Proceedings of the XXIst IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems

September 9 - 12, 2002, Lausanne

METHODS FOR AIR ADMISSION IN HYDROTURBINES

Benoît PAPILLON, Alstom Canada Inc.,

Michel SABOURIN, Sorel-Tracy, Canada
Michel COUSTON, Alstom Hydro,
Grenoble, France
Claire DESCHÊNES, LAMH, Laval University,
Quebec, Canada

ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to present some model test results of different devices than can be used to aerate a
Francis turbine, especially to increase the concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO) in water flowing through the
turbine. Presented devices include mainly three types of runner cone enabling air admission and peripheral
aeration by the discharge ring. Performances of each of these systems are discussed in term of air admission
capacity, efficiency alteration with and without air admission and quality of air-water mixing. Validity of air
flow similarity laws is also discussed.

RÉSUMÉ
L'objectif de cet article est de présenter certains résultats d'essais sur modèle réduit de dispositifs permettant
d'admettre de l'air dans une turbine Francis, particulièrement pour augmenter la concentration d'oxygène dissous
dans l'eau s'écoulant dans la turbine. Les dispositifs présentés incluent principalement trois types de cône de
roue permettant l'admission d'air ainsi qu'une aération périphérique par la ceinture de sortie. Les performances
de chaque système sont discutées en terme de leur capacité à admettre de l'air, de leur effet sur le rendement
avec ou sans aération et de la qualité du mélange air-eau induit par ces systèmes. Enfin, la validité de lois de
similitude régissant le débit d'air injecté est discutée.

NOMENCLATURE

Term Symbol Definition Term Symbol Definition

Turbine runner outlet As a subscript, refer to the
D p
diameter prototype
Axial velocity at runner
Cm (Cm=4Q/πD2) Absolute static pressure pabs
exit
Specific hydraulic energy E (E= g·H) Normalized pressure pan
Gravitational acceleration g Volumetric flow of air Qair
Net head H Discharge factor QED
As a subscript, refer to the
m Air/water ratio φ
model
Speed factor (see Ref. 7) nED Density of water ρ
Specific speed (see Ref. 7) NQE Thoma number (see Ref. 7 σ
As a subscript, denote the
opt
best efficiency point
 Proceedings of the XXIst IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems
September 9 - 12, 2002, Lausanne

INTRODUCTION
It is well recognized that air admission is an efficient method to attenuate pressure
fluctuations, especially in Francis type turbines. It is also established that air admission in low
pressure zones of a Francis turbine is often an optimal method to increase the amount of
dissolved oxygen (DO) in water passing through the turbine, as discussed by Hoppings et.al.
(Ref. 9). The DO issue is important in warm climate regions like in the southern part of USA
where low DO levels can occur in reservoir near turbine intake for a variety of reasons
described by Ruane and Hauser (Ref. 10). In these conditions, water released to the river with
low DO content may damage the aquatic habitat downstream and can contribute to many
other problems.
The aim of this paper, focusing on DO application of aeration, is to present model test results
of different devices that can be used to aerate a Francis turbine. It discusses the impact of
these different devices on turbine efficiency with and without aeration as well as their ability
to draw air in the turbine water flow for different operating conditions. Afterwards, it verifies
the validity of transposition rules defined in Ref. 2.

TESTED AIR ADMISSION DEVICES

Different devices for turbine aeration have been tested at the hydraulic machines laboratory
(LAMH) of Laval University (Quebec, Canada) on an Alstom turbine model having a
specific speed NQE of 0.235. The first air admission method tested has been the conventional
aeration by the centre of the runner cone. To increase the air admitted with this base system,
aeration enhanced by baffles or by a step in the runner cone have also been tested.
Afterwards, air admission by the discharge ring has been investigated. Finally, aeration by the
trailing edge of the wicket gates has been tested. Although this last system can produce well
distributed fine air bubbles favouring the oxygen transfer, it usually requires a compressor
injecting air at pressure higher than atmospheric pressure. This last system, using a high
pressure region of the hydraulic passageways instead of the other systems presented here
using a low pressure region, will not be discussed in this paper. The different tested air
admission systems are illustrated on Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Cross sections of the turbine with air admission devices tested. A) Runner cone with
baffles. B) Runner cone with a step. C) Discharge ring aeration. D) Aeration by the
wicket gates trailing edge. Conventional runner cone allowing aeration by its centre
is not shown here
A first useful information from the different tests made is the influence of the aeration
devices when no air is admitted. Obviously, the air admission by the runner cone centre or by
the discharge ring do not modify the turbine efficiency when no air is admitted. Nevertheless,
 Proceedings of the XXIst IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems
September 9 - 12, 2002, Lausanne

this is not the case of runner cones with geometry modifications enhancing air admission.
Efficiency measurements near nEDopt without aeration show that the cone with baffles
decreases the efficiency by up to 0.5% with a mean value of 0.3% for QED/QEDopt<1. These
values confirm the results presented by Carter (Ref. 11). However, for QED/QEDopt >1, the
influence of baffles decreases to a maximum value of -0.3% and become negligible and even
positive for QED/QEDopt >1.15. On the other hand, the runner cone with a step has an effect of
about ±0.1% for QED/QEDopt <1.2, which is in fact not significant. For higher QED, its effect on
efficiency is positive.
As indicated, the presence of baffles enhancing air admission by the runner cone can produce
hydraulic losses. Nevertheless, these losses can be quite acceptable for many projects when
compared to other options that may be much more costly as well as having also impacts on
power output and efficiency. For instance, an aerating runner, having thicker blades, which is
not optimal for the hydraulic design, has a cost 40% higher than a conventional Francis
runner design as discussed by Greenplate and Cybularz (Ref. 12). Moreover, as the baffles do
not induce losses in all the operating range, their negative effect in absence of aeration can be
negligible if the turbines are generally operated at high loads.
Another important result of the tests made at LAMH is the ability of the different systems to
draw air in the turbine water flow. This ability is represented on Fig. 2 by the normalized
pressure Pan at the exit of the aeration conduit versus the air flow for three different operating
conditions. As it can be seen, the air admission is usually much easier by the runner cone than
by the discharge ring. In fact, the pressure at the discharge ring is similar only at QED/QEDopt
=1.35, corresponding approximately to the highest pressure at the cone exit, this pressure
following a typical relation described by Doerfler (Ref. 6).
QED/QEDopt=0.75 QED/QEDopt=1.00
6.0
6.0

5.5
5.5

5.0
5.0
Conventional runner cone
4.5
Runner cone with a step 4.5

Runner cone with baffles

4.0 4.0
Aeration by the discharge ring
pan

3.5
pan

3.5

3.0 3.0

Conventional runner cone

2.5 2.5
Runner cone with a step

2.0 Runner cone with baffles

2.0
Aeration by the discharge ring

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
φ (%) φ (%)

QED/QEDopt=1.35

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0
pan

3.5

3.0
Conventional runner cone

2.5
Runner cone with a step
Runner cone with baffles Fig. 2 Pressure Pan at the outlet of the
aeration pipe in the turbine water flow
2.0 Aeration by the discharge ring

versus the air flow φ for three operating

1.5

1.0

conditions at nED=0.372 and σ=0.211.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
φ (%)

Other interesting information from Fig. 2 is that aeration with a conventional runner cone is
efficient at low loads but that this capacity decreases at higher loads. At high loads, baffles
show to be the most efficient in runner cone air admission enhancing. The runner cone with a
step does not give as good results. Even if it diminishes the exit pressure at low loads, it does
 Proceedings of the XXIst IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems
September 9 - 12, 2002, Lausanne

not decrease it at higher loads where it is most needed. Thus, unless an added aeration
performance is required at partial load, the runner cone with a step is not a good option
Fig. 3 shows pictures of the flow under the runner without aeration, with aeration by the
runner cone and with peripheral aeration by the discharge ring for three different operating
conditions. As shown, air admission by the runner cone creates an aerated vortex core
concentrated in the centre of the flow. On the other hand, peripheral aeration by the discharge
ring creates better distributed and smaller bubbles, favouring oxygen transfer. Thus, even if
the runner cone has a better capacity to inject air at almost every operating points, aeration by
the discharge ring seems to favour oxygen transfer efficiency. The same DO uptake can thus
be obtained by this type of aeration with smaller air admission than with aeration through the
runner cone, having baffles or not.

QED/QEDopt=0.75, no aeration QED/QEDopt=1.00, no aeration QED/QEDopt=1.35, no aeration

QED/QEdopt=0.75 QED/QEDopt=1.00 QED/QEDopt=1.35

Runner cone aeration Runner cone aeration Runner cone aeration

QED/QEdopt=0.75 QED/QEDopt=1.00 QED/QEDopt=1.35

Discharge ring aeration Discharge ring aeration Discharge ring aeration
Fig. 3 Generated bubbles under the runner with cone aeration and peripheral air admission
by the discharge ring for three operating conditions
 Proceedings of the XXIst IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems
September 9 - 12, 2002, Lausanne

The effect of aeration on turbine efficiency is

also a significant issue, as it is important to
1.4

1.2

1.0 minimise the eventual sacrifice on efficiency

0.8

0.6
when increasing DO by turbine air admission.
This aspect has been investigated for every
Efficiency loss (%)

0.4

0.2
devices and for the three operating conditions
already presented. Fig. 4 shows results
0.0

-0.2

-0.4 obtained at QED/QEDopt=1.00. It indicates that

Runner cone with a step
Runner cone with baffles
-0.6

-0.8
the discharge ring aeration has a much lower
Conventional runner cone
Discharge ring aeration

-1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4
impact on efficiency than the runner cone
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

aeration. This is typical of what has been

φ (%)

Fig. 4 Efficiency loss at QED/QEDopt=1.00 observed at other QED. Thus, the efficiency gain
versus air flow that is observed at low loads and small φ is
much smaller with peripheral aeration than with
cone aeration but, however, the efficiency loss is also less important for higher air flow.
Fig. 4 shows also a significant efficiency increase for small air flow when aerating by the
runner cone. Even if this behaviour is observed here near the optimal efficiency point, it is
typical of air admission at partial loads as discussed in Ref. 1. Besides, efficiency gain even
more important has been observed at QED/QEDopt=0.75 during these tests. This is a result of
improved draft tube flow when strong rotation in the draft tube cone exists. This
characteristic is an advantage of the runner cone aeration which is also, as discussed by
Doefler in Ref. 6, the most effective mean to reduce fluid oscillations.
A last important aspect of the tests made is the verification of the air admission transposition
rule proposed in Ref. 2:
γ +1
φp  Ep  2
=  (1)
φ m  Em 
LAMH
Tests using the runner cone with baffles confirm the validity of this relation with a γ value
near 3 (other tests, including prototype test, indicate that this exponent is between 2 and 3).
This relation, originally conceived for aeration by the center of the runner cone, thus seems
to be adequate for other types of air admission. Finally, no conclusive tests have been made
to verify DO similarity laws like the one described by Thompson and Gulliver in Ref. 5.

CONCLUSION
Recent tests have been made to evaluate different air admission devices on a Francis turbine
at NQE=0.235. The different tested devices mainly include three types of runner cone venting
and peripheral aeration by the discharge ring. Performances of each of these systems have
been measured in term of air admission capacity, efficiency alteration with and without
aeration, type of generated bubbles and potential oxygen transfer efficiency. Tests at different
net head confirm the validity of air flow similarity laws proposed in the literature.
The results obtained give a good characterization of each tested system, helping to make the
best choice for a particular need. They show that each device has its forces and weaknesses
which depend on the operating conditions. Thus, depending of the operating conditions at a
particular site, the options considered to attained a target DO uptake have to be selected
adequately to optimise the hydraulic performances as well as the environmental
performances.

5
 Proceedings of the Hydraulic Machinery and Systems 21st IAHR Symposium
September 9-12, 2002, Lausanne

REFERENCES
Ref. 1 Papillon, B., Kirejczyk, J., Sabourin, M., Atmospheric air admission in hydroturbines, Hydrovision
2000, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA, August 2000.
Ref. 2 Papillon, B., Kirejczyk, J., Sabourin, M., Determination of similitude rules for hydroturbine aeration,
20th IAHR Symposium, Charlotte, August 2000.
Ref. 3 Gaffney, S. R., Jablonski, T. A., Kirejczyk, J., Using Hydro Turbines to Enhance Dissolved Oxygen
Levels, Hydro Review, August 1999.
Ref. 4 Thompson, E.J., Gulliver, J.S., Oxygen Transfer Similitude for the Auto-venting Turbine,
Waterpower 1993, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, ASCE, Nashville,
TN, August 1993.
Ref. 5 Thompson, E.J., Gulliver, J.S., Oxygen Transfer Similitude for Vented Hydroturbine J. of Hydraulic
Engineering ASCE, June 1997.
Ref. 6 Doerfler, P., Design criteria for air admission systems in Francis turbines, 13e IAHR Symposium,
Section on hydraulic machinery, equipment and cavitation, Montreal, Canada, September 1986.
Ref. 7 International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 60193: Hydraulic turbines, storage pumps and pump-
turbines - Model acceptance tests, 1999.
Ref. 8 Franc, J.P., Avellan, F., Belahadji, B., La cavitation, mécanismes physiques et aspects industriels,
Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, Collection Grenoble Sciences, 1995.
Ref. 9 Hopping, P., March, P., Brice, T., Update on Development of Auto-Venting Turbine Technology,
Waterpower 1997, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, ASCE, Atlanta,
Georgia, August 1997.
Ref. 10 Ruane, R.J., Hauser, G.E., Factors Affecting Dissolved Oxygen in Hydropower Reservoir,
Waterpower 1991, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, ASCE, Denver,
Colorado, July 1991.
Ref. 11 Carter, J., Recent Experience With Turbine Venting at TVA, Waterpower 1995, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Hydropower, ASCE, San Francisco, California, July 1995.
Ref. 12 Greenplate, B.S., Cybularz, J.M., Hydro Turbine Aeration, Waterpower 1993, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Hydropower, ASCE, Nashville, Tennessee, August 1993.
Ref. 13 Brice, T.A, Cybularz, J.M., Air admission effects on Hydraulic Turbines, Hydropower Fluid
Machinery, ASME, 1992.
Ref. 14 Sigmon, J.C., Lewis, G.D., Snyder, G.A., Beyer, J.R., Using Hydro Turbine Aerating Runner
Technology to Enhance Dissolved Oxygen Levels, Hydrovision 2000, Charlotte, North Carolina,
USA, August 2000.