CHAPTER 5

DEVELOPMENT OF AN EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIP TO PREDICT

CRITICAL CAVITATION FACTOR (crc) USING SPECIFIC SPEED (Ns)
FOR BULB TURBINE

5.1 Introduction
Hydraulic transients and hydraulic vibrations are common problems
encountered in the operation of pumped and storage power plants,
conventional, power plants, and hydraulic structures. Many model studies on
the transient fluid flows and their vibration problems have been carried out. In
many applications, such as in turbine and pump operafans, cavitation
conditions are known to occur which resulted in two-phase flow art downstream
of the fluid system. For cases with intensive cavitation in tfce fluid system,
studies on the similarity between model and prototype are few. With the
present state-of-the-art, modelings of similarity for the time dependent hydraulic
transient and vibration problems are not satisfactory. Reliable data on
cavitation and information on the characteristics of cavitation exciters are also

difficult to obtain in prototype system. This add to the difficulties in trying to

satisfactorily model similarity laws for the transient model studies for cavitation.
In model studies and analysis of prototype problems, similarity law for
flow in hydraulic machine is generally valid for one-phase flow. Present
guidelines and standards for equivalent model and prototype analysis accept
that similarity of flow in model and prototype turbo machines exist before the

critical cavitation coefficients are reached. In between the of incipient

cavitation and critical cavitation, similarity is considered to be satisfactory for the
analyses of internal flow in machines. However, for flow in the downstream of
the hydraulic machine and pipe system, a small quantity of gas bubbles will
change system wave speed characteristics to the extent that similarity for the
model study of hydraulic transient and hydraulic vibration problems may be
difficult to satisfy. When hydraulic machines operate in the zone of cavitation,
air bubbles will flow through the machine resulting in two-phase flow in the
downstream of the fluid system. Though deaeration devices may be used to
minimize the air content, some air will still remain in the fluid system. Since it is

69
almost impossible to predict the quantity of air getting through the machine and
remain downstream of the system, systematic analysis has te be carried out
with various assumed amount of air content (e) in the model analysis of the
transient fluid flow problem. Whiteman and Pearsall (1959) have given in the
first study on the effects of air content on wave speed in a transient fluid system
is conducted by Details survey on effects of air on wave speed in fluid systems
is given by Lee (1991).

5.2 Model Analysis in Bulb Turbine and Development of an

Empirical Formula for oc in terms of Ns
The specific speed is an useful parameter li classifying turbo machines
and in deciding the general shape of the turbines. Impulse turbines have
specific speed in the range of 10-35 for one nozzle and 35-60 for two to more
nozzles in the pattern wheels. Francis turbines fall into the raige of Ns about
60 - 300 whereas Kaplan / Impeller turbines fall into the range of specific speed
(Ns) about 300 - 1000. The significant feature of the specific speed of a turbine
is that it is independent of the dimension and size of the prototype and model
turbines. The value of specific speed (Ns) for a turbine is used to predict the
performance of the turbine. Cavitation is one of the most important factors
considered in the design of hydraulic turbines and it is necessary to be sure that
the critical cavitation condition is not exceeded. The Thomas critical cavitation
factor gc gives an empirical relationship In terms of specific speeds (Ns) derived
from experience over many yearsby manyauthors as detailed below:

(a) M.Marpardis and Moody formula for gc:

i. gc = 0.0318 (Ns/100)2 for Francis turbines (5.1)
ii. gc= 0.28 + 1/660 (Ns/100)3 for propeller turbines (5.2)
iii. gc = 1.1 [0.28 + 1/660 (Ns/100)2] for Kaplan turbines (5.3)

(b) Roger formula for gc:

i. gc = 0.0625 (Ns/442)2 for Francis turbines (5.4)
ii. gc = 0.30 + 0.14 (Ns/442)2.73 for propeller turbines (5.5)
iii. gc = 1.1 [0.30 + 0.14 (Ns/442)2.73] for Kaplan turbines (5.6)

70
 (c) T.R.Benga and S.C.Sharma formula for cc:
i. cc = 0.0625 (Ns/444)2 for Francis turbines (5.7)

ii. cc = 0.28 + 1/7.5 (Ns/444)3 for propeller turbines (5.8)

iii. cc = 1.1 [0.28 + 1/7.5 (Ns/444)3] for Kaplan turbines (5.9)

(d) A.K. Jain formula for cc

i. cc = 0.0317 (Ns/100)2 for Francis turbines (5.10)

ii. cc= 0.30 + (0.0024(Ns/100)273 for propeller turbines (5.11)

iii. cc = 1.1 [0.30 + (0.0024(Ns/100)273] for Kaplan turbines (5.12)

Based on the available data on the hydro power stations in India and
other countries we have tried an empirical formula for predicting the
critical cavitation factor for hydro turbines as given below:

(e) New formula for cc:

i. cc = 1.0(Ns/550)2 for Francis turbines (5.13)

ii. cc= 0.30 + 0.30 (Ns/550)3 for propeller turbines (5.14)

iii. cc = 1.1 [0.30 + 0.30 (Ns/550)3] for Kaplan turbines (5.15)

There is no empirical formula available for oc prediction interms of Ns’

for the bulb turbines. So an empirical relationship has keen developed

between cc and Ns for the bulb turbines s given below:

cc = 1.06 [0.30 + 0.30 (Ns/550)3] (5.16)

Calculated values of cc for different ‘Ns’ are compared with the actual

values predicted from the model test and found close to each other as
shown in Fig. 5.1 to Fig. 5.17.
Similarly an empirical relationship has been developed fbi bulb turbines
for the formation of cavitation bubble formation interms of Ns given below

as:
cc = 1.06 [0.60 + 0.30 (Ns/550)3] for bubble formation. (5.17)

The prediction for cc at bubble formation from the above formula has

yielded good results comparable with model test results shown in the above
mentioned figures.

71
 Cavi ation Test No: 1
Head on the turbine = 7.53m
Guide ’■ane opening = 80%
Runner vane opening = 90%
Turbine Efficiency = 90.8%
Specific speed N, = 814

oP = 1.758

Oce = 1.35 Oct = 1.43

Obe= 1.667 Obt = 1.77

Inference = No Cavitation

Fig. 5.1 Cavitation test no. 1

ctp = Plant cavitation factor

oc = critical cavitation factor
oce = An analytical equation derived for oc
ad = Experimental value obtained by model test to get oc
Obe = An analytical equation derived for obe at bubble ormation.
abt = Experimental value obtained by model test to get ac at bubble
formation.

Cavitation Test No: 2

Head or the turbine = 7.53m
Guide vine opening = 80%
Runner vane opening = 90%
Turbine Efficiency = 90.6%
Specific speed Ns = 811

ctp = 1.437
CJcc - 1.33 Oct = 1.43
Obc= 1.667 Obi = 1.77
Inference = Inception of
--------------------- Cavitation

Fig. 5.2 Cavitation test no. 2

72
 Cavitation Test No: 3
Head or the turbine = 7.53m
Guide vane opening = 80%
Runner vane opening = 90%
Turbine Efficiency = 89.37%
Specific speed Ns = 802
oP= 1.322

acc-t.33 Oct =1.43

Obc= 1.667 Obt; 1.77

Inference = Full Cavitation

Fig. 5.3 Cavitation test no. 3

Figures 5.1 - 5.3 show the photographs of model testing for cavitation in

bulb turbine at a constant guide vane opening of 80% and at a runner vane
opening of 90% for various specific speeds. The model test report for the

critical cavitation factor Oct and cavitation factor for bubble formation am are

compared with the analytical results obtained by curve fittirg equation on the

corresponding ace and abe are shown in these figures. The model test results

and analytical results are compared and found very close. The equations for the
prediction of critical cavitation factor and for bubble formation cavitation factor
are hereby validated. By this method the critical cavitation factors for severe
cavitation and the babble formation can be easily predicted. The efficiency of
the bulb turbine is reduced by 1.58% by the effect of cavitation. The specifics
speed is reduced by 1.47% this reduction in specific soeed reduces the
efficiency and increases the probability of cavitation. The eq jalent head on the
proto type has been fixed at 7.53m by this model study.

73
 Cavitation Test No: 4
Head on the turbine = 6.5m
Guide vane opening = 83.5%
Runner vane opening = 90°/e
Turbine Efficiency = 89.65°/<
Specific speed Ns = 899
cjp = 2.172
Oc = 1.61
abb =2.024
Inference = No Cavitation

Fig. 5.4 Cavitation test no. 4

Cavitation Test No: 5

Head on the turbine = 6.5m
Guide vane opening = 83.5%
Runner vane opening = 90o/«
Turbine Efficiency = 89.65°/<
Specific speed Ns = 899
aP = 1.774
acc = 1.70 act = 1.69
abe=2.02 abt = 1.98
Inference = Inception of
__________ Cayitatipo__
Fig. 5.5 Cavitation test no. 5

Cavitation Test No: 6

Head on the turbine = 6.5m
Guide vane opening = 83.5%
Runner vane opening = 90°/«
Turbine Efficiency = 89.44°/
Specific speed Ns = 902
ap - 1.69
Get = 1.70 act = 1.69
abt= 2.02 abt = 1.98
Inference = On setting of
_________ Cayitali.au__
Fig. 5.6 Cavitation test no. 6

74
 Cavitation Test No: 7
Head on tae turbine = 6.5m
Guide van* opening = 83.5%
Runner vtne opening = 90%
Turbine Efficiency = 88.6%>
Specific saeed Ns = 896

oP = 1.549

Oce = 1.70 Oct = 1.69

Obe=2.02 Ob. = 1-98

Inference = Full Cavitation

Fig. 5.7 Cavitation test no. 7

Figures 5.4 - 5.7 show the photographs on cavitation in model turbine at

guide vane opening of 83.5% and runner vane opening of 90% at various
specific speeds. The model test report for the critical cavitatbn factor Oct and
cavitation factor for bubble formation ow are compared with the analytical results
obtained by solving an equation on the corresponding ace and obe are shown in
these figures. The model test results and analytical results a-e compared and
found very close. The efficiency of the mode turbine has been reduced by
1.17% for a reduction of specific speed by 0.33%. The same amount of
efficiency reduction can be expected in the proto type also at tie working head

of 6.50m.

Cavita .ion Test No: 8

Head an the turbine = 3m
Guide vane opening = 88%>
Runner ’■ane opening = 60%
Turbine Efficiency = 80.88%
Specific speed N, = 687

gp = 5.677

CTc = 0.91

(For reference only)

Fig. 5.8 Cavitation test no. 8

75
 Cavitation Test No: 9
Head on the turbine = 7.53m
Guide vane opening = 67%
Runner vane opening = 60“/
Turbine Efficiency = 92.35°/.
Specific s oeed Ns = 687
oP = 1.704
Oce = 0.93 Oct = 0.95
Obc= 1-26 Ob.= 1.26
Inference = No Cavitation

Fig. 5.9 Cavitation test no. 9

Cavitation Test No: 10

Head on the turbine = 7.53m
Guide vane opening = 67%
Runner ,;ane opening = 60°/
Turbine Efficiency = 92.32°/.
Specific speed Ns = 688
op = 0.967
o« = 9-93 oc = 0.95
Obe= 1-26 Ob.= 1-26
Inference = Inception of
____________ Cavitation

Fig. 5.10 Cavitation test no. 10

Cavitation Test No: 11

Head on :he turbine = 7.53m
Guide vane opening = 67%
Runner vane opening = 60°/.
Turbine Efficiency = 91.36°/.
Specific speed Ns = 680
op = 0.857
aee = 0.93 oct = 0.95
obc= 1-26 obt = 1-26
Inference = Full Cavitation.

Fig. 5.11 Cavitation test no. 11

76
 Figures 5.9 - 5.11 show the model test results on cavitaion phenomenon
at 67% guide vane opening and at 60% runner vane opening at various specific
speeds at a working head of 7.53m in the prototype. The model test report for
the critical cavitation factor and cavitation factor for bubble formation aw are
compared with the analytical results obtained by solving an equation on the
corresponding ace and at* are shown in these figures. The node! test results
and analytical results are compared and found to be very close The efficiency
has been reduced by 1.04% and 1 to specific speed has Deen reduced by
1.16% at the time of cavitation.

Cavitation Test No: 12

Head on the turbine = 6.5m
Guide vtne opening = 71%
Runner -ane opening = 60°/c
Turbine Efficiency = 91.62%
Specific speed Ns = 758
ctp = 2.048
Gee = 1-12 Gel = 1.00
Obc= 1.46 <Tbt = 1-26
Inference = No Cavitation

Fig. 5.12 Cavitation test no. 12

Cavitttion Test No: 13

Head on he turbine = 7.53m
Guide vane opening = 67%
Runner vane opening = 60°/<
Turbine Efficiency =91.52%
Specific speed N, = 760
Gp = 1.015
Gm = 1.12 Get =1.00
Gbe~ 1.46 Obt = 1.26
Inferen :e = Inception of
____________ Cavitation

Fig. 5.13 Cavitation test no. 13

77
 Cavitatiwn Test No: 14
Head on -he turbine = 6.5m
Guide vaae opening = 71%
Runner vane opening = 60%
Turbine Efficiency = 90.29%
Specific speed Ns = 753
gp = 0.935
Gee =1.12 Oct =1.00

Gbe= 1.46 Obt = 1.26

Inference = Full Cavitation

Fig. 5.14 Cavitation test no. 14

Figures 5.12 - 5.14 show the model test photographs on cavitation

phenomenon for the head of 6.5m from at guide vane opening 67 to 71% and
runner vane opening 60% at various specific speeds. The me del test report for
the critical cavitation factor act and cavitation factor for bubble formation obt are
compared with the analytical results obtained by solving governing equation on
the corresponding ace and obe are shown in these figures. The model test
results and analytical results are compared and found to be very close. Hence
the curve fitting equations for the prediction of critical cavitation factor and for
bubble formation cavitation factor are hereby vaSdated. The cavitation reduces
the efficiency by 1.45% for a reduction of 0.66% in the specific speed.

Cavitation Test No: 15

Head on the turbine = 6.5m
Guide vane opening = 89%>
Runner vane opening = 100°/ >
Turbine Efficiency = 86.11%
Specific speed Ns = 945
gp = 2.172
Geo = 1.92 Get = 2.08
Gbe= 2.23 Gbt = 2.43

Inference = No Cavitation

Fig. 5.15 Cavitation test no. 15

78
 Cavitat:>on Test No: 16
Head on the turbine = 6.5m
Guide vane opening = 89%
Runner vane opening = 100°/»
Turbine Efficiency = 86.17°/
Specific speed Ns = 949
aP = 2.085
Cce= 1.92 Oct 2.08
CTbe= 2.23 Obi 2.43
Inference = Inception of
Cavitation

Fig. 5.16 Cavitation test no. 16

Cavitation Test No: 17

Head on the turbine = 6.5m
Guide vane opening = 89%
Runner vane opening = 100°/»
Turbine Efficiency = 84.79°/
Specific speed Ns = 943
ap = 1.886
Occ ~ 1.92 a« = 2.08
abe= 2.23 Obi = 2.43
Inference = Full Cavitation

Fig. 6.17 Cavitation test no. 17

Figures 5.15 - 5.17 show the mode test resuhs on cavitation

phenomenon at guide vane opening 89% and runner vane opening 100% at
various specific speed at a working head of 6.50m. The model test report for
the critical cavitation factor act and cavitation factor for bubble formation a^ are
compared with the analytical results obtained by solving curve fitting equation.
The model test results and analytical results are compared and found to be very
close as seen form the results tabulated. Hence the equations for the prediction
of critical cavitation factor and for bubble formation cavitation factor are hereby
validated and found satisfactory. The cavitation has reduced turbine efficiency
by 1.53% for a reduction of 0.21% in specific speed of the turtine.

79
 Comparison of model test results with analytical test resdts for cavitation
factors for the bulb turbines are given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Comparison of model test results with analytical test results for
cavitation factors for the bulb turbines

Cavitation factor
Critical cavitation
at bubble
factor
Plant formation
Specific cavitation by by
by by Inference
Speed |NS) factor model model
(oP) analytical analytical
test test
equation equation
report report
(ace) (Obe)
(°ct) M

680 0.875 0.95 0.9 1.26 1.24 full cavitation

687 1.704 0.95 0.93 1.26 1.26 No cavitation

inception of
688 0.967 0.95 0.94 1.26 1.26
cavitation

753 0.935 1 1.13 1.28 1.45 full cavitation

758 2.048 1 1.12 1.26 1.46 full cavitation

inception of
760 1.015 1 1.12 1.28 1.47
cavitation

802 1.322 1.43 1.3 1.77 1.63 full cavitation

inception of
811 1.437 1.43 1.35 1.77 1.66
cavitation

814 1.758 1.43 1.35 1.77 1.67 No cavitation

896 1.549 1.69 1.69 1.98 2 full cavitation

899 2.172 1.69 1.7 1.98 2.04 No cavitation

inception of
902 1.69 1.69 1,7 1.98 2.04
cavitation

943 1.886 2,08 1.92 2.43 2.23 full cavitation

945 2.172 2.08 1.92 2.43 2.23 No cavitation

inception of
949 2.085 2.08 1.95 2.43 2.23
cavitation

80
5.3 Conclusions
The prediction of critical cavitation factor and bubble cavitation factor at
different specific speed for the bulb turbines can be easily predicted by using an
empirical equation without going for a detailed model study. The model test
results and curve fitting equation for bulb turbines are compared and found out
that our results are in line with the above results obtained by Hiroharn [1996] in
predicting critical cavitation factor ac and bubble formation factot
The cavitation severity and its location predicted in the model test
conducted for the bulb turbine is found different in the prototypes installed at
different locations. The severity of the cavitation in the pratotypes, have
deformed the runner casings in our study. The scale effect in the model study
has been proved, as confirmed by the research conducted by T.S.Lee and
S.Pejovic [1996] and gives a very close approximation on the results.

Details of Photographs shown in fig 5.1 to 5.17

Still photography is taken with shutter speed of 1/500 with exposure time of
1 second. It is taken inside the discharge ring at runner vane moving area with

flash light exposure.

Cross reference between the Photographs

Photographs shown in figure 5.1 to 5.3 at page no. 72 & 73 are cross-
referred for the cavitation and efficiency. The efficiency ^ no cavitation is
90.8% and at inception of cavitation is 90.6% and at full cavitation is

89.37%.

81