93

MIT International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 Aug 2011, pp 93-100

ISSN No. 2230 7699 MIT Publications

CFD Analysis of 3-D Flow for Francis Turbine

Manoj Kumar Shukla

Rajeev Jain

Lecturer, KNPC, Jabalpur (MP), India

(Email: mksmact@gmail.com)

HOD, Mechanical Engineering Department,

KNPC, Jabalpur (MP), India

Prof. Vishnu Prasad

S.N. Shukla

Professor, Problem Oriented Research Laboratory,

MANIT, Bhopal (MP), India

General Manager, R&D Division,

Kirloskar Brothers Limited, Pune, India

Abstract: Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis is very

useful tool for predicting hydraulic machinery performance at
various operating conditions. For designers, prediction of
operating characteristics performance is most important task.
All theoretical methods for predicting the performance merely
gives a value, and one is unable to determine the root cause for
the poor performance. Due to the development of CFD code,
one can get the performance value as well as observe actual
behaviour of flow in the domain. Analysis and variation of
performance can be find out by using CFD analysis.
In the present work 3-Dimensional (3-D) real flow analysis is
done for experimentally tested turbine and the characteristics
of prototype turbine were predicted in actual operating regimes.
Aim of the work is validation of CFD results with the
experimental output .The operating conditions considered are
in accordance with that, where actual prototype turbine is to be
installed. Flow structure inside the machine is analysed and it
showed the scope of improvement in the design (for example
casing tip portion). Results obtained by Computational tool were
very close to experimental results. This provides confidence on
Computational tools. Present paper elaborates model selection
for prototype turbine, details of methodology used, visualization
of results in CFX-post & then validation of Computational
results.
Keywords: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD), francis turbine,
Efficiency, Head, Unit discharge, unit speed, unit power, pressure,
unit discharge, specific speed, flow parameter.

I. INTRODUCTION
Among all hydraulic turbine machines used for energy
conversion, vast operating regime of Francis turbine enables
it to be used for varying range of small to large hydro power
plant. This makes Francis turbine most popular and hence it
is used in maximum number of hydro power plants. In order
to develop a reliable machine for this highly demanding
operation, the behaviour of the flow in the entire turbine
regime has to be predicted by a reliable computational method
like CFD which is very economical method. The prediction
of prototype turbine performance in actual prevailing
conditions is very important for engineers. In order to know
the feasibility of the turbine, it is essential to project the results
in advance. Since turbines are tailor made as per the

requirement of the prevailing site conditions, a unique

performance prediction has to be made for a separate turbine.
This can be done either by theoretical methods, experimental
methods or by computational method (i.e. CFD). Among all
methods CFD stands its unique importance, since by this
method study of the flow inside turbine space can be made.
Flow pattern in intricate portions of the component can also
be analysed and variation of the results can be known with
the varying conditions. CFD method consumes less money,
less gestation period in comparison to the experimental
method which requires model fabrication and test rig set up.
CFD approach is a combination of numerical technique and
computational power. With the help of CFD technique even
complex flow pattern inside hydraulic turbine parts can be
analysed in detail and modifications can be implemented.
It can be used for increasing the efficiency by making
necessary modification in the design of hydraulic turbine
and checking relevancy of alternate optimizatimised design
before the turbine is finally manufactured. However in
order to check the reliability of selected optimized design,
validation of the results is to be done with experimental results.
CFD technique has lead to significant enhancement in
efficiency of hydraulic turbine. CFD can also be used to check
efficiency of alternate design of hydraulic turbine for
optimization before final testing is done. To improve reliability
of CFD technique, validations of results are required with
experimental results. In present work Francis turbine
considered with Horizontal axis. CFD analysis is done on
varying working conditions and tabulations of results are done
to get the clear picture of changes in the results.
In the present paper emphasis is given on predicting the
turbine performance in actual condition for a prototype turbine
and then to validate the results. Hydraulic turbine which is
considered for validation of results is a actual turbine which
is to be manufactured and installed at the site. For this turbine
head and discharge available are known. With the help of
these known quantities other necessary parameters for study
like power available, specific speed, diameter of runner, unit
speed, unit power and scale ratio are calculated. These
quantities are useful for final modelling of prototype hydraulic
turbine components. Feasibility of working turbine at actual

94

MIT International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 Aug 2011, pp 93-100

ISSN No. 2230 7699 MIT Publications

condition is checked for development of high performance
product by research engineering. Visual flow pattern around
turbine space is obtained by solving continuity and momentum
equation with the help of computational fluid dynamics to
study fluid flow properties. The losses in various parts of the
turbine at critical regions of turbine are also investigated. The
performance prediction and assessment are well validated by
many investigators for hydraulic turbine.

Boundary Conditions
The inlet and outlet boundary conditions are to be specified
for each run and the accuracy of solution depends on the
location and manner, these conditions are specified.
Magnitude of mass flow rate and direction are specified at
the casing inlet as inlet boundary condition and reference
pressure is specified at outlet of draft tube as outlet boundary
condition.

II. GEOMETRIC MODELLING, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS In present analyses, the mass flow rates as 7305 Kg/s at
80.93 mm guide vane opening (GVO) is given as inlet
& COMPUTATIONAL PARAMETERS

boundary conditions at stay vane inlet. Guide vane opening

considered for the present case is 80.93 mm (75.2 % wrt full
Pro-E Software is used for the generation of model which guide vane opening) which is near peak efficiency regime.
is further imported in ANSYS ICEM for mesh generation. Full Guide vane opening is 107.6 mm. The static pressure as
After properly meshing the geometry physical to use the most 0 Pa is specified as outlet boundary condition at the draft
appropriate mesh. CFX-11 includes the following features: tube outlet.
The reference pressure is taken as 1 atmosphere i.e.105 Pa.
An advanced coupled solver, which is both reliable and
The
rotational speed of runner is specified as 600 rpm as per
robust.
guide
vane opening. The stay vane, guide vane and draft tube
Full integration of problem definition, analysis and
domains
are taken as stationary. The shear stress transport
results presentation.
(SST), k e turbulence model has been used and the walls
An intuitive and interactive setup process, using menus
of all domains are assumed to be smooth with no slip.
and advanced graphics.
Geometric Modelling

The unstructured tetrahedral mesh is generated in ANSYS Computational flow parameters

ICEM CFD software for all domains which are later
Computational analysis provides pressure and velocity
assembled for further study. The accuracy of solution is distribution across whole turbine region in the form of
greatly affected by the size of elements [Guoyi Peng et pressure and velocity profile. Head, discharge and efficiency
al(2002)].
variations are computed for the presentation of results. Losses
Francis turbine design consists of 18 stay vanes, 18 guide in various domains are calculated on the basis of pressure
vanes and 13 runner vanes. Casing and draft tube are also difference at inlet and outlet boundary of domains. Various
considered as per original dimensions to be manufactured. formulae used for computation of different parameters are
Therefore the simulated design consists assembly of casing, given below:
runner and draft tube as our interest is to get complete
Specific speed
Ns = NP/H5/4
performance of the prototype turbine. Each component is
modelled separately and then assembled to get the complete
Available power
P=rgQH
assembly through proper interfaces. Mesh with scale factor
Unit speed
N11= ND / H
1.2 is used for importing to ANSYS CFX Pre. 3D real flow
simulation analysis is done for experimentally tested Francis
Unit discharge
Q11= Q / D 2H
turbine using ANSYS CFX 11 software. The rotational speed
Unit discharge
Q11= P11 / (9810*Efficiency)
of runner is specified, stay vane and guide are kept at frozen
Unit power
P11= P / D2H 3/2
state. All inner boundary of turbine space are considered
smooth with no slip.
Pressure
Pr = r g H
(Head loss) domain

Table 1: Summary of mesh data

Domain part

No. of
nodes

No. of
elements

Type of
element

Casing

204447

1605723

Tetrahedron

(including stay
vanes & guide
vanes)
Runner

98741

382088

Tetrahedron

Draft tube

121845

35961

Tetrahedron

Havilable = (Inlet Pressure

= (Pr inlet Pr

loss

casing

) / 9810

outlet

- Outlet Pressure

draft tube

Total head loss

Htotal loss = H1 loss + H2 loss + H3 loss +.. Hn loss
(For n number of domains)
Turbine efficiency
hexp. = Havailable*100 / (Havailable - Hloss)

)/9810

MIT International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 Aug 2011, pp 93-100

95

ISSN No. 2230 7699 MIT Publications

Table 2: Turbine specification
Turbine model

Francis Turbine

Shaft alignment
Ns of turbine

Horizontal Axis
266.19 m-kW

Model selected
Desired P generator output

F280
3000 kW

Rated head available

Desired P turbine output

48 m
3142 kW

Rated flow
Rated N of turbine

7.25 m3/s
600 rpm

Prototype runner diameter

Model runner diameter

1.01 m
0.35 m

Scale up ratio
Site elevation

2.88
EL 143 m

Turbine overload

10 % Prated

site condition where prototype turbine is to be installed. For

the selection of prototype turbine, first of all model turbine is
selected (satisfying specification as per Table 2) which is
homologous to the prototype turbine. Based on these data,
efficiency of prototype turbine is calculated. Also all the
parameters are calculated for the prototype turbine based on
the selected model. For present study conditions available at
the actual site conditions are given in Table 2.
The integrated and cross sectional view of assembled hydro
turbine is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

III. METHODOLOGY OF WORK

Complete process comprised from AutoCAD drawing to the
CFX post covers following steps:
As per the selection of model, drawings for prototype
turbine is made by scaling up model drawings
3-D model of all the parts (as per the scaled up
geometry) is made in Pro-E.

Figure 2: Assembled Francis Turbine

Modelled figures are imported in ANSYS ICEM for

mesh generation. The volume occupied by the fluid is
divided into discrete cells (the mesh).
Meshed part are then taken to CFX-pre to define the
physical condition prevailing. The boundary conditions
are defined.
The equations are solved iteratively by running CFX
Solver to get the results.
Analysis and visualization of the resulting solutions.
Validations of results are done.
Figure 3: 3-D Assembled Francis Turbine

Figure 1: Algorithm for validation of results

IV. SELECTION OF TURBINE

The selection of model turbine is made according to the
specific speed calculated for that turbine. Specific speed is
calculated on the basis of head and discharge available at the

Figure 4: Assembled 3D Cross-sectional view of Turbine

96

MIT International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 Aug 2011, pp 93-100

ISSN No. 2230 7699 MIT Publications

V. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Experimental tested results of turbine at reduced scale
(CRED-KBL) are projected w.r.t. model whose specific speed
resembles with the prototype turbine. The geometrical
specifications of experimentally tested Francis turbine model
are given in Table 2.
There is a vast number of iterations available depending
upon the guide vane opening of the turbine. Initially for best
guide vane opening results are calculated which are tabulated
in the Table 2. These Data are obtained by scaling up the
models results of various parameters obtained after conducting
the experimental wind tunnel testing.
Runner diameter of prototype turbine is calculated
satisfying the specifications mentioned in Table 1, depending
upon the diameter of prototype turbine, scale ratio is
calculated. Respective model drawings are scaled up as per
scale up ratio. Obtained results for prototype turbine are
tabulated in Table 3. An iterative method is used to find that
optimum efficiency can be obtained when diameter of runner
is 1010 mm which is duty point. For duty point and rated
turbine speed of 600 rpm, value of N11 is 87.50. Head and
efficiency variations wrt discharge for prototype turbine are
shown in Figure 5. For broader visualisation of results,
experimental and CFD investigation is done at design and
off-design points.
Table 3: Experimental results of prototype
Sl. N11
No.

P11

hexp.
%

H
(m)

Pr.
(Pa)

P
Q
Q11
(kW) (m3/s)

Figure 5: Variation of head & efficiency wrt

discharge of prototype turbine
Table 4: Model details
Axis of turbine

vertical

Type of draft tube

elbow tube

Model head

28 m

Specific speed of turbine

266.19 m-kW

Runner diameter

0.35 m

No. of runner blades

13

70

9.00 89.00 74.95 735221.46 5956.75 9.10 1.03

No. of guide vanes

18

80

9.30 92.80 57.38 562903.93 4123.57 7.89 1.02

PCD of guide vanes

0.40 m

No. of stay vanes

18

Best efficiency

92.10 %

N11 at best efficiency point

83.8

P11 at best efficiency point

8.85

3 87.5 9.28 93.10 47.97 470541.74 3144.74 7.18 1.01

4

90

9.22 93.00 45.34 444763.60 2864.98 6.93 1.01

5 100 8.70 89.50 36.72 360258.52 1975.06 6.13 0.99

Figure 5: Meshed casing domain

Figure 6: Runner model

97

MIT International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 Aug 2011, pp 93-100

ISSN No. 2230 7699 MIT Publications

and draft tube domain are 204447, 98741, and 121845
respectively. The tests were carried out for different head and
flow rate across the turbine. Qualitative results of the test are
given in the form of Figures 8, 11, 12 and 13.
Computational results obtained are given in Table 5 and
compared with experimental results in Table 6.
Table 5: Computational results
Sl.
No.
Figure 7: Draft tube mesh
Properties are defined in CFX pre and after running
solver final results are visualized and analysed in CFX post.
CFX-11 is a general purpose Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) code, combining an advanced solver with powerful
pre and post-processing capabilities. The next-generation
physics pre-processor, CFX-Pre, allows multiple meshes to
be imported, allowing each section of complex geometries to
use the most appropriate mesh.

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The numerical simulation is done in ANSYS CFX 11.
Experimental results are shown in Table 2 which are obtained
by scaling up the results of model turbine as per the scale
ratio of 2.88. For prototype turbine available head and
discharge for which turbine will operate maximum period of
time is known quantity from the detailed project report
(Table 1).
Rotational speed of turbine is taken as the rated speed i.e.
600 rpm, specific speed calculated is 266 m-kW with the help
of which runner diameter is calculated as 1010 mm, N11 and
P11 is also computed with these results. Generator efficiency
is assumed to be 95.50% which is fairly good in this case.
The experimental results for prototype turbine are obtained
by projecting the results of homologous model turbine in
proportion to the computed scale ratio. Then efficiency of
prototype turbine is calculated at rated head of 48 m and rated
flow of 7.25 m3/s, subsequently efficiency of turbine at other
unit speeds are also computed to get broader visualization of
operation of turbine at design and off design operating
regimes. Experimental results for prototype turbine are
tabulated in Tables 5 and 6. It is well known that all these
parameters could be combined to unit quantities to carry out
data reduction. This approach is followed to present the
results. The assembly of turbine considered here comprised
of Casing, Stay vane, Guide Vane, runner and Draft tube
(shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7 respectively).Three number of
domains are made viz. casing domain (Stationary), runner
domain (Rotating) and draft tube domain (Stationary). As the
dimension of whole assembly is big, therefore meshing of
the domains are done separately and then merged together.
Number of grid points in casing domain, runner domain

Loss (m)

N11

Total

Casing Runner Draft

Tube

Head

Losses Developed
(m)
(m)

70.00

2.336

4.464

1.360

8.160

68.84

2
3

80.00
87.50

0.499
0.347

3.751
2.485

0.015
0.342

4.265
3.175

57.34
49.42

4
5

90.00
100.00

0.192
1.490

2.154
2.091

0.678
0.692

3.024
4.273

45.92
40.05

Table 6: Computational & Experimental Results

Sl.
No.

N11

Head (m)
Hexp.
Hcfd

Efficiency (%)
hexp.
hcfd

70

74.95

68.84

89.00

88.15

2
3

80
87.5

57.38
47.97

57.34
49.42

92.80
93.10

92.56
93.58

4
5

90
100

45.34
36.72

45.921
40.05

93.00
89.50

93.41
89.33

In the calculation of experimental efficiency of prototype

turbine step factor taken by moody's formula is 1%.
Computational results show increase in efficiency at design
point wrt experimental results. However at off design point
there is variation in efficiency with both methods. Possible
reason for this increase in efficiency is the change in the tip
portion design of the casing. Change in casing tip portion
improves passage of water from casing to runner inlet. The
best efficiency point is obtained when head is made available
near 48 m and Guide vane opening of 75.2%. Losses in various
domains are shown in table 5, which shows that optimum
losses occur when unit speed of turbine is near 87.5.This
supports that for efficient and optimum performance of turbine
unit speed of turbine should be near 87.5 and accordingly
other factors should be decided for the design of prototype
turbine.
Streamline flows are shown indicating maximum turbulence
in the runner which is converted into head loss. Runner is the
major component of turbine for energy conversion, therefore
runner part plays critical role for deciding the efficiency of
turbine. Table 5 illustrates losses occurring in casing, runner
and draft tube domains. For this casing tip portion design
was modified to make smooth entrance of flow which resulted

MIT International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 Aug 2011, pp 93-100

ISSN No. 2230 7699 MIT Publications

in the slight increase of efficiency. This approach can be further
studied which can be a part of optimization process.
Experimental and computational efficiency of turbine is fairly
matching which indicates the robustness of the method
followed as shown in Table 6.
The blade loading chart is showing pressure variation in
mid span of runner blade from leading edge (LE) to trailing
edge (TE). Cavitation is another important design aspect
for Turbine. Turbine should be free from cavitation effect.
To know whether our Turbine design is free from cavitation
effect, we should know pressure distribution on two sides
of blades.
This can be done by plotting Blade loading of runner at
different span location i.e. 66.7% span. Blade Loading from
Leading edge to trailing edge is shown in the Figure 12.
Static pressure (Guage) is gradually decreasing at every
span location and there is no abrupt changes observed. As
they are not falling below the vapour pressure of water, we
can conclude that they are free from cavitation.

Figure 9: Variation head & discharge

Different sets of operating points were selected to get the

performance characteristics of the actual turbine to be made.
Experimental and Computational results are compared in the
Figures 9 & 10. Since head is calculated after computational
investigation for design and off design points, therefore
comparative study is made between head, discharge and
efficiency off turbine.
The scatter in the experimental data was relatively small
and hence a trend line was used to represent the curve using
a polynomial series. Results obtained from the solver are used
to get the real picture inside the geometry and to know the
velocity and pressure variations across the whole domain.
Graphs shows that the results obtained by CFD are fairly
matching with the results obtained from the experimental data.
Points where variation occurs is due to the extra losses in the
domains, which should be minimized.

Figure 8: Pressure contour in casing domain

Figure 10: Variation efficiency & discharge

Figure 11: Blade Loading from Leading edge

to trailing edge

98

MIT International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 Aug 2011, pp 93-100

99

ISSN No. 2230 7699 MIT Publications

From Tables 5 and 6 it is seen that for maximum efficiency
total losses is minimum. Pressure contour and velocity contour
shown in Figure 12 and 13 respectively describes the flow
structure inside various components of francis turbine.
Velocity profile from Figure 12 inside the turbine assembly
indicates that casing and runner domain has smooth velocity
profile whereas as soon as water enters draft domain velocity
starts decreasing and profile becomes non uniform. Similarly
from Figure 13 it becomes clear maximum energy conversation
takes place inside the casing domain where pressure is highest
and as water moves further its pressure decreases gradually.
The best operating regimes, losses and flow pattern can be
investigated from the calculated flow parameters of numerical
simulation. Thus it can be concluded that CFD simulation

can be used for investigating the actual performance of

prototype turbine, to get possible sources of improvement in
the design geometry with cost effective technique in lesser
time. Validation of results done by this method will lead to
become very good source of optimization technique for
hydraulic turbine performance.
Results from experimental evaluation and Simulation
performed at different unit speed range for optimum guide
vane opening and at rated speed of runner 600 rpm. Results
show that optimum turbine performance at actual site will
occur when the unit speed of turbine is near 87.5 working
under a head of 48 m and accordingly other parameters are
available. On the basis of computational results design
analysis of prototype turbine can be done accordingly.

Figure 12: Velocity Streamlines pattern across whole Domain

Figure 13: Pressure contours across whole Domain

VII. CONCLUSIONS
The paper brought out the validation of experimental results
with the computational investigation. The maximum
efficiency regime indicated by both approaches is nearly same.
Reason for slight difference of efficiency computed by
experimental and computational method can be because of
instrumental and human errors in experimental testing and

also due to discretisation of domains and solution of deferential

equations in computational methods. The total computed losses
are observed to be minimum at best operating point.
Hence the results obtained are fairly matching, however
streamline flow in some reasons have more turbulence which
is due to occurrence of losses. Difference in results at off
peak conditions between experimental and computational

MIT International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 Aug 2011, pp 93-100

100

ISSN No. 2230 7699 MIT Publications

results is due to error in discretising the governing equations
and flow domain. Losses not considered very precisely. There
can be human and instrumental error in experimental
calculations. Prediction of turbine performance by CFD gives [3]
the idea to know the flow behaviour inside the turbine
model and get the information about the intricacy of flow [4]
pattern, since the flow inside the turbine in actual is very
complicated. CFD results gives the qualitative information.
It provides the tool to simulate the flow conditions with
different geometries in lowest possible time, thus providing
reduction in design analysis and yet developing robust [5]
technology along with aiding in reducing gestation
period.

NOMENCLATURE

Reports on Turbine Testing Problem Oriented Research

Laboratory (Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Mechanics Lab)
Bhopal, India.
P. Krishnamachar, Dr. V.V. Barlit (Russia), M.M. Deshmukh,
Manual on Hydraulic Turbine (MANIT, Bhopal).
Guoyi Peng, Shuliang Cao, Masaru Ishizuka, Shinji Hayama
(2002); Design optimisation of axial flow hydraulic turbine
runner: Part II-Multiobjective Constrained Optimzation
Method, International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Fluids, Vol. 39, Issue 6, pp. 533-548.
Guoyi Peng (2005): A practical combined combined
computation method of mean through-flow for 3D inverse
design of hydraulic turbine machinery blades, ASME Journal
of fluid engineering.

[6]

V. Prasad, CFD approach for design optimization and

validation for axial flow hydraulic turbine, Indian J of Eng
and Materials Sciences, Vol. 16, August 1999, 229-236.

[7]

Bernard M., Maryse P., Robert M. and Anne. M. G., Proc.

ASCE Water Power Conference, Las Vegas, USA 1999.

h = Mass density of water (kg/m3)

g = Gravitational acceleration (m/s 2)

[8]

Peng G., Cao S., Ishizuka M. and Hayama S., Int. J. Numer
Methods Fluids, 39(6) (200) 533-548

P = Turbine power (kW)

Prated = Power output of turbine at rated condition (kW)

[9]

Daniel B, Romeo R., and Sebastian M, Proc. Int. conf. on

CSHS03, Belgrade, (2003) 29-36.

H = Net head (m)

Q = Discharge through turbine (m 3/s)
N = Rotational speed of turbine (rpm)

Pgeneratoroutput = Power output of generator (kW)

EL = Elevation level wrt mean sea level.
PCD = Pitch circle diameter (mm)
N11 = Unit speed
Q11 = Unit discharge
P11 = Unit power
Pr. = Pressure (Pa)

[10] Liplej A., Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Pt. A. J. Power and Energy,
218 (2004) 43-50.
[11] Guoyi P., J. Fluids Eng., 27 (2005) 1183-1190
[12] C.A.J. Fletcher, Computational Techniques for Fluid
Dynamics Vol. 1, Springer Pub. 1991.
[13] Lewis RI, Turbo machinery performance analysis (Arnold,
Londan), 1996.
[14] CFX 11, User Manual, Ansys Inc. 2004.

Hexp. = Head by experimental testing (m)

Hcfd = Head by CFD testing (m)
hexp. = Efficiency obtained by experimental testing
hcfd = Efficiency obtained by CFD testing

ACKNOWEDGEMENTS

[15] Liplez A., Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Pt. A. J. Power and Energy,
218 (2004) 43-50.
[16] Guoyi P., J. Fluids Eng., 27 (2005) 1183-1190.
[17] Shukla M., CFD Analysis of 3-D flow and it's validation for
francis turbine, 34th National Conference on FMFP, BIT
Mesra (2007) 732-737.
[18] Wu J., Shimmel K., Tani K., Niikura K. and Sato J. J., Fluid

Author would like to express sincere gratitude towards all

Engg., 127(2007) 159-168.
related to MANIT, Bhopal and KBL Pune, for continuous [19] Rao, V. Shrinivas, Tripathi, S.K. (2007): Role of CFD analysis
encouragement and cooperation made available to do the
in hydraulic design optimization of hydro turbines, Proceeding
associated paper work.
of National Seminar on CFD-The 3rd Dimension in Flow

REFERENCES

[1]

[2]

Analysis & Thermal Design, Bhopal(India), pp.196-201.

[20] Vishnu Prasad; V.K. Gahlot, P. Krishnamachar (2009) CFD

approach for design optimization and validation for axial flow
Kirloskar Brothers Limited Data for Francis turbine model,
hydraulic turbine, Indian Journal of Engineering and
Corporate Research and Engineering Division (CRED-KBL),
Material Sciences, pp. 229- 236 .
Pune, India.
Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Project