FINAL PRESENTATION ON

Study of Ultra Low Head Turbine

for Nepal

TE

AM

WO

RK

NISCHAL POKHAREL (26)

PRADEEP PARAJULI(30)

PRATIK KOIRALA(36)

REJIT DULAL(42)

Project Supervisor

Prof. Dr.- Ing. Ramesh Kumar Maskey

Department of Civil and Geomatics Engineering

Project co-supervisor

Dr. Hari Prasad Neopane

Associate Prof. & EnPe-MPPOES

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Project Co-ordinator

Mr. Anup K.C.

Department of Mechanical Engineering

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Background

Objectives

Literature review

Ultra low head(ULH) turbine : Introduction

Operation principle

Methodology

Work accomplished

Problem faced

Conclusion

BACKGROUND

Introduction

Problems

Solutions

Hydropower

Nepal is known to be top nation of the world in terms of water resources.

More than 6000 flowing rivers.

Yet Energy Crisis

CONTD…

Introdution

Problems

Solutions

Insufficient no. of

hydropower

Topographicsal condition(mostly

in hilly)

High cost of installation of

big hydropower

Few in Terai

BACKGROUND

Introdution

Problems

Solutions

Increase in number of hydro

powers

Proper distribution of hydro

powers

Micro hydropower and ultralow

head hydropowers

OBJECTIVES

Investigate the existing hydropower and identify core issues for very low head hydropower

Findings regarding the aesthetics of the ultra-low head turbine, its’ reliability, functionality and selection of sites and further proceedings.

Design and the installations arrangement of the ultra-low head turbine

LITERATURE REVIEW OF

NEPAL

FRANSIS69%

KAPLAN7%

PELTON24%

0%

Turbine type distribution in major hydro powers

constructed

FRANSIS58%KAPLAN

26%

PELTON16%

0%

Turbine type distribution in hydro powers underconstruction

The status of type of hydropower turbine distribution

For more info . . .

List location or contact for specification (or other related documents)

Head : 1m to 5 m

Applicable in even natural or man-made

rivers and canals with little or no

water storage capacity

Static pressure difference principle

Ultra low-head turbine

OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLE

Static pressure difference principle

Fig: static pressure difference in ultra low head turbine

CONTD …

Different form conventional approach

• Difference lies in principle . Velocity driven and pressure difference driven

Geometrically similar to middleshot waterweel

Velocity incensement unlink conventional

CONTD..

Force due to pressure difference Counteracting force due to accleration

METHODOLOGY

WORKS ACCOMPLISHED

I. Visited to Rossi khola canal: Rectangular with uniform cross section

width 201.5 cm and depth 130.5 cm

Discharge calculation:

Floatation method

Total distance travelled= 630.5cm = 6.305m

Average time taken = 11.223 sec

Surface velocity, Vsurface= 0.5618 m/sec

Mean velocity= k*vsurface =0.74 * 0.5618= 0.4157m/sec

Discharge obtained, Q=A * Vmean =1.093 m^3 /sec

Discharge suitable for ultra low head turbine

CONTD.

II. First Model Preparation: Model overview:

Cylindrical

Made up of wooden plank and tin

Model specification:

Diameter of the faces= 24.5cm

Length of the blades= 38cm

Height of cylinder= 38cm (with faces of thickness 1cm each)

Width of each blade= 3cm

Acute angle made by a blade with the face is given by,

Sinβ= (36/38)

=> β= 70º (approx.)

*(The model is just to understand the “static pressure difference principle”)

CONTD..

Testing of the model

o Tested in Rossi Khola canal

o Speed of 20 rpm in anticlockwise direction.

o Not according to our operating principle.

o Reason for this deviation.

CONTD…

CONTD....

CONTD…..

Testing of the model

To be tested in canal nearby Fluid Mechanics

laboratory

Design of the model and assembly

Bearing and labyrinth used

Fig: Design of the turbine and its assembly

Fig : Isometric view of the turbine (vertical) Fig : Front view of the turbine

Fig : Isometric view of the turbine (inclined)

Totally new concept resulting in very

few reference material

Problem in understanding the operating

principle; failure of our first model as

per operating principle proves this

EXPECTED WORK SCHEDULE

S.N Activity September October November December Janaury

1. Literature review

2. Proposal Submission and

proposal defence

3. Site visit status analysis of

Hydropower

Progress report and

midterm presentation

5. Site selection and

preliminary work for

design

6. Final Presentation

ACTUAL WORK SCHEDULE

S.N Activity September October November December Janaury

1. Literature review

2. Proposal Submission and

proposal defence

3. Study of lawn blades and

site visit

Model Preparation

5. Progress report and

midterm presentation

6. Testing of the model and

design and new model

preparation

7. Final Presentation

CONCLUSION

Ultra-low head turbine works could be the icing on the cake

Hope to continue in this path for the detail design and simulation

of this ultra-low head turbine for economic and reliable hydro

energy prospects

THANK

YOU