High-amplitude pressure fluctuations of a pump-turbine with large head variable ratio during the turbine load rejection process
Source abstract
Abstract
Large-head variable-amplitude pump turbines (PTs) encounter serious transient hydraulic instability issues. To explore the evolution mechanisms of pressure fluctuations (PFs) and flow patterns inside large-head variable-amplitude PTs, the load rejection process (LRP) was investigated using a one- and three-dimensional coupled flow simulation approach. The temporal, spatial, and frequency characteristics of the fluctuating pressures were analyzed for four monitoring points using a combined time-frequency analysis approach. The results indicated that PFs during the LRP of large-head variable-amplitude PTs had a new fluctuation frequency component related to Dean vortices (DVs) in the volute, in addition to the common fluctuation frequency components related to rotor-stator interaction phenomena and local backflow vortices near the impeller inlet. The PF frequency component existed throughout the LRP and had a significant influence on the transient maximum pressure at the volute end. This study provides a useful theoretical guide for the design and optimization of large-head variable-amplitude PTs.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cavitation Phenomena in Pumps · Water Systems and Optimization · Hydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. Li D, Song Y, Lin S, et al. Effect mechanism of cavitation on the hump characteristic of a pump-turbine. Renew Energy, 2021, 167: 369–38310.1016/j.renene.2020.11.095 ↗
2. Rehman S, Al-Hadhrami L M, Alam M M. Pumped hydro energy storage system: A technological review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2015, 44: 586–59810.1016/j.rser.2014.12.040 ↗
3. Li D, Qin Y, Wang J, et al. Optimization of blade high-pressure edge to reduce pressure fluctuations in pump-turbine hump region. Renew Energy, 2022, 181: 24–3810.1016/j.renene.2021.09.013 ↗
4. Fu X, Zuo Z, Chang H, et al. Mechanism of low frequency high amplitude pressure fluctuation in a pump-turbine during the load rejection process. J Hydraulic Res, 2021, 59: 280–29710.1080/00221686.2020.1780488 ↗
5. Trivedi C, Cervantes M J. Fluid-structure interactions in Francis turbines: A perspective review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2017, 68: 87–10110.1016/j.rser.2016.09.121 ↗
6. Liu X, Luo Y, Wang Z. A review on fatigue damage mechanism in hydro turbines. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2016, 54: 1–1410.1016/j.rser.2015.09.025 ↗
7. Li D Y, Yu L, Yan X Y, et al. Runner cone optimization to reduce vortex rope-induced pressure fluctuations in a Francis turbine. Sci China Tech Sci, 2021, 64: 1953–197010.1007/s11431-021-1867-2 ↗
8. Chen S, Wang J, Zhang J, et al. Transient behavior of two-stage load rejection for multiple units system in pumped storage plants. Renew Energy, 2020, 160: 1012–102210.1016/j.renene.2020.06.116 ↗
9. Chen S, Zhang J, Li J, et al. Influence mechanism of geometric characteristics of water conveyance system on extreme water hammer during load rejection in pumped storage plants. Energies, 2019, 12: 285410.3390/en12152854 ↗
10. Côté P, Dumas G, Moisan É, et al. Numerical investigation of the flow behavior into a Francis runner during load rejection. IOP Conf Ser- Earth Environ Sci, 2014, 22: 03202310.1088/1755-1315/22/3/032023 ↗
11. Fu X, Li D, Wang H, et al. Numerical simulation of the transient flow in a pump-turbine during load rejection process with special emphasis on hydraulic acoustic effect. Renew Energy, 2020, 155: 1127–113810.1016/j.renene.2020.04.006 ↗
12. Li X, Mao Z, Lin W, et al. Prediction and analysis of the axial force of pump-turbine during load-rejection process. IOP Conf Ser-Earth Environ Sci, 2020, 440: 05208110.1088/1755-1315/440/5/052081 ↗
13. Liu J T, Liu S H, Sun Y K, et al. Numerical study of vortex rope during load rejection of a prototype pump-turbine. IOP Conf Ser-Earth Environ Sci, 2012, 15: 03204410.1088/1755-1315/15/3/032044 ↗
14. Mao X, Chen D, Wang Y, et al. Investigation on optimization of self-adaptive closure law for load rejection to a reversible pump turbine based on CFD. J Clean Prod, 2021, 283: 12473910.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124739 ↗
15. Yao Z, Bi H L, Huang Q S, et al. Analysis on influence of guide vanes closure laws of pump-turbine on load rejection transient process. IOP Conf Ser-Mater Sci Eng, 2013, 52: 07200410.1088/1757-899X/52/7/072004 ↗
16. Ye J, Zeng W, Zhao Z, et al. Optimization of pump turbine closing operation to minimize water hammer and pulsating pressures during load rejection. Energies, 2020, 13: 100010.3390/en13041000 ↗
17. Yin C, Yang J, Zeng W, et al. Simulation of the simultaneous load rejection processes of two parallel pump turbines using a 1D-3D approach. IOP Conf Ser-Earth Environ Sci, 2019, 240: 08200110.1088/1755-1315/240/8/082001 ↗
18. Zeng W, Yang J, Tang R, et al. Extreme water-hammer pressure during one-after-another load shedding in pumped-storage stations. Renew Energy, 2016, 99: 35–4410.1016/j.renene.2016.06.030 ↗
19. Zhang H, Guo P, Sun L. Transient analysis of a multi-unit pumped storage system during load rejection process. Renew Energy, 2020, 152: 34–4310.1016/j.renene.2019.12.111 ↗
20. Zhang X, Cheng Y, Yang Z, et al. Water column separation in pumpturbine after load rejection: 1D-3D coupled simulation of a model pumped-storage system. Renew Energy, 2021, 163: 685–69710.1016/j.renene.2020.08.163 ↗
21. Cheng H, Long X, Ji B, et al. A new Euler-Lagrangian cavitation model for tip-vortex cavitation with the effect of non-condensable gas. Int J Multiphase Flow, 2021, 134: 10344110.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2020.103441 ↗
22. Long X, Cheng H, Ji B, et al. Large eddy simulation and Euler-Lagrangian coupling investigation of the transient cavitating turbulent flow around a twisted hydrofoil. Int J Multiphase Flow, 2018, 100: 41–5610.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2017.12.002 ↗
23. Zhang J, Wu Q, Wang G Y, et al. Numerical analysis on propulsive efficiency and pre-deformated optimization of a composite marine propeller. Sci China Tech Sci, 2020, 63: 2562–257410.1007/s11431-019-1576-2 ↗
24. Mao X, Liu Z, Li T, et al. A brief review of numerical solving methods for internal fluid of pumped storage unit. Int J Energy Res, 2020, 44: 7886–790210.1002/er.5474 ↗
25. Long Y, Long X, Ji B, et al. Verification and validation of Large Eddy Simulation of attached cavitating flow around a Clark-Y hydrofoil. Int J Multiphase Flow, 2019, 115: 93–10710.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2019.03.026 ↗
26. Wang Z, Cheng H, Ji B. Euler-Lagrange study of cavitating turbulent flow around a hydrofoil. Phys Fluids, 2021, 33: 11210810.1063/5.0070312 ↗
27. Xia L, Cheng Y, Yang Z, et al. Evolutions of pressure fluctuations and runner loads during runaway processes of a pump-turbine. J Fluids Eng, 2017, 139: 9110110.1115/1.4036248 ↗
28. Trivedi C, Agnalt E, Dahlhaug O G. Experimental investigation of a francis turbine during exigent ramping and transition into total load rejection. J Hydraul Eng, 2018, 144: 401802710.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001471 ↗
29. Zhang X, Zeng W, Cheng Y, et al. Mechanism of fast transition of pressure pulsations in the vaneless space of a model pump-turbine during runaway. J Fluids Eng, 2019, 141: 12110410.1115/1.4044068 ↗