200 1-300 1-420
0
0
0
1
3
2

l
tota

Modes of Part Load Operation and Consequences

With smooth starting and stopping procedures, the start-stop-cycles of the turbines normally have much less influence on material fatigue than the dynamic excitation due to jet
pulsation.
A multi-jet-turbine can be operated at part load in two different ways, each having different
influences (Tab. 3). Although efficiency loss occurs, there are plants where all nozzles are
always in operation, even at part load. However, at Bieudron an operating mode was chosen
where the number of jets is strictly adapted to the actual load level. Figure 12 shows the
resultant difference in stress amplitude at the bucket root.
influence parameters

a) adapting the
number of jets

b) non-adapting
the number of jets

stress amplitude
at bucket root

higher

lower

inspection periods

shorter

longer

life time

shorter

longer

lateral shaft force

>0

bending moment
of turbine shaft

>0

turbine bearing load

>0

hydraulic efficiency

better

lower

relative stress amplitude

1
1

Table 3. Consequences of
different part load
operation modes:
a) adapting and b) nonadapting the number of
jets.
5 jets

active

0.8
0.6
a)

b)

0.4
0.2
0
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
relative power, P/Pmax

0.8

Figure 12. Stress

amplitude at the bucket
root in function of turbine
power at different part
load operation modes:
a) adapting as at
Bieudron and
b) non-adapting the
number of jets. The
effective switch points
deviate slightly from the
schematic points shown
in the diagram.

evaluation factor

Evaluation of Load Spectrum and Inspection Periods

Inspection periods in a plant should be defined based on possible crack propagation scenarios using linear elastic fracture mechanics. Since they should also take into account the
actual stress level, the load spectrum has to be evaluated when calculating inspection periods. For the evaluation shown here, the Paris equation (1) and the basic equation (2) of
fracture mechanics are
1
used, leading to the following equations 36:
0.8
da / dN = CDK m

0.6
0.4

a)

(1)

b)

0.2

dN = da /(CY m Ds m a m / 2 ) (3)

0
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
relative power, P/Pmax

Figure 13. Evaluation factors for service hours at the two

possible part load operation modes: a) adapting as at
Bieudron and b) non-adapting the number of jets.

crack
length
a

Integrating equation (3):

If m = 2 applies the integrals are:

N 2 - N1 = DN = 1/(CY 2 Ds 2 ) ln

Pmax
inspection
interval
da
dN

a2

P < Pmax

a1
a0

a2
(5)
a1

If a1 and a2 are assumed to

be set at the start and end of
an inspection period, and C
and Y are constants, the following equation is valid and
defines the fatigue crack
damage potential FCD, assuming it constant:
DN * Ds 2 = FCD = const. (6)

N0

N1

N2

number of cycles, N

From equation (6) and

Fig. 12 it can be seen that
Figure 14. Crack propagation behaviour in constant ampliat a service load of e.g.
tude fatigue loading.
60% (or a small portion below) the following evaluation factors for service hours at part load apply:
l in operating mode a) the evaluation factor corresponds to 0.6. This is due to the reduced
number of load cycles if 2 nozzles are closed. The stress amplitude, however, is at the
maximum;
l in operating mode (b) the number of load cycles is not changed since all nozzles stay
open, however, due to the reduced stress amplitude the evaluation factor is 0.62 = 0.36.
The evaluation factors would be slightly different if the exponent m of the Paris equation is at
m = 2.25 instead of 2, as indicated in [16] for martensitic steels. In [17] the corresponding
parameter is 2.55. These deviations have been neglected at the evaluation factor definition.

10

The inspection
1st inspection
2nd inspection
3rd inspection
4th inspection
5th inspection

periods have been defined5 as follows:

200 h after commissioning
400 h after the 1st inspection
400 h after the 2nd inspection
600 h after the 3rd inspection
600 h after the 4th inspection, etc.

(service hours are based on

operation at Pmax)

As a conclusion it can be said that the Bieudron runners have been designed on top-state of
the art engineering practice, and represent a milestone in Pelton technology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank all his colleagues who contributed to the development of
these new tools and their successful application in the presented project.

REFERENCES
[1] Loth, P., A record breaker. Cleuson-Dixence will go on line ..., Part Hydromechanics, International Water
Power & Dam Construction, June 1998, Pages 22-24.
[2] Keck, H., Schrer, Ch., Cunod, R., Cateni, A., Pelton technology for new plants and modernization schemes,
International journal on Hydropower & Dams, Vol. 4, Iss. 2, 1997, pages 104-108.
[3] Bachmann, P., Schrer, Ch., Staubli, T., Vullioud, G., Experimental flow studies on one 1-jet model Pelton
Turbine, 14th IAHR Symposium, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 1990.
[4] Bezinge, A., Bachmann, P., Vullioud, G., Das Projekt Cleuson - Dixence, VE/SEV/VDE/-Fachtagung
Wasserkraft - Regenerative Energie fr heute und morgen, Vienna, May 1992.
[5] Obretenov, V.S., Analysis of the Flow on a Pelton Turbine Bucket, Proc. of the Lenin Higher Inst. of Mechanical
and Electrical Engineering, Vol.41, Book 3, Sofia, 1987.
[6] Grozev, G., Obretenov, V., Trifonov, T., Investigation of the Distribution of Pressure over the Buckets of a Pelton
Turbine, Proc. of the Conference on Hydraulic Machinery, Turboinstitut, Ljubljana, Sept. 1988, Pages 119-125.
[7] Angehrn, R., Rettich, J., Schrer, Ch., Pelton runner design based on measured unsteady pressure distributions
in the bucket, Hydropower & Dams, Issue Six, 1999.
[8] Schneebeli, F., Baltis, E., Keck, H., New Technology Earns Acceptance, Sulzer Technical Review, No. 1, 1996.
[9] Kalberer, A., Krause, M., A Review of Experience with MicroCast Pelton Wheels, Hydropower & Dams,
Issue 1, 1996.
[10] Krause, M., Riedel, A., Innovationen bei der Fertigung und Reparatur von Wasserkraftanlagen MicroGussTM
und Beschichtungen, 9th Internat. Seminar on Hydro Power Plants, Wien, 1996.
[11] Grein, H., Schneebeli, F., Bantli, H., 3-Dimensional Surface Modelling - a Design and Manufacturing Tool for
Hydraulic Machinery, Sulzer Technical Review 2/1989.
[12] Ostermann, H., Rckert, H., Ausfallsichere Bemessung von Laufrdern fr Wasserkraftmaschinen aus rostfreiem Stahlguss unter Bercksichtigung von Korrosion und Gefgezustand, Abschlussbericht zum
Gemeinschaftsprogramm Stahlguss, BMFT-Industrie-LBF, Fraunhofer-Institut fr Betriebsfestigkeit, Darmstadt, Sept. 1983.
[13] Angehrn R., Dubas M., Experimental Stress Analysis on a 260 MW Pelton Runner, Proc. of the 11th IAHRSymposium, Amsterdam, 1982.
[14] Grein, H., Angehrn, R., Lorenz, M., Bezinge, A., Inspection Periods of Pelton Runners, Proc. of the 12th IAHRSymposium, Stirling, 1984.
[15] Schmied, J., Von der Schwingungsmessung zum Simulationsmodell, Technische Rundschau Nr. 17,
Bern, 1998.
[16] Fuchs, H.O., Stephens, R.I., Metal Fatigue in Engineering, Wiley & Sons, NewYork, 1980.
[17] Grein, H.L., Angehrn, R., Service Life of Pelton Runners under Corrosion Fatigue, International Symposium on Fluid Machinery Troubleshooting, ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Anaheim, California, Dec. 1986,
FED-Vol. 46/PWR-Vol.2.

The inspection periods definiton is coherent with the results of a crack propagation case study which was executed on a
260 MW-runner after a damage occured in 1981 [17]. As a consequence, stringent inspection periods were introduced
there and it can be reported about successful experience up to now.

11

VA TECH HYDRO

VA TECH ELIN GmbH & Co

Penzinger Strasse 76
A-1141 Wien/Austria
Telephone (+43) 1/89 100
Fax (+43) 1/89 100-196
E-Mail: contact@vatech.elin.at

VA TECH ELIN GmbH

18F/B. 3-7 Hanwei Plaza
7 Guanghua Rd.
Beijing 100 004, P.R. China
Telephone (+86) 10/6561 3388 ext. 888
Fax (+86) 10/6561 4192
E-Mail: contact@eev.elin.co.at

VA TECH ESCHER WYSS LTD

(former Sulzer Hydro)
Hardstrasse 319/P.O. Box
CH-8023 Zurich/Switzerland
Telephone (+41) 1 278 23 23
Fax (+41) 1 278 28 19
E-Mail: contact@vatew.ch

VA TECH VOEST MCE GmbH & Co

Lunzerstrasse 78
P.O. Box 36
A-4031 Linz/Austria
Telephone (+43) 732/6987-8014
Fax (+43) 732/ 6980-4738
E-Mail: contact@vamce.co.at

12

e/XX.XX.30 ZC-00