1

EXPERIMENTS WITH THE THERMODYNAMIC METHOD

Emmanuel Ct, Eng. and Gilles Proulx, Eng.
Test Engineers, Hydro-Qubec,
5565, rue De Marseille, Montral, Qc, Canada, H1N 1J4

SUMMARY
The thermodynamic method was recently used for efficiency testing in a high-head plant in northern Qubec,
and the results were compared with results obtained with the acoustic transit-time method. Uncertainty caused by
energy distribution was evaluated, and experiments were performed to find answers to unresolved questions and
to verify hypotheses so that application of the thermodynamic method at Hydro-Qubec could be improved.
Four total-head probes were used to extract sample discharges upstream of the spiral casing. Water temperature
was measured directly in the probe, while pressure was measured at the probe ports. One of the probes was
longer than the others, to check the impact of wall proximity on the measurements obtained. Possible
environmental heating of the water and friction heating of the thermometer sensor (friction with the sampling
discharge) were also tested by varying the sampling discharge for a given turbine operating point. An adiabatic
measuring chamber was also installed downstream of one of the sampling probes to validate that specific
mechanical energy measured would be the same in quasi-stagnant conditions.
Eight thermometers (with current meters for weighting purposes) were placed on a frame to scan flow vertically
at the end of the draft tube. All but one of these thermometers were equipped with an aluminum cylinder that
completely surrounded the temperature sensor and reduced water velocity around it. The remaining thermometer
was equipped with a protector that allowed flow to circulate freely around the temperature sensor. A measuring
vessel was also installed on the frame to measure total temperature and pressure in reduced-velocity conditions.
The results obtained with the thermodynamic method corresponded very well with those obtained with the
acoustic method, and the additional testing and analyses answered many ongoing questions about the
thermodynamic method. Environmental heating of the sampling probes was greater than anticipated, while no
friction heating of the temperature sensors was detected. Downstream measurements in the main flow were
confirmed in quasi-stagnant conditions, but higher temperatures were measured in the absence of a flow-
reducing protector around the temperature sensor. This paper describes and analyzes the testing methods, results
and additional experiments conducted in this case study.
2
SITE AND OBJECTIVES
The thermodynamic method uses the principle of conservation of energy to determine the efficiency of a
hydraulic turbine from measurements of performance variables (such as pressure, temperature, velocity and
level) and the thermodynamic properties of water. The accuracy of the method increases with the amount of
specific hydraulic energy measured, and the method is thus preferably used to assess high-head turbines (head
100 m), as stated in the IEC 41 standard.
For this case study, thermodynamic tests were carried out on a Francis turbine with a specified net head of 330 m
in an underground two-unit power plant in northern Qubec, Canada. As shown in Figure 1, spiral cases are
supplied with water by an 8.5-km headrace tunnel that leads to a surge tank and then a manifold, a converging
section and a ball valve. Specified unit output is 440 MW at a flow of about 150 m/s.

Figure 1: Cross section of site and unit
Following the commissioning of the units, efficiency tests were performed for contractual and operating
purposes. To increase the level of confidence of the results, two methods were used: thermodynamic and
acoustic transit-time. To reduce the uncertainty of the thermodynamic method and answer several questions,
about temperature measurement in particular, additional measures were taken. Details and results of these
measures are discussed in the additional experimentation section.
Manifold Penstock
Unit
Ball valve

Converging
section
Water intake Headrace tunnel Manifold Surge tank Turbine
Outflow

3
THERMODYNAMIC METHOD
With the thermodynamic method, efficiency is defined as the ratio of specific mechanical energy to specific
hydraulic energy. Both these specific energies are measured differences between a high-pressure section
upstream and a low-pressure section downstream of the turbine. Figure 2 shows the locations of these sections.

Figure 2: Positioning of the measuring sections
Specific hydraulic energy is commonly measured for efficiency testing, and good precision is relatively easy to
achieve. However, computing specific mechanical energy with accuracy requires measuring water temperature
differences of only a few mK. To do this, sampling discharges were extracted by four probes installed in the
high-pressure section while the low-pressure section was scanned with thermometers and current meters on a
frame in motion.
High-Pressure Section
Figure 3 shows the installation of one of the four sampling probes. The cylindrical total-head probe facing the
flow inside the conduit is shown on the left, and the piping and insulation are shown in the center and on the
right respectively.

Figure 3: Installation of sampling probe
When a sampling discharge is extracted, temperature is immediately measured in the probe. A pressure sensor is
positioned just outside the conduit at the outside end of the probe. After passing by the temperature and pressure
sensors, water circulates around the thermometer, to insulate it from ambient temperature, and finally crosses a
small propeller flow meter before discharge to the drain. All piping is insulated to minimize heat exchanges with
ambient air.

High-pressure
measuring section
Low-pressure
measuring section
4
Low-Pressure Section
Figure 4 shows the measuring frame: CAD representation on the left, picture in the centre and zoom on one of
the eight thermometers with its current meter on the right.

Figure 4: Low-pressure measuring frame
For each operating point, the frame scans the flow vertically in the stoplog gates at the end of the draft tube. The
frame is equipped with eight thermometers equally spaced along the lower horizontal profiled rod. A current
meter beside each thermometer measures water velocity. Gathering data over the entire measuring section allows
computation of temperature and velocity profiles. Temperature is then integrated and weighted with the velocity
profile to obtain average temperature for the low-pressure section. Pressure is read on the two static pressure taps
located on the side walls.
Specifi c Mechanical Energy Corrections
The corrective term for specific mechanical energy was calculated taking three factors into account, in
accordance with IEC 41:
1. Water temperature variation during travel between the two measuring sections.
2. Heat exchanges with the sampling probes
3. Heat exchanges with ambient air introduced by aeration
TRANSIT-TIME ACOUSTIC METHOD
The transit-time acoustic method of discharge measurement uses the difference in time of travel of acoustic
pulses transmitted downstream versus upstream on a given path crossing the conduit to determine the average
velocity of water along that path. Discharge is computed by integrating the velocity of multiple paths, assuming
a fully-developed velocity profile.
To increase the accuracy of the results, the velocity profile at the measuring section should be stable,
axisymmetric and fully developed. Therefore, the section should be as far as possible from any disturbance. IEC
41 recommends ten conduit diameters of straight length upstream and three downstream. The location of the
measuring section is shown in Figure 5. As the figure shows, it was not possible to follow the recommendation,
but the disturbance of a slightly converging section is usually small.

Figure 5: Acoustic measurement section
Like most systems meeting IEC 41 requirements, the layout of the transducers consists of two four-path planes at
65, for a total of 16 transducers. With four-path planes, quadrature integration methods can be used, and use of
two planes eliminates the effect of traverse velocity components.
Acoustic velocity
measurement section
L 6D
D =4.250 m
5
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
Figure 6 shows the efficiency curves resulting from thermodynamic testing of units 2 and 1 and acoustic method
testing of unit 2.

Figure 6: Comparison of thermodynamic on both units and acoustic testing
The two thermodynamic curves are of quite similar shape, with peak efficiency located at about the same output.
Unfortunately, no data are available at higher discharges for unit 1, since the thermodynamic testing was stopped
once peak efficiency was reached. However, results indicate that unit 1 is about 0.3% more efficient than unit 2
over most of the operating range. These measured differences are what justifies testing every unit. Mean
weighted efficiency was very close to guaranteed efficiency in both units.
Figure 6 also shows that the thermodynamic method yields a lower efficiency than the acoustic method in unit 2
when discharge is low, but a higher efficiency after optimal discharge is reached. Comparison with the index
curve of static pressure difference in the converging section suggests the efficiency value obtained via the
acoustic method is slightly overvalued before the peak. However, the efficiency value yielded by the
thermodynamic method seems to be overvalued for the three runs at highest output, with the discrepancy starting
at a discharge of about 120 m/s, or 80% wicket gate opening.
A 120-m/s discharge gives an average velocity of about 15 m/s at the upstream sampling section. At such
velocities, friction can heat the probe slightly, causing the temperature of the sampling water to rise by a few
mK. Though difficult to validate, this seems the most plausible explanation of what appears to be a slight
overvaluation of efficiency by the thermodynamic method at high velocity. In future testing, this will be checked
using a sampling probe shaped more like a Pitot tube.
Nonetheless, all efficiency deviations remained small and within the expected uncertainty margin for these
methods of efficiency testing.
89
91
93
95


g
r
o
u
p
e

(
%
)
U
n
i
t

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
1
%

/

d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
)
Output (20 MW / division)
Thermodynamic, Unit 2
Acoustic, Unit 2
Thermodynamic, Unit 1
6
ENERGY DISTRIBUTION AND NUMBER OF SAMPLINGS
IEC 41 suggests that uncertainty due to the absence of exploration of energy distribution can amount to 0.2%
and 0.6% for the high- and the low-pressure sides respectively. Energy distribution is shown for both sides and
uncertainty estimated by plotting standard deviation as a function of the number of samplings.
High-Pressure Section
Figure 7 presents the energy distribution of the samplings on the high-pressure side. Left and right are referenced
looking downstream.

Figure 7: High-pressure energy distribution
Deviations were about +0.20% and -0.15% respectively for the lower-left and upper-right samplings. Figure 8
shows standard deviation of specific mechanical energy versus number of samplings.

Figure 8: Uncertainty for high-pressure exploration
Based on Students t distribution, the estimated 0.037% standard deviation for four samplings gives an
uncertainty of 0.059% on average with a 95% level of confidence. The 0.2% uncertainty estimate for sampling
without exploration seems accurate in the present case.
-0.20%
-0.15%
-0.10%
-0.05%
0.00%
0.05%
0.10%
0.15%
0.20%
0.25%
1 2 3 4
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

e
n
e
r
g
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Sampling
Each line is for a
run at a given flow
(Upper right) (Lower right) (Lower left) (Upper left)
0.00%
0.05%
0.10%
0.15%
0.20%
0.25%
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
Number of sampling
Number of samplings
7
Low-Pressure Section
Figure 9 shows temperature distribution of the eight thermometers on the low-pressure side.

Figure 9: High-pressure energy distribution
Temperature distribution fluctuates greatly with flow. The average standard deviation of temperature distribution
is 3 mK. Figure 10 shows standard deviation of specific mechanical energy versus the number of thermometers
taken into account.

Figure 10: Uncertainty for high-pressure exploration
Based on Students t distribution, the estimated 0.14% standard deviation gives an uncertainty of 0.12% on
average with a 95% level of confidence. The 0.6% uncertainty estimate for sampling without exploration is
close, but slightly higher than these results.
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

t
o

t
h
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

(
m
K
)
Thermometer
Each line is for a
run at a given flow
0.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
Number of sampling Number of thermometers
8
ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTATION WITH THE THERMODYNAMIC METHOD
To validate different theories and increase the confidence level of the results obtained with the thermodynamic
method, additional verifications were performed.
Upstream Expansion Chamber
To test the influence of water velocity on temperature measurement, a measuring chamber was installed
downstream of one of the sampling probes. This second measurement of specific mechanical energy was made at
much lower velocity (16 times slower, since the pipe diameter is four times larger). Figure 11 shows the
measuring vessel, supplied by sampling water downstream of the installation shown in Figure 3.

Figure 11: Upstream measuring vessel
If there is no heat exchange with the ambient air, the specific mechanical energy measured at both locations
should be the same. Therefore, mineral wool was installed to insulate the tubes carrying the sampling discharge.
Efficiencies computed using the data collected in the measuring vessel were all at least 1.75% too high. The
variation in specific mechanical energy as a function of sampling flow suggests the insulation was not sufficient
to prevent heat exchanges with the ambient environment.
Sampling Probe Length
To test the impact of the distance between the wall and the location where the sampling is done, one of the four
probes was slightly longer. IEC 41 specifies only that sampling must be done more than 5 cm from the wall.
Figure 12 shows the two types of probes.

Figure 12: Sampling probes (two lengths)
No significant difference was found between the results obtained with the longer probe and those obtained with
the other probes. The differences between the results obtained with probes of different length were small and not
greater than those obtained with probes of the same length.
9
Sampling Discharge
IEC 41 recommends a sampling discharge between 6 and 30 L/min. A lower discharge reduces the risk of
heating the thermometer probe by friction, while a higher discharge reduces the risk of influence from an
external source of energy. Since water temperature is measured directly in the sampling probe, the risk of
external sources of energy influencing the measure seemed virtually nonexistent and a discharge of 6 L/min was
targeted.
To test its influence on results, sampling discharge was altered from 2 to 16 L/min and four runs of data were
taken at the same point of operation of the turbine. Figure 13 shows the specific mechanical energy measured
(before correction for external heat exchange) as a function of the inverse value of the sampling discharge.

Figure 13: Influence of sampling discharge on specific mechanical energy
Since environmental heating is inversely proportional to sampling discharge, the intercept point of the linear
regression gives the specific mechanical energy that would have been measured if the sampling discharge were
infinite, meaning the measure is not influenced by external heating. Even though water temperature is measured
immediately in the sampling probe and all conduits are insulated, specific mechanical energy is still influenced
by environmental heating in the range of 0.3 % depending on the sampling discharge.
On the other hand, no additional heating that could have come from water friction on the temperature sensor was
demonstrated at the maximum sampling discharge measured. A discharge of 16.4 L/min gives a velocity of
1.7 m/s at the sensor, within the recommendations of IEC 41 (<2.0 m/s). A greater increase in sampling
discharge would have been necessary to start observing heating by friction.
In short, the correction for heat exchange gives accurate results. However, the correction could have been
smaller without introducing friction heating of the temperature sensor if the sampling discharge had been
increased so velocity approached 2.0 m/s at the thermometer.
y = 42.0185x + 3 052.9015
R = 0.9685
3052
3054
3056
3058
3060
3062
3064
3066
3068
3070
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

e
n
e
r
g
y

(
J
/
k
g
)
1 / Sampling discharge (min/L)
10
Downstream Thermometer Protectors
Seven of the eight thermometers installed on the downstream measuring frame had a cylindrical protector
covering the temperature sensor in its entirety. In addition to protecting the sensor, this cylinder also controls the
flow of water circulating around it; two small holes drilled near the downstream end of the cylinder allowed
circulation of water while reducing the velocity of the flow on the sensor. The protector on the remaining
thermometer protected the sensor from being hit by objects while allowing free circulation around it. Figure 14
shows the two types of protectors.

Figure 14: Two types of protectors
To test the flow-reducing cylinders, the second thermometer (T2) was installed with the simple protector
allowing free flow around the sensor. Table 1 shows temperature measurements of thermometer T2 in
comparison with those of its neighbors (T1 and T3).
Table 1: Temperature comparisons

Temperature measured by thermometer T2 is always a little higher than the average of the temperatures
measured by its two neighbors. Results do not show correlation between the deviation and water velocity. Other
thermometers also showed similar trends.
Water Velocity Deviation (mK)
Run Mean(T1,T3) T2 V2 (m/s) T2 - Mean(T1,T3)
57 6.8492 6.8505 1.72 1.3
43 6.9040 6.9070 1.07 3.0
56 6.8219 6.8245 1.19 2.6
44 6.7886 6.7917 2.15 3.1
39 6.9031 6.9056 2.17 2.5
55 6.8051 6.8098 2.23 4.7
59 6.8302 6.8316 2.04 1.5
49 6.7847 6.7860 1.79 1.3
45 6.7037 6.7049 1.85 1.3
48 6.7937 6.7953 2.31 1.6
47 6.7607 6.7656 2.63 4.9
46 6.7194 6.7214 2.98 1.9
Mean Deviation: 2.5
DownstreamTemperature (C)
11
Downstream Measuring Chamber
To verify the downstream measure of specific mechanical energy directly in the flow, a measuring vessel (Figure
15) was installed on the frame with the thermometers and current meters. Water from the main flow enters the
vessel through a Pitot tube-type total head input and exits through a small hole on the opposite side that controls
circulation. Total temperature and pressure are thus measured in the vessel in quasi-stagnant conditions. Static
pressure is also measured at the same elevation outside the vessel.

Figure 15: Downstream measuring vessel
Since pressure sensor signals become saturated when the sensor is too deeply submerged, only data from the
higher part of the draft tube could be analyzed. It was still possible, nonetheless, to compare temperatures and
energies measured by both methods. Table 2 shows the results of these comparisons.
Table 2: Comparison between measurements in the flow and in the vessel

Even though specific mechanical energy is slightly lower when measured using the vessel, the mean deviation of
0.05% is minimal and confirms the validity of temperature measurement in the flow.
Run T7 (C) Tv (C) Deviation (mk) Em,T7 (J /kg) Em, Vessel (J /kg) Deviation (%)
57 6.8470 6.8481 1.0 2980.84 2977.21 -0.12%
43 6.9029 6.9036 0.8 3052.24 3049.25 -0.10%
56 6.8175 6.8180 0.5 3071.08 3069.38 -0.06%
44 6.7737 6.7749 1.2 3083.97 3083.07 -0.03%
39 6.8967 6.8979 1.2 3093.43 3092.02 -0.05%
55 6.8026 6.8038 1.2 3064.29 3062.79 -0.05%
59 6.8349 6.8363 1.3 3057.79 3055.05 -0.09%
49 6.7875 6.7878 0.4 3058.32 3057.97 -0.01%
45 6.7068 6.7069 0.1 3054.83 3055.26 0.01%
48 6.7931 6.7941 1.0 3051.37 3049.92 -0.05%
47 6.7506 6.7514 0.8 3039.94 3039.73 -0.01%
46 6.7156 6.7171 1.5 3031.65 3030.44 -0.04%
DownstreamTemperature (C) Specific Mechanical Energy (J /kg)
12
CONCLUSIONS
Efficiency measured by the thermodynamic method averages 0.07% higher than efficiency measured with the
acoustic transit-time method. Though the shapes of the curves of these measured efficiencies are somewhat
different, the deviation never exceeds 0.5% at any given operating point. There seems to be a slight
overvaluation of thermodynamic efficiency at higher discharges, where friction heating of the sampling probes is
possible. There is a 0.33% difference in efficiency between the two units of the plant and efficiency uncertainty
on unit 2 is evaluated at 0.35%.
With four sampling probes in the high-pressure section and eight thermometers in the low-pressure section,
uncertainties for energy distribution exploration are evaluated at 0.037% and 0.12% for the high- and low-
pressure sections respectively.
External heating of the sampling probes was greater than anticipated. An approximate 0.3% correction of the
specific mechanical energy value obtained was necessary due to heating of the sampled water by the external
environment before temperature measurement in the sampling probes.
On the other hand, no friction heating of the temperature sensors was detected. Maximum sampling discharge
gave a velocity of only 1.7 m/s at the temperature sensor, which is probably too slow to generate significant
friction heating.
Downstream measurements with a frame in motion in the main flow were confirmed in quasi-stagnant
conditions. Mean deviation between specific energy measured directly in the flow and specific energy measured
by a total-head expansion chamber was only 0.05%.
However, higher temperatures were measured when there was no flow-reducing protector around the
thermometer sensor; mean deviation was 2.5 mK and did not correlate with water velocity.

REFERENCE
1. IEC 60041, International Standard: Field acceptance tests to determine the hydraulic performance of
hydraulic turbines, storage pumps and pump-turbines, third edition, 1991-11.

BIOGRAPHIES
Emmanuel Ct, Eng., graduated in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Sherbrooke in 2007. He
has worked for Hydro-Qubec Productions testing department since 2008 and has conducted many tests of
hydraulic turbine performance using the departments main test methodsincluding the current-meter, acoustic
transit-time, pressure-time and thermodynamic methods as well as different index tests.
Gilles Proulx, Eng., graduated in Mechanical Engineering from the cole Polytechnique de Montral in 1989
and has worked for Hydro-Qubecs test department since then. He has worked on the commissioning of major
Hydro-Qubec power plants and has performed many performance tests using different methods. He is
responsible for the R&D team of the testing department and is the convenor of Maintenance Team 28 of the TC4
of IEC and a member of the ASME PTC 18 revision committee.
1
A PROPSAL FOR IMPROVING THE THERMO DYNAMIC
METHOD.

BY: Professor Emeritus Consultant Hermod Brekke, Norway

Introduction.

The paper presents the Thermodynamic Efficiency Measurement at 2 power plants in Norway where
both temperature and velocity have been measured proving that it is possible to weigh the energy in
a correct way by this method.
In addition the measurement of a vertical Small Hydro Pelton turbine is presented where the
measuring condition made a systematic error when using perforated pipes for collection the water at
the turbine outlet. A discussion on the possible reason for the error is given.

Examples are given of measurement by using weighted energy from the measuring points by
measurement of both velocity and temperature in each point.

Measurement at Bratsberg Power plant.

The technical data for the turbine at Bratsberg yields: P = 60 MW, Hn=130 m, n = 300 RPM.
In general it will not be correct to measure the temperature in 3*3 =9 positions and use the average
temperature for the energy calculation of the energy at the outlet from the turbine.
At Bratsberg a measurement was made by using a collector as illustrated in fig.1 for a test to include
the influence from the stagnation pressure of the water to obtain the right amount of water from each
point in 6 locations across the draft tube outlet.


Fig.1 The flow collector used for the temperature measurement at Bratsberg. /Ref. 1/

However, even if the stagnation pressure into each inlet was representative for each point a certain
overpressure occurred in the collector where the pipes were jointed and thus this measurement did
not get an inflow proportional to the speed of the water at each point./Ref.1/

2
A new measurement was made at Bratsberg in 1995 with separate measurement of both velocity and
temperature in 6 points on a traversing frame covering 6x6 measuring points.
The result is shown in fig. 2 and fig 3.

Fig. 2 Measuing result from BratsbergPower plant at 68% load with measurement of both flow
velocity and temperature proving that the point of highest velocity had an efficiency 0.4% below the
mean velocity. /Ref. 2/.

Fig. 3 Measured velocities and deviations from mean efficiency at different locations in the draft
tube outlet gate at 95% load at Bratsberg /Ref. 2/ Highest velocity was found near the point of
average efficiency in this case.

3

Measurement at Driva power plant

Another measurement was made at Driva Power Plant on a high head Francis turbine where both
velocity and temperature where measured at the draft tube gate.
The technical data for the turbine which were measured are: P=71.5 MW, Hn=540 m, n=600 Rpm.
This measurement was made by M.Sc. Erik Nielsen in his Ph.D work in 1992.
By measuring both velocity and temperature it was proven that we would have no inflowing water
from the lowest points in the draft tube if a collecting system of any kind had been used.
By using flowmeters and measuring temperature and velocity separately the outlet energy could be
calculated correctly. The measuring frame which was traversed from bottom to top on 3 levels
according to IEC rules is shown in fig 4.
The results of the measurement at 45 MW illustrated in fig. 5 is taken from this measurement.

Fig. 4 Measuring arrangement for the high head turbine for Driva Power plant. Left. The measuring
frame moved up and down in the draft tube gate frame. Right the flowmeters.


Fig 5 Measuring result from Driva at 45 MW. /Ref. 3/





4
Meassurement at Svren power plant

Svren power plant is a small hydro power plant where one Pelton turbine is installed with
following technical data: P =2 946 kW, Hn=220 m and n =600 RPM.
It is well known that it is difficult to get god measuring condition when measuring efficiency by the
Thermodynamic method in a Pelton turbine.
The reason is that some water is sucked back up to the runner in the centre and then this water will
hit the back of the buckets when streaming outwards driven by the centripetal force. When hitting
the buckets foam is created by a mixture of water and air. This water have a much higher
temperature than the average water and is floating in top in the outlet channel close to the turbine
until it is mixed with the main flow of water some distance downstream of the turbine.
This phenomena is well known and then the measuring point of temperature by the thermodynamic
must take place a certain distance from the turbine where the foam has disappeared from the surface.
Using perforated pipes will give a false temperature because water from the high velocity field i.e. at
the surface will dominate the inflow.
At Svren power plant this problem was extremely difficult because the measuring point was
planned to be located upstream of a weir. This weir was located approximately one turbine casing
diameter downstream of the turbine outlet i.e. very close to the turbine.
In fig. 6 left the arrangement of the perforated pipes is shown and to the right is shown the foam on
top of the high velocity water streaming towards the weir, bypassing the perforated pipes.


Fig.6 Left. Arrangement of the perforated pipes upstream of wear the weir. Right. The foam
bypassing the perforated pipes.

In the case of Svren a measurement with a combination of flowmeters and temperature probes,
would have proven a strong variation in both flow velocity and temperature between bottom and top.
However, by knowing both temperatures and velocities the total energy could be calculated like the
example shown for Driva power plant. Still the measurement should have been further downstream
from the turbine to avoid the low density foam which might give uncertainty in the velocity
measurement.
Especially in front of a weir both velocity and temperature must be measured separately to get a
correct result because of the strong variation in velocity.
Perforated pipes should never be used because water from the high velocity field will be dominating
the temperature in the water inside the pipe and thus a false result will be the case.
As illustrated in fig 7 the velocity field upstream of a weir will have a very low velocity at the
bottom and the temperature in a perforated pipe will be dominated by surface water.
5

Fig. 7 Schematic illustration of the flow crossing a weir.

The result from the efficiency measurement at Svren gives a clear indication of the dominating
inflow of the water closest to surface especially because the efficiency dropped when the surface
became lower at lower load both at reduced needle opening and at reduced number of jets in
operation.
In fig 8 is shown the result from the efficiency test.


Fig. 8 Result from efficiency test with 2 jets 4 jets and 6 jets at Svren. Note the drop in efficiency at
decreased flow and height of the surface in front of the weir.

For a comparison the measured efficiency from a small hydro turbine and model turbines adjusted to
the efficiency at full load at power plant Svren, is shown in fig. 9.

6
It should be remarked that the efficiency at 6 jets and 4 jets and often 2 jets normally have the same
maximum efficiency as for 6 jets. Then we obviously have a systematic error in the measurement at
SVREN caused by using perforated pipes.
This error could be prevented by measuring both velocity and temperature and move the measuring
point further downstream from the turbine. (For Svren this would be difficult because the weir was
built as a part of the cooling water system for the generator.)

Fig. 9 Index test based on similar efficiency measurements in a similar 6 jet small turbine and
various model tests.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

At present time it should be no problem to arrange for measuring both velocity and temperature
across the outlet of a turbine. Then a weighted efficiency from different measuring point should be
used.
It should however be emphasized on the fact that it is very difficult to make a reliable measurement
too close to the Pelton turbines because of the hot water in the foam.
Finally, perforated pipes may give false results and should be substituted by measurement of both
velocity and temperature separately. This is in order to be able to weigh the energy as a function of
both the velocity and temperature. In modern time it should be easy to get such equipment. The time
collecting data and calculate the efficiency should be short with computerized equipment.

REFERERENCES:

Ref. 1: H.Brekke Measuring Uncertainties of Specific Energy in Draft Tube Outlet. GPMT 16.th
Meeting in Salzbourg Oct. 05-08. 1992

Ref. 2: O.B.Dahlhaug A Study of Swirl Flow in Draft Tubes. PhD Work Norwegian University of
Science and Technology 1997.
7


IGHEM 2012
The 9
th
International conference on hydraulic efficiency measurements
Trondheim, Norway
June 27
th
- 30
th
, 2012

XXXXXX
Comparison of discharge measurements Comparison of discharge measurements Comparison of discharge measurements Comparison of discharge measurements - -- - Thermodynamic to US Clamp Thermodynamic to US Clamp Thermodynamic to US Clamp Thermodynamic to US Clamp- -- -
On, stationary US and Needle Opening On, stationary US and Needle Opening On, stationary US and Needle Opening On, stationary US and Needle Opening Curve Curve Curve Curve

Tobias Rau, Marco Eissner

Voith Hydro Holding GmbH & Co. KG
Alexanderstr. 11, 89522 Heidenheim, GERMANY



Abstract Abstract Abstract Abstract
For high head hydro turbines the thermodynamic method is the most common way to
measure the efficiency. This method uses the conversion of energy and enables to derive the
discharge from its results. Other methods measure the discharge directly to verify the turbine
efficiency at a hydroelectric unit.
According to the IEC code 60041 the thermodynamic method is a primary method and
therefore it will be taken as a reference in this paper for the comparison with three other
methods of discharge measurement: a stationary ultrasonic device installed in front of the
spherical valve and an ultrasonic clamp-on system between spherical valve and distributor
inlet. In addition the needle opening of the six nozzles are used for the determination of the
discharge.
All the measurement methods are performed at a six nozzle vertical Pelton turbine with a head
of approximately 500m. Thus every measurement method has the same boundary conditions
and can be compared with each other.
All the described methods, compared with the thermodynamic method, are according to IEC
code 60041 secondary methods and can be used only for relative efficiency tests. The results
of this test show besides the accuracy of these methods also their limitations.
Partly the results correlate very well with those of the thermodynamic method. The ultrasonic
clamp-on system had higher deviations mainly in the lower load part, maybe caused by a not
optimal measuring position. The data of the stationary ultrasonic and the needle opening are
very similar in comparison to the primary method.

1 11 1 Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction
Finding solutions of doing more cost effective relative efficiency tests it becomes essential to
acquire more experience with different kind of discharge measurements. Especially compared
to absolute methods accepted by IEC code 60041, e.g. the thermodynamic method.
Within the last years the technical progress comes up to a point, where it is possible to
measure discharges quickly with clamp on devices for temporarily installation.
This paper shall give a better understanding and shall spread the experience made with
different kind of discharge measurement techniques and shall also show their limitations of use
by comparing these results to the results of a thermodynamic efficiency test.
In this paper the results of the thermodynamic efficiency test shall be the reference to all other
methods which are described and applied.

2 22 2 Theoretical background Theoretical background Theoretical background Theoretical background
2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Thermodynamic Thermodynamic Thermodynamic Thermodynamic
The thermodynamic method results from the application of the conversation of energy. It is a
transfer of energy between the machine and the water passing through it. The hydraulic
efficiency (equation 4) of a turbine is defined as the ratio between the specific mechanical
energy (equation 1) and the specific hydraulic energy (equation 2).

This method gives the possibility to determine directly the energy that the water transmits to
the turbine shaft. Beginning from the inlet reference section derived from the measured
quantities and from the thermodynamic properties of water. This energy is called specific
mechanical energy. The specific mechanical energys unit is Joule per kg water.
To measure all necessary quantities in practice a small portion of water will be extracted out of
the main flow of the turbine into so called vessels.
For the application of the thermodynamic method three different procedures can be used:

Full expanded fluid (pressure term disappear)
Partial expanded fluid (temperature term disappear)
Not expanded fluid (measured quantities similar to the values in the main flow)

These days the method of full expansion and partial expansion usually is not used any more.

] / )[ ( *
2
* ) ( *
21 11
2
21
2
11
21 11
Kg J z z g
v v
T c p p a E
p m
+

+ + =

equation 1 General definition of specific mechanical energy

] / )[ ( *
2
2 1
2
2
2
1 2 1
Kg J z z g
v v p p
E +

equation 2 General definition of specific hydraulic energy

] [ / m g E H =
equation 3 Net head

[%]
E
E
m
h
=

equation 4 Hydraulic efficiency
where
a isothermal factor of water
p11 pressure in the vessel on the high pressure side
p21 pressure in the vessel on the low pressure side
cp the specific heat capacity of water
T the differential temperature between high and low pressure side
v11 the velocity in the vessel on the high pressure side
v21 the velocity in the vessel on the low pressure side
g the acceleration due to gravity
z11 the level of the vessel on the high pressure side
z21 the level of the vessel on the low pressure side
p1 the pressure in the reference section on the high pressure side
p2 the pressure in the reference section on the low pressure side
the density of water
v1 the velocity in the reference section on the high pressure side
v2 the velocity in the reference section on the low pressure side
z1 the level of the reference section on the high pressure side
z2 the level of the reference section on the low pressure side



Figure Figure Figure Figure 1 11 1 Schematic Schematic Schematic Schematic arrangement arrangement arrangement arrangement of measuring poi of measuring poi of measuring poi of measuring poi nts for the nts for the nts for the nts for the t tt thermodynamic method hermodynamic method hermodynamic method hermodynamic method

Figure 1 shows the schematic arrangement of the measuring points for the thermodynamic
method at a vertical Pelton machine which was applied for this comparison. On the high
pressure side the water was extracted with two sampling probes and taken into vessels. In
both vessels the pressure, the temperature and the amount of extracted water was measured
separately for the determination of the specific mechanical energy. In the penstock at high
pressure side the inlet pressure was measured as an average of four pressure taps.
On the low pressure side a measuring frame was installed with nine temperature sensors and
two level probes. With this set up the energy distribution can be determined with a good
resolution and accuracy. The measuring frame was installed in a distance of app. 8 x D that
means the minimum distance recommended by IEC60041 was met.
By indirect determination of the mechanical power and the determination of specific mechanic
energy the discharge through the machine can be calculated.

2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Stationary U Stationary U Stationary U Stationary Ultrasonic System ltrasonic System ltrasonic System ltrasonic System
The acoustic method of discharge measurement (ultrasonic, time of flight or transit time) is
predicated on the propagation of velocity of an acoustic signal and the main flow velocity is
vectorial summed. An acoustic signal sent downstream travels at a faster absolute velocity
than an acoustic signal sent upstream. By measuring the travel times in both directions it is
possible to determine the average axial velocity of the acoustic path crossing a certain cross
section.

sin * * *
2
1
_
wi
n
i
axi i
L v w
D
Q

=
=

equation 5 General equation for discharge according to transit time method [1]
where
D penstock diameter
Lwi the length of the acoustic path
wi the weighting coefficients
vaxi the averaged axial flow velocity
n the number of acoustic paths in one plane
the angle of the acoustic paths


The stationary ultrasonic system was installed to detect the leakage in the penstock (see figure
2), e.g. in case of penstock rupture. It measures continuously the flow rate in the 2 penstocks
and in the 4 inlet pipes to each turbine. Each penstock and the two corresponding inlet pipes
will be compared continuously. The flow rates are measured with an ultrasonic transit-time
measurement device on each line. For the comparison test the result of the section before the
main inlet valve was used to measure the discharge by acoustic transit time method. The
scope of this installation was not the measurement of efficiencies or performance guarantees.


Figure Figure Figure Figure 2 22 2 Single Line Single Line Single Line Single Line Diagram of leakage monitor Diagram of leakage monitor Diagram of leakage monitor Diagram of leakage monitoring ing ing ing [2] [2] [2] [2]

Figure 3 shows the arrangement of the acoustic paths before main inlet valve. In general the
arrangement is dependent on the flow profile and the pipe diameter. For this project an
arrangement of four planes with four paths was installed.


F FF Fig ig ig igure ure ure ure 3 33 3 Arrangement of Arrangement of Arrangement of Arrangement of acoustic paths acoustic paths acoustic paths acoustic paths (US stationary) (US stationary) (US stationary) (US stationary)

4 plane arrangement with single path
2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Clamp Clamp Clamp Clamp- -- -On Ultrasonic System On Ultrasonic System On Ultrasonic System On Ultrasonic System
The principle of the US Clamp-On system is the same like described in 2.2 Stationary U. An
acoustic pulse which is sent upstream travels at a lower absolute speed than an acoustic
pulse sent downstream. The average axial velocity of the fluid crossing the path of the pulses
is determined by measuring the travel times of the acoustic signal sent in the two directions.
Major different to the stationary system is that each path for the clamp-on device travels
through the center of the penstock cross section (refer to figure 4). That means the
determination of the velocity profile corresponding to the stationary US-device is not possible.
For the comparison test it was chosen a one plane arrangement with single path. The choice
of the measuring position was limited by accessibility to the penstock. Therefore the
measuring section was selected directly after the main inlet valve (MIV) near to the distributor
inlet. The conditions for this arrangement were not good because the measuring section was
in a conical part of the penstock and the outlet of the measuring sections was only in a
distance of app. 1xD to the distributor inlet.

F FF Figure igure igure igure 4 44 4 Arrangement of acoustic path (US clamp on) Arrangement of acoustic path (US clamp on) Arrangement of acoustic path (US clamp on) Arrangement of acoustic path (US clamp on)

2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Needle Opening Needle Opening Needle Opening Needle Opening
The flow through the machine can be determined with the needle opening curve as well. The
net head and the cross section of the needle opening depend on the needle stroke. The net
head results from the determination of the specific hydraulic energy (refer to equation 2 and
equation 3) and the needle stroke can be measured directly with any kind of linkage sensor.
With the needle stroke the needle cross section can be determined.
To achieve an accurate needle opening curve a tested model is beneficial. The results and
experience can be adopted to the prototype and the standard flow function can be adjusted.
Of course the accuracy is also depending on the deviation between theoretical design of the
needle and the manufactured needle at the prototype. That means the more the analogy from
design to prototype is fulfilled the merrier is the accuracy of this kind of discharge
determination.

H g w * * 2 * 98 , 0 =

equation 6 Standard flow function with loss factor

w A Q * =

equation 7 Discharge
3 33 3 Comparison Comparison Comparison Comparison of discharge values of discharge values of discharge values of discharge values
Results of all methods were compared to the results of the thermodynamic efficiency test.
Deviations between the different methods and the results of the thermodynamic efficiency test
were determined.

The results show clearly that the measurement with the clamp on system has significant
deviations to the reference measurement. There are several reasons why the deviations are
higher than expected compared to the reference. The clamp on system was installed in a
slightly conical part of the penstock. This matter did not account for a higher accuracy but
does not explain such high deviations. Additionally the system was installed very close to the
distributor inlet (because of accessibility to the penstock) were the flow distribution can change
keenly when at lower loads not all nozzles are opened. With just one path an adequate
determination of the flow velocities over the cross section is not possible especially if there is a
highly disturbed flow pattern. With the results achieved from the clamp on system it was not
possible to derive a reasonable index test curve because the deviations were not constant and
even changed their prefix.

Relative deviation of US clamp on to Thermodynamic measurement
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
75,8 75,8 52,2 52,2 61,9 61,9 52,6 52,6 38,4
Needle Opening [%]
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]

F FF Figure igure igure igure 5 55 5 Relative deviation of US c Relative deviation of US c Relative deviation of US c Relative deviation of US clamp on to reference measurement lamp on to reference measurement lamp on to reference measurement lamp on to reference measurement
The deviations of the stationary ultrasonic system to the reference measurement are in an
acceptable range if you consider that it is a four planes system with single paths arrangement.
The deviations of the stationary ultrasonic system are all below 1%. Except of one outlier all
deviations have the same prefix and are all in the same magnitude. With values achieved from
the stationary ultrasonic device it was possible to reproduce the shape of the efficiency curve
according to the results of the reference measurement. For index testing the device deliver
acceptable results.

Relative deviation of stationary US to Thermodynamic
measurement
-1,2
-1
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
75,8 75,8 52,2 52,2 61,9 61,9 52,6 52,6 38,4
Needle Opening [%]
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]

F FF Figure igure igure igure 6 66 6 Relative deviation of stationary US to reference measurement Relative deviation of stationary US to reference measurement Relative deviation of stationary US to reference measurement Relative deviation of stationary US to reference measurement

The deviations of the needle curve discharge are all below 0.9%. The deviations have all the
same prefix and are roughly in the same magnitude. The deviations getting higher to smaller
loads of the unit that means in the 2 and 3 nozzle operation of the machine the deviations are
higher compared to the reference measurement. With values achieved from the needle curve it
was possible to reproduce the shape of the efficiency curve according to the results of the
reference measurement. For index testing this method deliver acceptable results.

Relative deviation of discharge to Thermodynamic measurement
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
75,8 75,8 52,2 52,2 61,9 61,9 52,6 52,6 38,4
Needle Opening [%]
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]

F FF Figure igure igure igure 7 77 7 Relative deviation of discharge to reference measurement Relative deviation of discharge to reference measurement Relative deviation of discharge to reference measurement Relative deviation of discharge to reference measurement
4 44 4 Summary Summary Summary Summary
The results of this comparison show explicit that the choice of the measuring method, the
measuring section and the measuring arrangement has to be carefully chosen according the
aim of the respective measurement. Furthermore a detailed validation of the test results and
the conducted test setup is essential.
Especially for the ultrasonic clamp-on discharge measurement special care has to be taken to
achieve reasonable results. The general statement that a clamp on device can be easily
installed without focus on the right position and setup cannot be confirmed based on the
results of this comparison. Contrariwise good measuring conditions are more important to
achieve reasonable values.
The four plane single path stationary ultrasonic device achieved reasonable results without any
correction. This experience confirms that for Index tests ultrasonic devices with a smaller
amount of paths can be used properly and without special focus on the borderlines of the
measuring setup. For the use at absolute efficiency tests it is strongly recommended to use at
least a 4 planes 8 paths system to achieve the necessary accuracy. Otherwise special care
has to be taken to measuring set up and the flow distribution (e.g. by CFD).
The results of the needle opening curve give quiet good results. Especially if you consider that
the effort for this measurement is quiet small. At a Pelton machine just the measurement of the
inlet pressure, the electrical power and the needle opening is necessary to achieve an
efficiency curve. Even if you dont achieve absolute efficiencies by this method it is a cost
effective measurement for Index testing. In this comparison the results agree quiet well to the
reference measurement.

5 55 5 List of references List of references List of references List of references
[1] IEC, Bureau Central de la CEI (1991): International Code for the Field Acceptance Tests
to determine the hydraulic performance of hydraulic turbines, storage pumps and pump
turbines, Publication 41, third edition, Genve

[2] Systec Controls GmbH (2007): Operations and Maintenance Manual of Combined
Water loss Detection and Flow Measurement System, Puchheim