Flow in the simplified draft tube of a Francis turbine operating at partial load-Part I

Simulation of the vortex rope

Hosein Foroutan, Savas Yavuzkurt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Numerical simulations and analysis of the vortex rope formation in a simplified draft tube of a model Francis turbine are carried out in this paper, which is the first part of a two-paper series. The emphasis of this part is on the simulation and investigation of flow using different turbulence closure models. Two part-load operating conditions with same head and different flow rates (91% and 70% of the best efficiency point (BEP) flow rate) are considered. Steady and unsteady simulations are carried out for axisymmetric and three-dimensional grid in a simplified axisymmetric geometry, and results are compared with experimental data. It is seen that steady simulations with Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models cannot resolve the vortex rope and give identical symmetric results for both the axisymmetric and three-dimensional flow geometries. These RANS simulations underpredict the axial velocity (by at least 14%) and turbulent kinetic energy (by at least 40%) near the center of the draft tube, even quite close to the design condition. Moving farther from the design point, models fail in predicting the correct levels of the axial velocity in the draft tube. Unsteady simulations are performed using unsteady RANS (URANS) and detached eddy simulation (DES) turbulence closure approaches. URANS models cannot capture the self-induced unsteadiness of the vortex rope and give steady solutions while DES model gives sufficient unsteady results. Using the proper unsteady model, i.e., DES, the overall shape of the vortex rope is correctly predicted and the calculated vortex rope frequency differs only 6% from experimental data. It is confirmed that the vortex rope is formed due to the roll-up of the shear layer at the interface between the low-velocity inner region created by the wake of the crown cone and highly swirling outer flow.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number061010
JournalJournal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions ASME
Volume81
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Francis turbines
draft
turbines
Vortex flow
vortices
tubes
simulation
Turbulence
Flow rate
closures
head flow
Swirling flow
flow velocity
Geometry
turbulence
flow geometry
Kinetic energy
three dimensional flow
swirling
Cones

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Condensed Matter Physics
  • Mechanics of Materials
  • Mechanical Engineering

Cite this

@article{5b06ff848cde47379067712057ab417f,
title = "Flow in the simplified draft tube of a Francis turbine operating at partial load-Part I: Simulation of the vortex rope",
abstract = "Numerical simulations and analysis of the vortex rope formation in a simplified draft tube of a model Francis turbine are carried out in this paper, which is the first part of a two-paper series. The emphasis of this part is on the simulation and investigation of flow using different turbulence closure models. Two part-load operating conditions with same head and different flow rates (91{\%} and 70{\%} of the best efficiency point (BEP) flow rate) are considered. Steady and unsteady simulations are carried out for axisymmetric and three-dimensional grid in a simplified axisymmetric geometry, and results are compared with experimental data. It is seen that steady simulations with Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models cannot resolve the vortex rope and give identical symmetric results for both the axisymmetric and three-dimensional flow geometries. These RANS simulations underpredict the axial velocity (by at least 14{\%}) and turbulent kinetic energy (by at least 40{\%}) near the center of the draft tube, even quite close to the design condition. Moving farther from the design point, models fail in predicting the correct levels of the axial velocity in the draft tube. Unsteady simulations are performed using unsteady RANS (URANS) and detached eddy simulation (DES) turbulence closure approaches. URANS models cannot capture the self-induced unsteadiness of the vortex rope and give steady solutions while DES model gives sufficient unsteady results. Using the proper unsteady model, i.e., DES, the overall shape of the vortex rope is correctly predicted and the calculated vortex rope frequency differs only 6{\%} from experimental data. It is confirmed that the vortex rope is formed due to the roll-up of the shear layer at the interface between the low-velocity inner region created by the wake of the crown cone and highly swirling outer flow.",
author = "Hosein Foroutan and Savas Yavuzkurt",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1115/1.4026817",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "81",
journal = "Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions ASME",
issn = "0021-8936",
publisher = "American Society of Mechanical Engineers(ASME)",
number = "6",

}

Flow in the simplified draft tube of a Francis turbine operating at partial load-Part I : Simulation of the vortex rope. / Foroutan, Hosein; Yavuzkurt, Savas.

In: Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions ASME, Vol. 81, No. 6, 061010, 01.01.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Flow in the simplified draft tube of a Francis turbine operating at partial load-Part I

T2 - Simulation of the vortex rope

AU - Foroutan, Hosein

AU - Yavuzkurt, Savas

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Numerical simulations and analysis of the vortex rope formation in a simplified draft tube of a model Francis turbine are carried out in this paper, which is the first part of a two-paper series. The emphasis of this part is on the simulation and investigation of flow using different turbulence closure models. Two part-load operating conditions with same head and different flow rates (91% and 70% of the best efficiency point (BEP) flow rate) are considered. Steady and unsteady simulations are carried out for axisymmetric and three-dimensional grid in a simplified axisymmetric geometry, and results are compared with experimental data. It is seen that steady simulations with Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models cannot resolve the vortex rope and give identical symmetric results for both the axisymmetric and three-dimensional flow geometries. These RANS simulations underpredict the axial velocity (by at least 14%) and turbulent kinetic energy (by at least 40%) near the center of the draft tube, even quite close to the design condition. Moving farther from the design point, models fail in predicting the correct levels of the axial velocity in the draft tube. Unsteady simulations are performed using unsteady RANS (URANS) and detached eddy simulation (DES) turbulence closure approaches. URANS models cannot capture the self-induced unsteadiness of the vortex rope and give steady solutions while DES model gives sufficient unsteady results. Using the proper unsteady model, i.e., DES, the overall shape of the vortex rope is correctly predicted and the calculated vortex rope frequency differs only 6% from experimental data. It is confirmed that the vortex rope is formed due to the roll-up of the shear layer at the interface between the low-velocity inner region created by the wake of the crown cone and highly swirling outer flow.

AB - Numerical simulations and analysis of the vortex rope formation in a simplified draft tube of a model Francis turbine are carried out in this paper, which is the first part of a two-paper series. The emphasis of this part is on the simulation and investigation of flow using different turbulence closure models. Two part-load operating conditions with same head and different flow rates (91% and 70% of the best efficiency point (BEP) flow rate) are considered. Steady and unsteady simulations are carried out for axisymmetric and three-dimensional grid in a simplified axisymmetric geometry, and results are compared with experimental data. It is seen that steady simulations with Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models cannot resolve the vortex rope and give identical symmetric results for both the axisymmetric and three-dimensional flow geometries. These RANS simulations underpredict the axial velocity (by at least 14%) and turbulent kinetic energy (by at least 40%) near the center of the draft tube, even quite close to the design condition. Moving farther from the design point, models fail in predicting the correct levels of the axial velocity in the draft tube. Unsteady simulations are performed using unsteady RANS (URANS) and detached eddy simulation (DES) turbulence closure approaches. URANS models cannot capture the self-induced unsteadiness of the vortex rope and give steady solutions while DES model gives sufficient unsteady results. Using the proper unsteady model, i.e., DES, the overall shape of the vortex rope is correctly predicted and the calculated vortex rope frequency differs only 6% from experimental data. It is confirmed that the vortex rope is formed due to the roll-up of the shear layer at the interface between the low-velocity inner region created by the wake of the crown cone and highly swirling outer flow.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84900003234&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84900003234&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1115/1.4026817

DO - 10.1115/1.4026817

M3 - Article

VL - 81

JO - Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions ASME

JF - Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions ASME

SN - 0021-8936

IS - 6

M1 - 061010

ER -