351

Performance measurements on a Pelton turbine model

F G Stamatelos, J S Anagnostopoulos∗ , and D E Papantonis
School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece

The manuscript was received on 19 May 2010 and was accepted after revision for publication on 22 September 2010.
DOI: 10.1177/2041296710394260

Abstract: Pelton hydraulic turbines are impulse-type turbomachines commonly used in hydro-
electric plants with medium-to-high water head and in various energy recovery applications. The
aim of the present work is to provide detailed performance measurements on a Pelton turbine
model, along with the design and geometrical dimensions of its runner/buckets and injectors.
Such a complete set of data would be useful for further development and evaluation of numerical
modelling tools of the complex unsteady free-surface flow developed in the turbine, and is miss-
ing from the literature. The two-nozzle Pelton model was designed using standard guidelines and
was fully constructed in the Laboratory of Hydraulic Turbomachines, NTUA. The measurements
include the net water head and flowrate, the injector characteristic curves, and the torque and
rotation speed of the runner, from which the corresponding overall efficiency and shaft power
are computed. The model was tested with one injector (upper or lower) and with both injectors in
operation, using either constant or variable rotation speed mode. The comparative results were
satisfactory and in line with the theory, verifying similarity and repeatability, and allowing for an
estimation of mechanical losses. The measurements covered the entire operation range of the
turbine, in order to draw complete hillcharts for various operation modes.

Keywords: Pelton turbine model, performance measurements, runner geometry, turbine

hillcharts, mechanical losses

1 INTRODUCTION The experimental studies on Pelton hydroturbines

In 1879, Lester Pelton developed an impulse hydrotur-
bine runner with double-bucket design that exhausted
the water to the side, decreasing the correspond-
ing kinetic energy losses. Later on, in 1895, William
Doble improved Pelton’s idea and created an ellipti-
cal bucket with a cut, allowing the water jet to enter
the bucket smoothly. The current bucket design prac-
tices are based mainly on the accumulated experience;
however, in recent years significant effort has been
directed towards a better understating of the details
of the complex unsteady flow in the runner, with the
aid of modern numerical modelling and experimen-
tal techniques. Now, all Pelton turbine components
are analysed by calculation and the research aims at
a complete design optimization of the buckets and the
distribution system.
∗ Corresponding author: School of Mechanical Engineering,
National Technical University of Athens, 9 Heroon Polytechniou
Str., Zografou, Athens 15780, Greece.
email: j.anagno@fluid.mech.ntua.gr
that have been published in the literature are not
many. The high complexity of the unsteady jet–bucket
interaction in the rotating runner and, moreover, the
contaminating effects of the outflow that splashes
on the casing walls make the measurements of the
flow in the interior of the casing practically impossi-
ble. Hence, the existing experimental works concern
either flow visualization studies [1, 2] or flow–bucket
interaction in non-rotating buckets [3, 4].
Perrig et al. [1, 2] used flow observation techniques
to study the unsteady evolution of the free-surface
flow in a single-injector Pelton runner. They found that
the impact of the droplets released from the buckets
causes perturbations on the jet surface, which may
result in reduced bucket efficiency. Also, some more
complex and not well understood mechanisms dur-
ing the jet cut process were identified and showed
that they can influence considerably the subsequent
evolution of the flow in the bucket and the energy
exchange efficiency (compressibility effects, spray and
water threads formation, Coanda effect, etc.).
The measurements of Kvicinsky et al. [3] include
pressure distribution and water layer thickness in a

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

352 F G Stamatelos, J S Anagnostopoulos, and D E Papantonis
steady jet–bucket interaction, whereas in a similar test
rig Zoppe et al. [4] conducted experiments for various
jet incident angles and present additional data for total
torque and thrust variation versus the jet diameter and
angle.
Kvicinsky et al. [5, 6] used 32 pressure sensors on
the inner surface of a rotating bucket and performed
unsteady pressure measurements, defining five dif-
ferent pressure zones on the surface. The transient
pressure distribution on a rotating bucket was mea-
sured in the works of Mack et al. [7] and Perrig et al. [8].
The comprehensive experimental study of Perrig [9]
also includes measurements of the water film thick-
ness evolution and the pressure coefficient variation
at various zones of the bucket during the runner rota-
tion, and analyses the contribution of each zone to the
energy transfer. Also, the importance of some complex
mechanisms developed in the jet impact and the back-
side flow was identified, and the energy losses during
the jet–bucket interaction were analysed. The author
emphasizes the need for additional measurements to
quantify these effects.
Flow visualization studies have also been conducted
in the jet discharged from the nozzle of Pelton turbine
injectors, and several parameters that can influence
the jet quality and cause reduction of runner perfor-
mance and efficiency were examined. The influence
of the injector design on the unsteady and divergent
behaviour of the jet is studied by Staubli and Hauser
[10], whereas the significant role of secondary flows
generated at the bends of the distribution piping on
the jet shape, orientation, and surface disturbances
and instabilities was identified by Zhang and Parkin-
son [11] and Zhang and Casey [12], and supported by
laser Doppler anemometry (LDA) velocity measure-
ments. Finally, the effect on the runner efficiency of
the jet interference in multi-jet Pelton turbines and of
the casing dimensions were investigated in the exper-
imental works of Fuji et al. [13] and Matthias et al.
[14], respectively.
An extended flow mechanical analysis was done in
the theoretical work of Zhang [15] for a better under-
standing of the flow in a rotating bucket. The particular
contribution of the flow frictions in the bucket surface
to the total losses, as well as of the jet impact work to
the total energy transfer during the jet–bucket inter-
action, are investigated and quantified in subsequent
studies [16].
The computer modelling of the flow in Pelton run-
ners is taking advantage from the progress in computer
power and the development of advanced software
tools [17–19]. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
is being increasingly used with Reynolds averaged
Navier–Stokes equations (RANS) solvers and commer-
cial software. Among the latest such studies are the
works of Kvicinsky [6], Mack et al. [17], Zoppe et al. [4],
Perrig et al. [8, 20], and Santolin et al. [21], concern-
ing from a stationary bucket, to a complete single- or
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy
Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016
multi-injector system and rotating runner including
penstock and casing. Also, CFD dynamic results can
be used as input for the structural analysis of Pelton
runners [18].
Although these computations can simulate the
entire working cycle of the bucket, the accuracy of
the torque predictions is still not adequate, due to the
development of complex secondary flow mechanisms
mentioned above that are not modelled [9, 22]. More-
over, the traditional mesh-based Eulerian approaches
face significant numerical diffusion problems due to
the complex evolution of the free-surface flow pat-
tern, whereas the unsteadiness of the flow requires
extended and fine meshes with enormous compu-
tations, which are still not feasible for industrial
design [17].
Other numerical approaches alternative to mesh-
based flow simulation methods have recently been
developed and applied for flow modelling in rotat-
ing Pelton runners aiming at reducing the computer
demands, like the use of streamlines in the Animated-
Cartoon Frames method [23], and the integration of
fluid particle motion equations in the Fast Lagrangian
Solution method [24]. The fully Lagrangian mesh-
less simulation approaches adopt the Moving Particle
Semi-Implicit method [25] or the Smoothed Particle
Hydrodynamics method [26–29]. These methods are
based on the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations
and among their advantages are the inherent simula-
tion of the surface pattern, and the capability to predict
the behaviour of the flow after the exit from the bucket
and its interaction with the casing. However, their per-
formance and accuracy are still not satisfactory and
further development and improvements are needed.
From the above survey it can be deduced that, due
to the high complexity of the flow and the implica-
tion of various flow mechanisms in the jet–bucket
interaction, the numerical simulation and design tools
need experimental support to validate and improve
their capability to reproduce as close as possible the
Fig. 1 Laboratory Pelton turbine model
 Performance measurements on a Pelton turbine model 353

performance of a real Pelton turbine. The present work
aims at providing comprehensive measurements of
the performance characteristic curves in the whole
working range of a laboratory model turbine, along
with the detailed geometrical data of its injector, run-
ner, and buckets. Such complete set of data is missing
from the published literature; hence, it could be useful
to the continuing research effort in the area.
within the Laboratory of Hydraulic Turbomachines
facilities. The model corresponds to a real turbine of
the Greek Public Power Corporation, installed at the
springs of Aoos River, and it was constructed in a
1:6 scale. A comparison of the main characteristics
between the original and the model turbine is given
in Table 1.

2 EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

The design and construction of the Pelton turbine

model shown in Fig. 1 were carried out completely

Table 1 Pelton original and model’s main features

Pelton turbine Pelton model
(Aoos River) (scale 1:6)

Runner pitch diameter 2407 mm 400 mm

Jet diameter 188 mm 31 mm
Rotation speed 428.6 r/min 1150 r/min
Flowrate (nominal) 18.3 m3 /s 270.6 m3 /h
Net head 653 mWG 129.6 mWG
Mechanic power 110 MW 83 kW
Buckets 22 22 Fig. 2 Three-stage centrifugal pump
Injectors 6 2

Fig. 3 Model turbine bucket design and main dimensions

Fig. 4 Model injectors design and main dimensions

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

354 F G Stamatelos, J S Anagnostopoulos, and D E Papantonis

Table 2 Nozzle and spear geometry in Fig. 4 and summarized in Table 2. The spear valve
opening fraction is defined as the distance x from
Injector inlet diameter 81.5 mm
Nozzle length 53.4 mm the close valve position, divided by the nozzle exit
Nozzle outlet diameter 36 mm diameter DN = 36 mm (Fig. 4).
Nozzle outlet angle 90◦
Nozzle profile radius 75.6 mm
Spear body diameter 47 mm 3 MEASURING APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE
Spear length 50 mm
Spear angle 50◦
Spear travel distance 40 mm The performance data of the turbine model are
obtained in the form of characteristic operation curves
of the net head, and the shaft power and the overall
The opening of the two injectors is regulated manu-
efficiency as a function of the flowrate and rotation
ally by a precision screw. The front cover of the model is
speed, varied within a broad operating range. The cor-
made of Plexiglas permitting the visual observation of
responding physical quantities were measured at each
the flow field (Fig. 1). The turbine’s brake is a 75 kW DC
operation point with the following instrumentation:
generator, which provides the capability of continuous
adjustment of the rotation speed of the runner. (a) rotational speed of the turbine by an electronic
Water supply is provided by a 200 kW, three-stage pulse meter (Fig. 5(a)), with measurement error
centrifugal pump (Fig. 2), the rotation speed of which ±0.5 per cent;
is controlled by a hydraulic coupler. At its Best Effi- (b) flowrate, Q, by an electromagnetic flow meter
ciency point the pump rotates at 1800 r/min, providing (Fig. 5(b)), which was calibrated by the volumet-
320 m3 /h flowrate and 117 mWG net head. ric tank of the test stand, with relative uncertainty
The cast-iron-made buckets are mounted on the ±0.5 per cent;
runner hub and their design details and geometrical (c) relative static pressure of the water right before
dimensions are given in Fig. 3. The bucket’s splitter the injectors, using a differential pressure trans-
line deviates 10◦ from the radial direction of the run- ducer (0–20 bar), with relative uncertainty ±0.25
ner (Fig. 3(c)). The bucket design is based on available per cent;
theoretical guidelines [30, 31], and the same was done (d) torque, M , developed at the shaft between the
with the injectors, the dimensions of which are shown turbine and the brake, by a torque transducer

Fig. 5 Photos of the instruments used in the laboratory: (a) pulse meter; (b) flow meter; (c) torque
meter; and (d) monitoring environment

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

 Performance measurements on a Pelton turbine model
with strain gage sensing (Fig. 5(c)), and maximum
experimental error ±0.2 per cent.
The laboratory test rig and the measuring proce-
dure comply with the international electrotechnical
commission (IEC) model test standards (TC 4/WG
23). Prior to the experiments all measuring instru-
ments were calibrated according to their manuals.
The pressure transducer was calibrated according
to the method of hydraulic deadweight testers. The
referred measurement errors of the instruments corre-
spond to their manufacturing and/or calibration data.
According to the error propagation theory, the error
probability of turbine performance results obtained
from the primary experimental data can be assessed.
The flowrate and net head parameters,  and , as
well as the turbine efficiency η are the parameters
used throughout the present article, and from their
definition relations (1) and (2) given in section 4.2 it
emerges that their relative uncertainties are within ±1
per cent, ±1.25 per cent, and ±1.5 per cent, respec-
tively. Furthermore, the repeatability of the measured
data was thoroughly tested for several operating points
of the turbine on daily and weekly basis, and the calcu-
lated overall efficiency results showed deviation below
±1 per cent, except for the smallest spear opening,
where in some particular cases it exceeded ±2 per cent.
The produced signals from the instruments were all
analog; hence, an A/D card was used for their gath-
ering and digitization. The LabView 8.6 graphical
programming software was implemented for the data
acquisition of the analog signals and their conver-
sion into digital. The dimensionless quantities of the
flowrate, net head, and efficiency are calculated and
the developed graphical environment, an example of
which is given in Fig. 5(d), allows for continuous mon-
itoring of the pump and turbine operating conditions
and real-time evaluation of every measured value, with
respect to the performance characteristic curves.
4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Several sets of measurements were conducted in order
to acquire a more reliable and comprehensive picture
Fig. 6 Operating turbine model: (a) view through the casing and (b) jet at the nozzle exit
Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016
355
of the turbine model performance. The characteristic
operation curves were obtained for nine consecutive
opening positions of the spear valve, and separately
for the lower and for the upper injector, as well as with
both injectors in operation.
4.1 Injector performance
Indicative views from the turbine operation are given
in Fig. 6. The photo on the left shows the opera-
tion of only the upper injector at increased runner
speed quite above the optimum to allow for bet-
ter observation inside the casing. The right picture
presents a more detailed view of the free jet formation
at the nozzle outlet and of its downstream diameter
variation. The jet diameter takes its minimum value
about one nozzle diameter from the exit (Vena con-
tracta) and then exhibits a slight expansion because
of the friction with the air, a typical behaviour for
this type of injectors [12]. It must be noted how-
ever that the distance between the nozzle exit and
the runner, which is depicted also in Fig. 4(a), is
quite larger than in full-scale turbines. This can result
in substantial spreading of the jet before its impact
to the bucket, and must be taken into account in
numerical simulation studies of the present turbine
model. Moreover, it may increase the jet degradation
effects of secondary flows developed in the distri-
bution branches, especially towards the closed valve
position.
The flowrate through a Pelton turbine spear valve
depends on the opening position of the valve and the
fluid pressure. The corresponding performance curves
correlate the flowrate variation with the spear opening
at constant pressure. These quantities are measured at
the lower injector of the laboratory turbine model, and
the obtained performance curves are given in Fig. 7
for two differential pressure values, 50 and 110 mWG.
The pattern is typical for spear valves, having linear
relation at small openings and asymptotic flowrate
increase towards full opening [10]. Also, according to
the theory, the flowrate increases with the square root
of pressure.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy
356 F G Stamatelos, J S Anagnostopoulos, and D E Papantonis

130 15
14
13
110
12
11

Net Head Parameter, y

Flow Rate, Q [m3/h]

90 10
9
70 8
7 Spear opening, a
0.11
6 0.22
50 5 0.33
0.44
4 0.55
30 P = 50 mWG 3 0.66
P = 110 mWG 0.77
2 0.88
1 1.00
10
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0
0,000 0,003 0,006 0,009 0,012 0,015 0,018 0,021 0,024
Nozzle opening portion, Dx/DN
Flow Rate Parameter, F
(a)
Fig. 7 Injector performance curves for two fluid pres- 0.9
sures
0.8

4.2 Runner performance Overall Efficiency, h 0.7

In order to facilitate comparison and generalize their 0.6

usage, the flowrate and the head measurements are 0.5

Spear opening, a
expressed in dimensionless form, using the flowrate 0.11
0.4
parameter  and the net head parameter , respec- 0.22
0.33
tively 0.3 0.44
0.55
0.2 0.66
Q 2gH 0.77
= and = (1)
πR 3 ω R 2 ω2 0.1
0.88
1.00

0.0
where Q denotes the measured flowrate (m3 /h), H is 0,000 0,003 0,006 0,009 0,012 0,015 0,018 0,021 0,024
the measured manometric pressure before the noz- Flow Rate Parameter, F
zles, R is the runner pitch radius (R = 200 mm), ω its (b)
angular speed, and g the gravitational acceleration.
For a given opening of the spear valve(s), the varia- Fig. 8 Turbine performance curves for the lower injec-
tion range of the above quantities can be covered by tor: (a) net head parameter and (b) overall effi-
two different methods: either by keeping constant the ciency versus flowrate parameter, 
operation point (flowrate, head, and speed of rota-
tion) of the feeding pump and varying the rotation , , and η will be used for graphical presentation and
speed of the runner, or by keeping constant the tur- analysis of the measurements. Some indicative sets are
bine runner speed and adjusting the pump flowrate also given in numeric form in the Appendix.
by varying its rotation speed. These two measuring The characteristic performance curves of the Pelton
procedures should produce equivalent results for the turbine model obtained with one injector (the lower)
above quantities  and , as also for the correspond- in operation and by the constant-pump/variable-
ing efficiency values. In order to verify the reliability turbine rotation speed method are shown in Fig. 8,
and the repeatability of the experimental results, the where the spear valve opening, x/DN is the draw-
latter were obtained with both the above procedures, ing parameter. The net head parameter, , exhibits
and will be compared in the next section. a smooth correlation with the flowrate parameter, ,
The overall efficiency of the turbine is calculated for all openings (Fig. 8(a)), thus verifying the normal
from the ratio of the mechanical power developed on operation of the test rig in the entire flow range. Some
the shaft over the hydraulic power of the fluid at the minor scattering of the data at high flowrates are due to
injector inlet, as follows difficulties in the exact regulation of the turbine speed.
The scattering increases in the corresponding results
Nm Mω of the overall efficiency in Fig. 8(b), because its value
η= = (2)
Ni ρgHQ obtained by equation (2) includes the perturbations of
the torque developed at the shaft.
where M denotes the measured torque at the shaft The pattern of the efficiency characteristic curves
(kpm) and ρ is the water density. The above quantities in Fig. 8(b) is in agreement with the theory and with

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

 Performance measurements on a Pelton turbine model 357

the known performance of Pelton turbines: for a given respectively, where only the total flowrate range
injector opening there is an optimum flowrate that is now double. Some differences in the maximum
maximizes efficiency, at which the remaining angular efficiency values can be observed compared to the
momentum of the bucket outflow becomes minimum. single-injector operation in Fig. 8(b), which will be
The maximum efficiency is achieved for an inter- discussed later.
mediate injector opening, whereas there is a small
decrease towards full opening, due to the increase of
the jet diameter and the entailed reduction of buck- 4.3 Constant turbine speed operation mode
ets accommodation effectiveness. On the other hand, The above measurements were repeated following
efficiency exhibits a drastic drop below certain injec- the second, variable-pump/constant-turbine rotation
tor opening (here below 20 per cent), but this time speed method, in which the runner speed is fixed to
because of the degradation of the jet quality (devi- 700 r/min and the characteristic curves are obtained
ation from the axis, surface disturbances, or other by varying the feeding pump rotation speed. The
instabilities). obtained experimental data were close to the first-
The corresponding turbine performance with the method ones for both single- and two-injector opera-
upper injector in operation was found to be almost tion, but they are not identical as the similarity rules
the same with the lower one. Also, the  −  and η −  would require. As shown in Fig. 10 for three indicative
characteristic curves have the same pattern when both spear openings, the measurements with the second
injectors are operating, as shown in Figs 9(a) and (b), method exhibit increased fluctuations and scattering.

12
15
14 a = 0.11
13 10

12 a = 0.33
Net Head Parameter, y

a = 1.0
Net Head Parameter, y

11
8
10
9
8 6
Spear opening, a
7 0.11
6 0.22
0.33 4
5 0.44
4 0.55
0.66 2
3
0.77
2 Variable Turbine Speed
0.88
1.00
Constant Turbine Speed
1 0
0 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
0.000 0.006 0.012 0.018 0.024 0.030 0.036 0.042 0.048 Flow Rate Parameter, F
Flow Rate Parameter, F (a)
(a) 1.0
a = 0.33
0.9 0.9
a = 0.11 a = 1.0
0.8 0.8
Overall Efficiency, h

0.7 0.7
Overall Efficiency, h

0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5 Spear opening, a
0.11 0.4
0.4 0.22
0.33 0.3
0.3 0.44
0.55 0.2
0.66
0.2 Variable Turbine Speed
0.77 0.1
0.88 Constant Turbine Speed
0.1 1.00 0.0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
0.0
Flow Rate Parameter, F
0.000 0.006 0.012 0.018 0.024 0.030 0.036 0.042 0.048
(b)
Flow Rate Parameter, F
(b)
Fig. 10 Comparison of different measuring procedures
Fig. 9 Turbine performance curves with both injectors: with both injectors in operation: (a) net head
(a) net head parameter and (b) overall efficiency parameter and (b) overall efficiency versus
versus flowrate parameter,  flowrate parameter

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

358 F G Stamatelos, J S Anagnostopoulos, and D E Papantonis

This is mainly due to difficulties in regulating the pump 0.9

a = 0.33
rotation speed, which in turn cause deviations from a = 0.11
0.8
the desired flowrate and corresponding fluctuations
a = 1.0
in turbine loading and runner speed. Consequently,

Overall Efficiency, h
0.7
the first measuring procedure is preferable, since it
requires control of the runner rotation speed only. 0.6

0.5

4.4 Turbine efficiency analysis 0.4

Upper nozzle
The maximum attainable efficiency of the model tur- 0.3 Lower nozzle
bine over the entire loading range is the envelope of Both nozzles
the particular efficiency curves for various openings of 0.2
the injectors, like the ones in Figs 8(b) and 9(b). These 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.018 0.021 0.024

envelope curves for one and two injectors in opera- Flow Rate Parameter, F
tion are drawn in Fig. 11. The best efficiency point
Fig. 12 Comparison of overall efficiency curves for
is obtained with both injectors at about 60 per cent
injectors at various loadings
of nominal flowrate and reaches a maximum value
of almost 87 per cent. The overall efficiency curve
At the same, intermediate opening position of the
remains quite flat, with values above 80 per cent for
injectors (x/DN = 0.33) the three corresponding effi-
loads between 20 per cent and 100 per cent, providing
ciency curves are quite close, except for the best
that the unit operates with one injector at loads below
efficiency region, where the two-nozzle operation
about 45 per cent and with both injectors above this
shows better performance. However, for smaller open-
threshold value. The efficiency differences between
ings this difference becomes much more pronounced
upper and lower injector curves can be attributed to
and the two-nozzle efficiency near the closing posi-
possible injector manufacturing deviations, as also to
tion (α = 0.11) is almost 10 percentage units greater
the non-symmetric branches of the distributor, which
(Fig. 12). This behaviour can be explained consider-
induce different secondary flow structures at noz-
ing that the overall turbine efficiency includes both
zle inlet and consequently produce jets of not the
hydraulic and mechanical power losses. The latter
same quality. The second explanation seems more
consist of the bearing losses and the windage losses
valid because the discrepancy becomes much smaller
of the rotating runner, and remain about the same
towards full nozzle opening, where the influence of
when the turbine operates at a given speed with either
secondary flow structures is expected to reduce.
one or both injectors. However, in the second case the
A more detailed comparative view of the turbine
total water hydraulic power is double and hence the
performance measurements can be obtained from the
percentage fraction of mechanical losses is about half.
efficiency data drawn in Fig. 12 for three different spear
Based on this remark, the comparative results of
openings and with the lower, upper, and both injectors
Fig. 12 can be used to obtain an assessment of the
in operation. In order to compare the two-nozzle case
magnitude of turbine mechanical power losses, which
with the single-nozzle cases, the flowrate of the former
cannot be directly measured. Overall efficiency for
is divided by 2.
single and both injectors in operation is given by
equations (3) and (4)
0.90 Njet − Ns − Nh − Nm
ηsingle = (3)
Njet
0.85 2Njet − 2Ns − 2Nh − Nm
ηboth ≈ (4)
Turbine efficiency, h

2Njet
0.80
where Njet = γ QH is the net water power measured
upstream of a single injector, Nh and Ns are the
0.75 hydraulic power losses at the injector and at the
Lower injector runner, and Nm the mechanical power losses, taken
0.70
Upper injector constant in both cases. In equation (4) it was assumed
Both injectors
that the hydraulic losses of two-injector operation
are double those of single injector. Although in two-
0.65
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 injector operation the bifurcation introduces some
Turbine load, Q/QN (%) additional disturbance into the flow, the changes in
flow path direction, which are mainly responsible for
Fig. 11 Attainable efficiency curves of the Pelton model the creation of secondary flow structures (cross-flow

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

 Performance measurements on a Pelton turbine model 359

vortices), are similar to the ones during single-injector runner [1, 32], and the phenomenon is expected to
operation in each corresponding branch. Therefore, become worse as the total flowrate in the turbine (tur-
for a given spear opening the flow field in the nozzle bine loading) increases, a behaviour that is evident in
and the produced jet quality are expected to be similar the experimental results (Figs 8(b), 9(b), and 12).
for both operation modes.
From the above relations it can be deduced by
4.5 Losses in turbine components
subtraction that
Nm In order to analyse the turbine efficiency and the
≈ 2(ηboth − ηsingle ) (5) power losses in the machine further it is necessary to
Njet
estimate the hydraulic losses of the spear valve. Since
Consequently, using the experimental data of Fig. 12 measuring the discharged jet properties is not possible
for the smallest opening (x/DN = 0.11), the mechan- in this case, it can be achieved only by numerical sim-
ical losses are about 14.5 per cent of the average of ulation of the flow in the injector. Such studies have
the corresponding water input power at a single injec- been carried out in the laboratory using the Smoothed
tor (overall efficiency difference from the two-injector Particle Hydrodynamics, as also the commercial soft-
operation is about 6.5 percentage units for the upper ware Fluent [33]. Applying the latter tool the total
and about 8 for the lower injector). power losses as the flow passes through the spear valve
Next, using the results of Figs 8(a) and (b), and are numerically computed for the entire spear travel
assuming that the absolute value of the mechanical distance in order to discriminate between the feeding
power losses are about the same in the entire load losses in the injector and the losses in the jet–bucket
range of the runner (at fixed rotation speed), one can interaction.
estimate the fraction of mechanical losses at the best Next, considering also the mechanical losses esti-
efficiency region of the turbine. For example, compari- mation of section 4.4, a more detailed picture of the
son of the operating conditions (net head and flowrate) losses distribution between the components of the
for maximum efficiency at the spear openings x/DN turbine can be obtained, as demonstrated by the effi-
0.11 and 0.33 gives ciency curves of Fig. 13. Increasing the measured
overall efficiency curve by the corresponding mechan-
Nm Nm Njet − 0.11 ical losses results in the total hydraulic efficiency curve
=
Njet − 0.33 Njet − 0.11 Njet − 0.33 of the turbine. Then, adding to this the calculated spear
(HQ)jet−0.11 valve losses, the resulting curve represents the effi-
≈ 0.145 · ≈ 0.065 (6) ciency of the jet–bucket interaction mechanism and
(HQ)jet−0.33
energy exchange in the runner. This curve includes
Since the overall turbine efficiency for the 0.33 spear the friction losses during the free-surface flow in the
opening is about 86 per cent (Figs 8(b) and 12), the bucket, the kinetic energy of the outflow (of the order
corresponding hydraulic losses in the injector and the of 1 per cent), the minor losses at the jet impact points,
runner can be estimated as as well as any jet degradation and interference effects.
As discussed in section 4.4, the latter become signif-
Nh Njet−0.33 − N − Nm
= icant at low and high load operation conditions. The
Njet−0.33 Njet−0.33
Nm
≈1−η− ≈ 0.075 (7) 1.00
Njet−0.33
0.95
On the other hand, Fig. 12 shows that at larger
spear valve openings the efficiency of the two-injector 0.90
Efficiency degree

operation mode exhibits an opposite trend, becoming

substantially less than the single-injector one (about 4 0.85
percentage units at fully open position, Fig. 12). This
unexpected behaviour cannot be attributed to either 0.80
hydraulic or mechanical reasons. The only reasonable
explanation is that it is caused by the outflow from 0.75

the buckets, part of which may re-enter the runner Jet-bucket interaction efficiency
0.70 Total hydraulic efficiency
section after exiting from the cutout notch lips or after Overall efficiency
impacting on the casing walls, and may also interfere 0.65
with the nozzle jets and cause surface perturbations. In 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
addition, the water mist environment inside the case Turbine Load, Q/QN (%)
increases the average density of the air surrounding
the runner and hence the windage losses. Such effects Fig. 13 Efficiency curves of various machine compo-
can cause substantial reduction of the efficiency of the nents

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

360 F G Stamatelos, J S Anagnostopoulos, and D E Papantonis

Fig. 14 Hillcharts of the turbine model at constant runner speed: (a) upper injector and (b) both
injectors in operation

Fig. 15 Hillcharts of the turbine model with variable runner speed: (a) upper injector and (b) both
injectors in operation

results in Fig. 13 indicate efficiency reduction up to
about 5 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively.
4.6 Turbine hillcharts
The complete performance hillcharts of the Pelton
model turbine are finally constructed and presented
in Figs 14 and 15. Figure 14 presents the experimen-
tal data obtained with constant runner rotating speed
(700 r/min), whereas Fig. 15 presents the correspond-
ing ones with the constant-pump/variable-turbine
speed method. The diagrams include  −  lines for
various spear openings, lines of constant shaft power,
and turbine efficiency contours. The general pattern
of all these charts is quite similar, verifying the proper
and qualitative design and construction process of the
model turbine followed in the laboratory. According to
the aforementioned analysis, the best efficiency area
is somewhat larger in case of two-injector operation
(Figs 14(b) and 15(b)), and the corresponding maxi-
mum values are about 2 percentage units higher. Also,
as expected, overall efficiency maximizes at about
the same net head value in all cases. However, the
bucket outflow interferences discussed in the previ-
ous section cause a displacement of the best efficiency
area towards smaller flowrates through each nozzle
in the two-injector operation case (e.g. at  ≈ 0.9 in
Fig. 15(a) and at  ≈ 0.14 = 2 × 0.7 in Fig. 15(b)).
5 CONCLUSIONS
The performance of a Pelton turbine model designed
and constructed in the laboratory is thoroughly

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

 Performance measurements on a Pelton turbine model
examined. The turbine has the ability to function with
one or both injectors, and the measurements cover
a wide range of operation conditions, allowing for
the drawing of complete turbine hillcharts. The over-
all efficiency results and the effects of the loading
(flowrate) and spear valve opening are in agreement
with the theory. Maximum attainable efficiency is
around 86 per cent, which is a satisfactory perfor-
mance for this power range (∼ 80 kW) and in line with
the literature references, verifying the turbine model
design effectiveness.
On the other hand, the similarity of the results when
only one or both nozzles were open verifies the qual-
ity and reliability of model construction. The observed
differences in overall efficiency between single- and
two-nozzle operation in the low flowrate region can
be used to estimate the mechanical losses of the run-
ner, a quantity that is not directly measurable. Also,
the corresponding differences in the high flowrate
region reveal and quantify the interference effects of
the bucket outflow and the influence of the casing.
The obtained experimental data set can be used to
compare the results of numerical modelling tools in
order to improve their accuracy in predicting the per-
formance data of a real Pelton turbine. This constitutes
a difficult task, not only because of the high complex-
ity of the unsteady jet–bucket interaction flow but also
because of the involvement of several complex flow
mechanisms that are not completely understood and
cannot be adequately modelled. Such simulation tools
are currently under development also by the present
authors based on the Lagrangian meshless approach,
and their adjustment with the aid of the obtained
measurements will be the objective of a future work.
© Authors 2011
REFERENCES
1 Perrig, A., Valle, M., Farhat, M., Parkinson, E., Favre, J.,
and Avellan, F. Onboard flow visualization in a Pelton
turbine bucket. In Proceedings of the 23rd I.A.H.R. Sym-
posium on Hydraulic machinery and systems, Yokohama,
Japan, 17–21 October 2006.
2 Perrig, A., Farhat, M., and Avellan, F. High speed flow
visualization of an impinging jet on a Pelton turbine
bucket. In Proceedings of the 5th Joint ASME/JSME Flu-
ids Engineering Conference, San Diego, California, 30
July–2 August 2007, paper no. FEDSM2007-37628.
3 Kvicinsky, S., Kueny, J.-L., and Avellan, F. Numerical
and experimental analysis of free surface flow in a 3D
non rotating Pelton bucket. In Proceedings of the 9th
International Symposium on Transport phenomena and
dynamics of rotating machinery, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA,
10–14 February 2002, paper no. FD18/FD-125.
4 Zoppe, B., Pellone, C., Maitre, T., and Leroy, P. Flow
analysis inside a Pelton turbine bucket. ASME Trans. J.
Turbomach., 2006, 128, 500–511.
5 Kvicinsky, S., Kueny, J.-L., Avellan, F., and Parkinson,
E. Experimental and numerical analysis of free surface
Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016
361
flows in a rotating bucket. In Proceedings of the
21st I.A.H.R. Symposium on Hydraulic machinery
and systems, Lausanne, Switzerland, 9–12 September
2002.
6 Kvicinsky, S. Methode d’analyse des ecoulements 3D a sur-
face liblre: application aux turbines Pelton. PhD Thesis,
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland,
2002.
7 Mack, R., Aschenbrenner, T., Rohne, W., and Farhat, M.
Validation of bucket flow simulation using dynamic pres-
sure measurement. In Proceedings of the 22nd I.A.H.R.
Symposium on Hydraulic machinery and systems, Stock-
holm, Sweden, 29 June–2 July 2004.
8 Perrig, A., Avellan, F., Kueny, J.-L., Farhat, M., and
Parkinson, E. Flow in a Pelton turbine bucket: numerical
and experimental investigations. Trans. ASME J. Fluids
Eng., 2006, 128, 350–358.
9 Perrig, A. Hydrodynamics of the free surface flow in Pel-
ton turbine buckets. PhD Thesis, École Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, 2007.
10 Staubli, T. and Hauser, H. P. Flow visualization – a diag-
nosis tool for Pelton turbines. In Proceedings of the 5th
International Group for Hydraulic Efficiency Measure-
ment Conference, IGHEM2004, Lucerne, Switzerland,
14–16 July 2004.
11 Zhang, Z. and Parkinson, E. LDA application and the
dual-measurement-method in experimental investiga-
tions of the free surface jet at a model nozzle of a Pelton
turbine. In Proceedings of the 11th International Sym-
posium on Applications of laser anemometry to fluid
mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal, 2002.
12 Zhang, Z. and Casey, M. Experimental studies of the
jet of a Pelton turbine. Proc. IMechE, Part A: J. Power
and Energy, 2007, 221(A8), 1181–1192. DOI: 10.1243/
09576509JPE408.
13 Fujii, T., Karaki, T., Tsukamoto, T., and Kurokawa, J.
Research of the jet interference of Pelton turbines. In Pro-
ceedings of the 23rd I.A.H.R. Symposium on Hydraulic
machinery and systems, Yokohama, Japan, 17–21 October
2006.
14 Matthias, H.-B., Prost, J., and Rossegger, C. Investigation
of the flow in Pelton turbines and the influence of the
casing. Intl. J. Rotat. Mach., 1997, 3(4), 239–247.
15 Zhang, Z. Flow interactions in Pelton turbines and the
hydraulic efficiency of the turbine system. Proc. IMechE,
Part A: J. Power and Energy, 2007, 221, 343–357. DOI:
10.1243/09576509JPE294.
16 Zhang, Z. Inlet flow conditions and the jet impact
work in a Pelton turbine. Proc. IMechE, Part A: J.
Power and Energy, 2009, 223, 589–596. DOI: 10.1243/
09576509JPE612.
17 Mack, R., Rohne, W., Riemann, S., Knapp, W., and
Schilling,R. Using the potential of CFD for Pelton turbine
development. In Proceedings of the 23rd I.A.H.R. Sympo-
sium on Hydraulic machinery and systems, Yokohama,
17–21 October 2006.
18 Keck, H., Michler,W.,Weiss,T., and Sick, M. Recent devel-
opments in the dynamic analysis of water turbines. Proc.
IMechE, Part A: J. Power and Energy, 2009, 223, 415–427.
DOI: 10.1243/09576509JPE578.
19 Parkinson, E., Angehrn, R., and Weiss, T. Modern design
engineering applied to Pelton runners. Int. J Hydropower
Dams, 2007, 14(4), 91–95.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy
362 F G Stamatelos, J S Anagnostopoulos, and D E Papantonis

20 Perrig, A., Farhat, M., Avellan, F., Parkinson, E., Garcin,
H., Bissel, C., Valle, M., and Favre, J. Numerical flow
analysis in a Pelton turbine bucket. In Proceedings of the
22nd I.A.H.R. Symposium on Hydraulic machinery and
systems, Stockholm, Sweden, 29 June–2 July 2004.
21 Santolin, A., Cavazzini, G., Ardizzon, G., and Pavesi,
G. Numerical investigation of the interaction between
jet and bucket in a Pelton turbine. Proc. IMechE,
Part A: J. Power and Energy, 2009, 223, 721–728. DOI:
10.1243/09576509JPE824.
22 Parkinson, E., Neury, C., Garcin, H., Vullioud, G., and
Weiss, T. H. Unsteady analysis of a Pelton runner with
flow and mechanical simulations. In Proceedings of the
HYDRO 2005 International Conference, Villach, Austria,
17–20 October 2005.
23 Xiao, Y., Han, F., Zhou, J., and Kubota, T. Numerical
prediction of dynamic performance of Pelton turbine.
J. Hydrodyn. B, 2007, 19(3), 356–364.
24 Anagnostopoulos, J. and Papantonis, D. A numerical
methodology for design optimization of Pelton turbine
runners. In Proceedings of the HYDRO 2006 Interna-
tional Conference, Porto Carras, Greece, 25–27 Septem-
ber 2006.
25 Nakanishi, Y., Fujii, T., Morinaka, M., and Wachi, K.
Numerical Simulation of the flow in a Pelton bucket by a
particle method. In Proceedings of the 23rd I.A.H.R. Sym-
posium on Hydraulic machinery and systems, Yokohama,
Japan, 17–21 October 2006.
26 Marongiu, J.-Ch., Leboeuf, F., Favre, J. M., and
Parkinson, E. Numerical simulation of the flow in a
Pelton turbine using the meshless method SPH. In Pro-
ceedings of the 21st I.A.H.R. Symposium on Hydraulic
machinery and systems, Lausanne, Switzerland, 9–12
September 2002.
27 Marongiu, J.-C., Leboeuf, F., and Parkinson, E. Numer-
ical simulation of the flow in a Pelton turbine using
the meshless method smoothed particle hydrodynamics:
a new simple solid boundary treatment. Proc. IMechE,
Part A: J. Power and Energy, 2007, 221, 849–856. DOI:
10.1243/09576509JPE465.
28 Koukouvinis, Ph. K., Anagnostopoulos, J. S., and Papan-
tonis, D. E. Flow modelling in the injector of a Pelton
turbine. In Proceedings of the 4th International SPHERIC
Workshop, Nantes, France, 27–29 May 2009.
29 Marongiu, J.-Ch., Leboeuf, F., Caro, J., and Parkinson, E.
Low Mach number numerical schemes for the SPH-ALE
method. Application in free surface flows in Pelton tur-
bines. In Proceedings of the 4th International SPHERIC
Workshop, Nantes, France, 27–29 May 2009.
30 Nechleba, M. Hydraulic turbines – their design and
equipment, 1957 (Artia, Prague).
31 Brekke, H. Recent trends in the design and layout of Pel-
ton turbines. Int. Water Power Dam Constr., 1987, 39(11),
13–16.
32 Thake, J. The micro-hydro Pelton turbine manual, 2000
(ITDG Publishing, London, UK).
33 Koukouvinis, Ph. K., Anagnostopoulos, J. S., and
Papantonis, D. E. Turbulence modelling in smoothed
particle hydrodynamics methodology: application in
nozzle flow. In Proceedings of the 7th International Con-
ference on Numerical analysis and applied mathematics
(ICNAAM 2009), Rethymno, Greece, 18–22 September
2009.
APPENDIX
Indicative experimental data for turbine operation
with the lower, the upper and with both injectors for
a fixed spear valve opening fraction, α = 0.33. These
data correspond to the intermediate curves of Fig. 12,
and they are also included in the graphs of Figs 8 to 10,
as well as in the hillcharts of Figs 13 and 14. Notice that
the  values for both injectors have been divided by 2
to compare with the single-injector curves in Fig. 12.

Lower injector Upper injector Both injectors

  η   η   η

0.015 61 21.68 0.5651 0.019 10 33.41 0.4778 0.029 81 20.29 0.5884

0.014 80 19.33 0.5989 0.017 71 28.76 0.5089 0.027 92 17.91 0.6129
0.013 66 16.74 0.6265 0.016 58 25.19 0.5338 0.026 16 15.82 0.6402
0.012 70 14.24 0.6605 0.015 50 22.05 0,5613 0.023 78 13.22 0.6728
0.011 84 12.38 0.6900 0.014 36 18,93 0.5953 0.022 80 11.89 0.6826
0.011 37 11.46 0.6985 0.013 58 16.90 0.6183 0.021 40 10.44 0.7246
0.010 65 10.13 0.7391 0.012 75 14.89 0.6410 0.019 82 9.224 0.7624
0.010 14 9.020 0,8025 0.012 08 13.50 0.6638 0.018 89 8.317 0.7951
0.009 598 8.233 0.7741 0.011 61 12.35 0.6849 0.017 93 7.490 0.8382
0.009 068 7.289 0.7930 0.010 99 11.05 0.7093 0.016 93 6.644 0.8305
0.008 684 6.671 0.8121 0.010 42 9.985 0.7331 0.016 47 6.210 0.8436
0.008 296 6.182 0.8243 0.010 01 9.201 0.7524 0.015 68 5.715 0.8654
0.007 917 5.572 0.8309 0.009 499 8.245 0.7734 0.014 81 5.178 0.8738
0.007 665 5.225 0.8270 0.009 224 7.824 0.7864 0.014 30 4.744 0.8736
0.007 373 4.795 0.8335 0.008 866 7.223 0.8017 0.013 81 4.430 0.8514
0.007 051 4.421 0.8184 0.008 523 6.637 0.8118 0.013 23 4.082 0.8307
0.006 784 4.118 0.8081 0.008 252 6.201 0.8200 0.012 75 3.755 0.8003
0.006 650 3.908 0.7922 0.007 997 5.848 0.8272 0.012 40 3.562 0.7660
0.006 332 3.557 0.7530 0.007 714 5.441 0.8286 0.011 97 3.301 0.7304
0.006 149 3.396 0.7371 0.007 386 5.009 0.8288 0.011 61 3.110 0.7049
0.005 952 3.159 0.7083 0.007 195 4.726 0.8251 0.011 33 2.921 0.6775
0.005 739 2.922 0.6748 0.006 903 4.363 0.8050 0.010 83 2.744 0.6324
0.005 690 2.782 0.6483 0.006 744 4.155 0.7901 0.010 57 2.600 0.5698
0.005 455 2.662 0.6128 0.006 551 3.925 0.7868 0.010 19 2.446 0.4890
0.005 231 2.451 0.5630 0.006 369 3.710 0.7604 0.009 959 2.303 0.4419

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part A: J. Power and Energy

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016