A Parametric Study of The Cross - Ow Turbine Performance /: January 1995

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/34573601
A parametric study of the cross-flow turbine performance /
Article · January 1995

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9402(1995)121:1(28) · Source: OAI
CITATIONS READS
16 795
1 author:
V. R. Desai
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
27 PUBLICATIONS 1,431 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Laboratory based cross-flow turbine efficiency studies with special reference to certain design parameters View project
All content following this page was uploaded by V. R. Desai on 25 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
UMI
University Microfilms International
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Order Number 932S87S
A p a r a m e t r i c s t u d y of t h e C r o s s - F l o w Turbine p e r f o r m a n c e
Desai, Venkappayya Rangappayya, P h . D .

Clemson University, 1993
UMI
300N.ZeebRd.
Ann Aibor, MI 48106
A PARAMETRIC STUDY OF THE CROSS-FLOW
TURBINE PERFORMANCE
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Graduate School of
Clemson University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Civil Engineering
by
Venkappayya R. Dcsai
May 1993
April 30,1993
To the Graduate School:
This dissertation entitled "A Parametric Study of the Cross-Flow Turbine

Performance" and written by Venkappayya Rangappayya Desai is presented to the Graduate
School of Clemson University. I recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a major in Civil Engineering.
Dissertation Advisor
We have reviewed this dissertation

and recommend its acceptance:
A& '^J^.A.'USLAJ
7$h, ^&*
Ih^x
Accepted for the Graduate School:

ABSTRACT
Increasing environmental awareness is causing a shift in the energy emphasis from

non-renewable sources to renewable sources. Hydropower in general, and low-head
hydropower in particular are attracting much public interest because of economic and
environmental considerations. The Cross-Flow Turbine (CFT) was specifically conceived
for low-head hydropower and is gaining more acceptance in the developed and developing
world, in spite of its low maximum efficiencies of about 80-85%.
This study is an experimental investigation of the key parameters influencing the
turbine efficiency and a theoretical analysis of turbine performance. One physical parameter
(flow rate) and six geometric parameters (angle of water entry, diameter ratio, number of
blades, flow stream spreading, runner aspect ratio, and blade exit angle) are identified as key
parameters for the study. A total of 39 runners and 11 nozzles were tested in 75 different
combinations. The experimental investigation included measurements of torque, speed,
flow rate, and total head in physical models of turbines and nozzles.
The theoretical analysis was based on the principles of dynamics and resulted in a
simplified linear relationship between the shaft torque and speed. The results indicate that
theoretical analysis can be used only as a preliminary predictive technique for maximum
turbine efficiency, as verified by the experimental data.
Multiple regression and probability analyses are performed to quantify the impact of
the parameters on the cross-flow turbine efficiency. Other techniques such as uncertainty
analysis, sensitivity analysis, confidence limit analogy, and critical path method analogy are
used to interpret the accuracy of the results. For the best nozzle-runner combination, the
maximum efficiency closest to the discharge averaged maximum efficiency is determined
to be 88.0% with an uncertainty of ± 2.4%, which is an improvement over the claimed
maximum efficiency reported in the literature.
iii
The analysis of the experimental data clearly identifies parametric ranges in which
efficiency can be improved. These results suggest that by careful choice of design
parameters, the cross-flow turbine can be made as efficient as other traditional turbines; yet
has the advantage of low cost and simple structure.
DEDICATION
To:
the memory of my late mother, Sou. Sushila Kulkarni (Rama Desai),
a personification of Hindu values of life.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many persons have contributed in numerous ways towards the successful completion
of this dissertation work. I heartily thank each one of them for their unique qualities. Most
important among them are:
1. my major advisor, Dr. Nadim M. Aziz, for his friendship, industriousness, and
sense of humor;
2. my seniormost graduate advisory committee member, Dr. Ben L. Sill, for serving
this committee with a previous experience in my predecessor's committee;
3. my other committee members, Dr. C. Hsein Juang and Dr. R. Kumar, for gracefully
accepting my request to serve on this committee and also for their constructive
suggestions to improve the quality of this dissertation;
4. Mr. Lee Sheldon, Senior Hydro Specialist in the Bonneville Power Administration,
for showing keen interest and ensuring continued fund allocations for this research;
5. my department head, Dr. Russell H. Brown, for providing me with an opportunity
to teach different labs and thus enabling me to be close to the students; and
6. Prof. Ron Kopczyk and Mr. Charles Bentley, from Engineering Services Division,
as well as Mr. Danny Metz and Mr. Milton Lore, from my department, for their
diligence and cooperation in manufacturing turbines and setting up the experiment.
I am highly indebted to the following three special persons in my life: my dear wife,
Savita, for being a constant source of emotional and economic support and also for sharing
the stresses and strains of my graduate student life; my beloved son, Nachiket, for inspiring
and entertaining me all the time; and my adored father, Rangappayya, for orienting me to-
wards a meaningful education and also for successfully convincing me to study engineering.
I also take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to all my family members
and friends, teachers and students. I hope each one of them will bear with me for my inability
to individually mention their names here.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE i
ABSTRACT ii
DEDICATION iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Turbines for Low-Head Hydropower 2
CFT: A Brief Historical Perspective 3
Description of the CFT 3
Advantages of the CFT 5
Programs Sponsored by Various Agencies 6
Limitations of the CFT 8
Problem Statement 8
Research Objective 10
II. LITERATURE REVIEW 12
Theoretical/Numerical Studies on the CFT • 12

Experimental Studies on CFT 16
, Other Studies on CFT 24
Feasibility Studies 24
Actual Installations of CFT 25
Studies on Turbine Selection and Sizing 26
Summary 27
vii
Table of Contents (Continued) Page
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 31
Theoretical Research Methodology 31

Experimental Research Methodology 33
Parameter Selection 36
First Stage Inlet Angle of Attack (ai) 37
Runner Diameter Ratio (D2/Di) 38
Runner Aspect Ratio (B/Di) 38
Number of Blades (ne) 39
Flow Stream Spreading (B/W) 40
Model Components and Tests 41
Description of the Equipment 46
Turbine Casing 46
Runners 46
a. Side walls 46
b. Blades 48
c. Shaft 48
d. Runner cover 48
Nozzles 49
Flow Transition 49
Flow Transition Modification 49
Dynamometer, Controller, and Data
Acquisition System 51
Experimental Procedure 51
IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 56
Theoretical Analysis 56
Linear Analysis 58
Non-linear Analysis 60
Experimental Data Analysis 60
Multiple Regression Analysis 64
Probability Analysis 66
vm
Table of Contents (Continued) Page
Effect of Angle of Attack 69

Effect of Diameter Ratio 70
The Influence of the Number of Blades 71
Effect of Flow Stream Spreading 72
Effect of Runner Aspect Ratio 73
Impact of the First Stage Blade Exit Angle 74
Effect of Flow Rate on the Maximum Efficiency 75
Critical Path Method Analogy 77
Uncertainty Analysis 80
Uncertainty in Torque Measurement 80
Uncertainty in Rotational Speed Measurement 81
Uncertainty in Brake Horsepower 81
Uncertainty in Flow Rate Measurement 81
Uncertainty in Total Head Measurement 81
Uncertainty in Specific Weight of Water 82
Uncertainty in Input Horsepower 82
Uncertainty in Maximum Efficiency 82
Sensitivity Analysis 83
Comparison of Speed Ratio Values with the Banki Theory 88
Comparison with Kpordze's Regression Analysis 89
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 91
Conclusions 91
Recommendations 93
APPENDICES 94
A. Maximum and Representative Efficiencies for all Tests/Combinations 95

B. Non-Dimensional Parameters and Representative Tests 115
LITERATURE CITED 191
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Experimental and Theoretical Speeds for CFT at Various Heads

[Mockmore and Merryfield, 1949] 17
2.2 Details of Runners Tested by Khosrowpanah 20
2.3 Details of Nozzles Tested by Fiuzat and Akerkar 22
2.4 Kpordze's Regression Analysis of CFT 27
2.5 Efficiencies Computed in Theoretical Studies on CFT 28
2.6 Efficiencies Attained in Experimental Studies of the CFT 28
2.7 Parametric Values Studied in the Experimental Investigations on CFT 29
3.1 CFT Angle of Attack Investigations: Past and Present 37
3.2 Summary of Investigations on Diameter Ratio 38
3.3 Summary of Investigations on Number of Blades in a CFT 40
3.4 Nozzle Details 41
3.5 Runner Details 42
3.6 All the Tested Nozzle-Runner Combinations 44
4.1 Probabilities of Fitted Cubic Curves Having Higher Ranks 61
4.2 Various Multiple Regression Models Considered 65
4.3 Details of the best Multiple Regression Model (#4) 65
4.4 Some Important Correlations of Parameters with Maximum Efficiency 66
4.5 Probabilities of Improvement in the Maximum Efficiency 67
4.6 Mean Values and Standard Deviations of the
Changes in Maximum Efficiency 68
4.7 Coefficients of thefittedEquations and their 99% Confidence Limits 83
4.8 Lower and Upper Bound Estimates of the Parameters 84
X
List of Tables (Continued) Page
4.9 Comparison of the Present Study with the Banki Theory 88

4.10 Comparison with Kpordze's Regression Equations 89
A-l Tests Conducted and their Maximum Efficiencies 95
A-2 Nozzle-Runner Combinations and their Representative Efficiencies Ill
B-l Additional Non-Dimensional Parameters Computed 115
B-2 Representative Efficiency Data Tables for 6-inch Wide Nozzles 116
thru
B-34
thru
B-55
thru
B-76
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Cross-flow Turbine with its Essential Components 4

1.2 A Typical Flow Pattern in a CFT 5
3.1 Division of the Flow into Regions inside a CFT [Fukutomi et al., 1991] . . . 32
3.2 Various Geometric Parameters in the Cross-flow Turbine (CFT) 34
3.3 The Complete Experimental Set-up 47
3.4 Runner, Nozzle, and the Top Portion of the Casing 47
3.5 Turbine, Dynamometer, and Data Acquisition System 50
3.6 Flow Transition Modification for Narrow Nozzles 50
3.7 Flow Rate Calibration Curve for the Orificemeter 52
3.8 Calibration Curve for the Total Head 55
4.1 Flow Pattern in CFT at Run-away Speed 57
4.2 Flow Pattern in CFT at Zero Speed 57
4.3 A Typical Cubic and Linear Equation Fit for Speed in Terms of Torque . . . 59
4.4 Comparison of Measured and Equation-fit Derived Efficiencies 62
4.5 Percent Exceedance Plot of the Maximum Efficiencies 63
4.6 The Impact of the Angle of Attack on CFT Efficiency 69
4.7 The Effect of Diameter Ratio on CFT Efficiency 70
4.8 The Influence of Number of Blades on CFT Efficiency 71
4.9 The Effect of Flow Stream Spreading in the Range of 1 through 3 72
4.10 The Effect of Flow Stream Spreading in the Range of 1 through 2 73
4.11 Effect of Runner Aspect Ratio on the CFT Efficiency 74
4.12 Impact of First Stage Blade Exit Angle on Efficiency 75
4.13 Comparative Analysis to Show the Effect of Row Rate 76
xii
List of Figures (Continued) Page
4.14 Efficiency Improvement Flow Chart with Analogous

Critical Path at the Middle 79
4.15 Sensitivity of the Flow Rate to the Fitted Equation 85
4.16 Sensitivity of the Total Pressure Head to the Fitted Equation 86
4.17 Sensitivity of the Efficiency to the Combined Effect of Curve-fittings 87
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background
Since energy is one of the basic needs for mankind, many energy sources are being
rapidly depleted. This has lead to a change in the orientation of energy research. Such re-
search is now directed more towards renewable sources than conventional sources such as
coal and oil. Hydropower is one of the prominent renewable energy sources.
To secure a prominent place, hydropower has to be as competitive as any other renew-
able energy source. The competitiveness of the hydropower has various dimensions, one of
which is turbine efficiency which acts as a quantitative measure for comparison with other
sources.
Based on the available head, hydropower projects are classified (Dandekar and Shar-
ma, 1979) as follows:
low-head less than 50 ft.,
medium-head 50 to 235 ft.,
high-head 235 to 835 ft., and
very high-head above 835 ft..
Most hydropower projects fall in the medium- and high-head range. These projects
submerge large amounts of fertile lands due to the large reservoirs they create upstream of the
dams. Apart from the loss of fertile lands, these projects also cause damage to the environ-
ment and create relocation problems for the people living in that area. Moreover, natural
hazards such as earthquakes pose a serious concern to public and private agencies as to
whether these projects are worth the associated risk.
2
Due to the above facts and concerns, low-head hydro is an obvious alternative for the
advancement of hydropower. Low-head hydro projects have the following advantages
(Gladwell and Warnick, 1978):
a. They require less initial and maintenance costs than either the medium-head or the
high-head hydro projects.
b. They are flexible, environmentally acceptable, and have the potential to keep a
reasonable cost for the power generated.
c. They do not submerge a large land areas.
d. In remote areas of less developed countries, low-head hydro projects can produce
power locally, thus eliminating the need for an expensive centralized power grid.
e. In the long run, the costs of low-head hydro installations remain relatively constant
while the cost of other power sources, such as thermal power, escalates.
Turbines for Low-Head Hydropower
Generally, the turbine selection for a low-head hydro is not so simple. Impulse tur-
bines like Pelton wheels normally operate at heads above 400 ft., whereas reaction turbines
like Francis and Kaplan turbines usually require a minimum head of about 90 ft.
The need for turbines to run at low-head has lead to the construction of scaled versions
of the above turbines to suit the low-head hydro industry. In addition, new turbines were
developed specifically for low-head hydro, such as the bulb turbine and the cross-flow tur-
bine (CFT). The cross-flow turbine is the subject of this dissertation. The bulb turbine is
very suitable for tidal power plants, while the CFT can be very effective in low-head hydro
projects, and is very easy to manufacture. All that is needed is a simple workshop which can
cut plates and pipes and either weld them or join them by other means, depending on the ma-
terial (Khosrowpanah, 1984). In addition, Fukutomi and Nakase (1990) report that the CFT
is also being considered for wave power generation and the results are very promising.
3
CFT: A Brief Historical Perspective
The CFT was originally designed and patented by an Australian engineer, A. G. M.

Mitchell in 1903. At that time, the CFT was known as "radial flow turbine". Donat Banki, a
Hungarian professor, further developed the CFT and popularized it through his publications
between 1917 and 1919. Fritz Ossberger, a German mechanical engineer, came to know
about Mitchell's original design and soon established a professional relationship with Mitch-
ell. In 1922, Ossberger obtained a patent for the turbine developed on the basis of Mitchell's
design and began to commercially manufacture the CFT, known at that time as "free stream
turbine". The term "cross-flow turbine" is the translation of the German word "Durchstrom-
turbine" coined by Erwin Sonnek in 1923.
Description of the CFT
The CFT is composed of two major parts, the runner and the nozzle. The runner is
made of at least two circular side walls with the blades fixed to the inside of the walls, along
the periphery. The blades have circular cross section and make a specific angle with the tan-
gent to the outer periphery (Pi), as shown in Figure 1.1. The nozzle is rectangular in cross-
section with a curved back wall, and directs the flow into the runner at an angle of attack (cq).
Figure 1.1 describes the essential components of a CFT.
As the flow enters the turbine through the nozzle, a portion of the water jet hits the
turbine blades twice, initially from outside the runner to the inside (i.e., the first stage) and
later on from inside the runner to the outside (i.e., the second stage). Since the water jet cross-
es the runner twice, it is called the crossed flow or simply "cross-flow", hence the name
cross-flow turbine. The remaining portion of the jet which crosses the runner only once is
called the uncrossed flow. Figure 1.2 illustrates a typical flow pattern in a CFT.
4
Nozzle
Runner
Blade Orientation (Enlarged)
Cross-flow Turbine
Blade
Shaft
T
3-D2 Di
1
B
Blade Profile (Enlarged)
Section AA
Figure 1.1 Cross-flow Turbine with its Essential Components

Stage I
Crossed flow
Uncrossed flow ——f^ I

~H Stage II |^~
Figure 1.2 A Typical Flow Pattern in a CFT
Advantages of the CFT
Some of the general advantages of the CFT have already been explained. However,
the CFT has other advantages which are broadly grouped into two categories: constructional
advantages and operational advantages. The constructional advantages are:
1. The runner and nozzle widths can be easily altered to suit the head and the flow
rate (Hamm, 1967).
2. If a draft tube is used, the net usable head will not be reduced by the turbine setting
(Haimerl, 1960).
3. A CFT manufactured out of standard plastic sheets and pipes can save about 50%
of the capital cost (Chappell, 1983). Therefore, in many cases local initiative alone
may be enough to proceed with the projects (Albertson, 1985).
4. Compared to traditional water mills, an open type CFT is an improved technology
that is capable of replacing water mills with minimum changes (Dotti and Anglade,
1986).
6
The operational advantages are:

1. For the same head and flow rate, the CFT can develop a higher speed than the
overshoot wheel, the undershoot wheel, or the paddle wheel (Van Leer, 1929).
2. When two nozzles are used, the CFT will have a specific speed (i.e., the speed of the
turbine operating at unit flow rate under a unit head) twice that of a Pelton wheel
(Van Leer, 1929). Specific speeds in the range of 40 to 200 SI units can be obtained
by varying only the turbine width (Hothersall, 1984).
3. The favorable efficiency curve of the CFT can be further improved by using a
divided gate. The long, flat peak of the efficiency curve and the low no-load flow
are especially important to a small hydro station (Haimerl, 1960).
4. CFT runners are self-cleaning, and there is less chance of blockage due to leaves,
grass, ice etc. (Haimerl, 1960).
5. When highly variable flow rates exist, the use of a guide vane divided in the ratio of
1:2 will stabilize the efficiency to about 83%, at quarter gate opening onwards
(Stapenhorst, 1980).
6. The CFT can increase the dissolved oxygen and thus reduce the cost of aeration, and
is free from cavitation (Khosrowpanah et al., 1984, and Erdmannsdoerfer and
Patzig, 1991).
7. The CFT can be successfully used for heads ranging from 1 to 200 meters and flow
rates from 20 to 10,000 liters/sec. (Monition et al., 1984).
8. Compared to a high-speed Francis turbine, a low-speed CFT with a partitioned
runner can be designed for a 50% larger flow rate, simultaneously utilizing the
partial flow range also (Patzig, 1987).
Programs Sponsored by Various Agencies
All these advantages have provided a favorable environment to the hydropower pro-
grams involving cross-flow turbines. Public and private agencies all around the world are
sponsoring various types of programs. The following paragraphs describe such programs.
Pazout (1984) explained a vigorous program, implemented in the former Czechoslo-
vakia to encourage the development of small-scale hydropower, which included financial
incentives and free expert advice. Pazout listed two non-traditional enterprises of the former
7
Czechoslovakia which were successful in manufacturing CFTs of the B-Universal type for
capacities upto 30 KW. Pazout argued that the advantage of these turbines was that the design
version can be installed very quickly, without changing existing weir structure. Refurbished
plants can use the original equipment if it is still capable of operation and are gradually re-
placed by new installations.
Smith (1985) has discussed the technical design and use of CFT in the context of a
hydroelectric development project in Africa across the Dibaguil River, a small tributary of
the Ngoko River in the Republic of Zaire. Smith (1985) made reference to the German
Appropriate Technology Exchange (GATE) for the design drawings and other fabrication
information so that CFT can be manufactured locally. According to Smith, GATE has been
very active in promoting the use of CFT in developing countries.
According to the report on "The Role of Micro Hydro in Developing Countries"
(1985), the British charity organization called the "Intermediate Technology Development
Group" (ITDG) has made some effort to take the CFT technology to the developing coun-
tries. It has found that CFTs are the most suitable to be manufactured indigenously in Nepal,
Pakistan, and Thailand. The ITDG United Mission to Nepal succeeded in setting up a locally
managed company for manufacturing CFTs which can provide power to rice mills, grain
mills, oil expellers, and domestic electrical requirements of the communities in the vicinity.
Vintr and Kraus (1987) outlined a program of construction and renewal of small-hy-
dro plants in the former Czechoslovakia. The design of a 300 mm. CFT runner, involved
grey iron castings and weldments from structural or corrosion-resistant steel. The CFT had
a nozzle entry arc of 120° and the runner had 24 blades. The first designed and manufactured
CFT type was B 30/35 U, where B stands for the Banki type, 30 is the runner diameter in
centimeters, 35 is the runner width in centimeters., and U is the universal design for the de-
termined head ranges.
An efficiency of 64% was obtained after the tests were conducted on B 30/35 U-l 1 set
where 11 stands for the output power in KW. To seek ways of attaining acceptable prices for
8
the customer short delivery times, the best possible economy of manufacture, and the possi-
bility of typification were borne in mind and a new series of B 15 was created. They have
also mentioned that CFTs have attracted great attention in South America.
Limitations of the CFT
In spite of all the advantages of the CFT, it has some limitations. The most important
limitation is the maximum efficiency that can be achieved, which is only in the range of 80 to
85% (Patzig, 1987). Many other types of turbines have maximum efficiencies greater than
90%. Ossberger Turbines Inc. (1991) claim a peak CFT efficiency of 87%, and Fiuzat and
Akerkar (1989) report an efficiency of 89% based on limited experiments.
Also, in low-head, high-flow situations the CFT requires larger unit dimensions than
comparable designs. Generally, for such cases a speed increaser is used which lowers the
efficiency by 1 to 2% and increases maintenance requirements (Makansi, 1983). In addi-
tion.the CFT is susceptible to wear when excessive silt or sand particles are present in water.
(Thapar and Albertson, 1985).
Problem Statement
The efficiency of the CFTs, currently used in hydropower installations is lower than
other turbines, such as bulb and propeller turbines. These turbines are not as simple in struc-
ture as the CFT, and therefore there is a genuine need to increase the CFT efficiency and make
it a more acceptable alternative. Efforts are underway worldwide, to improve the CFT effi-
ciency. A majority of these efforts are laboratory investigations involving study of the im-
pact of physical or geometric parameters on the CFT efficiency. However, some investiga-
tions are theoretically based and attempt to study the influence of certain parameters on the
9
CFT efficiency. This study is both a theoretical and a laboratory assessment of the impact of
design parameters on the CFT efficiency.
Of all the theoretical analyses, only Hothersall (1985) and Fukutomi et al. (1985 and
1991) have attempted a two-dimensional study of the CFT. Hothersall focuses only on the
influence of the number of blades. Whereas, Fukutomi et al. have only analyzed the flow
through the nozzle and the runner. Hence, there is a genuine need for at least a simple theoret-
ical analysis, which can explain clearly the influence on CFT efficiency of as many parame-
ters as possible.
The fundamental expression for the maximum efficiency (rimax) in a CFT was given
by Donat Banki (Mockmore and Merryfield, 1949) as:
rimax = C O S 2 ^ , (1.1)
where oci = angle of attack at the first stage inlet.

According to the above equation, the angle of attack at the first stage inlet (oti) should
be as small as possible to achieve maximum efficiency. Banki (Mockmore and Merryfield,
1949) suggested that the angle of attack at the first stage inlet should be of the order of 16°.
Interestingly, all later experimental investigators (until the 1980's) used only this value with-
out testing any other angles of attack. Nakase et al. (1982) tested a slightly different angle of
attack of 15°. Fiuzat and Akerkar (1989) provided continuity and change by testing three
angles of attack viz., 16°, 20°, and 24°. Their tests indicated that an angle of attack of 24° is
better than either 16° or 20°. However, the optimum angle of attack is still open for investiga-
tion. Hence it is essential to determine the optimum angle of attack more precisely by addi-
tional laboratory tests.
Similarly, there is no concurrence of opinion regarding the effect of the number of
blades on the CFT efficiency. Khosrowpanahetal. (1988) tested runners with 10,15,and20
blades. This range for the number of blades does not cover a large spectrum of values. For
10
instance, it fell short of the 26 blades used by Nakase et al. (1982), and 30 blades used by
Varga (1959). Thus, there is a need for continuity which can clearly explain the influence of
blade number.
Moreover, there is no literature available on the influence of the ratio of the nozzle
width-to-runner width. When this is studied, it will shed some light on the flow-stream
spreading (i. e., the ratio of the runner width to the nozzle width) of the water jet. These are
some of the areas which need some more experimental probing.
Research Objective
It has been well established that the maximum efficiency of the CFT depends on vari-
ous parameters. However, very few parametric studies have been conducted on CFT. So, the
objective of this research is to quantify the key parameters, influencing the maximum effi-
ciency of the turbine. The results of this parametric study will show ways to improve the
CFT efficiency by selecting the best combination of the parameters studied.
The specific objectives are:
1. Identify the key parameters affecting the turbine efficiency.
2. Develop a theoretically based method to evaluate the efficiency.
3. Quantify the individual impact and joint impact of the identified parameters.
4. Identify the best combination of parameters.
In the theoretical study, a simple analysis is performed to determine the parameters

which significantly influence the efficiency. In the experimental study, key parameters will
be selected and their influence will be thoroughly investigated.
All the inadequacies reported in the problem statement can be clearly visualized after
reading Chapter n. These inadequacies need to be investigated thoroughly. Chapter II
groups and describes the published literature on CFT. The research proposed here is a very
important step in bridging the efficiency gap between cross-flow turbine and other turbines.
• <
11
The success achieved in this study will help overcome the limitations of the CFT and enhanc-
ing the acceptance for CFT as a viable alternative in hydropower projects.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature available on the Cross-flow Turbine covers a century of research,

right from the day of its invention by the Australian engineer, A.G.M. Mitchell. As a tes-
timony to the universal importance of the CFT, this literature is written in various lan-
guages such as English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, and Russian.
Research of the cross-flow turbine may be grouped into theoretical/numerical studies,
experimental studies, and "other" studies. However, these groups are not mutually exclu-
sive. Nevertheless an attempt is made here to group these studies as systematically as pos-
sible.
Theoretical/Numerical Studies on the CFT
The theoretical study of the CFT was initiated by Donat Banki whose work was so fun-
damental and extensive that the turbine was called the "Banki-Mitchell Turbine". The work
of Banki was translated into English by Mockmore and Merryfield (1949). Banki's equation
for the CFT efficiency was derived assuming no losses, and is written as:
where ui = peripheral runner velocity at thefirststage inlet,

Vi = absolute flow velocity, and
oti = the angle of attack at the first stage inlet (i.e., the angle
between ui and Vi).
The maximum efficiency is then obtained when
In the derivation of Equation 2.1, the entire flow was assumed to be cross-flow. How-
ever, in reality only a portion of theflowis cross-flow (Nakase et al., 1982).
13
Uj_ COStt! ( 2 2)
Vj 2
Mockmore and Merryfield (1949) considered losses in the nozzle and the runner and
modified Banki's expression for maximum efficiency Cnmax) as:
*ln,ax = \ C2(l +ti0cOS2ai , (2.3)
where C = nozzle velocity coefficient, and

\\f = ratio of the relative velocities at thefirststage inlet and second
stage exit.
Assuming C=0.98 and \j/ = 0.98, Mockmore and Merryfield computed the maximum
efficiency of 87.8%, for an angle of attack of 16°. Mockmore and Merryfield conducted ex-
periments to verify Banki's theory. These experiments are discussed later.
Varga (1959) undertook an investigation of the CFT to commemorate the birth cente-
nary of Donat Banki. Varga showed theoretically that at maximum efficiency, the peripheral
and relative velocities are different in thefirststage inlet.
Haimerl (1960) studied the theoretical performance of the CFT and described its prac-
tical applications. Assuming an average hydraulic efficiency of 82%, the unit speed was
computed as 41 rpm, which implies that the CFT is a slow speed turbine. Moreover, consid-
ering a runner inner-to-outer diameter ratio of 0.67, Haimerl estimated the pressurerisein
thefirststage of the runner as 6.3% of the available head, whereas, the second stage was ob-
served to operate at a constant pressure. Haimerl also observed that thefirststage develops
4.6 times as much torque and power as the second stage.
Balje (1981) defined the CFT as one that intakes water through one half of the runner
and exhausts it through the other half. Referring to a source on cross-flow blowers titled
'Ventilators' by B. Eck, published in German in 1962, Balje showed that the flow in the cen-
ter of the runner will approach a free vortex flow, with the vortex center located between the
14
inlet and exit duct at the inner radius of the runner, implying that the absolute flow angle at
the entrance to the second stage is nearly the same as the absolute flow angle at the trailing
edge of the first stage.
Considering the incidence losses at the second stage in the theoretical analysis, Balje
reported that an optimum blade configuration was determined. Balje concluded that maxi-
mum efficiencies occur at a speed ratio of 0.4 to 0.5. Balje's other conclusions were as fol-
lows:
i. The maximum calculated efficiency is 73% occurring at a ratio of meridional and
peripheral velocities (i.e., the flow factor) of 0.5.
ii. The maximum efficiency is 82% at a flow factor of 0.45 and a kinetic energy
recovery factor of 0.7 for the second stage exit,
iii. The degree of reaction (i.e., the ratio of the static pressures at the second stage inlet
and exit) is about 0.2 at the maximum efficiency point,
iv. Near the maximum efficiency, the discharge angle at the second stage exit is more
than 90°, whereas, at high flow factors this angle is less than 90°.
v. About 70% of the total head is converted into shaft power in the first stage, almost
independent of the flow factor. The optimum efficiency occurs near the optimum
first stage flow factor,
vi. Assuming that the runner width and the diameter are the same, maximum
efficiencies are obtained at dimensionless specific speeds of about 1.55, and at
relatively low values of dimensionless specific diameter of about 1.17.
vii. The maximum first stage efficiency is reached at a flow factor slightly less than the
optimum flow factor. The second stage efficiency reaches a maximum at flow
factors significantly higher than the optimum flow factor.
Considering the cross-flow and the uncrossed flow, Durgin and Fay (1984) modified
the Mockmore and Merryfield (1949) maximum efficiency expression (Equation 2.3) for the
CFTas:
Tlmax = 5C 2 [(1 - X)(l + t|») + xJCOS 2 ^ , (2.4)

where x = the ratio of cross-flow to the total flow. This analysis was compared with
the measured efficiency data using reasonable values of loss factor (i.e., the ratio of relative
velocities for the crossed flow at the second stage exit to that at the first stage inlet), nozzle
15
entrance loss coefficient, and the percentage blade fill. The efficiency predicted by the mo-
dified theory represented the observed efficiency better. The existing theory had predicted a
maximum efficiency of 87% whereas the modified theory predicted an efficiency of 66%,
indicating clearly that the uncrossed flow must be accounted for in the predictive techniques.
Fukutomi et al. (1985) numerically analyzed the flow from the cross-flow turbine
nozzle with arbitrary asymmetric curved surfaces, by using Schwarz-Christoffel trans-
formation. The flow from a CFT nozzle gives some circumferential velocity and an opti-
mum angle to the flow at the nozzle exit where it has free boundaries. The results of the nu-
merical analysis were compared with experimental results and both were found to agree
well.
In addition, Fukutomi et al. (1985) confirmed the earlier finding by Nakase et al.
(1982) that at the nozzle exit, the flow does not drop to atmospheric pressure immediately
even if it is a potential flow. They concluded that the flow has a considerable pressure due to
the turning of the flow that occurs along the nozzle upper wall.
Hothersall (1985) was the first to attempt a two-dimensional study of the CFT. This
two-dimensional analysis was used to illustrate the effect of the number of blades on the first
stage when operating partially as a reaction turbine. The results of the study indicate that the
CFT is quite tolerant of blade number. It was also suspected that, at low blade numbers sepa-
ration occurs on the suction faces and the CFT operates as an impulse turbine. The analysis
demonstrated the importance of the Coriolis forces which constitute about 40 % of the cir-
cumferential pressure forces acting on the blades. Hothersall (1985) also compared the CFT
with the cross-flow fan and indicated that some of the cross-flow fan technology is transfer-
able to CFTs.
Fukutomi et al. (1991) analyzed the flow inside a CFT runner by dividing the flow into
six regions with the flow being radially inwards in the first three and outwards in the last
three. Their study also includes numerical calculation of the unsteady flow along stream-
lines in the relative system of the runner and the investigation of the flow along the runner
16
periphery. The results of the numerical analysis were compared with the experiments and a
close agreement was observed between the two.
Fukutomi etal.(1991) concluded that the flow inside the runner was exceedingly non-
uniform along the periphery, and that this was the reason for the decrease in the CFT effi-
ciency. In addition, the flows at the turn-over region (i.e., the uncrossed flow region) and at
the last outward flow region had a velocity component in the rotational direction only, and
hence in these regions the loss in flow rate is high. If the runner diameter ratio is small, the
two regions will extend resulting in a higher.
Kong et al. (1992) theoretically studied the absolute path of water jet in the first
stage of the CFT runner and determined that at a constant inlet angle the absolute flow
path is independent of the flow rate of water. This was also verified experimentally.
They concluded that the pathline is dependent only on the runner geometry and that the
butterfly valve located in the nozzle inlet acts more as a guide vane than as a flow control
valve. They recommended that more attention be focused on the butterfly valve as it can
significantly affect the overall turbine performance.
In this study, the concept of dividing the flow into regions will be utilized to develop a
simple expression for maximum CFT efficiency. This expression will contain all the param-
eters, which are being investigated in the study. In addition, an attempt will be made to quan-
tify the sensitivity in the CFT efficiency due to each of these parameters. Chapter in address-
es all these issues in detail.
Experimental Studies on CFT
Mockmore and Merryfield (1949) constructed a CFT runner made out of steel. The
side disks were cut out of 1/4 inch steel plate with an outer diameter of 13.1 inches. The run-
ner was 12 inches wide and had 20 blades cut out of 7/64 inch, steel and bent to a radius of
2.14inches. The total head values were 9,10,12,14,16, and 18ft., measured w. r. L the shaft
17
center. The flow rate was 2.22 cfs, at 16 ft. head. Table 2.1 gives the actual and computed
speeds in rpm for various heads at maximum power, as tabulated by Mockmore and Merry-
field (1949). The speed was computed by using the following equation:
N=mti (2.5)
where N = Speed (rpm),

Di = Runner Outer Diameter (inches), and
H = Head (ft).
Table 2.1 Experimental and Theoretical Speeds for CFT at Various Heads [Mockmore
and Merryfield, 1949]
Head (ft) 9 10 12 14 16 18
Actual 197 212 232 260 270 290
Speed
(rpm)
Computed 202 212 234 253 287

Speed
(rpm)
No computed speed value was reported for the 16 feet head. The maximum efficiency
under 16 ft. head was 68% and the specific speed was 14 English Units. As the head varied
from 9 to 18 ft., the specific speed varied from 2 to 16 English Units. The conclusions drawn
based on these tests were:
i. The CFT can be operated efficiently on a wide range of gate openings when
compared to other turbines,
ii. The Brake Horsepower (BHP) is proportional to H1-5, where H is the head.
18
iii. At a constant head, the maximum efficiency will occur at a constant speed for
practically all gate openings.
Varga (1959) conducted experiments to measure the pressure distribution along the
nozzle walls. A total of 24 gaging points on the upper and lower sections as well as the side
walls of the nozzle. All gaging points were connected to a multi-manometer system. Pres-
sure distributions along the wall were measured with and without the runner, and a trajectory
network, similar to a flow net, was constructed. The maximum efficiency reported in these
experiments was 77%. Varga concluded that the CFT works as an impulse turbine only in the
range of well-defined speeds with its upper limit giving the maximum efficiency. Varga also
confirmed that at maximum efficiency the ratio of the peripheral and absolute velocities are
equal to half the cosine of the angle of attack at the first stage inlet (i.e., rj = Timax when u i/V i
=0.5 cos cxi). Finally Varga (1959) concluded that the momentum required for regulation of
the CFT can be determined by the trajectory network and the pressure distribution along the
nozzle walls.
Nakase et al. (1982) experimentally studied the effect of nozzle shape on the perform-
ance of the CFT by using an outer diameter of 315 mm. and a runner with 26 blades, having
blade inlet and outlet angles of 30° and 90° respectively. The runner and the nozzle widths
were also 315 mm. Theflowrate was 6.64 m3/min. at a head of 1.54 meters. Three types of
nozzles were used, as described below:
A-type: The nozzle entry arc of 90°, a = 15°, and circular rear wall with 154 mm
radius.
B-type: The nozzle width decreases uniformly along the periphery, approximately
logarithmic spiral in shape.
C-type: The nozzle had shape intermediate to types A and B and was used for
comparison.
According to thefindingsof Nakase et al. (1982), the flow at the nozzle exit has a posi-
tive gage pressure, and hence the turbine is not a perfect impulse turbine. Nakase et al. also
found that only a major portion of the entire flow is cross-flow. This cross-flow gives rise to
contraction leading to an accelerated flow from the first stage to the second stage. The
19
absolute maximum efficiency obtained in these experiments is 82%. Other conclusions
drawn by Nakase et al. (1982) were as follows:
i. Decrease in the pressure at nozzle exit is not always related to an increase in the
maximum efficiency,
ii. The suitable value of the nozzle throat width ratio is nearly 0.26, changing slightly
with the nozzle entry arc.
Johnson et al. (1982) designed and tested a CFT having a wooden casing, runner plates
and vanes of PVC plastic, and the nozzle and guide vane of polymer-coated wood. Their
tests indicated that a single, non-segmented design can achieve efficiencies of 60-80% with
an uncertainty of ± 6 %, over a wide range of flow rates and heads at various runner speeds.
For a runner with 18 blades, the maximum efficiency occurred at a head of 3 to 3.5 ft. They
also used a wooden draft tube to recover some of the tailwater head. The best setting oc-
curred when the water in the draft tube was just at the bottom of the runner. They also con-
cluded that by proper nozzle design, efficiency will remain high for nozzles with entry arcs as
high as 120°.
An extensive experimental study was undertaken at Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado, USA. This experimental work, done by Khosrowpanah (1984), involved
the study of the effect of the number of blades, runner diameter, and nozzle entry arc on the
CFT performance under flow/head variations. The models were made of clear acrylic plas-
tic. Four runners each having a width of 6 inches were tested. The ninner details are shown
in Table 2.2.
20
Table 2.2 Details of Runners Tested by Khosrowpanah

Runner # Outer Diameter, Di #of
(inches) Blades, ne
1 6 20
2 12 20
3 12 15
4 12 10
In these experiments, 6-inch wide nozzles with entry arcs of 58°, 78°, and 90° were
used in a vertical configuration. The resulting data were compared in terms of dimensionless
parameters for each runner at different nozzle openings under different combinations of
head and flow rate. It was noticed during these experiments that the specific speed varied
with the nozzle entry arc, aspect ratio, and speed ratio and that by selecting an optimum num-
ber of blades, the cost/KW-hour reduces at any load factor. From these experiments the fol-
lowing conclusions were drawn:
i. The unit discharge increases with an increase in nozzle entry arc, and runner aspect
ratio, and a decrease in the number of blades,
ii. The maximum efficiency increases with an increase in the nozzle entry arc from
58° to 90° and decreases slightly with a decrease in runner diameter at constant
runner width. For all the tested runners, maximum efficiency occurred at a speed
ratio of 0.54.
iii. The run-away rpm decreases with an increase in the nozzle entry arc and the
runner diameter, and increases with a decrease in the number of blades. Specific
speed of the turbine varies with the nozzle entry arc, aspect ratio, and speed ratio,
iv. The peak unit power output occurs at a unit speed slightly less than that for the
maximum efficiency,
v. The number of blades has a moderate effect on efficiency and power output. The
optimum number of blades was determined to be 15 for a runner having 12-inch
outer diameter.
21
vi. For all nozzle entry arcs, the total pressure and static pressure decrease with a
decrease in the number of blades, for a constant flow rate.
vii. For the 90° nozzle entry arc, the optimum value of the ratio of the radial runner
width to the blade spacing was 1.03 .
Van Dixhorn et al. (1984) tested a CFT to determine the magnitude of fluid forces on
the blades. They measured the tangential and radial forces, and the pitching moment on a test
blade. They also measured the blade loading pattern over a revolution for a non-dimension-
al speed ranging from 0.35 to 1.10, and a head ranging from 1 to 2.6 meters. The maximum
forces were found to occur just before the blade leaves the nozzle end. Their other conclu-
sions were:
i. Peak efficiency of 60 to 70% was observed at a non-dimensional speed of 0.47.
ii. The flow was substantially lower than the theoretical flow due to non-uniform
pressure in the nozzle throat and reaction effects in the runner. Zero reaction
requires a large amount of diffusion in the blade passage,
iii. Using flow visualization, the turning angle in the first pass and the validity of full
passage assumption can be observed. Separation off the suction and pressure sides
of blades was seen at low and high speeds respectively. Full passage assumption
appeared reasonable only near the optimum speed,
iv. The centrifugal force and the pitching moment, found by spinning the runner in the
air, were in agreement with measured forces during CFT operation in regions of
empty flow passage,
v. As head changes, the blade loading pattern at a given speed remains nearly
constant. At run-away rpm, the fluid forces were not substantially higher than
those at optimum speed. The blade pitching moment clearly shows the change in
incidence angle over the speed range,
vi. The maximum blade forces appearing as a spike occur when the blade is at about
10° before the nozzle exit. The tangential forces were in good agreement with
results of the full passage control volume analysis, whereas radial forces were
slightly lower.
Durgin and Fay (1984), who also modified Banki's theory as described earlier, builtan
acrylic model of the CFT, and tested nozzles with entry arcs ranging from 50° to 80° and ob-
tained a maximum efficiency of 66%. This maximum efficiency compared very well with
their theoretical prediction. They also extracted the cross-flow by making it flow through a
22
pipe with a slot instead of the second stage. They determined the power produced by the first
stage as 83% while the rest of the power came from the second stage.
Chiatti and Ruscitti (1988) introduced an internal rotating deflection element inside
the blade crown to guide the stream and to avoid focusing effects. Their prototype runner
was 250 mm. in outer diameter, having 24 blades of 145 mm. length. The jet width, design
power, and the design speed were 4 mm, 140 KW, and 3000 rpm respectively. The test bed
was equipped with a digital speed meter and a brake mounted on an oscillating support with a
Dynamometer having a least count of 0.05 Newton. The maximum overall efficiency ob-
tained was about 75% with an uncertainty of ± 3 % . The optimum inlet angle and deviator-
to-blade phase angle were close to the theoretical values as provided by the design.
Fiuzat and Akerkar (1989 and 1991) conducted experiments to probe the effect on effi-
ciency, of factors such as the angle of attack, nozzle entry arc, and nozzle configuration. Five
nozzles were constructed each with a throat width ratio of 0.41. All the nozzles had circular
back walls with the details shown in Table 2.3
Table 2.3 Details of Nozzles Tested by Fiuzat and Akerkar
Nozzle # Angle of Attack, Nozzle Entry

a Arc, X
1 16° 90°
2 16° 120°
3 20° 90°
4 24° 90°
5 24° 120°
23
Three runners were constructed with angles of attack 16°, 20°, and 24°, outer diame-
ter of 12 inches, inner to outer diameter ratio of 0.68, and 20 blades. They recorded and ana-
lyzed the flow patterns by plotting the flow pattern on a square grid. The contribution of the
two stages of the CFT towards the total power output was determined by diverting the flow
after thefirststage through aflowdiverter. Two such flow diverters were made of Plexiglas
cylinders with an 8 inch, outer diameter and 1/4 inch wall thickness. The angle subtended by
the opening portion of the flow diverters was kept 20° more than the nozzle entry arc (k).
Based on theflowpattern study inside the runner, Fiuzat and Akerkar (1989) designed
and improved the concept of interior guide tube. The interior guide tube improved the CFT
efficiency by about 5% at 70% of the rated maximum flow, thus bringing it to 91%. Howev-
er, at the maximum rated flow, the guide tube did not improve the efficiency, possibly due to
a choking effect. This is a new direction in the research on CFT, wherein an all time high
efficiency was reported. Interestingly, significant variation in the total head was observed
for a constant flow rate at different loads on the shaft. Akerkar (1989) also estimated the
uncertainty in the CFT efficiency as ± 3.4 to 4.1%.
Their other findings were as follows:
i. The jet angle at the first stage exit is greater for the vertical position of the nozzle
than either the slant or the horizontal position, indicating more cross-flow and
hence higher efficiency for the vertical position than for either the slant or the
horizontal nozzle positions. The horizontal position was the least efficient.
ii. The amount of cross-flow is inversely proportional to the speed and directly
proportional to the load on the shaft. The cross-flow and run-away speed are
higher for the 90° nozzle than for the 120° nozzle, and hence a 90° nozzle is more
efficient than a 120° nozzle.
iii. At maximum efficiency, cross-flow is about 40% and the speed ratio is between
0.45 and 0.55. Thefirststage of the turbine produces 55% of the total power at 90°
nozzle entry arc, and 59% at 120° nozzle entry arc.
iv. The maximum efficiency attained without the interior guide tube was 89%, for a
90° vertical nozzle with an angle of attack of 24°. The unit power and efficiency
increase with an increase in the angle of attack from 16° to 24°, thus contradicting
Banki's theory of CFT.
24
The experimental investigation reported in this dissertation is an extension of the study

conducted by Khosrowpanah (1984), and Fiuzat and Akerkar (1989 and 1991). In this study,
additional parameters will be identified and the impact of all these parameters on the CFT
efficiency will be probed jointly and individually.
Other Studies on CFT
Some studies on the cross-flow turbine do not fit into either the theoretical/numerical
studies or the experimental studies. These studies include descriptions of some feasibility
studies, actual installations, and turbine selection and sizing studies.
Feasibility Studies
Schikevitz and Yucel (1984) developed a computer model for performing preliminary
hydraulic and economic feasibility analyses at potential micro-hydro sites with capacities
up-to 100 KW. Two computer programs, LOHED and FINAN were proposed to eliminate
high costs for preliminary analyses. The first program analyzes discharge per gross head
data to predict power available for different penstock materials. It can also select the prelim-
inary turbine characteristics. The model was able to predict the fraction of turbine length
required to handle theflowrate at the given head. This prediction was done by calculating
the maximum rated flow Q given by:
Q = KH05 , (2.6)
where K = shape factor, and

H =Head.
25
This maximum rated discharge can be compared to the actual flow rate. If the per-
formance characteristics include speed data, the turbine speed at the rated head can also be
calculated.
FINAN was designed to use the output from LOHED along with some initial cost data
for specific equipment and materials, synthesize a cash flow diagram over the project life,
and amortize it to a present value. This is one of the earlier attempts towards the computa-
tional modeling of the feasibility of the cross-flow turbine.
Panasyuk et al. (1987) conducted an extensive study on the use of local energy re-
sources as an alternative to centralized power supply for mountain regions of central
Asian part of the former Soviet Union. They considered various options such as wind
power, water power, solar batteries, and internal combustion engines. By comparing the
energy, operational, and economic parameters of autonomous energy sources, they con-
cluded that for territorially scattered remote areas with power consumption up-to 50 KW,
micro-hydroelectric stations are the most feasible. Their study concluded that high-head
CFT and low-head propeller turbines are the most productive under those circumstances.
Actual Installations of CFT
O'Lall and O'Lall (1985) manufactured a CFT model of 1 KW capacity in Guyana us-
ing mild steel and galvanized iron. The CFT was connected to a Honda 800-watt generator
during testing and at 360 rpm, the turbine delivered 600 watts of electricity. Further genera-
tor loading showed an exponential decrease in the light intensity of the 100-watt bulbs, in
spite of a constant turbine speed. Hence it was concluded that with a higher output generator
the turbine could have produced more power.
Ott and Chappell (1989 and 1991) describe an actual case in which a CFT was installed
at the Arbuckle Mountain site in northern California. The project has a capacity of 336 KW
and the manufacturing cost for the turbine was only $ 304 per KW. The peak efficiency of
26
79.3 % occurred at about half opening and full opening. Efficiency was observed to increase
with the wading depth (i. e., submerging depth). When the gate was fully open, 2/3rd of the
runner was submerged, and the efficiency was at its peak.
The CFT unit at the Arbuckle Mountain has some special features such as the automat-
ic slide gate, and an elbow draft tube. The flow rate is measured by dye dilution method,
whereas the power output is measured by a torque cell. The dynamic pressure is measured by
a dead weight pressure tester and the vacuum pressure is measured in the housing of the dis-
charge casing by a calibrated Bourdon pressure gage. It was concluded that the CFT with an
automatic sliding control gate has a great potential for areas with fluctuating flows.
Studies on Turbine Selection and Sizing
Haws and Israelsen (1984) conducted studies on the sizing of turbine units and deter-
mined the number of equal size CFTs required as the ratio of the stream flow range to the
turbine flow range. They also estimated the flow range from 25 % to 100 % of the rated ca-
pacity, wherein the efficiency was about 85 %.
Kpordze (1987) proposed a new methodology for turbine selection, based on regres-
sion analysis and recommended monographs utilizing the information from earlier studies,
for planning and conducting feasibility studies for hydropower projects. Kpordze's method-
ology uses experience curves based on the sample study of a number of conventional, low-
head turbines and their small-scale versions used all over the world.
In relation to the CFT, Kpordze gave the following ranges for CFT:
Head Range : 2-147 meters

Flow Range : 0.1-12 m3/sec.
Power Range : 0.01 - 1.1 MW
Speed Range : 83 - 1200 rpm
Specific Speed Range : 0.2 - 255 in. rpm, KW, and meter units
27
Range for runner size : 0.2 - 1.25 meters.

Kpordze determined the mean and standard deviation values for efficiency (T|) as 81 %
and 5% respectively and produced regression equations shown in Table 2.4 which was the
result of the study.
Table 2.4 Kpordze's Regression Analysis of CFT

Depen- Regression Equation r 2 Value Log Sample # of Units
dent Pa- Standard Period Considered
rameter Deviation
D D = 0.329 (P/H) 0275 0.903 0.062 1966-83 30
D D = 1.730 (Q/N) 0191 0.828 0.083 1966-83 30
D D =0.814 (H 05 /Q)-°- 222 0.764 0.096 1966-83 30
N N = 38.451 (H°- 5 /D) 1032 0.990 0.050 1966-83 27
N N = 74.927 (H^/Q) 0 - 331 0.972 0.064 1966-83 27
(P/H) (P/H)=341.218 0.945 0.150 1966-83 30
(Q/N)0-641
where D= Runner diameter (meters)

P= CFT rated power output (KW)
H= CFT rated head (meters)
Q= CFT rated flow (m3/sec.)
N= CFT speed (rpm).
Summary
Reported efficiencies of various theoretical studies on CFT are listed in Table 2.5.
Likewise, Table 2.6 lists the maximum efficiencies attained in the experimental studies.
Table 2.7 lists the parametric values used in the experimental studies.
28
Table 2.5 Efficiencies Computed in Theoretical Studies on CFT

Investigator(s) Year Maximum calculated
Efficiency, r\max
Donat Banki 1917-1919 92 % (no losses)
Mockmore and Merryfield 1949 87.8 %
L. A. Haimerl 1960 82 % (assumed)
0. E. Balje 1980 73 %; 82 % (with a draft
tube)
Durgin and Fay 1984 66%
Table 2.6 Efficiencies Attained in Experimental Studies of the CFT

Investigator(s) and year Max. Efficiency, T|max
Mockmore and Merryfield 68%
(1949)
Varga (1959) 77%
Johnson etal. (1982) 80%
Nakase (1982) 82%
Durgin and Fay(1984) 66%
Khosrowpanah (1984) 80%
Hothersall (1985) 75% .
Ott and Chappell (1989) 79%
Table 2.7 Parametric Values Studied in the Experimental Investigations on CFT.
Investigator(s) Blade Angle of Diameter Nozzle Runner Runner #of Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle
Thickness Attack Ratio Entry Arc Outer Dia. width Blades Width Rear Wall Orienta-
Shape tion
bt (inch) ai (deg.) D2/Di Mdeg.) Di (inch) B (inch) W
nB (inch)
Mockmore and 0.11 16 0.66 (-) 13.1 12 20 12 Linear Horizontal
Merryfield(1949)
Varga(1959) (-) 16 0.66 (-) 7.87 5.03 30 3.94 Spiral Horizontal
Johnson etal. (1982) 0.24 16 0.68 106, 120 10.24 4.72 18 (-) Spiral Horizontal
Nakaseetal. (1982) (-) 15 0.68 30, 60, 12.4 12.4 26 12.4 Circulr", Vertical
90, 120 Spiral, In-
termediate
Durgin and Fay (-) 16 (-) 50, 63, (-) (-) 20 (-) (-) Horizontal
(1984) 70,80
Khosrowpanah 0.13 16 0.68 58, 78, 90 6,12 6 10, 15,20 6 Circular Vertical
(1984)
Hothersall(1985) (-) 16 0.66 60, 130 11.46 5.67 21 5.67 Spiral Horizontal
Fiuzat and Akerkar 0.13 16, 20, 0.68 90, 120 12 6 20 6 Circular Horizon-
(1989) 24 tal, Verti-
cal, 45°
Ott and Chappell 0.38 16 0.68 90 18.13 44 20 (-) (-) Horizontal
(1989)
Note: A (-) means the information was unavailable.

30
Among the theoretical studies on CFT, only the one-dimensional studies have been
used to predict the turbine efficiency, and so far only two theoretical two-dimensional stud-
ies on CFT were conducted. These are:
i. Study to illustrate the effect of number of blades by Hothersali (1985)
ii. Study to determine the flow through a runner by Fukutomi et al. (1991).
None of these two studies predict the turbine efficiency. Hence there is a need to devel-
op a two-dimensional theoretical analysis for predicting the CFT efficiency.
As for the experimental studies, only one study has attempted to explain the effect of
the angle of attack. This was done by Fiuzat and Akerkar (1989) in which values of 16°, 20°,
and 24° were used. The study indicated that 24° is the best angle of attack among the values
tested. However, there is a need to verify this experimentally and to determine the optimum
angle of attack more precisely
Similarly, only one experimental study investigated the effect of the number of blades
on efficiency. The study by Khosrowpanah (1984) indicated that a runner with 15 blades is
more efficient than the runners with either 10 or 20 blades. Varga (1959) used 30 blades and
achieved an efficiency of 77 %, whereas, Nakase et al. (1982) used 26 blades and achieved an
efficiency of 82 %. Thus, it is not fully clear whether an increase in the number of blades is
beneficial or detrimental to the CFT efficiency, and hence further study of the effect of num-
ber of blades on efficiency is warranted. Chapter III discusses a theoretical and experimental
study to overcome some of the shortcomings in the research and knowledge related to the
cross-flow turbine.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
As already explained in Chapters I and II, research on cross-flow turbine needs addi-
tional refinement. This refinement may be achieved through either theoretical studies or
through experimental studies. Ideally, the two should complement each other. This is the
strategy followed in the research reported in this dissertation. The impact of various design
and flow parameters on the efficiency of the CFT is studied both theoretically and exper-
imentally, with the hope of achieving comprehensive relations for quantifying the impact of
these parameters on the efficiency.
Theoretical Research Methodology
From the principles of physics, the expression for the torque (T) acting on the CFT can
be written as follows:
T = - I a , (3.1)
where I = moment of inertia of the runner, and

a = angular acceleration.
Here the negative sign indicates deceleration. If the angular speed of the CFT is varied
uniformly in a time of t seconds from an initial (i.e., when the torque is zero) run-away speed
(coo radians/sec.) to a particular angular speed (co radians/sec), Equation 3.1 becomes:
T = I (o>0 - co) . (3.2)
The moment of inertia of a CFT runner is a function of the entrained water jet and the
runner geometry. The water jet volume entrained inside the CFT runner varies with the
32
runner speed and is maximum when this speed is zero. Thus the moment of inertia varies
from an initial value at run-away speed to a maximum value at zero speed.
The contribution of the water jet to the moment of inertia can be estimated by dividing
theflowinto six regions as explained by Fukutomi et al. (1991). Theflowwill be radially
inwards in the regions A to C and radially outwards in the regions D to F as shown in Figure
3.1.
1 1
I I \
/ )/ J J/
Top Boundary Streamline _ \ ^ ^hJ%T
in Contact with Air ~~>*Z \ \ V
/& Bottom Boundary Streamline
in Contact with Air
Figure 3.1 Division of the Flow into Regions inside a CFT [Fukutomi et al., 1991]
33
If the flow rate (Q) and the operating head (H) are maintained constant, the run-away
speed (coo) will also be a constant for a given nozzle-runner combination. So, the nature of
Equation 3.2 will depend entirely on the relationship between I and t. If a linear relationship
is assumed between the moment of inertia (I) and the time (t), Equation 3.2 will be linear
and vice versa. Since the flow pattern has a non-linear shape, the water jet contribution to
the moment of inertia is also non-linear. However, a linear relationship may be assumed to
considerably simply the problem, although the moment of inertia by itself is a non-linear
term. The implications of assigning a linear as well as a non-linear relationship between I
and t is examined in detail in Chapter IV.
Experimental Research Methodology
It has been observed that the CFT efficiency is a function of a number of parameters.
These parameters may be broadly grouped into two categories. These categories are physical
parameters and geometric parameters.
The physical parameters include the flow rate, total head, shaft torque, runner angular
speed, mode of controlling the dynamometer etc. For a particular set-up of the equipment,
the total head (H) is a function of the flow rate (Q). Similarly for a given test run, the shaft
torque and the runner rotational speed are interdependent and both depend on the input flow
rate. Thus for a given runner and nozzle combination, only the input flow rate will affect
the turbine efficiency. Six flow rates were studied in this research.
The geometric parameters of the turbine include (see Figure 3.2) the angle of attack at
the first stage inlet (ai), runner inner-to-outer diameter ratio (D2/D1), the number of blades
(ne), blade thickness (bt), first stage blade inlet angle (pi), first stage blade exit angle (p\),
blade central angle (9), blade curvature (pe), nozzle throat width ratio (2SQ/DIX), flow
stream spreading (B/W), nozzle entry arc (K), nozzle orientation, nozzle width (W) etc..
34
*Tft Nozzle
Nozzle Lip
Runner
Cross-flow Turbine
Blade
Shaft t
1
B
Section AA
Figure 3.2 Various Geometric Parameters in the Cross-flow Turbine (CFT)

35
Among these geometric parameters, expressions for many blade parameters such as the
first stage inlet angle (Pi), central angle (0), and radius of curvature (ps) have been derived
based on the Banki Theory in terms of the angle of attack at thefirststage inlet (ai) and the
runner diameter ratio (D2/D1). Similarly, Nakase et al. (1982) provided an expression for
the nozzle throat width ratio (2So/DiX). Equations 3.3 through 3.4 give the expressions for
these dependent parameters.
tanPj = 2 tan 04 , (3.3)
9 _ cosPj
taa
2~ • a ^_D 2 ' (3.4)
sinpi+rJ^
D t 2 - D22
QB
=8D1COSP1 ' (3-5)
2S
and •=-— = sinaj . (3.6)
Equation 3.3 is based on the velocity triangle at thefirststage inlet, whereas, Equations
3.4 and 3.5 are based on the blade geometry with p2 maintained at 90°. Likewise, Equation
3.6 is based on the continuity equation applied between the nozzle throat and the nozzle exit.
Thus the only independent parameters are:
a. angle of attack at thefirststage inlet (ai),
b. runner diameter ratio (D2/D1),
c. runner aspect ratio (B/Di),
d. number of blades (ne),
e. blade thickness (bt),
f. nozzle entry arc QJ),
g. nozzle orientation,
36
h. flow stream spreading (B/W), and

i. nozzle rear wall shape.
Parameter Selection
Among these independent parameters, many nozzle parameters such as the entry arc,
orientation, and rear wall shape have been thoroughly studied. Blade thickness is more im-
portant structurally than hydraulically, hence it is held constant in this study and is equal to
0.125 inches.
The impact of the nozzle entry arc (X) has already been extensively studied. Most of
these studies [Nakase et al. (1982), Khosrowpanah (1984), and Akerkar (1989)] reported
that nozzles with an arc of 90° are the most efficient. Hence a nozzle entry arc of 90° is
adopted throughout this study.
According to Akerkar (1989), a vertical nozzle orientation is optimum compared to ei-
ther the slant (45°) or the horizontal orientation. Therefore, in this study only a vertical
nozzle orientation is considered.
Similarly, Nakase et al. (1982) have investigated the impact of nozzle rear wall shape
on the CFT efficiency and concluded that both the circular and logarithmic spiral shapes
were equally more efficient than an intermediate shape. So, in this study, a spiral shape for
the nozzle rear wall will be used.
Therefore, there are five parameters that are investigated in this study. These are listed
below and explained in the paragraphs that follow:
i. first stage inlet angle of attack (cti),
ii. runner diameter ratio (D2/D1),
iii. runner aspect ratio (B/Di),
iv. number of blades (ns), and
v. flow stream spreading (B/W).
37
First Stage Inlet Angle of Attack (ai)
Table 3.1 summarizes all the previous studies on the first stage inlet angle of attack.
There has been only one parametric study on the impact of the angle of attack at the first stage
inlet on CFT performance and was conducted by Fiuzat and Akerkar (1989). The study con-
cluded that the CFT efficiency increases with an increase in ai from 16° to 24°. In the current
study runners and nozzles were constructed with angles of attack 22°, 24°, 26°, 28°, and 32°
in order to determine the most efficient angle.
Table 3.1 CFT Angle of Attack Investigations: Past and Present
Angle of Attack (ai) 15° 16° 20° 22° 24° 26° 28° 32°
Mockmore and Merryfield >A\\\
(1949)
Varga (1959)
Mk
Johnson et al. (1982)
Nakase et al.(1982)
Durgin and Fay (1984)
^
Khosrowpanah (1984)
§s§
Hothersall (1985)
§§
Fiuzat and Akerkar(1989)
Ott and Chappell (1989)
$i ^ ^
^
Present Study
Note: A blank cell indicates that the parametric value has not been investigated.
38
Runner Diameter Ratio (D2/D1)
Table 3.2 summarizes all the previous studies on D2/D1. There have been no parametric
studies on the effect of diameter ratio on CFT efficiency. All studies reported in the literature
were conducted for D2/D1 of either 0.66 or 0.68. The research reported here extends this
narrow range of the diameter ratio to determine its impact on the cross-flow turbine efficien-
cy. The additional values of D2/D1 selected in this study are 0.60 and 0.75.
Table 3.2 Summary of Investigations on Diameter Ratio

Runner Diameter Ratio (D2/D1) 0.60 0.66 0.68 0.75
Mockmore and Merryfield (1948)
^ $
Varga (1959)
•
Johnson etal. (1982) ^ ^
Nakase et al.(1982)
Khosrowpanah (1984)
IM
n
Hothersall (1985)
«
Fiuzat and Akerkar(1989)
Ott and Chappell (1989) ^SsSSS
Present Study
Runner Aspect Ratio (B/Di)
The study conducted by Khosrowpanah (1984) included two values for the runner as-
pect ratio (B/Di): 0.5 and 1. However, there was no mention of the impact of B/Di on the
CFT efficiency. Therefore, the present study will use aspect ratios of 0.33 and 0.50 to
39
quantify the effect of runner aspect ratio on efficiency. The runner outer diameter (Di) was
maintained at 12 inches.
Number of Blades (nfl)
Table 3.3 lists all the studies that have been conducted so far on the number of blades.
As already indicated in the summary of Chapter II, there have been contradictory observa-
tions regarding the influence of the number of blades (na) on the efficiency of the CFT. Ac-
cording to some investigations an increase in ns is favorable to efficiency, whereas according
to some others it is not. Therefore, runners with 15,20, 25, and 30 blades are constructed
for testing.
40
Table 3.3 Summary of Investigations on Number of Blades in a CFT
Number of Blades
10 15 18 20 21 25 26 30
(nB)
Mockmore and s vv\vv
Merryfield (1949)
Varga (1959)
^
Johnson et al.
(1982)
Nakase et al.
(1982)
Durgin and Fay
n
(1984)
Khosrowpanah
(1984)
Hothersall (1985)
HH ^
Fiuzat and Akerkar
(1989)
Ott and Chappell
(1989)
Present Study
H
Flow Stream Spreading (B/W)
Nakase et al. (1982) reported that in the case of a higher maximum efficiency and suit-
able throat width, the CFT efficiency increases with a increase in nozzle width. Whereas in
the case of a lower maximum efficiency and a large throat width, the efficiency decreases
with an increase in the throat width. The above statement makes a distinction between lower
and higher maximum efficiencies. The maximum efficiency itself is a function of a number
of parameters including B/W. The effect of the flow stream spreading alone on the efficiency
41
is not clearly explained. Hence in this research, B/W values of 1,1.5,2, and 3 were studied
to determine the impact of B/W on the efficiency.
Model Components and Tests
Based on the above description, a total of 38 Plexiglas runners and 11 nozzles were de-
signed and constructed. The runners and nozzles used by Akerkar (1989) were re-tested for
comparison. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 list all the nozzle and runner parametric values studied re-
spectively.
Table 3.4 Nozzle Details
Nozzle Angle of Attack Nozzle Width Nozzle Throat Width

OCi W So
# (deg.) (inch) (inch)
1 24 6 3.9
2 28
3 32
4 22 2 3.6
5 4
6 6
7 24 2 3.9
8 4
9 26 2 4.1
10 4
11 6
12 16 4.0
13 20
Note: All the nozzles have an entry arc (K) of 90°. A blank cell or a set of blank cells in
a column has the value in the cell immediately above it.
42
Akerkar's nozzles (i.e., Nozzle 12 and 13 in Table 3.4) have a circular rear wall shape
below the shaft level and a straight rear wall shape above the shaft level. Moreover, these
nozzles had a very short lip (refer to Figure 3.2). Interestingly, Akerkar's runners (i.e., Run-
ners 39,40, and 41 in Table 3.5) had afirststage blade exit angle (P2) other than 90°, contrary
to the reported design. For Runner 41, P2 was was actually measured to be 55°. This pro-
vided another parameter for evaluation.
Table 3.5 Runner Details

Runner Angle of Attack Dia. Ratio #of Aspect Ratio First Stage Blade
Blades Exit Angle
# (ai deg.) (D2/D1) nB B/Di (p2deg.)
1 24 0.60 15 0.50 90
2 20
3 25
4 0.68 15
5 24 0.68 20
6 25
7 0.75 15
8 20
9 25
10 28 0.60 15
11 20
12 25
13 0.68 15
14 20
15 25
16 0.75 15
17 20
18 25
43
Table 3.5 Runner Details (Continued)

Runner Angle of Attack Dia. Ratio #of Aspect Ratio First Stage Blade
Oti Blades Exit Angle
# (deg.) (D2/D1) nB B/Di (Meg.)
19 32 0.60 15 0.50 90
20 20
21 25
22 0.68 15
23 20
24 25
25 0.75 15
26 20
27 32 0.75 25
28 22 0.68 0.33
29 0.50
30 30 0.33
31 0.50
32 24 25 0.33
33 30
34 0.50
35 26 25 0.33
36 0.50
37 30 0.33
38 0.50
39 16 20 55
40 20
41 24
Note: All the runners have an outer diameter (Di) of 12 inches. There is a variation
of ± 0.8° in a] due to the availability of only limited sizes of Plexiglas tubes in the mar-
ket. A blank cell or a set of blank cells in a column has the value of the filled cell im-
mediately above it.
44
In all, 77 combinations can be derived out of these nozzles and runners. So, for a given
flow rate, 77 tests could be conducted. However, because of a substantial water leakage
along the nozzle tip for Akerkar's nozzle-runner combinations for 16° and 20° angles of at-
tack, these were not retested. This was probably due to relatively short lip of the old nozzles
as compared to the new nozzles. Therefore, only 75 nozzle-runner combinations were
tested. The following criteria were used in selecting the nozzle-runner combinations:
i. The first stage inlet angle of attack (oti) should be the same for the nozzle and
the runner,
ii. The nozzle width (W) should always be less than or equal to the runner width (B).
Six flow rates were chosen for testing depending upon the capacity of the laboratory
pumping system. The minimumflowrate was chosen such that theflowtransition and the
nozzle ran full, for the purpose of accurate pressure reading. The 75 possible test combina-
tions are listed in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 All the Tested Nozzle-Runner Combinations

Combination Nozzle Width Runner Combination Nozzle Width Runner
# (W inch.) # # (W inch.) #
1 6 1 14 6 12
2 2 15 13
3 3 16 14
4 4 17 15
5 5 18 16
6 6 19 17
7 7 20 18
8 8 21 19
9 9 22 20
10 34 23 21
11 41 24 22
12 10 25 23
13 11 26 24
45
Table 3.6 All the Tested Nozzle-Runner Combinations (Continued.)

Combination Nozzle Width Runner Combination Nozzle Width Runner
# (W inch.) # # (W inch.) #
27 6 25 52 4 36
28 26 53 37
29 27 54 38
30 29 55 2 1
31 31 56 2
32 36 57 3
33 38 58 4
34 4 1 59 5
35 2 60 6
36 3 61 7
37 4 62 8
38 5 63 9
39 6 64 32
40 7 65 33
41 8 66 34
42 9 67 41
43 32 68 28
44 33 69 29
45 34 70 30
46 41 71 31
47 28 72 35
48 29 73 36
49 30 74 37
50 31 75 38
51 35
Note: A blarlk cell or a set of blank cells in a column has tltie value of the fi led cell im-
mediately above it. Refer to Tables 3.4 and 3.5 for nozzle and runner details respectively.
46
Description of the Equipment
The Clemson Hydraulics Laboratory is equipped with a sump and two pumps with ca-
pacities 10 HP and 25 HP. These pumps were used to maintain a constant-head in the over-
head tank during testing. Flow was regulated by a 6-inch gate valve shown in Figure 3.3.
Turbine Casing
The casing was made up of 1/2-inch thick Plexiglas sheets. A 1-inch diameter steel
shaft, with the runner mounted on it, ran through the bearings all along the casing width as
shown in Figure 3.4. Two roller bearings were used. The casing side covers, were bolted
together for easy assembly and disassembly, and hence to facilitate the quick and easy re-
placement of runners for various tests. Figure 3.4 is a photograph of the top portion of the
turbine casing.
Runners
A total of 39 runners made of 1/2-inch Plexiglas sheets and 1/8-inch thick Plexiglas
pipes, having different diameters were tested. The 1/2-inch thick Plexiglas sheets were used
for the sidewalls of the runners. The blades were made from sections of the pipes. Refer to
Figure 3.4 for a complete view of the runner components.
a. Side walls. The side walls are cut out of 1/2-inch thick Plexiglas sheets in the Divi-
sion of Engineering Services of Clemson University by using computer numerical controlled
(CNC) machines. One of the side walls have a hole and a key-way corresponding to the shaft
diameter and the size of the key, respectively. The other side-wall is in the form of an annulus
with its outer and inner diameters corresponding to the outer and inner diameters of the run-
ner.
47
Figure 3.3 The Complete Experimental Set-up
Figure 3.4 Runner, Nozzle, and the Top Portion of the Casing
48
On the inner sides of both the side walls 1/8-inch wide grooves in the shape of circular
arcs are cut to a depth of 1/32 inch. The inner and outer radii of these grooves correspond to
the inner and outer radii of the blade to be fitted into that runner and, the number of such
grooves in each of the side walls correspond to the number of blades in that runner. The
groove central angle is the same as the blade central angle.
b. Blades. The runner blades for this study are cut out of Plexiglas pipes correspond-
ing to the blade central angle (0) as calculated by Equation 3.10. Each of the blades are 6.063
inches long out of which a length of 1/32 inchfittedinto the grooves cut in each of the two
inner sides of the side walls. In order to minimize losses due to separation the blade edges
are rounded off in the shape of circular arcs of 1/16-inch radius, as shown in Figure 1.1.
After all the blades are slid into the grooves, they are glued to the runner by using the organic
chemical, 1-2 dichloroethane.
c. Shaft. The 1-inch diameter turbine shaft is machined out of a steel rod. Four key-
ways are cut along a straight line on the shaft surface. The two inner key-ways are for the
4-inch wide runners, whereas the two outer key-ways are for the 6-inch wide runners. Keys
are inserted through these key-ways and the key-ways in one of the side walls and runner
cover.
d. Runner cover. The main purpose behind the use of runner cover is to enable the
runner to be used for tests involving either the flow diverter or the interior guide tube, as in
the earlier study by Akerkar (1989). Sometimes, it also helps to remove the debris trapped
into the runner blades. Three runner covers are made out of 1/2-inch thick Plexiglas sheets,
corresponding to the three diameter ratios studied. Their inner diameter correspond to the
inner diameter of the runner and the outer diameter is kept an inch more than the inner diame-
ter. For the annular area between the inner and outer diameters, the runner cover has 1/4 inch
49
thickness. In this area three screw holes are drilled so as to fix the runner cover with one of
the side walls of the runner. The runner covers also have a shaft-hole and a key-way corre-
sponding to the size of the shaft and the key.
Nozzles.
The nozzles are prepared out of 1/4-inch thick Plexiglas sheets, which are very easy
to heat with a heat-gun and bend to the exact nozzle shape. For all the nozzles the entry arc
(A) was maintained at 90°. All the nozzles have 1-inch thick Plexiglas flanges to connect
them to the flow transition. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show a typical 6-inch wide nozzle.
Flow Transition
A flow transition is used to change the cross-sectional area from a circular pipe to a
square or rectangular conduit, depending on the nozzle width. The upper portion of the flow
transition is a PVC pipe with an inside diameter of 6 inches. A 1-inch thick square Plexiglas
piece is glued to the bottom of this PVC pipe. Four 1/2-inch thick Plexiglas sheets are joined
with each other, as shown in Figures 3.4 and 3.5, to form a square conduit of 6-inch inside
length. This square conduit has a 1-inch thick Plexiglas flange at its both ends, for joining
it to the PVC-Plexiglas assembly and to the top of the nozzle. Figure 3.5 shows such an
arrangement. Silicone was used as sealant.
Flow Transition Modification. For 4-inch and 2-inch wide nozzles, the flow transi-
tion is fitted with additional one or two pairs of 1-inch thick Plexiglas plates, with their top
portion having a variable thickness to facilitate the reduction in the flow transition and nozzle
widths. Figure 3.6 shows the modified flow transition for a 2-inch wide nozzle.
Figure 3.5 Turbine, Dynamometer, and Data Acquisition System Figure 3.6 Flow Transition Modification for Narrow Nozzles
<J1
o
51
Dynamometer. Controller, and Data Acquisition System
A 200 lb.-inch dynamometer is used to measure the shaft torque and angular speed. The
dynamometer is attached to the turbine shaft as shown in Figure 3.4. The dynamometer is
equipped with a data acquisition system, shown in Figure 3.5. From the main menu of the
data acquisition system, options such as automatic test, load curve, speed stabilized point,
torque stabilized point, manual operation, recalling data from a diskette, and exit to DOS
may be selected. In the automatic test, the runner speed varies from the maximum run-away
speed (i.e., at zero torque) to the specified minimum speed in rpm. The duration of this pro-
cess can also be controlled by setting the ramp rate to any value within 5 (slow) and 99 (fast).
The controller transmits the angular speed and torque to a screen plotter which produces dif-
ferent screen plots. All the experiments are conducted only under automatic test.
Experimental Procedure
The experimental procedure involves the measurement of four parameters: shaft

torque (T), shaft rpm (N), flow rate (Q), and total head (H). A dynamometer was used to
measure the shaft torque and shaft rpm by attaching it to the turbine shaft, as seen in Figure
3.4. To maintain uniformity in the tests conducted, the dynamometer is operated at a ramp
rate of 75. For any nozzle-runner combination, up-to three data sets of torque and speed
readings were collected at any of the specified flow rates. All these data sets are stored as
data files on 5.25-inch floppy diskettes. These data sets are used for fitting a regression
equation for the rotational speed in terms of torque. Chapter IV explains this in detail.
The flow rate was measured by using an orificemeter having an inlet diameter of 6.45
inches and a throat diameter of 4.875 inches, introduced in the straight reach of the pipeline
having a length of more than 11 times its inlet diameter upstream, and another straight pipe
length of more than 5.5 times its inlet diameter downstream. This was as specified by the
ASME standards (ASME PTC 18,1949). Refer to Figure 3.3 for the actual arrangement.
52
The pressure gradient between the inlet and the throat was measured by means of two pres-
sure tappings located at one full and one half diameter distance from the upstream face of
the orificemeter. The calibration of the orificemeter was done by using a weighing tank.
Refer to Figure 3.7 for the orificemeter calibration plot for the flow rate. The calibrated
equation had a r2 value of 0.999 and a slope of 0.503 as compared to the ideal value of 0.5.
Figure 3.7 Flow Rate Calibration Curve for the Orificemeter

53
Total head (H) was measured in the prismatic portion of the nozzle, at a number of
points lying in a plane normal to the flow. These points were selected along both the axes
of symmetry and both the diagonals at representative locations. Total head was measured
by using a U-tube water manometer connected to an 18-inch long Pitot tube, at minimum
number of points taking the cross-sectional symmetry into account. To minimize the errors
due to the Pitot tube vibration, it was firmly clamped to the turbine shaft and casing. The
total pressure head (H) was then computed by assigning proper weightage factors to the read-
ings at each of the measured points.
At the cross-section where the total pressure head was measured, if we assume the stat-
ic pressure head (p/y) to be linearly proportional to the the velocity head corresponding to
the average velocity (V2/2g), the total pressure head (H) can be expressed as follows:
H= C^ + Z (3.7)
•^8
where C = a constant,
V = cross-sectionally averaged velocity (ft/sec),
g = gravitational acceleration (ft./sec2), and
Z = elevation head w. r. t. the shaft center (ft.)
Equation 3.7 can be expanded to:
O2 1
U = C
J2 2E + Z (3 8)
-
where Q = flow rate (ft3/sec. or cfs.), and
A = nozzle cross-sectional area (ft2)
However, considering the ideal slope for the flow rate calibration curve, the following
expression can be written for the flow rate (Q):
54
Q = B h q 05 (3.9)
where B = the orifice meter calibration coefficient, and

hq = discharge manometer reading (ft)
Using Equation 3.9, Equation 3.8 can be further expanded to:
H -= C
^ B£
^ ^ J_
h1 ] + Z (3.10)
A2 2g
where Q = flow rate (ft3/sec. or cfs.), and

A = nozzle cross-sectional area (ft2))
Equation 3.10 clearly indicates that the total pressure head (H) varies linearly with the
discharge manometer reading (hq). Hence, the total pressure head readings were calibrated
with respect to the manometer readings for the flow rate, for each of the three nozzle widths.
All the three calibration plots are shown in Figure 3.8. Interestingly, all the plots have r2
values of more than 0.999 and the intercepts compare very well with the actual potential head
(Z, i. e., the vertical distance between the shaft center and the cross-section where total head
was measured). Z was measured to be 0.688 ft.
The following chapter contains the further analysis of the theoretical methodology and
the data analysis for all experiments conducted with different nozzle-runner combinations
at various flow rates. The experimental data analysis includes four different approaches used
to explain the methodology discussed in this chapter.
55
10"
/*
//
/
9- /
/ H=0.603+5.137* hq
9
9
9
9
8- t
i
//
t
i
i
* 7- i
t
t
I 9
i
TJ
§ 6- i
I t
t
9
2 t
1
3 1
ID 1
9
Q.
H=0.545 +1572 4hq |
3-
1—
2- -
--B—
* H=0.623+0.663 *hq
11 i i i i i
05 1 1.5 2 25 3 35
Discharge Manometer Reading, hq (ft)
D 61 Nozzle X 4"Nozzle B 2*Nozzle
Figure 3.8 Calibration Curves for the Total Head

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
In this chapter, the theoretical concept introduced in Chapter III is further analyzed,
the experimental data for all the tests conducted on the Cross-flow Turbine (CFT) is ana-
lyzed, and the results are presented. The theoretical analysis includes linear and non-linear
analysis. As already mentioned at the end of the previous chapter, the experimental data
analysis is accomplished by the following four methods:
i. Multiple Regression Analysis
ii. Probability Analysis
iii. Uncertainty Analysis, and
iv. Sensitivity Analysis.
All these analyses are compared to check their mutual compatibility with one another.
In addition to this, analogies from the principles of confidence limits of reliability and critical
path method (CPM) of project scheduling are also used to compute another estimate of un-
certainty in the maximum efficiency of CFT.
Theoretical Analysis
In the theoretical analysis in Chapter HI, the change in the volume of the entrained wa-
ter jet inside the runner with the change in the rotational speed has already been mentioned.
At the run-away speed, the water jet has the maximum relative velocity and therefore it is
deflected away from the shaft center as shown in Figure 4.1. However at zero speed (i.e.,
Maximum shaft torque), the water jet has to follow the path of the blade profile as
photographed in Figure 4.2. In this case, the volume of the entrained water jet inside the
runner will be maximum (refer to Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.1 Flow Pattern in CFT at Run-away Speed Figure 4.2 Row Pattern in CFT at Zero Speed
^1
58
Linear Analysis
If the moment of inertia of the runner (I) is considered as linearly dependent on the time
(t), co will be the only variable in Equation 3.2. Hence the Equation 3.2 will be linear in
angular speed co..
Expressing the angular velocities coo and co in terms of the initial run-away rpm (No)
and the rpm at torque T (i.e., N) respectively, equation 3.2 simplifies to:
T ={|(N0-N) , (4.1)
i.e., N = N0 - \ ^ T _ (4.2)
For the CFT efficiency (T|) to be a maximum at a given flow rate (Q) and head (H), the
Brake Horsepower (BHP) should be a maximum. The BHP can be expressed by the follow-
ing equation:
BHP = - L _ | _ , (4.3)
where T = torque (lb.-inches), and

to = angular velocity (radians/sec).
After simplification, Equation 4.3 reduces to:
- rc N T
RHP
BHP
" (1.98) (105) • (4-4)
For maximum BHP, the product of N and T must be maximum, or in other words
2ELS = o (4 5)
y
dN * '
Substituting the value of T from Equation 4.1, Equation 4.5 can be simplified to:
N= ^ . (4.6)
Hence, according to the linear analysis, maximum efficiency occurs at one half the run-
away speed. In Figure 4.3, a straight line and a cubic curve are fitted for torque-speed data.
Nozzle Width=4"; Runner # 31
Unit Flow Rate=0.137
10CH 1 1 1 1 1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Shaft Torque (Tlb.-inch.)
• Expl. Pt. — CiAicFit — UnearR
Figure 4.3 A Typical Cubic and Linear Equation Fit for Speed in terras of Torque
60
Non-linear Analysis
In Chapter HI, the non-linear nature of the I and t relationship has been explained al-
ready. Although the linearity assumption between I and t is very easy to incorporate, it can
only provide a preliminary estimate of the rotational speed. So, a non-linear equation must
be selected to represent the relationship between the moment of inertia and time. The equa-
tion should be simple enough, yet capable of predicting the runner rotational speed with suf-
ficient accuracy. Very little information about the I and t relationship is available in the CFT
literature. So, non-linear regression is extensively used for the experimental data analysis.
Experimental Data Analysis
Due to their simplicity and flexibility, polynomial equations are the obvious choice in
such a case. The experience has shown that odd-ordered polynomials represent the end
conditions of the CFT torque-speed data better than the even-ordered polynomials. Be-
cause, even-ordered fitted polynomials show a positive slope at one of the ends, whereas the
torque-speed data has a negative slope through out. Since cubic curve is the next higher odd-
ordered polynomial after the straight line, it is selected for the CFT torque-speed data. So,
cubic curves were fitted for all the test data. A cubic curve-fit for the torque-speed data has
an equation of the following form:
N = a + b T + c T 2 + dT 3 . (4.7)
Here a, b, c, and d are the coefficients. A total of 395 cubic curves were fitted using
'Tablecurve', a curve-fitting software package. The coefficient of determination (r2) was
greater than 0.980 in all but six cases. The minimum and maximum values of r2 were 0.971
and 1.000 respectively. The standard error of fit was always less than 8.5. The software
package also had the capability to fit a large number of (upto 3000) curves for the same data
and assign a rank after arranging all the fitted curves in descending order of r2. In Figure 4.3
61
the significantly high value of r2 and the better rank of the cubic equation can be seen in
comparison to the linear equation.
Table 4.1 lists the probabilities of the fitted cubic curves with ranks 1, 2, 3, and 4. It
can be observed that the cubic curve has a 90.4% probability of of having a rank of 3 or better.
The straight line never had the best rank of 1 and in all tests its rank was far below the rank
of the cubic curve. This further justifies the selection of the cubic curve for the torque-rota-
tional speed data for a CFT.
Table 4.1 Probabilities of Fitted Cubic Curves Having Higher Ranks
Rank of the # of Occurrences Probability of Occurrences Cumulative Probability

Cubic Curve (%) of the Cubic Curve
n having a rank of n or
better
1 193 48.9 48.9
2 101 25.6 74.5
3 63 15.9 90.4
4 4 1.0 91.4
Other 34 8.6 -
Of all the 39 runners tested, only Runner # 41 has a first stage exit angle (P2) of 55°.
Whereas, all other runners have P2 = 90°. Therefore, there are only 13 tests with P2 = 55°
in a total of 395. Table A-I in Appendix-A lists the maximum efficiencies attained in each
of the 395 tests. Here, the maximum efficiency (T|max %) is given as:
Here BHP max is the maximum value of the brake horsepower as computed by Equa-
tion 4.4. The input horsepower (IHP) is given in terms of the specific weight of water (y
in lbs/ft3), flow rate (Q in cfs.), and the head of water (H ft.) by the following expression:
62
yHQ
IHP = (4.9)
550
Figure 4.4 shows the measured efficiencies in a typical test. It also shows the efficien-
cies predicted by straight line-fit and cubic curve-fit. The Speed ratio (Nr) is the ratio of
the runner peripheral velocity and the absolute velocity of the water jet, and is given by:
Nr = (4.10)
60/2gH
Nozzle Width = 4"; Runner #31

Unit Flow Rate=0.137
90- , .rf'TrSkr^Tr
^ S t e S ^ 5xs/\.
80-
70-
0\n\
S- 60- • >Qg
>,
£ 50-
3=
"» 40-
crV
30-
\P
20-
• \ n
10-
04 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 15

Speed Ratio
• Expt.Pt. Cltiicfit UnearRt
Figure 4.4 Comparison of Measured and Equation-fit Derived Efficiencies

63
The maximum efficiencies were arranged in decreasing order to compute the percent
exceedance. Figure 4.5 plots the percent exceedance vs. the maximum efficiency, arranged
in uniform increments of 1%. The area enclosed between this s-shaped curve and the hori-
zontal axis is calculated to be 2802 units. By the analogy of confidence limits, we can deter-
mine the maximum efficiency corresponding to 99% of the enclosed area as 83%, implying
that maximum efficiencies of 83% or lower have at least 99% confidence.
IUU.IT
90.0-
80.0-
70.0-
8
§ 60.0-
•D
n\
c
a
•\
$ 40.0-
Q.
83%
30.0-
20.0-
10.0-
u.u
30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
Maximum Efficiency (%)
Figure 4.5 Percent Exceedance Plot of the Maximum Efficiencies

64
Multiple Regression Analysis
It is very clear that the maximum efficiency in the CFT depends on various geometric
and physical parameters. Multiple regression analysis was performed to study this depen-
dence. 'Execustat', a statistical analysis package, was used for the multiple regression analy-
sis. Maximum Efficiency was selected as the dependent parameter and nozzle width (W
inch.), angle of attack (a 0 ), diameter ratio (D2/D1), number of blades (nB), runner width (B
inch.), first stage blade exit angle (P20), and discharge manometer reading (hq inch.) were
selected as independent parameters..
When the deviations from the regression line were dependent on the parameter value
or when there was a poor correlation between the maximum efficiency and any of the inde-
pendent parameters, the residuals were plotted to assist in better selection of independent pa-
rameters. The following criteria were selected to determine the suitability of multiple re-
gression models:
i. Coefficient of Determination (i.e., r 2 ),

ii. Level of Significance (i.e., p-value), and
iii. Durbin-Watson Statistic.
For the best multiple regression model r2 is negligibly smaller than 100%, p-value is
very close to zero and the Durbin-Watson statistic (it measures the degree of correlation in
the residuals) is between -2 and 2. In addition, this regression model is extremely simple
with as little number of independent variables as possible. Table 4.2 lists all the multiple
regression models considered.
65
Table 4.2 Various Multiple Regression Models Considered
Multiple Independent Parameters r 2 value Ind. Parameters Durbin-Watson

Regression (%) with p-value # Statistic
Model # 0
1 W, a, D2/D1, nB, B, p 2 , 80.2 hq 0.43
hq
2 1/a, D 2 /Di, n B , BAV, 0 2 . 84.9 B/D], h q 0.53
B/Di, hq
3 1/a, D2/D1, n B , BAV, p 2 , 84.8 B/D! 0.54
B/Di
4 l/a,D 2 /Di,n B ,BAV,p2 84.3 - 0.57
5 1/a, D 2 /Di,n B ,BAV 81.6 - 0.60
From Table 4.2 it is evident that the multiple regression model # 4 is the best among
all thefivemodels. Table 4.3 lists the details of this multiple regression model. Based on
this model, the equation for the maximum efficiency in the CFT (r|max %) is:
206
"max = 26.70 - 4 1 . 1 1 ^ + 0.86n B + ^ 5 3 - 4 . 1 6 ^ + O.3102 (4.11)
Table 4.3 Details of the Best Multiple Regression Model (# 4)
Coefficient Standard Error t-value p-value

Estimate
constant 26.70 5.34 5.00 0.00
Dî -41.11 4.89 -8.40 0.00
nB 0.86 0.05 17.64 0.00
1/a 2063.53 61.60 33.50 0.00
BAV 4.16 0.35 -11.74 0.00
1 P2 0.31 0.04 -8.16 0.00

66
The standard error of estimation of ri max , which is an estimation of the standard devi-
ation around the regression line, was 4.68% and the mean absolute error was 3.62%. Table
4.4 lists some important correlations between the maximum efficiency and other parameters
of this model, on a scale of-1 to +1.
Table 4.4 Some Important Correlations of the Parameters with Maximum Efficiency
Parametric Pair Correlation Coefficient p-value

Timax and D 2 /D! -0.14 0.004
rimax and n B 0.55 0
Ttmax and p 2 -0.18 0.001
rimax and 1/oc 0.79 0
From the multiple regression analysis (Table 4.1) it is evident that the effect of flow
rate variation on the maximum efficiency is not significant, and the runner aspect ratio
(B/D i) is not as important as other parameters. However, its inability to account for the non-
linear variations in the independent variables is a major shortcoming of this type of analysis.
Hence, these findings must be verified by other methods of analysis such as the probability
analysis.
Probability Analysis
In this analysis, the data set in Table A-l is arranged such that all tests in which there
was variation of only one parameter are grouped together. The number of test pairs which
resulted in an improvement of maximum efficiency are then counted to determine their
probability. This is the improvement probability. Table 4.5 lists all such probabilities.
Table 4.5 Probabilities of Improvement in the Maximum Efficiency
Parameter Lower Bound Upper Bound Total* # of Tests Improvement
of the Range of the Range of Tests with Better Probability
"Hmax (%)
B/W 1.0 1.5 79 58 73.4
1.5 3.0 60 2 3.3
1.0 2.0 24 0 0.0
a 22° 24° 45 0 0.0
24° 26° 44 0 0.0
26° 28° 6 6 100.0
24° 28° 47 0 0.0
28° 32° 53 1 1.9
D 2 /D! 0.60 0.68 82 19 23.2
0.68 0.75 80 10 12.5
h 55° 90° 13 0 0.0

B/Di 0.33 0.50 36 5 13.9
hq 8.2" 12.5" 75 32 42.7
12.5" 16.6" 75 38 50.7
16.6" 21.5" 75 36 48.0
21.5" 31.0" 53 16 30.2
31.0" 36.2" 42 14 33.3
nB 15 20 80 78 97.5
20 25 81 67 82.7
25 30 76 67 88.2
68
The improvement probabilities listed in Table 4.5 do not take into consideration the
uncertainties in measurements. Therefore, in Table 4.6 the mean values and the standard
deviations of the change in maximum efficiency are computed for all rows in Table 4.5.
Table 4.6 Mean Values and Standard Deviations of the Changes in Maximum Efficiency
Parame- Lower Bound Upper Bound Mean value of the Std. Deviation of
ter of the Range of the Range change in rjmax the change in T\mm
(%) (%)
B/W 1.0 1.5 2.8 5.6
1.5 3.0 -9.2 4.7
1.0 2.0 -7.3 3.1
a 22° 24° -10.7 3.9
24° 26° -10.3 4.6
26° 28° 4.2 1.6
24° 28° -10.8 7.1
28° 32° -7.3 2.9
D2/D1 0.60 0.68 -3.7 5.5
0.68 0.75 -2.4 5.8
P2 55° 90° -11.0 2.5
B/Di 0.33 0.50 -3.2 3.0
hq 8.2" 12.5" -0.1 2.3
12.5" 16.6" 0.3 2.6
16.6" 21.5" 0.1 1.8
21.5" 31.0" -0.9 2.5
31.0" 36.2" -0.2 1.3
nB 15 20 8.2 4.6
20 25 2.9 5.2
25 30 3.1 3.0
69
Effect of Angle of Attack
From Tables 4.5 and 4.6 it is observed that, in 188 test pairs out of a total of 195 a de-
crease in the angle of attack (a) produced an increase in the maximum efficiency (T|max) of
the CFT. Figure 4.6 shows the impact of a on the maximum efficiency for the test combina-
tion closely representing the mean values of change in r|max as given in Table 4.6.
D2/D1 = 0.68; 25 Blades; Q = 1.25 cfs.

Nozzle Width = 6"; Runner Width = 6"
90
80" >"" S,
70-
^60-
^5
2^- s
>50- ' / \ \ . \ \
o
c N
o 40- // V\^ \ \
N >x
LU
30-
r \\N * \
X %
/ ^ \ \
20-
\ \N * \
10-
X
\ \ \ \
0 i i i i i i i
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 16
c
Speed Ratio
— 22deg. — 24deg. — 26deg.

— 28<teg. — 32deg.
Figure 4.6 The Impact of the Angle of Attack on CFT Efficiency

70
Effect of Diameter Ratio
From Tables 4.5 and 4.6 it is evident that a decrease in the diameter ratio (D2/D1) from
0.75 to 0.68 leads to an increase in the maximum efficiency Cnmax) of the CFT.. Figure 4.7
shows the effect of D2/D1 on r| max for the test combination closely representing the mean
values of change in r| max as given in Table 4.6.
Nozzle Width=4"; Runner Width=6"

Alpha= 24 deg.; 15 Blades; Q= 0.95 cfs.
iv
60-
50-
/ ^ \
^40- /'/ \\^
!§ 30-
LU
/ \
20-
\
10-
\
0" 1 1 I I 1
0 02 04 06 08 1 12
Speed Ratio
— D2D1=060— D2/D1=0.68 DBD1=0.75
Figure 4.7 The Effect of Diameter Ratio on CFT Efficiency

71
The Influence of the Number of Blades
From Table 4.5 it is clear that an increase in the number of blades (nB)from 15 to 30
has a very high probability of improving the CFT maximum efficiency (T|max). Table 4.5
provides a quantitative estimate of this improvement in T|max. Figure 4.8 represents a test
combination having its results closest to the mean values of the change in maximum efficien-
cy as listed in Table 4.6.
Nozzle Width=2"; Runner Width = 6"

Alpha= 24 deg.; D2/D1= 0.68; Q'= 0.07
tt\m
70
y ^
60-
50- //'
/f^Z%^ ••''' 'v \ ^ \
* s
/// / \ v\
^40-
>.
//* /
/// */
N\ \ \ ^\\ \
o iif *» \ \ \
c /// \ ^ \ \s
'5
E 30-
LU
/'''
At / \
'"• w\ w
20- r \ \\
' ' ' \ \ \
10-
""\\\
0 I . I i i i
D 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 12
Speed Ratio
1 5 B l a d e s - " 20Blades 25Blades 30Blades
Figure 4.8 The Influence of the Number of Blades on CFT Efficiency

72
Effect of Flow Stream Spreading
From Tables 4.5 and 4.6 it is observed that the flow stream spreading (BAV) has a
mixed effect on the maximum efficiency of the CFT Cnmax). Figures 4.9 and 4.10 clearly
show this effect. These figures closely resemble the mean values of changes in the t| max due
to the change in the BAV value.
D2/D1 = 0.75; 15 Blades; Q=0.77 cfs.

Alpha=24 deg.; Runner width=6"
60"
50"
40-
o
£
LU
/
it
20- '/
i
i
10-
\ ^^
0i l
3 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 12
Speed Ratio
— B / W = 1 . 0 — B W = 1 5 — B/W=3.0
Figure 4.9 The Effect of Flow Stream Spreading in the Range of 1 through 3
73
D2/D1 = 0.68; 25 Blades; Q=1.25 cfs.

Alpha=26 deg.; Runner Width=4"
nt\
70
^ — ^
60"
/ X \ \
50"
£40-
1/ \ \
/ \ \
0
c
0
0 \ \
e 30-
LU
\ \
20-
\ \
10-
\ \
n
0 i i i i i i
) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Speed Ratio
— BW=1—BW=2
Figure 4.10 The Effect of Flow Stream Spreading in the Range of 1 through 2
Effect of Runner Aspect Ratio
Tables 4.5 and 4.6 indicate that a decrease in the runner aspect ratio (B/Di) from 0.50
to 0.33 will produce an increase in the maximum efficiency (ilmax) of CFT. Figure 4.11 is
the closest representation of the mean change in Timax due to the change in B/Dj.
74
D2/D1= 0.68; 30 Blades; Q = 1.25 cfs.

Alpha=26 deg.; Row Stream Spread=1
70"
60-
50-
?
£40
>>
0
c
ffl \ \
0
£ 30-
UJ
20-
\ \
10-
\ \
ul i i i i i i
) 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 12 1.4
Speed Ratio
— B/D1=0.33 B/D1=0.50
Figure 4.11 Effect of Runner Aspect Ratio on the CFT Efficiency
Impact of the First Stage Blade Exit Angle
Although there were only 13 test pairs, all of them showed an increase in the maximum
efficiency (T|max) with the decrease in thefirststage blade exit angle (P2X The closest resem-
blance to the mean value of the change in rjmax is depicted in Figure 4.12.
75
D2/D1 = 0.68; 20 Blades; Q=0.77 cfs.

Alpha=24deg.;B=6";W=6"
90"
80-
^ ^ x
70
/ '''' \ \
%v
/ '' \
60
/ •' \ \
%
// / *' \ \\
0
c
v
/ ''' > \
£40-
// \ \
30-
\ \
20 \ \
10-
01 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 12 1.4
Speed Ratio
90deg.— 55deg.
Figure 4.12 Impact of the First Stage Blade Exit Angle on Efficiency
Effect of Flow Rate on the Maximum Efficiency
Tables 4.5 and 4.6 clearly show that the effect of flow rate (expressed as hq) is highly
insignificant. This is because the probability of improvement is within 30 to 51 percent and
the change in maximum efficiency due to the change in flow rate is always within 0.9%. This
76
confirms the previous finding by Patzig (1987). In Figure 4.13 the maximum efficiency for
the most efficient nozzle-runner combination is plotted against the unit flow rate (Q') by
using an analysis comparable to Patzig. Here the unit flow rate (Q') is expressed in terms
of the runner outer diameter Dj (ft.), flow rate Q (ft3/sec), gravitational acceleration g (ft./
sec2), and the head H (ft.), by the following expression:
Q = (4.12)
D^.yiM
Maximum Efficiency vs. Unit Flow Rate

Nozzle Width=4 inch.; Runner # 31
100.O
iDischarge Averaged Efficiency (88.58%)
90.0-.4?
80.0-
..--
Representative Efficiency (88.0%)
.•.*
70.0-
b 60.0i
c
0)
•O 50.0i
Lower Range Extrapolation based on Patzig (1987) Study
s
3 40.0-
2
30.0-
20.0-
10.0-
o.o- -r—
o.oo 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.14
0.12
Unit Row Rate
Figure 4.13 Comparative Analysis to show the Effect of Flow Rate

77
Table A-2, in Appendix A, tabulates the mean values, standard deviations, and the co-
efficients of variation of the maximum efficiencies computed at different flow rates for all
the nozzle-runner combinations. The measured maximum efficiency which is closest to the
mean of the maximum efficiency (i.e., the discharge-averaged efficiency) is called the repre-
sentative efficiency (Refer to Figure 4.13 for the illustration of the discharge averaged maxi-
mum efficiency and representative efficiency. Table B-l, in Appendix-B, lists the expres-
sions for some additional non-dimensional parameters. Appendix-B also contains the
representative efficiency data tables for all the tested nozzle-runner combinations listed in
Table 3.6.
Critical Path Method Analogy
From Appendix-B it is seen that Runner # 25 tested with a 6-inch wide nozzle has the
absolute minimum representative efficiency of 41.8%. Whereas, Runner #31 tested with
a 4-inch wide nozzle has the absolute maximum representative efficiency of 88.0%. This
fact clearly justifies the parametric study of CFT. Based on the principles of the critical path
method (CPM) of project scheduling, an efficiency improvement flowchart is shown in Fig-
ure 4.14. The nodes represent the nozzle-runner combinations and the arrows represent a
change in any one of the parametric values by one increment. Refer to Tables 3.1,3.2, and
3.3 for the increments of the parametric values.
The nozzle-runner combinations are designated by three digits, written in bold letters
at the node centers. Thefirstdigit represents the nozzle width (W in inches) and the remain-
ing digits represent the Runner number. Refer to Table 3.6 for the list of the nozzle widths
as well as the runner numbers, and Table 3.5 for the runner details. The mean values of
change in the maximum efficiency (r|max) due to the change in the parametric value are indi-
cated along the arrows. These values are obtained from the fourth column in Table 4.5. The
78
representative efficiencies and coefficients of variation are shown at the top and bottom por-
tions, respectively. These values are reproduced from Table A-2 in Appendix A.
The path having the least cumulative coefficient of variation is analogous to the critical
path. This path contains nozzle-runner combinations having the least variation in the maxi-
mum efficiency with respect to the flow rate. The path analogous to the critical path has the
least cumulative coefficient of variation of 21.0% and in Figure 4.14 it is the vertical path
at the center. This analogous path has very little significance as compared to the critical path
in construction scheduling. It only shows that the representative efficiency values for the
nozzle-runner combinations in that path are more reliable when compared with any other
path.
Based on the mean values of change in r| max , the uncertainty in the absolute maximum
representative efficiency can be computed. Assuming the absolute minimum representative
efficiency to be most probable, the absolute maximum representative efficiency can be deter-
mined as 93.2% by forward computation. This computation is done by simply adding the
numbers along the arrows in any path, successively to the absolute minimum value of the
representative efficiency (i. e., 41.8%). Similarly, assuming the absolute maximum repre-
sentative efficiency of 88.0% to be most probable, the absolute minimum representative effi-
ciency can be determined as 36.6% by backward computation. This indicates that there is
approximately an uncertainty of ± 5.2%. Likewise, if the node with the minimum coeffi-
cient of variation along this central vertical path (the combination with a 4-inch nozzle and
runner # 32) is assumed to have the most probable value of representative efficiency, the ab-
solute maximum representative efficiency will be 91.2% for the tests conducted in this study
and similarly the absolute minimum efficiency will be 39.8%. This indicates an uncertainty
of-2.0 to 3.2%. Thus the uncertainty will be different every time a different nozzle-runner
combination is selected as the reference for efficiency. Therefore, this uncertainty must be
determined by an acceptable method of uncertainty propagation as explained in the follow-
ing section.
79
/^W\
-X 431 L
2.8/ \2.8
/ftf/T^ /84J\ y^3\ ,
( 430 ( 429 ) ( 430
)
\L3x \L4/ U 3 y
32
-/ ^ JL
3>
X
/TL8\
10.7 JT3.2
/83.7\
( 631 ( 406 ) 631
V J
VJJ^ \2.0 J V11/
3.1jf^ 2.8 ^ r ^ | ^ 10.7
/Mlft\ /74i6\ /TON
\ 629 ; ( 432 ) ( 634
)
\2&4 3 2
\0.9 J ^LJ^/
10.7 - Jt
N
V*7l!(5Y^/ 3 . I
A 606 j k
2J^" ^ ^ 5 ^ 9 ^^^•*"^2.9
10.8, ^ JL2.4 s!9 ^ - ^ ^
/m9\ /6Z5* /709\ ^6L9\ /^ 6 L 9 \
( 609 ) ( 615 ( 609 ) ( 605 ) ( 605 )
\2Ay \14/ \29/
Viiy
7.3jT iTlO.8 Z%3-2
^^y
iT 2 - 4
2-9?
/T9^\ /^55^ /582\ /6L7\ •'m^x
( 608 J ( 624 ( 618 ) ( 604 J f 608 J
\ U / N2;5/ X3..5 y \*3ji/
\l£/ 29
8.2_J_ 2,4
jL JL jl0.8 /f 10.8
/tojK /tt!^ /523\ /509\ /^ 5 Z 3 \
( 607 ) ( 627 ( 617 ) ( 613 ) ( 617 )
2
\£2S V ^ \L6^/ V2/ZX \^ ^ 6 /
2,9 jf7.3
io.8nr
/43~]N
3^
/47?r
8.2^K
/^18\
J7.3
/ ^ 5 \ /SwF\
( 626 ( 616 ) ( 622 ) ( 626 )
( 616)
V3.2y \3JL< 4^1^ ^LiL^
7.3jT v
8.2 s 2.4 ^
7 3 \
N ^6t2 S
5
v ^ ^ ^ 8 . 2
( )
Figure 4.14 Efficiency Improvement Flow Chart with Analogous Critical Path at
the Middle
80
Appendix B includes the data tables of representative efficiencies for each nozzle-run-
ner combination tested. These tables also include the non-dimensional parameters such as
the unit power (P'), unit speed (N') and specific speed (Ns). Table B-1 in Appendix B lists
the expressions for each of these new non-dimensional parameters.
Uncertainty Analysis
Uncertainty analysis provides a quantitative estimate of the error in a dependent pa-

rameter, due to the probable error that might have been made in measuring a number of inde-
pendent parameters. In this case, the uncertainty analysis is done for the representative effi-
ciency for the best nozzle-runner combination (6-inch wide nozzle, Runner #31, and hq =
36.2") at the maximum efficiency point. According to the multivariate Taylor Series (Harr,
1987) if the dependent parameter c is a function of the independent uncorrelated parameters
x, y, etc., the uncertainty (i. e., standard deviation, a measure of variation) in c (oc) is given
by:
ac2 = ( § ) 2 ax2 + ( g ) 2 ay2 + <4-13>
Uncertainty in Torque Measurement
A 200 lb.-inch dynamometer was used to measure the torque and at 180 lb.-inch (i.e.,
at 90% of the Dynamometer capacity) the uncertainty in the torque was measured as ± 0.9
lb.-inches. Therefore at the maximum efficiency point, with a torque of 230.64 lb.-inches,
the uncertainty in the torque measurement (ox) will be ±1.15 lb.-inches.
81
Uncertainty in Rotational Speed Measurement
From the plot of the shaft torque (T lb.-inch.) and speed (N rpm), the uncertainty in
the speed (GN) can be estimated as ± 3 rpm at a rotational speed of 195 rpm. This is the rota-
tional speed at the representative efficiency point, where the uncertainty is being estimated.
Uncertainty in Brake Horsepower
By substituting these uncertainty estimates in torque and speed in Equation 4.7, uncer-
tainty in the brake horsepower (<JBHP) can be computed as ±0.012 HR (Refer to Equation
4.4 for the BHP calculation).
Uncertainty in Flow Rate Measurement
During the experiments, it was observed that the discharge manometer reading (hq)
varied by about ± 0.8 inches at hq = 36.2 inches. By using the equation given in Figure 3.7,
its equivalent uncertainty in the flow rate (CTQ) of ±0.018 cfs.
Uncertainty in Total Head Measurement
During the experiments, it was also observed that the Pitot tube readings for the total
pressure head (H) varied by about ± 0.5 inches at hq = 36.2 inches. This is equal to an uncer-
tainty in the head (<JH) of ±0.004 ft.
82
Uncertainty in Specific Weight of Water
The uncertainty in the specific weight of water (ylbift3) also needs to be estimated,
because it appears in the Equation 4.3 for the input horsepower (IHP). Specific weight was
measured indirectly by reading the water temperature and using the standard tables for inter-
polation of y. If the uncertainty in the temperature is estimated as ±0.5°F (i.e., one half of
the least count of the thermometer), the corresponding uncertainty in the specific weight (<7y)
at 68°F will be ±0.004 lb./ft3.
Uncertainty in Input Horsepower
By substituting these uncertainty estimates of flow rate, head, and specific weight of
water in Equation 4.7, uncertainty in the input horsepower (amp) can be computed as
±0.0118 HP. (Refer to Equation 4.9 for the IHP calculation).
Uncertainty in Maximum Efficiency
By substituting these uncertainty estimates in the brake horsepower and input horse-
power into Equation 4.13, uncertainty in the maximum efficiency (a^max) can be computed
as ± 1.9%. (Refer to Equation 4.8 for the rim^ calculation).
This estimate of the uncertainty in the maximum efficiency, does not account for the
sensitivity of curve-fitting. Sensitivity is the change in the values of the dependent variables
in the equation fit (i. e., flow rate, head, and turbine rotational speed) as well as the maximum
efficiency. The cubic curve-fits for the torque-speed data and the linearfitsfor the flow rate
and the head data have already been substantially justified in the current and the previous
chapter. However, sensitivity analysis must be performed to assess the appropriateness of
the coefficient values of the fitted equations as described below.
83
Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity analysis is done at 99% confidence limits for the coefficients in the
fitted equations. Again the representative efficiency for the best nozzle-runner combination
is selected, so that the results can be compared with the uncertainty analysis. Table 4.7 lists
all the coefficients of the fitted equations and their 99% confidence limits.
Table 4.7 Coefficients of the Fitted Equations and their 99% Confidence Limits
Independent Dependent Form of the Values of the Lower Limit Upper Limit
Parameter Parameter Equation Coefficients of 99% of 99%
Confidence Confidence
Torque Speed N=a a= 461.485 459.487 463.483
(T, lb.- (N, rpm) +b*T b=-1.782 -1.883 -1.682
inch.) +c*T2 c= 4.041e-3 3.092e-3 4.991e-3
+d*T3 d=-5.791e-6 -8.039e-6 -3.543e-6
logh q logQ log Q = a a = -0.030 -0.034 -0.026
+b*log hq b = 0.503 0.490 0.517

Discharge Total Head H=a a = 0.549 0.514 0.584
Manometer (H, ft.) + b*hq b = 1.272 1.254 1.291
Reading
(hq, ft.)
The lower and upper limits of 99% confidence limit were used to compute the lower
bound and upper bound estimates of the dependent parameters N, Q, and H. These pairs of
estimates were substituted in the expressions for brake horsepower at the representative effi-
ciency point which is a maximum and the input horsepower (i.e., Equations 4.4 and 4.9 re-
spectively). The lower and upper bounds of the representative efficiency were then deter-
mined. Table 4.8 shows these lower and upper bound estimates.
84
Table 4.8 Lower and Upper Bound Estimates of the Parameters
Parameter Lower bound Most Probable Upper Bound

Estimate Estimate Estimate
Rotational Speed 192.630 194.330 196.031
(N, rpm)
Flow Rate (Q, cfs.) 1.616 1.625 1.635
Total Pressure Head 4.367 4.387 4.407
(H, ft)
Maximum Efficiency 86.4 88.0 89.7
(Tlmax. %)
Figures 4.15 and 4.16 show the the sensitivity of the straight linefittingfor the flow
rate (Q) and head (H) respectively. In Figure 4.13, it is seen that the representative efficiency
has the highest flow rate and so the sensitivities in Q and H are very significant.
85
Figure 4.15 Sensitivity of the Flow Rate to the Fitted Equation
Likewise, Figure 4.17 illustrates the combined influence of the the three fitted equa-
tions on the efficiency. The efficiency has a small sensitivity only in the middle portion of
the curve, around the maximum efficiency point.
86
Upper Bound Estimate
4-
Lower Bound Estimate
y-s
I
«
(1)
I
2
3
2 2.5-
n
15-
0.5 1.5 2 2.5 3.5

Discharge Manometer Reading, hq (ft.)
Figure 4.16 Sensitivity of the Total Pressure Head to the Fitted Equation
87
Figure 4.17 Sensitivity of the Efficiency to the Combined Effect of Curve-fittings
The sensitivity analysis results in an uncertainty in the maximum efficiency of-1.6

to 1.7% which compares quite well with the ± 1.9% uncertainty obtained in the uncertainty
analysis. It is relevant here to consider the uncertainties of-5% and -2.0 to 3.2% obtained
by using the analogy of confidence limits and critical path method (refer to Figures 4.5 and
88
4.14). The mean value of all these four uncertainties is ± 2.4%. Hence, the maximum effi-
ciency of the CFT in this parametric study can be reported as (88 ± 2.4)%.
Comparison of Speed Ratio Values with the Banki Theory'
As per the Banki Theory, the speed ratio (Nr given by Equation 4.10) at the maximum
efficiency point is expressed by Equation 2.2. Table 4.9 compares the results of the present
study with the Banki Theory. The nozzle-runner combinations included in Figure 4.6 are
considered for this comparison. It is recalled here that these nozzle-runner combinations
have changes in maximum efficiency due to a change in the angle of attack (oti in Figure 1.1)
closest to the mean changes in maximum efficiency as reported in Table 4.6
Table 4.9 Comparison of the Present Study with the Banki Theory
Nozzle Runner Angle of Speed (cos oci)/2 NMcos ai)/2] Nr/[(cos ai)/2]
Width # Attack Ratio as per Banki as per Present
(W (<*i°) (Nr) at Theory Study
inch.) Tlmax
6 29 22 0.568 0.464 1.225

6 6 24 0.545 0.457 1.194
6 36 26 0.501 0.449 1.115
6 15 28 0.534 0.441 1.210
6 24 32 0.498 0.424 1.174
89
Table 4.9 shows that speed ratio values in the present study compare reasonably well
with the Banki Theory. The best comparison is at 26° angle of attack. In the present study,
speed ratio is always smaller than (cos oci)/2.
Comparison with Kpordze's Regression Analysis
Table 2.4 has all the regression equations fitted by Kpordze (1987). Since all the run-
ners in the present study have 12-inch outer diameter, it can not be chosen as a dependent
parameter. Therefore, the present study can be compared with only the last three regression
equations in Table 2.4. Since runner # 31 is the most efficient, its Si-converted data at differ-
entflowrates and nozzle widths is compared with Kpordze's regression equations in Table
4.10.
Table 4.10 Comparison with Kpordze's Regression Equations
Regression Equation r 2 Value Log # of units

Standard considered
Error
Kpordze's Study N = 38.451 (H°- 5 /D) 1032 0.990 0.050 27
5 1070
Present Study N = 46.789 (H°- /D) 0.991 0.014 16
L5 0 331
Kpordze's Study N = 74.927 (H /Q) - 0.972 0.064 27
15 0 356
Present Study N = 48.848 (H /Q) - 0.891 0.052 16
0 641
Kpordze's Study (P/H) = 341.218 (Q/N) - 0.945 0.150 30
0 235
Present Study (P/H) = 1.963 (Q/N) - 0.091 0.115 16
A very good comparison is observed in thefirstpair of regression equations. Whereas,

in the second regression equation the present study suffers slightly in terms of its r2 value.
90
However, in the third pair of regression equations it can be observed that the rotational speed
at the maximum efficiency (N rpm) appears on both the sides of the equation. On the left
hand side of the equation, N appears in the form of rated power output which is the product
of N and the torque Ton the turbine shaft. Hence, the appropriateness of thi&equation needs
to be further studied.
The next chapter explains the conclusions drawn based on the data analysis and the
results obtained in this chapter. It also presents the logical reasoning behind these results.
It is then followed by recommendations for further study on the CFT.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
The parametric study of the cross-flow turbine performance is a very effective tech-
nique in optimizing the turbine maximum efficiency. This technique can precisely identify
the favorable parameters and quantify their impact on turbine performance. Based on the
results of the data analysis performed in Chapter IV, the following conclusions can be drawn:
i. Maximum efficiency of the CFT tends to decrease with the increase in the first
stage inlet angle of attack (oci) in the range of 22° to 32°. Obviously, this is the
effect of the corresponding increase in the first stage blade inlet angle (Pi). This
leads to the shifting of the water jet towards the shaft center. Subsequently, it
results in a decrease in the turning moment at the shaft center due to the water
jet. Hence there is a reduction in the brake horsepower (BHP) and efficiency (r|).
ii. An increase in the number of blades from 15 to 30 has a favorable impact on the
CFT efficiency. This can be attributed to a better energy transfer between the
water jet and the turbine blades.
iii. There is a slight reduction in the CFT maximum efficiency with the increase in
the diameter ratio (D2/D1) in the range of 0.60 to 0.75. This is due to the fact that,
an increase in the diameter ratio leads to a decrease in the area of the blade which
results in a decrease in the blade force due to the water jet impact. Hence the
decrease in the Brake Horsepower (BHP) and efficiency (rj).
iv. When the nozzle and runner are of the same width, there is some water leakage
through the gap between the nozzle and the runner. This is due to the obstruction
caused by the runner sidewall to the flowing water. When the flow stream
spreading (B/W) is increased due to a narrow nozzle, the following three
phenomena occur simultaneously: a contribution to the output power from the
92
water which otherwise would have leaked, and there will be some input power
consumption to overcome a relatively larger moment of inertia (I) of the CFT
runner because of a relatively wider runner. In addition, the input power
increases because of the increased total head. At BAV of 1.5, the contribution
to the input power plays a major role compared to the moment of ipertia, whereas,
at higher values of flow stream spreading the moment of inertia dominates over
the reduction in water leakage. Hence, a BAV value of 1.5 is better than either
1,2, or 3.
v. A 4-inch nozzle-runner combination is found to be more efficient than a 6-inch

nozzle-runner combination, because as the nozzle gets narrower the velocity of
water passing through it increases. This will reduce its probability of lateral
leakage through the gap between the nozzle and the runner. Hence the aspect
ratio (B/Di) of 0.33 is better than 0.50.
vi. A smaller value of the first stage blade exit angle (P2) causes the water jet to
deflect away from the shaft center leading to a higher turning moment. Hence,
a value of 55° results in a higher efficiency when compared to a 90° angle.
vii. Although the linearity assumption between the moment of inertia and time is
very easy and quick to incorporate, it can predict only a preliminary estimate of
maximum efficiency.
viii. As long as the nozzle runs full, the total pressure head readings are reliable. So
the flow rate does not influence the maximum turbine efficiency.
ix. The uncertainty estimates as per the variation analysis and sensitivity analysis are
close to each other. Whereas, the uncertainty estimates are higher by confidence
limit analogy and critical path method analogy. The path analogous to the critical
path only indicates that the efficiency values in the nozzle-runner combinations
along that path are more reliable.
Based on all these conclusions, some recommendations are made for further study of
the CFT. The following section lists these recommendations.
93
Recommendations
i. It is extremely important to understand the non-linear relationship between the

runner moment of inertia and time, based on a sound theoretical analysis.
j
ii. The conclusion of this study about the effect of the angle of attack (oil) on the
CFT efficiency are slightly contradictory to the observation made by Fiuzat and
Akerkar (1989), who reported that a change in the a.\ value from 16° to 24° was
favorable to the CFT efficiency. It was not possible to re-test the 16° and 20°
nozzle-runner combinations. Hence, additional testing is recommended in the
16° to 20° range of the angle of attack.
iii. This study reports a slight increase in efficiency with a decrease in the runner
diameter ratio from 0.75 to 0.60. Hence, further testing in the diameter ratio is
suggested in the vicinity of 0.60.
iv. In this study, it is observed that the efficiency increase in the number of blades
range of 20 to 30 is not as significant as that in the range of 15 to 20. So, more
testing is recommended in the number of blades to determine the cut-off point
in terms of maximum efficiency.
v. Since a flow stream spreading of 1.5 is found to be better than all other tested
values, additional experimentation is suggested in that vicinity.
vi. Since the runner aspect ratio (B/Di) of 0.33 is observed to be more efficient than
0.50, further research around that value is recommended.
vii. There has been a significant efficiency improvement with the reduction in the
first stage blade exit angle from 90° to 55°. Hence, a thorough investigation in
different values of P2 is highly recommended.
viii. The development of a multi-parametric computer model to predict the efficiency

change quickly and accurately, is also recommended.
ix. For the cross-flow turbine manufacturing industry, the use of the best parametric
combination is recommended.
i
APPENDICES
95
Appendix A
Maximum and Representative Efficiencies for all Tests/Combinations
Table A-1 Tests Conducted and Their Maximum Efficiencies
Discharge
Nozzle Width Max. Efficiency
Test# Runner # Mano. Rdg. (hq
(W inch.) Olmax %)
inch.)
1 6 1 8.2 63.8
2 12.5 66.2
3 16.6 70.1
4 21.5 70.0
5 31.0 67.0
6 36.2 65.8
7 2 8.2 76.5
8 12.5 76.9
9 16.6 80.9
10 21.5 77.7
11 31.0 83.5
12 36.2 84.1
13 3 8.2 68.5
14 12.5 70.1
15 16.6 73.3
16 21.5 71.6
17 31.0 70.2
18 36.2 71.3
19 4 8.2 61.7
20 12.5 57.7
21 16.6 61.1
22 21.5 62.8
Table A-1 (Continued.) Tests Conducted and Their Maximum Efficiencies
Discharge
(W inch.)
inch.)
23 6 4 31.0 I 62.8
24 36.2 64.6
25 5 8.2 64.5
26 12.5 63.4
27 16.6 61.9
28 21.5 63.3
29 31.0 60.8
30 36.2 59.2
31 6 8.2 69.5 -
32 12.5 72.3
33 16.6 70.8
34 21.5 71.9
35 31.0 72.8
36 36.2 71.0
37 7 8.2 56.4
38 12.5 55.8
39 16.6 56.7
40 21.5 61.2
41 31.0 56.9
42 36.2 58.4
43 8 8.2 73.0
44 12.5 64.6
45 16.6 79.4
46 21.5 79.7
47 31.0 81.3
48 36.2 81.3
Discharge
(W inch.) (T|max %)
inch.)
49 6 9 8.2 ' 69.5
50 12.5 70.2
51 16.6 74.1
52 21.5 73.6
53 31.0 70.9
54 36.2 70.9
55 10 8.2 57.7
56 12.5 61.2
57 16.6 59.7
58 21.5 61.3
59 31.0 56.6
60 36.2 55.6
61 11 8.2 65.9
62 12.5 64.0
63 16.6 66.0
64 21.5 65.0
65 31.0 63.5
66 36.2 64.4
67 12 8.2 66.7
68 12.5 68.4
69 16.6 69.3
70 21.5 68.2
71 31.0 67.6
72 36.2 70.7
73 13 8.2 52.5
74 12.5 51.4
Discharge
(W inch.) Olmax %)
inch.)
75 6 13 16.6 t 51.1
76 21.5 50.9
77 31.0 50.9
78 36.2 48.0
79 14 8.2 62.6
80 12.5 61.9
81 16.6 59.8
82 21.5 60.5
83 31.0 60.5
84 36.2 59.1
85 15 8.2 63.9
86 12.5 64.3
87 16.6 64.1
88 21.5 62.5
89 31.0 60.5
90 36.2 59.5
91 16 8.2 41.7
92 12.5 45.8
93 16.6 44.6
94 21.5 43.1
95 31.0 43.8
96 17 8.2 53.1
97 12.5 52.6
98 16.6 52.4
99 21.5 52.3
100 31.0 51.0
Discharge
(W inch.) (Tlmax %)
inch.)
101 6 17 36.2 < 50.9
102 18 8.2 58.4
103 12.5 58.2
104 16.6 59.0
105 21.5 59.7
106 31.0 56.5
107 36.2 55.6
108 19 8.2 54.2
109 12.5 52.1
110 16.6 50.1
111 21.5 49.2
112 31.0 46.9
113 36.2 46.9
114 20 8.2 60.3
115 12.5 57.1
116 16.6 53.9
117 21.5 51.8
118 31.0 52.2
119 36.2 51.2
120 21 8.2 58.6
121 12.5 58.0
122 16.6 55.7
123 21.5 53.2
124 31.0 51.6
125 36.2 52.4
126 22 8.2 43.5
Discharge
(W inch.) (Ttmax %)
inch.)
127 6 22 12.5 1 43.7
128 16.6 43.3
129 21.5 43.2
130 31.0 44.0
131 36.2 43.2
132 23 8.2 54.2
133 12.5 51.7
134 16.6 52.1
135 21.5 53.1
136 31.0 51.9
137 36.2 50.5
138 24 8.2 57.7
139 12.5 56.4
140 16.6 56.6
141 21.5 55.4
142 31.0 53.6
143 36.2 52.5
144 25 8.2 44.1
145 12.5 41.8
146 16.6 42.0
147 21.5 39.8
148 31.0 39.8
149 36.2 38.8
150 26 8.2 51.0
151 12.5 47.7
152 16.6 47.8
Discharge
(W inch.) (Tlmax %)
inch.)
153 6 26 21.5 ' 46.5
154 31.0 46.0
155 36.2 45.4
156 27 8.2 53.7
157 12.5 52.7
158 16.6 54.3
159 21.5 55.1
160 31.0 51.9
161 36.2 51.9
162 29 8.2 76.6
163 12.5 81.0
164 16.6 82.2
165 21.5 82.8
166 31.0 81.1
167 36.2 82.6
168 31 8.2 82.8
169 12.5 82.5
170 16.6 81.5
171 21.5 83.7
172 31.0 89.0
173 36.2 86.7
174 34 8.2 73.9
175 12.5 77.2
176 16.6 78.1
177 21.5 76.5
178 31.0 75.6
Discharge
Test* Runner # Mano. Rdg. (hq
(W inch.)
inch.)
179 6 34 36.2 { 76.3
180 36 8.2 61.9
181 12.5 57.9
182 16.6 58.0
183 21.5 59.2
184 31.0 57.0
185 36.2 55.8
186 38 8.2 62.4
187 12.5 61.2
188 16.6 65.1
189 21.5 63.8
190 31.0 58.1
191 36.2 60.4
192 41 8.2 77.0
193 12.5 76.4
194 16.6 76.1
195 21.5 76.3
196 4 1 8.2 69.6
197 12.5 65.7
198 16.6 66.0
199 21.5 66.3
200 31.0 65.5
201 36.2 66.2
202 2 8.2 71.3
203 12.5 72.7
Discharge
(W inch.) (Tlmax %)
inch.)
204 4 2 16.6 I 71.8
205 21.5 71.7
206 31.0 73.2
207 3 8.2 78.8
208 12.5 78.6
209 16.6 73.2
210 21.5 75.1
211 31.0 78.7
212 4 8.2 63.7
213 12.5 62.4
214 16.6 65.7
215 21.5 61.6
216 31.0 . 62.6
217 5 8.2 74.1
218 12.5 73.5
219 16.6 70.7
220 21.5 70.5
221 31.0 72.2
222 6 8.2 76.4
223 12.5 80.8
224 16.6 77.8
225 21.5 76.6
226 31.0 77.3
227 7 8.2 58.8
228 12.5 60.0
229 16.6 60.7
Discharge
( W inch.) Olmax %)
inch.)
230 4 7 21.5 i 56.4

231 31.0 57.8
232 8 8.2 70.3
233 12.5 68.9
234 16.6 66.2
235 21.5 69.8
236 31.0 65.8
237 9 8.2 78.1
238 12.5 77.1
239 16.6 76.4
240 21.5 73.6
241 31.0 72.5
242 28 8.2 80.6
243 12.5 83.9

244 16.6 83.5
245 21.5 83.0

246 31.0 . 83.5
247 36.2 82.1
248 29 8.2 86.4
249 12.5 84.8

250 16.6 83.2
251 21.5 84.8

252 31.0 84.7
253 36.2 83.0

254 30 8.2 87.1
255 12.5 87.4
Discharge
( W inch.) Olmax %)
inch.)
256 4 30 16.6 J 86.7
257 21.5 88.7
258 31.0 85.1
259 36.2 86.3
260 31 8.2 87.7
261 12.5 90.2
262 16.6 89.3
263 21.5 89.3
264 31.0 87.0
265 36.2 . 88.0
266 32 8.2 75.1
267 12.5 74.6

268 16.6 75.7
269 21.5 74.9

270 31.0 73.8
271 36.2 73.0
272 33 8.2 79.5
273 12.5 79.7

274 16.6 79.3
275 21.5 77.5
276 31.0 76.6
277 36.2 77.6

278 34 8.2 82.7
279 12.5 83.4
280 16.6 79.5
281 21.5 83.6
Discharge
( W inch.) (Tlmax % )
inch.)
282 4 34 31.0 I 79.5
283 36.2 78.2
284 35 8.2 68.4
285 12.5 66.4
286 16.6 65.5
287 21.5 64.7
288 31.0 63.6
289 36.2 62.8
290 36 8.2 68.7
291 12.5 65.8
292 16.6 65.4
293 21.5 64.0

294 31.0 63.8
295 36.2 63.9
296 37 8.2 69.4
297 12.5 69.1

298 16.6 68.4
299 21.5 67.0

300 31.0 58.0
301 36.2 56.2
302 38 8.2 63.1
303 12.5 63.0

304 16.6 64.9
305 21.5 61.7
306 31.0 61.8
307 41 8.2 85.0
Discharge
(W inch.) (Tlmax %)
inch.)
308 4 41 12.5 ' 86.3
309 16.6 83.8
310 21.5 83.7
311 31.0 82.3
312 2 1 8.2 52.9
313 12.5 53.5
314 16.6 54.7
315 21.5 55.7
316 2 8.2 57.3
317 12.5 61.2
318 16.6 61.2
319 21.5 62.8
320 3 8.2 63.0
321 12.5 65.6
322 16.6 64.1
323 21.5 66.7
324 4 8.2 53.5
325 12.5 52.8
326 16.6 53.5
327 21.5 53.9
328 5 8.2 62.6
329 12.5 61.1
330 16.6 61.5
331 21.5 60.9
332 6 8.2 65.1
333 12.5 64.8
Discharge
(W inch.)
inch.) '
334 2 6 16.6 I 66.2
335 21.5 66.2
336 7 8.2 49.5
337 12.5 49.1
338 16.6 50.0
339 21.5 52.1
340 8 8.2 59.7
341 12.5 59.6
342- 16.6 58.2
343 21.5 59.3
344 9 8.2 62.9
345 12.5 63.1
346 16.6 64.6
347 21.5 65.1
348 28 8.2 75.2
349 12.5 77.8
350 16.6 78.8
351 21.5 81.5
352 29 8.2 79.0
353 12.5 80.3
354 16.6 82.2
355 21.5 84.2
356 30 8.2 84.2
357 12.5 82.4
358 16.6 82.9
359 21.5 84.6
Discharge
( W inch.) Olmax % )
inch.)
!
360 2 31 8.2 87.1
361 12.5 83.6
362 16.6 87.7
363 21.5 89.4
364 32 8.2 64.0
365 12.5 64.7
366 16.6 64.5
367 21.5 64.9
368 33 8.2 67.4
369 12.5 67.0

370 16.6 68.7
371 21.5 68.7
372 34 8.2 68.0
373 12.5 70.7
374 16.6 70.9
375 21.5 73.2
376 35 8.2 58.2
377 12.5 60.6
378 16.6 59.2
379 21.5 60.4
380 36 8.2 60.8

381 12.5 61.6
382 16.6 60.2
383 21.5 60.9

384 37 8.2 63.0
385 12.5 60.9
110
Discharge
Test* Runner # Mano. Rdg. (hq
(W inch.) (Tlmax %)
inch.)
386 2 37 16.6 * 63.2
387 21.5 59.4
388 38 8.2 61.8
389 12.5 64.7
390 16.6 60.7
391 21.5 61.4
392 41 8.2 69.5
393 12.5 68.4
394 16.6 69.3
395 21.5 69.0
Note: A blank cell or a set of blank cells in a column has the value of the filled cell
immediately above it.
Ill
Table A-2 Nozzle-Runner Combinations and their Representative Efficiencies
Combination Nozzle Runner Discharge Standard Coefficient Representative

Width Averaged Deviation of Variation Efficiency
(W Efficiency in i W -
# inch.) # (% %) (o%) (<J/rin %) j Olrep %)
1 6 1 67.2 2.3 3.4 67.0
2 2 79.9 3.1 3.9 80.9
3 3 70.8 1.5 2.1 70.2
4 4 61.8 2.1 3.5 61.7
5 5 62.2 1.8 2.9 61.9
6 6 71.4 1.1 1.5 71.0
7 7 57.6 1.8 3.2 56.9
8 8 76.6 6.0 7.9 79.4
9 9 71.5 1.7 2.4 70.9
10 10 58.7 2.2 3.8 57.7
11 11 64.8 0.9 1.4 64.4
12 12 68.5 1.3 1.9 68.4
13 13 50.8 1.4 2.7 50.9
14 14 60.7 1.2 2.0 60.5
15 15 62.5 1.9 3.0 62.5
16 16 43.8 1.4 3.2 43.8
17 17 52.1 0.8 1.6 52.3
18 18 57.9 1.4 2.5 58.2
19 19 49.9 2.6 5.3 50.1
20 20 54.4 3.3 6.0 53.9
21 21 54.9 2.7 4.9 55.7
22 22 43.5 0.3 0.7 43.5
23 23 52.3 1.2 2.2 52.1
Table A-2 (Continued) Nozzle-Runner Combinations and their Representative
Efficiencies

(W Efficiency in Tlmax.
# inch.) # (<J%) (<J/% %) (Tlrep %)
24 6 24 55.4 1.8 3.3 55.4

25 25 41.1 1.8 4.3 41.8
26 26 47.4 1.8 3.8 47.7
27 27 53.3 1.2 2.3 53.7
28 29 81.1 2.1 2.6 81.0
29 31 84.4 2.6 3.1 83.7
30 34 76.3 1.3 1.7 76.3
31 36 58.3 1.9 3.3 58.0
32 38 61.8 2.3 3.7 62.4
33 41 76.5 0.3 0.4 76.4
34 4 1 66.6 1.4 2.1 66.3
35 2 72.1 0.7 1.0 71.8
36 3 76.9 2.3 3.0 78.6
37 4 63.2 1.4 2.3 63.7
38 5 72.2 1.44 2.0 72.2
39 6 77.8 1.6 2.0 77.8
40 7 58.7 1.5 2.6 58.8
41 8 68.2 1.9 2.7 68.9
42 9 75.5 2.1 2.8 76.4
43 28 82.8 1.1 1.4 82.1
44 29 84.5 1.1 1.4 84.7
45 30 86.9 1.1 1.3 86.7
46 .31 88.6 1.1 1.2 88.0
Efficiencies

(W Efficiency in ?| m a x . i
# inch.) # (TV % ) (o%) (CT/TV %) (Tlrep %)
47 4 32 74.7 0.7 0.9 74.6

48 33 78.4 1.2 1.5 77.6
49 34 81.2 2.2 2.7 82.7
50 35 65.2 1.8 2.8 65.5
51 36 65.3 1.7 2.6 65.4
52 37 64.7 5.4 8.4 67.0
53 38 62.9 1.2 1.8 63.0
54 41 84.2 1.4 1.6 83.8
55 2 1 54.2 1.1 2.0 54.7
56 2 60.6 2.0 3.4 61.2
57 3 64.9 1.4 2.2 64.1
58 4 53.4 0.4 0.8 53.5
59 5 61.5 0.7 1.1 61.5
60 6 65.6 0.6 1.0 65.1
61 7 50.2 1.2 2.3 50.0
62 8 59.2 0.6 1.0 59.3
63 9 63.9 0.9 1.5 64.6
64 28 78.3 2.3 2.9 78.8
65 29 81.4 2.0 2.4 82.2
66 30 83.5 0.9 1.1 82.9
67 31 87.0 2.1 2.4 87.1
68 32 64.5 0.3 0.5 64.5
69 33 68.0 0.8 1.1 67.4
114

Efficiencies

(W Efficiency in Tlmax- i
# inch.) # (% %) (o%) (<J/TV % ) Olrep %)
70 2 34 70.7 1.8 2.6 70.7
71 35 59.6 1.0 1.6 59.2
72 36 60.9 0.5 0.8 60.9
73 37 61.6 1.6 2.6 60.9
74 38 62.2 1.5 2.5 61.8
75 41 69.1 0.4 0.6 69.0
Appendix B
Non-Dimensional Parameters and Representative Tests
Table B-1 Additional Non-Dimensional Parameters Computed
Non-Dimensional
Expression
Parameter
Specific Speed (Ns) 2 7i N Q0-5 / [60 (g H)0-75]
Unit Speed (N*) 2 7i N Di / [60 (g H)0-50]
Unit Power (P') BHP (550) / [yg 0 5 H1-5 (Di)2]
Note: Other non-dimensional parameters [speed ratio (Nr) and unitflowrate (Q')] have been
already defined by Equations 4.10 and 4.12 respectively.
116
Table B-2 Representative Efficiency Data Table for 6-inch wide Nozzle and
Runner # 1; Discharge Manometer Reading = 31.0 inch.
Torque Speed BHP Efficncy Speed Specific Unit Unit

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed; Power
15 284.3 0.0677 17.0 1.2142 1.4303 3.4344 0.0295
30 256.6 0.1222 30.8 1.0963 1.2913 3.1007 0.0533
45 232.2 0.1658 41.7 0.9919 1.1683 2.8054 0.0724
60 210.4 0.2003 50.4 0.8988 1.0587 2.5422 0.0875
75 190.8 0.2270 57.2 0.8149 0.9599 2.3049 0.0991
90 172.7 0.2467 62.1 0.7379 0.8692 2.0871 0.1077
105 155.8 0.2596 65.4 0.6657 0.7841 1.8828 0.1134
120 139.5 0.2656 66.9 0.5960 0.7020 1.6856 0.1160
124.6 134.5 0.2660 67.0 0.5747 0.6770 1.6256 0.1161
135 123.3 0.2640 66.5 0.5266 0.6203 1.4893 0.1153
150 106.6 0.2537 63.9 0.4553 0.5363 1.2878 0.1108
165 88.9 0.2329 58.6 0.3799 0.4475 1.0746 0.1017
180 69.8 0.1994 50.2 0.2983 0.3514 0.8437 0.0871
195 48.7 0.1508 38.0 0.2081 0.2452 0.5887 0.0658
210 25.1 0.0837 21.1 0.1073 0.1264 0.3035 0.0365
Angle of Attack = 2^meg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
Diameter Ratio = 0.60 Flow Rate (Qcfs)= 1.5033
Number of Blades = 15 Total Head (H ft)= 2.3351
Runner Aspect Ratio = 0.50 UnitFl.Rate(Q')= 0.1734
Nozzle Width = 6 inch. Input Horse Power 0.3972 HP
117
Runner #2; Discharge Manometer Reading = 16.6 inch.
Torque Speed BHP Efficiency Speed Specific Unit Unit

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed } Power
15 238.0 0.0566 29.6 1.2520 1.3985 3.5411 0.0462
30 203.9 0.0971 50.7 1.0726 1.1982 3.0337 0.0791
45 175.2 0.1251 65.4 0.9217 1.0296 2.6070 0.1020
60 150.6 0.1433 74.9 0.7921 0.8848 2.2404 0.1169
75 128.6 0.1531 80.0 0.6766 0.7558 1.9136 0.1248
84.4512 115.5 0.1548 80.9 0.6078 0.6789 1.7190 0.1262
90 108.0 0.1542 80.6 0.5679 0.6344 1.6064 0.1257
105 87.3 0.1454 76.0 0.4590 0.5128 1.2983 0.1186
120 65.1 0.1240 64.8 0.3427 0.3828 0.9692 0.1011
135 40.2 0.0862 45.0 0.2116 0.2364 0.5985 0.0703
Angle of Attack = 24 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
Diameter Ratio = 0.60 Flow Rate (Q cfs)= 1.0979
Number of Blades = 20 Total Head (H ft) = 1.5398
Runner Aspect Ratio = 0.50 Unit Fl. Rate(Q')= 0.1560
118

15 296.6 0.0706 17.8 1.2671 1.4926 3.5840 0.0308
30 265.5 0.1264 31.8 1.1342 1.3360 3.2080 0.0552
45 238.5 0.1703 42.9 1.0186 1.1999 2.8811 0.0744
60 214.9 0.2046 51.5 0.9181 1.0814 2.5967 0.0894
75 194.3 0.2312 58.2 0.8301 0.9778 2.3479 0.1010
90 176.1 0.2515 63.3 0.7523 0.8862 2.1279 0.1098
105 159.7 0.2661 67.0 0.6824 0.8038 1.9300 0.1162
120 144.6 0.2754 69.3 0.6178 0.7278 1.7475 0.1203
135 130.2 0.2790 70.2 0.5563 0.6553 1.5736 0.1218
136.19 129.1 0.2790 70.2 0.5515 0.6497 1.5599 0.1218
150 116.0 0.2761 69.5 0.4955 0.5836 1.4014 0.1206
165 101.3 0.2653 66.8 0.4329 0.5099 1.2243 0.1159
180 85.7 0.2448 61.6 0.3661 0.4312 1.0355 0.1069
195 68.5 0.2121 53.4 0.2928 0.3449 0.8281 0.0926
210 49.3 0.1642 41.4 0.2106 0.2480 0.5955 0.0717
225 27.4 0.0978 24.6 0.1170 0.1378 0.3309 0.0427
Angle of Attack = 2ÎDeg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
Runner Aspect Ratio = 0.50 UnitFIRate(Q')= 0.1734
119

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed Power
15 141.6 0.0337 35.9 0.8908 0.9115 2.5197 « 0.0470
30 109.2 0.0520 55.4 0.6869 0.7029 1.9430 0.0725
43.2589 84.2 0.0578 61.7 0.5299 0.5422 1.4989 0.0807
45 80.8 0.0577 61.5 0.5084 0.5202 1.4379 0.0805
60 45.8 0.0436 46.6 0.2885 0.2952 0.8161 0.0609

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed . Power
15 201.6 0.0480 25.1 1.0606 1.1848 2.9999 i 0.0391
30 167.3 0.0796 41.6 0.8800 0.9831 2.4890 0.0649
45 140.6 0.1004 52.5 0.7395 0.8261 2.0917 0.0819
60 118.8 0.1131 59.1 0.6252 0.6984 1.7683 0.0923
75 99.4 0.1183 61.8 0.5229 0.5842 1.4791 0.0965
76.2994 97.7 0.1183 61.9 0.5142 0.5744 1.4544 0.0965
90 79.6 0.1137 59.4 0.4188 0.4678 1.1845 0.0927
105 56.8 0.0946 49.5 0.2987 0.3337 0.8448 0.0771
120 28.3 0.0538 28.1 0.1486 0.1660 0.4204 0.0439
JNozzle Width = 6 inch. Input Horse Power 0.1913 HP

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed, Power
15 318.9 0.0759 15.7 1.2856 1.5296 3.6363* 0.0279
30 289.7 0.1379 28.6 1.1677 1.3893 3.3028 0.0506
45 263.9 0.1884 39.1 1.0639 1.2658 3.0091 0.0692
60 241.2 0.2296 47.6 0.9723 1.1568 2.7501 0.0843
75 221.1 0.2631 54.6 0.8912 1.0603 2.5206 0.0965
90 203.1 0.2900 60.1 0.8187 0.9740 2.3155 0.1064
105 186.8 0.3112 64.5 0.7530 0.8959 2.1299 0.1142
120 171.8 0.3271 67.8 0.6925 0.8239 1.9586 0.1200
135 157.6 0.3375 70.0 0.6351 0.7557 1.7965 0.1239
150 143.7 0.3420 70.9 0.5793 0.6892 1.6385 0.1255
152.84 141.1 0.3422 71.0 0.5687 0.6767 1.6086 0.1256
165 129.8 0.3397 70.5 0.5231 0.6224 1.4796 0.1247
180 115.3 0.3293 68.3 0.4648 0.5530 1.3146 0.1208
195 99.9 0.3090 64.1 0.4025 0.4789 1.1386 0.1134
210 83.0 0.2766 57.4 0.3346 0.3981 0.9463 0.1015
225 64.3 0.2294 47.6 0.2591 0.3082 0.7328 0.0842
240 43.2 0.1646 34.1 0.1743 0.2073 0.4929 0.0604
255 19.4 0.0786 16.3 0.0783 0.0932 0.2215 0.0288
tDeg.
Angle of Attack = 2<- 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
Diameter Ratio = 0.68 Flow Rate (Q cfs)= 1.6253 I
Nozzle Width = 6 inch. Input Horse Power 0.4822

15 265.2 0.0631 15.9 1.1328 1.3343 3.2040 0.0276
30 238.2 0.1134 28.5 1.0173 1.1983 2.8775 0.0495
45 213.9 0.1528 38.5 0.9139 1.0765 2.5848 0.0667
60 192.0 0.1828 46.0 0.8203 0.9663 2.3202 0.0798
75 172.0 0.2046 51.5 0.7346 0.8653 2.0778 0.0894
90 153.3 0.2189 55.1 0.6547 0.7712 1.8518 0.0956
105 135.4 0.2256 56.8 0.5785 0.6815 1.6363 0.0985
110.72 128.8 0.2262 56.9 0.5500 0.6479 1.5557 0.0988
120 118.0 0.2247 56.6 0.5040 0.5937 1.4256 0.0981
135 100.5 0.2152 54.2 0.4291 0.5055 1.2137 0.0940
150 82.3 0.1960 49.3 0.3518 0.4144 0.9949 0.0856
165 63.2 0.1654 41.6 0.2699 0.3179 0.7634 0.0722
180 42.5 0.1213 30.5 0.1815 0.2138 0.5133 0.0530
Angle of Attack = 2*tDeg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
Number of Blades = 15 Total Head (Hft)= 2.3351
(Nozzle Width = 6 inch. Input Horse Power 0.3972 HP

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed . Power
15 22.5 0.0546 29.6 1.2071 1.3495 3.4143 0.0445
30 17.6 0.0 40 4.2 1.03 3 1.1610 2.3 6 0.0767
45 171.1 0.1221 63. 0.9 1.0053 2.5453 0.0 6
60 149.1 0.1410 73.7 0.77 0 0.9702 2.2034 0.1150
75 126.7 0.1509 79.9 0.6667 0.7449 1.9957 0.1230
91.7642 117.1 0.1520 7.4 0.6162 0.6993 1.7429 0.123
0 105.1 0.1501 79.5 0.552 0.6177 1.563 0.1224
105 91.3 0.1355 70.9 0.4279 0.477 1.2100 0.1105
120 53.5 0.1019 53.2 0.2913 0.3143 0.7 57 0.0930
Angle of Attack = 24 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = C> Deg.
Diameter Ratio = 0.75 Flow Rate (Qcfs)= 1.0 7
Number of Blades = 20 Total Head (H ft)= 1.53 9

15 294.8 0.0702 17.7 1.2595 1.4835 3.5623 0.0306
30 264.9 0.1261 31.7 1.1316 1.3330 3.2007 0.0551
45 238.8 0.1705 42.9 1.0202 1.2017 2.8854 0.0745
60 216.0 0.2056 51.8 0.9227 1.0869 2.6098 0.0898
75 195.9 0.2331 58.7 0.8368 0.9857 2.3669 0.1018
90 178.0 0.2541 64.0 0.7601 0.8954 2.1500 0.1110
105 161.6 0.2692 67.8 0.6903 0.8131 1.9524 0.1176
120 146.3 0.2785 70.1 0.6248 0.7360 1.7673 0.1216
134.13 132.3 0.2815 70.9 0.5651 0.6656 1.5983 0.1229
135 131.4 0.2815 70.9 0.5614 0.6613 1.5879 0.1229
150 116.5 0.2773 69.8 0.4976 0.5862 1.4075 0.1211
165 100.9 0.2642 66.5 0.4311 0.5078 1.2193 0.1154
180 84.1 0.2403 60.5 0.3594 0.4233 1.0165 0.1049
195 65.6 0.2029 51.1 0.2801 0.3300 0.7923 0.0886
210 44.7 0.1489 37.5 0.1909 0.2249 0.5401 0.0650
225 20.9 0.0747 18.8 0.0894 0.1053 0.2530 0.0326
Angle of Attack = 2ÎDeg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
Runner* 10; Discharge Manometer Reading = 8.2 inch.

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed j Power
15 144.7 0.0344 36.8 0.9108 0.9320 2.5762 0.0481
30 107.0 0.0509 54.3 0.6731 0.6887 1.9038 0.0711
40.6743 83.7 0.0540 57.7 0.5267 0.5390 1.4899 0.0755
45 75.0 0.0535 57.2 0.4719 0.4829 1.3348 0.0748
60 47.3 0.0450 48.1 0.2978 0.3047 0.8423 0.0629
75 22.4 0.0267 28.5 0.1411 0.1444 0.3992 0.0373
1 Angle of Attack = 28 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed| Power
15 306.5 0.0730 15.1 1.2356 1.4701 3.4949 0.0268
30 277.8 0.1322 27.4 1.1198 1.3323 3.1673 0.0485
45 252.4 0.1802 37.4 1.0173 1.2103 2.8773 0.0661
60 229.8 0.2188 45.4 0.9263 1.1021 2.6199 0.0803
75 209.6 0.2495 51.8 0.8451 1.0054 2.3902 0.0916
90 191.5 0.2734 56.7 0.7718 0.9183 2.1831 0.1004
105 174.9 0.2913 60.4 0.7049 0.8386 1.9937 0.1069
120 159.4 0.3034 62.9 0.6424 0.7643 1.8169 0.1114
135 144.5 0.3096 64.2 0.5826 0.6931 1.6477 0.1136
141.82 137.9 0.3103 64.4 0.5558 0.6613 1.5720 0.1139
150 129.9 0.3092 64.1 0.5237 0.6231 1.4813 0.1135
165 115.1 0.3014 62.5 0.4640 0.5521 1.3125 0.1106
180 99.7 0.2847 59.1 0.4018 0.4780 1.1364 0.1045
195 83.2 0.2573 53.4 0.3352 0.3988 0.9480 0.0944
210 65.1 0.2170 45.0 0.2625 0.3123 0.7424 0.0796
225 45.1 0.1611 33.4 0.1819 0.2164 0.5144 0.0591
240 22.7 0.0866 18.0 0.0916 0.1090 0.2592 0.0318
lAngle of Attack = 28 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit.Angle = 90 Deg.
|Nozzle Width = 6 inch. Input Horse Power 0.4821

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed j Power
15 189.0 0.0450 31.8 1.0764 1.1651 3.0447 0.0466
30 153.4 0.0730 51.7 0.8740 0.9460 2.4721 0.0757
45 125.0 0.0892 63.1 0.7120 0.7706 2.0137 0.0924
60 101.1 0.0963 68.1 0.5760 0.6234 1.6292 0.0997
64.6213 94.3 0.0967 68.4 0.5372 0.5814 1.5193 0.1002
75 79.3 0.0944 66.8 0.4519 0.4891 1.2781 0.0978
90 57.1 0.0816 57.7 0.3254 0.3522 0.9203 0.0845
105 32.0 0.0533 37.7 0.1822 0.1972 0.5153 0.0552
I
Runner Aspect Ratio = 0.50 Unit Fl. Rate(Q') = 0.1464
.1 — ^ — T ' ' ' " • ••••!••-• —.-.. . — • — — ^ — I — — ; — — —— I.

15 204.8 0.0487 19.0 0.9935 1.1374 2.8099* 0.0312
30 176.2 0.0839 32.8 0.8548 0.9787 2.4178 0.0537
45 151.8 0.1084 42.3 0.7365 0.8432 2.0831 ___Oi]fi94_
60 130.1 0.1238 48.4 0.6311 0.7225 1.7849 0.0793
75 109.5 0.1302 50.9 0.5310 0.6079 1.5019 0.0834
77.2279 106.4 0.1304 50.9 0.5161 0.5909 1.4598 0.0834
90 88.4 0.1262 49.3 0.4288 0.4910 1.2130 0.0808
105 65.4 0.1089 42.5 0.3171 0.3631 0.8970 0.0697
120 38.8 0.0740 28.9 0.1884 0.2157 0.5329 0.0473
Angle of Attack = 2iSDeg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
Diameter Ratio = 0.(58 Flow Rate (Qcfs)= 1.2505
Runner Aspect Ratic) = 0.50 UnitFl.Rate(Q')= 0.1639
Nozzle Width = 6 in<:h. Input Horse Power 0.2560 HP

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed f Power
15 221.2 0.0526 20.6 1.0730 1.2284 3.0348 0.0337
30 190.8 0.0908 35.5 0.9257 1.0598 2.6181 0.0581
45 166.2 0.1186 46.3 0.8061 0.9229 2.2799 0.0759
60 145.4 0.1384 54.1 0.7055 0.8078 1.9955 0.0886
75 126.8 0.1509 58.9 0.6152 0.7044 1.7401 0.0966
88.6999 110.1 0.1550 60.5 0.5343 0.6117 1.5112 0.0992
90 108.5 0.1550 60.5 0.5264 0.6027 1.4890 0.0992
105 88.7 0.1478 57.7 0.4304 0.4928 1.2174 0.0946
120 65.6 0.1250 48.8 0.3184 0.3646 0.9006 0.0800
135 37.5 0.0802 31.3 0.1817 0.2080 0.5140 0.0514
Angle of Attack = 2i* Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
Runner Aspect Ratic) = 0.50 Unit Fl. Rate(Q')= 0.1639

15 227.6 0.0542 21.1 1.1040 1.2640 3.1227* 0.0346
30 197.1 0.0938 36.6 0.9563 1.0949 2.7048 0.0600
45 171.6 0.1225 47.8 0.8324 0.9530 2.3543 0.0784
60 149.7 0.1425 55.6 0.7262 0.8315 2.0541 0.0912
75 130.3 0.1550 60.5 0.6320 0.7236 1.7875 0.0992
90 112.1 0.1600 62.5 0.5436 0.6224 1.5376 0.1024
91.6343 110.1 0.1601 62.5 0.5341 0.6115 1.5107 0.1024
105 93.8 0.1563 61.0 0.4552 0.5212 1.2876 0.1000
120 74.4 0.1416 55.3 0.3608 0.4131 1.0205 0.0906
135 52.4 0.1123 43.8 0.2544 0.2912 0.7194 0.0718
150 26.8 0.0638 24.9 0.1300 0.1488 0.3677 0.0408
Diameter Ratio = 0.68 Flow Rate (Q cfs) = 1.2505
131

15 229.3 0.0546 13.7 0.9794 1.1537 2.7701! 0.0238
30 205.2 0.0977 24.6 0.8765 1.0324 2.4790 0.0427
45 183.1 0.1307 32.9 0.7819 0.9211 2.2117 0.0571
60 162.2 0.1544 38.9 0.6930 0.8163 1.9601 0.0674
75 142.1 0.1691 42.6 0.6069 0.7149 1.7166 0.0738
89.93 122.0 0.1741 43.8 0.5213 0.6140 1.4743 0.0760
90 121.9 0.1741 43.8 0.5209 0.6135 1.4732 0.0760
105 101.1 0.1685 42.4 0.4321 0.5089 1.2220 0.0736
120 79.1 0.1505 37.9 0.3377 0.3978 0.9552 0.0657
135 55.0 0.1179 29.7 0.2351 0.2769 0.6649 0.0515
150 28.4 0.0676 17.0 0.1213 0.1429 0.3432 0.0295
Angle of Attack = 28 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 9C>Deg.

15 205.4 0.0489 19.1 0.9965 1.1409 2.8185! 0.0313
30 177.5 0.0845 33.0 0.8613 0.9862 2.4363 0.0541
45 153.5 0.1096 42.8 0.7448 0.8528 2.1067 0.0701
60 132.1 0.1258 49.1 0.6410 0.7339 1.8131 0.0805
75 112.1 0.1334 52.1 0.5440 0.6229 1.5387 0.0854
80.16 105.4 0.1340 52.3 0.5112 0.5852 1.4458 0.0857
90 92.3 0.1318 51.5 0.4479 0.5128 1.2668 0.0843
105 71.5 0.1190 46.5 0.3467 0.3969 0.9805 0.0762
120 48.3 0.0920 35.9 0.2345 0.2684 0.6632 0.0589
135 21.7 0.0465 18.2 0.1054 0.1206 0.2980 0.0298

15 164.5 0.0392 27.7 0.9372 1.0143 2.6507 - 0.0405
30 133.3 0.0635 44.9 0.7595 0.8220 2.1482 0.0657
45 108.9 0.0777 55.0 0.6201 0.6712 1.7540 0.0805
58.4379 88.8 0.0823 58.2 0.5057 0.5473 1.4304 0.0852
60 86.4 0.0823 58.2 0.4921 0.5326 1.3919 0.0852
75 61.2 0.0728 51.5 0.3486 0.3773 0.9860 0.0754
90 28.6 0.0408 28.8 0.1627 0.1761 0.4602 0.0422

15 177.6 0.0423 22.1 0.9340 1.0434 2.6417 '• 0.0345
30 147.4 0.0702 36.7 0.7755 0.8663 2.1935 0.0572
45 .. 122.7 0.0876 45.8 0.6457 0.7213 1.8263 0.0715
60 100.4 0.0956 50.0 0.5283 0.5901 1.4941 0.0779
63.5703 "95.1 0.0959 50.1 0.5003 0.5589 1.4152 0.0782
75 77.4 0.0921 48.1 0.4069 0.4546 1.1510 0.0750
90 50.5 0.0721 37.7 0.2655 0.2966 0.7509 0.0588
105 16.7 0.0278 14.5 0.0876 0.0979 0.2479 0.0226
JNozzle Width = 6 inch. Input Horse Power 0.1913 HP

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed ( Power
15 189.1 0.0450 23.5 0.9948 1.1112 2.8136 0.0367
30 157.6 0.0750 39.2 0.8290 0.9261 2.3448 0.0612
45 131.0 0.0935 48.9 0.6889 0.7696 1.9486 0.0762
60 107.4 0.1022 53.4 0.5649 0.6310 1.5977 0.0834
66.0378 98.3 0.1030 53.9 0.5173 0.5778 1.4630 0.0840
75 85.0 0.1012 52.9 0.4472 0.4995 1.2648 0.0825
90 62.0 0.0886 46.3 0.3262 0.3644 0.9226 0.0722
105 36.6 0.0609 31.8 0.1923 0.2149 0.5440 0.0497
120 6.8 0.0130 6.8 0.0359 0.0401 0.1016 0.0106
Runner #21; Discharge Manometer Reading =16.6 inch.

(Ib.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed t Power
15 191.2 0.0455 23.8 1.0056 1.1233 2.8442 ' 0.0371
30 159.1 0.0757 39.6 0.8369 0.9349 2.3671 0.0618
45 132.8 0.0948 49.6 0.6986 0.7804 1.9760 0.0773
60 110.1 0.1049 54.8 0.5794 0.6472 1.6387 0.0855
69.099 97.2 0.1066 55.7 0.5115 0.5714 1.4467 0.0870
75 88.9 0.1058 55.3 0.4677 0.5225 1.3229 0.0863
90 67.0 0.0956 50.0 0.3523 0.3936 0.9965 0.0780
105 42.2 0.0702 36.7 0.2217 0.2477 0.6272 0.0573
120 12.3 0.0234 12.2 0.0646 0.0722 0.1828 0.0191

(Ib.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed Power
15 118.2 0.0281 30.0 0.7437 0.7609 2.1034 ' 0.0393
30 83.5 0.0397 42.4 0.5255 0.5376 1.4862 0.0555
36.1543 71.0 0.0407 43.5 0.4470 0.4574 1.2644 0.0569
45 54.2 0.0387 41.3 0.3411 0.3490 0.9649 0.0541
60 26.7 0.0254 27.1 0.1678 0.1717 0.4745 0.0354
jNozzle Width = 6 inch. Input Horse Power 0.0937 HP

(Ib.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed . Power
15 178.4 0.0425 22.2 0.9384 1.0482 2.6541 • 0.0346
30 148.5 0.0707 37.0 0.7814 0.8729 2.2101 0.0577
45 124.2 0.0887 46.3 0.6532 0.7297 1.8475 0.0723
60 103.0 0.0981 51.3 0.5420 0.6055 1.5331 0.0800
68.544 91.6 0.0996 52.1 0.4818 0.5382 1.3628 0.0812
75 82.9 0.0987 51.6 0.4362 0.4872 1.2336 0.0804
90 61.6 0.0879 46.0 0.3239 0.3618 0.9161 0.0717
105 36.8 0.0613 32.0 0.1934 0.2161 0.5471 0.0500
120 6.3 0.0120 6.3 0.0331 0.0370 0.0937 0.0098

15 208.9 0.0497 19.4 1.0133 1.1602 2.8661 0.0318
30 179.0 0.0852 33.3 0.8686 0.9944 2.4567 0.0545
45 154.9 0.1106 43.2 0.7515 0.8603 2.1254 0.0707
60 134.7 0.1282 50.1 0.6535 0.7482 1.8484 0.0820
75 116.7 0.1389 54.2 0.5663 0.6483 1.6016 0.0889
87.1395 102.6 0.1418 55.4 0.4977 0.5698 1.4077 0.0907
90 99.2 0.1417 55.3 0.4813 0.5510 1.3612 0.0906
105 80.4 0.1339 52.3 0.3900 0.4465 1.1032 0.0857
120 58.6 0.1115 43.5 0.2841 0.3253 0.8036 0.0713
135 32.0 0.0685 26.7 0.1551 0.1776 0.4386 0.0438
U n i t F1
Runner Aspect Ratio = 0.50 - Rate(Q')= 0.1639

15 141.9 0.0338 23.9 0.8084 0.8749 2.2864 f 0.0350
30 111.2 0.0529 37.4 0.6334 0.6856 1.7916 0.0548
44.67 83.3 0.0591 41.8 0.4747 0.5138 1.3426 0.0612
45 82.7 0.0591 41.8 0.4712 0.5100 1.3327 0.0612
60 54.7 0.0520 36.8 0.3114 0.3370 0.8806 0.0539
75 25.2 0.0300 21.2 0.1437 0.1555 0.4064 0.0311

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed t Power
15 149.0 0.0355 25.1 0.8489 0.9188 2.4011 0.0367
30 118.7 0.0565 40.0 0.6761 0.7318 1.9124 0.0585
45 93.0 0.0664 46.9 0.5295 0.5731 1.4977 0.0687
51.5338 82.4 0.0674 47.7 0.4696 0.5082 1.3281 0.0698
60 68.9 0.0656 46.4 0.3922 0.4245 1.1094 0.0679
75 43.4 0.0517 36.6 0.2474 0.2678 0.6999 0.0535
90 13.7 0.0196 13.9 0.0783 0.0847 0.2215 0.0203

15 131.8 0.0314 33.5 0.8297 0.8489 2.3468 i 0.0438
30 97.8 0.0466 49.7 0.6157 0.6300 1.7416 0.0650
42.9288 73.8 0.0503 53.7 0.4646 0.4754 1.3141 0.0702
45 70.3 0.0502 53.6 0.4424 0.4527 1.2514 0.0701
60 46.3 0.0441 47.1 0.2915 0.2983 0.8246 0.0616
75 23.0 0.0274 29.2 0.1448 0.1482 0.4096 0.0382

15 207.5 0.0494 34.9 1.1818 1.2791 3.3427 * 0.0511
30 170.8 0.0813 57.4 0.9727 1.0528 2.7513 0.0841
45 141.5 0.1010 71.4 0.8059 0.8723 2.2794 0.1045
60 117.4 0.1118 79.0 0.6687 0.7238 1.8914 0.1156
72.8144 99.3 0.1147 81.0 0.5656 0.6121 1.5997 0.1187
75 96.3 0.1146 81.0 0.5487 0.5938 1.5518 0.1186
90 76.0 0.1086 76.7 0.4331 0.4688 1.2250 0.1123
105 54.3 0.0905 64.0 0.3095 0.3350 0.8754 0.0937
120 29.0 0.0553 39.0 0.1653 0.1789 0.4675 0.0572

15 270.6 0.0644 25.1 1.3125 1.5027 3.7124; 0.0412
30 236.8 0.1127 44.0 1.1487 1.3151 3.2489 0.0720
45 208.2 0.1486 58.0 1.0099 1.1562 2.8564 0.0950
60 183.9 0.1750 68.3 0.8920 1.0213 2.5230 0.1119
75 163.0 0.1940 75.7 0.7908 0.9054 2.2366 0.1240
90 144.7 0.2066 80.6 0.7020 0.8037 1.9854 0.1321
105 128.1 0.2134 83.2 0.6213 0.7114 1.7574 0.1364
113.48 119.1 0.2144 83.7 0.5778 0.6615 1.6342 0.1371
120 112.3 0.2138 83.4 0.5447 0.6236 1.5406 0.1366
135 96.4 0.2065 80.6 0.4677 0.5355 1.3230 0.1320
150 79.6 0.1895 73.9 0.3863 0.4423 1.0928 0.1212
165 61.1 0.1599 62.4 0.2962 0.3392 0.8379 0.1022
1 180 39.8 0.1137 44.4 0.1932 0.2212 0.5464 0.0727
jAngle of Attack = 22 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.

15 326.9 0.0778 16.1 1.3179 1.5680 3.7276 0.0286
30 298.3 0.1420 29.4 1.2023 1.4304 3.4005 0.0521
45 272.9 0.1949 40.4 1.1002 1.3090 3.1119 0.0715
60 250.6 0.2386 49.5 1.0101 1.2018 2.8569 0.0875
75 230.7 0.2746 56.9 0.9301 1.1066 2.6306 0.1008
90 213.0 0.3041 63.1 0.8584 1.0213 2.4280 0.1116
105 196.8 0.3279 68.0 0.7935 0.9440 2.2442 0.1203
120 181.9 0.3464 71.8 0.7334 0.8726 2.0743 0.1271
135 167.8 0.3595 74.5 0.6765 0.8049 1.9134 0.1319
150 154.1 0.3667 76.0 0.6210 0.7388 1.7564 0.1345
158.47 146.3 0.3678 76.3 0.5896 0.7015 1.6677 0.1350
165 140.2 0.3671 76.1 0.5652 0.6724 1.5986 0.1347
180 125.9 0.3594 74.5 0.5073 0.6036 1.4349 0.1319
195 110.6 0.3421 70.9 0.4457 0.5302 1.2605 0.1255
210 93.9 0.3128 64.9 0.3784 0.4503 1.0704 0.1148
225 75.4 0.2692 55.8 0.3039 0.3616 0.8597 0.0988
240 54.7 0.2082 43.2 0.2204 0.2622 0.6234 0.0764
255 31.3 0.1266 26.2 0.1261 0.1500 0.3567 0.0464
270 4.8 0.0205 4.3 0.0193 0.0230 0.0546 0.0075
Angle of Attack = 2^tDeg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
|Nozzle Width = 6 inch. Input Horse Power 0.4822

15 193.4 0.0460 24.0 1.0173 1.1364 2.8774 ' 0.0375
30 159.1 0.0757 39.6 0.8370 0.9350 2.3673 0.0617
45 132.8 0.0948 49.5 0.6983 0.7801 1.9752 0.0773
60 111.7 0.1063 55.6 0.5875 0.6563 1.6617 0.0867
75 93.2 0.1110 58.0 0.4905 0.5479 1.3873 0.0904
76.2941 91.7 0.1110 58.0 0.4823 0.5388 1.3641 0.0905
90 74.8 0.1068 55.8 0.3933 0.4394 1.1125 0.0870
105 53.6 0.0893 46.7 0.2821 0.3151 0.7979 0.0728
120 27.1 0.0517 27.0 0.1428 0.1595 0.4039 0.0421

15 144.3 0.0343 36.6 0.9082 0.9292 2.5687 » 0.0479
30 108.4 0.0516 55.0 0.6823 0.6981 1.9298 0.0720
45 81.6 0.0582 62.1 0.5132 0.5251 1.4516 0.0813
48.9861 75.3 0.0585 62.4 0.4739 0.4849 1.3405 0.0817
60 58.8 0.0560 59.7 0.3701 0.3787 1.0469 0.0781
75 35.3 0.0420 44.8 0.2222 0.2274 0.6285 0.0586
|Nozzle Width = 6 inch. Input Horse Power 0.0938 HP

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed ( Power
15 209.7 0.0499 35.3 1.1945 1.2928 3.3785 0.0517
30 165.7 0.0789 55.8 0.9440 1.0218 2.6701 0.0817
45 133.7 0.0955 67.5 0.7618 0.8245 2.1546 0.0989
60 110.0 0.1047 74.0 0.6265 0.6781 1.7721 0.1084
75 90.8 0.1081 76.4 0.5173 0.5598 1.4630 0.1119
75.0324 90.8 0.1081 76.4 0.5170 0.5596 1.4624 0.1119
90 72.5 0.1035 73.2 0.4128 0.4467 1.1675 0.1071
105 51.3 0.0854 60.4 0.2919 0.3160 0.8257 0.0884
149

15 282.7 0.0673 16.8 1.0974 1.1238 3.1039 0.0220
30 260.2 0.1239 30.9 1.0099 1.0342 2.8564 0.0405
45 238.7 0.1704 42.5 0.9264 0.9487 2.6202 0.0558
60 218.0 0.2075 51.8 0.8460 0.8664 2.3929 0.0679
75 197.9 0.2355 58.8 0.7680 0.7864 2.1721 0.0770
90 178.1 0.2544 63.5 0.6914 0.7080 1.9555 0.0832
105 158.6 0.2642 65.9 0.6154 0.6302 1.7407 0.0864
113.14 147.9 0.2656 66.3 0.5742 0.5880 1.6241 0.0869
120 139.0 0.2646 66.0 0.5393 0.5523 1.5254 0.0866
135 119.1 0.2550 63.7 0.4621 0.4733 1.3071 0.0835
150 98.7 0.2349 58.6 0.3831 0.3923 1.0836 0.0769
165 77.7 0.2033 50.7 0.3014 0.3087 0.8525 0.0665
180 55.7 0.1591 39.7 0.2162 0.2214 0.6114 0.0520
195 32.6 0.1009 25.2 0.1266 0.1296 0.3580 0.0330
Angle of Attack = !<•IDeg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
Number of Blades = 1 5 Total Head (H ft)= 2.8285

15 258.5 0.0615 21A 1.1104 1.1209 3.1406 0.0273
30 232.4 0.1106 38.5 0.9985 1.0079 2.8241 0.0491
45 208.5 0.1489 51.8 0.8957 0.9042 2.5333 0.0660
60 186.1 0.1772 61.7 0.7996 0.8071 2.2615 0.0786
75 164.7 0.1960 68.3 0.7077 0.7144 2.0016 0.0870
90 143.8 0.2053 71.5 0.6176 0.6235 1.7469 0.0911
96.23 135.1 0.2062 71.8 0.5802 0.5857 1.6410 0.0915
105 122.7 0.2044 71.2 0.5269 0.5319 1.4904 0.0907
120 100.8 0.1920 66.9 0.4332 0.4373 1.2253 0.0852
135 77.7 0.1665 58.0 0.3340 0.3372 0.9447 0.0739
150 52.8 0.1257 43.8 0.2268 0.2290 0.6416 0.0558
165 25.5 0.0666 23.2 0.1093 0.1104 0.3093 0.0296
Angle of Attack = 24 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit.Angle = 90 Deg.
Number of Blades = 20 Total Heacl ( H f t ) = 2.3089
Runner Aspect Ra tio = 0.50 UnitFl.Rate(Q')= 0.1274
151

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) Ratio Speed Speed , Power
15 235.0 0.0559 27.7 1.1204 1.1095 3.1689 0.0339
30 205.2 0.0977 48.3 0.9784 0.9689 2.7673 0.0593
45 179.2 0.1280 63.3 0.8545 0.8462 2.4170 0.0776
60 155.6 0.1481 73.3 0.7418 0.7345 2.0980 0.0898
75 132.8 0.1580 78.2 0.6330 0.6269 1.7905 0.0958
80.45 124.4 0.1588 78.6 0.5931 0.5874 1.6777 0.0963
90 109.3 0.1561 77.3 0.5213 0.5162 1.4745 0.0947
105 83.8 0.1396 69.1 0.3996 0.3957 1.1302 0.0847
120 54.7 0.1041 51.5 0.2608 0.2583 0.7376 0.0632
135 20.5 0.0440 21.8 0.0979 0.0970 0.2770 0.0267

15 170.5 0.0406 32.8 0.9348 0.8926 2.6439 f 0.0374
30 139.3 0.0663 53.6 0.7637 0.7292 2.1599 0.0611
45 109.5 0.0782 63.2 0.6003 0.5732 1.6979 0.0721
48.9986 101.4 0.0788 63.7 0.5555 0.5305 1.5713 0.0726
60 77.5 0.0738 59.7 0.4248 0.4056 1.2015 0.0680
75 39.6 0.0471 38.1 0.2171 0.2073 0.6141 0.0434
[Nozzle Width = 4 inch. Input Horse Power 0.1237 HP

15 353.7 0.0842 12.9 1.1787 1.2264 3.3338* 0.0174
30 332.9 0.1584 24.3 1.1094 1.1543 3.1379 0.0328
45 313.3 0.2237 34.2 1.0442 1.0865 2.9534 0.0463
60 294.8 0.2806 43.0 0.9824 1.0222 2.7787 0.0581
75 277.1 0.3298 50.5 0.9236 0.9610 2.6123 0.0683
90 260.2 0.3715 56.9 0.8671 0.9022 2.4524 0.0770
105 243.7 0.4061 62.2 0.8123 0.8452 2.2977 0.0841
120 227.7 0.4335 66.4 0.7588 0.7896 2.1463 0.0898
135 211.8 0.4537 69.5 0.7060 0.7346 1.9969 0.0940
150 196.0 0.4665 71.4 0.6533 0.6797 1.8477 0.0967
165 180.1 0.4714 72.2 0.6001 0.6244 1.6973 0.0977
166.32 178.6 0.4714 72.2 0.5954 0.6195 1.6839 0.0977
180 163.8 0.4678 71.6 0.5459 0.5680 1.5440 0.0969
195 147.0 0.4550 69.7 0.4901 0.5099 1.3862 0.0943
210 129.7 0.4321 66.1 0.4322 0.4497 1.2223 0.0895
225 111.5 0.3980 60.9 0.3715 0.3866 1.0509 0.0825
240 92.3 0.3515 53.8 0.3077 0.3201 0.8702 0.0728
255 72.0 0.2913 44.6 0.2400 0.2497 0.6787 0.0604
270 50.4 0.2158 33.0 0.1679 0.1747 0.4748 0.0447
Angle of Attack = 2^*Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.

15 270.7 0.0644 22.4 1.1630 1.1740 3.2895 i 0.0286
30 240.7 0.1146 39.9 1.0339 1.0437 2.9244 0.0508
45 214.9 0.1534 53.4 0.9230 0.9318 2.6107 0.0681
60 192.3 0.1831 63.8 0.8260 0.8339 2.3364 0.0812
75 172.0 0.2046 71.3 0.7387 0.7457 2.0894 0.0908
90 152.9 0.2183 76.0 0.6568 0.6631 1.8578 0.0969
105 134.1 0.2234 77.8 0.5761 0.5816 1.6295 0.0991
105.42 133.6 0.2234 77.8 0.5738 0.5793 1.6230 0.0991
120 114.6 0.2182 76.0 0.4923 0.4970 1.3924 0.0968
135 93.4 0.2000 69.7 0.4011 0.4049 1.1346 0.0887
150 69.5 0.1653 57.6 0.2984 0.3012 0.8440 0.0733
165 41.9 0.1096 38.2 0.1798 0.1815 0.5086 0.0486
180 9.6 0.0274 9.5 0.0.412 0.0415 0.1164 0.0121

15 166.3 0.0396 32.0 0.9116 0.8705 2.5784 ' 0.0365
30 133.3 0.0634 51.3 0.7304 0.6974 2.0658 0.0584
45 101.9 0.0727 58.8 0.5584 0.5332 1.5794 0.0670
45.8742 100.0 0.0728 58.8 0.5480 0.5233 1.5500 0.0671
60 66.4 0.0633 51.1 0.3642 0.3478 1.0301 0.0583
75 21.2 0.0252 20.4 0.1162 0.1109 0.3286 0.0232

15 218.4 0.0520 25.7 1.0414 1.0313 2.9455 ' 0.0315
30 188.9 0.0899 44.5 0.9007 0.8919 2.5475 0.0545
45 163.2 0.1165 57.7 0.7783 0.7707 2.2013 0.0707
60 139.8 0.1331 65.9 0.6665 0.6601 1.8853 0.0807
75 117.0 0.1392 68.9 0.5577 0.5523 1.5774 0.0844
75.4769 116.2 0.1392 68.9 0.5542 0.5488 1.5675 0.0844
90 93.1 0.1330 65.8 0.4440 0.4397 1.2558 0.0807
105 66.6 0.1110 54.9 0.3177 0.3146 0.8987 0.0673
120 35.9 0.0683 33.8 0.1712 0.1695 0.4841 0.0415

15 265.5 0.0632 22.0 1.1407 1.1515 3.2264 ' 0.0280
30 234.7 0.1117 38.9 1.0082 1.0177 2.8516 0.0496
45 209.0 0.1492 52.0 0.8977 0.9062 2.5391 0.0662
60 187.1 0.1781 62.0 0.8037 0.8113 2.2733 0.0790
75 167.8 0.1997 69.5 0.7207 0.7276 2.0385 0.0886
90 149.7 0.2138 74.5 0.6431 0.6492 1.8191 0.0948
105 131.6 0.2193 76.4 0.5654 0.5708 1.5993 0.0973
105.62 130.9 0.2193 76.4 0.5622 0.5675 1.5900 0.0973
120 112.2 0.2137 74.4 0.4821 0.4867 1.3636 0.0948
135 90.2 0.1932 67.3 0.3876 0.3912 1.0962 0.0857
150 64.3 0.1531 53.3 0.2763 0.2789 0.7814 0.0679
165 33.2 0.0870 30.3 0.1427 0.1441 0.4037 0.0386

15 464.8 0.1106 13.7 1.4486 1.5155 4.0974 0.0187
30 432.9 0.2060 25.5 1.3489 1.4112 3.8154 0.0349
45 403.4 0.2880 35.7 1.2572 1.3152 3.5559 0.0488
60 376.4 0.3583 44.3 1.1729 1.2270 3.3174 0.0607
75 351.5 0.4183 51.8 1.0954 1.1460 3.0983 0.0708
"" 90 328.7 0.4693 58.1 1.0243 1.0715 2.8971 0.0795
105 307.7 0.5126 63.4 0.9589 1.0032 2.7122 0.0868
120 288.4 0.5491 68.0 0.8988 0.9403 2.5422 0.0930
135 270.6 0.5797 71.7 0.8434 0.8823 2.3855 0.0982
150 254.2 0.6050 74.9 0.7921 0.8287 2.2405 0.1024
165 238.9 0.6254 77.4 0.7445 0.7788 2.1057 0.1059
180 224.6 0.6414 79.4 0.6999 0.7322 1.9796 0.1086
195 211.1 0.6531 80.8 0.6578 0.6882 1.8607 0.1106
210 198.2 0.6605 81.8 0.6178 0.6463 1.7473 0.1118
225 185.8 0.6634 82.1 0.5791 0.6059 1.6380 0.1123
226.81 184.4 0.6635 82.1 0.5745 0.6011 1.6250 0.1123
240 173.7 0.6615 81.9 0.5414 0.5664 1.5313 0.1120
255 161.7 0.6543 81.0 0.5040 0.5273 1.4255 0.1108
270 149.7 0.6412 79.4 0.4664 0.4879 1.3192 0.1086
Angle of Attack = 22 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 9C)Deg.

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (%) Ratio Speed Speed t Power
15 392.9 0.0935 14.3 1.3095 1.3625 3.7038 0.0194
30 368.2 0.1753 26.8 1.2272 1.2769 3.4712 0.0363
45 345.4 0.2466 37.8 1.1512 1.1978 3.2560 0.0511
60 324.2 0.3087 47.3 1.0807 1.1244 3.0566 0.0639
75 304.6 0.3624 55.5 1.0151 1.0562 2.8712 0.0751
90 286.2 0.4087 62.6 0.9539 0.9925 2.6981 0.0847
105 269.0 0.4481 68.6 0.8965 0.9327 2.5356 0.0928
120 252.7 0.4811 73.6 0.8421 0.8762 2.3819 0.0997
135 237.1 0.5079 77.8 0.7903 0.8223 2.2353 0.1052
150 222.1 0.5287 80.9 0.7404 0.7703 2.0940 0.1095
165 207.5 0.5433 83.2 0.6917 0.7197 1.9564 0.1126
180 193.1 0.5516 84.4 0.6437 0.6698 1.8208 0.1143
190.72 182.9 0.5534 84.7 0.6095 0.6342 1.7240 0.1146
195 178.8 0.5531 84.7 0.5958 0.6200 1.6853 0.1146
210 164.2 0.5473 83.8 0.5474 0.5695 1.5483 0.1134
225 149.4 0.5332 81.6 0.4978 0.5179 1.4080 0.1105
240 133.9 0.5101 78.1 0.4464 0.4645 1.2627 0.1057
255 117.8 0.4767 73.0 0.3927 0.4086 1.1106 0.0987
270 100.8 0.4318 66.1 0.3359 0.3495 0.9501 0.0894
(Angle of Attack = 22 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit.Angle = 90 Deg.

15 323.7 0.0770 26.8 1.3907 1.4039 3.9334 ' 0.0342
30 283.8 0.1351 47.0 1.2192 1.2307 3.4484 0.0599
45 249.4 0.1781 62.0 1.0714 1.0816 3.0304 0.0790
60 219.6 0.2091 72.8 0.9436 0.9525 2.6688 0.0927
75 193.6 0.2304 80.2 0.8318 0.8397 2.3528 0.1022
90 170.5 0.2435 84.8 0.7324 0.7394 2.0716 0.1080
105 149.4 0.2488 86.6 0.6416 0.6477 1.8146 0.1103
107.76 145.6 0.2490 86.7 0.6255 0.6314 1.7691 0.1104
120 129.3 0.2462 85.7 0.5554 0.5607 1.5710 0.1092
135 109.5 0.2345 81.6 0.4702 0.4747 1.3300 0.1040
150 89.0 0.2117 73.7 0.3822 0.3858 1.0810 0.0939
165 66.9 0.1752 61.0 0.2875 0.2902 0.8131 0.0777
180 - 42.4 0.1212 42.2 0.1823 0.1840 0.5156 0.0537
Runner Aspect Ra tio = 0.33 Unit Fl. Rate(Q')= 0.1274

15 435.6 0.1037 12.8 1.3576 1.4203 3.8400' 0.0176
30 411.5 0.1959 24.2 1.2824 1.3416 3.6271 0.0332
45 388.9 0.2777 34.4 1.2121 1.2680 3.4283 0.0470
60 367.8 0.3502 43.3 1.1463 1.1992 3.2423 0.0593
75 348.1 0.4142 51.3 1.0848 1.1349 3.0683 0.0701
90 329.6 0.4706 58.3 1.0271 1.0745 2.9051 0.0797
105 312.2 0.5201 64.4 0.9729 1.0178 2.7517 0.0881
120 295.8 0.5632 69.7 0.9218 0.9643 2.6072 0.0954
135 280.3 0.6003 74.3 0.8734 0.9137 2.4704 0.1017
150 265.5 0.6319 78.2 0.8274 0.8656 2.3403 0.1070
165 251.4 0.6581 81.5 0.7834 0.8196 2.2159 0.1115
180 237.8 0.6792 84.1 0.7411 0.7753 2.0962 0.1150
195 224.6 0.6950 86.0 0.7001 0.7324 1.9801 0.1177
210 211.8 0.7056 87.3 0.6599 0.6904 1.8666 0.1195
225 199.1 0.7106 88.0 0.6204 0.6490 1.7546 0.1203
230.64 194.3 0.7111 88.0 0.6055 0.6335 1.7127 0.1204
240 186.4 0.7099 87.9 0.5810 0.6078 1.6432 0.1202
255 173.7 0.7029 87.0 0.5414 0.5664 1.5313 0.1190
270 160.8 0.6891 85.3 0.5013 0.5244 1.4178 0.1167
•

15 251.8 0.0599 29.7 1.2004 1.1887 3.3952 ' 0.0363
30 208.9 0.0994 49.2 0.9960 0.9863 2.8170 0.0603
45 175.5 0.1253 62.0 0.8369 0.8288 2.3672 0.0760
60 148.8 0.1417 70.1 0.7097 0.7028 2.0073 0.0860
75 126.0 0.1499 74.2 0.6005 0.5947 1.6986 0.0909
80.8502 117.4 0.1507 74.6 0.5600 0.5545 1.5838 0.0914
90 104.0 0.1485 73.5 0.4959 0.4911 1.4027 0.0901
105 80.2 0.1335 66.1 0.3822 0.3785 1.0810 0.0810
120 51.5 0.0981 48.6 0.2457 0.2433 0.6950 0.0595
135 15.3 0.0327 16.2 0.0729 0.0722 0.2061 0.0199
163

15 445.9 0.1061 13.1 1.3897 1.4538 3.9306 0.0180
30 415.1 0.1976 24.5 1.2936 1.3533 3.6590 0.0335
45 386.9 0.2762 34.2 1.2057 1.2613 3.4101 0.0468
60 361.0 0.3437 42.6 1.1251 1.1770 3.1822 0.0582
75 337.3 0.4014 49.7 1.0513 1.0998 2.9734 0.0680
90 315.6 0.4507 55.8 0.9836 1.0290 2.7821 0.0763
105 295.7 0.4926 61.0 0.9214 0.9639 2.6062 0.0834
120 277.3 0.5279 65.4 0.8641 0.9040 2.4441 0.0894
135 260.2 0.5574 69.0 0.8110 0.8484 2.2938 0.0944
150 244.3 0.5815 72.0 0.7615 0.7966 2.1537 0.0985
165 229.4 0.6005 74.4 0.7148 0.7478 2.0219 0.1017
180 215.2 0.6145 76.1 0.6705 0.7015 1.8965 0.1041
195 201.5 0.6233 77.2 0.6278 0.6568 1.7758 0.1056
210 188.1 0.6267 77.6 0.5862 0.6132 1.6580 0.1062
211.34 186.9 0.6268 77.6 0.5825 0.6094 1.6475 0.1062
225 174.8 0.6242 77.3 0.5449 0.5700 1.5412 0.1057
240 161.5 0.6150 76.1 0.5033 0.5265 1.4236 0.1042
255 147.9 0.5983 74.1 0.4608 0.4821 1.3034 0.1013
270 133.7 0.5730 70.9 0.4168 0.4360 1.1789 0.0970
Angle of Attack = 2ÎDeg. 1st Stage Blade Exit.Angle = 90 Deg.

15 195.2 0.0464 37.6 1.0697 1.0214 3.0254 0.0428
30 159.9 0.0761 61.5 0.8762 0.8366 2.4782 0.0701
45 132.2 0.0944 76.3 0.7243 0.6917 2.0487 0.0869
60 107.3 0.1021 82.6 0.5880 0.5615 1.6633 0.0941
61.816 104.2 0.1022 82.7 0.5714 0.5456 1.6160 0.0942
75 80.5 0.0958 77.5 0.4413 0.4214 1.2481 0.0883
90 47.1 0.0672 54.3 0.2580 0.2463 0.7296 0.0619
INozzle Width = 4 inch. Input Horse Power 0.1237 HP

15 274.3 0.0653 22.7 1.1783 1.1895 3.3328 0.0290
30 233.5 0.1112 38.7 1.0032 1.0127 2.8375 0.0493
45 200.5 0.1431 49.9 0.8611 0.8693 2.4357 0.0635
60 173.4 0.1651 57.5 0.7451 0.7521 2.1073 0.0733
75 150.8 0.1795 62.5 0.6479 0.6540 1.8325 0.0796
90 131.0 0.1870 65.1 0.5625 0.5679 1.5911 0.0830
97.5431 121.5 0.1880 65.5 0.5219 0.5268 1.4761 0.0834
105 112.2 0.1869 65.1 0.4820 0.4866 1.3633 0.0829
120 92.9 0.1769 61.6 0.3992 0.4029 1.1290 0.0785
135 71.5 0.1531 53.3 0.3070 0.3099 0.8683 0.0679
150 46.2 0.1099 38.3 0.1984 0.2003 0.5611 0.0488

15 248.4 0.0591 20.6 1.0669 1.0771 3.0178 0.0262
30 218.4 0.1040 36.2 0.9382 0.9471 2.6537 0.0461
45 193.1 0.1379 48.0 0.8294 0.8372 2.3459 0.0612
60 171.0 0.1628 56.7 0.7345 0.7415 2.0775 0.0722
75 150.8 0.1794 62.5 0.6478 0.6539 1.8322 0.0796
90 131.1 0.1873 65.2 0.5633 0.5687 1.5933 0.0831
93.9029 125.9 0.1876 65.4 0.5410 0.5461 1.5301 0.0833
105 110.6 0.1843 64.2 0.4753 0.4798 1.3442 0.0818
120 87.9 0.1674 58.3 0.3778 0.3813 1.0685 0.0743
135 61.7 0.1321 46.0 0.2649 0.2675 0.7494 0.0586
150 30.5 0.0726 25.3 0.1310 0.1322 0.3704 0.0322

15 318.2 0.0757 18.9 1.2350 1.2647 3.4930 0.0248
30 280.6 0.1336 33.3 1.0890 1.1152 3.0801 0.0437
45 248.4 0.1774 44.3 0.9641 0.9873 2.7270 0.0580
60 220.9 0.2103 52.5 0.8573 0.8779 2.4247 0.0688
'75 197.2 0.2346 58.6 0.7652 0.7836 2.1644 0.0768
90 176.5 0.2520 62.9 0.6849 0.7014 1.9372 0.0825
105 158.0 0.2632 65.7 0.6131 0.6278 1.7340 0.0861
120 140.8 0.2682 66.9 0.5466 0.5598 1.5461 0.0878
123.69 136.7 0.2684 67.0 0.5307 0.5435 1.5012 0.0878
135 124.3 0.2662 66.5 0.4824 0.4940 1.3644 0.0871
150 107.5 0.2558 63.9 0.4172 0.4273 1.1801 0.0837
165 89.7 0.2347 58.6 0.3480 0.3563 0.9842 0.0768
180 69.9 0.1997 49.9 0.2714 0.2780 0.7677 0.0654
195 47.5 0.1471 36.7 0.1845 0.1889 0.5219 0.0481

15 205.2 0.0488 24.2 0.9786 0.9691 2.7679 0.0296
30 175.3 0.0834 41.3 0.8358 0.8277 2.3640 0.0506
45 151.0 0.1078 53.4 0.7199 0.7128 2.0361 0.0654
60 129.2 0.1230 60.9 0.6158 0.6098 1.7417 0.0746
72.0672 111.3 0.1272 63.0 0.5306 0.5254 1.5006 0.0772
75 106.7 0.1270 62.8 0.5087 0.5037 1.4387 0.0770
90 80.4 0.1148 56.8 0.3835 0.3797 1.0846 0.0697
105 47.2 0.0787 38.9 0.2252 0.2230 0.6370 0.0477

15 280.2 0.0667 23.2 1.2039 1.2153 3.4051 0.0296
30 247.2 0.1177 41.0 1.0619 1.0720 3.0035 0.0522
45 219.6 0.1568 54.6 0.9434 0.9523 2.6683 0.0696
60 196.4 0.1870 65.1 0.8437 0.8517 2.3864 0.0830
75 176.5 0.2101 73.2 0.7584 0.7656 2.1450 0.0932
90 158.9 0.2270 79.0 0.6828 0.6892 1.9311 0.1007
105 142.5 0.2374 82.7 0.6123 0.6181 1.7317 0.1053
117.62 128.9 0.2405 83.8 0.5536 0.5588 1.5657 0.1067
120 126.2 0.2404 83.7 0.5423 0.5475 1.5339 0.1066
135 109.0 0.2335 81.3 0.4684 0.4728 1.3248 0.1036
150 89.8 0.2138 74.4 0.3858 0.3895 1.0913 0.0948
165 67.5 0.1768 61.6 0.2901 0.2929 0.8205 0.0784
180 41.1 0.1174 40.9 0.1766 0.1783 0.4996 0.0521
Runner Aspect Ra tio = 0.50 UnitFl.Rate(Q')= 0.1274 1
Nozzle Width = 4 inch. Input Horse Power 0.2871 HP 1

15 424.0 0.1009 10.5 0.9969 0.7444 2.8195 0.0073
30 396.5 0.1887 19.7 0.9322 0.6961 2.6365 0.0137
45 371.0 0.2649 27.6 0.8721 0.6513 2.4667 0.0193
60 347.1 0.3304 34.5 0.8160 0.6094 2.3079 0.0240
75 324.5 0.3862 40.3 0.7630 0.5698 2.1580 0.0281
90 303.0 0.4327 45.1 0.7123 0.5320 2.0148 0.0315
105 282.2 0.4701 49.0 0.6633 0.4954 1.8762 0.0342
120 261.7 0.4982 52.0 0.6151 0.4594 1.7399 0.0362
135 241.2 0.5167 53.9 0.5671 0.4235 1.6039 0.0376
150 220.5 0.5247 54.7 0.5183 0.3871 1.4660 0.0381
153.24 215.9 0.5250 54.7 0.5076 0.3791 1.4357 0.0382
165 199.1 0.5213 54.4 0.4681 0.3496 1.3239 0.0379
180 176.8 0.5050 52.7 0.4157 0.3104 1.1757 0.0367
195 153.3 0.4742 49.4 0.3603 0.2691 1.0191 0.0345
210 128.1 0.4269 44.5 0.3012 0.2249 0.8519 0.0310
225 101.1 0.3608 37.6 0.2376 0.1774 0.6721 0.0262
240 71.8 0.2734 28.5 0.1688 0.1260 0.4774 0.0199
255 39.9 0.1616 16.9 0.0939 0.0701 0.2656 0.0117
270 5.2 0.0224 2.3 0.0123 0.0092 0.0347 0.0016
171

15 372.9 0.0887 13.8 0.9975 0.7399 2.8213 0.0095
30 348.1 0.1657 25.8 0.9312 0.6907 2.6340 0.0177
45 324.0 0.2313 36.0 0.8668 0.6429 2.4516 0.0248
60 300.4 0.2859 44.5 0.8035 0.5960 2.2726 0.0306
75 277.0 0.3296 51.3 0.7409 0.5495 2.0955 0.0353
90 253.6 0.3621 56.4 0.6784 0.5032 1.9187 0.0388
105 230.0 0.3833 59.7 0.6154 0.4565 1.7406 0.0410
120 206.1 0.3925 61.1 0.5514 0.4090 1.5597 0.0420
123.59 200.3 0.3928 61.2 0.5359 0.3975 1.5158 0.0421
135 181.6 0.3891 60.6 0.4859 0.3604 1.3743 0.0417
150 156.4 0.3721 58.0 0.4183 0.3102 1.1830 0.0399
165 130.1 0.3406 53.0 0.3480 0.2581 0.9842 0.0365
180 102.6 0.2930 45.6 0.2745 0.2036 0.7764 0.0314
195 73.7 0.2281 35.5 0.1972 0.1463 0.5579 0.0244
210 43.2 0.1441 22.4 0.1157 0.0858 0.3271 0.0154

15 442.4 0.1053 11.0 1.0401 0.7767 2.9418 0.0077
30 420.6 0.2002 20.9 0.9889 0.7385 2.7970 0.0146
45 399.4 0.2852 29.7 0.9390 0.7013 2.6560 0.0207
60 378.7 0.3605 37.6 0.8902 0.6648 2.5179 0.0262
75 358.2 0.4263 44.5 0.8421 0.6289 2.3819 0.0310
90 337.9 0.4826 50.3 0.7945 0.5933 2.2471 0.0351
105 317.7 0.5293 55.2 0.7469 0.5578 2.1127 0.0385
120 297.4 0.5663 59.1 0.6992 0.5222 1.9777 0.0412
135 276.9 0.5932 61.9 0.6511 0.4862 1.8415 0.0431
150 256.1 0.6095 63.6 0.6021 0.4496 1.7030 0.0443
164.31 235.8 0.6148 64.1 0.5544 0.4140 1.5681 0.0447
165 234.8 0.6148 64.1 0.5521 0.4123 1.5615 0.0447
180 213.0 0.6082 63.4 0.5006 0.3739 1.4160 0.0442
195 190.4 0.5890 61.4 0.4476 0.3342 1.2659 0.0428
210 166.9 0.5563 58.0 0.3925 0.2931 1.1101 0.0404
225 142.6 0.5089 53.1 0.3351 0.2503 0.9479 0.0370
240 117.1 0.4458 46.5 0.2752 0.2055 0.7784 0.0324
255 90.3 0.3655 38.1 0.2124 0.1586 0.6007 0.0266
270 62.3 0.2667 27.8 0.1464 0.1093 0.4140 0.0194

15 282.7 0.0673 18.8 0.9100 0.6659 2.5739 0.0126
30 248.3 0.1182 32.9 0.7991 0.5847 2.2602 0.0220
45 218.4 0.1559 43.5 0.7028 0.5143 1.9880 0.0291
60 190.3 0.1812 50.5 0.6124 0.4481 1.7323 0.0338
75 161.3 0.1919 53.5 0.5190 0.3798 1.4681 0.0358
76.7241 157.7 0.1920 53.5 0.5077 0.3715 1.4360 0.0358
90 128.6 0.1836 51.2 0.4138 0.3028 1.1704 0.0342
105 89.5 0.1490 41.5 0.2879 0.2107 0.8143 0.0278
120 41.2 0.0784 21.8 0.1325 0.0970 0.3748 0.0146

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) Ratio Speed Speed Power
15 434.1 0.1033 10.8 1.0205 0.7621 2.8865 0.0075
30 412.9 0.1965 20.5 0.9707 0.7249 2.7455 0.0143
45 392.1 0.2800 29.2 0.9218 0.6884 2.6073 0.0204
60 371.6 0.3538 36.9 0.8737 0.6524 2.4711 0.0257
75 351.3 0.4180 43.6 0.8258 0.6167 2.3358 0.0304
90 330.9 0.4726 49.3 0.7780 0.5810 2.2006 0.0344
105 310.5 0.5173 53.9 0.7299 0.5451 2.0645 0.0376
120 289.8 0.5517 57.5 0.6812 0.5087 1.9267 0.0401
135 268.6 0.5754 60.0 0.6315 0.4716 1.7862 0.0418
150 247.0 0.5878 61.3 0.5806 0.4336 1.6421 0.0427
157.86 235.3 0.5895 61.5 0.5533 0.4132 1.5649 0.0429
165 224.6 0.5880 61.3 0.5280 0.3943 1.4935 0.0427
180 201.4 0.5753 60.0 0.4736 0.3537 1.3395 0.0418
195 177.3 0.5486 57.2 0.4169 0.3113 1.1791 0.0399
210 152.1 0.5068 52.9 0.3576 0.2670 1.0114 0.0368
225 125.7 0.4486 46.8 0.2954 0.2206 0.8355 0.0326
240 97.8 0.3726 38.9 0.2300 0.1718 0.6506 0.0271
255 68.5 0.2772 28.9 0.1611 0.1203 0.4556 0.0202
270 37.5 0.1608 16.8 0.0883 0.0659 0.2497 0.0117
285 4.8 0.0217 2.3 0.0113 0.0084 0.0319 0.0016

15 307.1 0.0731 20.4 0.9884 0.7232 2.7956 0.0136
30 276.8 0.1318 36.7 0.8910 0.6520 2.5202 0.0246
45 248.1 0.1771 49.4 0.7984 0.5842 2.2582 0.0330
60 220.1 0.2095 58.4 0.7082 0.5182 2.0032 0.0391
75 192.1 0.2286 63.7 0.6182 0.4524 1.7486 0.0426
87.31 168.7 0.2336 65.1 0.5428 0.3972 1.5354 0.0436
90 163.4 0.2334 65.1 0.5260 0.3849 1.4879 0.0435
105 133.4 0.2223 62.0 0.4294 0.3142 1.2145 0.0415
120 101.3 0.1928 53.7 0.3260 0.2385 0.9220 0.0360
135 66.3 0.1421 39.6 0.2135 0.1562 0.6038 0.0265
150 27.8 0.0663 18.5 0.0896 0.0656 0.2534 0.0124

15 420.7 0.1001 10.4 0.9891 0.7387 2.7977 0.0073
30 393.4 0.1872 19.5 0.9247 0.6906 2.6156 0.0136
45 367.3 0.2623 27.4 0.8635 0.6449 2.4425 0.0191
60 342.4 0.3259 34.0 0.8049 0.6011 2.2765 0.0237
75 318.2 0.3787 39.5 0.7481 0.5587 2.1159 0.0275
90 294.6 0.4206 43.9 0.6925 0.5171 1.9587 0.0306
105 271.2 0.4518 47.1 0.6375 0.4761 1.8031 0.0328
120 247.7 0.4717 49.2 0.5824 0.4349 1.6472 0.0343
135 224.0 0.4798 50.0 0.5266 0.3932 1.4893 0.0349
137.24 220.4 0.4799 50.0 0.5181 0.3869 1.4654 0.0349
150 199.6 0.4751 49.5 0.4693 0.3505 1.3275 0.0345
165 174.4 0.4567 47.6 0.4101 0.3062 1.1599 0.0332
180 148.1 0.4229 44.1 0.3481 0.2600 0.9847 0.0307
195 120.3 0.3722 38.8 0.2828 0.2112 0.8000 0.0271
210 90.8 0.3027 31.6 0.2135 0.1595 0.6040 0.0220
225 59.4 0.2120 22.1 0.1396 0.1043 0.3948 0.0154
240 25.7 0.0978 10.2 0.0604 0.0451 0.1707 0.0071
177

15 488.8 0.1163 8.4 1.0188 0.7645 2.8815 0.0059
30 465.6 0.2216 16.0 0.9706 0.7284 2.7452 0.0112
45 444.4 0.3173 22.8 0.9262 0.6951 2.6197 0.0161
60 424.6 0.4042 29.1 0.8850 0.6641 2.5031 0.0205
75 406.0 0.4832 34.8 0.8463 0.6351 2.3938 0.0245
90 388.4 0.5547 39.9 0.8096 0.6076 2.2900 0.0281
105 371.5 0.6188 44.5 0.7742 0.5810 2.1899 0.0314
120 354.8 0.6756 48.6 0.7396 0.5550 2.0918 0.0342
135 338.2 0.7245 52.1 0.7050 0.5291 1.9941 0.0367
150 321.4 0.7649 55.1 0.6699 0.5027 1.8948 0.0388
165 304.0 0.7959 57.3 0.6337 0.4755 1.7923 0.0403
180 285.8 0.8162 58.7 0.5957 0.4470 1.6848 0.0414
195 266.4 0.8243 59.3 0.5553 0.4167 1.5707 0.0418
196.52 264.4 0.8244 59.3 0.5511 0.4136 1.5587 0.0418
210 245.6 0.8184 58.9 0.5120 0.3842 1.4480 0.0415
225 223.1 0.7964 57.3 0.4650 0.3490 1.3152 0.0404
240 198.5 0.7560 54.4 0.4138 0.3106 1.1705 0.0383
255 171.7 0.6945 50.0 0.3578 0.2685 1.0120 0.0352
270 142.2 0.6090 43.8 0.2963 0.2224 0.8381 0.0309
Angle of Attack = 2±tDeg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
Diameter Ratio = 0.'75 Flow Rate (Qcfs)= 1.2505
Runner Aspect Ratici = 0.50 Unit Fl. Rate(Q')= 0.0704
Nozzle Width = 2 inc;h. Input Horse Power 1.3894 HP
178

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) (*) Ratio Speed Speed Power
15 446.6 0.1063 11.1 1.0499 0.7841 2.9696 0.0077
30 424.7 0.2021 21.1 0.9984 0.7456 2.8239 0.0147
45 403.4 0.2880 30.0 0.9483 0.7082 2.6822 0.0209
60 382.5 0.3641 38.0 0.8992 0.6715 2.5434 0.0265
75 361.9 0.4307 44.9 0.8509 0.6354 2.4066 0.0313
90 341.5 0.4877 50.9 0.8029 0.5996 2.2708 0.0354
105 321.1 0.5349 55.8 0.7549 0.5637 2.1351 0.0389
120 300.5 0.5722 59.7 0.7065 0.5276 1.9983 0.0416
135 279.7 0.5990 62.5 0.6575 0.4910 1.8596 0.0435
150 258.4 0.6149 64.1 0.6074 0.4536 1.7180 0.0447
162.69 239.9 0.6193 64.6 0.5640 0.4212 1.5952 0.0450
165 236.5 0.6191 64.6 0.5560 0.4152 1.5725 0.0450
180 213.9 0.6108 63.7 0.5028 0.3755 1.4221 0.0444
195 190.4 0.5890 61.4 0.4475 0.3342 1.2658 0.0428
210 165.8 0.5525 57.6 0.3898 0.2911 1.1026 0.0402
225 140.1 0.5002 52.2 0.3294 0.2460 0.9316 0.0364
240 113.1 0.4305 44.9 0.2658 0.1985 0.7518 0.0313
255 84.5 0.3420 35.7 0.1987 0.1484 0.5621 0.0249
270 54.4 0.2330 24.3 0.1279 0.0955 0.3617 0.0169
285 22.5 0.1016 10.6 0.0528 0.0395 0.1495 0.0074
Diameter Ratio = 0.75 Flow Rale (Qcfs)= 1.0979

(lb.-in.) (rpm) (HP) Ratio Speed Speed Power
15 487.4 0.1160 12.1 1.1457 0.8556 3.2407 0.0084
30 463.1 0.2204 23.0 1.0886 0.8130 3.0791 0.0160
45 440.1 0.3142 32.8 1.0346 0.7727 2.9264 0.0228
60 418.3 0.3982 41.5 0.9833 0.7343 2.7812 0.0290
75 397.4 0.4729 49.3 0.9342 0.6977 2.6424 0.0344
90 377.3 0.5388 56.2 0.8870 0.6624 2.5089 0.0392
105 357.9 0.5962 62.2 0.8413 0.6283 2.3795 0.0433
120 338.8 0.6451 67.3 0.7965 0.5949 2.2530 0.0469
135 320.1 0.6856 71.5 0.7524 0.5619 2.1282 0.0498
150 301.4 0.7173 74.8 0.7085 0.5291 2.0040 0.0522
165 282.6 0.7399 77.2 0.6644 0.4962 1.8792 0.0538
180 263.6 0.7528 78.5 0.6197 0.4628 1.7527 0.0547
190.98 249.4 0.7557 78.8 0.5863 0.4378 1.6583 0.0549
195 244.1 0.7553 78.8 0.5739 0.4286 1.6232 0.0549
210 224.0 0.7465 77.9 0.5267 0.3933 1.4897 0.0543
225 203.2 0.7253 75.6 0.4776 0.3567 1.3509 0.0527
240 181.3 0.6905 72.0 0.4263 0.3183 1.2057 0.0502
255 158.3 0.6406 66.8 0.3722 0.2780 1.0529 0.0466
270 134.0 0.5742 59.9 0.3151 0.2353 0.8913 0.0417
j 285 108.3 0.4895 51.1 0.2545 0.1900 0.7198 0.0356
lAngle of Attack = 22 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit.Angle = 90 Deg.
Nozzle Width = 2 inch. Input Horse Power 0.9588 HP i • i • i — — . .

15 486.7 0.1158 12.1 1.1442 0.8545 3.2363 0.0084
30 463.2 0.2205 23.0 1.0889 0.8132 3.0799 0.0160
45 441.1 0.3149 32.8 1.0369 0.7744 2.9329 0.0229
60 420.2 0.4000 41.7 0.9878 0.7377 2.7940 0.0291
75 400.3 0.4764 49.7 0.9411 0.7028 2.6619 0.0346
90 381.3 0.5445 56.8 0.8964 0.6694 2.5354 0.0396
105 362.9 0.6046 63.1 0.8531 0.6371 2.4130 0.0440
120 344.9 0.6567 68.5 0.8109 0.6055 2.2935 0.0477
135 327.2 0.7008 73.1 0.7692 0.5744 2.1755 0.0510
150 309.5 0.7366 76.8 0.7276 0.5433 2.0579 0.0536
165 291.6 0.7635 79.6 0.6856 0.5120 1.9391 0.0555
180 273.4 0.7809 81.4 0.6428 0.4800 1.8181 0.0568
195 254.7 0.7879 82.2 0.5987 0.4471 1.6933 0.0573
196.97 252.1 0.7880 82.2 0.5928 0.4427 1.6766 0.0573
210 235.1 0.7835 81.7 0.5528 0.4128 1.5636 0.0570
225 214.7 0.7665 79.9 0.5047 0.3769 1.4276 0.0557
240 193.1 0.7353 76.7 0.4540 0.3390 1.2840 0.0535
255 170.2 0.6885 71.8 0.4001 0.2988 1.1315 0.0501
270 145.7 0.6242 65.1 0.3425 0.2558 0.9688 0.0454
285 119.5 0.5404 56.4 0.2809 0.2098 0.7946 0.0393
Nozzle Width = 2 inch. Input Horse Power 0.9588 HP J

15 503.2 0.1198 12.5 1.1829 0.8834 3.3458 0.0087
30 477.2 0.2272 23.7 1.1219 0.8379 3.1733 0.0165
45 452.9 0.3234 33.7 1.0647 0.7951 3.0114 0.0235
60 430.0 0.4093 42.7 1.0108 0.7548 2.8589 0.0298
75 408.2 0.4858 50.7 0.9598 0.7167 2.7146 0.0353
90 387.6 0.5535 57.7 0.9112 0.6805 2.5772 0.0402
105 367.8 0.6127 63.9 0.8647 0.6457 2.4456 0.0445
120 348.7 0.6639 69.2 0.8197 0.6121 2.3185 0.0483
135 330.1 0.7070 73.7 0.7759 0.5795 2.1947 0.0514
150 311.7 0.7419 77.4 0.7329 0.5473 2.0729 0.0539
165 293.6 0.7685 80.2 0.6901 0.5154 1.9520 0.0559
180 275.3 0.7863 82.0 0.6473 0.4834 1.8308 0.0572
195 256.9 0.7947 82.9 0.6039 0.4509 1.7079 0.0578
199.98 250.6 0.7953 82.9 0.5892 0.4400 1.6666 0.0578
210 238.0 0.7929 82.7 0.5594 0.4178 1.5823 0.0576
225 218.5 0.7799 81.3 0.5136 0.3836 1.4527 0.0567
240 198.2 0.7547 78.7 0.4659 0.3479 1.3178 0.0549
255 176.9 0.7159 74.7 0.4160 0.3106 1.1765 0.0520
270 154.5 0.6620 69.0 0.3633 0.2713 1.0275 0.0481
285 130.8 0.5914 61.7 0.3075 0.2296 0.8696 0.0430

15 349.6 0.0832 23.2 1.1253 0.8234 3.1829 0.0155
30 316.6 0.1507 42.0 1.0190 0.7457 2.8823 0.0281
45 287.4 0.2052 57.2 0.9249 0.6768 2.6161 0.0383
60 260.9 0.2483 69.2 0.8396 0.6144 2.3748 0.0463
75 236.1 0.2809 78.3 0.7598 0.5560 2.1491 0.0524
90 211.9 0.3026 84.4 0.6821 0.4991 1.9293 0.0565
105 187.4 0.3122 87.0 0.6032 0.4414 1.7062 0.0583
107.96 182.4 0.3125 87.1 0.5872 0.4297 1.6609 0.0583
120 161.5 0.3075 85.7 0.5197 0.3803 1.4701 0.0574
135 133.1 0.2851 79.5 0.4284 0.3134 1.2116 0.0532
150 101.2 0.2409 67.1 0.3257 0.2383 0.9213 0.0449
165 64.8 0.1696 47.3 0.2085 0.1525 0.5896 0.0316
180 22.8 0.0650 18.1 0.0732 0.0536 0.2071 0.0121
183

15 443.9 0.1056 11.0 1.0435 0.7793 2.9515 0.0077
30 419.6 0.1997 20.8 0.9865 0.7367 2.7903 0.0145
45 396.8 0.2833 29.5 0.9329 0.6967 2.6386 0.0206
60 375.2 0.3572 37.2 0.8820 0.6587 2.4946 0.0260
75 354.5 0.4218 44.0 0.8333 0.6223 2.3569 0.0307
90 334.4 0.4776 49.8 0.7862 0.5872 2.2238 0.0347
105 314.9 0.5246 54.7 0.7402 0.5528 2.0937 0.0381
120 295.5 0.5627 58.7 0.6947 0.5188 1.9650 0.0409
135 276.1 0.5915 61.7 0.6492 0.4848 1.8361 0.0430
150 256.5 0.6104 63.6 0.6029 0.4503 1.7054 0.0444
165 236.3 0.6186 64.5 0.5555 0.4149 1.5712 0.0450
168.46 231.5 0.6189 64.5 0.5443 0.4065 1.5396 0.0450
180 215.4 0.6151 " 64.1 0.5063 0.3781 1.4321 0.0447
195 193.4 0.5985 62.4 0.4548 0.3396 1.2863 0.0435
210 170.3 0.5673 59.2 0.4003 0.2989 1.1322 0.0412
225 145.6 0.5199 54.2 0.3424 0.2557 0.9683 0.0378
240 119.3 0.4541 47.4 0.2804 0.2094 0.7930 0.0330
255 90.9 0.3679 38.4 0.2138 0.1596 0.6046 0.0267
270 60.4 0.2587 27.0 0.1420 0.1060 0.4015 0.0188
285 27.4 0.1239 12.9 0.0644 0.0481 0.1822 0.0090
|Nozzle Width = 2 inch. Input Horse Power 0.9590 HP I

15 313.3 0.0746 20.8 1.0084 0.7379 2.8522 0.0139
30 280.1 0.1333 37.2 0.9016 0.6597 2.5501 0.0249
45 250.4 0.1788 49.8 0.8060 0.5898 2.2797 0.0333
60 222.9 0.2122 59.1 0.7174 0.5250 2.0292 0.0396
75 196.3 0.2336 65.1 0.6318 0.4623 1.7869 0.0436
90 169.3 0.2417 67.4 0.5448 0.3986 1.5409 0.0451
90.78 167.8 0.2417 67.4 0.5402 0.3953 1.5278 0.0451
105 140.6 0.2342 65.3 0.4524 0.3310 1.2796 0.0437
120 108.9 0.2073 57.8 0.3504 0.2564 0.9912 0.0387
135 72.9 0.1562 43.5 0.2347 0.1717 0.6638 0.0291
150 31.4 0.0747 20.8 0.1010 0.0739 0.2857 0.0139

15 401.7 0.0956 14.9 1.0745 0.7970 3.0392 0.0102
30 374.5 0.1783 27.8 1.0018 0.7431 2.8336 0.0191
45 348.9 0.2491 38.8 0.9333 0.6923 2.6399 0.0267
60 324.6 0.3090 48.1 0.8683 0.6440 2.4559 0.0331
75 301.2 0.3585 55.8 0.8059 0.5977 2.2793 0.0384
90 278.6 0.3978 62.0 0.7453 0.5528 2.1079 0.0426
105 256.3 0.4271 66.5 0.6857 0.5086 1.9395 0.0457
120 234.2 0.4458 69.4 0.6264 0.4646 1.7717 0.0477
135 211.8 0.4536 70.6 0.5665 0.4202 1.6024 0.0486
137.56 207.9 0.4538 70.7 0.5562 0.4126 1.5732 0.0486
150 188.9 0.4496 70.0 0.5053 0.3748 1.4293 0.0481
165 165.2 0.4325 67.4 0.4420 0.3278 1.2501 0.0463
180 140.4 0.4011 62.5 0.3757 0.2787 1.0626 0.0430
195 114.3 0.3535 55.0 0.3056 0.2267 0.8645 0.0379
210 86.4 0.2878 44.8 0.2311 0.1714 0.6536 0.0308
225 56.5 0.2018 31.4 0.1512 0.1121 0.4276 0.0216

15 435.2 0.1036 10.8 1.0232 0.7641 2.8940 0.0075
30 410.6 0.1954 20.4 0.9653 0.7209 2.7302 0.0142
45 387.1 0.2764 28.8 0.9100 0.6796 2.5740 0.0201
60 364.5 0.3470 36.2 0.8570 0.6400 2.4240 0.0252
75 342.7 0.4078 42.5 0.8057 0.6017 2.2789 0.0296
90 321.5 0.4590 47.9 0.7557 0.5644 2.1375 0.0334
105 300.5 0.5007 52.2 0.7065 0.5276 1.9984 0.0364
120 279.8 0.5327 55.5 0.6577 0.4912 1.8603 0.0387
135 259.0 0.5547 57.8 0.6088 0.4547 1.7220 0.0403
150 237.9 0.5663 59.1 0.5593 0.4177 1.5821 0.0412
158.08 226.4 0.5679 59.2 0.5323 0.3975 1.5056 0.0413
165 216.5 0.5667 59.1 0.5089 0.3800 1.4393 0.0412
180 194.4 0.5551 57.9 0.4569 0.3412 1.2924 0.0404
195 171.4 0.5304 55.3 0.4030 0.3010 1.1399 0.0386
210 147.5 0.4914 51.2 0.3467 0.2589 0.9807 0.0357
225 122.3 0.4367 45.5 0.2876 0.2148 0.8135 0.0317
240 95.8 0.3647 38.0 0.2251 0.1681 0.6368 0.0265
255 67.6 0.2735 28.5 0.1589 0.1187 0.4495 0.0199
270 37.6 0.1612 16.8 0.0884 0.0660 0.2501 0.0117
285 5.6 0.0255 2.7 0.0133 0.0099 0.0375 0.0019
187

15 492.4 0.1172 8.4 1.0264 0.7702 2.9030 0.0059
30 469.8 0.2236 16.1 0.9793 0.7349 2.7699 0.0113
45 448.7 0.3204 23.1 0.9353 0.7019 2.6454 0.0162
60 428.8 0.4082 29.4 0.8938 0.6708 2.5281 0.0207
75 410.0 0.4879 35.1 0.8545 0.6413 2.4169 0.0247
90 391.9 0.5597 40.3 0.8170 0.6131 2.3107 0.0284
105 374.6 0.6240 44.9 0.7807 0.5859 2.2082 0.0316
120 357.6 0.6809 49.0 0.7454 0.5594 2.1083 0.0345
135 340.9 0.7302 52.5 0.7106 0.5333 2.0098 0.0370
150 324.2 0.7716 55.5 0.6758 0.5072 1.9114 0.0391
165 307.4 0.8047 57.9 0.6407 0.4808 1.8121 0.0408
180 290.1 0.8287 59.6 0.6048 0.4539 1.7106 0.0420
195 272.4 0.8427 60.6 0.5677 0.4260 1.6057 0.0427
206.32 258.4 0.8460 60.9 0.5387 0.4042 1.5235 0.0429
210 253.8 0.8456 60.9 0.5290 0.3970 1.4962 0.0428
225 234.2 0.8363 60.2 0.4883 0.3664 1.3810 0.0424
240 213.5 0.8131 58.5 0.4451 0.3340 1.2589 0.0412
255 191.4 0.7746 55.7 0.3990 0.2995 1.1286 0.0392
270 167.8 0.7187 51.7 0.3497 0.2624 0.9891 0.0364
285 142.3 0.6436 46.3 0.2966 0.2226 0.8391 0.0326
188

15 387.3 0.0922 14.4 1.0360 0.7684 2.9303 0.0099
30 358.8 0.1708 26.6 0.9599 0.7120 2.7150 0.0183
45 331.6 0.2368 36.9 0.8872 0.6580 2.5093 0.0254
60 305.5 0.2908 45.3 0.8171 0.6061 2.3112 0.0311
75 280.0 0.3332 51.9 0.7491 0.5556 2.1187 0.0357
90 255.0 0.3642 56.7 0.6823 0.5061 1.9297 0.0390
105 230.3 0.3837 59.8 0.6160 0.4569 1.7424 0.0411
120 205.5 0.3912 60.9 0.5497 0.4077 1.5546 0.0419
121.71 202.6 0.3913 60.9 0.5420 0.4021 1.5331 0.0419
135 180.3 0.3863 60.2 0.4824 0.3578 1.3644 0.0414
150 154.6 0.3680 57.3 0.4136 0.3068 1.1698 0.0394
165 128.0 0.3352 52.2 0.3425 0.2540 0.9687 0.0359
180 100.3 0.2866 44.6 0.2684 0.1991 0.7592 0.0307
195 71.3 0.2205 34.3 0.1907 0.1414 0.5392 0.0236
210 40.5 0.1351 21.0 0.1085 0.0805 0.3068 0.0145
225 7.9 0.0283 4.4 0.0212 0.0157 0.0599 0.0030
[Angle of Attack = 26 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.
189

15 295.0 0.0702 19.6 0.9493 0.6946 2.6851 0.0131
30 262.9 0.1252 34.9 0.8462 0.6192 2.3935 0.0233
45 234.9 0.1677 46.7 0.7559 0.5531 2.1380 0.0313
60 208.8 0.1988 55.4 0.6720 0.4917 1.9006 0.0371
75 182.7 0.2174 60.6 0.5880 0.4303 1.6632 0.0406
85.5715 163.3 0.2217 61.8 0.5254 0.3845 1.4861 0.0413
90 154.6 0.2208 61.6 0.4977 0.3642 1.4078 0.0412
105 122.6 0.2043 57.0 0.3947 0.2888 1.1165 0.0381
120 84.7 0.1613 45.0 0.2727 0.1995 0.7712 0.0301
135 38.9 0.0833 23.2 0.1251 0.0916 0.3539 0.0155
lAngle of Attack = 26 Deg. 1st Stage Blade Exit Angle = 90 Deg.

15 515.6 0.1227 8.8 1.0747 0.8065 3.0397 0.0062
30 492.8 0.2346 16.9 1.0271 0.7708 2.9051 0.0119
45 471.4 0.3366 24.2 0.9825 0.7374 2.7791 0.0171
60 451.3 0.4296 30.9 0.9406 0.7059 2.6605 0.0218
75 432.3 0.5144 37.0 0.9011 0.6762 2.5486 0.0261
90 414.3 0.5916 42.6 0.8635 0.6480 2.4423 0.0300
105 397.0 0.6614 47.6 0.8275 0.6210 2.3407 0.0335
120 380.4 0.7243 52.1 0.7929 0.5951 2.2428 0.0367
135 364.3 0.7803 56.2 0.7593 0.5698 2.1477 0.0395
150 348.5 0.8294 59.7 0.7264 0.5451 2.0545 0.0420
165 332.8 0.8713 62.7 0.6937 0.5206 1.9621 0.0441
180 317.2 0.9058 65.2 0.6611 0.4961 1.8698 0.0459
195 301.3 0.9323 67.1 0.6281 0.4713 1.7764 0.0472
210 285.2 0.9501 68.4 0.5944 0.4460 1.6811 0.0481
225 268.5 0.95C5 69.0 0.5597 0.4200 1.5829 0.0486
229.82 263.0 0.9591 69.0 0.5482 0.4114 1.5506 0.0486
240 251.2 0.9566 68.8 0.5236 0.3929 1.4809 0.0485
255 233.1 0.9431 67.9 0.4858 0.3646 1.3742 0.0478
270 214.0 0.9168 66.0 0.4461 0.3348 1.2617 0.0464
285 193.8 0.8763 63.1 0.4039 0.3031 1.1425 0.0444
Angle of Attack = 2^tDeg. 1st Stage Blade Exit,Angle = 5f iDeg.
Diameter Ratio = 0.(58 Flow Rate (Q cfs)= 1.2505
Runner Aspect Ratici = 0.50 Unit Fl. Rate(Q')= 0.0704
Nozzle Width = 2 inc:h. Input Horse Power 1.3896 HP
LITERATURE CITED
1. B. P. Akerkar, "A Study of the Performance of the Cross-Flow Turbine," M.S. Thesis,
Clemson University, Clemson, SC. ( December 1989).
2. N. M. Aziz and V. R. Desai, "An Experimental Study of the Effect of Some Design
Parameters on Cross-flow Turbine Efficiency," Engineering Report# 1W-91, Dept.
of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. (1991).
3. M. L. Albertson, "Introduction to Small Hydropower; Technology and Development,"

International Power Generation Supplement. (November 1985), Vol. 8, No. 9, p. xv.
4. O. E. Balje, Turbomachines: A Guide to Design. Selection, and Theory. (Wiley, New

York, 1981).
5. G. Chiatti and R. Ruscitti, "Performance Tests of a New Hydraulic Impulse Turbine,"

in Small Hvdro '88. (July 1988), Vol. 2.
6. M. M. Dandekar and K. N. Sharma, Water Power Engineering. (Vikas Publishing, New

Delhi, India, 1979).
7. V. R. Desai and N. M. Aziz, "An Experimental Investigation of Cross-flow Turbine

Efficiency," in Hydropower Fluid Machinery. Winter Annual Meeting of Am. Soc.
of Mech. E., (Anaheim, CA, November 1992), p. 7.
8. V. R. Desai and N. M. Aziz, "Comparison of Maximum Efficiencies in a Cross-flow

Turbine," accepted for publication in Waterpower '93. Am. Soc. of Civ. E.,
(Nashville, TN, August 1993).
9. G. Dotti and A. Anglade, "Rural Development in the Hilly Regions of Nepal:

Dissemination of the Water Mills of the Cross-Flow Turbine Type," in the
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Small Hydro. (Hangzhou,
China, April 1986), p. 174.
192
10. W. W. Durgin and W. K. Fay, "Some Fluid Flow Characteristics of a Cross-Flow Type
Hydraulic Turbine," in Small Hydropower Fluid Machinery. Winter Annual Meeting
of Am. Soc. of Mech. E., (New Orleans, LA, December 1984), p. 77.
11. H. Erdmannsdoerfer and A. F. A. Patzig, "Side Effects of the Cross-Flow Turbine:

Improved Water Quality," in Waterpower'91. Am. Soc. of Civ. E., (Denver, CO, July
1991), Vol. l,p. 236.
12. A. A. Fiuzat and B. P. Akerkar, "The Use of Interior Guide Tube in Cross-Flow
Turbines." in Waterpower '89. Am. Soc. of Civ. E., (Niagara Falls, NY, August
1989), Vol. 2, p. 1111.
13. A. A. Fiuzat and B. P. Akerkar, "Power Outputs of Two Stages of Cross-Flow

Turbine," in the Journal of Energy Engineering. Am. Soc. of Civ. E., (August 1991),
Vol. 117, No. 2, p. 57.
14. A. A. Fiuzat, S. Khosrowpanah, and M. L. Albertson, "Experimental Investigation of

the Cross-Flow Turbine," in Waterpower '87. Am. Soc. of Civ. E., Portland, OR,
(August 1987), Vol. 3, p. 2174.
15. J.. Fukutomi and Y Nakase, "A Study of Turbine for Wave Power Generation," in the
Proceedings of the First Pacific Asia Offshore Mechanics Symposium. (Seoul, South
Korea, June 1990), p. 193.
16. J. Fukutomi, Y Nakase, and T. Watanabe, "A Numerical Method of Free Jet from a
Cross-Flow Turbine Nozzle," in the Bulletin of Jap. Soc. of Mei.h. E. (July 1985),
Vol. 28, No. 241, p. 1436.
17. J. Fukutomi, Y Senoo, and Y Nakase, "A Numerical Method of Flow through a Cross-
Flow Runner," in the Jap. Soc. of Mech. E. International Journal. Series II, (February
1991), Vol. 34, No. l,p. 44.
18. L. A. Haimerl. "The Cross-Flow Turbine," in the Water Power. (January 1960), p. 5.
19. H. W. Hamm, Low Cost Development of Small Water Power Sites. Volunteers in
Technical Assistance, (Mt. Ranier, MD, 1967).
193
20. M. E. Harr, Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering. (McGraw Hill, New York,
1987).
21. F. W. Haws and E. K. Israelsen, New Concepts for Preliminary Hydropower Design.
The Powermax Slope. Binary Turbine Sizing, and Static Regain. Hydraulics and
Hydrology Series URWL/H-84-02, Utah Water Resources Laboratory, Utah State
University. (Logan, Utah, June 1984), p. 21.
22. R. Hothersall, "A Review of the Cross-Flow Turbine," in Waterpower '85. (Las Vegas,
NV, September 1985), Vol. 2, p. 914.
23. R. J. Hothersall, "Micro Hydro: Turbine Selection Criteria," in the Water Power and
Dam Construction. (February 1984), p. 26.
24. W. F. Johnson, R. Ely, m, and F. White, "A New Approach to ULH Development
Using the Cross-Flow Turbine," in Waterpower '83. (Knoxville, TN, September
1983), p. 1403.
25. W. Johnson, R. Ely. and F. White, "Design and Testing of an Inexpensive Cross-Flow
Turbine," in Small Hydropower Fluid Machinery. Winter Annual Meeting of Am.
Soc. of Mech. E., (Phoenix, AZ, November 1982), p. 129.
26. S. Khosrowpanah, "Experimental Study of the Cross-Flow Turbine," Ph.D.

Dissertation, Colorado State University, (Fort Collins, Co, 1984).
27. S. Khosrowpanah. M. L. Albertson, and A. A. Fiuzat, "Historical Overview of Cross-

Flow Turbine," in the Water Power and Dam Construction. (October 1984), p. 38.
28. S. Khosrowpanah, A. A. Fiuzat, and M. L. Albertson, "Experimental Study of Cross-

Flow Turbine," in the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Am. Soc. Civ. E., (March
1988), Vol. 114, No. 3, p. 299.
29. C. Kong, M. J. Pomfret, and K. Lam, "Characteristics of the Flow Field in the Runner of
Cross-flow Turbine," in Hydropower Fluid Machinery. Winter Annual Meeting of
Am. Soc. of Mech. E., (Anaheim, CA, November 1992), p. 15.
194
30. C. S. K. Kpordze, A New Methodology for Selection of Hydraulic Turbines.

Monograph, Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, University of Idaho,
(Moscow, ID, March 1987).
31. J. Makansi, "Equipment Options Multiply for Small-Scale Hydro." Power. (May 1983),
p. 33.
32. C. A. Mockmore and F. Merryfield, The Banki Water Turbine. Bulletin Series No. 25,
Engineering Experiment Station, Oregon State College, (Corvallis, OR, February
1949).
33. L. Monition, M. Le Nir, and J. Roux, Micro Hydroelectric Power Stations. (Wiley, New
York, 1984), translated by Joan McMullan.
34. Y. Nakase, J. Fukutomi, T. Watanabe, T. Suetsugu, T. Kubota, and S. Kushimoto, "A

Study of Cross-Flow Turbine (Effects of Nozzle Shape on its Performance)," in
Small Hvdropower Fluid Machinery. Winter Annual Meeting of the Am. Soc. Mech.
E., (Phoenix, AZ, November 1982), p. 13.
35. J. O'Lall and E. O'Lall, "Design and Manufacture of Minihydro Turbine in the
Developing Countries," in the 7th International Conference on Alternative Energy
Sources. Proceedings of Condensed Papers. Session 3A, Paper 106, Miami
University. (Coral Gables, FL, December 1985), p. 269.
36. Ossberger Turbines Inc., The Ossberger Turbine Concept. Company Brochure,
Ossberger Turbines Inc., (Richmond, VA).
37. R. F. Ott and J. R. Chappell, "Design and Efficiency Testing of a Cross-Flow Turbine,"
in Waterpower '89. (Niagara Falls, NY, August 1989), Vol. 3, p. 1534.
38. R. F. Ott and J. R. Chappell, "The Crossflow Turbine at Arbuckle Mountain: Blending
the Old with the New," in the Hydro Review. (August 1991), p. 12.
39. A. M. Panasyuk, K. A. Tokombaev, and G. I. Shainova, "Small Hydroelectric Stations

and Prospects of their Development," in the Hydrotechnical Construction, (June
1987), Vol. 26., p. 366, translated from the Russian original.
195
40. A. F. A. Patzig, "Optimizing Fluctuating Flows," in the Alternative Sources of Energy.

(November 1987), Vol. 95, p. 30.
41. F. Pazout, "Developing Small-Scale Hydro in Czechoslovakia," in Water Power and

Dam Construction. (March 1984), p. 37.
42. R. L. Schikevitz and O. Yucel, "Computer-Aided Preliminary Optimization Model for

Low-Head Micro-Hydro Installations," in the Am. Soc. of Civ. E. Hydraulics
Division Specialty Conference, (Coeur D'Alene, ID, August 1984), p. 746.
43. Smith, G.J., II. "Hydropower Development in Remote Locations of Developing

Countries." American Institute of Physics (ATP) Conference Proceedings, American
Physical Society. Washington, DC, USA, April 25, 1985.
44. F. W. E. Stapenhorsl, "The Ossberger Cross-Flow Turbine," in Small Hydropower Fluid

Machinery. Winter Annual Meeting of the Am. Soc. Mech. E., (Chicago, IL,
November 1980. p. 27.
45. O. D. Thapar and M. L. Albertson. "Ultra Low Head Small Hydro Power System
Technology for Economic Development," in Waterpower '85. (Las Vegas, NV,
September 1985). Vol. 3, p. 1915.
46. "The Role of Micro Hydro in Developing Countries," in Water Power and Dam
Construction Supplement. (November 1985), p. 2.
47. "The Second International Conference on Small Hydro, Part Three," in Water Power
and Dam Construction. (November 1986), p. 57.
48. L. R. Van Dixhorn, H. L. Moses, and J. Moore, "Experimental Determination of Blade

Forces in a Cross-Flow Turbine," in Small Hydropower Fluid Machinery. Winter
Annual Meeting of Am. Soc. of Mech. E., (New Orleans, LA, December 1984), p.
67.
49. B. R. Van Leer, "Some Interesting European Hydraulic Turbine Research," Trans, of
Am. Soc. Mech. E.., Vol. 51. Part I, HYD-51-6, p. 57, 1919.
196
50. J. Varga, "Tests with the Banki Water Turbine." Acta Technica. XXVU/1-2, Academia
Hungaricae,, p. 79, 1959.
51. P. Vintr and P. Kraus. "Type Banki Turbines for Small Hydro-Electric Power Plants,"
Czechoslovak Heavy Industry. (1987). No. 5, p. 27.
52. C. C. Warnick, H. A. Mayo, Jr., J. L. Carson, and L. H. Sheldon, Hydropower

Engineering. (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984).
View publication stats

A Parametric Study of The Cross - Ow Turbine Performance /: January 1995

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Parametric Study of The Cross - Ow Turbine Performance /: January 1995

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Parametric Study of The Cross - Ow Turbine Performance /: January 1995

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A parametric study of the cross-ﬂow turbine performance /

Article · January 1995

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

Desai, Venkappayya Rangappayya, P h . D .

the Graduate School of

of the Requirements for the Degree

To the Graduate School:

This dissertation entitled "A Parametric Study of the Cross-Flow Turbine

We have reviewed this dissertation

Accepted for the Graduate School:

Increasing environmental awareness is causing a shift in the energy emphasis from

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 12

Theoretical/Numerical Studies on the CFT • 12

Table of Contents (Continued) Page

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 31

Theoretical Research Methodology 31

IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 56

Table of Contents (Continued) Page

Effect of Angle of Attack 69

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 91

A. Maximum and Representative Efficiencies for all Tests/Combinations 95

2.1 Experimental and Theoretical Speeds for CFT at Various Heads

List of Tables (Continued) Page

4.9 Comparison of the Present Study with the Banki Theory 88

1.1 Cross-flow Turbine with its Essential Components 4

List of Figures (Continued) Page

4.14 Efficiency Improvement Flow Chart with Analogous

Turbines for Low-Head Hydropower

CFT: A Brief Historical Perspective

The CFT was originally designed and patented by an Australian engineer, A. G. M.

Description of the CFT

Blade Orientation (Enlarged)

Figure 1.1 Cross-flow Turbine with its Essential Components

Uncrossed flow ——f^ I

Figure 1.2 A Typical Flow Pattern in a CFT

Advantages of the CFT

The operational advantages are:

Programs Sponsored by Various Agencies

Limitations of the CFT

where oci = angle of attack at the first stage inlet.

In the theoretical study, a simple analysis is performed to determine the parameters

The literature available on the Cross-flow Turbine covers a century of research,

Theoretical/Numerical Studies on the CFT

where ui = peripheral runner velocity at thefirststage inlet,

*ln,ax = \ C2(l +ti0cOS2ai , (2.3)

where C = nozzle velocity coefficient, and

Tlmax = 5C 2 [(1 - X)(l + t|») + xJCOS 2 ^ , (2.4)

Experimental Studies on CFT

where N = Speed (rpm),

Computed 202 212 234 253 287

absolute maximum efficiency obtained in these experiments is 82%. Other conclusions

drawn by Nakase et al. (1982) were as follows:

An extensive experimental study was undertaken at Colorado State University, Fort

Table 2.2 Details of Runners Tested by Khosrowpanah

Table 2.3 Details of Nozzles Tested by Fiuzat and Akerkar