Some case histories of site efficiency and index testing of

hydraulic turbines

J.H. Gummer
HYDRO-CONSULT PTY LTD
15 McLeod Street
Rye
Victoria 3941
Australia

Introduction
Accurate measurements of flow required for site efficiency testing can only be achieved with methods such
as current meters, tracers and ultrasonic transducers or, for higher head facilities, by performing the precise
temperature measurements required for the thermodynamic method. The conduit configuration may permit
the Gibson pressure time method but this also entails multiple load rejections, which may not always be
desirable. All of these methods are costly and entail varying degrees of loss of generation whilst the
equipment is installed and the tests are conducted. For these reasons model tests are increasingly preferred
for verification of contractual guarantees together with majoration formula such as those recommended in
IEC 60041 to upgrade the model test results to the prototype Reynolds number. Also model tests are
conducted at the beginning of the contract when time permits modification to the model to ensure that the
guaranteed values are met.
However when contractual guarantees are proven by model tests only, there is always a doubt whether the
majorated model results truly reflect the prototype performance. This can be resolved to a certain extent by
conducting index tests on the prototype. There are several recognised index test methods of which the
Winter Kennedy is the most popular. There are others, which are explored further in Case I of this paper.
However, regardless of the methods used to obtain the index, as with model test results, there is a question
mark over the accuracy and repeatability of the index test results and whether they can be used for
contractual purposes.
In this paper four cases of actual site efficiency tests are examined. In Cases II, III and IV model tests had
been conducted and thus the model test results could be directly compared those from full site efficiency
tests. For Cases III and IV Winter Kennedy index test results were available from both model and prototype
and therefore these too could be compared. Ultrasonic and Gibson methods were used for Case IV and the
respective results could be compared.
In Case II, site efficiency tests were conducted after some years of operation and the results compared with
those obtained from the original model test. Finally for Case I, full current meter efficiency tests had been
conducted on a high head Francis turbine with unsatisfactory results. After modification to the turbine the
resulting improvement in efficiency was confirmed by index testing. In the absence and unsuitability of
Winter Kennedy tapping points, index tests were conducted using the change of level of the tailrace pond
and the difference in velocity head across a change in penstock diameter.
The results of the four case histories are discussed and general conclusions drawn, which should be of use to
others in future test scenarios.

1 Nomenclature
The following nomenclature is used:-

Symbol Quantity
H Net head
Hr Rated net head
 Symbol Quantity
h Index head difference
Q Flow
Qr Rated flow
Q Difference between majorated Winter Kennedy model
flow and measured flow
P Turbine output
Pr Rated turbine output
Efficiency
pmax Maximum prototype efficiency
Standard deviation

2 Case I
Case I concerns a 500m head Francis turbine with a runner diameter of 1.6m. The proof of contractual
efficiency was by site testing in accordance with IEC 60041, flow being measured with current meters
mounted on a frame in the penstock. The turbine failed to meet the contractual guarantee it being about 2%
low on guaranteed weighted efficiency. The unit had been in commercial operation before the efficiency
tests were conducted and the turbine contractor attributed the low efficiency to wear and tear during this
period. IEC 60041 requires efficiency tests to be conducted on turbines in the as new condition hence the
turbine contractor had every right to insist on refurbishing the unit and conducting a re-test.
Accordingly the turbine was dismantled and the hydraulic passages were cleaned and ground to the design
finish. Also the turbine guide vanes were equipped with spring loaded end seals which were found to be
filled with debris and non functional. As part of the refurbishment, the end seal recesses were cleaned and
the springs were adjusted to ensure pressure contact with the top and bottom covers throughout the complete
travel of the regulating gear.
Current meter testing is expensive and time consuming and results in loss of generation during the time
taken to dewater the penstock, install the current meter frame and remove it after testing. This is
compounded if, as in this case, the penstock serves more than one turbine. Accordingly it was agreed
between the Client and turbine manufacturer that the difference in efficiency between the turbine before and
after refurbishment would be proven by index testing. An index of efficiency would be taken before
refurbishment and compared with an index taken after refurbishment.
Because of the relatively small physical size of the unit it had not been equipped with Winter Kennedy
tapping points. Hence alternative indices of flow and hence efficiency had to be found. Fortunately the
tailrace pond was small and the change in pond level over a set period with the turbine at constant output
taken before and after refurbishment provided one index (designated method (i)). A second index was by
precise measurement of the h across a reduction in the penstock diameter (designated method (ii)). The
latter method is covered under Clause 15.2.1.2 of IEC 60041 and the former is a variant of the volumetric
method covered in Clause 10.8.2 of the same code. Head and output were measured in accordance with IEC
60041 requirements. Note that for method (i) an exact knowledge of the pond area/volume relationship is not
required provided that the measurements are taken over the exactly the same levels for each test. If this is
done then the index is just the difference in the time for the pond level to change between the two set levels.
Tailrace pond level was measured in the powerhouse by means of a clear plastic stand tube connected to a
pipe to the tailrace and by precision tape at the tailrace control structure. Times taken at the two measuring
stations were slightly different and were averaged. The method (ii) device could be calibrated against flow
measured in the current meter test for the before condition. As is evident in Figure 1, Q/Qr was found to
be a function of h0.5062 compared with the theoretical h0.5 proving that very little cross flow existed at the
change in section and hence this index should give reliable and consistent results.
The h results of method (ii) before and after refurbishment are given in Figure 2 from which it is evident
that there was a marked difference between the two. This is reflected in the relative efficiency gain shown in
Figure 3. Also in Figure 3, are plotted the results from method (i) which, although indicating an increase in
efficiency, it is approximately half that given by method (ii). According to IEC 60041 method (i) tolerances
could be 1.5% and those of method (ii) 1.7%. Hence the total difference between the two methods could
be explained by applying these tolerances. However the general consensus was to place more credence in the
method (ii) results because the method (i) results were based upon only one before reading. This was
reinforced by previous current meter tests on a virtually identical turbine by the same manufacture which
had given results closer to those of method (ii). In any event, even the lower efficiencies of method (i)
together with the measuring tolerances of IEC 60041 proved that the turbine met the contractual
requirements after refurbishing and hence, contractually, the matter had been brought to a successful
conclusion.

3 Case II
Case II is particularly interesting because it was a full blown current meter efficiency test on a Kaplan
turbine after 20 years in operation. The efficiency of the turbine as new was proved by model testing to IEC
60193 only and, for reasons of economics of water usage, the utility required to have a reliable figure for
efficiency after the 20 years of operation. The rated head of the Kaplan turbine was 34m and runner diameter
was 4.1m. As is normal in testing Kaplan units, families of efficiency curves were established at fixed runner
blade positions and the peak efficiencies thus obtained used determine the on cam relationship.
Results of the tests are given in Figure 4. Model test results and majorated model efficiencies are given in
the same figure. As is evident, the measured values of efficiency in the site test are about 10% lower than the
majorated model values and 4% lower than the actual model values. Although the IEC 60041 tolerance on
the efficiency test results could account for some of the difference (about 1.7%) the remainder of these
differences could only be attributed to deterioration of runner profile as a result of cavitation repair over the
years, less than ideal surface finish of the hydraulic passages and increase in runner gap leakage.

4 Case III
The Case III Francis turbine is rated at 120m head and has a runner diameter of 8.1m. Contractual
guarantees were initially proven by model tests and confirmed by site efficiency tests employing the Gibson
method for flow measurement. Majorated model and site efficiency test curves are given in Figure 5, from
which it can be seen that there is some scatter in the site efficiency results which can only be attributed to
inaccuracies in the Gibson method of flow measurement. However indisputable is the shift in the efficiency
curve with the model maximum efficiency occurring at P/Pr = 0.8 and the prototype value occurring at P/Pr
= 0.93. Majoration of the model was in accordance with the 1972 version of IEC 193 (now IEC 60193),
which did not permit correction of power resulting from the difference in model and prototype efficiencies.
Hence part of the shift to the right of the efficiency is doubtless due to this. It is thought that the remainder
arises from inaccuracies in the Gibson results.
The fair line drawn between the Gibson test points shows the prototype to be about 1% more efficient than
the majorated model however other possible connections of the Gibson test values could give a difference in
efficiency of up to 3%. Some of the greater peak efficiency of the prototype compared with that of the model
could be accounted for by the tolerance on the Gibson test results of 1.9%. Taking into account the IEC
60041 permissible tolerances of the Gibson method, if the model test curve is shifted to the right by P/Pr of
0.075 then to all intents and purposes the majorated model curves lies on the site test curve.
The turbine was equipped with Winter Kennedy pressure tapping points which were reproduced in the
model. Thus the majorated model Winter Kennedy law can be compared with that measured in the prototype
as seen in Figure 6. As is evident both laws give Q/Qr to be a function of h0.5 however there is about a
4.5% shift between the two. This is evident in Figure 7 in which the flow measured in the site efficiency test
is compared with the flow calculated from the majorated model Winter Kennedy law across the operating
range. However once the majorated model flows are corrected by adding 4.5% to the constant then the
Winter Kennedy values are accurate to within 0.5% at one standard deviation. It is thought that the 4.5%
difference is due to slight inaccuracies in the location of the prototype Winter Kennedy taps compared with
those in the model.

5 Case IV
Case IV is of particular interest because it provided a comparison between the results of efficiency
measurement of the majorated model test and those from the Gibson and Ultrasonic methods. Although this
has been done in the past (references 3 to 5 are typical), with the demise of site efficiency testing there has
been fewer recent opportunities for such a comparison using modern precision measuring equipment.
Additionally both the model and prototype were equipped with Winter Kennedy tapping points hence, as
with Case III, majorated model Winter Kennedy flows could be compared with those measured on site. The
Francis turbine of Case IV had a rated head of 69m and a runner diameter of 6.8m.
The results of the efficiency tests are shown in Figure 8 and compared with the majorated model results in
the same figure. From this Figure several overall trends are apparent:-
Relative efficiencies measured by site testing with the ultrasonic method are about 1.5% higher than
those predicted by the model. However this difference disappears if the IEC 60041 tolerance of
between 1% and 2% is applied to the ultrasonic results and a typical IEC 60193 tolerance of
0.25% is applied to the model test results.
Model and ultrasonic site efficiency curves have essentially the same shape other than for the kink
seen in the majorated model test curve at P/Pr=0.7 and a displacement of P/Pr = 0.02 in the position
of the peak efficiency. It is thought that the kink in the model test curve is a function of the model
test hydraulic circuit and thus it is not reproduced in the prototype. Also, in accordance with the
1972 version of IEC 193, the model values for power were not corrected for efficiency, hence the
2% offset in the efficiency curves is doubtless due to this.
The Gibson results display far more scatter than those using the ultrasonic flow measuring device
but at least in the region of P/Pr1 they confirm the increase of prototype efficiency compared with
the majorated model results when the IEC 60041 tolerance of up to 2.3% is applied to the Gibson
results and those quoted above are applied to the ultrasonic results..

Air admission gives an apparent increase in efficiency. The word apparent is used because it is
not clear whether the increase results from the adverse effect of air on the accuracy of the
instrumentation.
The comparison of flows computed from the majorated model Winter Kennedy law and those measured by
the ultrasonic device is given in Figure 9. From this it is evident that the Winter Kennedy law obtained from
the model is surprisingly accurate with an average error of 0.72% and values of 0.94 and 0.51%
respectively, when compared with the prototype flows.

6 Discussion
The four cases described above have been chosen in order to substantiate several generalities concerning
model and site efficiency testing of hydraulic turbines. In making these generalities the author fully
recognises that they are based upon a limited number of samples and may not apply in all cases.
IEC 60041 is perfectly correct in stating that site efficiency tests must be conducted on hydraulic
turbines in the as new condition. Both Cases I and II demonstrate the ill effects that wear and
general usage can have on efficiency. Accordingly, prior to site efficiency testing the hydraulic
surfaces, seals and clearances should be inspected by all parties to ensure as new surface finish
and leakage paths. In fact one wonders whether some of efficiency gain claimed for rehabilitated
turbines with new runner design is solely due to the as new condition of the replacement runner
rather than improved hydraulic design.
If it is known at the design stage that there will a possibility of silt erosion, then a strong case could
be made to accept a hydraulic design with a lower initial efficiency but with a stronger resistance to
efficiency loss as a result of wear.
If fitted with precision instrumentation, Winter Kennedy devices give an accurate and reproducible
indication of reducing efficiency resulting from wear and tear during operation. In Case IV the
majorated model Winter Kennedy law also gave accurate predictions of flow. Case III majorated
Winter Kennedy results were 4.5% less than those measured on the prototype. It is thought that
Case IV majorated model Winter Kennedy flows are closer to the prototype flows because of a
greater precision in the location of the Case IV prototype tapping points. Regardless of absolute
accuracy, in both cases the Winter Kennedy predictions were reliable enough to monitor changes in
relative efficiency.
If the turbine is not equipped with Winter Kennedy monitoring of flow and hence efficiency can be
achieved with accurate differential pressure measurements across a change in penstock section.
 Majorated model results conducted in accordance with IEC 60193 are a true representation of the
prototype performance after the respective measuring tolerances are taken into consideration. It is
thought that modern CAD/CAM methods used for the design of both model and prototype are
contributing factors to this, as well as modern hydraulic design tools such as CFD.

7 References
1. IEC 60041 Field acceptance tests to determine the hydraulic performance of hydraulic turbines,
storage pumps and pump turbines IEC 1991-11
2. IEC 600193 Hydraulic turbines, storage pumps and pump turbines Model acceptance tests
IEC 1999-11.
3. J.J.Trail Test of hydraulic turbines The Engineering Journal, November 1959
4. F.A.L Winternitz Comparison of flow measuring techniques at Kinlochleven Hydro-electric
station Water Power March 1960
5. Anon Comparison of acoustic and other flow measurement systems: Kootenay Canal tests EPRI
Report EM:4367 February 1986

Author
John Gummer - Principal, HYDRO-CONSULT PTY LTD, Australia. Educated at London and Bristol Universities in
the UK. Over 40 years experience working internationally on major hydroelectric and pumped-storage projects.
Previously Chief Mechanical Engineer of the 14,800 MW Itaipu Project, currently the largest operating hydro in the
world, he has acted as a Consultant to World Bank and other international agencies, is the author or co-author of more
than 35 published papers and a contributing author to 2 books. He is Vice Chairman of the Technology Group of the
International Hydropower Association.

Figures

1.2

0.8
Q/Qr

0.6 Q/Qr = .629 (h)

0.5062

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
h m

Figure 1 - CASE I h versus Q before refurbishment

 4

3.5

Before refurbishment
2.5
h at Hr

1.5

After refurbishment
0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
P/Pr

Figure 2 - CASE I Comparison of h before and after refurbishment

1.1
Method (i) after
refurbishment
1.05

Method (ii)
after refurbishment
1
/pmax

0.95 All at Hr

0.9
before refurbishment from
current meter test
0.85

0.8
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
P/Pr

Figure 3 - CASE I Comparison of relative efficiencies before and after

refurbishment
 1.15

1.1 Majorated model

test results Model test
results
1.05

Prototype after 20
years operation
/ pmax

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
P/Pr

Figure 4 - CASE II Comparison of relative efficiencies at design head

1.02

1 Majorated model
test results
0.98

0.96
/pmax

Prototype Gibson
0.94
test results

0.92

0.9

0.88

0.86
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
P/Pr

Figure 5 - CASE III Comparison of relative prototype and model

efficiencies
 1.2
1.15

1.1
Prototype
1.05 0.4998
Q/Qr = .4012 (h)
1
0.95

0.9
Q/Qr

0.85
0.8

0.75 Majorated model

Q/Qr = .3867 (h)0.5
0.7

0.65
0.6

0.55
0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
h m

Figure 6 - CASE III Model and prototype Winter Kennedy h versus Q

Q/Q%

3 Average

2
WK flow obtained from
majorated model law
1

0
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1
Q/Qr

Figure 7 - CASE III Comparison of actual and Winter Kennedy Q

 1.02
Gibson test
results (no air)
1 Ultrasonic test
results (air)

0.98

Ultrasonic test
0.96 results (no air)
/ pmax

Majorated model
0.94
test results

0.92

0.9

0.88
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
P/Pr

Figure 8 - CASE IV Comparison of efficiencies at design head

1.4

1.2

0.8
Q/Q%

0.6

0.4
Average
WK flow calculated from
0.2 majorated model law

0
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1
Q/Qr

Figure 9 - CASE IV - Comparison of actual and Winter Kennedy Q