Transient analysis of hydropower plants with cross-flow turbines

DRAGAN SVRKOTA, PhD Student, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Niš,

Serbia
Email: dsvrkota@gmail.com (author for correspondence)
ŽIVOJIN STAMENKOVIĆ, Associate Professor, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Niš, Serbia
Email: zikas@masfak.ni.ac.rs
SLOBODAN TAŠIN, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad,
Serbia
Email: tasholi@uns.ac.rs

ABSTRACT
Transients in hydropower plants are complex phenomena impacted by various factors such as turbine
characteristics, dimensions of penstocks, closing speed of turbine guide vanes, closing speed of main turbine
inlet valves and many others. Transient regimes can result in serious disturbances in hydropower plant
operation and even in damage of mechanical and civil components due to water hammer. The best way to
anticipate and prevent such adverse outcomes is to conduct a transient analysis based on a mathematical model
of a hydropower plant system. In this paper, based on the collected data on 270 hydropower plants with cross-
flow turbines, a regression analysis was performed to derive empirical equations which relate the specific
speed, turbine rated speed, runner diameter and runner width to the rated turbine head and discharge. The
collected data and the obtained regression equations were then used to assess the turbine hill diagrams and to
develop a mathematical model for transient analysis of hydropower plants with cross-flow turbines. Finally,
the obtained numerical results are validated trough the case studies.

Keywords: Cross-flow turbine, turbine hill chart, hydropower plant, hydraulic transient, water
hammer

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

 Transient analysis of hydropower plants with cross-flow turbines
DRAGAN SVRKOTA, PhD Student, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Niš,
Serbia
Email: dsvrkota@gmail.com (author for correspondence)
ŽIVOJIN STAMENKOVIĆ, Associate Professor, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Niš, Serbia
Email: zikas@masfak.ni.ac.rs
SLOBODAN TAŠIN, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad,
Serbia
Email: tasholi@uns.ac.rs

ABSTRACT
Transients in hydropower plants are complex phenomena impacted by various factors such as turbine
characteristics, dimensions of penstocks, closing speed of turbine guide vanes, closing speed of main turbine
inlet valves and many others. Transient regimes can result in serious disturbances in hydropower plant
operation and even in damage of mechanical and civil components due to water hammer. The best way to
anticipate and prevent such adverse outcomes is to conduct a transient analysis based on a mathematical model
of a hydropower plant system. In this paper, based on the collected data on 270 hydropower plants with cross-
flow turbines, a regression analysis was performed to derive empirical equations which relate the specific
speed, turbine rated speed, runner diameter and runner width to the rated turbine head and discharge. The
collected data and the obtained regression equations were then used to assess the turbine hill diagrams and to
develop a mathematical model for transient analysis of hydropower plants with cross-flow turbines. Finally,
the obtained numerical results are validated trough the case studies.

Keywords: Cross-flow turbine, turbine hill chart, hydropower plant, hydraulic transient, water
hammer

1. Introduction

Operation of the hydraulic system in general can be steady or unsteady (e.g., transient). While the
steady operation is characterised by constant flow over time, the transient regimes are characterized
by dynamic change of pressure and flow in the system. Unsteady flow also results in dynamic change
of flow dependent hydraulic parameters such as pipe friction factor (see e.g., Riasi et al., 2010).
The intensity of pressure changes closely depends on the flow velocity change but also on a number
of system parameters such as pipe length and diameter, pipe material, compressibility of water, gas
content in water, characteristics of valves and hydraulic machines involved etc. In some cases, the
increase or decrease in pressure can be so intense that it causes serious damage within the system
i.e., burst of system parts.
Transient regimes in hydraulic systems can be triggered by various events which can be divided into
two groups: uncontrolled or unintentional events (e.g., sudden power failure) and controlled events
(e.g., hydraulic machine start-up or shutdown, change of speed of hydraulic machine, change in
control valve opening etc.). In both cases, the safety of a system must be considered and adequate
preventive measures must be provided.
A good example of the complexity of the transients in hydraulic systems is the study by Garg &
Kumar (2020) on water hammer in pipelines made of different materials. They have calculated and
measured lower water hammer pressures in pipeline made of Glass Reinforced Fibre Plastic (GRP)
compared to pipeline made of combination of GRP and Mild Steel (MS) and significantly lower
water hammer pressures compared to pipeline fully made of MS.
The hydropower plant is generally considered as a complex hydraulic system. The transient regimes
in hydropower plants occurs mostly during change in turbine operation or change in main inlet valve
opening. The research presented in this paper is focused on transients generated by changes in turbine
operation, particularly sudden load rejection.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

Transients in hydropower plants have been the subject of research of numerous researchers for a long
time. The first published results related to the subject of water hammer date back to the beginning of
the twentieth century (see e.g., Joukowsky, Allievi). Over time, extensive research efforts have
resulted in partial standardization of certain parameters that characterize unsteady operation of
hydropower plants and in formation of IEC standards used worldwide today (e.g., IEC 60308).
However, despite attempts to standardize the construction and operation of hydropower plants, each
hydropower plant is still a unique facility whose behaviour depends on a large number of parameters,
especially in transient regimes.
Besides the parameters that generally affects the transient operation of any hydraulic system (i.e.,
pipe material, diameter, length, friction etc.) in case of the hydropower plant some system specific
parameters must be considered. These include characteristics and dynamic characteristics of inlet
valves (see e.g. Kodura, 2016) and especially the turbine characteristics including characteristics of
particular turbine parts such as Pelton turbine nozzles (see e.g. Bergant et al., 2015) or Francis turbine
guide vanes (see e.g. Zhang et al., 2014).
The turbine is the heart of hydropower plant hence its type and performance characteristics (i.e., hill
charts) deserve special attention in transient regime analyses. However, despite the plentiful data
published in professional and scientific literature regarding the Francis, Pelton, and Kaplan turbines,
the available data on steady-state and especially transient operation of cross-flow turbines are still
very limited. This paper is an attempt to fill that gap, at least partially.
Cross-flow (also known as Banki-Michell or Ossberger) turbine is an impulse type low-speed
turbine. Unlike the most water turbines, which have axial or radial flows, in a cross-flow turbine the
water passes through the turbine transversely, or across the turbine blades.
In practice, cross-flow turbines are mostly used in the head range from 2.5 m to 200 m and in the
flow range from 0.04 m3s–1 to 13 m3s–1 (Adhikari, 2016; AHEC-IITR, 2013; Ossberger Hydro, n.d.).
Cross-flow turbine is one of the cheapest and most robust turbines which is increasingly used in small
hydropower plants due to its simple design, good technical performance and high adaptability to flow
changes. Nevertheless, there is still little data available on the tested performance characteristics of
cross-flow turbines.
The turbine in general is the part of the hydropower plant system that is the most difficult to model
mathematically. The flow through the turbine is overly complex, spatial, unsteady, non-uniform and
sometimes multiphase (mixture of water, vapour and air). Furthermore, in a transient regime the
turbine speed is variable due to torque disbalance on the runner.
For above reasons and having in mind that the cross-flow turbine is an impulse type turbine it is often
modelled as a control valve in transient analyses, and there is obvious lack of scientific research in
this area.
In this paper, based on the collected data on the basic characteristics of 270 cross-flow turbines, a
regression analysis and adequate interpolations were performed to get hill charts that cover both
regular and non-regular operational regimes of an arbitrary cross-flow turbine. The obtained hill
charts were then used to develop the mathematical model for transient operation of hydropower
plants with cross-flow turbines. The developed model has been validated through the case studies by
comparing the numerical results and experimental data.

2. Method statement

2.1 Cross-flow turbine characteristics

In transient regimes it is important to consider flow and pressure changes over time. In the case when
the transient regime is triggered by the changes in turbine operation, the hydraulic response of the
system depends not only on the opening/ closing time of the turbine guide vanes (wicket gate) but
also on the (variable) runner speed.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

To understand the behaviour of the turbine in transient regimes its performance characteristics must
be known. These characteristics include the relationships between speed (n), discharge (Q), head (H),
torque (M), power (P), opening of the guide vanes (α) and in case of Kaplan turbines – the angle of
the runner blades (ϕ). Most of the above quantities are usually represented by unit turbine hill charts
which refer to the turbine with 1 m runner diameter operating at 1 m net head (Jordan, 1997, Benišek,
1998, Kovalev, 1971):
Q
Unit discharge: Q11  2
(1)
D H
nD
Unit speed: n11  (2)
H
P
Unit power: P11    gQ11 (3)
D H 1.5
2

Turbine performance characteristics are generally obtained by testing a down-scaled model on

manufacturer’s test rig. The results of such model tests are usually given in form of n11-Q11 hill charts
which represent relationships between unit flow, unit speed and efficiency in function of guide vane
or wicket gate opening.
One of the most important parameters, widely used in theory and practice of turbomachinery, is
specific speed. In case of water turbines, it is defined (old IEC formula) as the speed of geometrically
similar turbine which would produce power of 1 kW under the head of 1 m:
no Po
ns   n11o gmax Q11o (4)
H o1.25

where the no, Po and Ho or n11o and Q11o refer to the point of maximum efficiency  = max.
The specific speed is used for classification, comparison and scaling of turbines, but also as a starting
point in sizing of the turbine and assessing its performance characteristics if these characteristics are
not known.
In case of cross-flow turbines the lack of their performance characteristics (i.e., hill charts) is the rule
since the turbine manufactures generally avoid to provide them. This is a serious problem that
practically makes it impossible to analyse the operation of the cross-flow turbine, especially in
transient regimes. Moreover, in the design stage of the hydropower plant, in which it is necessary to
analyse both steady-state and transient operation of the plant, the only reliable data available to the
designer are the turbine design head and discharge.
In the following text, the new equations are proposed that relate the specific speed, turbine rated
speed and the runner diameter and width to the known rated or design head and discharge of an
arbitrary cross-flow turbine. Based on these equations the linear interpolation method was applied to
estimate the hill diagrams of arbitrary cross-flow turbine using known hill diagrams of three different
cross-flow turbines.
In practice, the specific speed is calculated in the first iteration using empirical equations based on
the known turbine head. The turbine rated or design head is generally used in these equations
assuming it is equal to the head at the maximum efficiency point. One such empirical equation,
proposed by Kpordze & Warnick (1983) is given as:
513.864
ns  (5)
H 0.5047
Equation (5) is applicable to cross-flow turbines and was derived using regression analysis of the
basic data on 17 different cross-flow turbines.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

For the purpose of the research presented in this paper the basic data (rated speed, head, discharge,
and shaft power as well as runner diameter and width) for 270 cross-flow turbines were collected.
The selected turbines have been installed in small hydropower plants all over the Europe in period
from 2006 to 2019.
The collected data were processed by nonlinear regression analysis. As the first result, two regression
equations for specific speed were derived as follows:
323.61325
ns  0.38151
; ( R 2  0.69) (6)
H
Q 0.09467
ns  315.265 0.37802
; ( R 2  0.7) (7)
H
where R2, is the square of the correlation.
Equation (6) relates the specific speed of the cross-flow turbine to the known rated head of the turbine
while Eq. (7) relates specific speed to the known rated head and discharge. Both equations may be
used separately or simultaneously, in which case the mean value should be taken as the final result.
In Fig. (1) are plotted calculated specific speeds of all sample cross-flow turbines and ns(H) curve
obtained using Eq. (6). For comparison, the ns vs. H curve obtained using Eq. (5) is also plotted.

Figure 1. Cross-flow turbine specific speed vs. rated head

For the known specific speed, the turbine rated speed may be assessed using Eq. (4) by substituting
P = ·g·Q·H· and assuming the turbine efficiency in the range of η = 0.75 – 0.85. To avoid
efficiency estimation, two new regression equations for the turbine speed were derived based on the
collected data on 270 cross-flow turbines:
H 0.36025
n  nHQ ( H , Q)  114.847 ; ( R 2  0.88) (8)
Q 0.40679

H 0.53012
n  nHD ( H , D)  35.385 1.00601
; ( R 2  0.95) (9)
D
Equation (8) relates the speed of the cross-flow turbine to the known rated head and discharge while
Eq. (9) relates the turbine speed to the rated head and the runner diameter, assuming the latter is
known or selected in advance. To calculate the turbine rated speed the result of the Eq. (8) or (9)
should be rounded to the closest integer or standard rpm.
In order to get an impression on the collected data dispersion, in Fig. 2a are plotted actual rated
speeds of the sample turbine units vs. turbine speeds calculated using Eq. (8). The straight line in the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

Fig. 2 stands for calculated speeds. Figure 2b has the same meaning but refers to Eq. (9). The obtained
results show very high reliability, in the case of lower rpm the deviations are negligible, and in the
case of higher rpm the deviations are individual and probably a consequence of the specificity of the
location or construction.

Figure 2. Actual vs. calculated rated speeds: (a) no vs. nHQ(H, Q), (b) no vs. nHD(H, D)
Using the same sample data and the same methodology, two more regression equations were derived

D  DHQ ( H , Q)  0.31068 H 0.16868Q 0.39962 ; ( R 2  0.94) (10)

Q 0.63989
B  BHQ ( H , Q)  3.5993 ; ( R 2  0.92) (11)
H 0.58729
In Fig. 3a are plotted actual runner diameter of the sample turbine units vs. diameter calculated using
Eq. (10). The straight line stands for calculated diameter. Figure 3b has the same meaning but refers
to runner width and Eq. (11). The obtained results show very good agreement and high reliability in
the calculation of the width and diameter of the impeller; however, it should be emphasized that in
the case of high flowrates there is a slight dispersion, especially in the case of the width of the
impeller.

Figure 3. Actual vs. calculated runner diameters and widths given in mm:
(a) D vs. DHQ(H, Q), (b) B vs. BHQ(H, Q)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

Equations (6) to (7) enable assessment of specific speed, rated speed, runner diameter and runner
width for the known rated or design head and discharge of the particular cross-flow turbine. The
specific speed is starting parameter for assessment of hill charts while the rated speed and the runner
diameter are needed for calculation of the turbine performance parameters (head, discharge, torque
and speed) from the assessed hill charts.
The hill charts of the cross-flow turbine, for which only the design or rated head and flow are known,
can be estimated if the hill charts for at least two cross-flow turbines of different specific speeds are
known. For this purpose, the hill charts of three cross-flow turbines were found in the literature and
on internet. The specific speeds of these turbines are 52.4, 80 and 108.9. The hill diagrams of selected
cross-flow turbines are given in Fig. 4.

Figure 4. Hill charts of three cross-flow turbines of different specific speeds:

(a) Cross-flow turbine B5-N, ns = 45 (Laboratory of Hydropower and Hydraulic Turbomachinery,
n.d.); (b) Cross-flow turbine B5N-GD-N1-x, ns = 69 (Calov, 2015); (c) Cross-Flow turbine T15
ns = 93 (Entec AG Switzerland)
The procedure for assessing the unknown hill diagrams i.e., performance characteristics of the cross-
flow turbine is briefly described in five steps as follows.
Step 1. All three hill charts given in Fig. 4 must be digitalized and transformed into dimensionless
matrix form by introducing following dimensionless unit quantities:
Q11
Q1  (12)
Q11o

n11
n1  (13)
n11o

P11
P1  (14)
P11o
where the unit powers P11 and P11o are calculated using Eq. (3).
At this point some assumptions must be made regarding non-regular operational regimes of the
turbine. Namely, the hill charts given in Fig. 4 cover only regimes expected in normal steady-state
operation of the turbine. However, in transient operation e.g., after sudden power rejection, the
turbine also passes through the regimes that are outside the regular operating range. These, so-called
non-regular operating regimes, are particularly important from the aspect of mathematical modelling
and analysis of turbine behaviour in transient operation. By analysing the performance characteristics
of various cross-flow turbines found in the literature (Mockmore & Merryfield, 1949; Adhikari,
2016; Durgin & Fay, 1984) it can be concluded that the turbine performance characteristics on their
left and right boundaries may be estimated as:
 at n11 ≈ 0 Q11 ≈ 0 and P11 ≈ 0;

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

  at n11 ≈ 2n11o Q11 ≈ 0 and P11 ≈ 0.
By introducing these assumptions and applying the described procedure each of the hill diagrams
given in Fig. (4) can be converted into a pair of equal sized matrices:
nsT1  45  [Q1T1 ]( m,n )  fQT11 (nsT1 ,  ) and [ P1T1 ]( m,n )  f PT11 (nsT1 ,  )

nsT2  69  [Q2T2 ]( m,n )  fQT22 (nsT2 ,  ) and [ P2T2 ]( m,n )  f PT22 (nsT2 ,  )

nsT3  93  [Q3T3 ]( m,n )  fQT33 (nsT3 ,  ) and [ P3T3 ]( m,n )  f PT33 (nsT3 ,  )
where the dimensionless unit speed is always in the range 0 - 2 while the opening of the guide vane
is always in the range 0 – 1.
Step 2. Specific speed nsT of the considered cross-flow turbine (T) is calculated using Eq. (4) if all
the rated quantities (no, Po, Ho) are known or using Eqs (6) or (7) if only the rated head and discharge
are known.
Step 3. Out of three available cross-flow turbines of known characteristics, two (T1 and T2) are
selected whose specific speeds are nsT1 > nsT > nsT2.
The dimensionless unit characteristics of the considered cross-flow turbine (T) is calculated using
linear interpolation.
If specific speed nsT of the considered cross-flow turbine (T) is less than nsT  69 :

nTs  nTs1  T2
(Q1T )i , j  (Q )  (Q1T1 )i , j   (Q1T1 )i , j ,
T1  1 i , j
i  1, 2...m, j  1, 2...n (15.1)
T2
ns  ns 

nTs  nTs1  T2
( P1T )i , j  ( P1 )i , j  ( P1T1 )i , j   ( P1T1 )i , j , i  1, 2...m, j  1, 2...n (16.1)
nTs 2  nTs1  

If Specific speed nsT of the considered cross-flow turbine (T) great than nsT  69 :

nTs  nsT2  T3
(Q1T )i , j  (Q )  (Q1T2 )i , j   (Q1T2 )i , j ,
T2  1 i , j
i  1, 2...m, j  1, 2...n (15.2)
T3
ns  ns 

nTs  nTs 2  T3
( P1T )i , j  ( P )  ( P1T2 )i , j   ( P1T2 )i , j ,
T2  1 i , j
i  1, 2...m, j  1, 2...n (16.2)
T3
ns  ns 

Step 4. Unit speed, discharge and power at the point of maximum efficiency of the considered turbine
(T) are calculated using Eqs (1), (2) and (3). If not known, the turbine rated speed can be assessed
using Eq. (8) based on the rated head and discharge while the diameter of the turbine runner can be
assessed using Eq. (10).
Step 5 (final). The unit characteristics of the considered cross-flow turbine (T) in matrix form is
calculated as follows:
 n11
T 
 nT  nT  (17)
  m,1 11o  1  m,1

Q11
T  T  T
 Q11o Q1  (18)
  m,n m,n

 P11T   P11T o  P1T  (19)

  m,n   m,n

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

It should be noted that the hill charts which were used as the basis of the described procedure refer
to steady-state operation of the given cross-flow turbines. Therefore, the resulting calculated turbine
characteristics are also valid only for steady-state operation. However, according to Chaudry (2014),
in absence of data on transient turbine operation it can assumed that the steady-state turbine
characteristics are also valid during transient state as well.

2.2 Mathematical model for Cross-flow turbine in transient regimes

A hydropower plant with a Cross-flow turbine is mathematically modelled as a system of nodes and
sections. The sections represent the pipes between the nodes. The nodes represent the boundary
conditions (turbine, the series connection of two pipes, pipe branches, valves, etc.).
Transients in pipelines that occur due to sudden changes in flow caused by change in turbine
operation modes or turbine failures, opening/closing of turbine guide vanes, main inlet valves, etc.)
are characterized with a complex flow which can be described by a system of partial differential
equations (Obradović, 1981; Chaudry, 2014) of hyperbolic type, i.e., continuity equation (20) and
momentum equation (21):
H a 2 Q
 0 (20)
t gA t

Q H 
 gA  Q Q 0 (21)
t x 2dA
Eqs (20) and (21) represent a system of (simplified) hyperbolic partial differential. This system can
be solved using the method of characteristics in order to define the pressure and the flow in all points
inside a pipeline except the boundary ones.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

In order to solve the equation system, it is necessary to know boundary conditions and other equations
which define the system elements like as pipe connections, pipe branches, reservoirs, etc.
The characteristics of the Cross-flow turbine is described in the previous chapter of this article and
on the basis of these characteristics a mathematical model is formed following methodology as
described in (Watters, 1979). Other boundary conditions and the way of how to model them
mathematically are discussed in details in the literature (Chaudry, 2014, Watters, 1979).

3. Case studies

Based on the previously explained procedures, mathematical and numerical models, further on are
presented the calculations of transient regimes for three existing hydropower plants. The
mathematical models of the plants are derived from the provided plants characteristics.
The aim of the presented analyses is to compare the results of the calculation of transient’s regimes
with the measurement data of the existing plants in order to validate the usage of the mathematical
model in prediction of the plants behaviours in the broad ranges of the real operating regimes.
Specifically, the transient analyses are performed for the following hydropower plants: BELCI (river
Jošanica-Serbia), ZABUKH (Aghavno river, Armenia) and VELEŽ (Samakovska river-Serbia).
Basic data for hydropower plants are given in Table 1.
Installed Number of
Power Pipeline Pipeline diameter Gross head
flowrate turbine
plant length [m] [mm] [m]
[m3/s] units
Belci 1964 GRP DN1700 30.6 5.65 1
Zabukh 2 4510 Steel DN1500 92.6 4.5 1
Velež 1690 PEOD630 PN10 103.5 0.96 1
Table 1. Hydropower plants data
When comparing the results of the measurements (obtained from the acceptance tests after
commissioning and presented at Figure 5), three time zones are observed:

Figure 5. Example of measurement results at the Hydropower plant Zabukh 2

 The first zone TS2 represents the time period before the intentional turbine shutdown
(measurements for emergency shutdown with transition into total load rejection), i.e., the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

 period of time before the moment TSA3 which designates the moment when the failure
happened and turbine guide vanes start closing.
 The second zone represents the time period from the moment TSA3 until the moment TSA4
which designates the moment when the closure of guide vanes is completed.
 The third zone represents the time interval after the TSA4 moment when the guide vanes are
fully closed

3.1 Hydropower plant BELCI

Figure 6 shows the results of the measurements performed on the hydro power plant and the results
obtained by the developed mathematical model.

Figure 6. Hydropower plant BELCI – Comparison of measurements and numerical results

Comparing the results, the following is concluded:
 Up to the moment TSA3 (stationary operating regime), the measured and calculated values
are identical.
 From the moment TSA3 to the moment TSA4, the measured and calculated values are almost
equal and maximum difference between them is approximately 10%. At the very end of the
guide vanes closing, the calculated values are approximately 14% higher than the measured
values. This variance may be the consequence of the guide vanes that are not completely
closed hence allow a leakage, which relieves and reduces the amplitudes of pressure
oscillations, or, the interpolated characteristics of the turbine do not fully correspond to the
actual characteristics of the turbine

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

  After the TSA4 moment, the calculated values oscillate around the measured values in the
range of approximately ± 15%. Noted variances are due either to the fact that the attenuations
in the real system are greater than the attenuations obtained by the mathematical model, or
are caused by the guide vanes leakage which relieves the pressure in the system.
From the aspect of transient regimes, the most important time interval is that from TSA3 to TSA4
where the change of flow is the most intensive, as presented at Figure 7. In this time zone the
differences between the measured and calculated values are in the acceptable limits, so it can be
concluded that the mathematical model realistically describes the system in the transient regimes.

3.2 Hydro Power Plant ZABUKH

Figure 8 shows the results of measurements taken at the hydro power plant and the results obtained
by the developed mathematical model.

Figure 8. Hydropower plant ZABUKH - Comparison of measurements and numerical results

The comparison of the results shows the following:
 Up to the moment TSA3 (stationary operating regime), the measured and calculated values
are identical.
 From the moment TSA3 to the moment TSA4, the measured and calculated values are almost
equal and the differences between them approximately range from +1% to -6%.
 After the moment TSA4, the calculated values oscillate around the measured values within
the range from 0% to - 9%.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

Figure 9 shows the results of numerically obtained results based on developed mathematical model
for the time interval TSA3 to TSA4 where the change of flow is the most intensive.

3.3 Hydro Power Plant VELEŽ

Figure 10 shows the results of measurements performed on the hydro power plant and the results
obtained by the developed mathematical model.

Figure 10. Hydropower plant VELEŽ - Comparison of measurements and numerical results

The performed analysis shows the following:

 Up to the moment TSA3 (stationary operating regime), the measured and calculated values
model are identical.
 From the moment TSA3 to the moment TSA4, the measurements and calculated values are
almost equal and the differences between them is approximately in the range from -2% to
+6%.
 After the moment TSA4, the calculated values oscillate around the measured values within
the range of approximately ± 8%.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

4. Conclusion

The performed analyses show that the differences between the measured and the calculated values
are within acceptable limits, so it can be concluded that the applied mathematical model realistically
predicts the transient regimes of the analysed hydropower plants with Cross-flow turbines. The
results obtained by the measurements and the results obtained by the mathematical modelling are
illustrated in Figs 6, 8 and 10. From the aspect of transient regimes, the most important time interval
is that from TSA3 to TSA4 where the change of flow is the most intensive. This conclusion is based
on results presented in Figs 7, 9 and 11. Based on the obtained results, it is noticed that not only the
small deviations between the measurements and the results obtained on the basis of the mathematical
model, but also the tendencies of pressure change in the zone of the most intensive changes from
(TSA3 to TSA4) are almost identical. All the obtained results indicate that the developed
mathematical model very realistically describes the behavior of the System in transient regimes.

Acknowledgements

This research was financially supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological
Development of the Republic of Serbia.
The authors would like to thank company CINK Hydro-Energy for providing test results.

Notation

A = pipe area (m2)

a = velocity of pressure wave (m s–1)
d = pipe inside diameter (m),
D = runner diameter (m),
g = gravity acceleration (m s–2)
H = turbine net head (m)
Ho = turbine head at the best efficiency point (m)
n = turbine speed (min–1)
n1 = dimensionless unit speed (-),
n11 = unit speed (min–1)
n11o = unit speed at the best efficiency point (min–1)
no = turbine rated speed (min–1)
ns = specific speed (-)
P = turbine shaft power (kW)
P1 = dimensionless unit power (-)
P11 = unit power (kW)
P11o = unit power at the best efficiency point (kW)
Po = turbine shaft power at the best efficiency point (kW)
Q = turbine discharge, flow (m3 s–1)
Q1 = dimensionless unit discharge (-)
Q11 = unit discharge (m3 s–1)
Q11o = unit discharge at the best efficiency point (m3 s–1)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

Qo = turbine discharge at the best efficiency point (m3 s–1)
R2 = coefficient of determination
 = guide vane opening (-)
 = density of water (kg m–3)

References

Adhikari, R. (2016). Design improvement of crossflow hydro turbine (Unpublished doctoral thesis).
University of Calgary.
AHEC-IITR. (2013). Standards/Manuals/Guidelines for small hydro development: 1.2 and 2.1
General/ Civil works – Planning and Layouts. Alternate Hydro Energy Centre, Indian Institute
of Technology Roorkee with support from Ministry of new and renewable energy.
Allievi, L. (1913). “Teoria del colpo d'ariete.” (“Theory of water-hammer.”) Nota I-V, Atti dell'
Associazione Elettrotecnica Italiana 17, 127-150
Avdyushenko, A.Yu., Cherny, S.G., Chirkov, D.V., Skorospelov, V.A., & Turuk, P.A. (2013).
Numerical simulation of transient processes in hydro turbines, Thermophysics and
Aeromechanics, 20(5), 577-593. DOI: 10.1134/S0869864313050059
Benišek, M. (1998). Hidraulične turbine [Hydraulic turbines], University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering.
Anton Bergant, Jernej Mazij, Uroš Karadžić, Design of water hammer control strategies in
hydropower plants, Applied Engineering Letters Vol.3, No.1, 27-33 (2018)
Calov, C.I. (2015). Изследване и разработване на двукратни водни турбини [Research and
development of cross-flow turbines] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], Technical University
of Sofia.
Chaudhry, M.H. (2014). Applied hydraulic transients. Springer.
Durgin, W.W., & Fay, W.K. (1984). Some fluid flow characteristics of a cross flow type hydraulic
turbine. Small Hydro Power Machinery, 77-83
Garg, R.K., & Kumar, A. (2020). Experimental and numerical investigations of water hammer
analysis in pipeline with two different materials and their combined configuration.
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2020.104219
Jordan, V. (1997). Studija povratnog hidrauličkog udara kod vodnih turbina sa posebnim osvrtom
na Kaplanove turbine [Study on reflected waterhammer with special reference to Kaplan
turbines] Mašinski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
Joukowsky, N. (1900). “Über den hydraulischen Stoss in Wasserleitungsröhren.” (“On the hydraulic
hammer in water supply pipes.”) Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-
Pétersbourg (1900), Series 8, 9(5), 1-71 (in German).
Kodura Apoloniusz, An Analysis of the Impact of Valve Closure Time on the Course of Water
Hammer, Archives of Hydro-Engineering and Environmental Mechanics, Vol. 63 (2016), No.
1, pp. 35–45, DOI: 10.1515/heem-2016-0003©IBW PAN, ISSN 1231–3726
Kovalev, N.N. (1971): Гидротурбины, Конструкции и вопросы проектирования [Hydroturbines,
design and construction], Mashinostroenie.
Kpordze, C.S.K., & Warnick, C.C. (1983). Experience curves for modern low-head hydroelectric
turbines (Report No. PAP-451). Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, University of Idaho
1983.
Laboratory of Hydropower and Hydraulic Turbomachinery. (n.d.). Моделни работни колела
[Models of impellers]. http://www.hydrolab.tu-sofia.bg/bg/documents/Models/Models.html

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869

Li, J., Han, C., & Yu. F. (2017). A new processing method combined with BP neural network for
Francis turbine synthetic characteristic curve research. International Journal of Rotating
Machinery, 2017(1870541). https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1870541
Mockmore, C.A., & Merryfield, F. (1949). The Banki water turbine. Oregon Engineering
Experiment Station Bulletin, Series 25, 1-27.
Nedelcu, D., Bostan, A., & Peris-Bendu, F. (2015). HydroHillChart – Pelton module. Software used
to calculate the hill chart of the Pelton hydraulic turbines. Analele Universităţii “Eftimie
Murgu” Reşiţa, XXII(1), 305-314. ISSN 1453-7397, 2015.
Obradović, D. (1981). Matematičko modeliranje nestacionarnih pojava u hidropostrojenjima
[Mathematical modelling of transients in hydropower plants], Energoprojekt-Energodata.
Ossberger Hydro. (n.d.). Ossberger cross flow turbines. http://www.ossbergerhydro.com/cross-flow-
turbines.html
PT.Entec Indonesia. (n.d.). MHP Trainig Indonesia: Cross Flow Turbine Characteristic and layout.
https://slideplayer.com/slide/13386557/
Riasi, A., Raisee, M., & Nourbakhsh, A. (2010). Simulation of transient flow in hydroelectric power
plants using unsteady friction. Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering,
56(2010)6, 377-384. UDC 629.4.027.31-272.2:531.2:004.8
Watters, G.Z. (1979). Modern analysis and control of unsteady flow in pipelines. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers.
Zhang Xiao-xi, Cheng Yong-guang, Yang Jian-dong, Xia Lin-sheng & Lai Xu. (2014). Simulation
of the load rejection transient process of a Francis turbine by using a 1-D-3-D coupling
approach. Journal of Hydrodynamics, 26(5), 715-724. doi:10.1016/S1001-6058(14)60080-9

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3883869