Renewable Energy 112 (2017) 328e336

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Selection of guide vane profile for erosion handling in Francis turbines

Ravi Koirala a, b, Hari Prasad Neopane a, *, Shrestha Oblique a, Baoshan Zhu b, Bhola Thapa a
a
Turbine Testing Lab, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal
b
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

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

Article history: In guide vane cascade of Francis turbine, highest acceleration occurs, which generates equivalent amount
Received 28 September 2016 of force for work done and erosion due to instantaneous change in flow dynamics. Hence in addition to
Received in revised form runner vane, suitable selection of guide vane profile has equal importance. Usually, NACA defined hy-
26 March 2017
drofoils are used for guide vanes. Numerous options are available, but selection of best one for optimum
Accepted 8 May 2017
Available online 12 May 2017
energy harness is important. Primarily, guide vane torque and turbine efficiency is prioritized. For the
turbines operating in sediment laden water, pressure difference between two sides of guide vane and
erosion resistivity are additional factors to be considered. This work was performed in the vicinity of
Keywords:
Guide vane profiles
guide vane profile selection for Francis turbines operating in sediment laden water. Computational
NACA analysis on turbine flow passage and experimental study with Rotating Disc Apparatus were performed
Sediment erosion in order to identify suitable profile. Unsymmetrical profiles were found to be better handling erosion
maintaining consistency in turbine performance.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
With increasing world’s energy demand, development of per-
petual energy source for sustainable development has been prior-
itized. Hydropower is considered as green energy source incurring
minimum production, operation and maintenance cost. In its
developmental phase from water wheel to modern days highly
efficient turbo machines, numerous modifications and develop-
ment were performed. The prime objective of modification is to
overcome existing shortcomings with enhanced harnessing. Design
modification for resistive operation in sediment laden water, is the
need of this developmental era since most of the undeveloped re-
sources pertains this problem.
As a part of continuation of research in development of erosion
resistant turbine at Turbine Testing Lab, Nepal, this is the second
phase after erosion handling of runner vanes, where focus is Guide
Vanes. GVs are prime components whose operation in sediment
laden flow has severe effect on its life and performance. Research
and development for flow study and problem mitigation in GVs are
very essential.
Thapa et al. [1]. and Chitrakar et al. [2]. studied flow phenomena
along symmetric guide vane profile using single guide vane cascade
system. Dahl, 2014 [3], studied hydraulic design of Francis turbine
that will be influenced by sediment erosion by selection four guide
vane profiles to study sediment handling. The overall erosion ten-
dency in the turbine was found to be dependent on guide vane profile.
Moreover un-symmetric profiles were found to be better handling
sediment compared to the symmetric profiles. Qi-feiet. al. [4], studied
the influences of guide vane airfoil on runner performance. Antonsen
[5] studied the effect of guide vane profile on inlet and outlet pressure
distribution in Guide vane cascade. Pressure variations with distance
were observed. Post proper mixing will ensure uniform pressure in
each of the profile case. Although pressure profile is similar but dif-
ference in amplitude may affect the performance.
Study on nature of erosion with guide vane angle for different
profiles may help in solution of research oriented problems in
systematic manner. Moreover, selection of profile for erosion
handling and reduction of cross flow is essential due to resulting
problems. Hence this work focuses on experiment and computa-
tion related with erosion tendency and selection of guide vane
profile for erosion handling. In addition to effect of profile on
sediment resistivity, influence on other parameters like velocity
triangle, performance, GV torque were studied.

* Corresponding author.
2. Sediment erosion in guide vanes of Francis turbine
E-mail addresses: ravikoirala@ku.edu.np (R. Koirala), hari@ku.edu.np
(H.P. Neopane). Fig. 1 shows erosion in and around guide vanes of Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.05.033
0960-1481/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Koirala et al. / Renewable Energy 112 (2017) 328e336 329

turbine operating in run-off-rivers, originating from the Hima-

layas. Observation showed considerable loss in weight of guide
vane due to erosion in every overhaul interval. Particularly, pres-
sure and suction side and clearance gap regions were found to
have severe damages. In addition to it, feather and stem of guide
vanes were also found to be affected. Fig. 1 shows the erosion in
guide vanes of Bhilangana HPP (8 MWx3, India), Sunkoshi HPP Fig. 2. Cross flow in Guide Vane cascade.
(3.33 MW x 3, Nepal), Kaligandaki HPP (48 MWx3, Nepal) and
Middle Marsyangi HPP (35.9 MWx2, Nepal). This trend in erosion 3. Methodology
is similar with almost all hydropowers operating in sediment
laden water. Four digit NACA hydrofoils with different thickness and camber
Erosion in guide vane profile increases flow friction and losses. were used for guide vane profiles, based on design requirement. In
In addition to it clearance gap erosion increases cross flow along the this study, hydrofoils with chamber percentage of 0% and 40% and
vane (from 1 to 2 in Fig. 2), disturbing main flow stream. The maximum camber of 0%, 1%, 2% and 4% were used to select best
severity of this clearance gap on performance of Francis turbine was profile for erosion handling. Computational and experimental
studied by Koirala et al. (2016) [6]. It was found that increased gap studies were performed on the profiles shown in Fig. 3.
has considerable effect on efficiency of the turbine. In addition to it, These profiles were generated with GUI based MATLAB interface
secondary cross flow disturbs the main flow stream which in- developed for plotting guide vanes of different profiles at different
creases losses. angles for Francis turbine, whose output is acceptable to Turbogrid.
Guide vane erosion is primarily function of guide vane angle (a), The GUI interface is an outcome of this research activity.
material (gm), velocity (v), profile (p) and sediment property (sp);
3.1. Experimental method


gverosion ¼ f a; gm ; v; p; sp
In an erosion test rig, either the specimen or agent or both
Bhilagana HPP
India
Sunkoshi HPP
Nepal
Kaligandaki-A HPP
Nepal
Middle Marsyangdi
HPP, Nepal

Fig. 1. Sediment erosion in guide vanes of Francis turbine.

330 R. Koirala et al. / Renewable Energy 112 (2017) 328e336

NACA 0012 NACA 1412

NACA 2412 NACA 4412

Fig. 3. Guide vane profiles for analysis.

should be in motion, the relative velocity between them is impor-
tant [7]. Rotating Disc Apparatus [RDA] is one of the accepted ways
for simulating erosion phenomena in hydraulic turbines. It was
originally developed to study erosion cavitation combined effect on
turbine materials, with the need modifications were done for
design tests. Rajkarnikar et al. [8]. used it for erosion comparison in
reference and optimized design of Francis runner vanes and
Shrestha et al. [9]. used it to study erosion in Cross Flow runner
vanes, where he developed the same setup inserting IS-2062
material cross flow blades and predicted the erosion. Fig. 4 shows
the experimental setup of Rotating Disc Apparatus modified to
perform erosion test in Guide Vanes of Francis Turbine. Through
vane tip velocity of 6 m/s, on a disc of 250 mm diameter, rotating at
458 rpm, flow velocity was comprehended. The arrangement of
profile on disc is based on Fig. 4(a). Experiments were performed at
3 GV angles; P1, P2 and P3 as shown in Fig. 4 (b). Fig. 4 (c) and (d)
shows the arrangement and construction in RDA. Particles were
manually traced and visualized to ensure expected particle swirl

Test Vane

Flow
Direction
Disc

Turbine

PS SS

Rotation
P1 P2 P3

(a) (b)
Electric Motor Guide Vane
Drive

Test Drum

Inside Drum
Rotating Disc
(c) (d)
Fig. 4. Rotating Disc Apparatus Optimized for erosion test in guide vane.
 R. Koirala et al. / Renewable Energy 112 (2017) 328e336 331

around vanes. Test samples were coated with epoxy based spay to
visualize location of erosion. Baffles were installed at the circum-
ference of drum to ensure stagnation of sediment and water. This
has also been described in Shrestha et al. [10]. Additional compu-
tational analysis with rotating domain of drum ensured velocity,
flow and swirl in the setup for accelerated testing with Aluminum
GV. Experiment was performed with sediment size ranging from
150 mm to 300 mm. On each operational cycle, concentration of
66.67 gm/l was maintained to prepare a common base of concen-
tration for comparison purpose. Four experiments on fresh vanes
were performed and average value was considered for the study.
3.2. Computational method
This two phase liquid particle flow when strikes turbine wall,
resultant erosion pattern is defined by the erosion models. Tabakoff
erosion model has been found reliable compared to other for the
analysis of erosion in Francis turbines. Hence ERD is defined by
Equation (3) and is a function of particle characteristics, turbine
materials, velocity and angle [11].
h i
E ¼ K1 :f ðgÞ:VP2 :Cos2 g: 1  R2T þ f ðVPN Þ (3)
Restitution coefficient on parallel and perpendicular director
was used to define particle action as it hits the wall. Neopane
suggested the perpendicular and parallel coefficients to be 0.9 and
1 respectively [12].

Computational analysis for sediment erosion in guide vanes of
Francis turbine with commercial CFD software Analysis System
(ANSYS) allows single periodic passage flow of SV, GV and RV with
rotational periodicity (Fig. 8). Geometry considered for this study is
an earlier research of Turbine Testing Lab, Kathmandu University
which was generated for erosion handling in runner vanes [10].
3.2.2. Sensitivity analysis
In computational analysis, computational sensitivity is an
important segment for observation in-order to support the reli-
ability of solution. This study primarily observes two parameters;
particle number independent test and grid scaling test.

3.2.1. Solver theory 3.2.2.1. Particle number test. Particle Number Independent Test
The fluid flow analysis was performed using Reynolds Averaged refers to figuring out the number of particle at which Erosion Rate
Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations defined with mass, momentum Density is independent to each other. This is important as ERD is a
and energy conservation and represented by; function of it. Here 10% convergence criteria have been pre-
determined to estimate the possible number of particles to be
! !
vUi vU 1 vP v vUi vUj considered for this calculation. Fig. 5 is a Particle number inde-
þ Uj : i þ  v þ  Tij0 ¼0 (1) pendent test observed with the variable ERD. 6000 number of
vt vxj r vxi vxj vxj vxi
particles was selected.
Fluid flow turbulence was found to be better conversing with
two equation Shear Stress Transport model, it has capability of 3.2.2.2. Grid scaling test. In order to determine the grid conver-
turbulence prediction at boundary layer and away from boundary gence, a widely used method Grid Convergence Index method has
regions for both boundary flow and separated flows. been used. This predicts numerical uncertainties and grid conver-
Langrangian Particle Tracking Method was used to track discrete gence. Three different grids with fine (G1), medium (G2) and coarse
numbers of particles on free stream flow. The CFD code in- (G3) densities were developed for Guide Vane geometry. The
corporates particle tracking and fluid-particle solution coupling for approximate and extrapolated relative errors were estimated as;
approximation of particle fluid interaction, through the variation in
 
mass resulting difference of velocity. The particle force in two phase G1  G2 
e21  
flow domain is described with Equation (2), where particles drag in a ¼ 
G 1
water, buoyancy, Coriolis Effect, virtual mass and pressure gradient
forces, during its motion in fluid is described.  
G21  G 
 ext 2
e21 ¼ 
dU
ext  G21 
mP P ¼ FD þ FB þ FR þ FVM þ FP þ FBA (2) ext
dt
The grid convergence index was estimated as;

1.6E-06

1.2E-06
ERD[Kg.m-2.s-1]

8.0E-07

4.0E-07

0.0E+00
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000
Number of Particles
Fig. 5. Particle number independency test.
332 R. Koirala et al. / Renewable Energy 112 (2017) 328e336

(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Grid convergence study of GV.

Table 1
21 1:25xe21
a
Boundary condition.
GCIfine ¼ 2
r21  1 Inlet Flow Direction
(a, r, t) (0, 0.509701, 0.860352)
Fig. 6 (a) is the plot for guide vane loading at various circum- Convergence Criteria
ferential locations plotted for G1, G2 and G3 grid densities with RMS size 105
extrapolated values on meshes. Fig. 6 (b) is the uncertainity plot for
variation of loading with grid. It has been found that an average
deviation of around 0.6% over the most of the regions maximum within the turbine. Particle size ranging from 200 to 300 mm with
deviation at trailing edge were observed. flow rate of 0.5 kg/sec were uniformly inserted at the inlet for the
calculation. The range of particle and its flow rate were selected
3.2.2.3. Mesh independent test. Mesh Independent test was per- based on field observation. Interaction of the particle with no slip
formed with reference design case of NACA 0015. Mesh size was walls were defined with parallel (0.8) and perpendicular (1.0)
increased by 1.5 time to each level and 1% convergence criteria was restitution coefficients. The effect of particle on wall was estimated
selected for this computation. Fig. 7 shows the graphical repre- with Tabakoff erosion model .
sentation of mesh related data for pressure and Erosion Rate All meshes were developed using, Turbogrid from coordinate
Density. files extracted through design tool (Table 2). Fig. 5 is the plot for
particle number independency test.
3.2.3. Boundary conditions
Mass flow inlet of 92.92 kg/s and outlet pressure of 1 atm, used 4. Selection of guide vane profile
for proper convergence of result. Inlet swirl was defined with cy-
lindrical coordinate system (Table 1). Runner rotates at 1000 rpm in 4.1. Computational results
clockwise direction and defined to have frozen rotor interface with
the stator. Reynold’s Average NavierStoke’s Equation with Shear Primarily, selection of profile was based on erosion handling;
Stress Turbulence model was used to simulate turbulence flow Erosion Rate Density. In addition to it, pressure difference between

1.77E+06 2.50E-07
Average Erosion Rate Density [kg.m-2.s-1]

1.76E+06
Average Pressure [Pa]

2.00E-07
1.75E+06

1.74E+06
1.50E-07

1.73E+06

1.00E-07
1.72E+06

1.71E+06
5.00E-08
1.70E+06

1.69E+06 0.00E+00
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
Mesh Size

Fig. 7. Mesh independent test for guide vane of NACA 0015.

 R. Koirala et al. / Renewable Energy 112 (2017) 328e336 333

Table 2
Mesh information.

Component Node Size Min angle yþ

Stay Vanes 102,510 81 41

Runner Vanes 170,400 38 28
Guide Vanes 109,039e110,516 20e31 32e37

Fig. 10. DP Vs Op for different guide vane profiles.

LE SS PS

Fig. 8. Computational domain.

P1
pressure and suction side were also noted to ascertain minimum
cross flow. Fig. 9 is a plot of ERD against %Op of GV at same inlet
condition. The asymmetric profile NACA 4412 is found to have
minimum ERD hence better erosion handling from computational
perspective.
Fig. 10 is the plot for Pressure difference between pressure and
P2
suction side and guide vane openings. DP has higher variations
among the profile at low opening and tends to be similar at higher
openings. Possibly because of higher pressure difference at part
openings most of the clearance gap erosion were observed at this
condition. With NACA 4412, pressure difference were also found to
be minimum, so as the cross flow and hence the clearance gap
erosion. P3

4.2. Experimental results

Experimental activities showed that, the trend in erosion
pattern is similar in profile cases but the severity varies. From
Fig. 4(b), at P1 and P2, LE erosion is towards SS whereas at P3 it is
towards PS. Higher erosion in SS at P1 and PS at P2 and P3. Fig. 11
shows the summarized experimental observation based on
removal of epoxy from the painted surface.
Fig. 12 is the plot for % weight loss in GV obtained through RDA
experiment in contrast to the computational analysis. Fig. 12 (a) (b)
Fig. 11. Experimental observation of erosion pattern on guide vane.
and (c) are the comparative plot at different operational time in
four different profiles at different angular positions. Erosion in
NACA 4412 is comparatively lower than other three although, it has
little difference with NACA 0012 in the case of P2. At P3 erosion in all
the cases are higher and at this condition NACA 4412 has
comparatively higher erosion behavior.

1.6E-07
4412
2412
1.2E-07 1412
ERD [kg.m-2.s-1]

8.0E-08

4.0E-08

0.0E+00
20 40 60 80 100
Op [%]

Fig. 9. ERD Vs Op for different guide vane profiles.

334 R. Koirala et al. / Renewable Energy 112 (2017) 328e336

(a) Mid Position (P2) (b) Toward Closing (P1)

(c) Toward Opening (P3)

Fig. 12. % Weight loss at various guide vane positions in different profiles measured at 3 different time intervals.

5. Optimization effect on performance
In addition to geometric shape and design properties of runner
vanes, performance of turbine is significantly related to flow
striking the blades’ leading edge. Property of flow at this point is a
strong function of guide vane positioning and profiles. In addition
to erosion handling, performance of turbine is primary criteria for
selection of guide vanes. Fig. 13shows the plot of turbine efficiency
at different guide vane opening for different profiles. The efficiency
of turbine is optimum at 60% opening for all guide vane profiles.
With asymmetric profile NACA 4412 selected based on erosion
handling, part load performance is higher compared to other pro-
files whereas full load efficiency is relatively lower (see Fig. 14).
In addition to efficiency, GV torque is another general design and
selection criteria ensuring actuation and control through pivoted
support. This ascertains mechanical strength and functionality of
the system.
With guide vane profile and its angular variation there is change
in Design case of the turbine resulting drastic variation in perfor-
mance. The variation is mark able at low vane opening and is almost
consistent at larger openings for same flow condition. Cm1, Cu1, C1
and W1 has similar kind of variation pattern and graphical stiffness.
At around BEP i.e. 60% opening, in all profiles flow tends to be similar.
Fig. 15 is the design case description of runner vanes. Fig. 16, Fig. 17,
Fig. 18 and Fig. 19 are the plots of meridian, tangential, absolute and
relative component of velocity with respect to guide vane openings.

100

75
η [%]

50
4412
2412
1412
25
20 40 60 80 100
Op [%]

Fig. 13. h Vs Guide Vane opening for different profiles.

 R. Koirala et al. / Renewable Energy 112 (2017) 328e336 335

0
20 40 60 80 100

-2000
4412

T [N.m]
2412
-4000 1412

-6000

-8000

-10000
Op [%]

Fig. 14. Guide Vane torque Vs Guide Vane opening for different profiles.

Design
Case
U1 44.013
C1 43.744
Cu1 43.115
Cm1 7.389
W1 7.443

Fig. 15. Inlet Velocity triangle at BEP.

Fig. 18. C1 vs Op at various guide vane profiles.

Fig. 16. Cm1 vs Op with various guide vane profiles.

Fig. 19. W1 vs Op at various guide vane profiles.

6. Conclusion

GV governs rate, velocity and direction of inlet flow for runner,

Fig. 17. Cu1 vs Op at various guide vane profiles.
hence selection of optimum profile in terms of operational condi-
tion is essential. NACA defined numerous hydrofoils are available as
options. Primarily, turbine performance and guide vane torque are
prioritized, but in the turbines operating in sediment laden water,
erosion behavior and pressure different needs to be considered.
Study with computational tool ANSYS and experimental method
Rotating Disc Apparatus compared four different GV having varia-
tion in Camber percentage. NACA 4412 was found to have lower
erosion and pressure difference between PS and SS hence, relatively
better performance in sediment laden water. Experiment showed
lower weight loss in NACA 4412 compared to other two. Perfor-
mance and operational characteristics were also found to be
336 R. Koirala et al. / Renewable Energy 112 (2017) 328e336

consistent with minimum alteration for considered case. ERD Erosion Rate Density
Selection of GV profile is possible though simplified computa- GV Guide Vane
tional and experimental method. Adaptation of this method in U1 Tangential velocity at Inlet
future turbines, to be installed in sediment laden water will ensure C1 Swirl Velocity at Inlet
turbine performance, durability and reliability. Cu1
Cm1 Meridional velocity at Inlet
Acknowledgement W1 Relative velocity at Inlet
h Efficiency
The author would like to acknowledge KETEP Project at Turbine Op Guide Vane Opening
Testing Lab for allowing modification in the developed setup and
Ms. Vipassana Paudel for helping us in quantification of erosion.

Abbreviations References

[1] B.S. Thapa, C. Trivedi, O.G. Dahlhaug, Design and development of guide vane
NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
cascade for a low speed number Francis turbine, J. Hydrodyn. 28 (no. 4) (2016)
MW Mega Watt 676e689.
GUI Graphical User Interface [2] S. Chitrakar, B.S. Thapa, H.P. Neopane, O.G. Dahlhaug, Numerical Investigation
RDA Rotating Disc Apparatus of the flow phenomena around a low specific speed Francis turbine’s guide
vane cascade, in: 28th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems,
ANSYS Analysis System Grenoble, 2016.
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics [3] G. Dahl, Hydraulic Design of a Francis Turbine that will be Influenced by
RMS Root Mean Square Sediment Erosion, 2014. Trondheim.
[4] L. Qi-fei, Q. Hui, L. Ren-nian, J. Dun-jun, Influences of guide vane airfoil on
KETEP Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and hydraulic turbine runner performance, Procedia Eng. 28 (2012) 703e708.
Planning [5] Ø. Antonsen, Unstready Flow in Wicket Gate and Runner with Focus on Static
TTL Turbine Testing Lab and Dynamic Load on Runner, NTNU, Trondheim, 2007.
[6] R. Koirala, B. Zhu, H. Neopane, Effect of clearance gap on performance of
SS Suction Side Francis turbine, Energies 9 (2016) 275.
PS Pressure Side [7] B. Thapa, Sediment Erosion in Hydraulic Machinery, NTNU, Trondheim, 2004.
LE Leading Edge [8] B. Rajkarnikar, H.P. Neopane, B.S. Thapa, Development of rotating disc appa-
ratus for test of sediment-induced erosion in Francis runner blades, Wear 306
T Guide vane Torque (2013) 119e125.
DP Pressure difference in [9] O. Shrestha, N. Acharya, B. Thapa, H. Neopane, Y. Lee, Design and development
gverosion Guide vane erosion of rotating disk apparatus to test sediment erosion in cross flow turbine
a Guide vane angle runner blades, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Current
Research in Hydraulic Turbines-VI, Dhulikhel, Nepal, 2016.
gp Guide vane material property [10] B.S. Thapa, B. Thapa, M. Eltvik, K. Gjosater, O.G. Dahlhaug, Optimizing runner
V Flow Velocity blade profile of Francis turbine to minimize sediment erosion, in: 26th IAHR
p Guide vane profile Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems, Beijing, China, 2012.
[11] ANSYS Inc, CFX-pre Theory Guide, ANSYS, 2014.
Sp Sediment property [12] H. Neopane, Sediment Erosion in Hydraulic Turbines, Trondheim, Norway,
P1, P2, P3 Position 1, 2 and 3 2010.