Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Erosion Wear on Francis Turbine components due

to sediment flow

Adnan Aslam Noon, Man-Hoe Kim

www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

PII: S0043-1648(17)30358-7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2017.02.040
Reference: WEA102094
To appear in: Wear
Received date: 20 July 2016
Revised date: 13 February 2017
Accepted date: 14 February 2017
Cite this article as: Adnan Aslam Noon and Man-Hoe Kim, Erosion Wear on
Francis Turbine components due to sediment flow, Wear,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2017.02.040
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Erosion Wear on Francis Turbine components due to sediment flow
Adnan Aslam Noon and Man-Hoe Kim*

School of Mechanical Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, South Korea

Corresponding Author. Tel.: +82-53-950-5576; Fax: +82-53-950-6550. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.-H. Kim)

Abstract
Sediment particles flowing through the turbine components erode the surface in interaction.
Erosive wear of hydro turbine components generally depends on different parameters such as
concentration, size and shape of the sediments particle, velocity of flow, properties of the base
material of the turbine components and operating hours of the turbine. Tarbela Dam Hydel
Project (TDHP) located in the Himalayan range in Pakistan is facing the same problem. The
sediments particle have caused damage to the plant equipment, mainly to the turbine
components; stay vanes, guide vanes, runner and draft tube. As a result, these components are
disassembled and refurbished almost every year. Analysis have been performed on one of the
Francis turbine units to predict the effect of sediment particles concentration, size and shape on
erosion rate. Gradual removal of the base material has changed the profiles of various
components of the turbine and also has weaken its structure. One of the major concerns of these
effects is the continuous loss of turbine hydraulic efficiency. The governing equations of fluid
flow are solved numerically on an unstructured grid using FEM based software ANSYS CFX.
Finnie erosion model is used to compute average erosion rates. Simulation results are compared
with the actual site data. The CFD analysis showed good agreement with the results of
experimental work done previously using similar kind of geometries and operating conditions.
Keywords: Sediment particles, TDHP, Francis turbine, Runner, Erosive wear

1. Introduction
Pakistan has a big potential of hydropower due to the existence of large quantity of water
resources originating from the snow covered mountains and glaciers of the Himalayan range and
the areas exposed to regular monsoon rainfall. Indus River is one of them that flows through the
whole country. It carries large amount of sediments containing high percentage of hard abrasive

1
minerals like sand, silt and clay. This river has great importance in terms of water storage,
irrigation and power generation for Pakistan.
Sediments flowing through the dam have resulted in the reduction of water storage capacity of the
reservoir as well as damaged the plant equipment. Due to this, abrasion and erosion wear occurs
at the hydraulic turbine components like spiral casing, stay vanes, guide vanes, runner, draft tube
etc. These type of wear mechanisms reduce the life of the turbine components, as a result
difficulties in operation arises and increase in maintenance requirements becomes necessary and
eventually it leads to financial losses [1]. Teran et al. [2, 3] introduced a new flow distribution
methodology for the operation of turbines to minimize wear. They showed that optimized
geometries of the runner reduced the rate of wear at the point of maximum efficiency by 39.5%
but at the cost of a reduction in efficiency from 95% to 90%.
Numerous researches have been conducted in the field of sediment erosion in hydro turbines.
Some studies have developed mathematical model to estimate the effect of sediment erosion in
different hydraulic components of the power plant. Thapa et al. [4] have improved the
relationship developed to estimate the sediment erosion in Francis Turbine. A simple erosion
model was suggested to express suitable design, operation and maintenance plan for Francis
runner at a specific site conditions. In another study [5], it was found that the runner outlet
diameter, peripheral velocity at inlet and blade angle distribution have the major effect on
sediment erosion of Francis runner. It was also detected that optimization of hydraulic design of
blade profile alone can reduce sediment erosion more than 30%.
Rajkarnikar et al. [6] have emphasized the requirement of new design methodology to reduce the
impacts of sediment erosion in hydraulic turbines. Padhy et al. [7] presented the experimental
data collected for different parameters, correlations have been developed for wear rate of Pelton
turbine buckets as a function of critical parameters, i.e. size and concentration of silt particles
and jet velocity.
In the present work, numerical analysis based erosion wear predictions and as a consequence,
efficiency losses are presented for Francis Turbine components, especially the runner. After doing
the scaling and similitude analysis, Francis turbine model having a rated capacity of 35kW has
been used. The details of important parameters of the turbine are given in Table 1. The
simulations have been performed in operating range from under load (40% rated load) to over
load (140% rated load) with steady state condition and viscous flow turbulence Shear Stress

2
Transport model (SST) using ANSYS CFX code. The simulation results are compared and
validated with the experimental data.

Table 1: Parameters of the prototype and model Francis Turbine

Parameter Prototype Model
Head [m] 97 3.1
Discharge [m3/s] 979 6.31
Power [MW] 175 0.035
Runner Diameter [m] 4.77 0.94
Runner Speed [RPM] 136 121.6
Number of blades 11 11
Number of guide vane 22 22
Number of stay vane 10 10

2. Theoretical Aspects
Random motion of sediments particle against a solid surface is a source of damage for different
turbine components. The properties of the sediments, fluid (carrying sediments) and surface
material governs the amount of sediments erosion damage [8]. Stainless Steel is used in the
manufacturing of guide vanes and runner, while carbon steel is used in the manufacturing of stay vanes.
In general, mean velocity of fluid, mass, concentration, size, shape, hardness of the sediments
particle and impact angle at which the particles collide with the surface etc. affects the sediments
erosion of turbo machinery working in water [9].

2.1 Mathematical Formulation

In the Eulerian approach, velocity, volumetric concentration and density of the solid and the
carrier phase are calculated through the volume-averaged, steady continuity equation (1) and
momentum equations (2) and (3) for each phase respectively [10].
Continuity Equation
( ) (1)
where t is either solid phase s, or fluid phase f.
Momentum Equations:

3
Separate momentum equations are used for liquid and solid phases.
Momentum equation for fluid phase:
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) (2)
Momentum equation for solid phase:
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) (3)
where αf, ρf, vf, and αs ρs, vs, are the volumetric concentrations, densities, velocities,
viscous terms of fluid and solids respectively. is the static pressure gradient, Cvm is the
coefficient of virtual mass force, CL is the lift coefficient, and Ksf is the inter-phase drag
coefficient.
The one-way and fully coupled options are used depending upon the value of β [11], which is
defined as the ratio of the particulate mass per unit volume flow to the fluid mass per unit
volume flow, equation (4) i.e.;

rp  p
 (4)
rf  f

where, β = 0.2 is the threshold value. One-way coupling is valid for sediment particles volume
concentration upto 14.86%.

2.2 Erosion Modeling

The wear of a wall due to the erosive effect of particle impacts is a complex function of particle
impact, fluid and wall properties. There is a choice of two erosion models in ANSYS CFX, those
of Finnie and Tabakoff. The choice of one model over another is largely simulation-dependent.
In general, the Tabakoff model provides more scope for customization with its larger number of
input parameters. But it requires a larger number of coefficients, which can take more
computational time and which could be a source of generating errors in the numerical scheme. In
the current study, the simplified erosion model of Finnie has been used [12]. This model is
available in CFX for use in combination with the Lagrangian particle tracking and Eulerian-
Eulerian multiphase approaches.

4
However, erosion is found to vary with impact angle and velocity according to the relationship:
( ) (5)
where k is the constant depends on fluid properties, like density, viscosity, slurry temperature
etc.
Vp is the impact velocity, n is the velocity exponent, which is dependent on material of the
eroded surface and f(ɣ) is a function of impact angle which is discussed below:
1
f    cos2   , if ɣ > 18.4⁰ (6)
3

f    sin  2   3sin 2   , if ɣ < 18.4⁰ (7)

2.3 Turbulence Modeling

SST turbulence model is adopted for the flow separation prediction, which is the two equations
(k-ε and k-ω) model. Equation (7) is used in the SST model for multiphase flow [13, 14]:

(8)
( )

where, ρ is the density, k is the turbulent kinetic energy, ω is the turbulent frequency, F2 is the
blending function, μT is the turbulent viscosity and S is the shear stress. m is used for mixture of
sediments and water, a1 is a coefficient which determines the fraction of fluid or solid present.

3. Tarbela Dam Hydel Project (TDHP)

TDHP consists of Francis turbines working under gross head of 97 m and an average volume
flow rate of 979 m3/s. The plant has a maximum output capacity of 3478 MW, with a total of 14
units. Analysis have been performed on unit number 11, which produces 175 MW of power.
Numerous strategies from sediments capturing technique at the intake section to the surface
hardening of runner blades have been tried at TDHP to address the sediments erosion problem.
However, satisfactory results have not obtained [15]. Every year maintenance work is carried out
during the shutdown period for the eroded turbine blades and other components to keep the
power plant running normally. Sediment erosion studies are carried out after every 3 months
through the year to address the seasonal effects.
Particulate samples were collected from the outlet section of unit number 11 (Tunnel 2). It has
been found that sand, silt and clay are present in the dam reservoir bed in variable proportions

5
[16]. Table 2 shows the sediments flowing through turbine runner are combinations of different
particle sizes. The composition, density, color and size of the sediment particles are analyzed
under Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and Particle Analyzer in Materials characterization
and analysis lab at GIK Institute, Pakistan. It has been found that 85% of the sediments particle
in the Indus River are solid particles like sand and silt, whose hardness value is almost 6 on the
Moh’s scale.
Table 2: Sediment particles characteristics
Sediment Particulate
Average Density Mohs`
particles 1 2 3 4 diameter, Color
3
% (kg/m ) Hardness
d (μm)
p

Sand 31.09 33.17 31.77 29.37 31.35 95 1535 5-6 dark grey
Silt 53.34 54.13 55.33 52.13 53.73 38 1330 5 light grey
light
Clay 15.58 12.70 12.70 12.70 14.92 2.4 1170 6
brownish

3.1 Sediment particles concentration

A substantial increase of sediment particles in the reservoir has been observed during the recent
years. Sediments concentration at the intake of turbine unit number 11 was quantified. A
calibration study was undertaken at three different times, i.e.in January, May and September; to ascertain
the actual concentration (by weight). A known amount of sediments sample is weighed. Then the
sediments are heated up on a heating plate to evaporate the water present in the suspension. The solid
particles are weighed afterwards to get mass based concentrations of the sediment particles.

It is found that sediments concentration is much higher during the monsoon period from July-Oct,
than in winter from Nov-Mar season as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Sediment particles concentration as a function of water head
Head Months Concentration [PPM]
Low Nov-Mar 5000-10000
Medium Apr-June 10000-30000
High July-Oct 30000-60000

3.2 Sediment particles size and shape

6
Sieve curve is plotted in Fig.1 which shows that 90% of the particles entering the turbine are less
than 100 microns in diameter and mean diameter (d50) of the particles entering runner is 40
microns.

100
90
80
70
Percent Finer

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000
Sediment particles diameter, dp [microns]

Fig. 1: Particle size distribution of sediment sample for TDHP

The sediment particles at TDHP are studied and analyzed. Albertson shape factor is used to
calculate the values of shape factor, ψA [17] as shown in equation (8):
(9)
√( )

where ψA is Albertson shape factor, a = the longest of three mutually perpendicular axes, b = the
third axis, c = the shortest of three mutually perpendicular axes as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: The axes of an irregular shape particle

7
Nearly 30 samples examined under SEM for Albertson shape factor, the results are presented in
Table 4.
Table 4: Examination using SEM for Albertson shape factor
Sample space Mean
3 0.47
7 0.75
4 0.51
0.65
5 0.89
5 0.34
6 0.78

With a shape factor value of 0.65, it is concluded that sediment particles are sub-rounded in
shape.
3.3 Drop in runner efficiency
Thermodynamic efficiency measurements carried out on turbine unit number 11 by utilizing
equation number (10). Fig. 3 shows the results of the efficiency at TDHP within the interval of
12 weeks of monsoon period to assess the erosion damage. Within the operational period of one
monsoon season, the average loss of efficiency recorded at Best Efficiency Point (BEP) is about
4%.

(10)

Here, P = Tω, is actual power produced, ρ is the water density, g is the gravity, Q is the volume
flow rate and hT is the available turbine head.

8
 90

85

Hydraulic Efficiency [%]

80

75

70

65

60 10th August
5th November
55

50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Volume Flow rate, Q [m3/s]

Fig. 3: Turbine efficiency measurements at TDHP

4. Numerical analysis method

One-way coupling is used as the sediment particle concentration is less than the threshold value.
4.1 Francis turbine model
Four main components; spiral casing, stay vanes and guide vanes, runner and draft tube for the
Francis turbine are analyzed under the present work which are connected through the domain
interfaces. Design Modeler module of ANSYS has been used for 3-D model of the Francis
turbine as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4: Computational model of Francis Turbine

9
4.2 Mesh Generation
The mesh is generated for each part by using the meshing module, CFX mesh for the
computational domain as shown in Fig. 5. Unstructured grid is used which consists of
tetrahedron, pyramid and prism elements. This type of mesh is anticipated to give more
flexibility for automatic generation of grid around intricate geometries. Boundary layer near the
blade surface is captured through the layer mesh. The inflation option has been used with the
first layer thickness of 0.00030 m as measured by equation (11) [18]. Fifteen layers have been
used with a growth rate of 10 %.
⁄
(11)

Fig. 5: Model mesh (a) complete domain (b) enlarged view of the runner
(c) inflation layers shown near the runner wall

10
Sensitivity of the solution has been tested for each numerical mesh as shown in Table 5. To
decrease the influence of mesh size on the numerical results, a grid independency test has been
conducted for three different mesh sizes. Minimum value of error is found for the 26.45 million
elements grid, so this value is used in all the simulation cases.
Table 5: Mesh Independence test details
Mesh Size in % difference from % difference from
Millions experimental data found in experimental data

literature for Erosion rate obtained from site for

efficiency loss
density
1) 21.0 10.7 15.4
2) 26.5 3.3 9.8
3) 29.4 7.9 13.4

4.3 Parameters investigated

Under the present work, three operating conditions: (i) over load (α = 36⁰ ), (ii) rated load (α =
20⁰ ) and (iii) under load (α = 6⁰ ), covering the whole working range of the turbine operation.
The rated load condition is the best efficiency point of the turbine. The important parameters on
which erosion rate depends are concentration, size and shape of sediment particles. The values
of these important parameters used are obtained from the plant site and are given in Table 6.
Table 6: Important parameters
Sr. No. Parameters Value
1 Sediments particle size, dp [microns] 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80
2 Sediments particles shape factor, [ψ] 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9
3 Sediments concentration, Cw [%] 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

4.4 Simulation procedure

The simulations were carried out for all the four components of turbine as shown in Fig. 6. Finite
Element Method (FEM) is used which gives strong and efficient prediction for the rotating flow
in Francis turbine. Linearized mass and momentum differential equations are solved
simultaneously through high resolution scheme in space [19].

11
 Fig. 6: Boundary Conditions at the inlet, exit and wall

Mass flow rate is taken at inlet boundary for spiral casing and pressure at outlet boundary for the
draft tube respectively for the flow analysis [20]. The particle number rate is determined from the
mass flow rate assigned to the representative particles divided by the mass of an actual particle,
which equals to 6310000 particles. However, non-slip flow conditions are used for walls.
Spiral casing, stay vanes, guide vanes and draft tube are taken as stationary components while
runner is rotating with angular speed of 121.6 rpm. All the components are connected by domain
interface.

4.5 Hydraulic Efficiency

The hydraulic efficiency is defined by the equation (12) [21] and it is computed in ANSYS CFX
by
( )
[( ) ]
(12)

where, Pti and Pto are the pressure at the inlet of casing and the outlet of draft tube respectively, ρ
is the density of fluid and g is the gravitational acceleration, ω is the angular speed and T is the
torque produced by runner respectively.
The normalized hydraulic efficiency loss (ηloss_ero) of the turbine was evaluated through the data
obtained for high erosion and low erosion conditions in two different season’s i.e.; in January
and September by using the following equation;
( ) (13)

12
5. Results and discussion
The CFD analysis has been carried out to study the effect of sediment particles concentration,
size and shape on erosion rate and consequently, the efficiency loss for the Francis turbine. Main
turbine components like stay vanes, guide vanes and runner are damaged as a result of erosion
wear. Simulation results are compared qualitatively through the actual site data for Francis
turbine single components, i.e. stay vane, guide vane and blade of the runner vane.
5.1 CFD model validation
The present study is validated through the experimental work published in the literature, details
are presented in Table 7. Data used by Rajkarnikar et al. [5] is compared with the simulations
data; comparable values for head, efficiency and volume flow rate are used for validation. The
maximum error is found to be 5.48 %.
Table 7: Validation of numerical results through experimental data published in the literature
Parameter investigated Data used in Data used in
experiment simulations
Head, h [m] 201.5 97

Efficiency, η [-] 96 94
3
Volume flow rate, Q [m /s] 2.35 6.31
Experimental value of Erosion rate density, E [mg/hr.m2] 92.16

Numerical value of Erosion rate density, E [mg/hr.m2] 98.67

% Error 6.59

5.2 Effect of erosion on different components

Stay vane
Fig. 7 (a) shows the sediment flow velocity around the stay vane. The erosion loss on the stay
vane is compared with the CFD analysis as shown in Fig. 7 (b) and (c). Erosion damage is found
to be higher close to the upper and lower portions of the leading edge of the stay vane than at the
middle.

13
 (a)

(b) (c)

Fig. 7: Stay vanes with covers, (a) Velocity Profile (b) at actual site (c) CFD analysis

Guide vane
The erosion damage on the guide vane at actual site is compared with the CFD analysis as shown
in Fig. 8. Higher velocity is observed Fig. 8 (b) at the leading edge of the guide vane, as a result
some erosion spots on the blade pressure side are found Fig. 8 (c), but the suction side has
minimum erosion. Only minor erosion damage affects are observed at the lower cover compared
with the hub.

14
 (a)

(b) (c)

Fig. 8: Guide vanes with covers, (a) Velocity profile (b) at actual site, (c) Erosion rate density
profile

Runner vane
The erosion wear pattern on runner blade is observed during shutdown period at TDHP and is
similar to the pattern which has been predicted from the simulations as shown in Fig. 9 (c).

(a)

15
 (a)

(b) (c)

Fig. 9: Runner at TDHP, (a) Velocity profile, (b) at actual site, (c) Erosion rate density profile

Higher velocity is seen Fig. 9 (b) at the outlet area of the pressure side of the runner,
consequently higher erosion is found Fig. 9 (c), especially at the middle of the blade. This is due
to the blade profile‐tail vortex flow, which leads to higher erosion rate density in the blade outlet.
Minor erosion spots were also observed at the leading edge, lower part of the outlet area and on
the suction side of the blades. As runner is the most critical component for erosion damage, a
detailed analysis has been carried out for runner blades. Average values of the erosion rate
density are plotted against sediments particle concentration, size and shape in the following
sections.
5.3 Effect of sediment particles concentration
The variations in erosion rate density with concentration in PPM at three different sediment
particles size with constant semi-round shape are shown in Fig. 10. It is apparent that the erosion

16
rate density increases almost linearly on increasing sediment concentration for all the three silt
sizes. However, it increases with higher rate with larger values of silt concentration.

Average erosion rate density, E [mg/hr.m2] 500

450 dp= 20 microns

400 dp= 40 microns

350 dp = 80 microns
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Sediment particles concentration, Cw [PPM]

Fig. 10: Erosion rate density against different values of sediments particle concentration

Fig. 11 shows the variation in hydraulic efficiency loss as a function of sediments concentration.
The efficiency loss increases with concentration at three different silt sizes with constant semi-
round particles. The rate of increase is higher for larger values of silt concentration.
5
Normalized efficiency loss, ηloss_ero [%]

4.5 dp = 20 microns

4 dp= 40 microns

3.5 dp = 80 microns

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Sediment particles concentration, Cw [PPM]
Fig. 11: Normalized efficiency loss against different values of sediments particle concentration

5.4 Effect of sediments particle size

17
The change in erosion rate density with sediments particle size in microns at three different
sediments concentration with constant semi-round shape is presented in Fig. 12. It is evident that
within the range of sediment size i.e., 10 – 80 microns investigated, the erosion rate density
increases with the increase in sediment size. However, the rate of increase of erosion rate density
is not same for different values of sediments concentration. The increase in erosion damage is
higher at larger values of silt concentration. The reason is the strong turbulence flow, which
gains erosive energy, causing damage to the blade surface.

400
Conc. = 10000 PPM
Average erosion rate density, E [mg/hr.m2]

350
Conc. = 30000 PPM

300 Conc. = 50000 PPM

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Sediment particles size, dp [microns]

Fig. 12: Erosion rate density against different values of sediments size

Fig. 13 shows the variation in hydraulic efficiency loss as a function of sediments particle size.
The efficiency loss increases with silt size at three different sediments concentration with
constant semi-round particles. Efficiency loss is found to be more for higher values of silt size.

18
 4

Normalized efficiency loss, ηloss_eff, [%]

3.5 Conc. = 10000 PPM

Conc. = 30000 PPM

3
Conc. = 50000 PPM
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Sediment particles size, dp [microns]

Fig. 13: Normalized efficiency loss against different values of sediments particle size

5.5 Effect of sediments particle shape

The change in erosion rate density with sediments particle shape at three different silt sizes with
constant silt concentration is shown in Fig. 14. A particle shape factor equals to one signifies that
the shape of the particle is close to the spherical one or vice versa. Erosion damage decreases as
sediment particle shape factor is increased. It is obvious that maximum erosion occurs in the case
of non‐spherical shape of the particles.

450 dp = 20 microns
Average erosion rate density, E [mg/hr.m2]

dp = 40 microns
400
dp = 80 microns

350

300

250

200

150

100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sediment particles shape factor, ψ

19
 Fig. 14: Erosion rate density against different values of sediments particle shape

Fig. 15 shows the variation in hydraulic efficiency loss as a function of sediments particle shape.
The efficiency loss decreases with increase in particle shape factor at three different silt sizes
with constant sediment particles concentration. It decreases sharply for higher values of silt size.

4.5
Normalized efficiency loss, ηloss_eff [%]

4 dp = 20 Microns

dp = 40 Microns
3.5
dp = 80 Microns
3

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sediments particle shape factor, ψ

Fig. 15: Normalized efficiency loss against different values of sediments particle shape

5.6 Effect of wear on power for different concentrations, particle sizes and shapes
Erosion rate density is plotted against power for three different values of sediment particles
concentration, size and shape.
Fig. 16 shows the variation in wear against power for three different sediment particles
concentration. As wear rate increases power decreases for all the sediment concentrations.
For 10000 PPM concentration, the wear rate is low and power generated has maximum value of
32.2kW. For other two values of concentration the wear rate is higher and power produced has
lower values.

20
 400
Conc. = 10000 PPM

Average erosion rate density, E [mg/hr.m2]

350 Conc. = 30000 PPM

300 Conc. = 50000 PPM

250

200

150

100

50

0
30 30.5 31 31.5 32 32.5

Power, P [kW]

Fig. 16: Erosion rate density against power for different values of sediments particle
concentration

Fig. 17 shows the variation in wear against power for three different sediments particle size. For
20 Microns particle size, the wear rate is low and power generated has maximum value of 32.4
kW. For other two values of sediment size the wear rate is higher and power produced has lower
values.

400
Average erosion rate density, E [mg/hr.m2]

dp = 20 microns

350 dp = 40 Microns

dp = 80 Microns
300

250

200

150

100
30 30.5 31 31.5 32 32.5 33
Power, P [kW]

Fig. 17: Erosion rate density against power for different values of sediments particle size

21
Fig. 18 shows the variation in wear against power for three different sediments particle shape.
For particle shape factor, ψ = 0.47 and 0.78, the wear rate is low and power generated has
minimum values of 32 and 32.1kW. For ψ = 0.65, the wear rate is lower and power produced has
higher value 32.4kW.

450
Average erosion rate density, E [mg/hr.m2]

Sigh = 0.47
400 Sigh = 0.65

Sigh = 0.78
350

300

250

200

150

100
30 30.5 31 31.5 32 32.5
Power, P [kW]

Fig. 18: Erosion rate density against power for different values of sediment particles shape

7. Conclusions
Erosion wear at the Francis turbine components, particularly at the runner is a complex
phenomenon and needs to be examined in order to predict the erosion and efficiency losses.
Under the present research, the effect of sediments particle concentration, size and shape for
erosion and efficiency loss has been investigated through simulations.
On the basis of numerical investigations, the following conclusions are drawn:
 Sediment concentration is much higher during the monsoon period from July-Oct, than in
winter season.
 SEM and particulate analysis showed that mean diameter (d50) of the particles entering
runner is 40microns and are semi-round in shape.
 During the monsoon period, the average efficiency loss is recorded as 4% at the Best
Efficiency Point (BEP).

22
  Effect of erosion damage is observed at different components of the Francis turbine.
 It has been found that erosion and efficiency loss both increases with increase in sediment
particles concentration and size.
 It has also been found that erosion and efficiency loss both decreases with increase in
particle shape factor.
 Numerical results are compared and validated through published experimental and site
data. The results are found to be in good agreement.

Acknowledgements
Authors acknowledge Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) officials and GIK
Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology for all the technical support.

References
[1] V. Levy, “The solid particle erosion behavior of steel as a function of microstructure”, Wear
68, (1981), pp. 269‐287.
[2] L.A. Teran, R.D. Aponte, J. Munoz-Cubillos, C.V. Roa, J.J. Coronado, J.A. Ladino, F.J Larrahondo,
S.A. Rodríguez, Analysis of economic impact from erosive wear by hard particles in a run-of-the-river
hydroelectric plant. Energy. 113 (2016), 1188-1201.
[3] L.A. Teran a, C.V. Roa, J. Muñoz-Cubillos, R.D. Aponte, J. Valdes, F. Larrahondo, S.A.
Rodríguez, J.J. Coronado, Failure analysis of a run-of-the-river hydroelectric power plant.
Engineering Failure Analysis 68 (2016), 87-100.
[4] B.S. Thapa, B. Thapa, O.G. Dahlhaug, Current research in hydraulic turbines for handling
sediments, Energy 47 (2012) pp. 62-69.
[5] B.S. Thapa, B. Thapa, O.G. Dahlhaug, Empirical modelling of sediment erosion in Francis
turbines, Energy 41 (2012) pp. 386-391.
[6] B. Rajkarnikar, H.P.Neopane, B.S.Thapa, Development of rotating disc apparatus for test
of sediment-induced erosion in Francis runner blades, Wear 306 (2013), pp. 119-125
[7] M.K. Padhy, R.P. Saini, Effect of size and concentration of silt particles on erosion of
Pelton turbine buckets, Energy 34 (2009) pp. 1477-1483.
[8] Bingley, M. S., and D. J. O. Flynn, “Examination and comparison of various erosive wear
models, Wear 258, (2005), pp. 511-525.

23
[9] M. Abid, A. A. Noon, H. A. Wajid, Erosion study of tunnel 1 of Tarbela Dam, IJST,
Transactions of Mechanical Engineering, 38 (2014), pp. 253-261.
[10] A.A. Noon, M.H. Kim, Erosion wear on centrifugal pump casing due to slurry flow, Wear
(2016) 103–111.
[11] Gary Brown, Use of CFD to predict and reduce erosion in industrial slurry piping system.
Fifth International Conference on CFD in the process industries. CSIRO, Melbourne,
Austrailia. December 2006. Pp. 13-15.
[12] I. Finnie, Some observations on the erosion of ductile metals, Wear 19 (1972), pp. 36-44.
[13] ANSYS CFX Solver Modeling Guide. Release 16.0. © 2006–2016.
[14] P. P. Gohil, R. P. Saini, Effect of temperature, suction head and flow velocity on cavitation
in a Francis turbine of small hydro power plant. Journal of Energy 93 (2015), pp. 613-624.
[15] M. Abid, A. A. Noon (2010), “Turbulent flow simulations through Tarbela Dam Tunnel 2”,
Journal of Water Resource and Protection (JWARP) 2 (2010), pp. 507–515.
[16] M. Abid, A. A. Noon (2010), “Simulation of Turbulent flow through Tarbela Dam Tunnel
3”, IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 201-224.
[17] Slurry Systems Handbook, B.E. Abul Naga,. Mazdak International Inc. Abbotsford, USA.
2002.
[18] S. M. Salim and S. C. Cheah, Wall y+ Strategy for Dealing with Wall-bounded Turbulent
Flows, Proceedings of the International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer
Scientists, 2009.
[19] R.J.K. Wood, D.W. Wheeler, Design and performance of a high velocity air–sand jet
Impingement erosion facility, Wear 220 (1998), pp. 95-112.
[20] S. Jain, R. P. Saini, A. Kumar. CFD approach for prediction of efficiency of Francis turbine,
IGHEM. AHEC IIT Roorkee, 2010.
[21] Z. Carija, Z Mirsa, S. Fucak, Validation of Francis turbine CFD simulation. Strojarstvo 50
(2008), pp. 5-14.

24
Highlights
 Erosion predicted for sediments flow through Francis turbine.
 Provide erosion and efficiency loss .vs sediments particle concentration and size
 Erosion and efficiency loss decrease with increase in sediments particle shape.