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

net/publication/265891158

Automatic Shape Optimization of a Hydraulic Turbine Draft Tube

Article · May 2003

CITATIONS READS
12 482

3 authors, including:

Marcelo Reggio Francois Guibault

Polytechnique Montréal Polytechnique Montréal
132 PUBLICATIONS   2,293 CITATIONS    184 PUBLICATIONS   1,220 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

off-design mean-line loss modelling of transonic axial compressors View project

Multi Physics Simulations and CFD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francois Guibault on 22 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Automatic Shape Optimization of a Hydraulic Turbine
Draft Tube
Luis R. Puente+ Marcelo Reggio+and François Guibault*
+
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal
*Centre de Recherché en Calcul Appliqué
Email: puente@cerca.umontreal.ca ,reggio@cerca.umontreal.ca, francois@cerca.umontreal.ca
ABSTRACT
This work describes the application of different
strategies to automatic shape optimization of an
hydraulic turbine draft tube. The study uses a
commercial CFD program and a design
exploration system. The specific tools applied
for the flow simulation and for design
optimization of the draft tube are CFX5.5 and
iSIGHT, respectively. The idea behind the
optimization is the introduction of variations to
the width of the cross sections to improve the
efficiency of the whole hydropower installation.
The parameter considered to measure the
performance of the elbow is the pressure
coefficient. For the current case, the pressure
recovery factor increased from 0.45 to 0.47.
1. INTRODUCTION
With the increasing competition, the design of
products of the highest quality and at less time
has become a major necessity. To respond to
these requirements, CAD and CFD tools are used
to improve the process design in different
engineering areas. They model and simulate the
processes of real world avoiding the construction
of prototypes and the task of performing
experiments. With these tools, engineers can
explore different design alternatives in less time
and cost.
In the hydraulic turbines field, CFD is a practical
tool which can be used to predict the
performance of hydraulic power plant
components during the design process or to
propose modifications to the original design in
rehabilitation or upgrading projects.
In the last decade, besides the well spread CFD
methodology applied for the analysis of
hydraulic turbines, interactive optimization tools
have surged to help engineers to improve the
analysis, evaluation and optimization of feasible
designs. Examples of these are iSIGHT,
DAKOTA, NEOS, NetSolve, Nimrod, etc. and
some of them are free [1].
In this work, the flow simulations have been
carried out with the commercial software
CFX5.5 [2]. This is a finite volume based code
using unstructured grids. It solves numerically
the incompressible Reynolds averaged Navier-
Stokes equations.
The optimization task has been guided by
iSIGHT. This software offers several
optimization algorithms which can be applied
easily in successive steps.
2. DRAFT TUBE
One of the most important components in a
hydraulic turbine is the draft tube. It accounts,
for example, for 20-50 % of the total energy
which can be recovered in low-head power plant
[3]. This converts the flow dynamic pressure into
static pressure. The performance of the draft tube
depends on the velocity swirl distributions at the
turbine inlet and other factors like cavitation, tail
water depth, turbine operation point, hub wakes
and secondary flows.
A standard measure of the performance of these
devices is the static pressure recovery
coefficient. It represents the energy balance
between sections of the tube, a higher value
meaning a higher performance and
corresponding power plant efficiency. In our
case, we consider the global coefficient between
the inlet to outlet cross sections of draft tube
with the following formula:
 Pout − Pin
CP =
1
ρVm2
2
where Pout and Pin are the outlet and inlet static
averaged pressure respectively, ρ the fluid
density, and Vm the mean swirl velocity. The
pressure Pin is a result of the whole field
solution.
The exact estimation of pressure recovery
coefficient is computationally expensive. Some
authors, like Bergstrom and Gebart[4], estimate
necessary a grid refinement to about 2 millions
cells to obtain an error of about 1% in the
recovery factor. Fig. 1 shows the initial draft
tube shape. The base diameter at the inlet is 100
cm.
Fig.1.
3. AUTOMATIC OPTIMIZATION
The design problem was implemented using the
iSIGHT environment. This is an explorer
software that provides a shell for the design
process. In iSIGHT, design problems are
specified, and simulation codes from multiple
disciplines can to be coupled. This is ease by a
graphical interface with which one can set up,
monitor and analyze a design problem.
A strategy of approximation to the optimum
point of the pressure recovery coefficient with
two different grid sizes was developed. We use
a direct search optimization method and integer
variable values in the first step and a gradient
method in the second step, with the finer grid
and real variable values.
3.1 Parameters
Following a similar approach as presented by
Eisinger et al.[5], the shape of the draft tube is
represented by various cross-sections (fig.2).
Each cross section depends on a certain number
of geometric variables which may change from
one section to another. The type and number of
variables will impact the methodology to use in
the optimization. Here, only 10 rectangular
sections with semi-circular ends, each one with
different wide section have been considered to
facilitate the presentation of the idea. Once the
elbow is described, the next task is the
optimization of its shape.
Fig.2.
Optimization is the process of maximizing or
minimizing a desired objective function with the
combination of independents variables while
satisfying the some constraints. The optimization
problem can be expressed mathematically like.
Minimize f (w), w= (w1, w2, w3, ..., wn)T
Subject to ci(w) = 0, i=1, 2, ..., m'
ci(x) ≥ 0, i=m'+1,...,m.
Where f(w) represents the objective function, w
is the column vector of n independent variables
and ci (w) are the constraint functions. Maximize
the function f(w) is to obtain the minimum of
- f(w).
The objective function in this case is the pressure
recovery coefficient CP, which should be
maximized. We consider 10 cross-sections with
w as the independent variable and the range of
values are the constraints functions.
The constraints reduce the space of solutions.
This space is the feasible region and represents
some knowledge about the simulated system. For
for example, physical and cost restrictions show
the values that a variable cannot take.
The constraint can be hard or soft. Hard
constraints guide the optimization process and if
it is violated by a combination of variables, then
that combination is not explored. Boundary
value constraints are of this type.
Soft constraints are indirect conditions which
make a relation to carry out in the optimization
process. When the soft constraints are violated,
some penalty is added to the objective function.
In this case, the search process continues with
the modification of objective function. With
these constraints we add some knowledge about
the optimum draft tube, like presented by Raabe
[8], where the cross-section area only can be the
same or larger than the last one. We define 9 soft
constraints Rij ≥ 0 where Rij =wi-wj, which are
the difference between nearby cross-sections
width. wi, wj, and Rij are in direct relation with
the section area in this case. When any of these
soft constraints is violated a function objective
with zero value is imposed.
3.2 Optimization Methods
iSIGHT v.7.0 has 13 optimization techniques
available. Because there is not a single
optimization method for all kind of problems, the
choice will depend if the problem to solve is
linear or non linear, among others. In linear
problems only a unique optimum exists whereas
for non linear problems many local optimums
may exist.
The non linear optimization techniques can be
classified in two groups, local and global
methods. In local methods a starting point is
chosen, a direction of movement is prescribed
according to some algorithm and a line search or
trust region is performed to determine an
appropriate next step. The process is repeated at
the new point and the algorithm continues until a
local minimum is found. The global methods
require only the computation of objective
function values to select suitable search
directions.
In the first step we used the Hooke-Jeeves direct
search method. This technique begins with the
initial shape of draft tube and proposes a step and
search direction to each independent variable.
When the function value increases the step size
is increased, if the same value decreases, the
opposite direction is checked. When all
directions have been evaluated the best solution
is the new point base. This method was selected
because we can use integer values to the
independent variables.
In the second step, with the finer mesh, the
DONLP method was used with real values of
independent variables. It is a gradient based
method and uses a slightly modified version of
Pantoja-Mayne update for the Hessian of the
Lagrangian [6].
The exploratory techniques like genetic
algorithms and simulated annealing were robust
to search the optimum, unfortunately, due to
their stochastic nature the search time was
considered too long for the current appliacaiton.
4. SIMULATION MODEL
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS.
INLET.- A normalized velocity profile was
given at the inlet boundary similar to operation
mode T of ERCOFTAC Turbine 99 workshop.
The difference between these velocity profiles
was the velocity field next to runner's cone. In
our case we don't have this cone.
OUTLET.- We consider the outlet boundary with
a constant static pressure and open conditions.
The open condition is used to observe possible
backflow into of the draft tube domain due to
secondary flows.
WALLS.- A no-slip and zero velocity at the wall
is the boundary condition here.
TURBULENCE.
Turbulence was modeled using the standard k-
epsilon model and logarithmic wall functions to
take into account the near wall layer. In spite that
some authors consider that the k-epsilon model
is inaccurate for description of the flow in the
draft tube, in a recent work Mauri[7] has found
that the numerical results are in good agreement
with the experimental data. The values of y+ in
the draft tube solution varied from 26 to 360
approximately.
PARALLEL PROCESS. Roache [9] proposes the use of Grid
Convergence Index (GCI) to estimate the error in
The CFX-5 solver was run in parallel with 4
the solution based in the Richardson
partition processes and send to an Origin2000
extrapolation. It is calculated between three
with 6 R10000 processors (250 Mhz each).
different grids. This is defined as:
CFX5 uses node based partitioning with a public
domain package named MeTiS (multilevel graph 3ε
partitioning software). The mesh partitions are GCI =
solved using separate processes, each one r p −1
working on a processor. The MPV is the
protocol used for communication between h2
r=
processes during the parallel run. MeTiS and h1
MPV are the default used by CFX-5[2].
f 2 − f1
ε=
f1
5. OPTIMIZATION LOOP
iSIGHT read the initial data file containing the where r is the grid cell ratio between coarse (h2)
geometric information of the draft tube. It and fine (h1), p is the order of the method used, h
verifies the constraints and begins the shell is the cell size, ε is the relative difference
program which starts the CFX loop. The process between the grids f1 and f2, the solutions from
begins with the reading of data (fig. 3). This the fine and the coarse grid, respectively. In the
information is processed by a program and next table we compare the three mesh and their
transformed in a Patran format file. The results.
cfx5build program reads the Patran file and
creates the geometry, grid, boundary conditions Coarse Intermediate Fine
and solution options. Each section has a grid h = 13 h=7 h = 3.5
independent of others. After a solution is
computed, the file containing this information is Nodes 54218 126980 704714
interpolated to obtain an initial velocity field for
Cells 296021 441744 3 072720
the next step. This calculation accelerates the
solution convergence. The cfx5solver program Cp 0.7618 0.542 0.4511
finds the velocity field solution to this geometry.
Finally, the cfx5post program is used to compute ε 0.4055 0.201
the pressure recovery coefficient. r 1.85 2
GCI 0.502 0.201

Fig.3
6. GRID AND ERROR ESTIMATION
A coarse grid (fig. 6) was used in the fist
optimization step with the Hooke-Jeeves method
and the finer grid was used with the DONLP
technique.
7. RESULTS
It is noted that this study only analyzes the
problem with a single variable by section. Other
types of cross-sections can be studied. However,
they are computationally more expensive in time
regarding the design problem. Fig.4 shows the
optimization progress. The first 400 runs belong
to the first optimization step with the Hooke-
Jeeves method on the coarse mesh. The recovery
pressure coefficient is 0.7618 with the initial
shape and reaches up to 0.8063. After this, we
observe the second step on the finer mesh using
the DONLP method. The pressure coefficient
evaluated with this mesh, with the same final
shape of first step, is now 0.5425 and after 64
runs the coefficient is 0.5746. Finally, the
recovery pressure coefficient change from 0.45
with the initial shape to 0.47 valued with the
finer meshes.
1
0.8
Pressure coefficient
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 75 150 225
Run number
Fig.4
In the fig. 5 we observed the final draft tube
obtained after the optimization process. There
are small differences between the initial and final
shapes, less of 2 cm in the sections 1 and 9, and
less of 1 cm in the others. Fig. 6 shows the
coarse mesh of first step and the inflation zones,
required by the modeling of turbulence, in the
near wall region.
Fig.5
8. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, an ongoing research regarding the
automatic shape optimization of a draft tube has
been presented. The results indicate that the
overall design methodology leads to a more
efficient elbow. In the future, other different
alternatives like genetic algorithms and
simulated annealing will be explored, and new
variables will be added to the optimization
design process of the elbow. Neural networks are
currently being considered as an approximation
technique to reduce the optimization time. This
methodology could be used as well to explore
different operation points of the power plant and
to get a global optimum draft tube.
300 375 450
Fig.6
9. REFERENCES
1. Abramson, D., Lewis, A., Peachey, T.,
Fletcher, C., An automatic design
optimization tool and its application to
computational fluid dynamics. SC2001,
November 2001, Denver.
2. AEA Technology, CFX5.5.1 User manual.
3. Andersson, U., Dahlback,N., Experimental
evaluation of draft tube flow. A test case for
CFD-simulations. Hydraulic Machinery and
Cavitation. Proceedings of the XIX IAHR
Symposium, 9-11 September 1998,
Singapore.
4. Bergstrom, J., Gebart, R.; Estimation of
numerical accuracy for the flow field in a
draft tube, International Journal of
Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow,
vol.9 no. 4, 1999.
5. Eisenger R., Ruprecht, A.; Automatic Shape
Optimization of Hydro Turbine Components
 Based on CFD, Seminar "CFD for
turbomachinery applications", Gdansk,
September 2001.
6. Engineous Software Inc., iSIGHT Users
Guide. Version 7.0.
7. Mauri, Sebastiano; “Numerical Investigation
and Flow Analysis in an Elbow Diffuser",
Ph.D. Thesis No 2527, EPFL.
8. Raabe, Joachim; Hydro Power, the design,
use, and function of hydro mechanical,
hydraulic and electrical equipment, VDI-
Verlag GmbH, 1985.
9. Roache, P.J.; Quantification of uncertainty
in computational fluid dynamics, Annu. Rev.
Fluid. Mech. 1997, v.29.

View publication stats