Computational Materials Science 64 (2012) 253–259

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computational Materials Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/commatsci

Computation of stress distribution in a Francis turbine runner induced by fluid flow

R. Negru a,⇑, S. Muntean b, L. Marsavina a, R. Susan-Resiga a, N. Pasca a
a
Politehnica University of Timisoara, Bv. Mihai Viteazu 1, 300222 Timisoara, Romania
b
Centre of Advanced Research in Engineering Sciences, Romania Academy – Timisoara Branch, Bv. Mihai Viteazu 24, 300223 Timisoara, Romania

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper the hydraulic stresses induced in a Francis turbine runner blade by steady fluid flow were
Received 2 November 2011 investigated. Based on the one-way coupled simulation, the approach consists of a fluid flow analysis
Received in revised form 15 May 2012 which provides the distribution of the fluid pressure on the blade, followed by the structural finite ele-
Accepted 31 May 2012
ment analysis. The three dimensional turbulent flow in both distributor and runner of Francis turbines
Available online 27 June 2012
were computed. The computational domains correspond to interblade channels for the Francis turbine
distributor and runner, respectively. In order to couple the steady absolute distributor flow field with
Keywords:
the runner steady relative flow, a mixing interface technique is used on the conical distributor–runner
Hydraulic turbine blade
Fluid flow analysis
interface. The hydrodynamic field is computed in seven operating points at constant head from part load
Structural stress analysis to full load conditions. The pressure coefficient distribution on the blade is plotted in order to evaluate
the blade loading and region with cavitational risk. Further, the stress distributions were obtained by a
structural finite element analysis performed for the steady loading in order to determine the areas with
highest stress values.
Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Hydropower is the largest source of renewable energy and it is
the most efficient way to generate electricity. Besides being an
environmentally clean and renewable source of energy, the variable
demand on the energy market, as well as the limited energy storage
capabilities, requires a high flexibility in operating hydraulic tur-
bines. As a result, hydraulic turbines are frequently operated with
a large number of start–stop cycles and over an extended range of
regimes quite far from the best efficiency point (BEP), often at part
load conditions (PL) with high pressure fluctuations generated by
vortex rope in the draft tube. Therefore, strong vibrations are in-
duced which can produce fatigue failure on the mechanical compo-
nents [1], especially on the turbine runner blades [2].
The loads acting on the Francis turbine runner can be steady or
unsteady. The first type includes the fluid pressure and the centrif-
ugal force. The second type is composed of the high frequency
pressure fluctuations due to stator–rotor interaction as well as vor-
tex rope phenomenon. Under these loading conditions, the devel-
opment of fatigue cracks is the major concern with regards to
the structural integrity of the runners and its represent a threat
to safe operation of the hydraulic turbines.
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Politehnica University of Timisoara, Depart-
ment of Mechanics and Strength of Materials, Bv. Mihai Viteazu 1, 300222
Timisoara, Romania. Tel.: +40 256 40 35 75, fax: +40 256 40 35 23.
E-mail addresses: blackradu@yahoo.com, radun@mec.upt.ro (R. Negru), seby@
acad-tim.tm.edu.ro (S. Muntean), msvina@mec.upt.ro (L. Marsavina), resiga@mh.
mec.upt.ro (R. Susan-Resiga), nicu_pasca21@yahoo.com (N. Pasca).
Several studies were reported in the last years for the computa-
tion and experimental measurement of the static and dynamic
stresses induced in Francis turbine blades by the steady and the
unsteady loading, respectively. The static stresses in the blades of
a Francis turbine runner at different operating points were investi-
gated by Saeed [3] by using the finite element method with inlet
boundary conditions imposed from analytical computation. More-
over, in this case the three-dimensional flow generated by guide
vanes is not taken into account. A good agreement between the fi-
nite element analysis and the strain gauge experimental measure-
ments was found by Bjørndal et al. [4] for the flow induced static
stresses in a medium head Francis runner. Based on a sequential
coupled fluid–structure interaction, a similar approach was used
by Sadowski and Golewski [5] in the multidisciplinary analysis of
the thermal heat transfer of the turbine blades in combustion
engines.
The purpose of this paper is the analysis of stress field induced
in the runner blades of a medium specific speed Francis turbine by
the steady loading at seven operating regimes at constant head.
The following analysis is based on the one-way coupled simulation
approach. Section 2 consists of a computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) simulation which provides the fluid pressure distribution
on the blade. It is followed by the structural finite element analysis
(FEA) in Section 3. The conclusions are drawn in last section.
2. Fluid flow analysis
The case corresponds to a medium specific speed Francis turbine
with parameters presented in Table 1, where: Q [m3/s] – discharge,

0927-0256/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.05.073
254 R. Negru et al. / Computational Materials Science 64 (2012) 253–259

n [rpm] – speed, H [m] – net head, x = pn/30 [rad/s] – angular

speed, Rref [m] – reference radius at the runner outlet, E = gH [J/
kg] – specific energy, [6].
The distributor consists of 16 stay vanes and 16 guide vanes
whilst the runner has 14 blades with the reference radius at the
runner outlet Rref = 1.1375 [m]. Fig. 1 shows the three-dimensional
geometry of the Francis runner reconstructed based on the draw-
ings. The hydrodynamic field was computed in 7 operating points
displaced at constant head and variable discharge. The investigated
operating points shown in Table 2 correspond to: best efficiency
point (BEP), 4 points at partial load (marked with PL) and 2 over-
load points (labeled with OL), where the dimensionless discharge
is computed as follows: Q/QBEP.
The distributor (stay vanes and guide vanes) computational do-
main shown in Fig. 2 corresponds to an inter-blade channel,
bounded upstream by a cylindrical patch and downstream by a
conical patch. The distributor inlet section corresponds to the spir-
al casing outlet section, while the outlet section is conventionally
considered to be the distributor–runner interface. Also, the runner
computational domain presented in Fig. 2 corresponds to an inter-
blade channel bounded upstream by a conical patch (wrapped on Fig. 1. The three-dimensional reconstruction of the Francis runner geometry.

the same conical surface as the distributor outlet) and extended

downstream up to the draft tube inlet. Table 2
The distributor computational domain from Fig. 2 is discretized Operating points investigated.
with approximately 750,000 hexahedral cells. The distributor com-
Label Dimensionless discharge Q/QBEP [%] Operating point regime
putational domain and its associated grid are generated for each
PL4 68.23 Part load
investigated operating point, with variable guide vane opening.
PL3 75.83 Part load
The runner computational domain, due to its three-dimensional PL2 85.41 Part load
complex shape, is discretized using a mixed mesh. It is performed PL1 92.81 Part load
a mesh refinement study in order to assess the reliability and accu- BEP 100.00 Best efficiency point
racy of the numerical results. Consequently, the difference of the OL1 106.60 Overload
OL2 113.40 Overload
dimensionless power shaft computed with respect to the experi-
mental one at BEP is obtained. The numerical results are computed
on three meshes: a coarse mesh of 383,487 cells (2.6%), a medium
mesh with 799,480 cells (1.9%) and the fine one with 2,254,135 cells
(1.7%), respectively. We have further used the medium grid which
ensures an overall values below 2% with respect to the measured
shaft power.
A mixing interface technique for coupling the distributor and
runner velocity and pressure fields as well as the turbulence quan-
tities was used, see Fig. 2. This approach performs a circumferential
averaging of the velocity components and pressure, while the tur-
bulence quantities on the distributor outlet are averaged on the
whole section. This circumferential averaging technique was care-
fully chosen in order to preserve the velocity and the pressure pro-
files on the mixing interface. Two additional requirements are
satisfied by the mixing technique: the sharp velocity gradients
near solid surfaces are correctly represented and the discharge is
conserved during the iteration process, [7].
The boundary conditions imposed on the computational do-
mains are as follows: Fig. 2. The distributor and runner computational domains.

(1) velocity field is prescribed on the inflow section for both spiral casing outlet, and the mixed velocity profile on the
distributor and runner domains. The velocity profile pre- distributor outlet section is imposed on the runner inlet
scribed on the distributor inlet section corresponds to the section;
(2) turbulence quantities (turbulence intensity and turbulence
length scale) are prescribed on the inflow section for both
distributor and runner domains. Also, the turbulence quanti-
Table 1 ties are imposed on the runner inlet section for each itera-
Parameters of the Francis turbine with medium specific speed. tion. It is well known, the Reynolds number gives a
measure of the ratio of inertial forces to viscous one. The
Parameters Value Equations according to IEC [6]
Reynolds number associated to the actual Francis turbine
Characteristic speed 70 nQ0.5H0.75
operating at BEP is 2.35  107. Consequently, the inviscid
Discharge coefficient 0.28 Q ðpxR32e Þ1
computation can be performed in order to evaluate with
Energy coefficient 1.264 2EðxR2e Þ2
enough accuracy the blade loading for operating conditions
Dimensionless specific speed 0.444 u0.5w0.75
near to BEP [8].
 R. Negru et al. / Computational Materials Science 64 (2012) 253–259
Fig. 3. The numerical results against experimental data of the dimensionless shaft
power vs. dimensionless discharge at constant head.
Fig. 4. The Francis turbine cross section.
However, the viscous effects became significant when the tur-
bine operates far away to the best efficiency point where the flow
separation is appeared. In this paper, the three-dimensional turbu-
lent flow computation is performed for all investigated operating
points using a k–e model. Therefore, a turbulence intensity of 2%
and a turbulence length scale of 0.01 m are assumed on the distrib-
utor inlet section. These values are computed as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
I ¼ 100 2k=3V 2sc ½%
and the turbulence length scale
3=2
l ¼ C 3=4
l k =e ½m
over the spiral casing (sc) outlet section. From three-dimensional
turbulent numerical simulation performed on the hydropower
plant passage from penstock to the runner the following average
values are obtained on the spiral casing outlet section in order to
255
Fig. 5. The pressure distribution on the st1, st2 and st3 sections, at BEP.
Fig. 6. The pressure distribution on the st1, st2 and st3 sections, at PL3.
compute the turbulence quantities: the turbulent kinetic energy
k = 0.01718 [m2/s2], the turbulent dissipation rate e = 0.03717 [m2/
s3], the mean velocity on the spiral casing outlet section Vsc = 5
[m/s] and the empirical constant specified in the turbulence model
Cl = 0.09.
(3) pressure distribution is imposed on the distributor outlet
section and an arbitrary (e.g. constant) outlet pressure distri-
bution is used to initialize the iterative process. On the run-
ner outlet section the radial equilibrium outlet condition is
prescribed, assuming that in this section is no radial flow
[7];
(4) periodic conditions are imposed on the periodic boundaries;
(5) wall conditions are imposed on the stay vanes, guide vanes
ð1Þ and runner blades, as well as on the distributor upper/lower
rings and runner band and crown, respectively.
Firstly, the distributor flow was computed using the inlet veloc-
ð2Þ ity profile and an arbitrary (e.g. constant) outlet pressure distribu-
tion. Next, iterations were performed as follows:
(a) compute the runner flow, using the inlet velocity distribu-
tion obtained at the distributor outlet and the radial equilib-
rium outlet condition for outlet pressure;
256 R. Negru et al. / Computational Materials Science 64 (2012) 253–259

(b) compute the distributor flow, keeping the inlet velocity con-
stant and using the outlet pressure distribution obtained at
the runner inlet;
(c) he stopping criterion considered in this procedure was that
the pressure distribution on the distributor–runner interface
remains practically unchanged from one iteration to
another.
In order to compute the velocity and pressure fields a segre-
gated solver was used within the FLUENT code, [9].
Moreover, the numerical results obtained with described meth-
odology were validated against experimental data on the Francis
turbine model, [7].
The turbine power shaft is computed based on fluid flow simu-
lation using next equation:
can see a good agreement between the shaft power values com-
puted based on the fluid flow simulation (with line) and experi-
mental data measured in situ (with points). As a result, it is
performed a global validation of the blade loading further used
in Section 3 for structural analysis.
The numerical results obtained in the fluid flow analysis are
presented below for two operating points, BEP and PL3, along to
three streamlines (st1 near the crown, st2 middle and st3 near to
the band, Fig. 4).
The pressure coefficient cp distribution vs. normalized blade
length s is plotted in Fig. 5 at BEP. The pressure coefficient is com-
puted as follows:
cp ¼ ðp  pref Þ=ðqEÞ ½ ð5Þ

P ¼ T x ½W ð3Þ where p [Pa] is the static pressure, pref [Pa] the reference static pres-
sure on the cone wall, q [kg/m3] the water density and E [J/kg] the
where x = 39.27 [rad/s] is the angular speed and T is the runner tor- specific energy. One can observe the minimum pressure was ob-
que computed as follows: tained on the suction side (SS) near to the band. It is well known
Z  that this region is associated with cavitational risk. The pressure
  
T¼N ~r s n dS  ~
 ~ iz ½Nm ð4Þ distribution near to the crown (solid line) presents an unwanted
S
shape, see Fig. 5, due to the straight leading edge selected in the
where N = 14 is the runner blade number, S represents the surface old design of the Francis runner. The flow impact is moved on the
comprising the rotating parts of the runner, s  is the stress tensor pressure side (PS) when the Francis runner operates at part load
(including the pressure and the viscosity stresses), ~
n is the unit vec- conditions. As a result, the minimum pressure coefficient cp arises
r is the position vector and ~
tor normal to the surface, ~ iz is the unit on suction side near the leading edge (LE) at the junction with the
vector along to the axis of rotation. band. This statement is promoted by pressure coefficient cp distri-
The power of the turbine shaft computed for investigated oper- bution along to the streamline near to the band at part load operat-
ating points are plotted in Fig. 3 against experimental data. One ing point PL3, see Fig. 6.

Fig. 7. The von Mises equivalent stress distribution on pressure (left) and suction sides (right) at BEP.
 R. Negru et al. / Computational Materials Science 64 (2012) 253–259
3. Structural analysis
The structural analysis response is based on the one-way cou-
pled simulation approach, in which the fluid pressure obtained
from CFD is applied as a load condition. Due to high rigidity of
the Francis turbine runner, the influence of the runner blade defor-
mation is not taken into account in the fluid flow analysis. The
structural numerical analyses were performed using Ansys Work-
bench software [10].
Considering the periodical symmetry of the runner, in the struc-
tural stress analysis the geometrical model was reduced to one sin-
gle runner blade of which the crown and band were removed. This
simplified model neglects the geometrical details such as the
rounded junction between blade and crown, as well as blade and
band, respectively. Therefore, this model will underestimate the le-
vel of maximum stresses, which controls the fatigue mechanism.
This deficiency can be compensated by applying to the maximum
stresses obtained a stress concentration factor which correspond
to the rounded junction mentioned above.
To ensure the accurate transfer of the fluid pressure field ob-
tained in CFD the finite element solid mesh of the runner blade
and the finite volume mesh of the fluid domain were generated to-
gether. Using an eight nodes homogeneous structural solid ele-
ment SOLID 185 [10] with three degrees of freedom at each
node, a solid mesh containing 61,140 elements and 38,186 nodes
was obtained.
The material considered in the structural linear-elastic analysis
was a martensitic–ferritic–austenitic stainless steel [2], with the
following mechanical properties: density, Young’s modulus and
Fig. 8. The maximum principal stress distribution on pressure (left) and suction sides (right) at BEP.
257
Poisson’s coefficient equal to 7850 [kg/m3], 2.05 [MPa] and respec-
tively 0.3.
After the generation of the finite element mesh, the following
boundary conditions were applied on the model: (i) loads due to
the centrifugal force induced by rotation at 375 [rpm], to the fluid
pressure distribution imported from fluid flow analysis and to the
runner blade own weight (the fluid volume weight was neglected);
(ii) on the two ends of the blade, representing the transition areas
to crown and to band, zero displacements were assigned (fixed
supports).
The three-dimensional stress analysis of the turbine runner
blade was performed at the operating points presented in Table 2.
Characteristic stress fields are presented at BEP in terms of von
Mises equivalent stress Seqv in Fig. 7, and maximum principal
stress S1 in Fig. 8, for pressure and suction sides of the blade.
The highest stress values occur at the junction between blade
and crown, near the trailing edge, on the pressure side of the blade.
In this case the maximum principal stress S1 is 38.5 [MPa], and the
von Mises equivalent stress Seqv is 44.18 [MPa]. Toward band,
along the trailing edge, these stresses decrease gradually to 3.17
[MPa] for S1, and to 7.93 [MPa] for Seqv. For the leading edge, the
highest stress values occur at the junction between blade and
band, on the pressure side. The stress distributions are plotted
vs. normalized blade surface length s in Fig. 9. In this paper the
stress distributions are plotted along to the junctions between
the blade-crown (denoted j1 in Fig. 4) and blade-band (marked
with j2 in Fig. 4), respectively.
Similar stress distributions were found for the two over load
operating points (OL1 and OL2), but with higher values for stress
258 R. Negru et al. / Computational Materials Science 64 (2012) 253–259

Fig. 9. The stress distribution along to the junction j1 (up) and to the junction j2 Fig. 10. The stress distribution along to the junction j1 (up) and to the junction j2
(down), at BEP. (down), at PL4.

level peaks. For the part load operating points investigated compa-
rable levels of stress peaks occur on both trailing and leading edge,
as can be seen in Fig. 10 at PL4.
The values of the maximum principal stress S1 and equivalent
stress Seqv vs. dimensionless discharge Q/QBEP, on junction j1 at
trailing edge, are plotted in Fig. 11. As can be seen, the static stress
values change nonlinearly with the dimensionless discharge, in
terms of the operating conditions. One can observe a quasi-
constant stress value around to the BEP (from PL2 to OL1) due to
the small changes of the fluid flow stream. The maximum value
of static stress is obtained at maximum discharge, while the min-
imum values are associated to the part load conditions (under
PL2). However, the structural analysis performed in this investiga-
tion takes into account only the steady loading. The further work
have to take into account the unsteady phenomena (e.g. vortex
rope and interblade vertices) associated with the operation at part
load conditions.

4. Conclusions

A one-way coupled simulation was performed to compute the

flow fields and static stresses on a Francis turbine runner. The main
results are the following: (1) the pressure distribution on the Fran-
cis turbine runner blade is computed at constant head and seven Fig. 11. The stress variations on junction j1 at trailing edge vs. dimensionless
variable discharge using coupled algorithm between distributor discharge.
 R. Negru et al. / Computational Materials Science 64 (2012) 253–259
and runner; (2) the maximum static stresses occur at the transition
between the blade and the crown, near the trailing edge, at BEP
and over load (OL1, OL2) operating conditions. Contrary, at part
load operating conditions (PL4, PL3, PL2 and PL1) comparable lev-
els of stress peaks occur on both trailing and leading edge; (3) the
static stress values change nonlinearly with the dimensionless dis-
charge, in terms of the operating conditions.
Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by the project ‘‘Development and sup-
port for multidisciplinary postdoctoral programmes in major tech-
nical areas of national strategy for Research-Development-
Innovation’’ 4D-POSTDOC, Contract No. POSDRU/89/1.5/S/52603,
project co-funded by the European Social Fund through Sectorial
Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007–
2013. N. Pasca was partially supported by the strategic grant
POSDRU ID77265 (2010), co-financed by the European Social Fund
– Investing in People, within the Sectorial Operational Programme
Human Resources Development 2007–2013. Dr. S. Muntean and
Prof. R. Susan-Resiga were supported by the Romanian Academy
program.
259
References
[1] F. Casanova, Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 2202–2208.
[2] D. Frunzaverde, S. Muntean, G. Marginean, V. Campian, L. Marsavina, R. Terzi,
V. Serban, Failure analysis of a Francis turbine runner, in: IOP Conf. Series,
Earth and Environment Science, vol. 12, 2010, pp. 012115 1–10.
[3] R.A. Saeed, A.N. Galybin, V. Popov, Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010)
1245–1255.
[4] H. Bjørndal, T. Moltubakk, H. Aunemo, Flow induced stresses in a medium head
Francis runner – Strain gauge measurements in an operating plant and
comparison with Finite Element Analysis, in: 10th International Meeting of the
IAHR Work Group on the Behaviour of Hydraulic Machinery Under Steady
Oscillatory Conditions, Trondheim, Norway, 2001.
[5] T. Sadowski, P. Golewski, Computational Materials Science 50 (2011) 1326–
1335.
[6] International Electrotechnique Commission, IEC 60913 Standard Hydraulic
Turbines, Storage Pumps and Pump-Turbines-Model Acceptance Tests,
International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 1999.
[7] S. Muntean, R. Resiga, I. Anton, Mixing interface algorithm for 3D turbulent
flow of the GAMM Francis turbine, in: J. Vad, T. Lajos, R. Schilling (Eds.),
Modelling Fluid Flow – The State of the Art, Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 359–
372.
[8] G. Sottas, I.L. Ryhming (Eds.), 3D-computation of incompressible internal
flows, in: Proceedings of GAMM Workshop, NNMF 39, Vieweg Verlag,
Braunschweig, 1993.
[9] Fluent Inc., FLUENT 6.3, User’s Guide, Lebanon, New Hampshire, 2006.
[10] ANSYS Inc., ANSYS Workbench User’s Guide 12.1, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania,
2009.