KATHMANDU UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Department of Mechanical Engineering

Internship Report on
Replication of Sediment Erosion in Francis Turbine

Submitted to
Turbine Testing Lab
Department of Mechanical Engineering
School of Engineering
Kathmandu University

Supervisor
Er. Biraj Singh Thapa
Assistant Professor and Faculty In-charge
Turbine Testing Lab
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Kathmandu University
Submitted by
Ravi Koirala
Bachelor in Engineering
[Mechanical Engineering]
Kathmandu University
September 02, 2012

Preface
This report has been written at Turbine Testing Lab, School of Engineering, Kathmandu University.
Its a summarizing act of one month internship at TTL. The literatures involved here are the collective
acts of various researchers in the various interval of time. The research work has been performed with a
vision of setting up a Francis turbine test rig in Turbine Testing Lab, Kathmandu University for the
future development of erosion resistant turbine in Nepal. Since Turbine Testing Lab is moving ahead
with a goal of establishing a Francis turbine manufacturing company in Nepal it would be a milestone
for research and developmental facility of the erosion resistant turbine in the Turbine Testing Lab,
Kathmandu University.
One month internship at TTL was very much fruitful in developing the conceptual design of the rig. I
personally am very much grateful to my supervisor Mr. Biraj Singh Thapa for sharing his personal
experiences and interest related to the field as per his observations. Opening the hand in new prospect
was quiet difficult for me during the starting, but the tracked guidance of my supervisor and the very
relevant and related literatures supply from Mr. Amod Panthee really made my way much easier.
I assure for the successful completion of the project, since I am further studying on it as my final year
project. I am waiting for the day of its full functioning in the lab giving an outcome.

Ravi Koirala, Hetauda, August 27, 2012

i|Page

Abstract
This report is totally based on my internship at Turbine Testing Lab, Kathmandu University under the
project titled Feasibility study of turbine manufacturing company in Nepal with the subtitle Methods
to replicate sediment erosion in Francis turbine. The intern was performed for a period of 1 month
and was totally based on the replicating issues of sediment erosion in the Francis runner. Majorly the
literature attempts relating to the practical aspects were made during the study. And the outcome was
model of test rig for Francis runner to check for sediment erosion.
Since the title is first of its kind, very little literature relevant to the subject matter was found. So far as
the replicating issues are concerned only the tests regarding the effect on the material have been
investigated. This title is an attempt for analyzing the effect of sediment on the runner blade profile
rather than concerning over the past attempts of effect on material.
Sediment erosion being one of the greatest challenges for hydropower development in the Himalayan;
Nepal and Andes region; Brazil. In the countries with such an enormous hydro potentiality the problem
of erosion is causing a massive problem by eroding the exposed turbine parts which consequently
decreases the efficiency and performance of the turbine. This is greatly affecting the hydropower sector
in the regions.
Turbine Testing Lab being a premier institution in Nepal, this project is its attempt to replicate the
erosion in the lab so that a suitable profiled Francis turbine could be designed in the turbine testing lab
having minimum effect of sediment erosion on it.
As a part of future work this project will be continued as my final year project at Turbine Testing Lab
which would include the additional literature reviews along with the detailed design, fabrication and
installation of the rig in Turbine Testing Lab, Kathmandu University.

ii | P a g e

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my supervisor Er. Biraj Singh Thapa for letting me work with this project by
visualizing the technology we are searching for and also sharing his experiences and understandings
regarding the topic. I am also thankful to Turbine Testing Lab, Kathmandu University for providing me
the working environment during my 1 month study.
Er. Amod Panthee and Er. Sudip Adhikary deserve my special greeting for supporting me to work with
the project from the concept development to the practical demonstration probability of the setup. Also I
am thankful to them for helping me find the research papers related to the topic.
I also thank Er. Nirmal Adhikary, Er. Aatma Kyastha, Er. Nikhil Gurung and Er. Juben Bhaukaji for
their encouragement, help and support during the course of study. Last but not the list my thanks to my
friends and interns at TTL Mausam, Nitish, Suren, Roshan, Paritosh, Gaurav and Rojina for the
encouragements while I was having difficulty in understanding the project.

iii | P a g e

Table of Content
Preface ...................................................................................................................................................................... i
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Content...................................................................................................................................................... iv
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of study....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Current research activity ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. TURBINE TESTING LAB .......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Background..................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Specification ................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Purpose of Turbine Testing Lab...................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Model ............................................................................................................................................................. 3
3. PROBLEMS ON FRANCIS TURBINE ........................................................................................................................ 4
4. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FRANCIS TURBINE ......................................................................................... 88
4.1 Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Cavitation ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Runaway tests: ............................................................................................................................................. 11
4.4 Sediment Erosion calculation ....................................................................................................................... 12
5. SEDIMENT EROSION IN HYDRAULIC TURBINES .................................................................................................. 15
5.1 Erosion Mechanism ...................................................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Factors affecting erosion .............................................................................................................................. 16
5.3 Design of Turbine to minimize sediment erosion ........................................................................................ 16
5.4 Effect of Sediment Erosion on Francis Turbine ............................................................................................ 18
6. EVALUATION OF EROSION ................................................................................................................................. 19
6.1 Field test method ......................................................................................................................................... 19
6.1.1 Methodology of field test ......................................................................................................................... 19
6.1.2 Need of Field test...................................................................................................................................... 22
6.2 Laboratory test method ............................................................................................................................... 24
6.2.1 Objectives of Laboratory test method...................................................................................................... 24
6.2.2 Need of Laboratory test ............................................................................................................................ 24
iv | P a g e

6.2.3 Types of Laboratory test .......................................................................................................................... 24

7. FRANCIS TURBINE TEST RIG................................................................................................................................ 46
7.1 Requirements in the test rig......................................................................................................................... 46
7.2 Design of the rig ........................................................................................................................................... 46
8. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................... 51
9. FUTURE WORK ................................................................................................................................................... 52
References .............................................................................................................................................................. 53
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................ 55

v|Page

List of Illustration
Fig 2.1 3D model of TTL .3
Fig 2.2 3D model of TTL 3
Fig 3.1 Fatigue crack propagation in hydraulic turbine ..4
Fig 3.2 Effect of Cavitation in Francis runner .5
Fig 3.3 Effect of sediment erosion in Francis runner of Cahua Hydropower ..7
Fig 5.1 Cutting Erosion .15
Fig 5.2 Surface fatigue .15
Fig 5.3 Plastic Deformation 15
Fig 5.4 Brittle fracture 16

Fig 5.5 Turbine selection diagram ..17

Fig 6.1 Probe instrument ..20
Table 6.1 Probe life and element ID .21
Fig 6.2 ER probe using pressure ..21
Fig 6.3 Air-blast sand erosion test rig 25
Fig 6.4 High temperature erosion test rig ..26
Fig 6.5 Cavendish laboratory sand erosion test facility 26
Fig 6.6 Schematic of the slurry jet erosion rig 27
Fig 6.7 Jet type equipment ..27
Fig 6.8 Venturi section for particle suction ..28
Fig 6.9 Erosion-corrosion test rig 28
Fig 6.10 General schematic diagram of high velocity liquid jet erosion test rig 28
Fig 6.11 Slurry pot apparatus .29
Fig 6.12 Surry erosion pot 29
Fig 6.13 Rotating cylinder 30
Fig 6.14 Rotating disc .30
Fig 6.15 Pot tester for slurry parallel flow 30
Fig 6.16 Errosion corrosion simulaor 31
Fig 6.17 Sand-hydroblast apparatus EO-2 31
Fig 6.18 Schematic diagram showing placement of samples ..32
Fig 6.19 Cross sectional view of wear test facility .32
Fig 6.20 Erosion-corrosion fluidized bed apparatus ..33
Fig 6.21 Schematic diagram of CMS-100 erosion tester 33
Fig 6.22 Wheel and jet apparatus for erosion studies 33
Fig 6.23 Schematics of the Coriolis slurry erosion tester 34
Fig 6.24 Centrifugal slurry pump experiment 34
Fig 6.24 Schematic diagram of pilot plant 35
Fig 6.25 Pilot-scale sand/water rig with pipe loop ..35
Fig 6.26 Scheme of the device for testing abrasive erosion of concrete ..36
Fig 6.27 Test rig in Water Power Laboratory, NTNU ..36
Fig 6.28 Schematic working principle of the rig ..36
Fig 6.29 Schematic diagram of slurry erosion test rig ..37
Fig 6.30 Schematic diagram of laboratory test equipment 37
Fig 6.31 High velocity test rig ..38
vi | P a g e

Fig 6.32 Schematic diagram of the designed slurry erosion whirling-arm rig .39
Fig 6.33 Schematic of the test rig 40
Fig 6.35 Schematic of open loop test rig 40
Fig 6.37 Schematic of closed loop rig .41
Fig 6.38 IEC 62364 suggested test rig for analysis .41
Fig 6.39 IEC 62364 test rig with multiple rotating specimens 42
Fig 6.40 Hydro cyclone sand separator ..43
Fig 6.41 Sediment separator 44
Fig 6.42 Slow sand filter 44
Fig 6.43 Modified Bio sand filter 45
Fig 7.1 Schematic diagram of Francis turbine test rig ..47
Fig 7.2 Front view of the rig ..48
Fig 7.3 Back view of the rig 48
Fig 7.4 View without the water pipe .49
Fig 7.5 Cross-sectional view ..49
Fig 7.6 Sediment Settler 49
Fig 7.7 Front view of Sediment Settler 49
Fig 7.8 Final assembly drawing of the rig setup .50

vii | P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of study
The energy demand in the global context is increasing rapidly with the developmental activities taking place.
Hydropower stands as the green solution to this global energy demand. Despite of the enormous hydro
potentiality only about 3% of the global energy share has been occupied by hydroelectricity. In the countries
like Nepal and Brazil where the potentiality is in tremendous amount are lacking behind in the establishment of
the new projects because of the business and operating risk caused by several factors majorly sediment erosion
in hydraulic turbines.
The sediment content in the rivers of Andes valley and Himalayan region are the major cause of the turbine
destruction due to erosion. Almost all the turbine imported for Nepalese hydropower are only tested for their
performance, no specific tests are performed for the sediment erosion behavior. As far as the existing practice
of erosion modeling is concerned only the analysis upon modeling has been performed, which is not always
sufficient for the erosion prediction.
Turbine Testing Lab, with a vision of development of erosion resistant Francis turbine in Nepal has initiated this
research in order to replicate sediment erosion in the laboratory setup at TTL, KU.

1.2 Objectives
2. To study the performance test criterion in practice.
3. To study the existing erosion test methodology and its effectiveness.
4. To develop a conceptual design for the sediment erosion replication in Laboratory.
1.3 Current research activity
The current research activity is limited up to the horizon of development of concepts regarding the replication
methods. Different literatures containing the practice of erosion modeling has been consulted in order to
develop a vision for the standard test method. Also the IEC standard methodology will be consulted for further
enhancing the test system.
After the feasibility study and concept development we will be further continuing our activity in the tittle
Design, fabrication and installation of Francis runner test rig in Turbine Testing Lab, Kathmandu University for
next 1 year working period.

1|Page

2. TURBINE TESTING LAB

2.1 Background
Turbine Testing Lab [TTL], Kathmandu University is our work station; since the lab is first of its kind in South
Asia dedicated towards research and development of hydraulic turbine, understanding the lab setup and
operating technique has become a part of the intern.

TTL is the only lab in the country with 30 meters open system head and 150 meters closed system head
capable of testing prototypes up to 300kW and model test for larger turbines. TTL have state of art of
technologies such as Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis for
new design or upgrading turbines and hydro mechanical components of power plants. The lab also
includes state of art control system.

2.2 Specification
TTL, Kathmandu University has following physical features:

30 metres open system head

150 metres closed system head

maximum flow

300 kW maximum testing capacity

capacity lower ( lab) reservoir

capcity upper reservoir

2.3

5000 kg EOT crane capacity

Purpose of Turbine Testing Lab

Build competence and knowledge within the hydropower sector of Nepal

Teaching or learning facility

Industrial courses
Staff training for the industry
Motivate research

Development of efficient turbines able to withstand sand erosion.

Development of turbine and pump technology
Maintenance of turbines
Provide a meeting place for industry and university

For research and student projects for the industry

Open doors for collaborative research with national and international universities and
research institutions.

2|Page

2.3 Model
The 3D model of TTL was included from the intern report of Er. Sudip Adhikari [37]

Fig 2.1 3D model of TTL

Fig 2.2 3D model of TTL

3|Page

3. PROBLEMS ON FRANCIS TURBINE

Hydro power stands as the best alternative for energy solution, since it has high efficiency and of course very
low maintenance cost compared to all other energy sources. Despite of this capability sometimes it becomes
risk in investing on such a charm because of several physical factors related to it. We are going to discuss those
physical factors as the problems on the hydraulic turbine in this chapter. These factors are responsible for the
degradation or elimination of the charm of the hydro power plant. Majorly we are going to discuss about the
following factors related to hydraulic turbines:

i.

Fatigue:
Turbine runners experience start-stop cycles and vibration cycles. Cracks initiated from
service or manufacturing defects and propagated by start-stop cycles become critical when
the stress intensity range due to vibrational loading exceeds the threshold for fatigue crack
growth. In Francis turbine runners, semi-elliptical surface cracks tend to propagate from the
quarter-circular transition of the welded T-joint transition between the blade and the band or
crown.
Failure in engineering structures due to fatigue loading generally occurs in areas of stress
concentration. Decades of operating experience have shown hydraulic turbine runners to
develop fatigue cracks in areas where stress concentrations and material defects coincide.
This is the case in the welded areas of high-pressure Francis turbine runners. Here, fatigue
cracks tend to occur either very early in life or after ten to twenty years of operation. The
failure mechanism is considered to be a combination of low-cycle fatigue from operational
start-stop and high-cycle fatigue due to hydraulic load fluctuations. Since the critical area of
stress concentration consists of welded material, it has to be assumed that crack propagation
from single undetected flaws and inclusions takes place as soon as the runner is taken into
service [38].
Corrosion fatigue is fatigue in a corrosive environment. It is the mechanical degradation of a
material under the joint action of corrosion and cyclic loading. Nearly all engineering
structures experience some form of alternating stress, and are exposed to harmful
environments during their service life. The environment plays a significant role in the
fatigue of high-strength structural materials like steel, aluminum alloys and titanium alloys.
Materials with high specific strength are being developed to meet the requirements of
advancing technology. However, their usefulness depends to a large extent on the extent to
which they resist corrosion fatigue [38].

Fig 3.1 Fatigue crack propagation in hydraulic turbine

4|Page

ii.

Cavitation:
It is the phenomenon of formation, growth, travel and sudden collapsing of the vapor
bubbles in the hydraulic turbine specially Francis turbine. These vapor bubbles are formed
in the low pressure zone and when travelling with the flowing water it gets collapsed in the
high pressure region and results the pitting effect on the surface. They form the cavities on
the turbine surface which consequently results into the considerable noise and vibration of
the system also the designed thickness of the system gets depleted and the expected outcome
could not be met. Also the actual volume of water passing through the turbine is decreased
since the volumes of bubbles are larger than the liquid. Consequently there will be loss of
efficiency of the turbine which again enhances the risk [39].
Usually on general ideal working condition the operating and maintenance cost of hydro
power is far cheaper in compared to other energy sources but because of this sorts of
problem it rapidly increase the cost beyond the expectation which is fading the investment
on the Hydropower Plant. The immediate action from the relevant field in each of the
problem becomes of major priority.
The precaution from such types of problems can be attained by
- Not allowing the pressure of the flowing liquid to drop below its vapor pressure.
- using special type of cavitation erosion resistant coating in the turbine.
- using runner of low specific speed so that the turbine is not submerged and also the
cavitation free system is developed.
- selecting the runner of proper specific speed in the given head.

Fig 3.2 Effect of Cavitation in Francis runner [39]

5|Page

iii.

Vibration:
Vibration literally meaning a periodic motion of the articles of an elastic body or medium in
alternately opposite directions from the position of equilibrium when that equilibrium has
been disturbed [41]. Among the all other types of turbine the problem of vibration in Francis
turbine is higher. The major causes of vibration in Francis turbine could be mechanical,
electrical or hydraulic causes. They are briefly discussed below [40]:
- Mechanical causes:
o Centrifugal forces due to imbalance of the rotating mass i.e. runner, shaft and
generator rotor.
o Elastic force of the shaft due to incorrect shaft alignment.
o Frictional forces
o Oil-film instability in bearing.
-

Hydraulic causes:
o Flow through waterways: Non uniform velocity distribution in various
waterways of the turbine causing hydraulic unbalance.
o Draft tube flow instabilities: These occur in Francis turbines even during steadystate operation outside the optimum efficiency ranges.
o Cavitation: This is due to incorrect flow conditions around the runner or impeller
blade profiles and occurs mostly within the higher load ranges.
o Hydro elastic vibration: this is due to incorrectly shaped discharge edge of
hydraulic profiles (blades, wicket gates, stay vanes etc).
o Self-excited vibration: This occurs where the movement of mechanical parts
(seals, clearances, etc.) can influence the flow around or through these.
o Pressure fluctuations in the penstock.

Electrical causes:
o Magnetic forces between stator and rotor.
o Forces due to non-uniform air gap between stator and rotor.
o Forces created by the partial or total short-circuiting of the pole winding of rotor.

Majorly the effect of vibration brings the inconsistency of operation of the machine. Also in the
other hand it results into the Fatigue of the hydraulic machines and its component since it
discharges cyclic forces over the system. Also the vibration is responsible for failure of machine
in some cases. Apart from the physical effect the noise due to vibration brings up the mental
effect to the operator and its surrounding. The geographical harm also can be experienced in
some cases which may result into landslide or some other similar type of problem.

6|Page

iv.

Sediment Erosion:
This is our cup of tea over which my one month internship is dependent over. This problem
is basically found in the hydropower plants with the run-off-river type. The Nepalese river
consists of large amount of sediments in it, this sediment with the flowing water when
strikes the turbine parts or surfaces then erodes the turbine. Cases like 2.8 million ton/year
of sediment passing through the turbine are felt in the Nepalese river [12].
Basically the thinning of turbine wall or part and drastic reduction in the turbine efficiency
is the major problem invited by it. Sediment erosion in Nepal is considered as one of the
biggest problem creating a sense of risk for the investment in the sector. Several research
and practice has been implemented to enhance the performance of the turbine regarding the
sediment erosion but the satisfactory method has not been identified yet. Although the
methods like changing the blade profile of the runner, providing special coating and
selection of erosion resistant material for turbine are some of the methods to improvise the
resistance to erosion.

Fig 3.3 Effect of sediment erosion in Francis runner of Cahua Hydropower Plant, Peru [2]
The further detail of the study and erosion with its mechanism are discussed in the further
chapters of this report. This part is just to relate with the problems faced by Francis turbine
during operation.
v.

7|Page

Topography:
Sometimes the uninvited problems; here I am taking about the natural problems arising.
Like the landslides sweeping away penstock or the canal and similar other types of
problems. These problems can be minimized by design manipulation during the designing
phase.

4. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
OF
FRANCIS TURBINE
This part of the report is concerned with the evaluation of different performance parameters. This report
discusses over how to quantify various parameters of the turbine operation. Majorly the criteria
involved with this report are included from IEC 60193 that discusses over the model test of turbine.
The parameters and evaluation criteria have been shortly mentioned below:
4.1 Efficiency
Efficiency usually refers to Hydraulic efficiency unless it is specified, this is performed to compare the
achieved hydraulic performance, expressed either as the measured model performance or transposed to
prototype performance, with guarantees given by the supplier this illustrates the capability of operation
of the turbine and also provides a comparing means for the prototype running now and after some year.
Since there is no correlation between the mechanical losses (power dissipated in the guide bearings,
thrust bearings and shaft seals) of the model and those of the prototype, the comparison shall be based
on the mechanical power of runner/impeller Pm, hydraulic efficiency and not the machine power and
efficiency.

Where, Pm= Mechanical Power

Ph= Hydraulic Power
These are shortly discussed below:
Hydraulic Power:
The determination of hydraulic power requires the knowledge of the specific hydraulic energy of the
machine and of the mass flow rate through the high pressure reference section

Mechanical Power:
The determination of mechanical power at the runner/impeller requires knowledge of the torque
supplied by/applied to the runner/impeller and of the rotational speed:

Now, efficiency becomes,

When the above expression is used to determine the hydraulic efficiency of the turbine now same
efficiency is scaled up to the prototype using the relation and hence the output is achieved for the
efficiency using the relation as below;
Efficiency = hydraulic efficiency x mechanical efficiency

8|Page

Measurement of Torque:
We have,
Tm= T+TLM
TLM = Frictional torque due to seal and the bearing arrangement
Primary method:
T=Fxr
Where F= Force applied to lever arm at a radius r.
Now for the actual force applied, we have the following methods;
a. Weighing masses on lever system
b. In situ basic situation in which following methods can be adopted;
- Force transducer
- Manometer
- Mechanical balance
To increase the accuracy in determining the total force, it is recommended to counterbalance a part of
the force acting on the arm by means of calibrated weights.
The arrangement and type of brake that can be used in order to measure the torque is clearly
mentioned in the section 3.6.3 and 3.6.4 of IEC 60193 documentation.
Secondary method:
A torquemeter may be used provided its accuracy is acceptable to all parties and it is calibrated by the
primary method. A torquemeter comprises a length of shafting whose torsional strain, when rotating, is
converted to an electrical output quantity by optical, electrical or other means. The design and the
arrangement of this type of torquemeter shall be such that the measurement is not influenced by speed,
temperature, axial thrust or radial thrust.
Friction torque TLM:
If part of bearing/sealing arrangement is not included in the swinging frame, the relevant total friction
torque TLm shall be determined by an appropriate test taking into account the dependency on speed
and shaft seal pressure.
Rotational Speed:
Methods of speed measurement:
The rotational speed of the turbine/pump model may be measured by one of the following methods:
- Counting of pulses generated by the model shaft, using an electronic counter and timebase.
The pulse generator may be electrical or optical
- electrical frequency meter connected with a generator directly driven by the model shaft
electrical high-precision tachometer comprising a stable permanent magnet directly driven
by the model shaft
Hence the efficiency of the system can be measured.

9|Page

4.2 Cavitation
The occurrence of cavitation in the Francis turbine can be determined my using the Thomas Cavitation Factor.
The actual cavitation number of the system is given by;

And the Thomas cavitation number is given by;

c= 431.10-8.ns2
If c< then no cavitation occurs. This cavitation can be quantified by using the following
methodology.
i.

10 | P a g e

Noise and vibration method:

Large increases in noise, particularly in moderately high frequency ranges (15- to 100-kHz)
are characteristic of cavitation. In addition, vibration levels generally increase. However, in
a machine condition monitoring program, the simple ability to detect cavitation is not too
beneficial. The challenge then is to develop techniques for separating the noise and vibration
caused by cavitation damage from that caused by non-damaging cavitation and other
background noise and vibration sources. A promising approach under development in recent
years is based on the observation that when cavitation occurs in a rotating machine, the
periodic rotational components will amplitude modulate the wide-band high frequency noise
generated by collapsing cavitation bubbles. Modulation may occur due to the periodic
rotation of continuous noise sources relative to a fixed sensor, or because of periodicity in
the hydrodynamics of the flow (e.g., blades passing through wake zones downstream of
wicket gates). This amplitude modulation has spurred development of many techniques for
cavitation detection, including one that is now commercially available. Amplitude
modulated based cavitation detection techniques identify cavitation as a hidden periodicity
within an isolated band of the high frequency noise floor. Typically the raw signal is
bandpass filtered for the desired high frequency band and the discovery of the hidden
periodicity is accomplished through demodulation of the bandpassed signal using the
principal of envelope detection. Most of the cavitation detection techniques use half- or fullwave rectification spectral analysis or true RMS detection to perform wide-band
demodulation on the raw measurement signals. These methods can be accomplished either
by hardware or software methods. Generally, the resulting frequencies of interest are the
unit's rotational speed and its harmonics, particularly the blade passing frequency of the
turbine runner.
In a machine condition monitoring system, a fixed sensor is desirable from a practicality
standpoint. Placement of the sensor is very important. Broadband acoustic emission sensors
or high frequency accelerometers (amplified analog output proportional to stress wave
activity or vibration), mounted on the wicket gate assembly or the turbine guide bearing
assembly have successfully detected "damaging" cavitation. Acoustic emission sensors
mounted on the shell of the draft tube have produced similar results. Either of these
techniques has deficiencies, particularly related to universal application on different
machines. Again, the cavitation phenomenon can be detected easily. However determining
the severity of the damage that may be occurring on the runner by either of these methods is
difficult. Calibrating the system with data about known cavitation zones, duration of
exposure, and extent of damage from maintenance data is possible. However, geometric

differences between similar machine types and totally different machine types (i.e., Francis
vs. Kaplan) significantly affect amplitudes produced by these fixed sensor demodulation
techniques and probably would require machine specific calibrations.
A new technique that overcomes this limitation has been used successfully to identify
cavitation in high speed turbo pumps. This technique uses a recently discovered unique
coherent phase relationship within the wide-band noise floor of a cavitation-generated
signal. The combination of a Phase-Only filter and an Amplitude-Medium filter removes
discrete components and allows for detection of hidden periodicity generated by the
coherent phase components in the wide-band noise floor and a non-normalized spectral
function detects the strength of the cavitation generated wide-band modulated signals.
Another noticeable advantage is that no high-pass filtering or high frequency analysis is
required since the low frequency noise floor contains the wide-band modulated coherent
phase information.
ii.

Blue tack paint method:

In this method, the surface of the runner is uniformly painted with blue paint. A check is
then made for any areas or points that lack blue paint after a constant time period of
operation under conditions in which cavitation occurs. The degree of cavitation intensity
occurrence and points of cavitation are easily found by noting the locations where paint is
missing.

iii.

Pressure sensitive paper method:

In this method, pressure sensitive paper [Fuji film Co.; Prescale] is used that includes micro
capsules which break and release a red color dye under pressure. The depth of red that
appears depends on the level of pressure applied. This method is suitable for examining the
points where cavitation impulse pressure occurs over wide area of runner blade surface,
because this sheet type of sensitive paper can be easily affixed to the runner blades.

iv.

Impulse pressure sensor method:

In this method, an in-house impulse pressure sensor that uses piezoelectric device PVDF
film is set on the runner surface. The degree of cavitation intensity on the runner surface is
then measured quantitatively using this sensor under various operating conditions.
Cavitation impulse pressure in the high frequency range is measured directly, and the
impulse pressure level is transferred by the calibration results of the ball drop method from a
voltage sensor signal.

4.3 Runaway tests:

The runaway test method depends on the design of the test rig, the instrumentation and the model
design. If the test rig is, or can be, equipped with a driving motor to compensate friction torque due to
shaft bearings and seals, it is usually possible to maintain Pm = 0, and thus to establish directly the
points of the runaway characteristics. If this procedure is not possible, the runaway conditions can be
determined by extrapolation or by interpolation.
In most cases, the specific hydraulic energy is reduced, so that the highest speed which can be endured
by the model and/or the testing facility is not exceeded. However, the minimum runaway speed of the
model should not be lower than the speed used for performance testing. The influence of Reynolds and
Froude numbers is assumed to be negligible in the range near to runaway.
This test is usually performed to see the behavior of the turbine at no load and at the gradually
increasing load condition. To some extent this results the characteristic curve of the phenomena.
11 | P a g e

4.4 Sediment Erosion calculation

In this section we are going to deal with the implemented methods to quantify sediment erosion. Basically the
inclusion of this part is from IEC-62364 document. This IEC code consists of two editions of documentation
since neither of them are practically proven so we are going to deal with both the editions.
IEC- 62364 Edition: 1

Particle abrasion rate in the turbine is given by;

dS/dt = f(particle velocity, particle concentration, particle physical properties, flow pattern, turbine
material properties, other factors)
The above given formula is of little practical use so here several simplifications are used;
First simplification:
The first simplification is to consider several variables as independent to each other i.e.
dS/dt = f(particle velocity) * f(particle concentration) * f(particle physical properties, turbine material
properties) * f(particle physical properties) * f(flow pattern) * f(turbine material properties) * f(other
factors)
This simplification is prepared based on the experiences and is not proven.
Second simplification:
The second simplification is to assign the values to each variable.
-

12 | P a g e

f (particle velocity) = (particle velocity)n. In the literature abrasion is often considered

proportional to the velocity raised to an exponent, n. Most references give values of n
between 2 and 4. In this guide we suggest to use n=3
f(particle concentration) = C.
f(particle physical properties, turbine material properties) = KHardness = function of how hard
the particles are in relation to the turbine component material. Note that this relation is only
valid for uncoated steel components and not directly applicable for coated components. At
the present stage we suggest to use KHardness = fraction of particles harder than the turbine
material.
f(flow pattern) = Kf (constant to be determined for each turbine component). This considers
impingement angle, flow turbulence, part curvature radius, etc.
f(particle physical properties) = f(particle size, particle shape, particle hardness) = f(particle
size) * f(particle shape) = Ksize * Kshape. Note that in this simplification it as assumed that
there is no influence from the particle hardness for this function. The particle hardness is
considered in the KHardness factor.
Ksize = Median diameter of particles, dP50
Kshape = f(particle angularity). It is believed that Kshape will increase with the degree of
irregularity of the particles. Specific data is not available at present but several literature
references indicate that Kshape varies with a factor of 2 from round to sharp. At the present
stage we suggest to set Kshape = 1.

f(turbine material properties) = Km. In this guide we consider Km = 1 for martensitic

stainless steel with 13% Cr and 4% Ni and Km = 2 for carbon steel. For coated components
Km is often < 1.
f(other factors) = 1.

These again are the engineering simplifications used for the approximation purpose.
n

dS/dt= (particle velocity) * C*KHardness*Ksize*KShape*Kf*Km*1

On integrating the above expression we get;

S= W3 * PL * Km * Kf
Here PL is given by

This is defined as the total weight of particles that pass through the turbine.
For evaluation Km is constant in time and Kf depends upon the turbine component and geometrical size of the
turbine.

IEC- 62364 Edition: 2

The first simplification is to consider several variables as independent to each other i.e.
dS/dt = f(particle velocity) * f(particle concentration) * f(particle physical properties, turbine material
properties) * f(particle physical properties) * f(flow pattern) * f(turbine material properties) * f(other
factors)
This simplification is prepared based on the experiences and is not proven.
Second simplification:
The second simplification is to assign the values to each variable.
-

13 | P a g e

f (particle velocity) = (particle velocity)n. In the literature abrasion is often considered

proportional to the velocity raised to an exponent, n. Most references give values of n
between 2 and 4. In this guide we suggest to use n=3.4.
f(particle concentration) = C.
f(particle physical properties, turbine material properties) = KHardness = function of how hard
the particles are in relation to the turbine component material. Note that this relation is only
valid for uncoated steel components and not directly applicable for coated components. At
the present stage we suggest to use KHardness = fraction of particles harder than the turbine
material.
f(flow pattern) = Kf/RSp (constant to be determined for each turbine component). This
considers impingement angle, flow turbulence, part curvature radius, etc. Where RS is
Turbine reference size in m and p is exponent for each turbine component and are constant
in time.
f(particle physical properties) = f(particle size, particle shape, particle hardness) = f(particle
size) * f(particle shape) = Ksize * Kshape. Note that in this simplification it as assumed that
there is no influence from the particle hardness for this function. The particle hardness is
considered in the KHardness factor.
Ksize = Median diameter of particles, dP50

Kshape = f(particle angularity). It is believed that Kshape will increase with the degree of
irregularity of the particles. Specific data is not available at present but several literature
references indicate that Kshape varies with a factor of 2 from round to sharp. At the present
stage we suggest to set Kshape = 1.
f(turbine material properties) = Km. In this guide we consider Km = 1 for martensitic
stainless steel with 13% Cr and 4% Ni and Km = 2 for carbon steel. For coated components
Km is often < 1.
f(other factors) = 1.
Now according to this edition the depth of cut is given by;
S= W3.4 * PL * Km * Kf/RSp

For the measurement of sediment erosion at the particular location we create a negative pattern over
an easily manipulating material. Then this pattern is used to measure the volume and hence the mass of
material loss is determined.

14 | P a g e

5. SEDIMENT EROSION IN HYDRAULIC TURBINES

5.1 Erosion Mechanism
Erosive wear involves several wear mechanisms, which are largely controlled by the particle material,
the angle of impingement, the impact velocity and the particle size. If the particle is hard and solid then
it is possible that a process similar to abrasive wear will occur. Where liquid particles are the erodent,
abrasion does not take place and the wear mechanisms involved are the result of repetitive stresses on
impact. The term erosive wear refers to an unspecified number of wear mechanisms, which occur when
relatively small particles impact against mechanical components. This definition is empirical by nature
and relates more to practical considerations than to any fundamental understanding of wear.
Mechanical, chemical and thermal actions are the root cause of material separation as debris in erosion,
but means for reaching those actions are different. Cutting, fatigue, brittle fracture and melting are four
basic mechanisms for solid particle erosion.
i.

Cutting erosion:
When particles strike the surface at low impact angle and removal of material by cutting action,
the erosion mechanism is called abrasive erosion. The abrasive grits roll or slide when they
strike on the surface and cause erosion by abrasion or cutting mechanism. The material is
removed by scouring or scrapping by sharp edges of the particles forming short tracklength
scars.

ii.

Fig 5.1 Cutting Erosion

Surface fatigue:
Surface fatigue erosion mechanism occurs, when the particles strike the surface with large
impact angle but at low speed. This mechanism of erosion is similar to wear due to surface
fatigue on rolling surfaces. The surface cannot be plastically deformed. Instead, the surface
becomes weak due to fatigue action and cracks are initiated in surface after repeated hitting. The
particles will be detached from the surface after several strikes.

iii.

Plastic deformation:
Plastic deformation of the surface takes place due to formation of the flakes around the striking
point when the particles strike the elastic surface with medium speed and large impact angle.
With repeated strike on the flakes, the material will detach as debris.

Fig 5.2 Surface fatigue

Fig 5.3 Plastic Deformation

15 | P a g e

iv.

Brittle fracture:
When particles strike the brittle surface with large impact angle in medium velocity, brittle
fracture erosion takes place. If the particles are sharp, then brittle fragmentation is more likely to
occur and the particles detach from the material by subsurface cracking.

Fig 5.4 Brittle fracture [1]

5.2 Factors affecting erosion

i.
Operating conditions- velocity, acceleration, impingement angle, flux rate or concentration,
medium of flow, temperature
ii.
Eroding particles (sand or liquid droplets)- size, shape, hardness, material
iii.
Substrates (target materials)- chemistry, elastic property, hardness, surface morphology

5.3 Design of Turbine to minimize sediment erosion

It is not possible to avoid sand erosion of turbine components by design alone. The means for reduction
of sand erosion of turbine components can be hence divided in to three main activities as:
i.
Hydraulic and mechanical design
ii.
Material selection
iii.
Design for maintainability
Some issues in the design of turbine which have been discussed in Bhola Thapas Ph.D. thesis, 2004
are:
a. Turbine type:
The turbine selection diagram below is developed on the basis of hydraulic performance and
mechanical strength of turbine unit. The general rule for turbine selection is to go for axial flow
turbines for low head and high discharge flow conditions whereas Pelton turbine is preferred for
high head and low discharge. In between extreme head and flow, there is possible overlap for
different type of turbine and erosion aspect can be deciding factor for selection in such overlap
region. In the overlap between Pelton and Francis, former should be selected because of lower
replacement and maintenance time, despite of high initial investment for generator and civil
structure. Time to change runner, needle and nozzle is much lower in Pelton turbine compared
to replacement of guide vanes and runner of Francis turbine. Hence Pelton runner is preferred
instead of high head Francis (400-450m) where sand erosion is expected. The regrinding of
eroded bucket to regain profile is possible even without dismantling the runner from shaft in
horizontal Pelton turbines. In addition, the accessibility to repair in Pelton turbine is much better
compared to Francis. If the turbines have to operate in off design condition, Pelton turbine is
preferred due to lesser drop in efficiency in part load. Kaplan turbine could be preferred to the
Francis in the overlapping zone because of low relative velocity if sand erosion is expected, but
cost of dual regulating system in Kaplan turbine can alter the decision.

16 | P a g e

Fig 5.5 Turbine selection diagram [1]

b. Number of units:
The number of turbine units on the hydropower project is decided by optimizing investment
cost and availability in case of failure. Large turbine with lower number of units should be
preferred where sand erosion is expected, because large curvature in bigger units will have
lesser erosion. But other limitation like load carrying capacity of local road and bridges for
transport of turbine, generator and transformer up to the site can also play decisive role for
number of units even if that number is not optimum for the purpose of sand erosion.
c. Speed:
The turbine erosion is highly influenced by the particle velocity and also related to the rotational
speed of runners. Hence lowest possible speed should be selected for the case where sand
erosion is expected. The general guideline could be to select one or two step lower speed of
rotation than synchronous speed selected for the clean water condition.
d. Other design issues:
Apart from the main turbine components discussed above, the special attention should be given
for designing following components in the case of sand laden water.
i.
The special packing should be provided in the guide vane bearings to prevent entry of
water and provision should be made to replace packing without dismantling guide vanes.
ii.
The top cover pressure may increase due to increased leakage from labyrinth. Hence
there should be adequate pressure relieving arrangement
iii.
The drainage of leakage water from top cover is required either by providing a pump or
providing inbuilt radial fins on the crown top for self-pumping.
iv.
Closed circuit cooling system with clean water can be used for cooling of bearings.
v.
Special power house arrangement to remove runner from bottom in vertical units.

17 | P a g e

5.4 Effect of Sediment Erosion on Francis Turbine

The removal of material from turbine component reduces mechanical strength of turbine and also
causes the disturbance in the flow pattern. Any uneven material removal from the runner and damage of
bearings may cause severe vibration of the system. Another important effect of turbine performance
due to sand erosion is reduction in efficiency [1].
Takagi et al. (1987) have investigated performance of a model turbine in suspended solids. Around best
efficiency point (BEP) the efficiency varied as the concentration increased up to maximum 8.8% by
weight. They observed power output ratio is directly proportional to specific gravity ratio of mixture
with clean water. This observation was made assuming change in turbine performance is similar to
change in pump performance. The increase in hydraulic loss in sand water handling pump is due to
friction loss and pressure loss, which is larger than other loss in higher concentration. They have
derived empirical expression for the turbine BEP based on the observation that efficiency decreases in
straight diagonal line with increase in concentration of particles. The ratio of efficiency with mixture to
clean water is given by equation:

Here, Cw is the ratio of weight of solid to the weight of mixture, is efficiency and subscript m and w
represents mixture and clean water respectively.
Majorly the effect of erosion has been experiences highly on the efficiency and thickness of the turbine
which have been briefly discussed below:
i.
Efficiency:
The drop in hydraulic efficiency in turbine is due to several reasons such as leakage of the
water without doing useful work, secondary flow within the flow field or friction loss due to
roughness of the surface. The nature of drop in efficiency in Francis is due to sand erosion.
In Francis turbine, highest drop in efficiency is at part load whereas in Pelton the highest
loss is at BEP.
Erosion of faceplate is very crucial for drop in the efficiency of Francis turbine because of
increase in the clearance and disturbance in flow field. The effect of the faceplate erosion
was investigated by Brekke (1988) in the Driva Power Plant (71.5 MW, Hn = 540 m, N=600
rpm) in Norway. The relative efficiency increased about 4% at Best Efficiency Point (BEP)
after the repair of the faceplate. The improvement of efficiency at the points other than BEP
was even more. Similarly, the effects of increase of gap between face plate and guide vanes
were studied in two power plants in Norway by inserting seams to create artificial gap. The
thermodynamic efficiency measurement at Kvilldal Power Plant (315 MW, Hn=520 m,
n=333 rpm) and Lio (45 MW, Hn=335m, n=600rpm) revealed that for 1% increase in
clearance, 3.9% drop in relative efficiency was observed at Kvilldal and 1.6% at Lio at BEP.
This indicates the contribution of increment of clearance gap due to sand erosion in loss of
turbine efficiency.
ii.

18 | P a g e

Thickness:
Different sections of the turbine components are dimensioned corresponding to stresses in
that section. Brekke (1984) has also indicated critical stress zones for Francis and Kaplan
turbines. From the point of view of mechanical strength, the thickness at the highly stressed
zones may be slightly higher because of sand erosion. Examples of such area are Francis
turbine runner blade outlet near the band. If such assigned continuity is misbalanced then
the performance gets deviated from the standard value.

6. EVALUATION OF EROSION
This section is the main part of our concern, here onwards we will be discussing over the literatures
related to replication phenomenon of erosion. Particularly there are two major areas of concern which
are mainly used for erosion replication; methodology and description of the system are discussed
below:

6.1 Field test method

Field test refers to the test of something under the conditions under which it will actually be used.
Erosion being one of the major problems related to hydraulic turbines and extrapolating model test
result is not always the same as that of the result with prototypes in case of some complex problems
under such conditions the field test of the turbine is to be performed. Since the R&D facility currently
is working for perfectness so rather than moving around the approximation in some critical decision
criteria, computation of perfect decision in the relevant test criteria is of greater importance although
the tolerance regarding the decision are always acceptable.
6.1.1 Methodology of field test
The major methodologies that can be followed for the field test of the turbine are:
i.

Physical measurement:
This is a method of turbine erosion quantification for the particular site by involving the
prototype of the plant.
The physical measurement refers to the measurement of weight of the turbine or any other
physical quantity relevant to the erosion mechanism. All the manufacturing companies do
have the record of the weight of the freshly manufactured turbine by them thus using the
reference of this value the deviation or deduction of weight on each maintenance cycle can
be collectively used to produce a relation for the weight with the operating times this gives
the erosion rate of a particular site with the operation time i.e. certain amount of erosion
with the operation of certain hours.

ii.

Electric resistance probe method:

The electrical resistance (ER) technique is an "on-line" method of monitoring the rate of
corrosion and the extent of total metal loss for any metallic equipment or structure. The ER
technique measures the effects of both the electrochemical and the mechanical
components of corrosion such as erosion or cavitation. It is the only on-line, instrumented
technique applicable to virtually all types of corrosive environments.
An ER monitoring system consists of an instrument connected to a probe. The instrument
may be permanently installed to provide continuous information, or may be portable to
gather periodic data from a number of locations. The probe is equipped with a sensing
element having a composition similar to that of the process equipment of interest. [11]

19 | P a g e

Principle of Operation;
The resistance of metal or alloy is given by the relation;

Where, l = Element length

A = Cross sectional area
r = Specific resistance
Reduction (metal loss) in the element's cross section due to corrosion will be accompanied by a
proportionate increase in the element's electrical resistance. Practical measurement is achieved using
ER probes equipped with an element that is freely "exposed" to the corrosive fluid, and a
"reference" element sealed within the probe body. Measurement of the resistance ratio of the exposed
to protected element is made.

Fig 6.1 Probe instrument [11]

Corrosion Rate Calculation:

When measuring the ER probe, the instrument produces a linearized signal (S) that is proportional to
the exposed element's total metal loss (M). The true numerical value being a function of the element
thickness and geometry. In calculating metal loss (M), these geometric and dimensional factors are
incorporated into the "probe life" (P) (see Table), and the metal loss is given by:

Metal loss is conventionally expressed in mils (0.001 inches), as is element thickness.

Corrosion rate (C) is given by;

T being lapse time in days between instrument readings S1 and S2.

20 | P a g e

Table lists element types, thicknesses, probe life, and identification numbers. For temperature and
pressure ratings see respective probe data sheets. When selecting an element type for a given
application, the key parameters (apart from the fundamental constraints of temperature and pressure)
in obtaining optimum results are response time and required probe life. Element thickness, geometry,
and anticipated corrosion rate determine both response time and probe life. Response time, defined
as the minimum time in which a measurable change takes place, governs the speed with which useful
results can be obtained. Probe life, or the time required for the effective thickness of the exposed
element to be consumed, governs the probe replacement schedule.

Table 6.1 Probe life and element ID [11]

Fig 6.2 ER probe using pressure

21 | P a g e

6.1.2 Need of Field test

The research and developmental facility in the present day are concerned to the development of highly
efficient turbine system. In some cases the model test are just not sufficient to see after the real
performance of the turbine so here we are going to discuss over some of the major criteria
distinguishing the result of model and prototype test.
i. Efficiency stepup:
There is a scaling effect caused by the size difference between the model and prototype of any kind of
turbine. This usually results in both an efficiency stepup and a shift with respect to power of the
prototype. A recent analysis has been done on comparing the point of peak efficiency between model
and prototype Francis turbines.
The cause of this effect has been hypothesized by some as being the change in the boundary layer
ration. In general, the higher the Reynolds number, the higher the velocities and the thinner the laminar
boundary layer. A prototype invariably operates at a Reynolds number which is several orders of
magnitude higher than that of its model. Consequently, the equivalent boundary layer in the prototype
is thinner than in the model which allows an increase in the effective flow passage areas.
ii. Powerhouse head determination:
Model tests are usually conducted according to either the ASME or IEC test codes. These define the net
head on a turbine as the difference in energy levels between the fluid entering and leaving the turbine.
This means that at the point of measurement, the velocity head is added to the water surface elevation
or piezometric head to obtain the total energy level. However, the instrumentation in most powerhouses
simply monitors the elevation of the water surfaces, or the piezometric heads, without any velocity
head correction. Thus, if monitoring takes place in areas where there are significant velocity heads such
as in penstocks and tail races head measurements may be different from those on the model. (The
essential difference between the two test codes is that the ASME code charges the sudden expansion
losses of the draft tube to the turbine while the IEC does not). Another difference in determining head
on a model and prototype is caused by hydraulic losses of the trash racks. Because of the scaled down
size of the equivalent grating, these cannot be simulated physically in the model test. Therefore, in
those prototype installations where the upstream energy level is forebay elevation, the reduction in head
on the prototype turbine caused by trash rack losses would not be duplicated in the model.
iii. Site differences:
The coefficient of gravitational acceleration at a prototype powerhouse is different form that at a model
test laboratory because of the differences (in latitude and altitude) of the two places. Also the water
temperature may vary, and laboratory water is usually de-aerated and treated with anticorrosive
additives. The end result is a difference in the density of water between a prototype powerhouse and a
model test laboratory. The denser the water, the more potential energy it contains for a given difference
in water surface elevations. Expressed as an example in a different manner, a 60.6 m column of pure
water at 4 oC exerts the same pressure at the same location as a 61m column of 32oC water.
22 | P a g e

iv. Manufacturing differences:

Even with the best quality and dimensional controls during manufacture, there are always come
differences between the prototype turbine and the theoretical equivalent model. For instance, most
manufacturers cast their runners with the vent areas (minimum cross-sectional flow passage areas)
several percent larger than the equivalent model. This is to accommodate anticipated swellage of the
casting and to ensure any error in fabricating the runners is on the side of more, not less, power.

v. Deflection differences:
The magnitude of loads relative to component rigidity is different in the prototype compared with the
model. This combined with materials which have different mechanical properties, used in making the
model and the prototype, results in different equivalent component deflections. The basic parameter for
similitude of turbine test data is the peripheral speed coefficient; this related the speed of the periphery
of the runner to the available, or spouting, velocity of the fluid. It contains the term for rotational speed
and runner diameter in the numerator and a constant and the square root of head in the denominator.
Models, however, are usually tested at higher speeds and heads than the equivalent prototype, but such
that the ration of speed and diameter to the square root of head duplicates the peripheral speed
coefficient of the prototype.
vi. Wear:
Distortion of the measurements on the prototype may occur as a result of the aging process in which
residual internal material stresses are released, even after the normal stress reliving performed after
casting and welding. Also most turbines suffer some cavitation and erosion damage. This is usually
repaired periodically by welding. Such welding, no matter how expertly done, results in some changed
to the surface contour and surface finish by weld material buildup and by thermal distortion. Thus, even
prototype units with good maintenance procedures are subjected to changes of contour over their
operating life.

23 | P a g e

6.2 Laboratory test method

Laboratory test refers to the replication of sediment erosion in the lab condition where the natural
phenomenon is replicated in the lab setup and test is being performed. As discussed in the chapter 2 we
can see the artificial lab condition as like in TTL, KU.
6.2.1 Objectives of Laboratory test method
1. To study the mechanism of erosion
2. To understand the erosion behavior of particular family of materials
3. To study if it is possible to determine or simulate erosion of materials by experimental test rig
4. To find the possibility of accelerated erosion testing
5. To compare erosion resistance of
6. Different base materials (for optimal selection and screening)
7. Coating materials (i.e. welding electrodes and coating materials) used for improving wear
resistance
8. Methods used to improve erosive erosion resistance (surface hardening and heat treatment) of
material
9. To study the effect of variables influencing the erosion rate in terms of erosion mode, process
and magnitude.
10. To support the development of predictive or descriptive models for erosion
11. Estimation of service life of material
6.2.2 Need of Laboratory test
It may take long period of time for the erosion effect to appear distinctly in actual working station.
Hence there could be problem for quick decision making for erosion performance of base materials and
coatings. The findings from field tests are often qualitative because of difficulty in changing the
variables affecting erosion and hence could be difficult to develop models for erosion.
6.2.3 Types of Laboratory test
Laboratory test could majorly be of two type as mentioned below:
i.

24 | P a g e

Computer simulation test:

The computer software CFD is used to create an artificial atmosphere of the turbine and on
supplying the flow condition to it the effect on the various region of the turbine can be
noticed. This is very powerful software and requires a high level of proficiency to operate.
Since the software is not always sufficient to define the condition of the turbine the physical
test is widely suggested. Although this method could be helpful during the design
approximation, once the design has been finalized through the CFD test then the real type
simulation in lab gives the best result over CFD although the test may be comparatively
expensive.

ii.

Physical laboratory test of model:

So far as the tests with the physical relevance are concerned we have the accelerated test
with one of the component stationery either water or turbine or both in motion. But our
major search is concerned with the test of the turbine runner blade profile rather than dealing
with the material properties.
Here we have number of literatures involved with the existing test rigs. Apart from the test
rig our main focus would be on the sand collection system so that during circulation of
water in the test setup the sediment doesnt harm the pump impeller and other auxiliary
parts. We are going to discuss about them further in the two sections:

Erosion test rigs

Finnies (1960) paper on Erosion of Surfaces by Solid Particles is a milestone in the understanding of
erosion behavior with respect to the relation of the erosion rate and the parameters that influence it. The
findings of this study are felt to be useful in designing an efficient test rig for Francis runner to
understand the erosion behavior of different profiles. Literature reviews as well as the experimental
study relevant to material of the turbine and its ability to resist the abrasive falling over it are
occasionally published, but literature survey concerning experimental studies of the turbine runner
profile itself has not yet been conducted. Although this survey has been conducted following the
references of various researches related to material test by several researchers. The report also consists
of the rig used for other hydraulic machinery such as pump so that the collective useful outcome could
be achieved from the survey.
Erosion can be simulated in the laboratory either by the particle, the specimen or both in motion, where
relative velocity between these is important. A wide variety of erosion test rigs which are used by
researchers. This section briefly describes the construction features of the experimental setups.
Jet type of test rig:
The air blast sand erosion setup uses compressed air at room temperature with abrasive in it projected
towards the material. Under the Norwegian Research Program for multiphase flow, erosion of needle
valves was tested, with the purpose to rank erosion resistance of materials and to establish data for the
estimation of erosion rate of materials. The test rig consisted of sand tank and accelerator pipe of 10
mm diameter and 2 m length. Similar such attempts were used by different researchers for different
purposes such as the study of impact of high velocity jet etc. as discussed in (Thapa 2004, 201).

Fig 6.3 Air-blast sand erosion test rig

25 | P a g e

Tabakoff et al. (1995) used a high temperature test setup (Figure 6.4) to compare gas and steam turbine
blade material erosion. After injection, the particles are heated by steam and accelerated in a long pipe
to strike the specimen placed at the bend section.

Fig 6.4 High temperature erosion test rig

Cavendish laboratorys sand erosion test facility (Figure 6.5) used a rotating disc to feed particles from
a pressurized hopper, from which they are sucked in to the barrel through a syringe attached to a
vibrator. Same setup was used by Wensink et al. (2002) for the study of the transition between the
ductile and brittle modes of erosion. The air from the compressor accelerates the particles in a barrel
before striking the target. The acceleration pipe in this setup is one of the longest found in such
experiment. Beside the sand erosion test facility, Jilbert et al. (1999) used Cavendish Laboratorys
multiple impact jet simulators (MIJA) to study the synergistic effect of rain and sand erosion. The rapid
insertion of a titanium shaft into the nylon piston pumps water and produces a high velocity water jet
from the nozzle.

Fig 6.5 Cavendish laboratory sand erosion test facility

26 | P a g e

Pugsley et al. (1999) compared the wear response of WC-Co with standard material in a slurry erosion
environment by use of a jet impingement rig (Figure 6.6). The principle of suction at the nozzle is used
to mix eroding particles into the working fluid inside the test chamber itself. The slurry mixture is
accelerated through a short ejector. A funnel-type container and test chamber acts as a particle collector
and particles at the funnel are recirculate during the tests. The particle screening capacity of the system
can be doubtful because of splashing of the jet after strike.

Fig 6.6 Schematic of the slurry jet erosion rig

Lin et al. (2001) also used jet type equipment (Figure 6.7) with a high speed water jet sucking in
abrasive particles and accelerating them through a 4 mm diameter nozzle. Also Neville et al. (2001) and
Neville et al. (2002) used similar kind of setup to study the erosion-corrosion and cavitation of several
materials with submerged jet with 4 mm diameter nozzle and distance between the nozzle and the
specimen only 5 mm.

Fig 6.7 Jet type equipment

27 | P a g e

Wood et al. (1998) and Wood et al. (1999) used a sonic velocity air/sand erosion facility. The rig
consists of a supply of compressed dry air with sand sucked through the venture pipe as shown in
Figure 6.8. The sand is accelerated at the 1 m long tube which is either 16 or 20 mm in diameter.

Fig 6.8 Venturi section for particle suction

Andrews et al. 1999 did an erosion-corrosion study on 13 Cr steel which was done by liquid jet
impingement in a gas well (Figure 6.9) to compare the erosion-corrosion damage in material with the
industry standard. Four samples were tested at the same time with separate nozzles and specimens were
isolated with the holder by alumina spaces.

Fig 6.9 Erosion-corrosion test rig

Sand
Hopper

High velocity jet

nozzle
Test specimen
Tank
Settled sand

Pump

Fig 6.10 General schematic diagram of high velocity liquid jet erosion test rig
28 | P a g e

Rotating type test rig

Madsen et al. (1988) used a slurry wear test set up for the measurement of erosion, corrosion and
combined wear. The set-up consists of a dry sand hopper, from which abrasive particles fall in to the
slurry hopper and are pumped to the slurry pot at constant rate. Contrary to jet type of test rigs, the
pump handles abrasive slurry in this system, meaning
that pump erosion could decrease the performance of
the pump over a period of time. The slurry pot is made
up of 16 sides to accommodate 16 specimens
measuring 24X32X10 mm. The concentric impeller
inside the slurry pot (Figure 6.11) rotates the slurry,
exposing the specimen to the slurry at a high velocity.
The impeller is also exposed to the slurry in the same
condition; hence it is made up of extremely high wearresistant ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. The
tests in this setup can be carried out with a continuous
flow of fresh sand, which gives a constant wear rate as
a function of time. This slurry pot with 16 sides is
comparable to the spiral casing wall of hydraulic
machines.
Fig 6.11 Slurry pot apparatus
Lynn, et al. (1991) used slurry erosion pot to study collision efficiency of particles. Clark et al. (2001)
used the same equipment to investigate particle size effect in slurry erosion. This rig (Figure 6.12)
consists of a cylindrical slurry pot with baffles in the wall. Two cylindrical specimens are held in the
arm and rotated by central shaft.

Fig 6.12 Surry erosion pot

Several erosion/corrosion tests have been carried out in Rotating Disc Apparatus (RDA) and Co-axial
Rotating Cylinder Apparatus (CRCA) (Figure 6.13) at NTNU/SINTEF (Bjordal, 1995). The rotating
disc or cylinder is placed inside the oval tank and rotated with a motor. Six cylindrical specimens that
project into the disc in the RDA or six rings in CRCA can be tested at the same time. The rotation of
disc or cylinder at different speeds exposes the specimen to sand, electrolyte and water mixtures at
different operating conditions. These setups also consist of instrumentation for corrosion; hence tests
for pure corrosion, sand erosion and the synergy between them can be performed. The SAPHYR test
rig used by Sulzer group (Krause and Drtina, 1996) is also ring type of test rig similar to CRCA, but in
this case the sand and water mixture is not enclosed in a container.
29 | P a g e

Fig 6.13 Rotating cylinder

Fig 6.14 Rotating disc

Gandhi et al. (1999) modified the specimen holder of Sehadri et al. (1995) slurry pot to study the
parametric dependence of erosion for parallel flow. The rectangular edge of the specimen holder was
changed to 450 (Figure 6.13) to avoid separation. Without this, erosion cannot be observed at the
leading edge. Flow visualization of this set up confirmed that the flow is parallel to the specimen
surface, which is an indicator of low impingement angle.

Fig 6.15 Pot tester for slurry parallel flow

Hubner et al. (1996) used an erosion-corrosion simulator (EKS) (Figure 6.13) similar to one used by
Karimi et al. (1995) to study the erosion, corrosion and their combined effect under wide range of
conditions. The impact velocity is controlled by rotation of the disc, but flow of erosive particles and
corrosive media is controlled by the central opening in the disc. This system (Figure 6.14) is similar to
the RDA with the difference that being the specimen is fixed and the impingement angle can be
adjusted.

30 | P a g e

Fig 6.16 Errosion corrosion simulaor

A centrifugal erosion tester CUK-3, was used by Suchanek et al. (1999) for a dry erosion test. They
have also used Sand-hydroblast apparatus EO-2. CUK-3, which works on the principle of centrifugal
acceleration of particles. The EO-2 (Figure 6.17) consists of conical tank for sand and water, which is
pumped to the four delivery bodies by a screw pump. The jet from the nozzle at the end of delivery
body strikes the specimen at different angles.

Fig 6.17 Sand-hydroblast apparatus EO-2

(1: supporting frame, 2: tank, 3: electric motor, 4:pump body,
5: rotor, 6: suction, 7: body, 8: connecting rod, 9: packing,
10: feed pipe, 11: holder, 12: specimen, 13: sledge sluice,
14: plug, 18: nozzle)

31 | P a g e

Das et al. (1999) fixed the specimens at the rotating disc inside the slurry tank in an erosion-corrosion
environment (Figure 6.18). The specimens are fixed at a radius of 35 mm, 55 mm and 75 mm at 0, 45
and 90 relative to the rotational direction. The advantage of this system was different rotating velocity
can be tested.

Fig 6.18 Schematic diagram showing placement of samples

Mann (2000) used a rotary test setup (Figure 6.19) to test coatings. Sand particles are mixed with water
and injected inside the chamber. A cylindrical specimen (12.76 mm in diameter and 12.76 mm long) is
fixed in the rotating disc inside the housing. The sand particles are fed continuously to ensure constant
concentration. Velocity of test condition is changed by changing the rotational speed or changing the
radial location of the specimen. Mann et al. (2002) modified this setup to allow water jet impingement
by accelerating particles from a 4.24 mm micro-jet nozzle. The jet strikes cylindrical specimens fixed in
the rotating disc.

Fig 6.19 Cross sectional view of wear test facility

Stack et al. (2001) studied the erosion behavior of composite materials at room temperature and
elevated temperatures in erosion-corrosion fluidized bed apparatus (Figure 6.20). The specimens,
measuring 4X6X10 mm, are fixed in a rotating specimen holder. A pre-heater can supply hot gas for
the test at elevated temperatures up to 6000C.

32 | P a g e

Fig 6.20 Erosion-corrosion fluidized bed apparatus

The erosion test of an abradable seal coating on CMS-100 (Figure 6.21) by Maozhong et al. (2002)
consists of specimens fixed at the end of a four bar rotating device inside a vacuum chamber. The
abrasive particles, supplied through a hopper, strike the rotating specimens for 1 hour.

Fig 6.21 Schematic diagram of CMS-100 erosion tester

Preece et al. (1980) performed a different type of rotating test where he used a water jet on rotating
specimen to compare the impact of liquid erosion to a cavitation test (Figure 6.22). Even though there
are similarities between the liquid impact and cavitation tests, the data are not interchangeable, but
erosion resistance can be ranked in same order for both cases. This study was carried out with clean
water but erosion can be tested by inserting erosive particles in front of the jet. This study also reflects
that jet-type erosion testing is also affected by collapsing cavities. However, the number of impacts
needed for the deformation to be effective is fairly high.

Fig 6.22 Wheel and jet apparatus for erosion studies

33 | P a g e

The Coriolis slurry erosion test was proposed by Tuzson (1984) to simulate the action of slurries in
pumps and pipelines (in Clart et al. 1999). Slurry is fed through small pipe specimens attached 180
apart to a rotating bowl. Centrifugal force accelerates the slurry outwards while the Coriolis force
increases the slurry interaction with the wall of the specimen. Coriolis test setup was modified with
simpler flat specimen (Clark et al., 2000) measuring 29X15X6 mm. They are placed on either side of a
diametric slot with a bore of 12.7 mm in a 150 mm diameter solid rotor. Hawthorne (2002) used a Mark
II Coriolis tester (Figure 6.23) to develop a wear map of mild steel.

Fig 6.23 Schematics of the Coriolis slurry erosion tester

Test Loop
Rayan et al. (1989) investigated the erosion of actual centrifugal slurry pump on the simple open loop
hydraulic circuit. They used a 13 kW hydraulic pump with an 80 mm inlet and a 280 mm outlet
diameter cast steel impeller (Figure 6.24). The pump discharges to a 1 m diameter and 3 m deep tank
from where the slurry is re-circulated. Apart from laboratory test on small test rig, occasionally erosion
tests are carried out on large test loop where flow condition may be simulated in more realistic way.

Fig 6.24 Centrifugal slurry pump experiment

34 | P a g e

Sehadri et al. (1995) used closed test loop of 55 mm diameter and 60 m length pipe with particle
mixing and a measuring tank with stirrer arrangements to generate data of uneven wear (Figure 6.24a).
A special test fixture of 900 mm in length (Figure 6.24 b) is used to hold the specimen at the surface
level of the pipe. Four specimens are placed at each end of the test fixture at an interval of 90 and
offset by 45 between two ends. The correlation was developed and compared to measured values from
the pot tester as well as predicted wear at the pilot plant.

Fig 6.24 (a) Schematic diagram of pilot plant

(b) Assembled view of test specimen fixture
Wood et al. (2003) used the test setup (Figure 6.25) with the aim to determine the distribution of the
erosion rate and the mechanism that occurs over a wetted surface within a loop that handles a solid
liquid mixture. Pipes are made of AISI 304L stainless steel with a nominal wall thickness 5 mm and 80
mm diameter.

Fig 6.25 Pilot-scale sand/water rig with pipe loop

35 | P a g e

Horszczaruk (2003) tested concrete erosion resistance on a device with 36 specimens rotating in the
arms inside a horizontal drum of 155 cm in diameter and 228 cm long filled with a mixture of
aggregate and water (Figure 6.26).

Fig 6.26 Scheme of the device for testing abrasive erosion of concrete
Thapa, 2004 discussed about the test rig (Fig 6.27) developed at Water Power Laboratory NTNU to
create strong swirl flow similar to the flow in between guide vane outlet and runner inlet. The test rig
consists of main tank, inlet pipe and outlet cone with valve also it consists of the vanes and to regulate
the flow.

Fig 6.27 Test rig in Water Power Laboratory, NTNU

36 | P a g e

Fig 6.28 Schematic working principle of the rig

Chattopadhyay conducted experiments to determine the slurry erosion characteristics of AISI 316L, 15
wt% Cr15 wt% Mn stainless steel and Stellite powder alloy applied as a overlay to cast ferritic
stainless steel of CA6NM type, which was used as a normal turbine runner material. The tests were
conducted in specially designed test equipment shown in Fig 6.29. The different wear rates of the alloys
were explained in terms of the microstructure, hardness and work hardening rate.

Fig 6.29 Schematic diagram of slurry erosion test rig

Roman et al. reported the development of a new erosion resistant coating NEYRCOa composite
coating with ceramic and organic matter base, designed to combine hardness and ductility. They carried
out a series of model tests in a specially designed test rig (Fig 6.30) to find the effectiveness of the
coating against erosion. Four water velocities were used: 20, 25, 36, and 48 m/s. The water flow rate
was 2.5 l/s.

Fig 6.30 Schematic diagram of laboratory test equipment

37 | P a g e

Thapa and Brekke carried out laboratory erosion experiments on curved specimens by particles of
different size to simulate the flow in Pelton bucket in a high-velocity test rig (Fig 6.31). Aluminum
specimens with different curvature (Fig. 6.31) were used for the testing. Baskarp-15 foundry sand with
66% free quartz (fine sand) of size 174 mm and artificial silica sand (coarse sand) of size 256 mm were
used as the erosive particles. The results were presented in the form of erosion rate for different profiles
and surface roughness at different locations of curved specimens. By visual observation of eroded
particles the authors concluded that most of the coarse grains strike close to the splitter, whereas the
fine grains were observed far away from the splitter. The erosion rate in terms of weight loss per unit
striking particle found smaller with fine particles. This was due to low particle impact energy of smaller
particles and might be because some of the fine particles escaped gliding without striking the surface.
Another observation they made was erosion rate in mg/kg increased with the increase in curve radius.

Fig 6.31 High velocity test rig

Slurry erosion experiments were carried out using a slurry whirling arm rig, which is shown
schematically in Fig 6.32. The designed apparatus consists of three main units, namely a specimen
rotation unit, a slurry unit and a vacuum unit. Two specimen holders are mounted on the ends of two
aligned arms, which are tightened firmly to the whirling rotator and balanced for high-speed operation.
The effective rotation diameter of the whirling arms is 248 mm. The specimen holders have tilting and
locking facilities to adjust the required inclination of the test specimen. The solid particles are
thoroughly mixed with a liquid (tap water) in a slurry tank of 25 l in capacity. Then the mixture is fed
from the slurry tank into a gravity flow-stabilizing funnel, which exists in a vacuum test chamber. A
further mixing of the slurry within the stabilizing funnel is carried out to insure the homogeneity of
solid particleliquid mixture and to avoid any accumulation of the solid particles at the entrance of the
orifice. The falling slurry stream from the funnel orifice, 3mm in diameter, falls with a velocity of 1.62
m/s and then impacts every specimen at any pre-set angle between 0 and 90, depending on both the
orientation of the specimen and rotational speed of the arm. The impingement angle and impact
velocity are correlated to ensure the intended value, which can be done from a velocity vector diagram.
The distance between the funnel orifice and the specimen surface was adjusted to 4 cm, which provide
the best flow conditions.

38 | P a g e

Fig 6.32 Schematic diagram of the designed slurry erosion whirling-arm rig.
Pandy et al. [18] discussed an experimental setup especially for Pelton runner where, the Pelton turbine
runner having 16 buckets, pitch circle diameter of 144 mm and nozzle diameter of 10 mm has been
consider for the investigation. In order to get measurable amount of erosion in a short period of time,
the turbine buckets were made of brass. For the discharge measurement, water after passing through the
turbine was allowed to flow through a rectangular channel where rectangular weir was fixed for
discharge measurement. A stirrer was attached to operate continuously during the experiments so as to
supply a uniform mixture of silt and water to the turbine. In order to maintain a constant temperature of
the water, a cooling water jacket was provided at three sides of the tank. A centrifugal pump was used
to create the head of the system (Fig 6.33). Water from the turbine outlet was allowed to flow back to
the water tank. A control valve was connected with the penstock pipe at the delivery side of the service
pump to maintain the required head of water. A generator was directly coupled with the turbine runner
shaft. A resistive load was connected to the generator through a control panel. The control panel
consisted of a wattmeter, a voltmeter and ballast load in the form of electric bulbs. The electric load
was measured to determine the output. By considering the generator efficiency output of the turbine
was determine. However the value of turbine output was not considered for development of the
correlation. Turbine output was measured to ensure that the turbine was operating under a given load
during experimentation for different conditions.

39 | P a g e

Fig 6.33 Schematic of the test rig

University of Stuttgart, Germany, Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machinery [19] lab
comprises of small open low-pressure test rig, large open low-pressure test rig and open highpressure test rig. The small open low pressure test rig (Qmax= 0,025 m3/s; pmax= 7 bar) is adjusted
for pipes with cross sections up to approx. 80 mm in diameter. In this test rig a small Pelton turbine is
installed, which is used for controller experiments accomplished by the students. For measurements,
which require piping with larger cross sections, a large low pressure open-loop test rig (Qmax= 0,83
m3/s; pmax= 8 bar) is available. This test rig is equipped with three different pumps, which are
selected depending upon the needed discharge and head. Apart from test lines a flume for
experiments with free surface flow is available. From the flume water can flow directly to the bulb
turbine test rig. Due to a limited assembly effort, it is mainly used to accomplish part-homologous
model tests for Kalan-runners and propellers [Fig 6.34]

Fig 6.35 Schematic of open loop test rig

40 | P a g e

Also the lab consists of a closed loop test rig which is equipped with two pumps, which are driven by
speed regulated direct current motor. The pumps can operate in parallel (Qmax= 0,5 m3/s; pmax= 5
bar) or serial (Qmax= 0,25 m3/s; pmax= 10 bar), depending on the requirements of the respective
experiments. In this test rig several test sections, cavitation channel and a pump-turbine model are
available. The tailwater vessel is built with an air-subjected dome, in order to vary the pressure level.
Additionally a vacuum pump is attached, to be able to get a pressure level under the ambient pressure.
[19] [Fig 6.36]

Fig 6.37 Schematic of closed loop rig

IEC 62364 dealing with the abrasive erosion stated the following types of test rigs for the laboratory
test of abrasive erosion in hydraulic turbines. Although the equations used in the standard are not
proven yet and the standard is in the developmental phase but the test rigs suggested for the erosion
analysis can be considered among the standard system.
Fig 34 shows a high velocity test rig which is able to simulate the flow condition in hydraulic turbines.
Here flow velocity up to 45 m/s is possible and the mass loss of the material can be determined.

Fig 6.38 IEC 62364 suggested test rig for analysis

41 | P a g e

The system of test rig in Fig 6.39 shows a rotational type of erosion test rig where flow as well as the
motion can be simulated. Also the major feature of the system is it can provide a easy decision making
process by mounting multiple specimen coupled to single shaft and measuring the effect of erosion on a
comparison basis of weight. The system constitutes of mixing device for the proper mixing of the
abrasive particles in the water and also heat exchanger for the prevention of dynamic result of the test.

Fig 6.39 IEC 62364 test rig with multiple rotating specimens

42 | P a g e

Sediment collector
This unit is basically necessary if the water is to be circulated in the loop. The prime importance for this
system in the rig is to prevent the negative effect on the pump and its impeller because of the abrasive
particles. This system can be further important because the sand samples of particular location are in
limited amount in the test laboratory so the filtering and reusing of the sample economizes the test in
case of number of tests of single design.
Some of the major literature collected regarding the sand separation site and their design are:
Pelmar Engineering Ltd. Introduced a Hydro cyclone Sand Separator which works based on the
centrifuge principle, the particles are spun against the outside wall of the separator and gravitate
towards the bottom into the sedimentation tank. The velocity at which the water flows through the
separator determines the efficiency at which the particles are separated from the water. A tester can
help in determining the need for a separator; if values from 2 to 20 ppm are measured, a separator is
recommended. The flow during the operation of the system needs to be fairly constant to ensure
effectiveness of separator. The drain valve should be made automatic with high parts per million of
sand. The system is shown in the Fig 6.40 [34]

Fig 6.40 Hydro cyclone sand separator

Another manufacturing company name Lacos introduced to a sand separation system. In the system the
removal of specific unwanted sand from a pumped/pressurized water system shall be accomplished
with a centrifugal-action vortex separator. Sand removal efficiency is principally predicated on the
difference in specific gravity between the sand and the water. Performance is expected to be 98%
removal of 74 microns and larger. Additionally, particles finer in size will also be removed, resulting in
an appreciable aggregate removal of particles (up to 75%) as fine as 5 microns.
A tangential inlet and mutually tangential internal accelerating slots shall be employed to promote the
proper velocity necessary for the removal of the separable sand. The internal accelerating slots shall be
spiral-cut (Swirlex) for optimum flow transfer, laminar action and particle influence into the separation
barrel. The separators internal vortex shall allow this process to occur without wear to the accelerating
slots. Separated particle matter shall spiral downward along the perimeter of the inner separation barrel,
in a manner which does not promote wear of the separation barrel, and into the solids collection
chamber, located below the vortex deflector plate. To ensure maximum particle removal characteristics,
43 | P a g e

the separator shall incorporate a vortex-induced pressure relief line (Vortube), drawing specific
pressure and water from the separators sand collection chamber via the outlet flows vortex/venturi
effect, thereby efficiently encouraging sand into the collection chamber without requiring a continuous
underflow or excessive system water loss.

Fig 6.41 Sediment separator

Another technique for the sand separation is the use of slow sand filter that is usually used in our house.
According to Collin, in his B.E. (Chemical) thesis at MIT he stated some of the designs for the Bio
sand filter. [35]

Fig 6.42 Slow sand filter

44 | P a g e

Also in the same thesis he proposed another kind of filter for the separation (Fig 6.43). The filtrate
water is readily free from any kind of undissolved substrates like sand. In case of the filter below it has
been modified in order to filter the pathogens too so an economical effectiveness for our act can be
seen.

Fig 6.43 Modified Bio sand filter

45 | P a g e

7. FRANCIS TURBINE TEST RIG

7.1 Requirements in the test rig
The literatures mentioned earlier were collected for creating a basis for designing a test rig of Francis
turbine. Almost all of the above mentioned rigs were assigned to check for the material property. Here
in this section we are going to design a new type of test rig which is responsible for erosion test in the
laboratory. Here the Francis runner blade is used to check for the performance in the material as well as
the profile.
The basic requirements of our rig based on the literature experience are:
i. The rig must be capable of testing the Francis runner if not at least the blade profile.
ii. The facility of adjusting the blade profile for analysis of the profile and comparison of erosion
affected zone unlike the past practices which summarizes the effect on the material.
iii. Facility of erosion comparison on the basis of time.
iv. Facility of erosion comparison on the basis of flow rate, speed, concentration and particle size.
v. Real type flow simulation.
vi. Flexibility in the system for testing of various profiles in sequential basis.
vii. Follows the basic norms of operational protocol of the testing facility.
viii.
Justifiable power consumption.
ix. Economical manufacturing cost.
x. Reusing facility of abrasive material and water.
xi. Minimum effect of abrasive material on other accessories such as impeller of pump, duct, etc.
xii. Operational safety.
xiii.
Performance accuracy.

7.2 Design of the rig

The test rig consists of the four major parts in it:

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Piping
Pump
Runner test rig
Sediment separator

The details related to piping and pump are yet to be found out but the preliminary design and concept
development regarding the test rig and sediment collector has already been prepared. The layout of
the system is prepared as per the R&D experience of TTL, KU for the convenience in the research
purpose. The layout of the system is presented in the Fig 7.1 also we shall look after the preliminary
design and concept formulation of the test rig and sediment separator.

46 | P a g e

Fig 7.1 Schematic diagram of Francis turbine test rig

Runner test rig:
During the designing phase of the runner test rig we came across several alternatives for selection but
considering all the relevant criterias of comparison we selected the alternative in Fig 7.2.
The rig consists of three temporarily fastened blades of Francis runner, sandwiched between an arc of
hub and shroud. The flow is let to pass through the system and upon analyzing the middle blade it
gives the performance similar to the original runner blade since the flow is somewhat similar to the
original where the blades are angled as like in the original turbine system. The detail drawing
considering the dimensions as per the flow and scaling will be done as my future work. For now the
conceptual 3D design prepared in Solidworks 2011 is show below.

47 | P a g e

Fig 7.2 Front view of the rig

Fig 7.3 Back view of the rig

48 | P a g e

Fig 7.4 View without the water pipe

Fig 7.5 Cross-sectional view

Sediment separator:
During the course of literature review we mostly found that the test rigs were not equipped with the
sediment separator rather they were used continuously. Now this brings effect in the pump and other
system here we are trying to create such an atmosphere where the system runs safely and efficiently.
Among the alternatives of our design we selected the one in the Fig 7.6.

Fig 7.6 Sediment Settler

49 | P a g e

Fig 7.7 Front view of Sediment Settler

Fig 7.8 Final assembly drawing of the rig setup

50 | P a g e

8. CONCLUSION
Starting a study in the tittle Replication of Sediment Erosion in Francis turbine in the Turbine Testing
Lab, Kathmandu University resembles the sense of responsibility of Kathmandu University and
Turbine Testing Lab towards the optimization of Nepalese hydropower. One month research in the
tittle result the probable methods of replication where the basic identity for the research was to create a
system which could test for the erosion of runner blade profile by a minimum affect to the accessories
of the system.
As far as the literature survey is concerned, almost about forty two different papers and test rig included
research were taken as reference in order to develop a concept of laboratory simulation of erosion
model. As far as our research extent is concerned, no any practical implementation of the system was
seen in the laboratory setup. All the tests regarding the profile of the blade were observed in the field
test with the operational time. Our aim is to design, fabricate and install a Francis turbine test rig in the
Turbine Testing Lab, Kathmandu University. The major aim of the product is to provide an additional
aid to the future goal of Turbine Testing Lab that is establishment of Francis turbine manufacturing
company in Nepal.
The report comprises of the conceptual design of the test setup, no any particular dimension were set up
only a tentative frame has been considered. The model of the setup was prepared in Solidworks 2011
and the runner blade profile as well as the hub and shroud profile was taken from my third year project
at Turbine Testing Lab, titled; Modeling and Fabrication of Francis Runner.
Almost all the turbine imported in Nepal were only tested for the performance no erosion test has been
so far performed, but TTL with a vision of assuring erosion resistant capacity in its design and the
future product this research has been initiated. Rapid Prototyping technology; an advance
manufacturing technology plays an efficient role in physically establishing the model.
By the completion of the project we are hopeful to see a full functioning Francis Turbine test rig in
TTL, Kathmandu University.

51 | P a g e

9. FUTURE WORK
As mentioned earlier this project will be continued as my Final year undergraduate project. So far as
the work is concerned only the preliminary study and feasibility study of the system with the
conceptual design has been completed now as our future work we will be looking forward with further
literatures regarding the basis of test rig design, extent of usability, problems that could be encountered
etc. Regarding the proofing of the design we will be dimensioning the setup, calculations for the
sediment settlers, the inlet angle for the blade and the flow rate and many more that may come in our
track during the progress of study and implementation.
The research will also include a test in setup to see the erosion resistance performance of a reference
design and personally I am very much hopeful for the notable outcome.

52 | P a g e

References
1. Thapa, B., Sediment erosion in Hydraulic Machines., 2004, NTNU, Norway
2. Neopane, H., Sediment Erosion in Hydro Turbines., 2010, NTNU, Norway
3. Thapa, B., S., Hydraulic Design of Francis turbine to minimize sediment erosion., 2012,
Kathmandu Univerity.
4. Knapp, R.T., Daily, J.W., Hammit, F.G., Cavitation., 1970, McGraw-Hill, New York.
5. Philipp, A., Lauterborn, W., Cavitation erosion by single laser-produced bubbles, 1998,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 361, 75116.
6. Avellan, F., Farhat, M., Shock pressure generated by cavitation vortex collapse., 1989,
Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Cavitation Noise and Erosion in
Fluid Systems, FED-vol. 88, ASME Winter Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, pp.
119125.
7. Escaler, X., Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2006, 20 9831007
(cavitation)
8. [Cited August 03, 2012] Available form:
http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/hydstructures/cavitate.html
9. Maekawa, M., Miyagawa, K., Komuro, T., Fukuda, H., STUDY OF CAVITATION
EROSION ON HYDRAULIC TURBINE RUNNERS, 2003, Fifth International
Symposium on Cavitation (CAV2003) Osaka, Japan.
10. [Cited August 05, 2012] Available from;
http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-17/issue-1/articles/combating-silterosion-in-hydraulic-turbines.html
11. [Cited August 06, 2012] Available from;
http://www.alspi.com/erintro.htm
12. Thapa B., Thapa B.S., Dahlhaug, O.G., Shrestha, K.P., Accelerated testing for resistance
to sand erosion in hydraulic turbine; 2012, Int. J. Hydropower & Dams, Chinag Mai,
Thailand
13. Gjster, K., Hydraulic Design of Francis Turbine Exposed to Sediment Erosion, 2011,
NTNU, Norway.
14. Padhy M.K., Saini R.P., A review on silt erosion in hydro turbines.,2006, Alternate
Hydro Energy Centre, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee 247 667, India
15. Chattopadhyay R., High silt wear of hydro turbine runners. Wear 1993;162164:1040
4.
16. Roman JM, Xin LY, Hui WM, Reginensi JP. Dealing with abrasive erosion in hydro
turbine. Hydropower Dams 1997;3:67 71.
17. Thapa B, Brekke H. Effect of sand particle size and surface curvature on erosion of
hydraulic turbine. In: 22nd IAHR symposium on hydraulic machinery and systems
2004, Stockholm.
18. Padhy M.K., Saini R.P., Effect of size and concentration of silt particles on erosion of
Pelton turbine buckets, Alternate Hydro Energy Centre, Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, Roorkee, India
53 | P a g e

19. [Cited August 12,2012] Available from;

http://www.ihs.uni-stuttgart.de/48.html?&L=1 August 12, 2012 time: 10:33 am
20. IEC 60193 Document
21. IEC 62364 Edition:1 Document
22. IEC 62364 Edition: 2 Document
23. Zahavi J. and Schmitt G. F., Solid particle erosion of polymer coatings, 1981, Wear (71)
pp 191-210
24. Pool K.V., Dharan C.K.H. and Finnie I., Erosive wear of composite materials., 1986,
Wear (107) pp 1-12
25. Chevallier P. and Vannes A.B., Effect on a sheet surface of an erosive particle jet upon
impact., 1995, Wear (184) pp 87-91
26. Tabakoff W. and Metwally M., Coating effects on particle trajectories and turbine blade
erosion.,1992, Jr. of engg. for gas turbines and power, pp 250-257
27. Field, J.E., Sun, Q. and Jilbert, G.H., Solid particle erosion of IR-transmitting materials
and diamond composites, 1995 Wear (186-187) pp 195-202
28. Anderws P., Illson T.F. and Mathews S.J., Erosion-corrosion studies on 13 Cr steel in
gas well environments by liquid jet impingement, 1999, Wear (233-235) pp 568-574
29. Bjordal M., Erosion and corrosion of ceramic-metallic coatings and stainless steel.,
1995, Dr. Ing. Thesis, Universitetet I Trondheim, NTH
30. Clark H. McI, Tuzson J. and Wong K. K., Measurements of specific energies for erosive
wear using a Coriolis erosion tester., 2000, Wear (241) pp 1-9
31. Gandhi B.K., Singh S.N. and Seshadri V., Study of parametric dependence of erosion
wear for the parallel flow of solid-liquid mixtures., 1999, Tribology International (32) pp
275-282
32. Hubner W. and Leitel E., Peculiarities of erosion- corrosion processes., 1996, Tribology
International (29) pp 199-206
33. Lin H. C., Wu S. K. and Yeh C. H., A comparison of slurry erosion characteristics of
TiNi shape memory alloys and SUS304 stainless steel., 2001, Wear (249) pp 557-565
34. [Cited August 12, 2012]
http://www.process-controls.com/Pelmar/Arkal_Sand.html
35. [Cited August 13, 2012]
http://www.bigbrandwater.com/ihbseries01.html
36. Collin, C., Biosand Filtration of high Turbidity water: Modified filter design and safe
filtrate storage., 2009, M.E. (Env. Eng.) Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
USA.

37. Rajahram, S.S., Harvey, T.J., Wood, R.J.K., Erosion-corrosion resistance of

engineering materials in various test conditions.,2009, Wear (267), pp. 244-254.
38. Adhikari, S., Industrial Training II Report on Hydro-Mechanical Equipment Operation of
Turbine Testing Lab at Kathmandu University, 2011.
39. Huth, H.J., Fatigue Design of Hydraulic Turbine., PhD Thesis, 2005, NTNU, Norway.
40. Neopane, H.P., MEEG 309- Lecture Notes at Department of Mechanical Engineering., Kathmandu
University, 2011.
41. Swain M., A case study of vibration in Francis turbine.
42. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam- Webster Inc., 2011

54 | P a g e

APPENDIX

55 | P a g e

APPENDIX-I: Research Methodology

RESEARCH
STAGE

S.N

GOAL

ACTIVITIES
1.1 Literature Review

Performance test
criterion followed

Erosion test
2. methodology and
its effectiveness
3. Development of an
overview of
effective sediment
erosion test
methodology

56 | P a g e

To study the
performance test
criterion in practice.

1.2 Study of Existing Practices

1.3 Consulting the expertise and using
Experience of TTL

To study the existing

erosion test
methodologies and
their effectiveness.

2.1 Literature review

To identify and
recommend efficient
way to replicate
sediment erosion in
hydraulic turbines at
TTL

3.1 Summary preparation on the hierarchy of

effectiveness

2.2 Consulting the expertise and observation

of existing system at TTL

3.2 Consulting with Supervisor

Appendix II: Log Sheet

KATHMANDU UNIVERSITY
TURBINE TESTING LAB
TIME-SHEET of WORK of SHORT TERM EMPLOYEE
Employment Type: Full-Time Daily Basis; Normal Working Hours
Name

: Ravi Koirala

Position

: BE Internship Students

Primary Place of Work

: Kathmandu University, TTL, Dhulikhel, Nepal

Work Unit

: 30/23(No. of days worked against no. of days supposed to work)

Required Work Units

: 26 (All working days of a month period excluding weekly, public, and other holidays of KU in that period)

Time Sheet Period

: July 2011 to August 2011

Summary of Work in the Period:

Date & Day

Location

Major Activity of the Day

25 July

Wed

TTL

Orientation

26 July

Thurs

TTL

Work Identification

27 July

Fri

TTL

Work Scheduling

28 July

Sat

29 July

Sun

TTL

Intern schedule preparation

30 July

Mon

TTL

Literatures on problems of Hydraulic turbine

31 July

Tue

TTL

Literature on Performance evaluation of hydraulic turbine

1 Aug

Wed

TTL

Search for IEC standards related to Hydraulic turbine

2 Aug

Thurs

TTL

Study of IEC 60193 for performance evaluation

3 Aug

Fri

TTL

Study and comparison of IEC 62364 ed. 1 & 2

4 Aug

Sat

5 Aug

Sun

TTL

Study and comparison of IEC 62364 ed. 1& 2

6 Aug

Mon

TTL

Literatures on existing test rigs

7 Aug

Tues

TTL

Literatures on existing test rigs

8 Aug

Wed

TTL

Literatures on existing test rigs

9 Aug

Thurs

TTL

Literatures on existing test rigs

10 Aug

Fri

TTL

Literatures on existing test rigs

57 | P a g e

Documentation

Documentation

Remarks

Saturday

Saturday

11 Aug

Sat

Documentation

12 Aug

Sun

TTL

Sediment collector literatures

13 Aug

Mon

TTL

Sediment collector literatures

14 Aug

Tues

TTL

Development of requirements in test rig

15 Aug

Wed

TTL

3D modeling of test rig in Solidworks

16 Aug

Thurs

TTL

3D modeling of test rig in Solidworks

17 Aug

Fri

TTL

3D modeling of test rig in solidworks

18 Aug

Sat

19 Aug

Sun

TTL

3D modeling of sediment collector

20 Aug

Mon

TTL

3D modeling of sediment collector

21 Aug

Tue

TTL

Assembly of the rig set up

22 Aug

Wed

TTL

TTL lab survey

23 Aug

Thurs

TTL

Documentation

24 Aug

Fri

TTL

Documentation

Documentation

Saturday

Saturday

Summary:
Total no. of days in the month including holidays: 31 days
Total no. of holidays in the month: 5 days (weekly and public holidays)
Total no. of days worked: 26
Total no. of days on leave: 0

Signature of Staff with Date:

58 | P a g e

Signature of Employer with Date