4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

HydroHelp 1- Turbine selection - EAGLE issue, July 2014

Enter data in blue cells only.
EAGLE CREEK
Comment.
Project input data.
Date of estimate --- >
15-Jul-14
Headpond full supply level, m.
637.00
Headpond low supply level, m.
633.00
Head loss to turbine, % of gross head, at full load.
4.50 Comment
Normal tailwater level, m.
473.30 Comment
Flood tailwater level, m.
486.20 Comment
Design powerplant flow, cubic meters per second.
664.32
Desired number of units.
8
Summer water temperature, degrees Celsius.
15
System frequency, Hz.
50
Generator power factor.
0.90
Maximum allowable gearbox power, MW.
2 Comment
Design standard & generator quality, industrial = 0, utility = 1.
1 Comment
Inflation ratio since 2014
1.00
Program output - turbine heads and flow.
Maximum gross head FSL to normal and flood TWL, m.
Rated net head 1/3 drawdown to normal and flood TWL, m.
Rated flow per unit, cubic meters per second.

Reaction unit. Impulse unit.

163.70
150.80
155.06
140.24
83.04
83.04

Recommended type of reaction turbine.

If no suitable
turbines,
change
number of
units.

Vertical axis Francis turbine, steel casing.

Recommended type of impulse turbine.

No suitable impulse turbine, select reaction turbine.

Generating equipment details.
Turbine runner speed, rpm.
Reaction turb. runner throat, impulse turb. outside diameter, m.
Required powerhouse crane capacity, tonnes.
Comment.
Reaction unit vertical axis, casing centerline elevation.
Impulse turbine runner centerline elevation.
Generating unit capacity, MW.

Reaction unit. Impulse unit.

250.0
0.0
3.105
0.000
296.0
0.0
470.98 ----------------------------------0.00
115.17
0.00

Powerplant capacity, MW.

921.33

0.00

Comment.

347.66

Water to wire cost of generating units. $US, millions.

0.00

If there is an option for either reaction units or impulse units, select impulse if water silty, or if reaction
runner diameter less than about 1.4m. Also, if option available, reaction unit DOES INCLUDE a turbine
inlet valve for direct cost comparison.

Reaction weighted efficiency, % (=0.2x50,65,80,90,100%flow)

Impulse weighted efficiency, % (=0.2x30,45,60,80,100%flow)

91.81
0.00

Comment

45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94

Page 1.

EAGLE CREEK

Comment
Reaction turbine selection to include powerhouse costs, ancilliary equipment and effect of
tailwater level.
Additional input data.
Unit cost of overburden excavation, $/m3.
50
Unit cost of rock excavation, $/m3.
200
Unit cost of concrete, including forms and reinforcing, $/m3.
1500
Unit cost of walls and roof, $/m2.
200
Unit cost of steel in superstructure, $/ton.
11,000
Average rock level at powerhouse, elevation, m.
480.0 Comment
Average depth of overburden at powerhouse, m.
2.0
Powerhouse statistics.
Overburden excavation volume, m3.
Rock excavation volume, m3.
Concrete volume, m3.
Additional concrete required to counter floatation, m3.
Steel superstructure weight, metric tonnes.
Powerhouse length, m.
Powerhouse footprint area, m2.
Distance between unit centerlines, m.
Approximate turbine floor level, Elevation, m.
Draft tube sill level, elevation, m.

Reaction unit. Impulse unit.

5,185
0
26,744
0
19,128
0
1,077 Not applicable
699
0
115.0
0.0
1,964
0
12.78
0.00
474.08
0.00
462.8
0.00

Powerhouse and ancilliary equipment cost, $millions.

Powerhouse excavation, concrete and superstructure.
Total cost of draft tube gate guide and hoist equipment.
Total cost of powerhouse crane, HVAC and water systems.
Cost of powerhouse and miscellaneous equip. - no units

Reaction unit. Impulse unit.

42.85
0.01
2.84
0.00
7.21
0.00
51.22
0.01
Comment
Recommended type of reaction turbine, including effect of powerhouse cost.

Vertical axis Francis turbine, steel casing.

Water to wire cost of generating units. $US, millions.
Cost of civil work on powerhouse, crane, draft tube
gates/hoist and generating equipment. $US millions.
Generating equipment details.
Turbine runner speed, rpm.
Reaction turbine runner throat diameter, m.
Required powerhouse crane capacity, tonnes.
Comment.
Crane span, m.
Reaction unit vertical axis, casing centerline elevation.
Generating unit capacity, MW.

Comment

302.31 Comment
Reaction unit. Impulse unit.

353.54

0.01

Reaction unit. Impulse unit.

250.0
0.0
3.10 -----------------296.0
0.0
17.1
0.00
470.98 -----------------115.17
0.00

95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144

921.33

Powerplant capacity, MW.

0.00
Page 2.

If SAXO, shaft
slope, degrees

EAGLE CREEK
Efficiencies of selected units. (reaction with powerhouse)
Percent of rated flow.
Calc. flow and efficiency at 100 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 95 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 90 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 85 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 80 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 75 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 70 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 65 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 60 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 55 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 50 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 45 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 40 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 30 % rated flow
=
Calc. flow and efficiency at 20 % rated flow
=

100
80

Efficiency %
60
40
20
30

40

50

60

Reaction unit. Impulse unit.

Efficiency, %. Efficiency, %.
93.15
0.00
94.12
0.00
94.71
0.00
94.72
0.00
94.59
0.00
94.20
0.00
93.45
0.00
92.21
0.00
90.37
0.00
87.80
0.00
84.40
0.00
80.05
0.00
74.64
0.00
60.20
0.00
40.20
0.00

Reaction turbine efficiency

20

Comment

70

80

Flow ratio %

100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
90
30
20

100

Impulse turbine efficiency

95

Efficiency %
85
75
65
20

30

40

50

60

Flow ratio %

70

80

90

100

95

Efficiency %
85
75
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193

65
20

30

40

50

60

Flow ratio %

70

80

90

100

Page 3.

EAGLE CREEK
If the recommended turbine is not satisfactory, a second recommendation (based on cost) can be
obtained by eliminating the recommended turbine from consideration with a zero (0) placed opposite
the recommended turbine in Column E. Suitable turbines are shown in column D.

REACTION TURBINES
Column D

Column E

Propeller turbines
Horizontal axis "S" type propeller turbine.
Horizontal axis pit type propeller turbine.
Vertical axis propeller turbine, concrete casing.
Vertical axis propeller turbine, steel casing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

1
1
1
1

Kaplan turbines
Inclined axis very low head Kaplan gear turbine.
Horizontal axis pit or mini bulb Kaplan turbine unit.
Horizontal axis "S" type Kaplan turbine.
Vertical axis small Kaplan turbine, elbow draft tube.
Vertical or inclined axis "Saxo" axial flow Kaplan turbine.
Vertical axis Kaplan turbine, concrete casing.
Vertical axis Kaplan turbine, steel casing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Francis turbines.
Horizontal axis Francis turbine.
Horizontal axis double runner Francis turbine.
Vertical axis Francis turbine, concrete casing.
Vertical axis Francis turbine, steel casing.

------------------------------------------------------- YES ----

1
1
1
1

IMPULSE TURBINES
Horizontal axis low head impulse turbines.
Horizontal axis BANKI (Ossberger) turbine.
Horizontal axis, 1 jet, 1 turgo runer turbine.
Horizontal axis, 2 jet, 1 turgo runner turbine.

Comment
----------------------------------------------------

Horizontal axis impulse turbines.

Horizontal axis, 1 jet, 1 runner impulse turbine.
Horizontal axis, 2 jet, 1runner impulse turbine.
Horizontal axis, 1 jet per runner, 2 runner impulse turbine.
Horiz. axis, 2 jets per runner, 2 runner impulse turbine.

Comment
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Vertical axis impulse turbines.

Comment
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

194
195
196
197
198
199
200

Vertical axis, 1 jet, 1 runner impulse turbine.

Vertical axis, 2 jet, 1 runner impulse turbine.
Vertical axis, 3 jet, 1 runner impulse turbine.
Vertical axis, 4 jet, 1 runner impulse turbine.
Vertical axis, 5 jet, 1 runner impulse turbine.
Vertical axis, 6 jet, 1 runner impulse turbine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1
1
1
1
1
1
Page 4.

EAGLE CREEK

Headpond full supply level, m.

Headpond low supply level, m.
Normal tailwater level, m.
Design powerplant flow, cubic meters per second.
Desired number of units.

637.00
633.00
473.30
664.32
8

Basic input
data

Recommended type of reaction turbine, including effect of tailwater.

Vertical axis Francis turbine, steel casing.

Recommended type of impulse turbine.

No suitable impulse turbine, select reaction turbine.

Powerplant capacity, MW.

Water to wire cost of generating units. $US, millions.

Reaction unit.

Impulse unit.

921.33

0.00

Reaction unit.

Impulse unit.

302.31

0.00

HYDROHELP 1

A COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR SELECTION AND COSTING

HYDROELECTRIC GENERATING EQUIPMENT

Transformer cost.
Powerplant capacity, MW.
Generator power factor.
Number of transformers
Transformer high voltage. kV
Transformer MVA
Number of phases.
Phase factor
Inflation index Transformer cost $M
Approximate weight, tons.

30.00
0.90
1
25
33
3
1
7.07
1.182
29

Station service transformer cost.

Transformer capacity, MW.
Generator power factor.
Number of transformers
Transformer high voltage. kV
Transformer MVA
Number of phases.
Phase factor
Inflation index
Transformer cost $M
Approximate weight, tons.

0.20
0.90
1.00
13.8
0.22
3
1
7.07
0.193
8

Transformer cost.
Powerplant capacity, MW.
Generator power factor.
Number of transformers
Transformer high voltage. kV
Transformer MVA
Number of phases.
Phase factor
Inflation index - (Mech equip L4)

30.00
0.90
1
25
33
3
1
7.07

Transformer cost $M
Approximate weight, tons.

1.182
29

Station service transformer cost.

Transformer capacity, MW.
Generator power factor.
Number of transformers
Transformer high voltage. kV
Transformer MVA
Number of phases.
Phase factor
Inflation index
Transformer cost $M
Approximate weight, tons.

0.20
0.90
1.00
13.8
0.22
3
1
7.07
0.193
8

PRINT FIRST 5 PAGES ONLY

READ ALL YELLOW COMMENT CELLS

FIRST
Program crashes if flood tailwater below normal tailwater.

After unit selection, proceed to

HydroHelp 2 Francis units, or
HydroHelp 3 Impulse units, or
HydroHelp 4 Kaplan units
for
detailed design and cost analysis of
prospective hydro site.

For use in Cell D6

Optional optimum head loss
calculation module
Gross head on turbine, m.
Total conduit length intake to powerhouse, m.
Plant capacity factor (0.4 to 0.8)

163.70
3,300
0.44

Calculated probable optimum conduit head

loss intake to powerhouse, %. --- >

12.6

Note - in HydroHelp 2, 3 and 4, the cost of the

generating equipment may differ slightly
from the cost estimated by this program.
This is due to the different turbine
submergence, usage and installation cost
factors used in HydroHelp 2, 3 or 4, where
these factors are user-defined, and not
determined by the program.

Red quantity in cell indicates INCORRECT data entry.

See powerhouse rock levels and overburden
excavations. Negative numbers could result in wrong
turbine selection.

Note - If a different turbine is selected

when the powerhouse cost is
included, and this recommendation is
accepted, de-select all other turbines
in Cells E160 to E178, to ensure the
correct generating data is shown in
Cells D63 to D71.

This sheet is
protected. To
remove protection,
password is open

Due to normal variations in

flow, the program will reject
propeller units where there are
less than 3 required, and/or
where the drawdown exceeds
10% of the gross head.

Due to normal variations in

flow, the program will reject
propeller units where there are
less than 3 required, and/or
where the drawdown exceeds
10% of the gross head.

Estimated
cost
$M
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
302.31

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

The estimated cost

is shown for all
suitable turbines,
and is for
comparison only, to
facilitate unit
selection.
Where there is a
choice between
horizontal and
vertical units,
remember that
access for
maintenance on
small units is easier
with a horizontal
shaft.
This is
particularly
important for
impulse units, where
maintenace on
runners and spear
jets may be required
to counter sand
erosion effects.

to counter sand
erosion effects.

Comment
Comment
Comment

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

COVER SHEET IF REQUIRED.

Inflation ratio
correction
factor

1.810 Comment

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

57
58
60
61
63
64
66
67
69
70
72
73
75
76
78
79
81
82
84
85
86
87
88
90
91
93
94
96
97
99
100

103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Inclined axis Kaplan gear turbine efficiency versus flow

Efficiency %

Flow ratio to ra ted flow

150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199

Inclined axis Kaplan gear turbine efficiency versus flow

Efficiency %

Flow ratio to ra ted flow

Inclined axis Kaplan gear turbine efficiency versus power

Efficiency %.

Turbine power ratio to rated power %

200
201
202
203

Inclined axis Kaplan gear turbine efficiency versus power

Efficiency %.

Turbine power ratio to rated power %

204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146

Horizontal axis Kaplan turbine efficiencyversus flow

Effi cie ncy %

Flow rati o to rated flow

147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196

Horizontal axis Kaplan turbine efficiencyversus flow

Effi cie ncy %

Flow rati o to rated flow

Horizonta l axis Kaplan efficie ncy vers us power

Efficie ncy %.

197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143

Horizonta l axis Kaplan efficie ncy vers us power

Efficie ncy %.

Turbine power ratio to rated power %

144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193

Horizontal axis "S" Kaplan turbine efficie ncy versus flow

Efficiency %

Flow rati o to rated flow

194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140

Horizontal axis "S" Kaplan effic iency versus power

Effi ciency %.

Turbin e power ratio to rated power %

141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190

Vertical axis small Kaplan turbine effic ie ncyversus flow

Efficiency %

Flow ratio to rated flow

191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137

Vertical axis small Kapla n turbine efficie ncy versus power

Efficiency %.

Turbine power ratio to rated power %

138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187

Horizontal axis "S" propeller turbine effic iency versus flow

Efficie ncy %

Flow ratio to rated flo w

188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134

Horizontal axis "S" propeller turbine efficiency versus power

Efficiency %.

Turbine power ratio to rated power %

135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184

Horizontal axis pit propelle r turbine efficiency versus fl ow

Efficiency %

Flow ratio to rated flo w

185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131

Horiz ontal axis pit propelle r turbine efficiency versus power

Efficiency %.

Turbine power ratio to rated power %

132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181

Horizontal axis small Francis turbine efficiency versus flow

Effi ciency %

Flo w ratio to rated flow

182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129

Horizontal axissmall Fra ncis efficiency versus power

Efficiency %.

Turbine power ratio to rated power %

130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178

Double runner Francis turbine efficiency versus flo w

Efficiency %

Flow ratio to rated flo w

179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126

Double runner Fra ncis turbine effi ciency versus power

Effi ciency %.

Turbine power rati o to rated power %

127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176

Kaplan turbine with concrete casing efficiency vers us flow

Efficiency %

Flow ratio to rated fl ow

177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124

Kapla n turbine with concre te casing efficiency versus power

Efficiency %.

Turbine power ratio to rated power %

125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174

Kaplan turbine with steel casing effic ie ncy versus flow

Effi ciency %

Flow rati o to rated fl ow

175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122

Kaplan wi th steel casi ng effi ciency versus power

Efficiency %.

Turbine power rati o to rated power %

123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172

Vertic al axis "Saxo" Kaplan turbine effi cie ncy vers us flow

Efficiency %

Flow ratio to rated fl ow

173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120

Vertical axis "Saxo" Kapla n efficiency versus power

Efficiency %.

Turbine power rati o to rated power %

121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170

Propelle r turb ine with concre te casing efficiency versus flow

Eff iciency %

Flow rati o to rated flow

171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118

Propeller turb ine with concrete casing effi cien cy versus power

Efficie ncy %.

Turbine power ratio to rate dpower %

119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168

Propeller tu rbin e with ste el casing efficiency versus flow

Effi ciency %

Flow ratio to rated flow

169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116

Propeller turbine with ste el casing efficiency versus power

Effi cie ncy %.

Turb in e power rati o to rated power %

117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166

Francis turb ine with concrete casing efficie ncy vers us fl ow

Effi ciency %

Flow rati o to rated fl ow

167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114

Francisturbine with concrete casing efficiencyversus power

Efficiency %.

Turb ine power ratio to rated power %

115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164

Francis turbine with steel casing efficiency versus flow

Effi ciency %

Flow ratio to rated flo w

165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204

Francis with ste el casing efficiency versus power

Efficiency %.

Turbin e power ratio to rated power %

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

51

e f fic ie n c y

f f icie n c y

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

f lo w

p o we r

101
102
103

e f f ici e nc y

f f icie n c y

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99

fl ow

p o we r

f f icie n c y

p o we r

100
101
102
103

e ff ici e n cy

f f ic ie n cy

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98

f lo w

p o we r

f f ic ie n cy

p o we r

99
100
101
102
103

e f fic ie nc y

e f f ic ie n c y

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97

flo w

p o we r

e f f ic ie n c y

98
99
100

p o we r

e ff icie n cy

f f ic ie n c y

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96

f lo w

p o we r

f f ic ie n c y

97
98
99
100

p o we r

e ff ici e n cy

f f icie n c y

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95

f lo w

p o we r

f f icie n c y

96
97
98
99
100

p o we r

e ff ici e n cy

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94

f lo w

95
96
97
98
99
100

e ff ici e n cy

e f fi cie n cy

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93

f lo w

p ow e r

e f fi cie n cy

94
95
96
97
98
99
100

p ow e r

e f f ic ie n cy

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92

fl o w

93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91

Vertical axis impulse turbine with 6 je ts, efficiency - flow

Efficiency

Flow ratio

92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90

Vertical axis impulse turbine with 6 jets, efficiency - power

Efficiency

Power ratio

Horizontal axis, 1 - je t turgo efficie ncy - flow

Efficiency

Flow ratio

91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89

Horizontal axis, 1 - jet turgo efficiency - power

Efficiency

Power ratio

Horizontal axis, 2 - je t 1 - turgo runner, effic iency - flow

Efficiency

Flow ratio

90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88

Horizonta l axis, 2 - jet 1 - turgo runner, efficiency - power

Efficiency

Power ratio

Francis turbin e efficiency versus flow

Eff iciency %

Flow ratio to rated flow

89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87

Francis eff icie ncy versus power

Efficiency %.

Turbine power ratio to rated power %

Banki turbine efficiency- flow

Efficiency

Flow ratio

88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100