Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Turbulent flow computation through a model Francis turbine and its performance prediction

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

2010 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 12 012004

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/12/1/012004)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 193.219.102.232
The article was downloaded on 05/11/2012 at 14:02

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012004

Turbulent flow computation through a model Francis turbine

and its performance prediction
Y Wu1, S Liu1, X Wu1, H Dou2, L Zhang3 and X Tao3
1
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Department of Thermal
Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, National University of Singapore,
Singapore 119260
3
Harbin Institute of Large Electrical Machinery, Harbin, 150001, China

E-mail: wyl-dhh@tsinghua.edu.cn
Abstract. In this paper an improved k−ω turbulence model is proposed, which brings the
nonlinear term of the mean fluid flow transition to the ω equation in the original k−ω model of
Wilcox. Based on the improved k−ω turbulence model, three dimensional turbulent flow
computation is carried out through the whole flow passage including the spiral casing, stay
vanes, guide vanes, runner and draft tube of a model Francis turbine. In calculation the direct
coupling method is used to solve the RANS turbulent flow governing equations for the Francis
model turbine by Ansys CFX software. Since the feasibility of the improved k−ω turbulence
model to hydro-turbine performance prediction is the present main concern, its validation is
conducted by the steady flow simulation. Comparisons of the computational results on energy
characteristics with test data and with different turbulence models at different flow rate cases
indicate that the present method has sufficient potential to simulate the turbulent flow in
hydraulic turbines and to predict their performances.

1. Introduction
Francis turbine is widely employed in large scale hydro-power stations in the world. Its main characteristics
include the efficiency, stability [1] and cavitation characters [2]. In practical establishment, each large power
station must develop a new Francis turbine for its special natural conditions and requirements. The great amount
of investment requires the Francis turbine to have an efficiency as high as possible for utilization of the natural
resources. The key technology in the development of a new Francis turbine is the 3D turbulent flow simulation
both for steady flow and unsteady flow [1]. Nowadays, the unsteady flow simulation is the main technology to
predict the pressure fluctuation in this machine and further to predict its stability. In this paper, the 3D steady
turbulent flow simulation, developed in this paper with the new k-ω model, is used to predict its performances,
including the hydraulic torque (output) and its efficiency.
In recent years, computation of turbulent flows based on the solution of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) equations have been extensively used to predict the flow field in various flow devices including
hydroturbines and pumps. Meanwhile, various turbulence models have been developed and incorporated in the
governing equations. This approach has obtained significant success for some cases with both incompressible
and compressible flows. However, the prediction of turbulent flows in complex flow passages such as
turbomachinery still faces great challenge due to the influence of the complex geometry of the passage. To
achieve the objective of prediction, the accuracy of the turbulence model employed is a key issue in the
numerical simulation of the flow field [3-4].
The k-ω model is one of the most common turbulence models, which is a two equation model. The first
transported variable is turbulent kinetic energy, k. The second transported variable in this case is the specific
dissipation frequency, ω. It is the variable that determines the scale of the turbulence, whereas the first variable, k,
determines the energy in the turbulence. This allows a two equation model to account for history effects like
convection and diffusion of turbulent energy. The k-ω based Shear-Stress-Transport (SST) model was designed
to give highly accurate predictions of the onset and the amount of flow separation under adverse pressure
gradients by the inclusion of transport effects into the formulation of the eddy-viscosity. This results in a major


c 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd 1
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012004

improvement in terms of flow separation predictions [6, 7]. In this paper, an improved k−ω turbulence model is
proposed, which brings a nonlinear term, which is like the additional nonlinear term in the ε equation of the
RNG k-ε model, to the ω equation in the original k−ω model of Wilcox [8, 9]. At first, the new model is used to
calculate the turbulent flow in a 90 degree rectangular duct and the result is compared with the experimental data
in Kim and Patel (1993) [10] to validating the model, similar to that Yakinthos et al (2008) did [11]. Then, the
improved k-ω model has been used to predict the performance of a Francis turbine. The results indicate that the
improved model predicts the transverse velocity component and convective component with less loss than those
by other two models.

2. The improved k−ω turbulence model

In the improved k−ω turbulence model, the turbulent kinetic energy k equation in the original
RNG k − ε turbulence model [12] also is used. But the turbulent dissipation rate equation has been modified from
the definition of turbulent dissipation frequency ω,
ε
ω= (1)
Ck k
and the turbulent dissipation rate equation in the RNG k − ε turbulence model [13]. Its total differential
expression is as follows:
Dω D ⎛ ε ⎞ 1 Dε ω Dk
= ⎜ ⎟= − (2)
Dt Dt ⎝ Ck k ⎠ Ck k Dt k Dt
The RNG approach, which is a mathematical technique, could be used to derive a turbulence model similar
to the k-ε and could result in a modified form of the ε equation which attempted to account for the different
scales of motion through changes to the production term. In the RNG k − ε model, if the buoyancy in the
incompressible fluid is neglected, the k and the ε equations are [12, 13]
Dk ∂ ⎛⎛ μ ⎞ ∂k ⎞
(3)
ρ = ⎜⎜ μ + t ⎟ ⎟⎟ + Gk − ρε
Dt ∂x j ⎜⎝ ⎝ σk ⎠ ∂x j ⎠
Dε ∂ ⎛ ⎛ μ ⎞ ∂ε ⎞ ε ε2
ρ = ⎜⎜ μ + t ⎟ ⎟⎟ + C1ε Gk − C2ε ρ − R (4)
Dt ∂xj ⎜⎝ ⎝ σε ⎠ ∂xj ⎠ k k
where Gk = μ t S 2 , and
C μ ρη 3 (1 − η η 0 ) ε 2
R= (5)
1 + βη 3 k
where η ≡ S k ε , η0 = 4.38 , β = 0.012 .
Substituting Eqs. (3) and (4) to eq. (2), one yields
Dω 1 ⎛ ∂ ⎛⎛ μ ⎞ ∂ε ⎞ ε ε2 ⎞ ω ⎛ ∂ ⎛⎛ μ ⎞ ∂k ⎞ ⎞
ρ = ⎜ ⎜⎜ ⎜ μ + t ⎟ ⎟⎟ + C1ε Gk − C2ε ρ − R ⎟ − ⎜ ⎜⎜ ⎜ μ + t ⎟ ⎟⎟ + Gk − ρε ⎟
Dt Ck k ⎝⎜ ∂x j ⎝ ⎝ σ k ⎠ ∂x j ⎠ k k ⎟ ⎜
⎠ k ⎝ ∂x j ⎝ ⎝ σ ε ⎠ ∂x j ⎠ ⎟
⎠
After rearranging it and according to the differential formula, one can get the new the turbulent dissipation
rate frequency equation as
Dω
ρ = Pω − Φ ω + Dω − Rω (6)
Dt
where
⎛ 1 ε ω⎞ ω
Pω = ⎜ C1ε − ⎟ Gk = (C1ε − 1) Gk (7-1)
⎝ Ck k k k⎠ k
ρ ε2 ω
Φω = C2 ε −ρ Ck ω k = (C2ε − 1)Ck ρω 2 (7-2)
Ck k k k

2
μ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ ∂k ∂ω ω⎛ 1 1 ⎞ ∂2k ω⎛ 1 1 ⎞ ⎛ ∂k ⎞ ∂ ⎛ μt ∂ω ⎞
Dω = t ⎜ + ⎟ + μt ⎜ − ⎟ 2 + μt 2 ⎜ − ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (7-3)
k ⎝ σ ε σ k ⎠ ∂x j ∂x j k ⎝ σ ε σ k ⎠ ∂x j k ⎝ σε σ k ⎠ ⎝ ∂x j ⎠ ∂x j ⎝ σ ε ∂x j ⎠

2
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012004

1 Cμ ρη (1 − η η0 ) ε 2 Cμ Ck ρη (1 − η η0 ) 2
3 3

Rω = = ω (7-4)
Ck k 1 + βη 3
k 1 + βη 3
Equation (6) and Eqs. (7-1) to (7-4) constitute the model transport equations for the turbulent dissipation
rate frequency ω based on the RNG theory. The corresponding turbulent kinetic energy equation is
Dk ∂ ⎛⎛ μ ⎞ ∂k ⎞
ρ = ⎜⎜ ⎜ μ + t ⎟ ⎟ + Gk − ρCk kω (8)
Dt ∂x j ⎝ ⎝ σ k ⎠ ∂x j ⎟⎠
The new term in the turbulence dispassion frequency equation
Cμ Ck ρη 3 (1 − η η0 ) 2
Rω = ω
1 + βη 3
is an additional term of 2nd order of ω .Turbulent viscosity is modeled as:
k
μt = Cμ ρ (9)
ω
where Cμ = 0.0845 , C1ε = 1.42 , C2ε = 1.68 , Ck = 0.8 , Cε = 0.8 ( Ck and Cε can be chosen as 0.7194 as
S 1 ⎛ ∂u ∂u j ⎞
theoretical) η0 = 4.38 , β = 0.012 and η ≡ , Gk = μ t S 2 , S ≡ 2 S ij S ij , Sij = ⎜ i + ⎟.
Ck ω 2 ⎜⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎟⎠
These equations form a closed system to calculate the turbulent stresses in the improved k−ω two-equation
turbulence model.

3. Boundary Conditions and Numerical Treatment

Inlet boundary condition: The velocity profile at the inlet is assumed to be uniform and its magnitude is
determined by the mean flow in the experiment. The total pressure is specified at the inlet boundary and thus, the
static pressure can be decided.
In the computation, the default inlet turbulence intensity, l is selected, and the value is set to: l = 0.037 ,
which is an approximate value for internal pipe flow. The inlet turbulence energy, the turbulence dissipation (if
use the RNG k-ε model) and its frequency could be calculated. The default inlet eddy viscosity is 1000μ.
Outlet boundary condition: At the outlet, in addition to the global conservation of mass, all variables are
assumed to have a zero-gradient. .
Boundary conditions near solid walls: For the fully developed turbulent flow, the boundary conditions near
solid walls were implemented using wall functions, that is, the following formulae is used to calculate the
turbulence dissipation rate frequency ωl near walls
u* 1 u *2
ωl = =
α1ky α1kν y +
For the low-Re flow near walls, the formulation of ω is based on the low-Re model，such as
6ν
ωs =
β ( y)
2

In the k−ω based turbulent models, the treatment near-wall automatically switches from wall-functions to a
low-Re near wall formulation as the mesh is refined. However, a strict low-Reynolds number implementation of
the model would also require a near wall grid resolution of at least y+ <0.2. This condition cannot be
guaranteed in most applications at all walls. In the present computation, the y+ in grid systems is larger than 4.
So that the wall logarithmic law is used to determine the flow velocity and other turbulent parameters at stations
near walls.
Numerical treatment: The software CFX is used to make the numerical simulation. In the simulation, the
second order upwind scheme is used for discretization of convective term and the second order central scheme
for discretization of diffusion term. The full coupled method is used to solve the incompressible flow in the
present simulation. The discrete momentum equations and the continuity equations for the complete flow field
are solved together without iteration and corrections. This numerical method will need large computer storage,
but it will improve the stability in the numerical procedure [14]. In the improved k−ω turbulence model, the new
nonlinear term Rω can be inserted into the source term of the turbulence dispassion rate frequency equation

3
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012004

numerically by the user defined function (UDS) subroutine in the software.

For the rotating Francis turbine, the so-called the MRF (multi reference frame), that is, the frozen rotor
approach is used. This method involves the entire geometry of the stator, and rotor to be modeled, but is kept in a
fixed relative position (“frozen”) throughout the simulation. The stator is calculated in the stationary frame and
the runner in rotating frame of reference, at the interface the flow variables are transformed into the according
frame of reference. As a result the approach accounts partly for interactions across frame boundaries, yet
transient effects remain unresolved with this approach as well. The main advantage of the frozen rotor method
compared with a true transient simulation is the reduction of computing time. This approach is used in 3D steady
turbulent flow simulation through rotating machinery.
And in this computation, the runner solid surfaces is not stationary, is running with a rotating speed along
tangential direction.

4. Calculated Results in a Curved Rectangular Duct

In order to indicate the reliability of the presented improved k−ω model, the three dimensional air flow in a
90o curved rectangular duct (as shown in Fig. 1) has been conducted and the calculated results have been
compared with the test data from Kim and Patel (1993) and the calculated results by using other two turbulence
model: the k−ω model (Wilcox, 1998) and RNG k−ε model (Yakhot et al. 1992, Smith and Woodruff, 1998).
Figure 1 shows the dimension of the curved rectangular duct, which is similar with the draft tube in hydraulic
turbine. It is a 90o bend with the height of 0.609m along z-ordinate direction, the width of 0.203m and the total
length 34.5 times of the width, which includes the inlet part of 4.5 times of width along x direction and the
outlet part of 30 times of width along y direction. The inlet velocity of the air flow is 16m/s with the Reynolds
number Re = 2.24 × 105 , as same as in the test. In this calculation, the structural grid system with hexahedrons
has been adopted with the fine grid number on the solid walls to keep y+ along walls in 4-30.
Figure 2-1 to Fig.3-3 show velocity components u, v, w along streamline, width and height
directions respectively on the symmetric plane of the bend (Fig.1) and on serif 1 with a distance to
bottom of 0.0127m and serif 2 with a distance to bottom of 0.609 m. Actually, the serifs are along the
width direction. The abscissa in these figures is the relative distance along the width, the reference frame 0.0
point is located on the outside of the bend with high streamline velocity component near the point, as shown in
Fig. 2-1 and Fig. 3-1. The two figures show that all three turbulent models give the good results of the
streamline velocity component. But the results by the present model give the data more close to the tested data
than those from other two models.
Figure 2-2 and Fig. 3-2 show the velocity component v along width (transverse) direction, which is negative
(from inner side to out side) on serif 1 near bottom wall (Fig. 2-2) and is positive (from out side to inner side) on
serif 2 leaving from bottom wall (Fig. 3-2) to form a circulation. This velocity component has a small value,
and the present model gives the data more close to the test data than those from other two models.
Figure 2-3 and Fig. 3-3 indicate the velocity component w along height (convective) direction, which is
positive (from bottom) on serif 1 and negative (to bottom) on serif 2. Both velocity component w distributions
have very small value at the inner side (with large abscissa) of bend with a large curvature. The present model
gives the data more close to the test data than those from other two models, especially in Fig. 3-3.
The present model adds the additional nonlinear term in the ω equation and predicts the transverse velocity
component and convective component with less loss than those by other two models. So that the present model
has the possibility to be adopted in the engineering, for example in rotating hydraulic turbine.
In order to justify the influence of the coefficient Ck to the turbulence model, Fig. 4-1 to Fig. 4-3 show the
velocity components u, v, w on the symmetric plane of the bend (Fig. 1) and on serif 2 with values of Ck in 0.8,
1.0 and 1.2 respectively. The three results are almost same.

Fig. 1 Dimension of the curved rectangular duct

4
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012004

1.10
0.25
1.05 0.00

1.00 0.20
0.95 _
0.05
0.90 0.15

0.85 tested
_ 0.10 RNG k _ ε
0.80 0.10
k _ω

v U0
u U0

w U0
improved k _ ω )
0.75 tested
0.05
0.70 RNG k _ ε _
0.15 tested
k _ω
0.65 RNG k _ ε
improved k _ ω ) 0.10
k _ω
0.60
_ improved k _ ω )
0.20 _
0.55 0.05

0.50 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

h h0 h h0 h h0

Fig. 2-1 Component u along streamline Fig. 2-2 Component v along width Fig. 2-3 Component w along height
Fig. 2 Comparison of velocity components distribution on serif 1
0.02
0.000
1.2

1.1 _
0.01 0.005
tested
RNG k _ ε
1.0 _ _
0.010 k ω
0.9 0.00 improved k _ ω )
_ 0.015

w U0
0.8 tested
u U0

v U0

RNG k _ ε
_ 0.01
k _ω
_
0.7 0.020
improved k _ ω )
0.6 tested
_ 0.02 RNG k _ ε _ 0.025
_
0.5 k ω
improved k _ ω ) _ 0.030
0.4
_ 0.03 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
h h0 h h0 h h0

Fig. 3-1Component u along the streamline Fig. 3-2 Component v along width Fig. 3-3 Component w along
height
Fig. 3 Comparison of velocity components distribution on serif 2
1.2
_ 0.000
0.006
1.1 _ 0.008
_
0.005
1.0 _ 0.010
_
0.9 _ 0.012 0.010
u /U0

0.8 _ 0.014 _
0.015
v/U0

v/U0

0.7 Ck= 0.8 _ 0.016

Ck= 0.8 _
Ck= 1.0 0.020
_ 0.018 Ck= 1.0
0.6 Ck= 1.2 Ck= 1.2
_ 0.025 Ck= 0.8
0.5 _ 0.020
Ck= 1.0
_ 0.022 _ Ck= 1.2
0.4 0.030
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
h /H0 h /H 0 h /H 0

Fig. 4-1 Velocity component u Fig. 4-2 Velocity component v Fig. 4-3 Velocity component w
Fig. 4 Velocity components along width direction on serif 2 with different Ck

5. Computational Results of a Francis Turbine

A commercial N-S equation solver (CFX 10.0) has been employed with inserting the present improved k-ω
turbulence model for 3D steady turbulent flow simulation through a model Francis turbine, and 4 different
operating cases are chosen for comparison, which are part load, optimum, rated load (for power station), and
over load cases. The results from simulation have been compared with model experiments to validate their
preciseness and reliability and with other three turbulence models: original k-ω model, SST k-ω model and RNG
k-ε model.
5.1 Simulation domain and parameters
The simulation domain is a whole passage of a Francis hydro turbine, which including spiral casing, guide
vane, runner, and draft tube (see Fig. 5-1). The runner diameter is 420mm, which is a model hydro turbine. The
software gambit is used to create geometry object and mesh the domain. In this paper, the whole passage of the
model turbine is mesh with tetrahedron type, which is more adaptive to complex geometry. Figure 5-2 shows the
computational grid on runner blade where most grid are in low skewness.

5
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012004

Y Z
spiral casing
X

guide vane

draft tube

runner

Fig. 5-1 Simulation domain of a model Francis turbine Fig. 5-2 Grid on runner blade

5.2 Simulation conditions

To solve the equations, boundary conditions must be given. For inlet of computational domain, which is at
the inlet of spiral casing, the total pressure condition and the inlet flow rate (that is, the averaged inlet velocity
normal component) are given because they can reflect the actual flow state in the turbine. Then the inlet static
pressure should be known. Other boundary conditions are the same as indicated in section 3.
The experiment water head is 20 meters. The calculated water head is obtained as the final convergent results
to compared withexperiment data. The unit rotating speed and flow rate are same with experiment, which
equals to 650 r/min. Three kinds of guide vane openings are chosen for comparison, which are 10mm,
18mm,20mm and 22mm respectively. To validate thepreciseness and reliability of this simulation, calculating
results should be compared with the data from model experiment.
The performance experiment of this Francis turbine was carried out at Harbin Institute of Large Electrical
Machinery. Its test rig has satisfied IEC standard with the system error of less than 3‰. The hydro
parameters of the model have been measured at different operating conditions, including mass flow rate,
hydro moment of runner, hydro efficiency, and so on. The results have been shown in Fig. 6, and the
main data shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Characteristics of Francis turbine

Optimum case Restricted case

guide vane n11o Q11o ηmo guide vane n11 Q11 ηm
opening (mm) (rpm) (m3/ s) (%) opening (mm) (rpm) (m3/s) (%)
18 65.0 0.420 93.6 26 65.0 0.560 90
characteristic curve
85

8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 33.0 36.0
80
88
89
74 90
75 6.0
70
91

70
nll (r/min)

8082 8486 86 84 82 80
93
65
93.5

92
60

55

95.0% power limiting line

50
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Q11(L/s)
Fig. 6 Characteristic curve of hydro efficiency

6
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012004

The characteristic curve of hydro efficiency from model test is shown in Fig. 6, where the total water head
(from inlet of spiral casing to outlet of draft tube) is 20m, n11 refers to unit rotating speed, and Q11 refers to unit
volume flow rate respectively. The highest efficiency point is at n11=65r/min and Q11=420L/s, with the value is
93.6%. The hydro efficiency can be calculated as:
MΩ
η= × 100% (10)
ρ Qv gH
where M is the hydro moment of runner, Ω is the rotating speed, ρ is the water density, and H is the water
head, which is a constant value during the test.

5.3 Mesh independent verification

Before analyzing the calculated results, grid-independent verification should be carried out first. In this paper,
5 numerical models with different mesh sizes have been applied to do the numerical simulation with same
boundary conditions. The calculation has been carried out at the operation case with at the highest efficiency,
n11=65r/min and Q11=420L/s.
The torque of runner and hydro efficiency of model turbine with different mesh system are shown in Figs. 7-
1 and 7-2. It can be seen that the torque and efficiency value increase as the mesh number increases, meanwhile,
it also can be seen that the hydro parameters value of model 4 and model 5 are nearly the same, which shows that
the two models are mesh independent, and can be used to analyzed.
In the mesh system, the grid near the solid walls has adopted the fine one with y+ is less than 40 especially
near the runner blade surfaces as shown in Fig. 8.
498
87.5

497
87.0
496
moment(Nm)

495 86.5
eff (%)

494
86.0

493
85.5
492

491 85.0
500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000
cell cell

(7-1) torque of runner (7-2) hydro efficiency of model turbine

Fig. 7 Performance of model turbine with different mesh system Fig.8 y+ distribution on runner
blade surface

5.4 Results verification

To verify the accuracy of calculation results, they are compared with experiment results and with calculated
results of other three turbulent models.
In this calculation, the inlet velocity distribution is given as the boundary condition, after the calculation, one
can get the total pressure difference between the inlet of spiral casing and the out let of draft tube, which is the
working head upon the turbine. The work head results are around 20m with a little error. That is to say that all
models could predict the working head accurately. Another energy performances are the water moment acting on
runner and the hydraulic efficiency. The calculations with different turbulence models could predict the
efficiency with good agreement to the test data, which are amiable to be used in engineering. Among them, the
improved model and the SST model have better data than other two models’ results.
Besides, the predicted efficiency by the improved model is little higher than the test data. But other model
results are lower than the test data. Because in the experiment, besides the hydraulic loss there must have a
volumetric loss and mechanical, which have been decreased to vary small amount by nowadays high technology.
But they still exist. So that the present improved model can get the reasonable results. That is for the additional
nonlinear term in the dissipation rate frequency equation to predict the dissipation rate with small value.

7
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012004

Table 2 Parameters comparison of test data and calculated results

guide
turbulence flow hydro
vane head torque on runner(Nm)
model rate(kg/s) efficiency(%)
opening
calculated calculated test calculated test
SST k − ω 20.1m 645.7 92.3
14mm RNG k − ε 19.9m 640.5 92.2
264.7 667 92.6
k −ω 19.9m 615.3 91
improved 20.2m 672.7 93
SST k − ω 20.1m 820.3 93.0
RNG k − ε 20.0 810.7 92.8
18mm 329.6 845.7 93.4
k −ω 19.9m 780.5 91.5
improved 20.1m 852.5 93.7
SST k − ω 20.1m 922.2 92.8
RNG k − ε 19.8m 920.8 92.7
20mm 370.3 940 93
k −ω 19.9m 890.5 91.6
improved 20.0m 950.6 93.5
SST k − ω 20.0m 1035 91.2
RNG k − ε 19.9m 1032 91.0
23mm 430.9 1070 91.5
k −ω 20.0m 995 89.5
improved 20.1m 1080 91.7

6. Conclusions
In this paper, an improved k−ω turbulence model is proposed, which brings the nonlinear term of the mean
fluid flow transition to the ω equation in the original k−ω model of Wilcox.
The new model is used to calculate the turbulent flow in a 90° rectangular duct and to compare with test data.
Calculated results by the present model agree the test data better than those from other two models, the RNG
k−ε model and the original k−ω model. And the improved model predicts the transverse velocity component and
convective component with less loss than those by other two models.
The 3D steady turbulent flow simulation, developed in this paper with the new k-ω model, is used to predict
its energy performances of one type of rotating machinery-Francis turbine, including, the turbine hydraulic
torque (output) and its efficiency. The predicted results are more reasonable and closer to test data than the
results from the RNG k−ε model, the original k−ω model and even the SST k−ω model.

Acknowledgments
The research work was funded by Chinese National Foundation of Natural Science (No. 10532010) and by
the National Key Technology R&D Program in China.

Nomenclature
Ck turbulence model coefficient [-] α1 coefficient in wall function [-]
Cε turbulence model coefficient [-] β turbulence model coefficient,
coefficient of wall function [-]
Cμ turbulence model coefficient [-] ε turbulent dissipation [L2T-3]
η≡
turbulence model coefficient [-] turbulence model variable [-]
≡ S ( Ck ω )
C1ε C 2ε

turbulence model coefficient

Dω term in turbulence model [ML-3T-2] η0
[-]

8
25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012004 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012004

Gk turbulent production in turbulence model [ML-1T-3] μ molecular dynamic viscosity

[ML-1T-1]
h ordinate along duct width [L] μt eddy viscosity [ML-1T-1]
molecular kinematic
ho duct width [L] ν
viscosity [L2T-1]
k
2 -2
turbulent kinetic energy [L T ] ρ density [ML-3]
k Kammen constant [-] τw wall stress [ML-1T-2]
p pressure [ML-1T-2] Φω term in turbulence model
[ML-3T-2]
turbulent production in turbulence model [ML-3T-2] turbulent dissipation frequency
Pω ω
[T-1]
-1 -4
R nonlinear term in turbulence model [M L T ]
Rω nonlinear term in turbulence model [ML-3T-2] Superscript
Re Reynolds number(=UbDh/ν) [-] s wall function [-]
S strain rate [T-1] low-Re model [-]
S ij trace-less viscous strain rate(i=1, 2, 3)[T-1]
u velocity [LT-1]
u* dimensionless wall stress velocity( = τ w ρ )[LT-1]
Uo velocity at inlet [LT-1]
y normal distance to the nearest wall [L]

References
[1] Zhang R K, Cai Q D, Wu J Z, Wu Y L, Zhang L, Liu S H 2005 The physical origin of severe low-
frequency pressure fluctuations in giant Francis turbines Modern Physics Letters B 19(28-29) 1527-
1530
[2] Li S C, Liu S H, Wu Y L 2007 A new type of cavitation damage Triggered by boundary-layer turbulent
Production Modern Physics Letters B 21(20) 1285 – 1296
[3] Zhang L X, Guo Y 2009 Simulation of turbulent flow in a complex passage with a vibrating structure by
finite element formulations Modern Physics Letters B 23(2) 257-260
[4] Yao J, Yao Y, Mason P J, Zhang T, Heyes F, Roach P 2009 CFD modeling of water injection flow for
turbine cleaning Modern Physics Letter B 23(3) 341-344
[5] Yakhot V and Orszag S A 1986 Renormalized group analysis of turbulence: I. basic theory J. Sci.
Comput. 1 3-5
[6] Menter F R 1993 Zonal Two Equation k-ω Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows AIAA 93-2906
[7] Menter F R 1994 Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications AIAA
Journal 32 269-289
[8] Wilcox D C 1988 Re-assessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models AIAA
Journal 26 1414-1421
[9] Wilcox D C 2004 Turbulence Modeling for CFD 2nd Ed (DCW Industries Inc)
[10] Kim W J and Patel V C 1993 An experimental study of boundary-layer flow in a curved rectangular duct
Symposium on Data for Validation of CFD codes ASME Fluids Eng. Div. Meeting (Washington DC,
USA) 16 13–28
[11] Yakinthos K, Vlahostergios Z and Goulas A 2008 Modeling the flow in a 90o rectangular duct using one
Reynolds-stress and two eddy viscosity models International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 29 35–
47
[12] Yakhot V, Orszag S A, Thangam S, Gatski T B and Speziale C G 1992 Development of turbulence models
for shear flows by a double expansion technique Physics of Fluids A 4(7) 1510-1520
[13] Smith L M and Woodruff S L 1998 Renormalization-group analysis of turbulence Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics 30 275-310
[14] Liu S H, Zhang L, Nishi M and Wu Y L 2009 Cavitating turbulent flow simulation in a Francis turbine
based on mixture model J. of Fluids Engineering 131 1-13