Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS International Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics, Elounda, Greece, August 21-23, 2006

(pp309-314)

Vibration damping of hydraulic turbine unit case study for Yantan

Hydropower Plant
LUO XINGQI, GUO PENGCHENG, LIAO WEILI, ZHENG XIAOBO, LU PENG
Department of Hydropower Engineering
Xian University of Technology
CHINA
guoyc@mail.xaut.edu.cn

Abstract: - The factors resulting in the severe vibration of the power building floor and the crack of the runner
were investigated on the ground of the practical situation of Yantan Hydropower plant. Synthetical
measurements of adopting negative rake angle blades, increasing blade number, reducing optimum unit speed
and CFD analysis were used to develop a new Runner A773a that replaced the former Runner to damp the
vibration level of hydroelectric units in Yantan Hydropower plant. The comparison test in the same conditions
of model Runner A773a and the former Runner was carried out and the test results showed that the severe
vibration of the power building floor was eliminated. In addition, the results of the strength analysis based on
Finite Element Method approved that the crack of the runner was also avoided in Yantan Hydropower plant.
The proposed method may be referable to other large hydraulic turbine units to minimize the vibration and
crack.

Key-Words: - Hydropower Plant, Runner, Redesign, Vibration, Crack

1 Introduction included energy test, cavitations test, runaway speed

Yantan hydropower plant contains 4 generator units,
each with capacity of 302.5MW. The first generator
unit began generating in September 1992.By the end
of June 1993 reservoir water level reached normal
storage level, and during winter of 1993 powerhouse
appeared acute vibration when generator units
worked in some operating points in high load region.
All four generator units had the same condition.
There were three important problems when
generator units worked in high head operating
region. Firstly, generator level floor slab ( 174
altitude first quadrant) had a strong vibration region
when working head was over 58m, and its range
corresponding to different working heads, was from
200MW to 280 MW, moving to high load region
while working head increased. Each severe
vibration region under different working head was
around 20MW. Secondly, in low load condition
abnormal pressure fluctuation happened in draft
tube, its peak amplitude exceeded model test results.
Thirdly, blade cracks appeared on all 4 generator
units. These problems severely affected generator
unit normal operation, so the third unit was firstly
conducted rehabilitation.
After CFD analysis, model test and prototype
runner fabrication, the prototype runner was put into
service in May 2003, and stability test was also
conducted. CFD analysis contained analysis of
original runner and optimized runner. Model test
test, pressure fluctuation test, draft tube vortex
observation, leading edge blade stall and blade
channel vortex observation. During operation,
experiments were conducted under different heads:
54.9m, 59.3m, 62.3m and 66m, including rotation
speed variation test, excitation variation test and
load variation test. The experimental results show
good agreement with prediction figure. Floor slab
vibration and high partial load vibration has been
eliminated, and generator units operate stably and
output has been increased. The optimization goals
have been achieved.
2 Hydropower plant and hydraulic
turbine parameters
The maximum gross head is 69.2m. The weighted
average head is 59.7m while operating separately,
and changed to 60.5m while operating with upriver
power plant Tianshengqiao, and while operating
with upriver power plants Tianshengqiao and
Longtan, the weighted average head is 61.6m. The
minimum gross head is 38.2m. The hydraulic
turbine parameters are as follows:
Runner diameter is D1=8m;
Maximum head is 68.5m;
Rated head is 59.4m;
Minimum head is 37.0m;
Rated output is 329.94MW;
Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS International Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics, Elounda, Greece, August 21-23, 2006 (pp309-314)

Rated spinning speed is 75r/min; fluctuation is not the reason of floor slab vibration.
Rated discharge is 642 m3 /s. Besides, the equation for the frequency of stay vane
Karman vortex is f=-sh(v/d), in which sh is between
0.18 0.22. Although calculation frequency of
Karman vortex is around 30Hz, by analysing the
vibration region, v=Q/A, the guide vane Karman
vortex frequency is only relevant to discharge, so
Yantans floor slab vibration is varying along
discharge variation. Furthermore the 1996 vibration
tests of the stay vane before and after rehabilitation
showed that the amplitude and frequency of floor
slab vibration remained the same, so Karman vortex
is not the cause of floor slab vibration. The analysis
of blade cracks position shows that the cracks were
caused by excessive local stress. This can be solved
by increasing blade number, thickening outflow
Fig. 1 Runner a296 model Hill chart edges and improving pressure distribution in blades.

Table 1 Frequency of the rear of guide vane and

generator floor slab in severe vibration operating
3 Vibration problem conditions
Strong vibration
3.1 Analyses of model and prototype runner The first several frequencies
conditions
test At level
Test
In order to solve the vibration problem in Yantan At guide At stator 174
item Head Output
hydropower plant, model and prototype runner tests (m) (MW)
vane end vane end generator
were conducted. Two possible vibration factors (Hz) (Hz) floor slab
were observed from model test. One is leading edge (Hz)
suction side blade stall when operating under high A 60.5 200 - - 32.5-36
head, and the other is medium pressure fluctuation B 61.3 210 - 30-40 -
when operating in part load conditions, see Fig.1. 24.8-
C 63.5 240 24-30 -
The prototype test is mainly to analyse the 45.3
frequency range in order to eliminate resonance D 64.3 250
25.9-
-
30.3-
factor during optimization. Table 1 shows the 65.3 38.1
frequency of the rear of guide vane and generator 20.96-
E 66.83 280 - 28
floor slab in severe vibration operating conditions, 26.37
and table 2 shows natural frequency of generator
floor slab 174. Table 2 Natural frequency of generator floor at
From the analysis results of model and prototype 174
tests, the factors which may cause unit vibration are Frequency
Quadrant-I Quadrant- Quadrant-
order
as follows: high partial load pressure fluctuation;
1 14.4 18.4 17.5
stay vane outflow edge Karman vortex which is the
2 28.8 25.5 24.4
source of floor slab vibration; runner blade stall of
3 38.8 43.8 56.7
suction side at inflow edges; runner blade transit 4 49.3 53.5 70.9
frequency (harmonic wave and product of blade 5 78.2 66.8 76.1
number and turning frequency). 6 96.0 86.1 83.7
The pressure fluctuation frequency of high part 7 111.0 95.5 107.1
load region in Yantan model test is 1~4.5 times 8 119.5 102.0 118.9
higher than the rotation frequency, and the rotation 9 124.6 116.7 149.5
frequency of Yantan units is 1.25Hz (rotation speed 10 148.7 131.6 181.7
is 75r/min). Thus, if this type of pressure fluctuation
could cause resonance on prototype runner, the Thus the runner blade stall of suction side at
range of resonance frequency should be between inflow edges and runner blade transit frequency are
1~6Hz. Nevertheless Yantans floor slab vibration the main factors of floor slab strong vibration.
frequency is around 30Hz, so the pressure While solving floor slab strong vibration problem,

2
Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS International Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics, Elounda, Greece, August 21-23, 2006 (pp309-314)

we also have to solve the blade crack problem and
increase output, and unit output has been increased
from 302.5MW to 325MW after optimization.
3.2 Vibration damping methods
3.2.1 Adopting negative rake angle blade
Runner with negative rake angle blades has a wide
range of high efficiency region. So it can be applied
to the hydropower plant where the range of head
variation is big. And it can also obtain better
cavitation performance and pressure fluctuation
performance than traditional blades. In addition,
adopting negative rake angle at runner blade inflow
edges can greatly increase strength. Therefore
negative rake angle blades were adopted while
A773a runner was designed.
disappears after the optimization. Fig.4 (a) and (b)
are the contour of pressure on pressure side before
and after the optimization. It shows that the
distribution of pressure becomes much better after
the optimization. From the CFD analysis results, it
can be seen that the efficiency and flow state of the
original runner are not good; there are flow
separation and acute vortex.
These aspects are improved after optimization and
the runners hydraulic performance has been greatly
improved.

3.2.2 Increasing blade number

Increasing blade number will lower the unit whole
stress level and increase transit frequency, so runner
A773a was designed to have 15 blades, two blades (a) Before redesign
more than runner A296.

3.2.3 Decreasing model optimal unit speed

The hill curve and operating range of A296 runner
adopted in Yantan hydropower plant are illustrated
in Fig.1. Its optimal unit speed is n110 77.8r/min
(equivalent to rated head H=59.4m) and the
minimum unit speed is n11=72.5r/min (equivalent
to maximum head H=68.5m). The model test
observation showed that when working under the
dashed line of operating region, severe stall
appeared at suction side of runner blade, and the
vibration region incepted at the dark part in Fig.1. (b) After redesign
While the unit speed ranges from n11=75r/min to
n11=72.5r/min (equivalent to head ranged from Fig.2 Velocity vector of blade to blade channel
H=65m to H=68m), this dark part is severe stall area in the runner
at suction side. Thus the model optimal unit speed is
lower to n110=72.5r/min. The vibration region of
A296 runner is changed into optimum region of new
runner. The stall at blade suction side is
eliminated, and the stability of the set is also
improved.

3.2.4 Conducting CFD analysis

In order to compare the performance of the original
runner and optimal runner, numerical simulation is
conducted to the runners. Fig.2 (a) and (b) are the
velocity vector plots before and after the
optimization. It shows that the new runner does not (a) Before redesign (b) After redesign
have severe secondary flow. Fig.3 (a) and (b) are the
streamline in flow channel before and after the Fig.3 Streamline distribution of blade to blade
optimization. It shows that the acute vortex channel in the runner

3
Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS International Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics, Elounda, Greece, August 21-23, 2006 (pp309-314)

Table. 3 Comparison of major parameter between

Runner A773a and Runner A296
Runner type A773a A296

Negative rake Traditional

Blade shape
angle blade blade

Blade number 15 13

Peak efficiency
93.1 92.5
(%)
Optimum unit
950 1040
(a) Before redesign discharge (l/s)
Limit unit discharge
1300 1280
(l/s)
Optimum unit speed
72.5 77.8
(r/min)

(b) After redesign Red line denotes operation range and dark line
bottom is stall area at blade suction surface

Fig.4 Pressure distribution on the blade pressure

surface Fig. 5 Operation range and stall area of Runner
A296

4 vibration damping study results

4.1 model test results
After the theoretic prediction of A773a can fulfil the
performance requirement of Yantan hydropower
plant, the experiment of Runner A773a and Runner
A296 were conducted on the same test rig. Table 3
shows the main parameters of the two runners. Fig.5
and Fig.6 are the comparison of operating regions
and suction side blade stalls of the two runner. The
results show that the efficiency of A773a has been Red line denotes operation range and purple
line is stall area at blade suction surface
increased, operating region has been improved
(n110=72.5r/ min), suction side blade stall has been
Fig. 6 Operation range and stall area of Runner
eliminated (using model test image observation
A773a
system), and the output is increased to 325MW.
Fig.7 illustrate the pressure fluctuation comparison
of conical tube upstream between the unit spinning
speed of n11=72.5r/min (equivalent to maximum 4.2 strength analysis
head H= 68.5m) and n11=75r/min (equivalent to After conducting strength performance analysis to
H=64m). The results show that the pressure A773a runner and A296 runner, the runners stress
fluctuation of A773a is much smaller. distributions along the inflow edge and outflow
edge, are illustrated in Fig.8 and Fig.9. The

4
Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS International Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics, Elounda, Greece, August 21-23, 2006 (pp309-314)

maximum stress of A773a is reduced by about 46% in table 5. After start-up validation and test, the
compared to the maximum stress of A296. The expert team made the following conclusions:
locations of two maximum stress points are (1) After installing the optimized runner, there is
different, i.e. runner A773a avoids the maximum no phenomenon of severe floor slab vibration when
stress at the joint of blade outflow edge and crown, the load is between 0 325 MW;
and the stress of A773a is decreased by 72% (2) When operating in part load conditions, the
compared to A296 at the point. unit vibration is relatively strong. If the output is
between 70 120 MW, vibration can be increased
10 by certain level, and the maximum vibration load is
Pressure fluctuation magnitude (%)

about 120MW;
8 A296 (3) The start-up oscillation after optimization is
smaller.
A773a
6
200
4
160

Stress value (MPa)

2 a733a
120 a296
0 Permissible stress (Mpa)
10 15 20 25 80
Guide vane opening (mm)
40

(a) n11=72.5
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
10 Hub Shroud
Pressure fluctuation magnitude (%)

A296
8
A773a Fig. 8 Numerical stress at inflow edge of runner
6
blade from hub to shroud

4 200

2 160
Stress value (MPa)

a733a

0 120 a296
10 15 20 25 Permissible stress (Mpa)
Guide vane opening (mm) 80

40
(b) n11=75
0
Fig. 7 Comparison of pressure fluctuation at conical 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
tube upstream Hub Shroud

4.3 prototype runner performance test Fig. 9 Numerical stress at outflow edge of runner
The prototype runner has been putted into service at blade from hub to shroud
May 2003. Operation is stable and floor slab severe
vibration is eliminated. Prototype tests including
rotation speed variation test, excitation variation test 5 Conclusion
and load variation test have been conducted under The optimization results fulfilled the prediction
different operating heads. Trial results of load figure. Model test results validated that A773a
variation when operating head is 66m are shown in achieved optimization objectives, from the
table 4, and results of excitation variation are shown experiments of A773a and A296 which were

5
Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS International Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics, Elounda, Greece, August 21-23, 2006 (pp309-314)

conducted on the same test rig. The improvements 66 10

of A773a compared with A296 are as follows: Before 66 12
60
a the optimal unit speed decreases from 77.8 After 59.3 10
r/min to 72.5r/min; Before 66 11
70
b no leading edge blade stall incepts in After 59.3 8
operating region; Before 66 11
80
c the pressure fluctuation greatly decreases at After 59.3 10
Before 66 11
the inlet of spiral case;
90 59.3 10
d the stress distributions in the blade have After
66 8
been greatly improved. Before 66 12
The hydraulic test results show that A773a (the 100 59.3 9
replacement of A296) is fully suitable to Yantan After
66 8
hydropower plant, and it can eliminate severe
vibration when operating in high head region. The
intensity performance results show that the stress
distribution in the blade is even. This improves the 6 Acknowledgements
rigidity performance of the runner and increases the This work is part of a project supported by the
runners service life. The model and prototype tests National Natural Science Foundation of China
show that the foregoing analysis about prototype (90410019), Specialized Research Fund for the
severe vibration is correct and the vibration Doctoral Program of Higher Education
damping methods are feasible. The numerical (20040700009) and Specialized Research Plan in
results of intensity show that the prototype runner The Education Department of Shaanxi Province of
can delay or even eliminate the inception of the China (05JK264). The supports are gratefully
blade cracks. The optimized runner can ensure acknowledged.
security, stability and greater output of generator
units.
References:
Table. 4 Load variation trials [1] Tang PeiJia, Study of vibration problem for
Before and Floor Francis turbine in Yantan Hydropower Plant,
Ue after Head vibration Journal of Hong ShuiHe River, 2000,
(%) technical (m) magnitude 19(3):59 62.
modification (m) [2] Liu ShengZhu, Luo XingQi, Liang WuKe,
Before 66 10 Optimizing design for Francis turbine of large
50 59.3 9 head variation, Journal of Hydroelectric
After
66 10 Engineering, 2003, 22(4):105 111.
Before 66 12 [3] Liu ShengZhu, Luo XingQi, Ji XingYing, Guo
60
After 59.3 10 PengCheng, Effect of blade geometric
Before 66 11 parameters upon hydraulic turbine stability,
70
After 59.3 8 Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 2004,
Before 66 11 23(1):91 96.
80
After 59.3 10
[4] He HanDong, The analysis of vibration cause
Before 66 11
for turbine in first stair Hydropower Plant of
90 59.3 10
After Tianshengqiao, Journal of Hong ShuiHe River,
66 8
Before 66 12 2001, 20(4):61 73.
100 59.3 9 [5] Dai ShuGuang, He YinZhi, Study of stability
After for hydraulic turbine in Longtan Hydropower
66 8
Plant, Journal of HuNan Hydroelectric Power,
Table. 5 Excitation variation trials 2001(6):28 29.
Before and Floor [6] Gao ZhongXin, Zhou XianJin, Zhang
Ue after Head vibration ShiXiong, Tan Shu, Performance prediction
(%) technical (m) magnitude and viscous flow analysis for Francis
modification (m) turbulence runner, Journal of Hydraulic
50 Before 66 10 Engineering, 2001, 32(7):30 35.
After 59.3 9