Adapting Electromechanical Equipment

Nice link Bruce, thanks!

Dan

Not enough information.

"net head is increased by approx. 25 meters."

25 meters from what? Is it from 50 to 75? 25 to 50?

That's about 60 PSI increase over whatever you had before.

You'll need information of the turbine design to get anywhere.

Throttling the inflow will likely be needed to keep from over-speeding the generator.

Converting Pump Head to Pressure may be of help.

CR4 ADMIN: Modified Post

Abuse/Attack: This post was modified because it was an attack on another user. Please review the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

About 35.5 psi increase, rather than 60.

Dyslexia and oldtimers disease have set in.

Not only did I go the wrong way, but I multiplied by the wrong units.

And I'm typing on a phart smone.

244.5 kPa ~ 35.5 psi - check!

You'll need to tell us the type of turbine you have, the original design flow and head; and the new flow and head.

From there you can see if the type of turbine can handle the increased head. Probably the answer is yes, even if the flow regime moves into a lower efficiency range.

J.

Easiest way is to have two power plants in cascade. Existing TG can be installed at designed head or close to designed head at a suitable location.

At tail race of first TG and 25 meter below a Francis Turbine type TG can be installed.

Website? Why not just telephone the turbine manufacturer instead and ask technical questions over the phone? Much quicker, interactive, and one speaks with a real human being - highly recommended.

Make sure that all the available data about the existing turbine is to hand before starting the call, for very little of it has been revealed to CR4 readers.

Hello everybody:

First of all, I want to give thanks to the entire posters in this thread for your comments and inputs.

Taking into account the seriousness and professionalism with that the technical questions are dealt in CR4 Forum, I have posted this enquiry with the only aspiration to spread the horizon of alternatives for a particular issue, and not to save a few dollars (or whatever it costs) for consulting services.

sawmilleng, the turbine is a Francis horizontal shaft, with design flow of 6,8 m³/s and a Net Head of 122 m. The new flow is about the same 6,3 m³/s and the Gross Head is 25 m. The latter could be, at the end, a Net Head of around 20 m.

PWSlack, so far, we know the position of the turbine manufacturer related with the technical matters and a possible way to go with this subject. The idea is to get to know by alternate roads what could be the better solution to this situation. Do not forget that for the turbine manufacturer this is another business for them.

By the way, thanks to CR4 ADMIN for acting in my benefit.

Eleman,

Original design is a head of 122m and the new head is about 25m? I'm missing something here, as you originally said the head was increased by about 25m

....?

Jon.

small? which size in KW output

Eleman,

You are talking some pretty big power: Unless I am losing decimal places, the design hp is 11,000hp and your proposed flow and head move that to 12,000hp or a little under 9 MW.

This kind of power production means some significant money will be made when producing it, so I would find a consultant who makes his living at dealing with water turbines who can work with you.

The best place would be the OEM but, as you suggest, they may not be very helpful unless you wanted to have them refit the turbine at their shop--although they may, with the application of money, be willing to go over the engineering figures to tell you what the original turbine might produce at the new flow and head regime. And whether the existing shafts/bearings/gates can handle the increased forces.

Another way of looking at the issue, depending on your constraints, of course, is to arrange the penstock so that the head is actually only 122m to start with and gradually move that higher as the system comes on line.

Sounds like an interesting project. Please keep us posted!

Jon.

Hello everybody:

I am very sorry for giving incorrect data. I beg your pardon.

sawmilleng, the correct is: "The new flow is about the same 6,3 m³/s and the Gross Head is increased in 25 m. The latter could be, at the end, a Net Head of around 142m.

You are right, we are in touch with the OEM but, they have been saying: you need this new, that part new, etc. and never has made (so far) a proposal like the one you have suggested at the end of your last post.

I will be in contact with the forum in order that all of you be aware of the development of this subject.

Eleman,

You are the driver in this project. ASK the OEM for a cost to do the engineering work you want. If they say "no" then you have your answer and need to find an independent engineering consultant.

The people at French Riverland, mentioned above, are very likely a good group to talk to. I believe it is the Dad, an engineer, and his two kids, both of whom I believe are engineers, too. They have specialized in taking old water power equipment and getting it running again--on the cheap. Therefore, they can probably give you some good information.

Jon.