Hydropak: Concept Design and Analysis of A Packaged Cross-Flow Turbine

HYDROPAK
Concept design and analysis of a

packaged cross-flow turbine
CONTRACT NUMBER: H/03/00078/00/00
URN NUMBER: 04/1885

The DTI drives our ambition of
‘prosperity for all’ by working to
create the best environment for
business success in the UK.
We help people and companies
become more productive by
promoting enterprise, innovation
and creativity.
We champion UK business at home and

abroad. We invest heavily in
world-class science and technology.
We protect the rights of working
people and consumers. And we
stand up for fair and open markets
in the UK, Europe and the world.
The work described in this report
was carried out under contract as
part of the DTI Technology
Programme: New and Renewable
Energy, which is managed by
Future Energy Solutions. The
views and judgements expressed
in this report are those of the
contractor and do not necessarily
reflect those of the DTI or Future
Energy Solutions.
First published 2004
 Joint: NHT Engineering and IT Power Ltd, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................I
1. Project Aim and Objectives ..........................................................................................1
2. Background....................................................................................................................2
3. Overview of Project Activities ......................................................................................4
3.1 Activity [a]: - Develop basic layout design................................................4
3.2 Activity [b]: - Compile database of components and sizes .....................7
3.3 Activity [c]: - Develop standard size increments with layout

drawings .................................................................................................................9
3.4 Activity [d]: - Analysis of turbine components and

development of standardisation strategy ............................................................12
3.5 Activity [e]: - Assessment and optimisation of civil works

requirements ..........................................................................................................18
3.6 Activity [f]: - Analysis of O&M constraints................................................21
4. Current Activity..............................................................................................................22
4.1 Activity [g] - Finalise the outline designs for the HydroPak ....................22
4.2 Activity [h] - System costing and economic assessment ........................26
5. Project Conclusions.......................................................................................................29
6. Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................31
Table 1Example HydroPak Design Database ........................................................... 8
Table 2Detailed HydroPak Component List............................................................ 12
Table 3Transmission selection ................................................................................ 15
Table 4Shaft sizing Calculations for HydroPak ...................................................... 16
Table 5Nozzle area (A) – m2 for choosing the MIV................................................. 17
Table 6MiniPak Plinth Dimension Selection Table ................................................ 20
Table 7Plinth matrix ................................................................................................. 20
Table 8Results of Economic Analysis of Hydropak ............................................... 26
Table 9 Weighting of main costs for main HydroPak components across
its range .................................................................................................... 27
Table 10 Cost comparison with competitors that supply packaged
crossflow turbines.................................................................................... 29
Figure 1 Head vs. Flow operating ranges of the major turbine types ..................... 3
Figure 2 Operational ranges of hydro turbine types considering power
and head, based on speed, showing area that crossflow
turbines can best occupy........................................................................... 5
Figure 3 Typical Ø300 Cross-Flow turbine plan - layout ........................................ 10
Figure 4 Typical Ø300 Cross-Flow turbine layout - side elevation ........................ 11
Figure 5 Bill of Materials for typical finalised Ø300 diameter cross-flow
turbine on bed plate................................................................................. 22
Figure 6 Example of finalised Ø300 diameter cross-flow turbine on bed
plate........................................................................................................... 23
Figure 7 Detailed components of finalised Ø300 diameter cross-flow
turbine on bed plate................................................................................. 24
Figure 8 Finalised plinth design for HydroPak ........................................................ 25
Figure 9 Economic cost of HydroPak across its range............................................ 27
Figure 10 Contribution of main costs across HydroPak’s range............................ 28
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aims and Objectives
The aim of this project ‘HydroPak: Concept design and analysis of a packaged
crossflow turbine’ was to undertake industrial research to complete the conceptual
design and economic optimisation of a modular and standardised crossflow micro-
hydro turbine called the HydroPak.
The objectives were to develop a concept design for HydroPak that would be an all-
in-one packaged product of good value and quality, to analyse the principle turbine
components to assess the level of standardisation achievable in a turbine range of
about 25-500kW and 6-50m head, to analyse and minimise the civil works required
for installing HydroPak and assess its operation and maintenance (O&M)
implications, and finally to develop cost estimates across the range of machine
sizes, with a target of a suite of turbines which can be offered at ex-factory costs in
the range £500-£600 per kW.
Work and Results
The work in the project has pursued all of the planned activities, firstly developing
the basic layout design, deciding on the standard turbine sizes (a suite of 15
crossflow runners) and compiling a database of off-the-shelf and fabricated
components required. The turbine components were then analysed in detail and a
standardisation strategy was developed with the aim of keeping HydroPak as cheap
as possible. The civil works requirements and O&M constraints have also been
assessed and optimised with standard approaches taken. The outline designs for
the HydroPak range were then finalised following the standardisation strategy and
system costing and economic assessment performed to see if HydroPak could be
competitive in the market place for packaged micro-hydro power solutions. An
example set of detailed layout drawings for one particular turbine size was
completed.
The final result was that the cost/kW was not the same across the range of
HydroPak; predictably, the smaller units were more expensive per kW, as the
following table shows. A range of site heads from 10 to 40 metres and low to high
flows (0.182 to 1.64 cum/s) was considered in this analysis that gives the widest
range possible of HydroPak options within the 15kW to 650kW capacity band that
emerged within the project as the target range for HydroPak.
Results of Economic Analysis of HydroPak

Capacity (kW) 18 100 300 640
Head (m) 10 20 30 40
Flow (cum/s) 0.182 0.515 1.05 1.64
Hydropak Cost/kW* (£) 1504 683 470 334
* ex-factory cost
How HydroPak costs compare with conventional micro- and mini-hydro power
(MHP) costs of some example competitors for crossflow turbines are shown in the
table below. These costs are for a high head, low flow site and indicative only for a
I
41kW capacity HydroPak, as the HydroPak approach would in fact be to maximise
the site by generating more power than this for the customer.
As heads increase at potential sites, the HydroPak design has to change (e.g. larger
shaft, different transmission drive etc.) but the overall costs do not increase
correspondingly so, as with all MHP products, a lower cost/kW is obtainable at
higher heads. Further, because the runner has been standardised to 15 sizes, even
for the smallest runner size (dia. 300mm x 200mm width) the increase in head will
offer the customer the chance to maximise the site for quite large capacities.
Cost comparison with competitors that supply packaged crossflow turbines

Supplier Czech Vietnam/ Vietnam China HydroPak
Republic Philippines (averaged)
Example capacity 43kW 40kW 40kW 50kW 41kW
(kW)
Turbine cost (£) 23,323 6,839 3,583 5,625 26,354
Controller cost (£) 7,679 5,211 4,885 2,581 21,536
Total cost (£) 31,002 12,050 8,468 8,206 47,890
Ex-works cost/kW (£) 721 301 212 164 1,168
From this analysis it is clear that HydroPak is the most expensive option for this
particular site. But with the cost of the load controller excluded, the turbine cost is
comparable with its nearest competitor. This is even at this lower end of its capacity
range (below 125 kW) where unit costs were seen to rise quite sharply, as shown in
the figure below, and in addition HydroPak supplies a bedplate and enclosure, so
the result is good by this measure. The controller itself is an essential part of any
hydro system and must be of high quality if reliable and safe operation is to be had
over many years. It is this key aspect of quality that would favour the HydroPak and
position it well in the pursuit of the market for packaged MHP solutions.
1600
1400
ex-works cost (£/kW)
1200
1000
Target cost/kW
800
600
400
200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Hydropak capacity (kW)
Economic cost of HydroPak across its range
The project has confirmed that by taking 'packaged' and 'standardised' approaches
to the design process, simplifications can be made that will have significant step
II
reductions in production costs. This satisfies the current market need for mini- and
micro-hydro which is no longer about overall system efficiency, but rather on overall
low cost even at the expense of some loss in efficiency.
The technical, economic and environmental benefits of undertaking this project are
clear. The development work has explored a new technical approach to enable UK
industry to compete with lower cost micro-hydro imports for the UK market as well
as offering an attractive package for turnkey supply to overseas markets. This will
help bolster the UK small-hydro industry by investigating the lowest cost possible
without losing the UK’s reputation for quality and efficiency.
III
Conclusions and Recommendations
This project has successfully researched the possibility and plausibility of producing
a ‘plug and play’ packaged and standardised crossflow turbine, the HydroPak. A
packaged system that provides all the mechanical and electrical equipment as a
single unit, plus the powerhouse itself will be a unique product.
The initial range of 25kW to 600kW and 10m to 50m head gives rise to a colossal
range of turbines and standardising across the full range has require careful
consideration with regard to the main design aspects of the runner range and
turbine housings, optimising and banding of the Standard Industrial Products and,
importantly, the introduction of the MiniPak a sub100kW version of the HydroPak.
The ex-works cost of HydroPak, as analysed in this project, is of course only part of
the final cost that a MHP developer would have to expect, considering the
transportation, civil and site works, testing/commissioning required and then the on-
going O&M costs. Although it was not in the remit of the project to cost these
through, it has been shown how to standardise civil works for HydroPak and how
operation and maintenance can be simplified.
The cost analysis of the HydroPaks lower range indicates that further optimising is
required, possibly through less costly controllers, to get closer to the target figure.
Excluding the controller the HydroPak does compare closely to it nearest and most
significant competitor, but it should also be borne in mind that the HydroPak does
come as a complete package including bedplate mounting system and enclosure. It
is also clear that the controller cost represents a significant portion of the overall
cost, especially at the lower range and it may be prudent to see how the costs of this
component can be reduced without compromising the quality and safety.
Presuming that costs can be driven down as anticipated by this project, the
HydroPak will be placed in a very favourable market position as well as being an
attractively simple ‘all-in-one’ solution to offer to private investors, the MiniPak
especially. In particular, aid-funded village electrification programmes are
increasingly looking at bulk purchase of groups of micro-hydro systems to meet
regional needs in developing countries. An all-in package would be a very attractive
product for this market as well as satisfying the local (UK and Europe) demand
already felt from numerous enquiries about HydroPak as the project has been
running.
The results of the project have confirmed to NHT Engineering that the packaged
approach has significant value and scope and that it is possible to produce a high
quality turbine that can compete with imports. The project has provided the basis
from which practical development work of the crossflow HydroPak and MiniPak
systems could follow. The opportunity to build and test a pilot unit so that the
benefits indicated here could be clearly demonstrated would provide the proof and
leverage required to turn considerable interest in to orders. This would also include
for and enable further analysis on controllers, civil works and O&M requirements of
the HydroPak bringing the concept closer to the market place.
IV
HYDROPAK : CONCEPT DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A
PACKAGED CROSSFLOW TURBINE
Contract Number: H/03/00078/00/00
FINAL REPORT
1. PROJECT AIM AND OBJECTIVES
The principal aim of the project is to complete the conceptual design and economic
optimisations of a modular standardised crossflow turbine called the HydroPak,
through industrial research.
The specific objectives of this project are:
• To develop the basic layout and conceptual design of a modular crossflow

turbine delivered as an all-in-one packaged product.
• To develop standard size increments based on an analysis of off-the-shelf

components and to suit turbine sizes in the range 25-500kW at 6-50m head.
• To analyse the principle turbine components to assess the level of

standardisation achievable across the range of machine sizes.
• To analyse the civil works implications in supplying a fixed packaged product,

and to develop and minimise the on-site works required for installing HydroPak.
• To assess the operation and maintenance implications of the HydroPak design.
• To develop cost estimates across the range of machine sizes.
1
2. BACKGROUND
The HydroPak concept has emerged to meet the changing nature of the market for
mini-hydro turbines in Europe and overseas. In the traditional planning of
hydropower developments, public power companies have looked for high efficiency,
maximum energy capture, and installing as big a capacity as possible at a specific
site. Turbines were therefore customised to meet the needs of each site.
The market is changing. Privatised utilities and private investors are now seeking
first and foremost high returns and low risk on their investments. This is leading to
smaller installed capacities, high load factor installations and a demand for cost-
effective, rather than optimally efficient, turbines. Developers have discovered that
the extra kWh’s obtained by maximising a site's potential require a
disproportionately high investment.
The HydroPak concept of a packaged turbine is targeted to meet these changing

market requirements. The versatility and relative simplicity of the crossflow turbine
are ideal for this packaged approach, although once proven for the crossflow, this
approach could also be adapted for other turbine types.
The crossflow is the least efficient of modern-day turbines (i.e. compared with
Pelton, Turgo, Francis and Kaplan) and hence has largely been ignored by the
traditional hydro industry. It was invented in Europe in the early 20th century and
came to prominence principally in developing countries as a low-cost turbine
suitable for local manufacture. However, the crossflow is significantly less complex
to manufacture than the above turbines, maintains a good efficiency at part-flow,
and is applicable to the broadest range of head and flow of all turbines (see Figure
1). Its only drawback is that it achieves peak hydraulic efficiencies of around 80%, as
opposed to 90% for the other turbine types.
2
Figure 1 Head vs. Flow operating ranges of the major turbine types
The UK industry does not currently offer a crossflow turbine product. Recent UK
projects have imported crossflow turbines from Eastern Europe rather than use
more efficient, but more expensive, Francis turbines available in the UK.
This project is therefore an important step towards enabling a major UK

manufacturer adapt its design approach to meet changing market demands and
thwart the growing competition from cheap imports.
3
3. OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
The following Milestones have been completed: Milestone 1 (Concept Design),

Milestone 2 (Definition of HydroPak size range with layout drawings) and Milestone
3 (Standardisation Analysis and Recommendations) and Milestone 4 (Final Report
and Project Summary). The following activities1 were undertaken within these
Milestones:
[a] Develop basic layout design
[b] Compile database of components and sizes
[c] Develop standard size increments with layout drawings
[d] Analyse turbine components and develop standardisation strategy
[e] Assess and optimise civil works requirements
[f] Analysis of O&M constraints
[g] Finalise outline designs of the HydroPak range
[h] System costing and economic assessment
The work completed from each stage of the project is summarised in the following
sections.
3.1 Activity [a]: - Develop basic layout design
This activity defined the ‘HydroPak’ concept and produced the Project Profile
covering the basic design considerations for powerhouse structure and internal
layout of main components, physical properties such as weight and size, penstock
angle, turbine specifications, and other requirements such as Health and Safety and
target cost/kW. Key conclusions are summarised below:
• Crossflow runners have a definite operating ‘domain’ mid-range between

Propeller and Pelton types of turbine, running at speeds determined by the head
they are operating (between 300 to 1500rpm). See Figure 2.
• The head at which the crossflow is the better choice (with manageable operating
speeds of between 500 to 1,000rpm) is from about 5-6 metres at lower powers
(1-10kW) but up to 100 metres head can be acceptable for higher powers of 500
kW.
• Three runner diameters of 300mm, 400mm and 450mm were fixed as being the
most suitable for HydroPak and runner widths would lie between 200mm and
600mm, with initial thought to offer widths in 100mm increments.
1
Activity [a] was reported against in the First Quarterly Report, [b], [c] & [d] in the Second Quarterly
Report, [e] & [f] in the Third Quarterly Report and [g] & [h] in this, the Final Report.
4
• Crossflow runners will run at speeds determined by the head they are operating
at. This could be as low as 300rpm for a large runner operating at a low head
and as high as 1,500rpm for a small runner operating at high head. Generators
applicable for the HydroPak would have operating speeds of 500, 750 or
1500rpm, although the standard types are expected to be 750 and 1500rpm (4
and 8 pole machines).
Figure 2 Operational ranges of hydro turbine types considering power and head, based on
speed, showing area that crossflow turbines can best occupy
• In certain cases the HydroPak will require a transmission between runner and
generator to step-up the speed. The choices for coupling between the two units
are therefore: Direct drive, Belt and pulley transmission (normal ratios are
usually 1:1 up to 1:4) and Gearbox (normal ratios are usually 1:4 up to 1:15).
• A draft tube offers some extra efficiency to the turbine and a chance to make use
of the extra head resulting when placing the turbine safely above the floodwater
level and a housing to take wastewater away would be a requirement at the
bottom end of the turbine anyway. However, this extra gain in efficiency needs
to be balanced with the additional engineering work required and costs incurred
in ensuring an airtight integrity around the turbine seals.
• The delivered ‘box’ as conceptualised should comply with the following

transportation restrictions (if delivered on a lorry within the UK): Width - more
than 2.9 m requires police notification, more than 3.5m requires both police
notification and an escort. Above 3.05m requires an extra premium to be paid to
the authorities. Height - 16' (4.8m) motorway bridge limit (10'6" (3.2m) is
maximum on 5'6" standard lorry bed).
5
• Therefore the box should be preferably less than 2.9m wide by 3.2m high,
although this is not totally restrictive, as widths of up to 3.5m can still be
delivered without police escort.
• Space margins around parts of the HydroPak may be required in order to comply
with health and safety regulations for equipment. Space for spare parts,
equipment and tools for operation and maintenance will also be required within
the unit. The following would be of particular relevance: guards around moving
parts (turbine shafting and belt drive), space around and access to hydraulic
controls, distance required between individual electrical cabinets and cabinets
and hydraulic oils, space for first aid equipment, likely spares and tools needed
for repair needs in a remote location.
• Based upon previous NHT designs, the powerhouse structure suggested was to
be made up of various metal box sections welded together with a pitched roof,
lifting lugs, internal lifting beam, Zintec sheet-metal walls and all to be painted.
Additionally, there will be checker plate welded to a base-frame forming a bed-
plate or plinth onto which the HydroPak will be seated. The rugged and secure
design will be located upon a concrete base, the dimensions of which will be
clarified later once the HydroPak increments have been determined. Possibilities
of this specification and similar being outsourced were explored.
• Inside the powerhouse the layout has been designed to accommodate the
following: HydroPak equipment (penstock connection, intake butterfly valve
(optional), turbine (including draft tube if selected), transmission (where
necessary), generator), electrical control panel (with access from the outside
through doors) and hydraulic power pack for operation of main intake valve
(MIV) and valve control on turbine.
• The HydroPak should have a maximum weight that is manageable for standard
lorryloaders that use a ‘knuckleboom’ crane for loading and unloading on the
premise that only standard size lorries will be able to reach remote sites in the
UK. The maximum standard lift from lorryloaders is 20 tonne-metres, giving the
maximum weight of HydroPak of about 4 tonnes (at a 5 metre reach).
• This weight will therefore determine the maximum power that will be acceptable
for HydroPak; for comparison a 500kW HydroPak is estimated to be around the 4
to 5 tonne mark (turbine 1.2t, generator 1.6t, housing 0.8t, valve 0.4t, misc. 0.5t).
However, specialist delivery lorries can carry and lift a 20 tonne load and deliver
at a 5m reach, so a weight of 4 tonnes does not have be restrictive.
• The overall target ex-factory cost is aimed to be in the range £500-£600 per kW.
6
3.2 Activity [b]: - Compile database of components and sizes
A spreadsheet was created that contained a series of tables generated for HydroPak
technical analysis and which were driven by the key parameter, the head (H) (see
Table 1). With this information, a database within the spreadsheet was then
generated for each of the major ‘Standard Industrial Products’ that HydroPak
requires, identifying possible suppliers, specifications and costs as well as useful
dimensions and weights. These major components are:
• Powerhouse/containers
• Generator/induction motor
• Transmission - belts and pulley drives/gearbox drives
• Runner shaft bearings and seals
• Main Inlet Valve (MIV)
Other components that will make up HydroPak and will be part of its fabrication are:
• Adapter piece
• Turbine housing
• Turbine Runner
• Runner shaft
• Teardrop valve
• Pulleys
• Draft tube
• Hydraulic power pack
7
Table 1 Example HydroPak Design Database
Net Head (h) - metres 10
Table 1 RUNNER SPEED (n) - rpm Runner length (w) - mm

Runner diameter (D) - mm 200 300 400 500 600
300 428.6 428.6 428.6 428.6 428.6
400 321.4 321.4 321.4 321.4 321.4
450 285.7 285.7 285.7 285.7 285.7
Table 2 FLOW (Q) - cumecs Runner length (w) - mm

300 0.1819 0.2729 0.3639 0.4549 0.5458
400 0.2426 0.3639 0.4852 0.6065 0.7278
450 0.2729 0.4094 0.5458 0.6823 0.8187
Table 3 GROSS POWER (P g) - kW Runner length (w) - mm

300 17.8 26.8 35.7 44.6 53.5
400 23.8 35.7 47.6 59.5 71.4
450 26.8 40.2 53.5 66.9 80.3
Table 4 ELEC POWER (Pe) - kW Runner length (w) - mm
300 11.8 17.7 23.6 29.5 35.4
400 15.7 23.6 31.5 39.3 47.2
450 17.7 26.6 35.4 44.3 53.1
Table 5 TORQUE (T) - Nm Runner length (w) - mm

300 310.2 465.3 620.4 775.5 930.6
400 551.4 827.2 1102.9 1378.6 1654.3
450 697.9 1046.9 1395.8 1744.8 2093.8
Table 6 SHAFT DIAMETER (d) - mm

Runner length (w) - mm
300 54.08 54.82 55.77 56.88 58.11
400 55.32 57.28 59.56 61.97 64.39
450 56.31 59.08 62.12 65.17 68.14
Table 7 Transmission choice

rpm 500 750 1000 1500 3000
Runner diameter (D) - mm 12 pole 10 pole 6 pole 4 pole 2 pole
300 1.17 1.75 2.33 3.50 7.00
400 1.56 2.33 3.11 4.67 9.33
450 1.75 2.62 3.50 5.25 10.50
max pulley ratio if number appears red, consider
4.2 selecting gearbox rather than
pulley and belt
Table 8 nozzle area (A) - m2 for choosing MIV
Runner length (w) - mm
(D) - mm 200 300 400 500 600
300 0.0471 0.0707 0.0942 0.1178 0.1414
400 0.0628 0.0942 0.1257 0.1571 0.1885
450 0.0707 0.1060 0.1414 0.1767 0.2121
This Table shows that at 10 metres head, the design speeds, flows, powers, torques
and suggested shaft diameters appear for each of the 15 choices of HydroPak
runner. For example, for the smallest runner (diam. 300, width 200) it indicates that
about 12 kW electrical power could be tapped and that a pulley of 3.5 ratio would be
required if using a 4-pole generator. It also guides the design area of the turbine
nozzle and then the correct size of MIV can be selected from that.
8
3.3 Activity [c]: - Develop standard size increments with layout drawings
The size increments here are the diameter and length of the runner. The fifteen
combinations of size of crossflow runner were finally decided on, made up of three
(3) standard diameters (300mm, 400mm, 450mm) and five (5) widths of runners
between 200mm and 600mm, in 100mm increments. Based on this, drawings were
prepared showing typical side elevations and plan views and standard end plates
and top- and bottom-plates for the runner housing.
Other items that were drawn to integrate with this standard design approach were:
• bed-plate integral to the turbine fabrication,
• hydraulic tank with actuator integrated to turbine housing,
• failsafe counterweight to close the turbine via the (teardrop) valve in case of
hydraulic failure,
• safety guards (for pulley transmission), control cubicle integral to bed-plate,
• consideration was also given to the draft tube.
The example drawings developed of these first layouts are given overleaf, for the
case of a 300mm diameter and 300m wide runner. In doing these designs, the need
for standardisation of parts has been the foremost consideration so as to achieve
the target cost/kW.
Examples of the HydroPak layout drawings can be seen in Figure 3 and Figure 4
overleaf.
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A A
B B
C C
MATERIALS DISK & FILE REF
COMMENTS QUANTITY
D D
DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY & DATE
SCALE
CONTRACT DRAWING No.

E E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 3 Typical Ø300 Cross-Flow turbine plan - layout
HydroPak Final Report 10

April 2004
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A A
B B
C C
COMMENTS QUANTITY
D D
SCALE

E E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 4 Typical Ø300 Cross-Flow turbine layout - side elevation
HydroPak Final Report 11

April 2004
3.4 Activity [d]: - Analysis of turbine components and development of
standardisation strategy
Each of the identified ‘off-the-shelf’ or ’fabricated’ components of the HydroPak (see

4.2 above) was looked at by the project team in detail with the aim of using standard
products or manufactured parts as much as possible. The amount of
standardisation achievable in coupling the various components together across the
10-500 kW HydroPak range has also been a consideration that has run through all
aspects of the research and in the project. The design work focusing around the
HydroPak turbine (runner, shaft, casing, draft tube) is an iterative process and has
also continued.
The major components of the turbine are shown in Table 2 below indicating the
component type; for ‘off-the-shelf’ components. Several suppliers were contacted
for each component and a database of specifications and likely costs was made; for
the items that require fabrication, NHT the initiator of the HydroPak concept, are
envisaged to undertake this work. Each of the components is looked at in more
detail in 4.4.1 to 4.4.13 below.
Table 2 Detailed HydroPak Component List

Fabricated components Off-the-shelf components
Turbine runner and Shafting Synchronous Generators (for developing
countries/isolated sites)
Turbine housing, Nozzle and Adapter Asynchronous Generators / Induction
piece Machine (for grid connection)
Turbine teardrop valve and control arm Gearboxes (with Induction Motor to
operate as Generator)
Pulleys (for use with Belts) Pulley Belts (for developing countries)
Draft Tube Drive Shaft Couplings
Hydraulic Power Pack Main Runner Bearings and Turbine Valve
Bearings
Bed-plate Main Inlet Valve (MIV)
Control Panel & Distribution Board MCCBs & Contactors
MiniPak enclosure Powerhouse Container
As a result of this work, there will not be a complicated array of HydroPak products
to choose from and these will be presented and marketed in a simple way to be fully
understandable to all potential clients. The emphasis has been to standardise as
much as is reasonably possible, without loosing flexibility or trading off efficiency.
The strategy for standardisation of HydroPak has been discussed comprehensively

by the project team and the approach decided on is to offer the HydroPak in 2
ranges; a ‘MiniPak’, capacity up to about 100-150 kW and a full ‘HydroPak’, above
100-150 kW. This is because the amount of standardisation achievable naturally
decreases as the capacity increases due to more complex systems, and the mark
that this tends to happen is about the capacity that a micro-hydro machine becomes
a mini-hydro one. This approach has also considered that for every client ordering a
HydroPak, there should be a call-up sheet of ‘Standard Industrial Products’ and this
HydroPak Final Report 12 April 2004

database will be combined with the matched fabricated parts and represent the
system build specification.
Fabricated Components
3.4.1 Turbine Runner and Shafting
The turbine runner design has been standardised to specific sizes in Activity [c].
Technical analysis was carried out at the same time on how the runner shaft can be
sized for various HydroPak schemes. The task of grouping of these various shaft
diameters as part of the strategy for standardisation was carried out in this Activity
and is detailed in 4.4.9.
It is likely that the shaft would be reduced in the centre of the runner, to allow water
to pass more efficiently and that shaft will be vented for high altitude schemes. The
opposite end of the runner shaft to the generator will have the option of being
utilised for operating mechanical devices which is particularly important for
developing countries markets.
The HydroPak is likely to have a stainless-steel runner and although the cost will be
about 30% higher, the advantages of stainless are that marketing of the product is
promoted (stainless is regarded as high-quality), there will be no painting of the
runner required, runner visual inspections are made easier due to no paint and
metal flaws resulting from NDT2 show up better in stainless steel.
3.4.2 Turbine Housing and Nozzle
The main turbine housing will be made up from 6 pieces of 10mm plate to cope with
pressures of the high head schemes, which includes for the nozzle. There will be 2
standard side-plates for each of the 3 runner diameters, 1 curved top-plate and 1
bottom-plate that make up the nozzle shape and 1 front and 1 back plate that form
the bottom part of the turbine casing and connect to the draft tube. These nozzle
and casing plates will only vary according to the width of the runner and are
therefore standardised as much as is possible.
3.4.3 Adapter Piece
The circular to rectangular cross-sectional piece between turbine housing and Main
Inlet Valve (MIV) has been designed to be fabricated in two pieces and also have a
thickness of 10mm. It will also have a standard flange for connection to the MIV. By
forming it two parts, the width required of it can be suited to the width of runner
chosen for a particular site.
3.4.4 Teardrop Valve
The teardrop valve fabrication approach will be to cast the correct form as a 620mm
long piece that will then be cut to the appropriate length to suit the width of the
particular HydroPak. The mechanism to control the valve has been designed and the
actuating arm will run through one of the side plates.
2
Non-destructive testing

3.4.5 Draft Tube
Hydropak will be offered with a basic square/rectangular draft tube or ‘skirt’, which
is not as expensive to fabricate as a conical draft tube. It offers the advantage of
enhancing turbine performance through the “discharge or suction head”, taking the
waste water cleanly away from the turbine and site advantages (i.e. allowing the
turbine to be located well above the flood level).
3.4.6 Hydraulic Powerpack
A hydraulic powerpack is required for actuating the turbine control valve and for
larger MIVs in larger HydroPak schemes. It will be mounted on the front of the
turbine, integral with the turbine housing; the standard casing plates will have the
necessary mounting arrangement as part of their design. As well as being
electrically actuated, the powerpack could have a hand pump for failsafe/manual
operation.
Off-the-Shelf Components
3.4.7 Generators
Three potential suppliers of synchronous generators (where the market would

generally be off-grid) were contacted and MarelliMotori product range was selected
as high specification, good value hydro rated generator and the company have been
extremely helpful in helping select specifications and prices of their range applicable
to HydroPak.
MarelliMotori, as with other manufacturers can offer a complete range of

generators, but the most suitable one will be determined by the ‘call-up sheet’ in the
HydroPak database (an example is shown in Annex 2). This would be chosen to
match the clients site needs when coupled with the appropriate turbine and is a
better choice than simply offering standard turbines with generators that cover a
range of kW capacity in which the client’s site falls. In this way, the generator is
exactly matched to the hydraulic power available minimising efficiency losses and
therefore maximising the energy capture from each site.
The generator frame size (from its product no.) will directly guide the dimensions of
the bed-plate fabrication on to which it is mounted, as the footing dimensions and
height of shaft centreline relate to the frame size.
The choice between single and 3-phase (and perhaps 2-phase3) will be offered to
clients. The expectation is that 3-phase will generally be chosen except for the very
small MiniPaks (below 24 kW) for remote village use where single and 2-phase are
likely to be preferred.
3
Two Phase or split phase, offers higher efficiency than 1-phase. Two phase conductors both equidistant
from the neutral. Therefore appliances can be directly supplied with the normal voltage with some of the
advantages of higher voltages, such as smaller cables and/or lower losses.

For situations where there is a possibility of grid connection, asynchronous
generators (or induction motors operating as generators - IMAGs) could be
employed, this is discussed further in the next section, as an IMAG could be part of
a standard gearbox supply.
3.4.8 Drive/Power Transmission
Using the HydroPak Design Tables developed in the Project the team had a technical
tool that could analyse all the various parameters of HydroPak. One of the outputs
of this is Table 3 below, showing clearly how the head at the site will guide the drive
transmission choice.
For example, low heads of 5-15m will require ratios between the larger diameter
turbines (400mm and 450mm) and generator (if 1,500 rpm (4-pole)) which are above
the normally tolerated ratio for pulley and belt drives (taken as 4.2). This is one
situation where gearbox units would have to be employed. The other is for the full
HydroPak, capacity about 100kW upwards, because at this size a gearbox becomes
the preferred technical choice and the cost/kW of the gearbox drops enough to
consider it.
Table 3 Transmission selection

@ 5 metres @ 15 metres
rpm 500 750 1000 1500 3000 rpm 500 750 1000 1500 3000
Runne Trans Trans Trans Trans Trans Runne Trans Trans Trans Trans Trans
r missio missio missio missio missio r missio missio missio missio missio
diame n ratio n ratio n ratio n ratio n ratio diamet n ratio n ratio n ratio n ratio n ratio
ter (D) for 12 for 10 for 6 for 4 for 2 er (D) - for 12 for 10 for 6 for 4 for 2
- mm pole pole pole pole pole mm pole pole pole pole pole
300 1.65 2.47 3.30 4.95 9.90 300 0.95 1.43 1.91 2.86 5.72
400 2.20 3.30 4.40 6.60 13.20 400 1.27 1.91 2.54 3.81 7.62
450 2.47 3.71 4.95 7.42 14.85 450 1.43 2.14 2.86 4.29 8.57
if number appears red, bold and if number appears red, bold and
italicized, consider selecting gearbox italicized, consider selecting gearbox
rather than pulley and belt rather than pulley and belt
max pulley max pulley ratio
ratio
4.2 4.2
Three gearbox suppliers were approached (Brevini, Rossi and Transdrive) and
Brevini were chosen as the preferred supplier due to their interest to work closely on
the project. Their recommendation was that planetary units, rather than helical
ones, be used for HydroPak preferably with induction motor attached (to save on
separate purchase of generator), foot mounting for bed-plate attachment, with an in-
line shaft, not bevel geared.
Using induction motors as the generating end of HydroPak has cost advantages (IMs
are cheaper) and supply advantages as it would come as part of a gearbox supply.
Also, replacement of an Induction Motor is easier in the developing country
environment because they are more widely available than synchronous generators.
When connected to the grid an IMAG uses the grid as its control mechanism but in

off-grid situations, the technology to control IMAGs is also well-known for micro-
hydro systems due to research work in the last 10 years4.
Brevini have produced details of their suggested standard gearboxes for use with
the HydroPak, based on analysis of speed increase required, torque generated, and
power output at heads of 6, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 metres across the suite of 15
runners at each head. Brevini have provided information and figures including the
torque and speed the unit will accept, the standard step-up ratios through the units,
induction motor applicable at each runner size and unit prices.
In the case of supplying HydroPak to developing countries, pulleys and belts (with
guards) would be offered. In special circumstances it is possible to manufacture
crowned pulleys for use with flat belts to the required ratio and NHT has the
experience and capability to do this. Where possible, standard stock pulley and belt
products will be sought from well known suppliers such as Fenner and Cross &
Morse.
3.4.9 Turbine Shaft and Couplings
The turbine shaft material to be used for the HydroPak runner has been fixed to be
stainless steel, consistent with the runner making welding between the two
components more reliable. Detailed design aspects of the shaft were described in
4.4.1 above. Initial shaft sizing was done from the HydroPak Design Tables and
calculations show that four main shaft sizes emerge, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Shaft sizing Calculations for HydroPak
Runner length (mm) 200 300 400 500 600

Runner Diameter Calculated shaft size (mm)
(mm) at certain heads
300@10m head 54.47 55.61 57.03 58.64 60.34
400@10m head 56.37 59.20 62.28 65.37 68.37
300@20m head 57.03 60.34 63.83 67.26 70.52
450@10m head 57.82 61.65 65.56 69.32 72.85
300@30m head 60.34 65.56 70.52 75.08 79.24
400@20m head 62.28 68.37 73.94 78.95 83.48
300@40m head 63.83 70.52 76.51 81.83 86.61
450@20m head 65.56 72.85 79.24 84.87 89.90
300@50m head 67.26 75.08 81.83 87.73 92.98
400@30m head 68.37 76.51 83.48 89.55 94.94
450@30m head 72.85 82.14 89.90 96.59 102.49
400@40m head 73.94 83.48 91.41 98.23 104.25
400@50m head 78.95 89.55 98.23 105.65 112.17
450@40m head 79.24 89.90 98.63 106.08 112.63
450@50m head 84.87 96.59 106.08 114.16 121.25
4
Motors as Generators for Micro-hydro Power, Nigel Smith, IT Publications, 1994/2003

The table shows that across the suite of HydroPak runners at operating heads
expected from the range, there are four bands within which there are a number of
sizes that can be grouped together:
• 54-68mm (3” (76mm) shaft machined to 65mm)

• 68-84mm (3.5” (89mm) shaft machined to 80mm)
These bands correspond to the raw stainless steel (Grade 303) shaft sizes widely
available from suppliers, which have been checked for price and availability.
Couplings between the turbine and gearboxes and for use between gearboxes and
synchronous generators have been fully investigated. In the MiniPak range,
couplings are fairly straight-forward and reasonably priced but get expensive above
100kW. It was observed that for 65-85mm shaft size (up to 56kW/100 rpm) couplings
are reasonably priced, but jump considerably for the larger units of 95-120mm shaft
size (upwards of 97kW/100rpm).
3.4.10 Bearings
Bearings have been investigated further by gathering information from SKF, the
preferred supplier. HydroPak will require 2 types of bearing; double spherical roller
bearings for the runner shaft where it emerges from each end of the turbine
housing, and simple, water-lubricated composite bearings for the turbine control
teardrop valve where it comes out from one side of the housing to the actuating arm
mechanism. Bearing selection has been made based on the 4 sizes decided through
the shaft sizing process.
3.4.11 Main Inlet Valve
The Main Inlet Valve (MIV) should be offered as standard on HydroPak due to the
safety requirement of having to shutdown the turbine even if turbine teardrop valve
does close, if, for example, the turbine has a blockage. Manual operation (through a
gearbox if necessary) was the first type to be considered due to expected lower cost,
but it has been found that many simple gate valves are also applicable for
automation. The size of the MIV will be totally determined by the area of the turbine
nozzle, which is a function of the runner size, as shown in Table 5. It shows that
gate valves between 245 and 520 mm nominal size will be applicable for HydroPak.
Table 5 Nozzle area (A) – m2 for choosing the MIV

Runner length (w) – mm
Runner Diam (D) 200 300 400 500 600
mm
300 0.0471 0.0707 0.0942 0.1178 0.1414
400 0.0628 0.0942 0.1257 0.1571 0.1885
450 0.0707 0.1060 0.1414 0.1767 0.2121
MIV Diam (mm)
300 245 300 346 387 424
400 283 346 400 447 490
450 300 367 424 474 520

3.4.12 MCCBs & Contactors
Moulded Case Circuit Breakers (MCCBs) with the relevant contactors have been
selected as the only part of the electrical control system required to be supplied
separately to the controller, because NHT will manufacture the control panel and
distribution board to match each HydroPak, on a standardised basis. This is
because they will be rated to the capacity of the HydroPak (with the appropriate
oversizing) and bought in addition to the controller.
The controller itself will be PLC (S7-200) with G59 configuration and display to
inform the user of all the major parameters to do with the turbine. Control panel
enclosures themselves will be mounted on the bed-plate. Up to 100kW (for the
MiniPak), enclosures will be 1200 mm x 1200 mm, for above 100kW, 1500 mm x
1200 mm, possibly 2000 mm x 1200 mm.
3.4.13 Powerhouse Container
The powerhouse will be in two forms as already indicated; off-the-shelf large

enclosures will only be used for the full HydroPaks (more than 100kW) and MiniPaks
(<100kW) will come with NHT fabricated box. Initial investigations show that
standard large enclosures (shipping cargo containers) look attractive due to the low
cost and should be investigated further.
For the NHT fabricated enclosure, the safety guards around pulleys/couplings need
to be considered in the design. The bed-plate will only be mounted on skids in the
case when an enclosure is not required by client and they use an existing building at
site. Sound-proofing is considered to be site specific and will be offered as an
additional item to the client on a case-by-case basis.
3.5 Activity [e]: - Assessment and optimisation of civil works requirements
Given that the remit of HydroPak is to standardise the design and components of the
turbine and deliver as a contained unit, it is appropriate that civil works required to
install the turbine are approached in the same way. This activity has examined
ways in which the civil works requirements can be standardised and minimised in
readiness for the HydroPak installation. Outlined below are the considerations that
form the basis of a standard specification for the basic civil works required:
• Container Footprint - The HydroPak will be contained (see 4.4.13 above) and the
container will come in a number of sizes so that it may accommodate the large
range of the HydroPak. Therefore the civil works required will vary in size
relevant to that footprint required by the HydroPak.
• Thrust Force - The thrust force of the turbine is the major civil works design
consideration and must be accommodated by the concrete plinth built for
HydroPak. The thrust force could be generated in three ways:
⇒ The control teardrop valve is closed – high thrust forces can be generated if
the turbine is shut down quickly,
⇒ The turbine runner is blocked by debris – as above but potentially worse,

⇒ The turbine reaches runaway speeds – this can also have the additional effect
of introducing high vibration levels.
• Prevailing site conditions – the conditions on the chosen site that the HydroPak
is to be located are a key consideration and form a major part of site selection.
This covers the water source and preparation of appropriate water supply for the
HydroPak, forebay design and construction, screening choice, installation of
penstock pipe and connection to HydroPak. These items fall outside of the
HydroPak remit and the developer should seek guidance from properly qualified
civil or hydraulic engineers or use various reference texts that are available to
assist on matters such as penstock design, canalisation, screening etc5.
Assumptions have been made that the site is appropriate to install a hydro
scheme and that achieving a proper installation is possible by tapping local civil
engineering contractors and skills.
3.5.1 The HydroPak Plinth Design
The plinth design is also a standardised part and is in essence a reinforced concrete
slab with a square/rectangular hole into which the HydroPak draft tube (or skirt) will
locate positively (see Annex 6 for a schematic drawn up for civil works suggestions).
The controlling factors that determine the size of the plinth are:
• Scheme rated size – this will determine the thrust forces that the plinth is
required to withstand.
• Container size – the container defines the minimum physical footprint of the
plinth.
• Ground conditions – assuming that the location has good ground conditions
then the plinth footprint need be no larger than that of the container. However,
in cases where the ground conditions are poorer, this will influence how the
plinth is formed.
• Outfall design – this cannot be standardised as it is very much a site specific

item, however it will be influenced by the draft tube of the turbine – a matter to
be considered further in the detailed design process.
A selection matrix for the plinth will have the variable parameters of length, width,
depth, spacing of reinforcement and outfall pipe size. Table 6 shows initial design
work done on this plinth, which will be applicable for MiniPak, delivered in a small
fabricated enclosure or a full HydroPak located in a building, thereby not requiring a
container to house it but still a footing to locate it.
5
recommended references are 1) Micro-hydro Design Manual, A.Harvey 1993 (IT Publishing), 2) A
Laymans Guidebook on How to Develop a Small Hydro Site, ESHA, 1994 (CEC), 3) Micro-hydro Power, A
Guide for Development Workers, Fraenkel et al. ,1991, (IT Publishing).

Table 6 MiniPak Plinth Dimension Selection Table
Head (m) Width (m) Length (m) Thick (mm) Pipe Ø (mm) Mesh
2-6 2 2.5 200 400 T8 393
7-15 2.2 3.5 250 600 T10 393
16-30 2.5 4 300 800 Double T12 393
31-50 3 4 350 1000 Double T16 393
But for HydroPak delivered in large containers, the plinth outside dimensions will be
controlled by container size and scheme rating. Table 7 provides an example of the
selection matrix:
Table 7 Plinth matrix

Length Width Depth RE-bar Spacing Scheme size
(m) (m) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kW)
Container A 6.10 2.75 250 9 200 >100
Container B 6.10 3.05 300 12 200 >200
Container C 9.15 3.05 350 12 200 >400
Container D 12.20 3.05 400 16 200 >400

3.6 Activity [f]: - Analysis of O&M constraints
The approach towards Operation and Maintenance (O&M) procedures and

schedules for the HydroPak has been to minimise the need for client/operator input
from installation onwards. The following key areas have been the main
consideration:
• Delivery and cranage requirements – the enclosure of the HydroPak will be

restricted to the dimensions allowed for by transportation on local roads. As
well as having lifting lugs outside for cranes at site, the containers should also
provide suitable locating points for lifting heavy equipment about inside the
container.
• Access to equipment:
⇒ The control panel will have easy access and be located close to the
powerhouse entrance,
⇒ Access to the runner is through a removable hatch allowing quick and easy
removal of debris.
• System shutdown and start-up:
⇒ Typically this will be made though opening and closing a main inlet valve.
Options of manual or hydraulically operation will be given depending on the
size of the MIV,
⇒ Auto Emergency shut down using heat and vibration sensors within the
shafting will also be offered as an option in conjunction with an automated
MIV.
• Maintenance schedule and procedures – there are three main components in the
HydroPak, the turbine, speed increasing gearbox (favoured for the European
market) and generator. Of these three components, two come as sub-
assemblies and have their own maintenance regimes identified in the
manufacturers literature. Every effort has been made to keep the maintenance
requirement minimal for the turbine unit and the key areas will be:
⇒ Low maintenance bearings will be used requiring minimal greasing (often

the problem is over enthusiastic greasing) and where appropriate water
lubricated composite bearings incorporated (for the turbine control teardrop
valve),
⇒ Bearing packing gland routine check/adjustment procedure will be easy to

follow; this will be checked every three months,
⇒ The maintenance regime will be based upon hours of operation.
• Flooding – as the turbine unit is housed in a container, flooding is less likely to

be an issue, clearly the positioning of the HydroPak can be a significant factor
also.

4. CURRENT ACTIVITY
The current Milestone covers activities [g], and [h]: Finalise the outline designs for
the HydroPak and System costing and economic assessment. Detailed work for
Milestone (4) is shown below.
4.1 Activity [g] - Finalise the outline designs for the HydroPak
Following the design work done in Activities [c], [d] for the turbine itself and
components relating to it and activity [e] for the civil works requirements of
HydroPak, this activity has been finalised the HydroPak designs, as presented in
Annex 3. As noted on page 4, these detailed designs are not in the public domain
and they remain the intellectual property of partners in this project.
Below examples are provided for typical Ø300mm diameter turbine including the
BoM and final plinth design matrix.
Figure 5 Bill of Materials for typical finalised Ø300 diameter cross-flow turbine on bed plate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A A
B B
C C
COMMENTS QUANTITY
D D
SCALE

E E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 6 Example of finalised Ø300 diameter cross-flow turbine on bed plate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A A
B B
C C
COMMENTS QUANTITY
D D
SCALE

E E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 7 Detailed components of finalised Ø300 diameter cross-flow turbine on bed plate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A A
B B
C C
COMMENTS QUANTITY
D D
SCALE

E E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 8 Finalised plinth design for HydroPak

4.2 Activity [h] - System costing and economic assessment
The aim of the project has been to develop a range of crossflow turbines that are
packaged and ready to install on site in one unit. The target cost of £500-600 per kW
ex-works was set as a baseline objective.
With the outline designs finalised, four examples, based upon genuine enquiries to
NHT, were chosen and the fabrication costs for each component was estimated by
NHT Engineering on the basis that it was not a ‘one-off’ but a batch. The off-the-
shelf component costs were from real quotations from companies that had been
approached in activity [d], outlined in 4.4 above. There is also a consideration of the
normal overhead for NHT Engineering to provide such units from their works to the
open market. The four examples were 18, 100, 310 and 640kW respectively (see
Table 8) and so give a good spread across the available capacity range. The heads
considered were 10, 20, 30 and 40 metres respectively and therefore also give a
good analysis across the main head range for a crossflow turbine. As the results
show, the smaller HydroPak (MiniPak) has a fairly high ex-works cost per kW
capacity but this drops dramatically for the HydroPaks in the mini-hydro range (i.e.
above 100kW). For these cases the target costs of were easily achieved.
Table 8 Results of Economic Analysis of Hydropak

Capacity (kW) 18 100 300 640
Head (m) 10 20 30 40
Flow (cum/s) 0.182 0.515 1.05 1.64
Hydropak Cost/kW* (£) 1504 683 470 334
* ex-factory cost
How the cost of HydroPak per kW varies across this given range can be seen in
Figure 9, and as was expected in the earlier stages of the project, it is confirmed that
HydroPak needs to be considered in two major ranges; below 125kW (the MiniPak)
where cost/kW rises quite rapidly from £600 to approximately £1,500/kW with
decreasing capacity of the machine, and above 125kW (the full HydroPak), where
cost/kW settles down to a very competitive figure of £350-600/kW ex-works.

1600
1400
ex-works cost (£/kW)

1200
1000
Target cost/kW
800
600
400
200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Figure 9 Economic cost of HydroPak across its range
The relative weighting of costs between HydroPak turbine fabrication and assembly,
off-the-shelf components, enclosures & control panels/instrumentation and the
overhead cost are shown in Table 9. For the smaller unit, the overall turbine
fabrication and assembly costs are heavier while the costs for enclosures and panels
also decrease across the range. This was discussed in an earlier report for the
electronic controller unit, noting that this item has a minimum cost even for the
smaller capacity and that the MiniPaks would have to accept this cost giving a
higher per kW cost than larger units. For off-the-shelf component costs, the smaller
unit has lighter costs because a gearbox and induction motor (as generator) combo
unit can be employed at capacities of below about 100-150kW reducing off-the-shelf
costs considerably as shown shaded area. The overhead share is lower for the
smaller unit because of the relative expense of the turbine manufacture itself at this
smaller capacity.
Table 9 Weighting of main costs for main HydroPak components across its range
Capacity (kW) 18 100 300 640
Turbine fabrication and
assembly 27% 17% 12% 14%
Enclosure and control panels 26% 20% 17% 15%
Turbine off-the-shelf
components 6% 7% 14% 14%
Overhead 40% 56% 56% 58%

Further economic analysis of HydroPak was done to show how these main costs
vary and contribute to the final ex-works cost across the range. The results are
shown in Figure 10 below.
220000
200000
180000
manufactured
160000
components
140000 enclosure, control and

panel boards
cost (£)
120000
off-the-shelf
components
100000
overhead
80000
sub-total ex works
60000
40000
20000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Figure 10 Contribution of main costs across HydroPak’s range
It can be seen that the various component parts (‘Standard Industrial Products’ and
in-house manufactured) are narrowly banded and that there is a near linear
relationship between costs and generating capacity. The overhead has not been
aggregated but established for each of the example systems, from this we can see
that the overheads increase as the HydroPak scheme size increases. It shows how
important the overhead cost as a part of the overall ex-factory cost. This is
especially the case at the smaller end of the scale where there are relatively high
component costs making it necessary to keep overheads to an absolute minimum if
the supplier of HydroPak is to be able to operate commercially at the same time as
trying to provide a competitive product.

5. PROJECT CONCLUSIONS
• Through the research done in this project, HydroPak has reached target price per
kW for the conventional mini-hydro range (i.e. above 125kW) with estimated ex-
works cost of £350-600 per kW,
• The target price has not been reached in the smaller, micro-hydro range (below
100kW); the price per kW for ‘MiniPaks’ in this range rises quite rapidly to a
maximum of about £1,500.
• At low HydroPak capacities the economy-of-scale issue makes the analysis on

pure cost/kW less useful than whether the overall ex-works cost seems
reasonable to potential customers. It is known that a total cost for a small
‘MiniPak’ of £20-40,000 (as achieved in the project) is a price that a small
developer is likely to choose especially as the product can be sold with a known
and good energy capture at a range of hydro power sites.
• A comparison with other companies that supply micro-hydro range (below

100kW) crossflow turbines (but not specifically packaged in an enclosure ready
for site) indicates that HydroPak may not be that competitive with target
countries in the east of Europe and will have difficulty competing on price with
Vietnamese and Chinese companies (see Table 10). However HydroPak will offer
the quality, efficiency, guarantees and reliability in operation that is expected to
be superior to any of these suppliers. Moreover, it will come supplied in an
enclosure ready to ‘plug and play’ and so reduce the overall scheme cost
significantly.
Table 10 Cost comparison with competitors that supply packaged crossflow turbines
Supplier Czech Vietnam/ Vietnam China HydroPak
Republic Philippines (averaged)
Example capacity 43kW 40kW 40kW 50kW 41kW
(kW)
Turbine cost (£) 23,323 6,839 3,583 5,625 26,354
Controller cost (£) 7,679 5,211 4,885 2,581 21,536
Total cost (£) 31,002 12,050 8,468 8,206 47,890
Ex-works cost/kW (£) 721 301 212 164 1,168
• In the mini-hydro range (above 100kW), because the cost/kW ex-works becomes
a competitive figure of £350-600/kW, it is thought that HydroPak will become
much more competitive at higher capacities.
• There is increasing attention being given to cost optimisation in the mini-hydro

sector globally and some examples of other company activity is given below. It
is important for the UK small hydro power (SHP) industry not to be left behind
when there are already companies filling the market segment that requires
standard and off-the-shelf approaches to SHP equipment supply that is
reasonably costed and deliverable in a short time.
o Brazil - Alstom has recently optimised its mini-hydro product Mini-AquaTM

and since its introduction in mid-2002, more than fifty units have been sold

half of which have been supplied to Brazil. Mini-AquaTM is Alstom’s new,
standardised solution with hydro turbine, generator and control systems
integrated into a single optimised product specifically for mini-hydro plants.
The advantages of Mini-Aqua - high product reliability, reasonable costs, and
short lead time – satisfy the customers’ need for secured investments.6
o Japan – Toshiba have developed a standard micro-hydro power system for

heads as low as 2 metres and power outputs between 5 and 100 kW. The
system can utilise river or irrigation water and is aimed at remote
communities with the 50kW package weighing just 1 tonne making site-
installation relatively easy7. Hitachi has also ventured into the supply of small
crossflow turbines to add to their large range of hydropower equipment.
o China – the many SHP companies that traditionally offer a huge range of
different turbines, with units picked from large tables to match site are now
re-assessing this approach for their micro-hydro range of machines. Some
companies now have integrated micro-hydro units (turbine and controllers)
with ranges of 1-100kW that are low priced enough to be affordable to farmer
and small village users in China and the nearby Asian countries.
• The results of this project show that it is possible for the UK to supply a
competitive crossflow HydroPak system in the mini-hydro range of hydro power
development and to provide a quality product that is in the correct price range
for an independent developer to consider in the micro-hydro range.
• The market for these ‘packaged’ products is quite active and because many
potential developers have asked for details of HydroPak as the project has
progressed, it is therefore vital that follow-up R&D work is done to build and test
a pilot HydroPak (micro-hydro level or ‘MiniPak’) in Northern Ireland. This will
also allow the civil works and O&M requirements of HydroPak to be fully tested.
6
Source: World Pumps Buyer’s Guide, 2004
7
Source: Modern Power Systems, July 2001

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this report would like to acknowledge the following for their kind
assistance in providing information that enabled a detailed HydroPak design to be
researched as presented in this report:
1. Mark Watson and other staff of MarelliMotori at the UK office that gave us
quotations for generators allowing the costing the whole range of HydroPak
machines.
2. Ken Self and other staff of Brevini, both in the UK and their Italian headquarters
that met with the authors to discuss the HydroPak principle in detail and then
provided a thorough technical and price list of gearbox and induction motor
combo units applicable to a range of potential HydroPaks.
3. Suppliers of other components applicable to the HydroPak who shared their

technical specifications and potential prices for supply to a HydroPak and
enabled the economic costing to be completed. In particular, Luck Gill (Reynolds
Clutches and Couplings), Caroline Walker (Adpatainer) and Paul Goodman (MAC
containers).

Hydropak: Concept Design and Analysis of A Packaged Cross-Flow Turbine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Hydropak: Concept Design and Analysis of A Packaged Cross-Flow Turbine

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

Hydropak: Concept Design and Analysis of A Packaged Cross-Flow Turbine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HYDROPAK

Concept design and analysis of a

CONTRACT NUMBER: H/03/00078/00/00

URN NUMBER: 04/1885

We champion UK business at home and

First published 2004

 Joint: NHT Engineering and IT Power Ltd, 2004

3.1 Activity [a]: - Develop basic layout design................................................4

3.2 Activity [b]: - Compile database of components and sizes .....................7

3.3 Activity [c]: - Develop standard size increments with layout

3.4 Activity [d]: - Analysis of turbine components and

3.5 Activity [e]: - Assessment and optimisation of civil works

3.6 Activity [f]: - Analysis of O&M constraints................................................21

4.2 Activity [h] - System costing and economic assessment ........................26

Aims and Objectives

Work and Results

Results of Economic Analysis of HydroPak

Cost comparison with competitors that supply packaged crossflow turbines

Hydropak capacity (kW)

Economic cost of HydroPak across its range

1. PROJECT AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of this project are:

• To develop the basic layout and conceptual design of a modular crossflow

• To develop standard size increments based on an analysis of off-the-shelf

• To analyse the principle turbine components to assess the level of

• To analyse the civil works implications in supplying a fixed packaged product,

• To assess the operation and maintenance implications of the HydroPak design.

• To develop cost estimates across the range of machine sizes.

The HydroPak concept of a packaged turbine is targeted to meet these changing

This project is therefore an important step towards enabling a major UK

The following Milestones have been completed: Milestone 1 (Concept Design),

[a] Develop basic layout design

[b] Compile database of components and sizes

[c] Develop standard size increments with layout drawings

[d] Analyse turbine components and develop standardisation strategy

[e] Assess and optimise civil works requirements

[f] Analysis of O&M constraints

[g] Finalise outline designs of the HydroPak range

[h] System costing and economic assessment

3.1 Activity [a]: - Develop basic layout design

• Crossflow runners have a definite operating ‘domain’ mid-range between

• The delivered ‘box’ as conceptualised should comply with the following

• Transmission - belts and pulley drives/gearbox drives

• Runner shaft bearings and seals

• Main Inlet Valve (MIV)

• Hydraulic power pack

Net Head (h) - metres 10

Table 1 RUNNER SPEED (n) - rpm Runner length (w) - mm

Table 2 FLOW (Q) - cumecs Runner length (w) - mm

Table 3 GROSS POWER (P g) - kW Runner length (w) - mm

Table 5 TORQUE (T) - Nm Runner length (w) - mm

Table 6 SHAFT DIAMETER (d) - mm

Table 7 Transmission choice

• bed-plate integral to the turbine fabrication,

• hydraulic tank with actuator integrated to turbine housing,

• safety guards (for pulley transmission), control cubicle integral to bed-plate,

• consideration was also given to the draft tube.

MATERIALS DISK & FILE REF