Energy 41 (2012) 386e391

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Empirical modelling of sediment erosion in Francis turbines

Biraj Singh Thapa a, Bhola Thapa a, Ole G. Dahlhaug b, *
a
Turbine Testing Laboratory, Kathmandu University, Nepal
b
Waterpower Laboratory, Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sediment particles passing through the turbine components erode the surface in contact. Gradual
Received 31 July 2011 removal of base material changes the runner prole and also weakens its structure. One of the major
Received in revised form consequences of this is gradual loss of turbine efciency. Attempts have been made from past researches
25 February 2012
to develop empirical relations to estimate the effects of sediment erosion in hydraulic turbines.
Accepted 27 February 2012
Available online 29 March 2012
Present study is conducted to identify an appropriate erosion model for Francis turbine. Two standard
erosion models have been selected to estimate erosion rates and consecutive reduction in efciency of
the runner. Improved empirical relation to estimate the sediment erosion in Francis runner has been
Keywords:
Turbine
proposed. Comparison of results from the improved empirical relation has been done with the results of
Sediment experimental measurements at the site.
Erosion It has been found that sediment data from the site can be analysed to predict the damage in Francis
Modelling runner due to erosion. The results from the improved erosion model are found to be consistent with the
Efciency earlier studies and experimental measurements. A simple erosion model as the proposed one can help to
formulate appropriate design, operation and maintenance strategy for Francis runner at a specic site
conditions.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction efciency, vibrations and nal breakdown of hydro turbines.

Sediments are formed by the fragmentation of rock due to
chemical and mechanical weathering. Total mass of sediment
reaching the ocean is 20 billion kg per year [1]. Due to weaker rock
formation South Asian subcontinent contribute more than one
third of that amount and hence hydropower plants in these region
are highly affected by the sediment particles [2]. High concentra-
tion of sediment with high percentage of hard particles causes the
underwater components in hydropower plants, particularly turbine
parts, to erode. Problems due to suspended sediment have been
severe in countries neighbouring Himalaya mountain ranges like
Nepal and Andes Mountain ranges like Brazil [3]. However,
hydropower plants operating in relatively negligible sediment
concentration as in Norway also have been reported to face prob-
lems of erosion due to sediments [4].
Erosive wear of hydro turbine runners is a complex phenom-
enon, which depends upon different parameters such as silt size,
hardness and concentration, velocity of water, and base material
properties. The gradual removal of base material of turbine and
parts due to erosion leads to change in ow pattern, losses in
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bst@ku.edu.np, thapa_biraj@hotmail.com (B.S. Thapa), bhola@
ku.edu.np (B. Thapa), ole.g.dahlhaug@ntnu.no (O.G. Dahlhaug).
Different patterns of erosion for turbines operating at different sites
have been observed. However, strong relationships between sedi-
ment properties and the erosion have already been predicted [1,5].
Several studies have been done to predict the rate of erosion in
hydraulic turbines due to suspended sediments [6e14]. Most of the
earlier studies have been devoted to develop general mathematical
models of erosion which identies parameters upon which the
erosion rate is dependent. Some efforts have also been made to
develop empirical relation that could be applied to predict erosion
rate in turbine runners and parts [9,13]. However these relations
are highly dependent on constant terms which vary with each site
conditions. Recent advancement in CFD analysis has also been used
to simulate the rate and pattern of erosion in hydraulic turbine
[3,10]. However simple and reliable method for prediction of
erosion rate and subsequent reduction in efciency of Francis
runner was not found to be established so far.
2. Erosion models
Erosion models are useful for design of turbine components,
sediment settling basins and optimization of hydropower plant
operation in sand-laden rivers. Most often, individual particle
dynamics are used for developing erosion models [6]. Empirical and
statistical relations have also been developed from experimental and

0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2012.02.066
 B.S. Thapa et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 386e391 387

Nomenclature d50 mean diameter of sediment, mm

hr loss in runner efciency due to sediment erosion,
C silt concentration, kg/m3 %/year
H head to turbine, m Dht total loss in turbine efciency due to sediment erosion
m exponent of velocity and leakage ow, %/year
n rotational speed of runner, rpm
P design power output, kW Abbreviation
Q discharge through turbine, m3/s BEP best efciency point
DQ loss in discharge through runner due to leakage ow BPC Butwal power company
S abrasive depth, mm CFD computational uid dynamics
t operating hour, h IEC international electrotechnical commission
V relative ow velocity, m/s JHC Jhimruk hydroelectric centre
Er erosion rate, mm/year PSD particle size diameter
Vp velocity of particle, m/s

eld measurements. However, limited numbers of erosion models in Thapa [1] has conducted laboratory tests of various turbine
hydraulic machineries have been validated for their reliability [8]. materials to estimate the erosion rates under different test condi-
tions. For 16Cr5Ni, which is most widely used turbine material, his
2.1. General models of erosion ndings give following empirical relation to predict the erosion rate.

y 6E  5x3:13 mg=kg (4)

The fundamental and simplest equation of erosion is:
Erosion f(operating condition, properties of particles, properties Where x (m/s) is the velocity of eroding particles impinging at the
of base material) angle of 45  and y is loss of the material in mg per kg of eroding
Generally, this expression is given as a function of velocity, particles striking the surface.
material hardness, particle size, and concentration. Truscott [12] on Padhy [13] has developed a correlation for estimating percentage
his literature survey of publications of 20 years on abrasive wear of efciency loss of rated efciency for Pelton runner as follows:
hydraulic machinery has found that the most often quoted

0:099
expression for erosion is h% 2:43$1010 $t0:75 $ Sp $C0:93 $V3:40 (5)

Erosion fVelocitym Where h% is percentage efciency loss of rated efciency in oper-

ating hours (t), Sp is silt particle size in mm.
Bardal [15] describes the most general formula for pure Bajracharya [9] has developed following empirical relations to
erosion as:
predict the rate of erosion and corresponding loss in efciency of
W Kmat $Kenv $C$Vpm mm=year (1) hydraulic runner.

Here, W is erosion rate in mm/year, Kmat is material constant and

Kenv is constant depending on environment, C is concentration of
particles and f(a) is function of impingement angle a. Vp is the
velocity of particle and m is the exponent of velocity.
2.2. Erosion models for hydraulic turbines
Tsuguo [16] established relationship of factors concerning
erosion of turbines based on 8 years of erosion data of 18 hydro-
power plants. He suggested following relation to calculate erosion
in turbines.
W b$C x $ay $k1 $k2 $k3 $V m mm=year (2)
Where W is loss of thickness per unit time, b is turbine coefcient at
eroded part, V is relative ow velocity. The term a is average grain
size coefcient on the basis of unit value for grain size 0.05 mm. The
terms k1 and k2 are shape and hardness coefcient of sand particles
and k3 is abrasion resistant coefcient of material. The x, y are
exponent values for concentration and size coefcient respectively.
Finnie [17] has established erosion models for ductile materials
by considering ideal case of hitting by single particle and solving
the cutting wear. He yielded the nal equation as follows:
E k$Vp3 $f a   (3)
Where E is the dimensionless mass (mass of eroded wall material
divided by the mass of particle), VP is velocity of particles, a is
impingement angle and K is abrasive constant.
Er fa$sizeb mm=year (6)
Where Er is erosion rate, a and b are empirical constants dened as:
a 351.35, b 1.4976 for quartz content of 38%,
a 1199.8, b 1.8025 for quartz content of 60%,
a 1482.1, b 1.8125 for quartz content of 80%.
The relation between the erosion rate and the loss in efciency
for hydraulic runner is given by [9]:
hr fa,Er b (7)
Where hr is loss in runner efciency per year due to erosion alone,
a 0.1522 and b 1.6946
Leakage of ow due to erosion in labyrinth seals of Francis turbine
also contributes to the loss in efciency. Hence the total loss in ef-
ciency of Francis turbine due to sediment erosion can be related as:
Dht f Er f DQ (8)
Where DQ is loss in discharge into runner due to leakage ow and
Dht is total loss in turbine efciency due to sediment erosion and
leakage ow.
2.3. Erosion models recommended by IEC-62364 standards
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), in 2009, rec-
ommended the following theoretical model of abrasion rate in
388 B.S. Thapa et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 386e391

100 2 500

Sediment Consentration [ppm]

90

80 2 000

70
Percent finer

60 1 500

50

40 1 000
30

20 Hydro Lab Intake site 1996 500

10 Mean PSD Turbine site 2003
0
0
1 10 100 1000

1. p.
6.
11 .
1 6 k t.
2 1 k t.
2 6 k t.
3 1 k t.
22
2 7 u g.
1 . u g.
6. .
1 1 p.
16 p.
21 p.
26 .

5 . k t.
1 0 v.
1 5 o v.
Diameter in microns

ok
ok
.o
.o
.o
.o
.o
.a
.a
se
se
.s
.s
.s
.s

no
.n
.n
t.
t
p

ep
e
e

ov
.
Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of sand sample for JHE [19].
Fig. 2. Sediment concentration through one turbine unit at JHC [14].

order to demonstrate how different critical aspects impact the

particle abrasion rate in turbines [11].
dS=dt f particle velocity; particle concentration;
particle physical properties; flow pattern;
turbine material properties; other factors
Where, dS/dt is the abrasion rate. However, this formula being of
little practical use, several simplications are introduced. These
simplications have not been proven yet. Finally, IEC suggested the
following expression with additional simplications and new
variables [11].
S W 3 $PL$Km $Kf mm
Where, S is abrasive depth in mm, W is characteristic velocity, PL is
particle load which is obtained by particle concentration integrated
over the time, Km is material factor and Kf is ow factor.
The erosion estimated by some of these models will be
computed and compared with erosion of runner at JHC.
3. Jhimruk hydroelectric centre (JHC)
JHC is a run-off-river hydropower plant consisting of Francis
turbines operating under net head of 201.5 m and total discharge of
7.05 m3/s. The plant has a design output of 12.6 MW, with 3 units
each running at 1000 rpm. After 5 months of rst operation in 1994,
turbine blades, guide vanes, facing plates and casing were severely
eroded. Severe damage was seen at band of outlet of runner, where
relative velocity between runner and ow is highest. Several
strategies from sediment trap mechanism at inlet to the surface
hardening of runner have been attempted at JHC to control the
erosion problem. However satisfactory results could not be ach-
ieved [18]. Repair of eroded turbines and parts on an annual basis
has been the current solution to keep the power plant under
operation.
Several studies have been conducted to collect reliable data of
suspended sediment particles entering the runner of JHC
[1,14,18,19]. For this study relevant secondary data from past studies
have been considered.
The Particle size diameter (PSD) for JHC was measured with
a Visual Accumulation tube test in a laboratory [19]. Fig. 1 shows the
results of the PSD analysis carried out for sample from settling
basin. It was found that 90% of the particles entering the turbines
are below 0.1 mm in diameter and mean diameter (d50) of the
particles entering runner is 0.025 mm. The sediment particles at
JHC were found to be relatively rounded in comparison to those in
other rivers in Nepal [20].
The sediment concentration at the river, intake and through
turbine unit was measured [14]. Fig. 2 shows the sediment
concentration through turbine unit number three between
September and October. The sediment concentration in September
is approximately 500 PPM on average, while it is approximately
(9)
100 PPM in the dry season in October [14]. But it can also go as high
as 57,000 PPM [18].
Mineralogical distributions of sediment sample shows that on
average 83% of the minerals in the Jhimruk river are hard minerals
like quartz and feldspar, whose hardness are above 6 on the Mohs
scale [1,14]. Table 1 shows the results from the mineralogical
samples.
(10) Reduction in runner efciency due to erosion damage at JHC
was measured by two successive thermodynamic efciency
measurements within the interval of 11 weeks of monsoon period
[14]. Fig. 3 shows the damage of runner due sediment erosion
during the rst 4000 h of operation. The severe damage is observed
at edges near to band of outlet. Fig. 4 shows the results of the
thermodynamic efciency measurements carried out on turbine
unit number three at JHC. Within the operational period of one
monsoon season, the average loss of efciency recorded at BEP is
4%. However, it was estimated that, 50% of loss in efciency was due
to leakage at labyrinth seals and 25% loss in efciency was due to
erosion in guide vans [14].
4. Erosion modelling and results
Modelling of erosion damage in runner at JHC due to suspended
particles has been carried out to predict erosion rates (mm per
year) and reduction in runner efciency (% per year). Two standard
erosion models recommended by Bajracharya [9] and IEC [11] have
been used to estimate erosion rate and consecutive reduction in
efciency. Estimation from both erosion models have been
compared with results from actual experimental measurements.
An improved erosion model has been proposed to minimize
inaccuracy in existing erosion models. Reliability of the proposed
Table 1
Mineralogical distribution, from turbine site at JHC [14].
Minerals Sample no.(%) Average % Mohs Remarks
hardness
1 2 3 4
Quartz 60% 62% 60% 63% 61 7 Other minerals content
Feldspar 20% 20% 24% 25% 22 6 are mainly tourmaline
Mica 19% 19% 15% 11% 16 2e3 and rock fragments
Others 1% 1% 1% 1% 1 >6
 B.S. Thapa et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 386e391
Fig. 3. Erosion of JHC runner during the operation period of 4000 (Courtesy, BPC).
modications has been veried from experimental results. The
methods of modelling and the results of each model have been
discussed as follows.
4.1. Trial 1
Erosion model prescribed by IEC-62364 [11] is used as rst trial
to compute average loss in thickness (mm per year) for runner at
JHC. The parameters associated with this model as given in Eq. (10)
have been listed in Table 2.
Table 3 lists the relevant data from JHC needed to compute the
loss in thickness of runner according to the IEC model. As recom-
mended by IEC, value of Kf is determined to get correspondence
between calculated and observed erosion rates. All other necessary
data are calculated or assumed as per recommendation from the
IEC erosion model. Calculations have been done for one year of
operation period for both the runner and guide vane. Table 4 lists
calculation results from the IEC erosion model.
The observation of erosion in the runner has shown that the
maximum erosion in the runner and guide vane during one year
period of operation is 3 mm. With Kf 1.02$106 for runner and
Kf 7.98$107 for guide vane, erosion predicted by the IEC model is
equal to that of the observed value. This shows that the erosion
model recommended by IEC can be applied to estimate the depth of
material removal from runner and guide vanes. However, this
erosion model needs a calibration to determine the value of Kf for
each turbine component from the previously measured erosion
data.
Fig. 4. Turbine efciency measurements at JHC [14].
389
4.2. Trial 2
Erosion model used by Bajracharya [9] as given in Eq. (6) and Eq.
(7) have been used for computation of erosion rate. The size needed
for this model is taken same as size factor (ksize) for trial 1. Fig. 5
shows the results given by the second trial of erosion model. As
per the given equations the results of modelling are in terms of
proportionality function. For JHC, with 80% of hard particles, the
results can be expressed as follows:
Er f 1.84 (mm/year of operation)
This model includes size of eroding particles only as the
parameter to estimate the erosion rate. It lags inclusion of several
other important factors as concentration, shape and hardness of
particles, property of base materials etc., which play decisive role in
determining erosion rate. Furthermore, this model predicts erosion
in terms of proportionality only and may mislead the evaluator.
However, inclusion of appropriate factors as proportionality
constant could make this model more accurate and reliable. This
has been attempted in next trial of erosion modelling.
4.3. Trial 3
An improved erosion model has been proposed that can esti-
mate both absolute erosion rate (mm/year) and corresponding
reduction in efciency (% per year) of Francis runners due to sus-
pended particles. This erosion model includes constant factors
recommended by IEC model in trial 1 as proportionality constants
for erosion model recommended by Bajracharya in trial 2. The nal
equation yielded is as follows.
Er C$Khardness $Kshape $Km $Kf $a$sizeb mm=yr (11)
hr a$erosion rateb %=year (12)
Where, constant terms are same as dened in erosion models of
trial 1 and 2. In this trial 3, Eqs. (11) and (12) are used to estimate
erosion rate and reduction in efciency in runner at JHC respec-
tively. As per recommendation from IEC, approximate value of Kf
has been determined. Prediction of the erosion rate and consequent
reduction in efciency of runner in varying concentration of sedi-
ment has been done.
Kf is estimated by relating the predicted erosion rate for JHC
from the erosion model with the observed erosion rate of 3 mm/
year. Data presented in Table 4 has been followed for the calcula-
tions. Fig. 6 shows the relation between Kf and erosion rate due
sediment erosion at JHC given by Eq. (11). It shows that for Kf 4
the predicted erosion rate for JHC from the erosion model is equal
to the observed erosion rate. Fig. 7 shows the relation between the
erosion rate and reduction of efciency with increasing sediment
concentration through the runner given by Eqs. (11) and (12). It
shows that at sediment concentration of 500 ppm, the erosion rate
is 3 mm per year and the corresponding loss in efciency is 1% per
year.
This trial of erosion modelling does not include the reduction in
efciency due to leakage losses, which contributes 50% of reduction
in turbine efciency [14]. Several literatures [21,22] have suggested
unsteady and turbulent ow in Francis runner particularly at the
outlet region which reduces the certainty in ow prediction for
estimating erosion losses. Furthermore, JHC runner is a splitter
blade runner and this design may give different erosion pattern and
different results from the erosion models.
Findings of Thapa [1] from his empirical correlations given by
Eq. (4) applied to Jhimruk runner estimates 2.5 mm loss in average
thickness of runner during one season of operation. This estimation
390 B.S. Thapa et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 386e391

Table 2
IEC-62364 erosion model and associated parameters [11].

Variables Denition Unit Governing Equation

S The depth of metal that has been removed from a component mm S W 3 $PL$Km $Kf
due to particle abrasion. (Average loss in thickness)
W A characteristic velocity dened for each machine component. m/s Wrunner 0:25 0:033$ns $2$g$H0:5
Used to quantify particle abrasion damage. Wgv 0:55$2$g$H0:5
p
ns Specic speed; n is rpm of runner, P (rated power) and H (net head) e n$ P
are taken in the rated operating point and given in kW and m respectively ns 5=4
H
PL The particle concentration, C, integrated over the time, T, that is kg*hr/m3 Z T
under consideration PL Ct$ksize t$kshape t$khardness t$dt
0
ksize Factor that characterizes how abrasion relates to the size, shape e ksize Median diameter d50 of particles (mm)
kshape and hardness of the abrasive particles respectively kshape 1 (suggested in general)
khardness khardness fraction of particles harder than the turbine material
Km Factor that characterizes the abrasion relates to the material e Km 1 for martensitic stainless steel
properties of the base material Km 2 for carbon steel
mm*s3
Kf Factor that characterizes how the abrasion relates to the water Kf is determined for each case to get correspondence
kg*hr
ow around each component between calculated and observed erosion amount

is equal to the value predicted by this trial of erosion modelling for
yearly average sediment concentration of 400 ppm. Result of
thermodynamic efciency measurements [14] shows 4% loss in
total efciency at JHC due to erosion, in which the runner
contributes about 25%. This shows the consistency of this trial of
erosion modelling with ndings from earlier research studies.
Results from Fig. 7 could be used to formulate operational and
maintenance policy. The runner can be operated at the higher level
of sediment concentration by compromising drop in efciency up
to certain level of cut-off concentration. Determining the material
removed due to sediment erosion, by cumulating operational time
and corresponding sediment concentration, the proper mainte-
nance schedule can be projected.
Results of this trial show its utility for predicting erosion
damage in hydropower plant in a simple way. Inclusion of reduc-
tion in efciency due to leakage from labyrinth seals in this model
could be a step ahead for further study. Mette [23] has found by CFD
analysis that Tabakoffs erosion model can be applicable for

Table 3
Relevant data from JHC for erosion modelling.

S.N. Parameter Values for JHC

1 H 201.5 m
2 P 4200 kW
3 n 1000 rpm
4 ns 85.36
5 C 0.5 kg/m3
6 ksize 0.025 mm
7 kshape 1
8 khardness 0.83
9 Km 1

Table 4
Determination of Kf from IEC erosion model for JHC.

SN Parameter Runner Guide vane

1 W 31.82 34.58
2 PL 90.88 90.88 Fig. 6. Trial 3 modelling results to determine Kf for JHC.
3 S 3.00 3.00
4 Kf 1.02$106 7.98$107

Fig. 5. Erosion rate predicted from Trial 2. Fig. 7. Trial 3 modelling results for JHC for Kf 4.
 B.S. Thapa et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 386e391
numerical modelling of sediment erosion of Francis turbines.
Validation of the proposed model by similar numerical methods
would be valuable for it technical applications.
5. Conclusions
Sediment erosion in hydro turbines is a complex phenomenon
and there is a need of further research to develop methods for more
accurate computation of its effects. Inclusion of leakage losses,
induced by erosion, in the empirical models is still a challenge. Flow
factor dened by IEC-62364 erosion model needs further clari-
cation for its easy computation.
Analysing the results from existing erosion models and
comparing them with the experimental data, an improved empir-
ical erosion model to estimate erosion rate and loss in runner
efciency of Francis turbine, has been developed. For JHC the
improved erosion model estimates drop in efciency of the runner
alone to be 1% per year, which is consistent to the results of eld
measurements. The new erosion model can be used as an effective
tool to formulate appropriate design and maintenance strategy for
the Francis runner at the specic site.
References
[1] Thapa B. Sand Erosion in Hydraulic Machinery. Ph.D. Thesis at Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 2004.
[2] Thapa B, Shrestha R, Dhakal P, Thapa BS. Problems of Nepalese hydropower
projects due to suspended sediments. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health
and Management; 2005:251e8.
[3] Eltvik M. Sediment erosion in Francis turbines. Masters thesis at NTNU, 2009.
[4] Darling K. Erasing erosion. International Water Power and Dam Construction;
2005.
[5] Padhy MK, Saini RP. Effect of size and concentration of silt particles on erosion
of Pelton turbine buckets. Energy 2009;34(10):1477e83.
[6] Duan CG, Karelin VY. Abrasive erosion and corrosion of hydraulic machinery.
London: Imperial College Press; 2002.
[7] Bitter JGA. A study of erosion phenomena. Part I and II. Wear 1963;6:5e21.
and 169e190.
[8] Padhy MK, Saini RP. A review on silt erosion in hydro turbines. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 2008;12:1974e87.
[9] Bajracharya TR, Acharya B, Joshi CB, Saini RP, Dahlhaug OG. Sand erosion of
Pelton turbine nozzles and buckets: a case study of Chilime hydropower plant.
Wear 2008;264:177e84.
[10] Neopane H. Sediment erosion in hydro turbines. Ph.D. Thesis at NTNU, 2010.
[11] IEC. Hydraulic machines e guide for dealing with abrasive erosion in water.
62364 Ed. 1.0, 2009.
391
[12] Truscott GF. Literature survey of abrasive wear in hydraulic machinery. Wear
1972;20:29e50.
[13] Padhy MK, Saini RP. Study of silt erosion on performance of a Pelton turbine.
Energy 2011;36(1):141e7.
[14] Pradhan PMS, Joshi PN, Biswakarma MB, Stole Sediment H,
Efciency Thermodynamic. Measurement at Jhimruk hydropower plant,
Nepal in monsoon 2003. In: proceedings of ninth international symposium on
river sedimentation, China; 2004.
[15] Bardal E. Korrosjon og Korrosjonsvern. Trondheim: Tapir, 1985 [in
Norwegian].
[16] Tsuguo N. Estimation of repair cycle of turbine due to abrasion caused by
suspended sand and determination of desilting basin capacity. In: Proceedings
of international seminar on sediment handling technique, NHA, Kathmandu;
1999.
[17] Finnie I. Erosion of surfaces by solid particle. Wear 1960;3:87e103.
[18] Ruud J. Sediment handling problems Jhimruk Hydroelectric Centre. Masters
Thesis at Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway, 2004.
[19] Butwal Power Company (BPC)/Hydro Lab. Additional settling basins at Jhim-
ruk headworks, hydraulic design and model study. Nepal. 2004.
[20] Thapa B, Dhalhaug OG, Shrestha R, Kaphl KP. Sediments of Nepalese rivers
with respect to sand erosion of hydraulic turbine. In: Proceedings of ninth
international symposium on river sedimentation, Yichang, China; 2004.
[21] Meland HA, new design of a Francis turbine in order to reduce sediment
erosion. Masters Thesis at Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Norway, 2010.
[22] Neopane HP, Dhalhaug OG, Thapa B. Alternative design of a Francis turbine for
sand laden water. In: Proceedings of international conference on hydro-
powerehydro Sri Lanka; 2007.
[23] Eltvik M, Neopane HP, Dhalhaug OG. Prediction of sediment erosion in Francis
turbines. In: Proceedings of 4-th international meeting on cavitation and
dynamic problems in hydraulic machinery and Systems, Serbia; 2011.
Biraj Singh Thapa is a MS by Research graduate from Mechanical Engineering
Department at Kathmandu University with the topic Hydraulic design of Francis
turbine exposed to sediment erosion. He is also a researcher for RenewableNepal
Project with Kathmandu Universtiy, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Nepal Hydro & Electric and DynaVec as partners to develop new turbine
manufacturing facility in Nepal.
Bhola Thapa obtained his PhD in Mechanical Engineering at The Norwegian University
of Science and Technology in 2004. Currently he is a Professor at Department of
Mechanical Engineering and Dean of School of Engineering at the University. His
research area is Sand Erosion of Hydraulic Machinery.
Ole G. Dahlhaug obtained his PhD in Mechanical Engineering at The Norwegian
University of Science and Technology in 1997. He worked at SINTEF as Research
Scientist, with Research and testing of pumps and turbines. Currently he is a Professor
at Waterpower Laboratory at NTNU. He is also a member of IEC. He has been actively
working in Nepalese hydropower plants in research of sand erosion of turbine
components and efciency measurements.