Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Dynamic evolution of a bulb hydroelectric generating unit considering T

effects of the blades
Donglin Yan, Qijuan Chen , Yang Zheng, Weiyu Wang, Yuchen An
⁎

Key Laboratory of Transients in Hydraulic Machinery (Wuhan University), Ministry of Education, Wuhan 430072, PR China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The stability problems of the hydroelectric generating unit caused by the vibration of the runner blades have
Blade modeling been gradually exposed in the long-term operation, especially in the hydropower stations equipped with the bulb
Bulb turbine turbine. However, in the previous studies, the effects of the blades were not considered. Aiming at these pro-
Conversion efficiency blems, this research will be focused on studying the dynamic characteristics of the bulb hydroelectric generating
Continuum model
unit in consideration with the effects of blades. Firstly, a novel continuum shaft system model of the bulb
Dynamic evolutions
hydroelectric generating unit is originally established considering the effects of the blades. Meanwhile, the
rationality of the novel model is verified by comparing with the field test data. Then, the dynamic evolutions of
the shaft system with and without blades are contrastively analyzed and discussed with the changing of the
runner mass eccentricity, the seal gap, the rotational speed and the exciting current. Fortunately, some critical
values and stability evolution characteristics of the shaft system are obtained. In addition, the effects of the
blades are also found. More importantly, these results could provide a reference for the safe operation of the
hydropower stations.

1. Introduction numerical modeling and some typical artificial intelligence techniques

With the rapid economy development of China in the last two
decades, the electricity demand sharply increases [1–3]. In this process,
to make up for the lack of the electricity supply, the water resource, as a
clean energy, has been paid more and more attention to. The most ty-
pical one is the construction of a lot of hydropower stations for sa-
tisfying the electricity demand [4–6]. And, by 2017, The total installed
capacity of the hydropower stations in China has reached to 340 GW
[7,8]. In the long-term operation of hydropower stations, some stability
problems of the hydroelectric generating unit have been gradually ex-
posed, which can not only influence the energy conversion efficiency,
but also threat the safe operation of the whole hydropower stations
[9–11].
For the hydroelectric generating unit, a mass of studies were put
forward to research their stability. And these researches mainly include
two aspects. The one hand is the stability analyses for the current state
of the hydroelectric generating unit using some monitoring and test
data. Based on a multidimensional frequency band energy ratio analysis
method, Wang et al. [12] analyzed the pressure fluctuations char-
acteristics in the Francis turbine at different operation conditions and
discussed the relationships between the pressure fluctuation and the
shaft vibration. Saeed et al. [13] applied a combined method of the
to the condition monitoring and fault diagnosis of Francis turbine. Al-
berto et al. [14] analyzed the typical failure reasons of the runner
blades based on some engineering cases. Using an integration of grey
correlation analysis and entropy weights method, Li et al. [15] analyzed
the safety performance of the unit under four heads and presented an
optimal operational schedule for managing the electricity uncertainties.
Trivedi et al. [16] investigated the changing laws of the pressure am-
plitudes in the Francis turbine with the increasing rotational speed and
gotten the relationship between the pressure and the rotational speed.
Lu et al. [17] presented an improved Hilbert-Huang transform method
with an energy-correlation fluctuation criterion and then used it to
analyze the vibration characteristics of the shaft for a Francis turbine.
These analysis methods are advantageous to estimate the current state
of the unit in the operation. However, if there are some serious faults in
the unit, a large number of field experimentations could aggravate the
faults and even cause unpredictable dangers. At the same time, limited
by the operation time and monitoring data, the dynamic characteristics
of the unit in the long time-scale or some extreme conditions cannot be
gotten. Therefore, on the other hand, scholars attempt to establish some
reliable and flexible mathematical models to study the system char-
acteristics of the hydroelectric generating unit in the long time-scale or
some extreme conditions instead of establishing field experimentations.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: qjchen@whu.edu.cn (Q. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.02.002
Received 22 November 2018; Accepted 1 February 2019
0196-8904/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Yan, et al.
Fig. 1. The schematic diagram of the shaft system for a BHGU.
Gustavsson et al. [18] analyzed the dynamic evolution of the shaft vi-
bration considering the impact and contact between the runner and the
discharge ring. Xu et al. [19] established a fractional-order model of the
hydroelectric generating unit considering the effects of the unbalanced
magnetic pull, and then presented the stability ranges of the unit with
the changing of the exciting current. Combining a finite difference
guide bearing model and a finite element rotor model, Bettig et al. [20]
established an integrated hydro-generator rotordynamic model to cal-
culate natural frequencies, and to analyze the stability of the unit. Due
to that these studies only investigated the dynamic characteristics and
evolutions of the hydroelectric generating unit under the single fault,
many researchers have turned their eyes to the effects of the interaction
of the multiple faults or instability factors. Huang et al. [21] analyzed
the vibration characteristics of the hydroelectric generating unit con-
sidering the rotor rub-impact fault and the parallel misalignment fault.
Considering the coupling effects of hydro-electric unbalance force, Kim
et al. [22] studied the vibration characteristics of a Francis turbine
using rotodynamic methods. In view of the bending and torsion coupled
vibration of the generator rotor shaft system, Yan et al. [23] built a
fractional model to analyze the dynamic characteristics of the system
under multiple faults. For a large Francis hydroelectric generating unit,
Xu et al. [24] modeled the oscillation modal interaction under the
hydraulic-electrical-mechanical unbalance forces.
The previous studies about the stability of the hydroelectric gen-
erating unit mainly aim at the Francis hydroelectric generating unit.
However, in the recent years, with the low-head water resources
exploited largely, the installed capacity of the tubular hydroelectric
generating unit is also rapidly increasing [25–27]. Thus, the stability
analyses and studies of the tubular hydroelectric generating unit will be
more essential for development of the hydroelectric engineering. On the
one hand, for the stability estimations of the tubular hydroelectric
generating unit in the current condition, the previous methods applied
in the Francis hydroelectric generating unit are applicative, which has
been also widely employed in the actual engineering [28–29]. On the
other hand, for the modeling of the tubular hydroelectric generating
unit in the long time-scale or some extreme conditions, the mathema-
tical models of the Francis hydroelectric generating unit in some re-
spects are similar with that of the Francis hydroelectric generating unit
and can be applied to the tubular hydroelectric generating unit, such as
the mass eccentricity of the generator rotor model, the rub-impact fault
model and generator electromagnetic imbalance model. However, be-
cause of the differences of the runner structure, the runner model of the
Francis hydroelectric generating unit (assumed as a mass eccentricity
disk) cannot be applied to the tubular hydroelectric generating unit.
Specifically, the runner blades of the tubular turbine are anchored at
only one end, which means that it is flexible under some unbalanced
exciting forces. So, the flexural vibration of the blades needs to be
considered. Namely, it is pivotal for the tubular hydroelectric gen-
erating unit to establish a reasonable mathematical model of the runner
including the blades. At the same time, for covering the shortage of the
184
Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201
stability studies for the tubular hydroelectric generating unit using the
monitoring and test data in current conditions, the studies aiming at
dynamic evolution characteristics of the tubular hydroelectric gen-
erating unit in the long time-scale and extreme conditions are neces-
sary.
In light of the above analyses, comparing with previous works, there
are three main advantages making our research attractive. First, in
previous works, the mass concentration method is mainly applied in the
modeling of the shaft system, in which the effects of the shaft are ig-
nored. Here, a continuum method is employed to build the model of the
shaft, in which the bending and torsional vibration of the shaft are both
considered. Secondly, the blade model of the bulb hydroelectric gen-
erating unit (BHGU) is originally established by simplifying the blade as
a cantilever beam. Finally, the dynamic evolutions of the shaft system
for the BHGU in the long time-scale and some extreme conditions are
analyzed and the effects of the blades on them are also discussed.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The model of the whole
shaft system is established in Section 2. Based on this model, the dy-
namic evolution characteristics of the shaft system with some system
parameters are discussed in Sections 3 and 4 closes the paper.
2. Mathematical modeling
For a BHGU, the schematic diagram of the shaft system is shown in
Fig. 1. And it is mainly composed of the generator rotor, the shaft, the
bearings and the runner. For the convenience of the modeling, the total
shaft system of the BHGU can be resolved into two parts. The first one is
the blade part which includes all blades. And the second is the disk-
shaft part including the disk-1, the shaft and the disk-2, which would be
regarded as a shaft with variable cross-sections.
The coordinate systems of the two parts are respectively presented
in Fig. 2, in which O-XYZ is the global coordinate system, o-xryrzr re-
presents the rotational coordinate system for the disk-shaft part, o-xsyszs
denotes the fixed coordinate system for the disk body, and ob-xbybzb is
the local coordinate system of the blade. Besides, u, v, and w represent
the deformations of the blade in longitudinal, flexural and swing di-
rections, respectively. β is the rotation angle of the blade with respect to
the initial blade coordinate system (ob-xb0yb0zb0). θx, θy and θz are swing
angle of the disk in X, Y and Z directions, respectively. And θ(t) is the
rotational angle of the runner.
For simplifying the modeling and solving processes, the mathema-
tical model of the whole shaft system will be built based on following
assumptions.
(1) The boundary conditions of the blade are uniform with that of the
cantilever beam. So, the blade is simplified as a cantilever beam.
(2) The blade is strictly nested on the disk-1, which means that the
relative movement of them is completely restricted in a constant
condition. Therefore, the connection relationship of them is ig-
nored.
D. Yan, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

Fig. 2. The coordinate systems. (a) The coordinate system of the blade part; (b) The coordinate system of the disk-shaft part with swing angles; (c) The location of the
rotation blade.

(3) The stiffness of the blade is far less than that of the disk. Thus, for 12
Tdk = 2 mdk xdk 2
+ 2 mdk ydk
1
+ 2 Jdzk
1 2
xdk
1
+ 2 Jdzk
2
ydk
analyzing the effects the blade, the disk-1 and disk-2 are treated as 1 1
+ 2 Jpzk ( 2
two concentrated mass points. xdk ydk ydk xdk ) + 2 Jpzk (3)
(4) The materials of the shaft system is isotropy and the Hooke’s law is
and
applicable.
(5) The torsion stiffness of the disk is much larger than that of the shaft. 1 2
Udk = 2 kdk (xdk 2
+ ydk ), (4)
So, the torsion angle at the hub of the disk is ignored in the mod-
eling. where mdk and Tdk are the mass and the kinetic energy of the disk-k;
(xdk, ydk) are the coordinates of the disk’s barycenter, xdk = xsk + ekcos
Besides, define any variables using the symbol (*), and then using (θ0) and ydk = ysk + eksin(θ0); ek is the eccentric distance of the disk-k;
( ) ( )
= (displacement) and = (time) to express the partial differentiation of Jdzk and Jpzk respectively denote the cross-sectional moment of inertia
any variables with respect to the displacement and the time, respec- and polar moment of inertia of the disk-k; θxdk and θydk is the swing
tively. angle of the disk-k in X and Y directions, respectively; Udk represents the
potential energy of the disk-k; kdk is the bending stiffness of the disk-k.

2.1. Modeling of the disk-shaft part 2.1.2. Discretization

Here, the assumed modal method will be used to discretize the
2.1.1. Energy characteristics of the disk-shaft part energy equation of the disk-shaft part. The mode shape function in
For the disk-shaft part, the bending, torsional and swing vibration bending and torsional directions can be respectively defined as X(z), Y
will be considered in the modeling. So, the whole kinetic energy of the (z) and Φ(z). At the same time, introducing a group of corresponding
shaft can be written as canonical coordinate η(t), ξ(t) and τ(t), x, y and θT will be expressed as

x (z , t ) = Xi (z ) i (t ) = X (z ) (t )
( )
Ls 1 1 2 i=1
Ts = A
2 s s
(x 2 + y 2 ) + 2 Is T
+ dz
0 t y (z , t ) = i=1
Yi (z ) i (t ) = Y (z ) (t ) .
Ls 1 1 1 2 2
T (z , t ) = i (z ) i (t ) = (z ) (t )
2
+
0
J
2 p
+ 2 Jp ( x y y x ) + 2 Jd ( x + y) dz , (1) i=1 (5)

Based on the Ref. [30], Xi(z) and Yi(z) can be calculated by

where Ts denotes the total kinetic energy of the shaft; Ls is the length of
the shaft; ρs is the density of the shaft; As is the cross-sectional area of Xi (z ) = Yi (z ) = cosh ri z + cos ri z
cosh ri cos ri
(sinh ri z + sin ri z ),
sinh ri sin ri
the shaft; θT is the torsional angle of the shaft; ω is the rotational speed;
Jp, Jd, and Is are defined as the polar moment of inertia, the cross-sec- (6)
tional moment of inertia and the second moment of shaft area, re- where the eigenvalues of bending vibration can be calculated using a
spectively. transcendental equation [31]: cos(λri)cosh(λri) = 1. Then, using these
The potential energy of the shaft can be expressed as eigenvalues λri, βri can also be gotten by ri2 = ri2 Ls2 .
For the torsional vibration, the mode shape function [30] can be
represented as
( ) +( )
2 2
( )
Ls 1 2 2x 2y
T
Us = GI
2 s p
+ Es Is
0 z z2 z2
(2i 1) z
i (z ) = sin .
(7)
( ) +( )
x 2 y 2 2Ls
+ s Gs As x y dz,
z z
(2) Besides, according to the relationships among the swing angle, the
shear angle and the displacement, the swing angle will be represented
where Us is the potential energy of the shaft; Gs represents the shearing as
modulus of elasticity of the shaft; Ip is the polar second moment of area;
And Es is the Young modulus; κs is shear coefficient. x (z , t ) = X (z ) (t ) +
Es Is
X (z ) (t )
As Gs
The kinetic energy and potential energy of the disk-k (k = 1, 2) can Es Is
.
be calculated using y (z , t ) = Y (z ) (t ) + Y (z ) (t )
As Gs (8)

185
D. Yan, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

Take the Eqs. (5) and (8) into Eqs.(1)–(4), the kinetic and potential Tb (j ) =
Lb 1
Ab
0 2 b
energy will be discretized. And it can be expressed as 2 + y 2 + u 2 + v 2 + w 2 + 2 cos
xsd1 sd1 (j) (j ) (j) (j ) [x sd1 u(j) + ysd1 (v (j ) cos + w(j ) sin )]
+ 2 (j ) [(Rd1 + xb (j ) + u(j) )(v (j ) cos + w(j ) sin ) u(j ) (v(j) cos + w(j) sin )]
Ms1 + Md11 + Md21 0 0 (t )
2
Tds = [ (t ) 0 Ms2 + Md12 + Md22 0 + (j ) [(Rd1 + xb (j ) + u (j ) )2 + (v (j ) cos + w(j ) sin )2]
(t ) (t ) ] (t ) dxb (j ) ,
0 0 M (t ) + 2 cos (j) ·( (j ) )[xsd1 (v (j ) cos + w(j ) sin ) ysd1 (Rd1 + x b (j) + u (j ))]
+ 2 sin (j ) [ xsd1 (v(j ) cos + w(j ) sin ) + ysd1 u (j )]
0 Gs1 + Gd11 + Gd21 0 (t )
2 (j ) sin (j) [xsd1 (Rd1 + xb (j ) + u (j )) + ysd1 (v (j ) cos + w(j ) sin )]
+ [ (t ) (t ) (t ) ] Gs2 + Gd12 + Gd22 0 0 (t )
0 0 0 (t ) (9) (17)
where Lb is the length of the blade; xsd1 and ysd1 are the centroid co-
and
ordinates of the disk-1 relative to global coordinate system.
(t )
The whole potential energy of the j-th blade can be written as:
K s1 + K d11 + K d21 0 0
Uds = [ (t ) (t ) (t )] 0 K s 2 + K d12 + K d22 0 (t ) , 2 2
Lb u(j ) 2u
0 0 K s + K d1 + K d2 1 1 (j )
(t ) Ub (j) = EA
2 b b x b (j)
+ 2 Eb Ib x b2(j)
0
(10)
u(j ) 2
1 2
where the detailed deducing process and matrix expressions have been + A
4 b b (j )
[Lb2 xb2(j) + 2Rd1 (Lb xb (j ) )] xb (j )
dxb (j) ,
listed in Appendix A. (18)

where Ub(j) is the potential energy of the j-th blade; Eb denotes the
Young modulus of the blade; Ib is the cross-sectional moment of inertia
2.2. Modeling of the blade part of the blade.

2.2.1. Energy characteristics of the blade part 2.2.2. Discretization

With respect to the coordinate system of o-xryrzr, the position vector For the cantilever beam, the mode shape function [30] can be ex-
of any point Q on the j-th blade can be expressed as pressed as
r(j) = [Rd1 + xb(j) + u(j) v(j) w(j)]T, in which xb(j) is the longitudinal po-
sition of the point Q on blade, Rd1 is the radius of the disk-1. Through
the coordinate transformations, the coordinate of Q in the global co-
Ui (x ) = Vi (x ) = Wi (x ) = cosh bi
Lb
x + cos bi
Lb
x
cosh bi + cos bi
sinh bi + sin bi (sinh bi
Lb
x sin bi
Lb
x ),
ordinate system could be described as (19)
where λbi is the i-th order eigenvalue, which can be calculated using
rQ (j) = rsd1 + A 4 A3 A2 A1r(j), (11) following characteristic equation [31]

where rsd1 is the centroid coordinate of the disk-1 in global coordinate cos( i ) cosh( i ) + 1 = 0. (20)
system, rsd1 = [xsd1, ysd1, 0]T; A1, A2, A3 and A4 are four transfer ma- Using the similar discretization method with the disk-shaft part, a
trixes, which can be respectively expressed as group of canonical coordinates, χ(t), ς(t), and σ(t), are also introduced
for the blade. Based on these, u(j), v(j) and w(j) can be represented using
1 0 0
A1 = 0 cos sin , u (j ) ( x b , t ) = i=1
Ui (xb ) i (t ) = U (xb ) (j) (t )
0 sin cos (12) v (j ) ( x b , t ) = V (xb ) i (t ) = V (xb )
i=1 i (j ) (t ) .
w(j) (xb , t ) = i=1
Wi (xb ) i (t ) = W (xb ) (j ) ( t ) (21)
1 0 0
A2 = 0 cos x sin x , Connecting Eqs. (17), (18) and (21), and through a series of de-
0 sin x cos x (13) ductions (see in Appendix B(1, 3), the kinetic and potential energy of
the blade can be written as
T
cos y 0 sin y Tb (j) = (t ) (t ) (j ) (t ) (j) (t ) (j ) (t ) [Mtb ] (t ) (t ) (j ) (t ) (j ) (t ) ( j ) (t )
A3 = 0 1 0 , T
+ (t ) (t ) ( j ) (t ) (j ) (t ) (j ) (t ) [Gtb ][ (t ) (t ) (j ) (t ) (j ) (t ) ( j ) (t ) ]
sin y 0 cos y (14)
T
+ [ (t ) (t ) (j ) (t ) (j) (t ) (j ) (t ) ][Ktb ][ (t ) (t ) (j ) (t ) (j ) (t ) (j ) (t ) ]

and (22)

cos sin 0 and

(j ) (j )
A4 = sin cos 0 , (j) (t )
(j ) (j ) Kb11 0 0
0 0 1 (15) Ub (j) = [ (j ) (t ) (j) (t ) (j ) ( t ) ] 0 Kb22 0 (j ) ( t ) ,
0 0 Kb33 (j ) ( t )
where ψ(j) = θ(t) + (j-1) × 2π/Nb, Nb is the number of the blade. (23)
Based on Eqs. (11)–(15), the kinetic energy of the j-th blade can be where [Mtb], [Gtb], and [Ktb] are three 5 × 5 composite matrixes with
calculated by 25 submatrixes, respectively. And the specific expressions of these
Lb 1 Lb 1
matrixes are shown in Appendix B(2, 4).
Tb (j) = A r 2 dxb (j)
2 b b Q (j )
= A r T · r dxb (j) ,
2 b b Q (j) Q (j ) (16)
0 0
2.3. Coupled motion equations
where Tb(j) indicates the kinetic energy of the j-th blade; ρb denotes the
density of the blade; Ab expresses the cross-sectional area of the blade. In previous sections, the energy characteristics of the blade part and
Introducing the Eq. (11) into Eq. (16), and ignoring the high-order disk-shaft part have been presented. Based on these, the kinetic energy
terms, the kinetic energy of the j-th blade could be expressed as and potential energy of the whole shaft system can be written as

186
D. Yan, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

Nb Ls
Tdb = Tds + Tb (j ), WQ = y (z, t ) s As (z ) dz + y (z d1, t )(md (1) + mb Nb ) g (z )
0
j=1 (24) Ls
+ y (z d2 , t ) md (2) g (z Ls ) = Y (z ) (t ) s As (z ) dz
0
Nb
+ Y (z d1 ) (t )(md (1) + mb Nb ) md (1) g (z )
Udb = Uds + Ub (j ).
j=1 (25) + Y (z d2 ) (t ) md (2) g (z Ls ), (32)

Here, the Lagrange equation [31] will be employed to establish the where zd1 and zd2 are the coordinate of the runner and the generator
coupled motion equations of the total shaft system. First, defining a rotor in Z direction. Then, it can be rewritten as
generalized variable q, which is Ls T
0 0
Y (z ) s As (z ) dz + Y (z d1 )(md (1) + Nb md ) g (z ) 0
T
WQ = [ (t ) (t ) (t )]
q = [ (t ) (t ) (t ) 1 (t ) 1 (t ) 1 (t ) Nb (t ) Nb (t ) Nb (t ) ] . + Y (z d2 ) md (2) g (z Ls )

(26) . (33)

And the Lagrange function of the system could be expressed as Therefore, according to property of the Dirac function, the vector
expression of the gravity could be described as
Nb
T
Ldb = Tdb Udb = Tds Uds + [Tb (j) Ub (j )]. 0
Ls
Y (z ) s As (z ) dz + Y (z d1 )(md (1) + Nb md ) g (z ) 0
j=1 (27) FQ = 0
.
+ Y (z d2 ) md (2) g (z Ls )
Next, substituting Eqs. (26) and (27) into Lagrange equation, it will
(34)
be gotten
Similarly, the other unbalance forces acting on the disk-shaft part
d Ldb Ldb can be expressed as
= F.
dt q q (28)
Fd unbalance = [ X ( z ) f x Y (z ) f y (z ) f ]T , (35)
where ΣF is the vector of the unbalance forces, which will be presented
where fx, fy and fθ are the unbalance forces in transverse, longitudinal,
in next subsection.
and torsional direction, respectively. And the forces acting on the blade
Then, combining Eqs, (26)–(28), it could be gotten that
can be expressed as
Mdb q̈ + Gdb q + K dbq = F, (29) = [ U (xb ) fu V (xb ) fv W (xb ) fw ]T .
Fb unbalance (36)
where Mdb, Gdb, and Kdb are coupled mass matrix, gyroscopic matrix where fu, fv and fw is the unbalance forces in u, v and w direction, re-
and stiffness matrix. spectively.
Finally, considering the damping effects, the damping matrix (see in
Appendix C) of the whole system is substituted into Eq. (29), it will be 2.4.2. Rub-impact of the blade
transferred into For a tubular turbine, when the blade hits against the volute, the
blade will appear obvious bending deformation, which will further in-
Mdb q̈ + (Cdb + Gdb) q + K dbq = F, (30) fluence the dynamic characteristics of the shaft system. Here, an impact
force model [33] of the blade presented by Jiang et al. will be em-
where the coupled results of these matrixes (Mdb, Cdb, Gdb, and Kdb) are ployed, it can be written as
shown in Fig. 3, and the concrete expressions of the submatrix are listed
in Appendix C. fn b = 2.5
Eb Ib 1.549 / Lb
Lb µb + 1.549 / Lb
+
11
A L
56 b b b
2
( 5
L
22 b
+
35
R
22 d1 ) 1.549
µ + 1.549
/ Lb
/ Lb

(37)
2.4. Unbalanced forces
where Eb is the Young modulus of the blade; Ib is the second moment of
area of the blade; μb is the friction coefficient, ε is the insert depth of the
With regard to a BHGU, the unbalanced factors mainly conclude
blade in the impact.
mechanical, electrical and hydraulic instability factors. In this mod-
Besides, the tangential friction force [33] can be calculated by
eling, some typical instability factors are considered. First, the un-
balanced magnetic pull is considered as the electrical instability factor. f b = µb fn b. (38)
Second, for the mechanical instability factors, the centrifugal forces and
Based on Eqs.(36)–(38), the vector expression of the rub-impact
rub-impact forces are considered. Third, for the bulb turbine, the blade
force on the j-th blade could be described as
can rotate with the guide vane opening to realize the optimal inflow of
the water on the blade. Thus, assuming that the flow state of the water
on the runner is optimal, only the hydraulic unbalance at the seal is
U (Lb ) 2.5 ( Eb Ib 1.549 / Lb
Lb µb + 1.549 / Lb
+
11
A L
56 b b b
2
( 5
L
22 b

considered.
In previous studies, some dependable models about the unbalanced
+
35
R
22 d1 ) 1.549
µ + 1.549
/ Lb
/ Lb )
magnetic pull (fump), the seal force (fseal), and the centrifugal effect (fcen)
have been presented. The specific expressions of them can be obtained
F (bj) ri =
V (Lb ) µb 2.5 ( Eb Ib 1.549
/ Lb
Lb µb + 1.549 / Lb
+
11
A L
56 b b b
2
( 5
L
22 b
.
from Refs. [19,32,30], respectively. Here, the gravity of the whole shaft
system and the rub-impact forces of the blade are only explained. +
35
R
22 d1 ) 1.549
µ + 1.549
/ Lb
/ Lb ) cos

2.4.1. Gravity
W (Lb ) µb ( E I
2.5 Lb b
1.549 / Lb
b µb + 1.549 / Lb
+
11
A L
56 b b b
2
( 5
L
22 b

Employing the Dirac function: +

35
R
22 d1 ) 1.549
µ + 1.549
/ Lb
/ Lb ) sin (39)
a (z ) = (z a) = 0, (z a), (31)
In the end, the vector of the unbalance forces of the whole shaft
the acting of the gravity on the whole shaft system can be expressed as system can be written as

187
D. Yan, et al.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 3. The coupled relationship of the matrixes. (a) Mass matrix; (b) Gyroscopic matrix; (c) Damping matrix. (d) Stiffness matrix;
FQ + Fump + Fseal + Fcen
F (1)
b ri
F=
F (bNbri)
where Fump, Fseal, and Fcen are the unbalance forces caused by the
electromagnetic imbalance, the hydraulic imbalance at the seal, and the
mass eccentricity, respectively.
3. Analyses and discussions
The BHGU is a complicated nonlinear system. Therefore, the non-
linear dynamic analysis methods, such as the bifurcation diagram, the
largest Lyapunov index, and the phase diagram, will be used to analyze
the dynamic characteristics of them. The numerical simulation will be
carried out using Gear's method (ode15s solver in MATLAB R2016b).
For the simulation variables, the initial values of them are all selected as
1 × 10-6 [23]. The step size is 0.001 [23] and the simulation para-
meters comes from wangcun hydropower station of China, which are
listed in Appendix. D.
In the actual hydropower stations, the runner, as a flow passage
component, always contacts with the water and silt. Thus, the blades
can be corroded, abraded and even broken in the long-term operation.
These faults will cause the gradual changes of the mass eccentricity in a
long time-scale. Similarly, the seal gap of the hydro-turbine also
Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201
(b)
(d)
changed as time goes on. Therefore, the studies for the dynamic evo-
lution of the unit with the mass eccentricity of the runner and the seal
gap are necessary. Besides, it is also very important to study the system
characteristics in some extreme conditions, such as the load shedding,
(40) the runaway operating condition, and the severe excitation system
fault. Therefore, the dynamic evolutions of the unit with the mass ec-
centricity of the runner (e1), the seal gap (Cs), the rotational speed (ω)
and the exciting current (ij) at the water guide bearing will be discussed
here.
For illustrating the effects of the blades on the system stability, the
dynamic characteristics of the system will be contrastively analyzed
under two models: with blades and without blades. Meanwhile, the
vibrations of the shaft at the water guide bearing are respectively de-
noted by x1 and y1 in X and Y directions and the vibration of the balde-1
in flexural direction is expressed as v1. And x2 and y2 denote the vi-
bration of the shaft at the combination bearing. These symbols will be
employed in the following analyses. Here, a model comparison and
validation is firstly presented.
3.1. Model comparison and validation
In the previous studies about the modeling of the hydroelectric
generating unit, the concentrated mass method [19,21,23] was mainly
applied, and the blades were regarded as a concentrated mass point
fixed on the disk part of the runner. Here, for verifying the rationality of
the model established in Section 2, a comparison among the previous
188
D. Yan, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

concentrated mass method without blades (CMMWB), the new con-
tinuity method with blades and the field test data will be put forward
under different conditions. Besides, considering that the peak-to-peak
value is applied in the industry standard of hydroelectric engineering in
China, the model comparison will be also based on the peak-to-peak
value. And the comparison results are presented in Table. 1.
First, three typical cases are employed for the model comparison
and validation. Case-1 represents that unit rotates with a 50% rated
rotational speed under no load condition. Case-2 represents that unit
rotates with a 100% rated rotational speed under no load condition.
And Case-3 represents that unit rotates with a 100% rated rotational
speed under the rated load condition. The process from case-1 to case-2
represents the speed increase process and the process from case-2 to
case-3 represents the load increase process in the start-up. These three
cases not only include rated conditions of the unit, but also reflect the
changes of the unit state with the rotational speed and the load.
Therefore, these cases are representative to verify the accuracy of the
model.
From case-1, case-2 and case-3 in Table. 1, the maximum error
between the new model and the test is always < 25% whether at the
water guide bearing or the combination bearing. The error between the
new model and the test is mainly caused by some complex and un-
certain hydraulic factors, which are not considered here. Considering
that the focus of this study is the effects of the blade on the dynamic
evolution of the unit under some observable mechanical, electrical in-
stability and the hydraulic instability at the seal. The effects of these
uncertain hydraulic factors can be covered when the mechanical,
electrical instability and the hydraulic instability at the seal are pro-
minent. So, the new model is applicable to describe the dynamic
characteristic of the unit in this study.
For the previous model, all the errors at the water guide bearing are
larger than 50%. Except for the influences of the uncertain hydraulic
instability, the effects of the torsion and shear of the shaft is not also
considered and the mass of the shaft is assumed as two lumped mass
rather than distributed to the whole range of the shaft. Moreover, the
rotation motion of the blade was not described in the previous model.
Based on these, more instability factors are ignored in the previous
model. Thus, the error of the previous model is more obvious than that
of the new model, and the vibrations of the unit in the previous model is
less than those of the new model and the test.
Besides, for the models and test data, the comparisons of the change
trend are also carried out to enhance the model validation. On the one
hand, from case-1 to case-2, the rotational speed of the unit increases
from 53.5 r/min to 107.1 r/min. According to the test, the vibration of
the unit at the water guide bearing obviously increases. The trend of the
new model is consistent with the test. But, for the previous model, the
change at the water guide bearing is inconspicuous. On the other hand,
from case-2 to case-3, the load and the exciting current increase to rated
values and the blade rotation angle also changes with the load. For the
test, the vibration at the water guide bearing increases obviously. The
change trend of the new model is also concordant with that of the test.
However, for the previous model, the change of the vibration state
cannot be found. The trend differences between them are also com-
pletely relevant to the differences of modeling methods and the as-
sumptions mentioned above.
Based on above comparison analyses, the new model has more ad-
vantages to study the vibration response of the unit here compared with
the previous model. Meanwhile, the new model can match with the test
data well whether the vibration value or the change trend. Therefore, it
is reasonable to use the new model to study the dynamic evolution of
the unit in this research. In addition, the inflow state of the water on the
blade is assumed to be optimal, so the current model is effective for all
optimized hydraulic conditions of the blade. In other words, if the head
and discharge can meet that the inflow state of the water on the blade is
optimal, the established model will be reasonable and reliable.
3.2. Mass eccentricity of the runner
The mass eccentricity of the runner (e1) is an important factor in-
fluencing the operation stability. The nonlinear dynamic evolutions of
the shaft system at the water guide bearing with the mass eccentricity of
the runner are shown in Fig. 4.
Firstly, when the blades are not considered, the nonlinear vibration
characteristics of the shaft system are illustrated in Fig. 4(a), (c) and (f).
Specifically, x1 and y1 maintain a stable period-1 oscillation when
e1 < 43.8 mm. Then, through a quasi-periodicity oscillation in the
range from 43.8 mm to 47.8 mm, the largest Lyapunov index of the
shaft system suddenly increases from 0 to 0.0367, which means that the
shaft system enters into a chaos state at e1 = 47.8 mm. Meanwhile, the
bifurcation diagrams of them show an obviously irregular oscillation
when e1 ≥ 47.8 mm.
Secondly, when the runner blades are considered in the model, the
nonlinear dynamic evolutions of the x1, y1 and v1 are shown in
Fig. 4(b), (d) and (e). In this condition, x1, y1 and v1 keep a period-1
oscillation when e1 < 40.7 mm. Then, in the range of 40.7 mm <
e1 < 43.8 mm, the states of the x1, y1 and v1 change repeatedly be-
tween the periodic oscillation and the irregular oscillation. At the same
time, the largest Lyapunov index of the shaft system converts again and
again between zero and the positive number. These phenomena in-
dicate that the shaft system is in an intermittent chaos state when

Table 1
The comparisons of peak-to-peak value under different conditions.
Parameters Case-1 Case-2 Case-3

value percentage value percentage value percentage

Conditions Rotational speed (r/min) 53.5 107.1 107.1

Load (MW) 0.0 0.0 20.0

Test x1 (um) 61 – 81 – 95 –
y1 (um) 51 – 65 – 76 –
x2 (um) 50 – 53 – 54 –
y2 (um) 38 – 39 – 51 –

New model x1 (um) 54 11.5% 68 16.0% 75 21.1%

y1 (um) 39 23.5% 57 12.3% 63 17.1%
x2 (um) 40 20.0% 40 24.5% 44 18.5%
y2 (um) 34 10.5% 34 12.8% 39 23.5%

CMMWB (previous model) x1 (um) 26 57.3% 31 61.7% 31 67.3%

y1 (um) 25 50.9% 29 61.7% 29 61.8%
x2 (um) 38 24.0% 38 28.3% 42 22.2%
y2 (um) 35 7.9% 35 10.3% 39 23.5%

189
D. Yan, et al.
Fig. 4. The nonlinear dynamic evolutions of the shaft system with the mass eccentricity of the runner from 0 mm to 70 mm: (a) x1 without blades; (b) x1 with blades;
(c) y1 without blades; (d) y1 with blades; (e) v1 with blades; (f) Largest Lyapunov index.
40.7 mm < e1 < 43.8 mm. In the end, the system turns into the chaos
state at e1 = 43.8 mm.
Comparing vibration characteristics of the shaft system under two
different conditions: with blades and without blades, three main effects
of the blades on the dynamic evolutions of the shaft system will be
found. The first to mention is the period-1 oscillations of the shaft
system under these two conditions both could evolve into chaos state,
but the values of entering chaos are different, namely, the blades could
bring forward the starting point of the chaos and shorten the period-1
range of the mass eccentricity of the runner. From the angle of the
engineering, the blade can decrease the stable range of the BHGU about
the mass eccentricity of the runner, which means the drastic vibration
of the unit can appear more easily because of the influence of the blade.
Second, the routes leading to the chaos are also different from these two
conditions. To be specific, in the condition without blades, the system
enters into the chaos state through quasi-periodicity route. But in the
condition with blades, it is replaced by the intermittent chaos routes.
190
Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201
Therefore, in the actual engineering, it is more reasonable to forecast
the chaos according the intermittent chaos rather than the quasi-peri-
odicity. Finally, for the largest Lyapunov index in the chaos state, the
value in the condition with blades is always larger than that in the
model without blades. In other words, the blades could enhance the
sensibility of the initial shaft system conditions to the mass eccentricity
of the runner (e1).
In the actual engineering, excepting the influences of the value of
the mass eccentricity on the dynamic characteristics of the shaft system,
the angle difference of the mass eccentricity between the runner and the
generator rotor can also influence the dynamic characteristics of the
shaft system. Here, the angle difference is expressed by Δφ. The orbit
diagram of shaft center at the water guide bearing with the increasing
of Δφ is shown in Fig. 5. From Fig. 5, it can be acquired that the vi-
bration amplitude of the shaft at the water guide is largest when
Δφ = 0°. With the increasing of the Δφ, the vibration amplitude of the
shaft gradually decreases. At the same time, when Δφ < 90°, the
D. Yan, et al.
decreasing speed of it is slow. Interestingly, when 90° < Δφ < 180°,
the vibration amplitude of the shaft at the water guide bearing could
quickly decrease with the increasing of Δφ.
3.3. Seal gap
For a BHGU, the dynamic evolutions of the shaft system with the
seal gap under two conditions: with blades and without blades, are
presented in Fig. 6.
As is shown in Fig. 6, whether the blades of the runner are con-
sidered or not, the dynamic evolutions of the shaft system both show
three stages: the period-1 stage, the quasi periodicity stage, and the
chaos stage. Concretely, in the range of Cs < 0.73 mm, x1 and y1
maintain a stable period-1 oscillation. Meanwhile, there is an obvious
increasing tendency for y1 in this range, which means the vibration of
the shaft at the water guide bearing is gradually intensified. Then, the
shaft system enters into a quasi-periodic oscillation at the point of
Cs = 0.73 mm, and finally turns into chaos at Cs = 0.80 mm. Interest-
ingly, in the chaos stage, the overall trend of the dynamic evolution is
firstly increasing and then maintaining constant, in which the turning
point is Cs = 1.45 mm.
In addition, for the flexural vibration of the blades (v1), there are
two types of nonlinear dynamic behaviors in the development process,
which are period-1 and chaos. In the ranges of
0.45 mm < Cs < 0.88 mm and 1.66 mm < Cs < 1.75 mm, it keeps a
period-1 oscillation. And the chaos state appears in the range of
0.88 mm < Cs < 1.66 mm and 1.75 < Cs < 2.00 mm. Based on
these, the dynamic evolutions of the shaft system with the seal gap are
similar under the condition with blades and without blades. In other
words, the effects of the blades on the changes of the dynamic behaviors
of the shaft system caused by seal gap are insignificant. This phenom-
enon indicates that the dynamic characteristics of the shaft system is
more sensitive to the changing of seal gap than that of the blade vi-
bration. So, the influences of the blades on the dynamic evolutions of
the shaft system have been covered by the effects of the seal gap. Based
on above analyses, it can be gotten that the seal gap is more pivotal
than the blade vibration. In the operation and maintenance processes of
the unit, the seal gap should be paid more attention.
3.4. Rotational speed
For the BHGU, the flywheel moment is obviously less than that of
other types of units so that the growth rate of the rotational speed of
BHGU can reach to 70% in the load shedding process. Therefore, it is
necessary to investigate the dynamic evolutions of the shaft system with
the changing of the rotational speed. And Fig. 7 has been presented to
express the dynamic evolutions of the shaft system with the rotational
speed.
When the runner blades are not considered in the model, the non-
linear dynamic evolutions of x1 and y1 can be divided into four stages.
First, x1 and y1 maintain period-1 oscillations when ω < 139 r/min.
Then, they gradually convert to a quasi-periodicity oscillation in the
Fig. 5. The orbit diagram of shaft center at the water guide bearing with the
angle difference.
191
Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201
range of 139 r/min < ω < 145 r/min. Third, the system enters into a
chaotic state at the point of ω = 145 r/min, which can be distinctly
identified by the change of the largest Lyapunov index in Fig. 7(f).
Interestingly, this chaos state changes at the point ω = 153 r/min. Fi-
nally, the largest Lyapunov index of the shaft system decreases to a
negative number at ω = 160 r/min, which means the system gets rid of
the chaos at this point. Meanwhile, from the bifurcation diagrams of x1
and y1, it can also be found that the system keep a period-2 oscillation
in the range of 160 r/min < ω < 170 r/min.
Besides, when the runner blades are coupled to the model of the
shaft system, the evolution process can also be classified as five steps
according to the changing of the nonlinear dynamic phenomena. First,
the system maintains a period-1 oscillation when ω < 137 r/min.
Second, in the range from 137 r/min to 145 r/min, the system is in a
chaos state. And then, through a transitory quasi-periodicity process,
the system enters into a chaos state again at ω = 150 r/min and con-
verts to a new chaos state at ω = 160 r/min.
Comparing the nonlinear dynamic evolutions of the shaft system
with the rotational speed under two different conditions: with blades
and without blades, it can be found that the effects of the blades mainly
includes two aspects. On the one hand, the blades can obviously in-
fluence the start point and the development route of chaos. Specifically,
the transient process of the quasi-periodicity oscillation is hidden under
the condition with blades, and the starting point of chaos is also
brought forward in this condition. On the other hand, when the blades
are not considered in the model, the system can get rid of the chaos in
the range of 160 r/min < ω < 170 r/min. But in the model with
blades, the system cannot break away from chaos in this range.
Therefore, it can be obtained that the blades could amplify the chaos
range of the rotational speed. In other words, the blade can enlarge the
range of the strenuous vibration for the BHGU.
For further expounding the dynamic responses of the shaft system in
extreme conditions, the time domain responses of the shaft system are
presented in Fig. 8. Here, three typical conditions will be discussed,
which are ω = 107 r/min, ω = 141 r/min, and ω = 156 r/min. Mean-
while, because the dynamic evolutions of the x1 and y1 are similar, the
time domain analyses will be only carried out for x1 and v1. As is shown
in Fig. 8, when ω = 107 r/min, the vibration amplitude of the blade is
small, and the vibration of the shaft is not obviously impacted by the
blades. When ω = 141 r/min, the intermittent rub-impact of the blades
appears. And the x1 enters into an irregular wave with a larger ampli-
tude. Finally, when ω = 156 r/min, the drastic rub-impact of the blades
is found in Fig. 8(b). And influenced by the blade vibration, the vi-
bration amplitude of the x1 increases to a higher value and its vibration
frequency is also changed. In this condition, it is possible to result in the
metal fatigue and even the crack of the blades. So, the rub-impact of the
blades should be avoided using some effective control and precaution
means in the actual engineering. Therefore, for the operation of the
BHGU, the shaft vibration cannot be influenced by the blade in the
steady state, but the effects of the blade in some extreme conditions
should be attached great attention.
3.5. Exciting current
In this subsection, the nonlinear dynamic evolutions of x1, y1 and v1
with the exciting current will be discussed, which are presented in
Fig. 9.
On the one hand, when the blades of the runner are not considered
in the model, the dynamic evolutions of x1 and y1 with the exciting
current are presented in Fig. 9(a) and (c). From Fig. 9(a) and (c), three
different nonlinear behaviors could be found, which are period-1,
period-2 and the chaos. For x1 and y1, the ranges maintaining the
period-1 oscillation state are 0 A < ij < 1038 A and 0 A < ij < 936
A. Meanwhile, the regions of the period-2 oscillation are 1038 A <
ij < 1265 A and 936 A < ij < 1265 A. There is a turning point
ij = 1159 A needed to be concerned about in the process of the period-2
D. Yan, et al.
Fig. 6. The nonlinear dynamic evolutions of the shaft system with the seal gap from 0.45 mm to 2.00 mm: (a) x1 without blades; (b) x1 with blades; (c) y1 without
blades; (d) y1 with blades; (e) v with blade; (f) Largest Lyapunov index.
oscillation. At this point, x1 enters into a Hopf bifurcation and the
period-1 oscillation of y1 is hidden. Finally, whether x1 or y1, they both
turn to the chaos state at the point of ij = 1265 A.
On the other hand, when the blades are coupled in the model of the
shaft system, the bifurcation diagrams of x1, y1 and v1 are illustrated in
Fig. 9(b), (d), and (e). For the vibration response of x1, the period-2
state firstly appears at ij = 893 A and disappears at ij = 1081 A. Then,
two typical period-doubling bifurcations are found at the points of
ij = 1241 A and ij = 1270 A. In the end, the period-doubling bifurcation
evolves into chaos at ij = 1353 A. For the vibration response of y1, the
evolution process is similar with the process of x1 on the whole with the
period-1 oscillation replaced by a period-3 oscillation at the point of
ij = 893 A.
Based on above analyses, the effects of the blades on the dynamic
evolution of the shaft system will be discussed. From Fig. 9(f), because
of the effects of the blades, the chaos of the shaft system can be ob-
viously delayed with the changing of the exciting current. Then, based
192
Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201
on the comparisons of the bifurcation diagrams, it can be obtained that
the blades can change the evolution routes of chaos. To be specific,
when the blades are considered, the shaft system will evolve to chaos by
a period-doubling mode rather than a period-2 oscillation mode. Be-
sides, affected by the blades, the stable period-1 oscillation range of the
shaft system is cut short.
For illustrating the rub-impact characteristics of the blades in dif-
ferent exciting currents, the time domain responses of the blades in
different exciting currents are presented in Fig. 10. As is shown in
Fig. 10, When ij = 1000 A, ij = 1300 A, and ij = 1400 A, there are
obvious rub-impact phenomena for the blades. At the same time, it can
also be found that the holding time of the rub-impact could increase
with the increasing of the exciting current. Besides, the rub-impact
frequency of the blade in a large exciting current is faster than that in a
small exciting current.
D. Yan, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

Fig. 7. The nonlinear dynamic evolutions of the shaft system with the rotational speed from 10 r/min to 170 r/min: (a) x1 without blades; (b) x1 with blades; (c) y1
without blades; (d) y1 with blades; (e) v1 with blade; (f) Largest Lyapunov index.

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. The time domain responses of the shaft system under three typical rotational speed. (a) x1; (b) v1.

193
D. Yan, et al.
Fig. 9. The nonlinear dynamic evolutions of the shaft system with the exciting current from 0 A to 1450 A: (a) x1 without blades; (b) x1 with blades; (c) y1 without
blades; (d) y1 with blades; (e) v1 with blades; (f) Largest Lyapunov index.
4. Conclusions
In this research, considering the effects of the blades, a novel con-
tinuum shaft system model of the BHGU has been built, which is ver-
ified by comparing with the test data. At the same time, the superiority
of the new model over the previous model without blades is presented.
Then, the dynamic evolution processes of the BHGU with some system
parameters are presented and the effects of the blade on these processes
are also obtained. Here, there are four main conclusions need to be
concerned about. First, with the changing of the system parameters,
some turning points about the system stability characteristics have been
gotten, which are e1 = 40.7 mm for the runner mass eccentricity,
Cs = 0.80 mm for the seal gap, ω = 137 r/min for the rotational speed
and ij = 1353 A for the exciting current. Second, the starting points and
development routes of the chaos state for the shaft system with some
system parameters (e1, ω, and ij) could be obviously changed by the
blades. Specifically, the starting point of chaos could be put forward for
the runner mass eccentricity and the rotational speed, and delayed for
194
Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201
the exciting current. Besides, for the runner mass eccentricity, the
quasi-periodical route of entering chaos is replaced by the intermittent
route; for the rotational speed, the quasi-periodical route is hidden, and
the system directly enters chaos; for the exciting current, the period-2
route is substituted by the period-doubling route. Third, the shaft
system is more sensitive to the changing of the seal gap than the blade
vibration, so the effects of the blades on the dynamic evolution with the
seal gap can be negligible. Finally, it can also be found that the in-
creasing different angle (Δφ) could gradually decrease the vibration
amplitude of the shaft. Furthermore, the new model with blades pro-
vides a reliable basics for the further study about the BHGU.
Meanwhile, the above analyses results can also guide the operation of
the bulb tubular hydropower station.
The above studies are all based on the rated condition of the unit.
So, the hydraulic instability caused by the inflow instability on the
blade are not mentioned. However, in the actual engineering, it could
exist in some nonideal conditions. Therefore, in the further research,
the model of the inflow instability on the blade needs be established for
D. Yan, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

v1 (mm)
3
0
ij=1400 A

ij=1300 A

ij=1000 A

ij=500 A
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Sequence
Fig. 10. The time domain response of the blades in different exciting current.

analyzing more complex conditions. Acknowledgment

Conflict of interest This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of
China (grant number 51679171).
None declared.

Appendix A. The formula derivations and matrix expressions about the disk-shaft part.

(1) The discrete version of the shaft’s kinetic energy is shown as following:
1 T (t ) X T (z ) X (z ) T
A
2 s s
[ (t ) + (t ) Y T (z ) Y (z ) (t )]
1 Es Is T Es Is
+ 2 Jd X (z ) (t ) + As Gs
X (z ) (t ) X (z ) ( t ) + As Gs
X (z ) (t )
1 Es Is T Es Is
Ls + 2 Jd Y (z ) (t ) + As Gs
Y (z ) (t ) Y ( z ) (t ) + As Gs
Y (z ) (t )
Ts = dz.
0 1 Es Is T Es Is
+ J
2 p
X (z ) (t ) + As Gs
X (z ) (t ) Y (z ) (t ) + As Gs
Y (z ) (t )
1 Es Is T Es Is
J
2 p
X (z ) (t ) + As Gs
X (z ) (t ) Y (z ) ( t ) + As Gs
Y (z ) (t )
1 2 1 2 1 1
+ 2 Jp + 2 Is + 2 Is (z ) (t ) + 2 Is [ T (t ) T (z ) (z ) (t )] (A-1)
Sorting the Eq. (A-1), it can be written as

Ms1 0 0 (t ) 0 Gs1 0 (t )
Ts = [ (t ) (t ) (t ) ] 0 Ms2 0 (t ) + [ (t ) (t ) (t ) ] Gs2 0 0 (t ) ,
0 0 M 0 0 0 (t )
(t ) (A-2)
where
T (z ) X (z ) Es Is Es Is
Ls s As X + Jd X T (z ) X (z ) + Jd As Gs
X T (z ) X (z ) + Jd As Gs
X T (z ) X (z )
1
Ms1 = dz,
2 0
+ Jd ( As Gs )
Es Is 2
X T (z ) X (z )
(A-3)

T (z ) Y (z ) Es Is Es Is
Ls s As Y + Jd Y T (z ) Y (z ) + Jd As Gs
Y T (z ) Y (z ) + Jd As Gs
Y T (z ) Y (z )
1
Ms2 = dz,
2 0
+ Jd ( As Gs)
Es Is 2
Y T (z ) Y (z )
(A-4)
Es Is Es Is
Ls
Jp X T (z ) Y (z ) + Jp As Gs
X T (z ) Y (z ) + Jp As Gs
X T (z ) Y (z )
1
Gs1 = dz ,
2 0
+ Jp ( As Gs )
Es Is 2
X T (z ) Y (z )
(A-5)
Es Is Es Is
Ls
Jp Y T (z ) X (z ) Jp As Gs
Y T (z ) X (z ) Jp As Gs
Y T (z ) X (z )
1
Gs2 = dz,
2 0
Jp ( As Gs )
Es Is 2
Y T (z ) X (z )
(A-6)

1 Ls
M = {Is T (z ) (z )} dz.
2 0 (A-7)

(2) The discrete version of the shaft’s potential energy is expressed as

195
D. Yan, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

Gs Ip [ (z ) (t )]T [ (z ) (t )] + Es Is [X (z ) (t )]T [X (z ) (t )]
Es Is T Es Is
Ls
Us =
1
As Gs
X (z ) (t ) As Gs
X (z ) (t ) dz.
2 + Es Is [Y (z ) (t )]T [Y (z ) (t )] +
0 s Gs As T
Es Is Es Is
+ Y (z ) (t ) Y (z ) (t )
As Gs As Gs (A-8)
Simplifying the Eq. (A-8), it can be expressed as

Ks1 0 0 (t )
Us = [ (t ) (t ) (t )] 0 Ks2 0 (t )
0 0 Ks (t ) (A-9)
where
1 Ls (Es Is )2
Ks1 = Es Is X T (z ) X (z ) + X T (z ) X (z ) dz ,
2 0 As Gs (A-10)

1 Ls (Es Is )2
K s2 = Es Is Y T (z ) Y (z ) + Y T (z ) Y (z ) dz,
2 0 As Gs (A-11)

1 Ls
Ks = [Gs Js T (z ) (z )] dz.
2 0 (A-12)

(3) The discrete version of the disk-1’s kinetic energy is shown as following:
1 1 1 Ed1 Id1 T Ed1 Id1
Td1 = 2 md1 [X (z d1 ) (t )]T [X (z d1 ) (t )] + 2 md1 [Y (z d1 ) (t )]T [Y (z d1 ) (t )] + 2 Jd1 X (z d1 ) (t ) + Ad1 Gd1
X (z d1 ) (t ) X (z d1 ) (t ) + Ad1 Gd1
X (z d1 ) (t )
1 Ed1 Id1 T Ed1 Id1
+ 2 Jd1 Y (z d1 ) (t ) + Ad1 Gd1
Y (z d1 ) (t ) Y (z d1 ) (t ) + Ad1 Gd1
Y (z d1 ) (t )
1 Ed1 Id1 T Ed1 Id1
+ 2 Jp1 Y (z d1 ) (t ) + Ad1 Gd1
Y (z d1 ) (t ) X (z d1 ) (t ) + Ad1 Gd1
X (z d1 ) (t )
1 Ed1 Id1 T Ed1 Id1 1
J X (z d1 ) (t ) + X (z d1 ) (t ) Y (z d1 ) (t ) + Y (z d1 ) (t ) + 2 Jp1 2
2 p1 Ad1 Gd1 Ad1 Gd1 (A-13)
After the reduction for Eq. (A-13), it can be rewritten as

Md11 0 0 (t ) 0 Gd11 0 (t )
Td1 = [ (t ) (t ) (t ) ] 0 Md12 0 (t ) + [ (t ) (t ) (t ) ] Gd12 0 0 (t ) .
0 0 0 (t ) 0 0 0 (t ) (A-14)
where
E I
md1 X T (z d1 ) X (z d1) + Jd1 X T (z d1 ) X (z d1) + Jd1 Ad1 Gd1 X T (z d1 ) X (z d1)
1 d1 d1
Md11 = ,
( )
2
2 + Jd1 Ed1 Id1 X T (z d1 ) X (z d1) + Jd1 Ed1 Id1 X T (z d1 ) X (z d1)
A G d1 d1 A G d1 d1 (A-15)
Ed1 Id1
md1 Y T (z d1 ) Y (z d1) + Jd1 Y T (z d1 ) Y (z d1) + Jd1 Y T (z d1 ) Y (z d1)
1 Ad1 Gd1
Md12 = ,
( )
2
2 + Jd1 Ed1 Id1 Y T (z d1 ) Y (z d1) + Jd1 Ed1 Id1 Y T (z
d1 ) Y (z d1)
A G d1 d1 A G d1 d1 (A-16)
E I E I
J Y T (z d1 ) X (z d1) + Jp1 Ad1 Gd1 Y T (z d1 ) X (z d1) + Jp1 Ad1 Gd1 Y T (z d1 ) X (z d1)
1 p1 d1 d1 d1 d1
Gd11 = ,
( )
2
2 + Jp1 Ed1 Id1 Y T (z d1 ) X (z d1)
A G d1 d1 (A-17)
Ed1 Id1 Ed1 Id1
Jp1 X T (z d1 ) Y (z d1) Jp1 X T (z d1 ) Y (z d1) Jp1 X T (z d1 ) Y (z d1)
1 Ad1 Gd1 Ad1 Gd1
Gd12 = ,
2 Jp1 ( Ed1 Id1 2
Ad1 Gd1 )
X T (z d1 ) Y (z d1)
(A-18)

(4) The discrete version of the disk-1’s potential energy is shown as following:

K d11 0 0 (t )
1 1 1
Ud1 = 2 kd1 [X (z d1 ) (t )]T [X (z d1 ) (t )] + 2 kd1 [Y (z d1 ) (t )]T [Y (z d1 ) (t )] + 2 kt1 [ (z d1 ) (t )]T [ (z d1 ) (t )] = [ (t ) (t ) (t )] 0 K d12 0 (t )
0 0 K d1 (t )
(A-19)
where
1
K d11 = 2 kd1 X T (z d1 ) X (z d1), (A-20)
1
K d12 = k Y T (z d1 ) Y (z d1),
2 d1 (A-21)

196
D. Yan, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

1 T (z
K d1 = 2 kt1 d1 ) (z d1). (A-22)

(5) The discrete version of the disk-2’s kinetic energy is shown as following:
1 1 1 Ed2 Id2 T Ed 2 Id2
Td2 = 2 md2 [X (z d2 ) (t )]T [X (z d2 ) (t )] + 2 md2 [Y (z d2 ) (t )]T [Y (z d2 ) (t )] + 2 Jd2 X (z d2 ) (t ) + Ad 2 Gd2
X (z d 2 ) (t ) X (z d2 ) (t ) + Ad2 Gd2
X (z d2 ) (t )
1 Ed2 Id2 T Ed2 Id2
+ 2 Jd2 Y (z d2 ) (t ) + Ad2 Gd2
Y (z d 2 ) (t ) Y ( z d 2 ) (t ) + Ad2 Gd 2
Y (z d2 ) (t )
1 Ed2 Id2 T Ed2 Id2
+ 2 Jp2 Y (z d2 ) (t ) + Ad2 Gd2
Y (z d 2 ) (t ) X ( z d 2 ) (t ) + Ad2 Gd2
X (z d 2 ) (t )
1 Ed2 Id 2 T Ed2 Id2 1
J X (z d 2 ) (t ) + X (z d 2 ) (t ) Y (z d 2 ) ( t ) + Y (z d2 ) (t ) + 2 Jp2 2
2 p2 Ad2 Gd2 Ad 2 Gd2 (A-23)
It can be written as a normative form shown as

Md21 0 0 (t ) 0 Gd21 0 (t )
Td2 = [ (t ) (t ) (t ) ] 0 Md22 0 (t ) + [ (t ) (t ) (t ) ] Gd22 0 0 (t ) ,
0 0 0 (t ) 0 0 0 (t ) (A-24)
where
Ed2 Id 2
md2 X T (z d2 ) X (z d2) + Jd2 X T (z d2 ) X (z d2 ) + Jd2 X T (z d2 ) X (z d 2 )
1 Ad 2 Gd2
Md21 = ,
2 +
E I
Jd2 Ad2 Gd2 X T (z d2 ) X
d2 d2
(z d2) + Jd2 ( Ed2 Id 2 2
Ad 2 Gd2 )
X T (z d2 ) X (z d 2 )
(A-25)
Ed2 Id2
md2 Y T (z d2 ) Y (z d2) + Jd2 Y T (z d2 ) Y (z d2) + Jd2 Y T (z d 2 ) Y (z d 2 )
1 Ad2 Gd2
Md22 = ,
( )Y
2
2 + Jd2
Ed2 Id 2
Y T (z d 2 ) Y (z d2) + Jd2
Ed 2 Id2 T (z
d2 ) Y (z d 2 )
Ad 2 Gd2 Ad2 Gd2 (A-26)
Ed 2 Id2 Ed 2 Id2
Jp2 Y T (z d2 ) X (z d2) + Jp2 Y T (z d 2 ) X (z d2 ) + Jp2 Y T (z d 2 ) X (z d 2 )
1 Ad2 Gd2 Ad2 Gd2
Gd11 = ,
( )Y
2
2 + Jp2
Ed2 Id2 T (z
d2 ) X (z d2)
Ad2 Gd 2 (A-27)
Ed2 Id 2 Ed2 Id2
Jp2 X T (z d2 ) Y (z d2 ) Jp2 X T (z d 2 ) Y (z d 2 ) Jp2 X T (z d 2 ) Y (z d 2 )
1 Ad 2 Gd2 Ad2 Gd2
Gd12 = .
( )X
2
2 Jp2
Ed2 Id 2 T (z
d2 ) Y (z d 2 )
Ad2 Gd2 (A-28)

(6) The discrete version of the disk-2’s potential energy is shown as following:
1 1 1
Ud2 = 2 kd2 [X (z d2 ) (t )]T [X (z d2 ) (t )] + 2 kd2 [Y (z d2 ) (t )]T [Y (z d2 ) (t )] + 2 kt 2 [ (z d2 ) (t )]T [ (z d2 ) (t )] = Ud2

K d21 0 0 (t )
= [ (t ) (t ) (t )] 0 K d 22 0 (t ) ,
0 0 K d2 (t ) (A-29)
where
1
K d21 = 2 kd2 X T (z d2 ) X (z d2), (A-30)
1
K d22 = k Y T (z d2 ) Y (z d2),
2 d2 (A-31)
1 T (z
K d2 = k
2 t2 d2 ) (z d2). (A-32)

Appendix. B. The detailed formula derivations and matrix expressions about the blade part.

(1) The kinetic energy of the j-th blade can be expressed as

197
D. Yan, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

[X (z d ) (t )]T [X (z d ) (t )] + [Y (z d ) (t )]T [Y (z d ) (t )] + [U (xb ) T

(j) (t )] [U (xb ) (j) (t )]

+ [V (xb ) (j ) (t )]T [V (x b ) (j) (t )] + [W (xb ) (j ) (t )]T [W (x b ) (j ) (t )]

[U (xb ) (j ) (t )]T [cos V (x b ) (j ) (t ) + sin W (xb ) (j ) (t )]

+2 T
[U (xb ) (j ) (t )] [cos V (xb ) (j) (t ) + sin W (xb ) (j) (t )]

[U (xb ) (j ) (t )]T [U (x b ) (j) (t )] + (cos ) 2 [V (x T

b ) (j ) (t )] [V (xb ) (j) (t )]
2 2 sin cos [V (xb ) T
+ (j) (t )] [W (xb ) (j ) (t )]

+(sin ) 2 [W (x T
b ) (j) (t )] [W (xb ) (j ) (t )]

Lb 1 [X (z d ) (t )]T [U (xb ) (j ) (t )] + cos [Y (z d ) (t )]T [V (xb ) (j ) (t )]

Tb (j) = b Ab + 2 cos dxb (j)
0 2
+ sin [Y (z d ) (t )]T [W (x b ) (j) (t )]

cos [X (z d ) (t )]T [V (xb ) (j) (t )] + sin [X (z d ) (t )]T [W (xb ) (j ) (t )]

2 cos
[Y (z d ) (t )]T [U (xb ) (j) (t )]

cos [X (z d ) (t )]T [V (xb ) (j) (t )] sin [X (z d ) (t )]T [W (xb ) (j) (t )]

+ 2 sin
+ [Y (z d ) (t )]T [U (xb ) (j) (t )]

[X (z d ) (t )]T [U (xb ) (j ) (t )] + cos [Y (z d ) (t )]T [V (xb ) (j ) (t )]

2 sin
+ sin [Y (z d ) (t )]T [W (x b ) (j) (t )]
(B-1)
And the Eq. (22) can be gotten by normalizing the Eq. (B-1).

(2) The original structure of the [Mtb], [Gtb] and [Ktb].

M11 0 M13 M14 M15
0 M22 M23 M24 M25
[Mtb ]= M31 M32 M33 0 0 ,
M41 M42 0 M 44 0
M51 M52 0 0 M55 (B-2)

0 0 G13 G14 G15

0 0 G23 G24 G25
[Gtb] = G31 G32 0 G34 G35 ,
G41 G42 G43 0 0
G51 G52 G53 0 0 (B-3)

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
[Ktb] = 0 0 K33 0 0 ,
0 0 0 K 44 0
0 0 0 0 K55 (B-4)
in which
Lb 1 Lb 1
M11 = A X T (z d ) X (z d ) dxb ;
2 b b
M22 = A Y T (z d ) Y (z d ) dxb ;
2 b b
0 0

Lb 1 Lb 1
M33 = A U T (xb ) U (xb ) dxb ;
2 b b
M44 = A V T (xb ) V (xb ) dxb ;
2 b b
0 0

Lb 1 Lb 1
M55 = A W T (xb ) W (xb ) dxb ;
2 b b
M13 = A
2 b b
cos X T (z d ) U (xb ) dxb ;
0 0

Lb 1 Lb 1 Lb 1
M14 = A
2 b b
sin cos X T (z d ) V (xb ) dxb ; M15 = A
2 b b
sin sin X T (z d ) W (xb ) dxb ; M23 = A
2 b b
sin Y T (z d ) U (xb ) dxb ;
0 0 0
Lb 1
M24 = A
2 b b
cos cos Y T (z d ) V (xb ) dxb
0

Lb 1
M25 = A
2 b b
cos sin Y T (z d ) W (xb ) dxb ;
0

T T T T T T
M31 = M13 ; M32 = M23 ; M41 = M14 ; M42 = M24 ; M51 = M15 ; M52 = M25
Lb 1 Lb 1
G13 = 2
sin X T (z d ) U (xb ) dxb G14 = 2
cos cos X T (z d ) V (xb ) dxb ;
0 0

Lb 1 Lb 1
G15 = 2
cos sin X T (z d ) W (xb ) dxb ; G23 = 2
cos X T (z d ) U (xb ) dxb ;
0 0

Lb 1 Lb 1
G24 = 2
sin cos Y T (z d ) V (xb ) dxb ; G25 = 2
sin sin Y T (z d ) W (xb ) dxb ;
0 0

198
D. Yan, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

Lb Lb
G34 = b Ab cos U T (xb ) V (xb ) dxb ; G35 = b Ab sin U T (xb ) W (xb ) dxb ;
0 0

Lb Lb
G43 = b Ab cos V T (xb ) U (xb ) dxb ; G53 = b Ab sin W T (xb ) U (xb ) dxb ;
0 0

Lb 1 Lb 1
K33 = A 2 U T (x 2 (cos ) 2V T (xb ) V (xb ) dxb ;
2 b b b ) U (xb ) dxb ; K 44 = A
2 b b
0 0

Lb 1
K 45 = A
2 b b
2 sin cos V T (xb ) W (xb ) dxb ; K54 = K T45;
0

Lb 1
K55 = A 2 (sin ) 2W T (xb ) W (xb ) dxb
0 2 b b

(3) The potential energy of the j-th blade.

1 Lb T 1 Lb T T
Ub (j) = 2 Eb 0
{Ab [U (xb ) (j) (t )] [U (x b ) (j) (t )]} dxb + 2 Eb Ib 0
{[V (xb ) (j ) (t )] [V (xb ) (j ) (t )] + [W (xb ) (j) (t )] [W (x b ) (j) (t )]} dxb

[V (xb ) T
1 Lb (j ) (t )] [V (xb ) (j) (t )]
+ 4 b
2
0
Ab [Lb2 xb2 + 2Rd1 (Lb xb )] dxb .
+ [W (xb ) T
(j) (t )] [W (x b ) (j) (t )] (B-5)
And the Eq. (23) can be gotten by normalizing the Eq. (B-5).

(4) The specific matrixes in Eq. (23).

Lb 1
Kb11 = E A U T (xb ) U
2 b b
(xb ) dxb , (B-6)
0

Lb 1 Lb 1
Kb22 = E I V T (x b ) V (xb ) dxb + A 2 [L 2 xb2 + 2Rd1 (Lb xb )] V T (xb ) V (xb ) dxb ,
0 2 b b 0 4 b b b (B-7)
Lb 1 Lb 1
Kb33 = E I W T (xb ) W (xb ) dxb + A 2 [L 2 xb2 + 2Rd1 (Lb xb )] W T (xb ) W (xb ) dxb .
0 2 b b 0 4 b b b (B-8)

Appendix. C. The matrix expressions for the whole shaft system.

(1) The mass matrix

Ms1 + Md11 + Md21 + M11 0
Ms = 2
0 Ms2 + Md12 + Md22 + M22 (C-1)

M33 0 0
Mbj = 2 0 M44 0
0 0 M55 (C-2)

M13 M14 M15

Msbj = 2
M23 M24 M25 (C-3)

(2) The damping matrix

Cd1 0
Cd = ,
0 Cd2 (C-4)
where Cd1 = Cd2 = diag(cd, cd, … , cd,)n×n, cd is the damping of the shaft bend.
C = diag (ct , ct , …, ct , )n × n . (C-5)
where ct is the damping of the shaft torsion.
Cbj = diag (cb, c b, …, cb, )3n × 3n . (C-6)
where cb is the damping of the blade bend.

(3) The gyroscopic matrix

0 Gs1 + Gd11 + Gd21
Gs = 2
Gs2 + Gd12 + Gd22 0 (C-7)

0 G34 + G35 0
Gbj = 2 G43 + G53 0 0
0 0 0 (C-8)

G13 G14 G15

Gsbj = 2
G23 G24 G25 (C-9)

199
D. Yan, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201

(4) The stiffness matrix

Ks1 + K d11 + K d21 0
Ks = 2
0 Ks2 + K d12 + K d22 (C-10)

K = 2[Ks + K d1 + K d2 ] (C-11)

K33
K bj = 2 K 44
K55 (C-12)

Appendix D:. The simulation parameters.

Parameter Symbol Value Unit

3
Density of the shaft ρs 7.8 × 10 kg/m3
Radius of the shaft Rs 0.25 m
Length of the shaft Ls 6.0 m
Young modulus of the shaft Es 2.06 × 1011 Pa
Shear coefficient of the shaft κs 0.886
Shearing modulus of elasticity of shaft Gs 7.94 × 1010 Pa
polar moment of inertia Jp 287.2 kg·m2
the cross-sectional moment of inertia Jd 143.6 kg·m2
the second moment of shaft area Is 0.0031 m4
the polar second moment of area Ip 0.0061 m4
Cross-sectional area of the blade As 0.1963 m2
Damping of the shaft bend cd 4 × 106 N/(m/s)
Damping of the shaft torsion ct 3 × 106 N/(m/s)
Radius of the disk-1 Rd1 0.5 m
Young modulus of the disk-1 Ed1 2.06 × 1011 Pa
Shear coefficient of the disk-1 κ1 0.886
Shearing modulus of elasticity of disk-1 Gd1 7.94 × 1010 Pa
Bending stiffness of the disk-1 kd1 1 × 109 N/m
Torsional stiffness of the disk-1 kt1 2 × 109 N/m
Cross-sectional moment of inertia of disk-1 Jdz1 382.8 kg·m2
Polar moment of inertia of the disk-1 Jpz1 765.7 kg·m2
Radius of the rotor Rd2 2.707 m
Young modulus of the rotor Ed2 2.06 × 1011 Pa
Shear coefficient of the rotor κ2 0.886
Shearing modulus of elasticity of disk-2 Gd2 7.94 × 1010 Pa
Bending stiffness of the disk-2 kd2 1.5 × 109 N/m
Torsional stiffness of the disk-2 kt2 4 × 109 N/m
Cross-sectional moment of inertia of disk-2 Jdz2 1.3 × 105 kg·m2
Polar moment of inertia of the disk-2 Jpz2 2.6 × 105 kg·m2
Density of the blade ρb 7.8 × 103 kg/m3
Length of the blade Lb 2.2 m
Number of the blade Nb 4
Young modulus of the blade Eb 2.06 × 1011 Pa
Damping of the blade cb 3 × 106 N/(m/s)
The rotation angle of the blade β 31.2 °
Cross-sectional moment of inertia of the blade Ib 2.3163 m4
Cross-sectional area of the blade Ab 0.607 m2
Rated rotational speed ωr 107.1 r/min
Air gap of the generator δump0 0.002 m
Air permeance μump0 1.256 × 10-6
Exciting current ij 701.2 A
Number of pole pairs Np 28
Seal gap Cs 0.001 m
Dynamic-viscosity coefficient of the fluid vseal 1.5 × 10-3
Pressure drop of the seal ΔPseal 1.5 × 105 Pa
Length of the seal Lseal 0.15 m
Seal radius Rseal 0.25 m
Mass eccentricity of the rotor e2 0.001 m
Mass eccentricity of the runner e1 0.01 m
Friction coefficient μb 0.1
Flow velocity coefficient κseal 21

References
[1] Wang CB, Chang Y, Zhang LX, Pang MY, Hao Y. A life-cycle comparison of the
energy, environmental and economic impacts of coal versus wood pellets for gen-
erating heat in China. Energy 2017;120(1):374–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2016.11.085.
[2] Kusakana K. Feasibility analysis of river off-grid hydrokinetic systems with pumped
hydro storage in rural applications. Energy Convers Manage 2015;96:352–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.02.089.
[3] Li CB, Shi HQ, Cao YJ, Wang JH, Kuang YH. Comprehensive review of renewable
energy curtailment and avoidance: a specific example in China. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;41:1067–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.009.
[4] Huang H, Yan Z. Present situation and future prospect of hydropower in China.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(6–7):1652–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2008.08.013.
[5] Liu BX, Cheng CT, Wang S, Liao SL, Chau KW, Wu XY, et al. Parallel chance-con-
strained dynamic programming for cascade hydropower system operation. Energy
2018;165:752–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.140.
[6] Cheng CT, Liu BX, Chau KW, Li G, Liao SL. China‫׳‬s small hydropower and its

200
D. Yan, et al.
dispatching management. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:43–55. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.044.
[7] Li XZ, Chen ZJ, Fan XC, Cheng ZJ. Hydropower development situation and pro-
spects in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82(1):232–9. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2017.08.090.
[8] Chen J, Zhong PA, Zhao YF. Research on a layered coupling optimal operation
model of the Three Gorges and Gezhouba cascade hydropower stations. Energy
Conv Manage 2014;86:756–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.06.043.
[9] Dorji U, Ghomashchi R. Hydro turbine failure mechanisms: an overview. Eng Fail
Anal 2014;44:136–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.04.013.
[10] Meng L, Liu M, Zhi FL, Zhou LJ, Wang ZW. Analysis of the influence of the me-
chanical imbalance and the bearing clearance on the operating stability of hydro-
power unit. J Mech Eng 2016;52(3):49–55. https://doi.org/10.3901/JME.2016.03.
049. (In Chinese).
[11] Zheng Y. Condition monitoring and fault diagnosis of the hydropower unit. Beijing:
China Water&Power Press; 2016. (In Chinese).
[12] Wang WY, Chen QJ, Liang X, Yue XH, Dou JZ. A novel multidimensional frequency
band energy ratio analysis method for the pressure fluctuation of francis turbine.
Math Probl Eng 2018;3494785:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3494785.
[13] Saeed RA, Galybin AN, Popov V. 3D fluid–structure modelling and vibration ana-
lysis for fault diagnosis of Francis turbine using multiple ANN and multiple ANFIS.
Mech Syst Signal Proc 2013;34(1–2):259–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.
2012.08.004.
[14] Alberto LR, Alfonso CA, Oscar DG, Zdzislaw MC, Rodolfo MQ. Failure analysis of
runner blades in a Francis hydraulic turbine — case study. Eng Fail Anal
2016;59:314–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.10.020.
[15] Li HH, Chen DY, Arzaghi E, Abbassi R, Xu BB. Safety assessment of hydro-gen-
erating units using experiments and grey-entropy correlation analysis. Energy
2018;165:222–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.079.
[16] Trivedi C, Agnalt E, Dahlhaug OG. Investigations of unsteady pressure loading in a
Francis turbine during variable-speed operation. Renew Energy 2017;113:397–410.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.06.005.
[17] Lu SB, Zhang XL, Shang YZ, Li W. Improving Hilbert-Huang transform for energy-
correlation fluctuation in hydraulic engineering. Energy 2018;164:1341–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.088.
[18] Gustavsson RK, Aidanpää JO. Evaluation of impact dynamics and contact forces in a
hydropower rotor due to variations in damping and lateral fluid forces. Int J Mech
Sci 2009;51(9–10):653–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2009.07.002.
[19] Xu BB, Chen DY, Zhang H, Zhou R. Dynamic analysis and modeling of a novel
fractional-order hydro-turbine-generator unit. Nonlinear Dyn 2015;81(3):1263–74.
201
Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 183–201
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-015-2066-5.
[20] Bettig BP, Han RPS. Modeling the lateral vibration of hydraulic turbine-generator
rotors. J Vib Acoust 1999;121(3):322–7. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2893983.
[21] Huang ZW, Zhou JZ, Yang MQ, Zhang YC. Vibration characteristics of a hydraulic
generator unit rotor system with parallel misalignment and rub-impact. Arch Appl
Mech 2011;81(7):829–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-010-0453-4.
[22] Kim JW, Kwar WI, Choe BS, Kim HH, Suh SH. The rotordynamic analysis of the
vibration considering the hydro-electric force supported by rolling elements in 500
kW Francis turbine. J Mech Sci Technol 2017;31(11):5153–9. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12206-017-1009-0.
[23] Yan DL, Wang WY, Chen QJ. Fractional-order modeling and dynamic analyses of a
bending-torsional coupling generator rotor shaft system with multiple faults. Chaos,
Solitons Fractals 2018;110:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2018.03.015.
[24] Xu BB, Chen DY, Behrens P, Ye W, Guo PC. Modeling oscillation modal interaction
in a hydroelectric generating system. Energy Convers Manage 2018;174:208–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.08.034.
[25] Furukawa A, Watanabe S, Matsushita D, Okuma K. Development of ducted Darrieus
turbine for low head hydropower utilization. Curr Appl Phys 2010;10(2):S128–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cap.2009.11.005.
[26] Elbatran AH, Yaakob OB, Ahmed YM, Shabara HM. Operation, performance and
economic analysis of low head micro-hydropower turbines for rural and remote
areas: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;43:40–50. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2014.11.045.
[27] Narrain Pradeep. Low head hydropower for local energy solutions. 1st ed. London:
CRC Press; 2018.
[28] Nan HP, Guan X, Men CS. An analysis on stability domains of tubular turbine units.
J Hydroelectr Eng 2018;37(1):94–100. (In Chinese).
[29] Qiu HB, Fan XB. The influence of asymmetric pole shoe on synchronous hydro
generator. IEEJ Trans Electr Electron Eng 2018;13(11):154–9. https://doi.org/10.
1002/tee.22728.
[30] Wen Zhang. Theoretical basis of the rotordynamic. Beijing: Science press; 1990. (In
Chinese).
[31] Tang YG. Advance structural dynamics Tianjin: Tianjin University Press; 2002.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/115.461.424. (In Chinese).
[32] Li ST, Xu QY, Zhang XL. Nonlinear dynamic behaviors of a rotor-labyrinth seal
system. Nonlinear Dyn 2007;47(4):321–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-006-
9025-0.
[33] Jiang J, Ahrens J, Ulbrich H, Scheideler E, A contact model of a rotating, rubbing
blade, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Rotor Dynamics of the
IFTOMM, Darmstadt, Germany 1998, pp. 478–489.