2009:158 CIV

MASTE RS THESIS

Design comparison for

piston rod solution

Johan Olofsson

MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAMME

Mechanical Engineering
Lule University of Technology
Department of Applied Physics and Mechanical Engineering
Division of Computer Aided Design
Universitetstryckeriet, Lule

2009:158 CIV ISSN: 1402 - 1617 ISRN: LTU - EX - - 09/158 - - SE

ii

Abstract
The ever increasing energy consumptions and growing environmental awareness requires a steady development
of hydro power efficiency. This development puts hard demands on the internal components of a Kaplan runner.
Therefore is this design comparison performed to find differences between an old design solution and a new
solution untested for larger runners.
The work has been performed at Andritz Waplans located in Vaplan. In the design comparison four design
aspects have been evaluated; structural properties, assemblage, manufacturing and procurement. Focus has been
on the structural calculations where the new designs fatigue properties have been evaluated, since this was where
the most benefits were thought to be. The comparisons have been made by comparing two design solutions with
the same premises. It was done by choosing an existing example of the old design and adapting the new design
to its size and other prerequisites. The chosen existing example was from Nsaforsens hydro plant.
The fatigue calculations that have been performed are according to the FKM guideline. The basis for the
calculations are the use of FEM simulations and a load case composed by a service load measurement that is
scaled to fit Nsaforsen and to give 40 years of service. The whole calculation procedures are described in detail.
The other aspects of this comparison have been evaluated by interviews with experts within each field. During
these interviews were chosen evaluation points used to find differences between the two designs. The depths of
those evaluations are more shallow than the structural evaluation.
It has been found that the two designs have practically the same fatigue properties and it is possible for the new
design to fulfill other structural criterions as well, such as nominal stress and buckling. It has also been found
that when making a specific case comparison between the two designs for Nsaforsens premises it is possible to
reduce the total costs, due to the large difference in material cost when comparing a wrought bar to an ordinary
round bar.
In the comparison it has also been seen that the new design might take longer time to assemble due to control
measurements and possible position adjustments. It was also established though that it is possible to assemble
the new design without any drastic changes of assemblage routines.
In the comparison the two designs are only compared for the premises of Nsaforsen. The results are only valid
under those conditions. Further delimitations are that no structural analysis calculations have been performed on
the runner hub.

iii

iv

Acknowledgements
This document is the collected outcome of my Masters thesis. It is the final step of my Master of Science degree
in mechanical engineering at Lule University of Technology (LTU). The work has been performed at Andritz
Waplans (AW) in Jmtland. The subject of the thesis was to compare two design solutions for a piston rod in a
Kaplan runner.
First of all I would like to thank Andritz Waplans for giving me the chance to get an insight of what hydro power
development is about. Among the people that I would like thank are of course my supervisor at LTU Stefan
Sandberg and my supervisor at AW Henrik Bostrm. I would also like to direct a special thank to those who
have helped me with their expertise during this process, especially Mikael Helin whose help was critical during
the structural analysis calculations but also Hkan Hedman and Peter Sverresson for their expert opinions.
Besides these mentioned persons I thank everyone that during my education has helped me and supported me
along this long and interesting journey.

Johan Olofsson
October 2009

vi

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1
Company presentation............................................................................................................................. 9
1.2
Background hydro power ........................................................................................................................ 9
Design background ....................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1
Kaplan blade adjustment mechanism .................................................................................................... 11
2.2
Background to the new design .............................................................................................................. 12
2.3
Functional difference ............................................................................................................................ 12
2.4
Pretension Superbolt .......................................................................................................................... 14
2.5
Expectations on the new design ............................................................................................................ 14
Design comparison theory............................................................................................................................. 15
3.1
Structural comparison ........................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.1
Fatigue........................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.2
Fatigue comparison ....................................................................................................................... 16
3.1.3
FKM .............................................................................................................................................. 16
3.1.3.1 Fatigue calculation procedure................................................................................................... 16
3.1.3.2 Service measurements .............................................................................................................. 17
3.1.3.3 Choosing evaluation point ........................................................................................................ 17
3.1.3.4 Rainflow counting .................................................................................................................... 18
3.1.3.5 Stress spectra ............................................................................................................................ 18
3.1.3.6 Material properties.................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.4
Evaluation according to FKM guideline ....................................................................................... 23
3.1.4.1 Reading the results ................................................................................................................... 24
3.1.5
Other structural evaluation criterions ............................................................................................ 24
3.1.5.1 Nominal stress levels................................................................................................................ 24
3.1.5.2 Threads ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.1.5.3 Buckling ................................................................................................................................... 25
3.2
Comparison of other design aspects...................................................................................................... 27
3.2.1
Assemblage comparison................................................................................................................ 27
3.2.2
Manufacturing comparison ........................................................................................................... 27
3.2.3
Procurement comparison............................................................................................................... 28
Design comparison procedure....................................................................................................................... 29
4.1
Implementation and software ................................................................................................................ 29
4.2
Fatigue comparison calculations procedure .......................................................................................... 29
4.2.1
Measurements of service loads...................................................................................................... 29
4.2.2
Scaling the forces .......................................................................................................................... 30
4.2.3
Forces to stress .............................................................................................................................. 31
4.2.3.1 Boundary conditions................................................................................................................. 31
4.2.3.2 Pretension ................................................................................................................................. 32
4.2.3.3 Contacts in the model ............................................................................................................... 32
4.2.3.4 Mesh ......................................................................................................................................... 33
4.2.3.5 Locating evaluation point ......................................................................................................... 33
4.2.3.6 Transforming the forces to stress.............................................................................................. 35
4.2.3.7 Transformation ......................................................................................................................... 36
4.2.4
Rainflow counting ......................................................................................................................... 37
4.2.5
Stress spectrum.............................................................................................................................. 37
4.2.6
Material properties ........................................................................................................................ 38
4.2.7
Evaluation according to FKM guideline ....................................................................................... 40
4.2.8
Degree of utilization...................................................................................................................... 41
4.2.9
Other evaluation criterions ............................................................................................................ 41
4.2.9.1 Nominal stress levels................................................................................................................ 41
4.2.9.2 Stress amplitude in threads ....................................................................................................... 41
4.2.9.3 Buckling ................................................................................................................................... 42
4.3
Evaluation of other design aspects ........................................................................................................ 43
4.3.1
Assemblage comparison................................................................................................................ 43
4.3.2
Manufacturing comparison ........................................................................................................... 45
4.3.3
Procurement comparison............................................................................................................... 46
Results........................................................................................................................................................... 47
5.1
Results for structural evaluation............................................................................................................ 47
5.2
Results from assemblage comparison ................................................................................................... 47
5.3
Results from manufacturing comparison .............................................................................................. 48

5.4
Results from procurement comparison.................................................................................................. 48
Conclusions................................................................................................................................................... 49
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 50
7.1
The new design ..................................................................................................................................... 50
7.2
Discussion regarding structural calculations ......................................................................................... 50
7.3
Discussion regarding other design aspects ............................................................................................ 50
8
Future work ................................................................................................................................................... 51
9
References..................................................................................................................................................... 52
6
7

Appendix A Basic dimensions for Nsaforsens piston rod

Appendix B Basic dimensions for new design piston rod
Appendix C Basic dimensions for new design upper sleeve

1 Introduction
Hydro power has been used by humans for hundreds of years but it is only during the last two centuries that it
has been used for production of electricity. To make this electricity production possible a lot of development has
been made over the years. Although with todays increasing use of energy and growing focus on environmental
sustainability the development continues; in this case with focus on the blade adjustment of a Kaplan runner. In
this introduction chapter the background to the problem is given.

1.1 Company presentation

Andritz Waplans (AW) was founded under the name Waplans Mekaniska Verkstad in 1836 and has since then
been at the same location in Vaplan, Jmtland. The main business areas are hydro power and pulp and paper
industry. AW is a part of the Andritz group. The Andritz group has its head quarter in Graz, Austria and has a
staff of approximately 13400 employees. The groups five main business areas are hydro, pulp and paper,
environment and process, metals and feed and bio fuel [1].

1.2 Background hydro power

The basic principal for a hydropower plant is to convert the potential energy of the dammed up water to a
mechanical motion which can be transformed into electric power via a generator [2], see Figure 1. The amount
of electricity produced depends on several factors such as head, flow, type and size of turbine etc. The term head
is referring to the height that the water travels downwards before it reaches the turbine. It is measured between
the upper water surface in the dam and lower water surface after the downstream outlet; more head gives the
water more kinetic energy before it reaches the turbine. Flow does also affect the possibility to produce
electricity; more flow gives more kinetic energy that can be converted. But also the type of turbine plays a big
role, different turbines has different efficiency, with efficiency meant how much of the waters potential energy
that can be converted into mechanical motion to drive the generator with. The efficiency is normally in the span
of 91-96% [3].

Figure 1. Basic principle for electricity production in a hydro power plant [4].
In Sweden it is mainly two types of turbines that are used; Francis and Kaplan. Common for most turbine types
is that the water is collected from a dam and is from there guided through a tunnel into the inlet tube where the
water is concentrated into a spiral case where the waters direction and flow is controlled. The flow is controlled
with guide vanes in the wicket gate which can be adjusted from fully closed to fully opened positions to produce
different flows. After the guide vanes the water reaches the turbine and causing it to rotate. The main difference

between the two turbine types is the direction of the water flow, in a Francis turbine the water flows horizontally
in to the turbine (radial machine) whilst in a Kaplan turbine it flows axially in to the turbine (axial machine), see
Figure 2.

Figure 2. The two most common types of turbines in Sweden, Francis (left) and Kaplan (right) [5].
There are also other types of turbines, such as Pelton and bulb turbine. Pelton is used for very high heads and is
common in Norway. The bulb turbine can be seen as a variant of a Kaplan turbine but with its runner main shaft
placed horizontally, it is used for very low heads with large flows [3]. The different turbine types have different
fields of application. This is due to their different efficiencies over different combinations of head and flow, see
Figure 3.

Figure 3. Diagram over usage of turbine types depending on head and flow, blue area is Pelton, red area is
Francis, orange area is diagonal turbines, yellow area is Kaplan and green area is bulb turbine [6].
Francis and Kaplan are the two most used types in Sweden because there are not so many rivers with high head
but a lot of them instead have large flows. Besides the water flow direction, the two types have another
significant difference; the Kaplan turbine has adjustable turbine blades. That makes it more suitable for plants
were the flow and head might vary over time, since the adjustable blades gives it a higher operating efficiency
range.

10

2 Design background
In this chapter the necessary background to the design is given. First is the blade adjustment mechanism
explained and after that the functional differences for the new design. As a final point the expectation on the new
design is enlightened.

2.1 Kaplan blade adjustment mechanism

The mechanism to adjust the runner blades is driven by hydraulic oil pressure. The oil is led down to the runner
hub via pipes inside the main shaft, then into the piston rod and out into the cylinder. The piston rod is mounted
to the hub and then the piston and the sleeve is mounted on the rod. Around the piston the cylinder is mounted
and the cylinder top is integrated with the cross-head. When the need to adjust the blades arises, the oil pressure
is raised on one side of the piston, forcing the cylinder to move. That motion is transferred from the cross-head
to the blades by the links and levers causing the blades to rotate. This mechanism makes the runner quite
complicated and it requires a lot of internal parts in the runner hub, see Figure 4

Figure 4. Cross section of Kaplan turbine runner with named internal components.
Depending on the water supply conditions and the turbine regulator characteristic the regulations occur more or
less often. How often the blades are adjusted is also dependent on the type of grid that it is connected to. The
frequency for the regulations can vary over time from stand still over days to several adjustments per minute.
This causes problems with fatigue in structural parts of the runner design. This is mainly a problem with the
piston rod and the parts connected to it. The plant owners have high demands on regulation possibilities since
unfavourable blade positions will waste water which in its turn means less profit. Due to these high demands, the
fatigue criterions are hard to meet. In the design used at AW today the most problematic area of the piston rod is
the notch where the piston is supported. A new design is needed where fatigue is not a problem and without the
need to increase the dimensions of the piston rod. The size of the piston rod is important for several reasons; the
most important one is the very limited space within the runner hub. A smaller piston rod gives more space for
the trunnion and its bearings. Another important aspect of the piston rod size is the cost; a bigger rod means
higher material costs.

11

2.2 Background to the new design

At AW a new design became available through their owner Andritz Group. The new design originates from
German built compact hydro machines. The term compact refers to their size and that they are assembled and
shipped as one to the plant. This new design is quite similar to the design used today, which makes a
replacement uncomplicated. A lot of the old relating parts would not need any redesign. This design is untested
on larger runners and is new to AW. To evaluate the design it needs to be adapted for larger runners and their
circumstances. For comparison of the difference in needed components between the two designs see Figure 5. As
the figure shows the difference between them is that the new design has an upper sleeve around the piston rod
and it has a large nut instead of a flange to secure it to the hub.

New design

Old design

Nut
Runner hub

Upper sleeve
Piston rod
Piston
Piston sleeve
Superbolt
Figure 5. Comparison of components between new and old design.

2.3 Functional difference

The functional advantage of the new design is that it directs a part of the load differently. When opening the
runner (cylinder moving upwards) there is no difference between the two designs since then the force on the
piston is transferred via the lower sleeve to the Superbolt threads, which causes tension in the piston rod. When
closing the runner, the force in the old design goes directly into the piston rod whilst in the new design it is
transferred into the upper sleeve and from it into the runner hub, see Figure 6.

12

Opening pressure
Reaction force when opening
Closing pressure
Reaction force when closing

Figure 6. Difference between new and old designs regarding reaction forces on the components.
This makes an important difference in the stress scenario for the piston rod; since the new design does not have
the notch it will have other fatigue properties. In the new design, the whole piston rod is under tension and the
whole upper sleeve is under compression. In the old design the piston rod was mostly under tension while the
upper oil inlet hole was under compression stress. Combining this with the large stress concentration in the notch
radius caused a need for a large dimension on the old piston rod.
Some details of the design have not been specified but they are important for design properties and the
evaluations validity. The most important of these details is the location of the seals; in which component they are
placed. In the original design all the sealing slots are placed in the piston rod. In the adapted new design they are
all placed in the sleeves and piston, see Figure 7.

Figure 7. Sealing slots placed in the sleeves and in the piston in the adapted design, not in the rod as in the
original design.

13

2.4 Pretension Superbolt

Both the new and the old designs have a need for pretension of the piston rod. It is needed to make sure that
there is no clearance between the piston and its connecting parts during service. The size of the pretension is
determined of the maximum hydraulic pressure, the piston surface area and a safety factor. To create such large
pretension a Superbolt is used. The Superbolt is a pretension device for large threads; it is a large threaded nut
with several smaller bolts in it. Each one of these smaller bolts can be tensioned individually with small hand
tools to generate a well controlled pretension for the large nut, see Figure 8.

Figure 8. Superbolt pretension nut [7].

2.5 Expectations on the new design

The purpose of this comparison between the new and the old designs is to verify if the new design has the
expected advantages and if there are any other drawbacks with it. The expected advantages can be seen in Table
1.
Table 1. Expectations on the new design.
Expectations
Diametrically smaller base material for piston rod
Better or equal fatigue properties
Less or equal space required in runner hub
Lower or equal total production costs
More or equal assemblage possibilities
Adaptable for large and small runners

Benefit
Lower material cost
Size reduction
More space for the trunnions
More profit
Simpler assemblage
Wide range of usage possibilities

14

3 Design comparison theory

The design comparison was divided into four steps, structural analysis, assemblage, manufacturing and
procurement. The first step was absolutely the largest one since if the design would not have been structurally
satisfying there would have been no need to evaluate it further, it was also the step that required the most time
consuming calculations. The theory behind these calculations and the procedure to perform them are described in
detail. The other aspects have more experienced based evaluation and were performed with help of interviews
with experts in each field. The decision was taken to make the comparison on a newly designed runner. The
runner that the design would be compared to was Nsaforsen. The reason for this was that the Nsaforsen runner
had recently been designed and dimensioned according to the latest guidelines. It was also a clear example of
how the old design solution could be implemented.

3.1 Structural comparison

The first comparison that needed to be done was to make sure that the new design had at least the same or better
structural properties, and if there was any possibility to reduce the total space needed in the runner hub. The
evaluations were done by comparing the designs fatigue strength and by assuring that the new design fulfilled
the structural demands that were set up for it.

3.1.1 Fatigue
Fatigue is a phenomenon that occurs when a component is under a cyclic load, that meaning that the load is not
constant but varying over time. This variation in stress leads to a gradual breakdown of the material. Fatigue is
without a doubt the most common failure type in mechanical components [8]. The fatigue process can be
separated into three phases; crack initiating, crack growth and final failure, see Figure 9. Several aspects
influence the fatigue sensitivity for a component, some of them are:

Component geometry Stress concentration regions

Material properties Yield strength.
Material defects Slag or other impurities.
Loading Number of cycles and cycle complexity.
Component environment Temperature and corrosiveness

Crack
initiation site
Crack growth

Final failure

Figure 9. Fatigue failure on an aluminium crank, with the three phases of failure distinguished [9].
There are some different ways of evaluating fatigue and the simplest is to use an S-N curve known as Whler
curve. It is created through a series of material tests where a test specimen is subjected to a sinusoidal load until
it breaks. The number of load cycles at each load amplitude is plotted to a curve, see Figure 10. The curve shows
a linear reduction in strength with increased number of load. The curve has a breakpoint where the stress does

15

not decrease any further; it is called the fatigue limit. For more complex loads and more precise results other
evaluation methods are needed.

Stress

Log

Number of load cycles

Log N

Figure 10. Figure of a simple S-N curve, called a Whler curve. The allowable stress is decreasing with
increasing number of cycles.

3.1.2 Fatigue comparison

To be able to verify if the new design had the expected fatigue benefits the comparison was needed to be done in
a careful way so only the design differences was compared and not other influencing parameters. This was done
by using as much geometries as possible from Nsaforsen. The evaluation was to be done according to FKM
guidelines which are newly adopted at AW. To enable this comparison between the two designs first a CADmodel had to be done for the new design but with dimensions that would fit the Nsaforsen runner. It was done
with help of scaling and adapting the design to Nsaforsens runner hub dimensions. See Appendix A to
Appendix C for the components basic dimensions. The original design had a different oil inlet system than
Nsaforsen and therefore it also had to be adapted to Nsaforsen.

3.1.3 FKM
FKM stands for Forschungskuratorium Maschinenbau and is a German guideline in assessments of analytic
strength for mechanical components. The guideline has been available since 1994 and is based on the former
German standards TGL and VDI 2226. FKM separates analysis of rod-shaped, shell-shaped and block-shaped
components, it also separates welded from non-welded components. The guideline gives several ways to analyze
fatigue and the calculation procedure is almost completely predetermined, leaving only some decisions to the
user [10].

3.1.3.1 Fatigue calculation procedure

When analyzing fatigue according to the FKM guidelines there are a lot of input needed. To be able to
understand what the different inputs are and why they are needed it is first important to have an overview of the
whole procedure, see Figure 11. Each step of this procedure will now be described in a theoretical way and later
the steps will be described in the details concerning the new designs actual calculations.

16

Forces
from
measurements

Scaling
forces

Analyzing
measured
signal

Material
properties

Fatigue
limitations

Choosing
evaluation point

Design parameters

Stress
gradient

Force
and
stress
relations

Component
needing
fatigue
analysis

Degree
of
utilization

Type
overloading
Creating
stress spectra
Distinguishing
load cycles with
Rainflow counting

of

Adapting
stress spectra
to R=-1

Critical
sum

damage

Safety factor
Evaluation
according to
FKM

Figure 11. Schematic timeline of fatigue calculations procedure.

3.1.3.2 Service measurements

There are different ways to determine a load case for a component, sometimes it is possible to assume a load
scenario, otherwise a standard load scenario might be used and in some cases when available a measured service
load can be used. In this case the last scenario was applied because it would involve the least approximations.
The measured signal that describes the runner blade adjustments is a measurement performed on Solleftes
hydro power plant. The measurement was made by recording the pressure in the hydraulic unit. After this the
pressure signal was analyzed with help of a sign check of the first order derivative to isolate distinctive local
maximums and minimums. Measurements were made during roughly 22h and during that time the machine had
a standstill for approximately 5h, despite the quite short time it gives a picture of the service conditions for the
components in the runner. Since the measurement was performed on Sollefte hydro power plant it had to be
scaled to fit Nsaforsens runner premises. These machines are very different in size, head and flow. These
differences lead to different blade forces and therefore different loads on the components in the hub. The scaling
is done with help of linear interpolation between known points, for both Sollefte and Nsaforsen, regarding
needed force to achieve a blade adjustment at a certain blade position.

3.1.3.3 Choosing evaluation point

The FKM guideline uses local stresses from one point of the component to determine the fatigue strength. To
find this point Finite Element Method (FEM) simulations were used, the needed components were modeled and
three simulations were performed. Only areas where fatigue was suspected were chosen for evaluation since no
more than one point at a time can be evaluated with this method. But this was seen as sufficient since if the worst
point fulfill the demands then the rest will also be good enough. These three simulations were used to create a

17

linear relation between pressure on the piston and stresses in the most exposed regions on the components. With
a function derived that expresses the relation between piston load and stresses in the most stressed areas of the
components it is possible to transform the scaled forces into stresses.

3.1.3.4 Rainflow counting

The analyzed and transformed signal containing peak values does not give any information of what the levels
consists of, meaning there is nothing distinguishing any difference between mean stress and amplitude stress.
Therefore it is necessary to separate the signal into these two components. The separation can be done in
different ways but the Rainflow counting method is seen as one of the more appropriate when dealing with
complex load variations [8]. Rainflow counting is performed with a program script, the script searches through
the signal and find full or half cycles of loads at different mean points and with different amplitudes, see Figure
12. As the example picture shows the Rainflow script has found a number of cycles in a random signal. It has
found a cycle with small amplitude and with a negative mean point, colored cyan, but it has also found a dark
blue half cycle with a mean point near zero. The data collected from this analyze is then saved to a matrix.

Figure 12. Example picture of Rainflow counting algorithm, generated with help of demo script included
with the Rainflow algorithm.

3.1.3.5 Stress spectra

As with all types of strength calculation, stress is always compared to the material properties. These properties
are based on numerous tests and analyses. A materials fatigue properties are determined by tests where the mean
stress is zero and the amplitude is held constant. Therefore the load matrix from the Rainflow counting have to
be transformed, otherwise the material properties will not be valid. The transformation is done according to the
FKM guideline, and is achieved by assumptions of an overload where the ratio between amplitude and mean
stress is held constant and the materials mean stress sensitivity is taken into account, see Figure 13.

18

Figure 13. Schematic figure over the mean stress transformation. The stress a in point 1, is projected on
to the overload stress curve that has constant relations between mean stress and amplitude stress. This
creates an A/B ratio which is reproduced for the overload that would be produced at R=-1 [10].
The transformation can be explained in three steps. First a load consisting of a mean stress and stress amplitude,
called a in the picture, at point 1. At point 2 the load is extended along the R =constant line and the original
load is projected onto the extended one, this forms an A/B ratio. In the third step the A/B ratio is reproduced at
point 3, meaning at zero mean stress. This transformation is then done on every recorded set of loads in the
matrix, resulting in a stress spectrum that can be used for evaluation against measured material properties. There
is a significant difference between the two components mean stress transformation since the piston rod is under
constant tension and the upper sleeve is under constant pressure. That gives that all the loads for the upper sleeve
is on the left side of the R =-1line which gives that the mean stress gets less influence since there is not the same
concern taken to the yield limit under compression when dealing with fatigue.

3.1.3.6 Material properties

In the new design two different materials were used, one for the Piston rod and one for the upper sleeve. The
materials that are used are the same that was used in Nsaforsen. This is done to make sure that structural
comparison is made without influence from the material. Since there is no upper sleeve in Nsaforsen it has been
given the same material as the lower sleeve instead. The piston rod material is an alloyed construction steel while
for the upper sleeve the material is stainless steel. The materials properties can be seen in Table 2 [10]. Fatigue is
a complex phenomenon and hard to make simple assumptions about. Therefore when analyzing fatigue strength
there are a lot of aspects about the material that needs to be taken into account.
Table 2. Material properties for the two materials used in the components.
Material
Property
SS2541 Piston rod
SS2387 Upper sleeve
E Youngs modulus [GPa]
210
210
Yield strength RP [MPa]
749
680
Tensile strength Rm [MPa]
910
840
Poissons ratio
0.3
0.3

19

3.1.3.6.1 Limiting factors

It is well known that a high number of cycles effect the material in a negative way. The more load cycles the
more the material will be broken down. Depending on material the degradation will have different speed and
might also come to a point where the material will not break down any further. That limit is called the fatigue
limit, but not all material has such limit. Aluminium lacks this property. Other factors might affect that limit, for
instance welding or corrosion can diminish the effect. In this case the load cycles over 40 years are more than
10^6 and therefore the material strength can be reduced with help of equation (1), with the fatigue strength factor
fW , according to Table 3.

W , zd = f W , R m

(1)

Table 3. Constants for material types for calculations of various factors in the evaluation.
Type of material
bG
aR,
Rm,N,min
aG
f
W ,

Case hardening steel

Stainless steel
Forged steel
Steels, other
GS Cast steel
GGG Nodular cast iron
GG Cast iron with lamellar
graphite
GT Malleable cast iron
Wrought aluminium alloys
Cast aluminium alloys

0.40
0.40
0.40
0.45
0.34
0.34
0.30

0.4
0.5
0.25
0.05
-0.05

2400
2700
2000
3200
3200

0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.2
0.16
0.06

400
400
400
400
400
400
100

0.30
0.30
0.30

-0.05
0.05
-0.05

3200
850
3200

0.12
0.22
0.20

350
133
133

There are also other aspects of a component that influences the materials fatigue strength. The aspects that are
dealt with in FKM are: design factor, roughness factor, surface treatment factor, surface coating factor and nonlinear elastic stress strain factor.

3.1.3.6.2 Design factor K f

The design factor depends on the stress concentration factor and stress gradient in the chosen area of evaluation.
The stress gradient is approximated with help of FEM in most cases, with simpler geometries there are some
analytic equations to calculate it. In this case when FEM was used it was approximated with help of equation (2)
and Figure 14. The stress concentration factor is calculated differently depending on the geometry in the area, for
instance is a notch calculated in one way and a hole in another. In this case were both a hole and a groove of
interest. For a hole in a rod it was calculated according to Figure 15 and equations (3) to (6) and for a groove it
could be derived with help of Figure 16. The larger the stress concentration factor and the stress gradient are the
greater the strength compensation is, meaning higher strength.

Figure 14. Graphical explanation of variables needed to calculate the stress gradient a
surface of the area where the gradient is calculated.

is

stress at the

20

G =

1 2a
1
s 1a

(2)

Figure 15. Graphical explanation of variables needed to calculate the stress concentration factor for a rod
with transverse hole [11].

K t = C1 + C 2

2r
2r
+ C3 ( ) 2
D
D

(3)

C1 = 3.000
C 2 = 0.427 6.770(d / D) + 22.698(d / D) 2 16.670(d / D) 3

(4)

C 3 = 11.357 + 15.665(d / D) 60.929(d / D) 2 + 41.501(d / D) 3

(6)

(5)

Figure 16. Graph from which stress concentration factors for a U-groove can be determined with help of
dimensions for the groove [12].
When the stress concentration factor and the stress gradient have been established it is possible to calculate the
fatigue strength influence that detail has on the component. This is done with first calculating Kf / Kt ratio called
n, how to calculate it depends on the size of the stress gradient according to equations (7) to (9) and Table 3.
After that it is possible to calculate the design factor with equation (10).

21

If

G 0.1mm 1 then

n = 1 + G 10
Or if

(7)

( aG 0.5 +

Rm
)
bG MPa

(8)

1mm 1 < G 100mm 1 then

n = 1 + G 10
~

Rm
)
bG MPa

0.1mm 1 < G 1mm 1 then

n = 1 + G 10
Or if

( aG 0.5 +

Kf =

( aG 0.5 +

Rm
)
bG MPa

Kt
n

(9)

(10)

3.1.3.6.3 Roughness factor K R

The surface finish influences the fatigue strength through the crack initiating potential. A smoother surface gives
a higher strength. A rough surface has much higher risk of inducing a crack. The roughness factor is calculated
with equation (11), Table 3 and Table 4.

K R , = 1 a R , lg( RZ / m ) lg( 2 Rm / Rm , N ,min )

(11)

Table 4. Variable explanations for equation (11).

Variable
Explanation
Average roughness of the surface of the component in m
R
Z

Rm

Materials tensile strength

a R ,

Constant from table

Rm , N ,min

Constant from table

3.1.3.6.4 Other influencing parameters K S , K V , K NL , E

In fatigue analyzes there are even more parameters that influence the material strength but they do so to a very
limited extent in most cases. In some cases they can have a significant impact on the fatigue strength. If the
material is a cast iron with lamellar graphite, a so called grey cast iron, then the constant for non-linear elastic
stress strain behavior K NL , E must have a value higher than 1. If it is an aluminium alloy with a surface coating,
then the coating factor

K S with regard to the coating thickness needs to be accounted for. The last parameter is

the surface treatment factor K V which is used if the material has a surface treatment. This factors size is
dependent on type of material and what kind of treatment that is used, but they all get the value 1 if they are not
in use or seen as non significant.

22

3.1.3.6.5 Design parameters

When all of the needed design parameters have been calculated the final design parameter can be calculated. It is
the final parameter that determines the materials fatigue strength. It is calculated according to equation (12).

K WK , =

1
1
1
1
(1 + ~ (
1))
n
K V K S K NL , E
K f K R ,

(12)

The final design parameter can now be used to calculate the fatigue strength for the component, it is done with
equation (13).

WK = W , zd / K WK ,

(13)

3.1.4 Evaluation according to FKM guideline

There are several different ways to evaluate the fatigue strength for a component and in FKM some of them are
presented. The evaluation is made by comparing the components final fatigue strength to the load that it is
subjected to. Before this evaluation is possible the component fatigue strength first has to be calculated, it is
done by taking the previously calculated material strength and regulate it for the spectrum characteristics and
type of evaluation chosen. Depending on what kind of evaluation that is used the components fatigue strength is
calculated differently, although they all use damage summation to establish the spectrums effect on the
component. Damage summation in its basic form can be described by equation (14) but in the different
evaluations it is used a bit differently. The total damage sum that the spectrum causes to the component is
calculated by summation of the damage from each step, according to equation (14) and Table 5 . Each step is
made up by an amplitude stress and the number of cycles expected. The number of cycles in a step is compared
to how many cycles that are needed to failure at that amplitude. The result from each partial sum can be plotted
together to form a graphical view of the spectrums characteristics and then be compared to Whler curves.

ni

= Total damage sum

(14)

Table 5. Variable explanations for equation (14).

Variable Explanation
Number of cycles in step i of load spectrum
n
i

Ni

Number of cycles at step i until failure

In FKM some different ways of calculating the fatigue strength is given, the most strict of them is Miners
elementary rule, this evaluation does not imply a fatigue limit at 10^6 cycles. Miners consistent rule which is
less strict does take the fatigue limit into account and it has another view of the materials strength reduction. The
difference in strength reduction between the two fatigue evaluation methods is how the variable amplitude
fatigue strength factor is calculated. In Miners elementary rule the same variable amplitude strength factor is
used for all the steps in the stress spectrum. In the consistent version of Miners rule the variable amplitude
fatigue strength factor is calculated iteratively for different values of a,1 until the required total number of cycles
is obtained. This means that a different variable amplitude strength factor is used for every step in the load
spectrum. This leads to a decrease in fatigue strength when the damage sum increases. For detail description of
the calculation procedure for the variable fatigue strength factor see [10].
With a determined component fatigue strength factor can the components amplitude strength be calculated
according to equation (15) and Table 6.

BK = AK K BK ,

(15)

23

Table 6. Variable explanations for equation (15).

Variable
Explanation
Component
variable amplitude fatigue strength

BK

AK

Component fatigue limit

K BK ,

Variable amplitude fatigue strength factor

In the calculation process there are two parameters that the user can control. The first one is the safety factor; it
works like a normal safety factor that reduces the strength of the material with a chosen limit. How to choose the
limit is described in FKM, see Table 7. The second one is the critical damage sum; this is a parameter that
controls how far the user wants the fatigue damage to have propagated. That means that when the damage sum is
1, a failure has occurred, therefore a critical damage sum is chosen to control how far from failure that is
accepted. FKM gives that for steel the suitable critical damage sum is 0.3.
Table 7. Table for determining the safety factor for fatigue calculations according to FKM.
Consequences of failure
Safety factor jD
Severe
Moderate
Regular inspections
no
1.5
1.3
yes
1.35
1.2

3.1.4.1 Reading the results

The evaluation leads up to a result that it is called the degree of utilization. It is a level of how much of the
components strength that has been consumed by the load spectrum. If the degree of utilization is greater than
one the component does not fulfill the requirements that the user has set up. The degree of utilization is
calculated with equation (16) and Table 8. The result from the damage summation can also be plotted against a
Whler curve giving a graphical display of the components fatigue strength.

a BK , =

a ,1

BK

(16)

jD

Table 8. Variable explanations for equation (16).

Variable
Explanation
Largest stress amplitude in spectrum

a ,1

BK

Component variable amplitude fatigue strength

Total safety factor

jD

3.1.5 Other structural evaluation criterions

There is not only the fatigue criterion that needs to be met when the design is evaluated. There are also other
criterions such as nominal stress levels in the component, stress amplitude for the threads in the Superbolt and
since the upper sleeve is under high compression load there might be risk for buckling. These criterions are
evaluated with help of a set of simpler structural calculations.

3.1.5.1 Nominal stress levels

The nominal stress level in the components is evaluated with help of the maximum load and the stress level is
calculated for the smallest cross section. It is calculated with equation (17). The criterion that is used is the
ASME criteria for nominal stresses for component under cyclic load, see equation (18) [13].

F
A

(17)

24

 R 2 Rp

Maximum allowable nominal stress = Min m ,

3
3

(18)

3.1.5.2 Threads
An assumed normal load cycle gives the stress amplitude used to evaluate the threads. The assumed normal load
cycle is based on the servo forces to yield a certain blade angle at a certain position. The worst case is used,
meaning to open and close the runner at near fully opened position. The criteria for maximum nominal stress is
according to BSK99 [14] and is based on the type of joint and 10^6 load cycles.

3.1.5.3 Buckling
The risk for buckling of the upper sleeve is calculated with help of BSK99 [14]. According to BSK99 the criteria
for steel constructions load carrying capacity can be calculated with equation (19) and equations (20) to (25)
with help of Figure 17 and Table 9. The upper sleeve is seen as free in its lower end and fixed in its upper end;
see Figure 17. The calculated capacity can then be compared to the maximum expected load.

N Rcd = c Agr f yd

(19)

With:

2 4.42c
c =
2.22c

(20)

Were:

c =

lc
i

f yk
Ek

= 1 + 1 (c 0.2) + 1.12c

(21)

(22)

And

I
A

(23)

lc = L

(24)

i=

I=

(D 4 d 4 )
64

(25)

25

lc=L

Figure 17. Load case for upper sleeve buckling, fixed in one end and free in the other. The figure also
shows relations between actual length and buckling length.
Table 9. Variable explanations for equations (19) to (25).
Variable
Explanation
Compression
force load capacity
N
Rcd

Reduction factor for buckling

Slenderness ratio

lc
i
I

Buckling length

Agr

Inertia radius
Area moment of inertia
Constant for determining the reduction factor
Cross section area

f yk

Value of characteristic tensile strength limit

f yd

Value of dimensioning tensile strength limit

Ek

Characteristic young modulus

Enlargement factor for actual length

L
D
d

Actual length
Outer diameter
Inner diameter

Constant for determining , dependent on type of cross section.

26

3.2 Comparison of other design aspects

Besides the structural comparison there is also need for several other aspects of the designs to be compared. The
other aspects that were chosen for evaluation were assemblage, manufacturing and procurement. The depths of
the comparisons for these other aspects are quite shallow due to time limitation. That there are so many factors
that influence the result that a definite and universal result would be hard to reach. The comparisons are therefore
made on two levels, first a more general comparison were the designs principals are compared and on a second
more specific level were the designs are compared in more detail as designed for Nsaforsen. The results given
from the specific comparison is to give an example of how the two designs may differ in a specific case. In the
more general comparison simple evaluation points are used to distinguish the differences between the two
designs.

3.2.1 Assemblage comparison

The assemblage comparison is performed by interviews with experts in the field of assemblage. Before the
interview a set of questions were formed that regarded the praxis of assemblage. The goal with the comparison
was to find differences between the two designs, and where possible decide which of the two that is preferable.
The evaluation points used during the comparison can be seen in Table 10. Since the assemblage is not so very
case sensitive this comparison is made quite general but with Nsaforsen used as base. With that meant the
pictures and drawings from Nsaforsen were used to show principal design ideas and included components
during the interview.
Table 10. Evaluation points for assemblage aspects.
Evaluation point
Question formulation
Assemblage order
In which order would the new design be assembled?
Assemblage of other components
Does the new design affect the assemblage of the other
components?
Space and access
Does the new solution require more space for fitting the
components into the hub?
Tools
Are any extra tools needed for the new design?
Hub orientation
During assemblage of the new design does it require more rotation
and repositions than the old design?
Assemblage time
Does the new design take longer time to assemble?
Quality control
Are there differences for quality control between the two designs?
Incorrect assemblage
Is the risk for incorrect assemblage higher for the new design?
Scaling effects
Are there any scaling effects?

3.2.2 Manufacturing comparison

The manufacturing comparison is performed with the same procedure as for the assemblage. To be able to
compare the manufacturing cost to the specific level drawings for the two designs were needed, both for the
piston rod and the upper sleeve. These were done with the correct dimensions and tolerances. The tolerances that
were used were the same as those originally used in Nsaforsen. The basis for the comparison is made out by
interviews with a manufacturing engineer. The drawings were used to estimate manufacturing time in the
specific examples and they were also used to compare principal differences between the designs. From this a
series of simple cost calculations was made to establish differences between the two designs in the specific
example. The evaluation points used for the general comparison can be seen in Table 11.

27

Table 11. Evaluation points for manufacturing aspects.

Evaluation point
Question formulation
Total manufacturing time
Does the new design take longer total time in manufacturing?
Machine requirements
Is there any difference in which machines that is needed?
Tool requirements and tool wear
Do the materials require different tools and does the amount
of machining lead to different tool wear?
Quality control
Are there any differences in possibilities to take control
measurements of the components?
Influence on manufacturing of runner How does the new design influence the machining of the
hub
runner hub?

3.2.3 Procurement comparison

The procurement comparison is hard to make on a general level since in procurement a lot is depending on size
and material etc. Consequently the most of the comparison is made out by the more specific example. Most of
the costs involved in manufacturing of components of this size are the material costs and they are very much
depending on the economic situation in the world. It is therefore not possible to compare Nsaforsens old
designs actual cost against the new design with todays material prices. Therefore the material costs for the new
design is based on the old designs actual cost and on material costs from that time period, and by this making the
comparison more accurate. The procurement comparison is also made with help of interviews with a production
engineer. Evaluation points used in the general procurement comparison can be seen in Table 12.
Table 12. Evaluation points for procurement aspects.
Evaluation point
Question formulation
Delivery time
Are there differences in delivery time for the two designs?
Delivery condition
What delivery conditions exist for the two designs?
Coating and laser Does the reduced amount of laser welded stainless coating give any cost
weld
reduction?
Material cost
What are the total material costs for the two designs?
Suppliers
Does the new design lead to more potential suppliers?

28

4 Design comparison procedure

In this chapter the comparison procedure is described. First the structural calculations are described step by step
and after that the other comparisons are describe as they were performed.

4.1 Implementation and software

The calculations were carried out with help of a numerical calculation program named Octave [15]. It was used
in a Linux-like environment called Cygwin [16]. Other software used during the evaluations was the CAD
software SolidWorks [17] and its FEM module SolidWorks Simulations [18]. The implementation of the
calculations was divided in 4 Matlab-scripts and to them other smaller function scripts were used. Table 13 gives
an overview of which script that calculated what and which sub scripts that were used in each.
Table 13. Overview of implementation scripts used to perform fatigue calculations.
Main script
Subscript
Calculation
1. solforce_to_nasastress.m Transforms the Measured forces from
Sollefte into stresses in Nsaforsen
2. rainflow_nasa.m
rainflow.m
Analyzes the stress signal with
Rainflow counting.
3. lastspektra_nasa.m
kaksf2.m/kaksf2b.m Transforms the Rainflow data into a
stress spectrum
4. utv_FKM_nasa.m
material.m
Evaluates
the
component
and
haigh2.m/haigh4.m
calculates its degree of utilization.
px.m
p2km.m
minerkonsdiff.m
cyl1.m
damagediff.m
cyl2.m
wf1.m
wf2.m

4.2 Fatigue comparison calculations procedure

In this section the calculations will be described step by step for the actual analysis of the new design solution.
The description will be valid for all the analyzed parts, but most of the examples and figures that are presented
show the piston rod.

4.2.1 Measurements of service loads

As described earlier the first step of the analysis was to create a stress spectrum from a pressure measurement.
That process began with the scaling of the forces from Sollefte to fit with Nsaforsen. Measured forces from
Sollefte can be seen in Figure 18. Since the fatigue calculations were to make out a basis for comparing the two
designs the fatigue calculations for the old design were needed to be done in the same way. Therefore the same
procedure was used to evaluate the fatigue strength for the old design. Since Nsaforsen recently was designed
there already existed FEM simulations and calculations that could form a base for the comparison calculations.

29

Figure 18. The complete measured force signal from Sollefte hydro power plant.

4.2.2 Scaling the forces

The forces were scaled linearly with help of known values for the runner positions from both Sollefte and
Nsaforsen. These values come from calculations of the forces that are needed to do a certain adjustment at a
certain position. When the measurement of the hydraulic pressure was made the runner position was also
recorded and therefore it was possible to do this scaling. Figure 19 shows how the force is related to the runner
positions for both Sollefte and Nsaforsen.

Servo forces to obtain certain blade angle at certain positions

3200

2400

1600

800
[kN]

Fservo opening Nsaforsen

Fservo closing Nsaforsen

Fservo opening Sollefte

Fservo closing Sollefte

-800

-1600

-2400

-3200
0,00

20,00

40,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

Runner blade Opening [%]

Figure 19. Forces to obtain a blade adjustment at certain blade positions for both Sollefte and
Nsaforsen

30

4.2.3 Forces to stress

With the forces now scaled to fit Nsaforsen the next step was to form a relation between those forces and the
stress affecting the piston rod. To find these stresses and to determine an evaluation point FEM was used. To
save calculation time a simplified model of the design was used and only the parts that could have any structural
interest were included in the model. The simulation model consisted of a quarter of the design and some of the
details on it were removed to simplify meshing, see Figure 20. Examples of simplified details are oil inlet tubing
and piston surface. To further simplify calculations the model was given three dividing lines axially to enable the
use of finer mesh on small areas. An additional simplification was that the Superbolt was modeled as a part of
the rod; this was done since it would not be possible to get any useful information from a threaded part.

Figure 20. Geometries used for FEM simulations to determine evaluation points and distinguishing force
and stress relations for the evaluation points. Dividing lines on the components surfaces is also visible in
the figure.

4.2.3.1 Boundary conditions

The upper part of the design was given fixed constraints to simulate the nut on the piston and to simulate the
runner hub on the sleeve. To verify these boundary conditions tests were made with the use of a quarter runner
hub, the results were the same for both models and therefore the one without the runner hub were chosen. This
reduces calculation time since it involves fewer contacts and fewer elements. To compensate for the quarter
model symmetry was used, see Figure 21.

Figure 21. Boundary conditions used in FEM simulations, red arrows being fixed constraints, green
arrows being symmetry constraints and blue colored lower sleeve being of different temperature than the
other components.

31

4.2.3.2 Pretension
The Superbolt gives a very big pretension of the piston rod. The purpose of the pretension is to make sure no
clearance between the components occur during blade adjustments. The needed pretension is given by the piston
surface area and the maximum available hydraulic pressure and a safety factor. It is calculated with equation
(26), with input and result according to Table 14. This is nothing that can be simulated directly in FEM; since the
pretension is set on the unloaded piston and the pretension vary over different loads it could not be applied just
as a constant force. Therefore it was solved with help of a temperature difference between the lower sleeve and
the rest of the parts, this causes the lower sleeve to grow and that gives a force on the piston contact area that
resembles the pretension force, see Figure 21. To find the correct temperature some FEM simulations were
needed, first one with just a random temperature difference, after that it was possible to linearly calculate a
theoretical value. Repeating this one more time gave a very accurate contact force between the surfaces on the
piston and lower sleeve.

FPretension = S f FServo

(26)

Table 14. Table showing variable values for equation (26), and the result from equation (26).

FServo

Sf

FPretension

3060kN

1.3

4000kN

4.2.3.3 Contacts in the model

In the model there were several points were contact between different parts were used, the type of contact that
was used are no penetration, meaning that the chosen surfaces can not penetrate each other. Points where this
was used can be seen in Figure 22.

Contact
surfaces

search

Figure 22. Points where contact search is used to be able to transfer force between components in the
simulation.

32

4.2.3.4 Mesh
Since these components are quite large with some small details it was not possible to have a small mesh over the
whole model. Therefore mesh control were used to control the mesh size on chosen features, such features were
the oil inlet holes, radiuses on the piston rod and contact surfaces, see Figure 23. The mesh size on the rest of the
model was chosen larger to reduce calculation time. Several simulations were performed on the same model and
with varying mesh size to verify that the results converged, after this was the same mesh size used for all
simulations.

Figure 23. Mesh size variation in the FEM model, finer mesh around oil inlet holes and on contact
surfaces. Pressure applied for closing, blue arrows on lower surface of the piston.

4.2.3.5 Locating evaluation point

Three FEM simulations were needed to be able to form a linear relation between load and stresses. The three
were maximum closing pressure, maximum opening pressure and pretention only. With maximum the maximum
available hydraulic pressure is meant, which is 150Bar. The difference between opening and closing is which
side of the piston that the pressure is applied, see Figure 23. The results from the simulations show several areas
of high stresses but some of them could however be neglected. Such areas were the radius towards the solid

33

modeled Superbolt, surfaces where fixed constraints were used and on the absolute edge of the contact surface
between the upper sleeve and the piston. The two parts that are of interest for the analysis were the upper sleeve
and the piston rod. On these two components the areas with the highest stresses were identified with help of
probing tools. In these areas the nodes with the highest stress were identified, see Figure 24.

Figure 24. Results from one of the FEM simulations with load case where maximum opening pressure is
applied. Zoomed view to the right showing the evaluation point for the piston rod, marked with a red ring
in the larger picture.
The results that could be read out from the first simulations gave the evaluation point. It also gave the node id
which was to be used to read the results from the other load cases. In the piston rod the area with highest stresses
was the oil inlet hole. To choose evaluation point for the upper sleeve was not so obvious since there were two
areas that could have high stresses, but only one had been included in the model. The sealing slots in the upper
sleeve had been left out of the model due to its small details. Therefore a new set of simulations were done with
the sealing slots as the only area with fine mesh. The reason for not including them in the same model was due to
computer memory capacity, since it would have lead to multiple areas with fine mesh. But with these two
models it was possible to extract values for both the sealing slot and the oil inlet hole on the upper sleeve. For
results from the two simulation models see Table 15. For the piston rod the first principal stress is used and for
the upper sleeve the third principal stress is used. The reason for this is that the FKM calculations are made
according to the calculations that regard one dimensional rod shaped components.

34

Table 15. Results from the three FEM simulations.

Load case
Component
Place
Maximum close
Piston rod
Lower oil inlet hole
Upper sleeve
Oil inlet hole
Sealing slot
Pretension
Piston rod
Lower oil inlet hole
Upper sleeve
Oil inlet hole
Sealing slot
Maximum open
Piston rod
Lower oil inlet hole
Upper sleeve
Oil inlet hole
Sealing slot

Node
71987
327345
40676
71987
327345
40676
71987
327345
40676

P1/P3 stress [MPa]

412.8
-883.7
-898.9
536.3
-486.7
-589.6
659.8
-1170
-279.7

4.2.3.6 Transforming the forces to stress

The results from the FEM simulations were used in a simple linear calculation. From that a linear function was
derived that can be used to transform forces into stress, see Figure 25 for the piston rods function. As the figure
shows it was clear that there is a linear relation between forces and stress, and the function that could be derived
from it was equation (27) for the piston rod, equation (28) for the upper sleeve oil inlet hole and equation (29)
for the upper sleeve sealing slot.

Linear function of force to stress transformation

7,00E+08

First principal stress [Pa]

6,00E+08
5,00E+08
4,00E+08

Closing
Opening

3,00E+08
2,00E+08
1,00E+08
0,00E+00
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Force [kN]

Figure 25. Force and stress relation for the piston rods evaluation points.

= 40359.48 F + 5.36 10^8

(27)

= 125277.8 F 4.87 10^8

(28)

= 101160.13 5.90 10^8

(29)

To verify the function it was tested against a FEM simulation with a pressure chosen in-between the earlier used
pressure span. This shows a good accuracy, see Table 16 for results from this test. Due to the good result from
this test only the function for the piston rod was tested.

35

Table 16. Results from validation test of the function derived from the FEM simulations.
Function verification at 55kN opening force
Calculated value
534.1MPa
FEM value
534.3MPa
Deviation
0.04%

4.2.3.7 Transformation
With the linear function defined it was possible to transform the scaled forces. This was simply done by just
using the function on all the force values in the script. With the forces normalized and plotted together with the
positions it gives a good picture over how the position altering affects the stress levels on the design, see Figure
26. Only a segment of the time is plotted to easier show the variations in the signal. Clear stress peaks can be
seen at the very start of a blade angle adjustment. When viewing the full stress plot one can clearly see that the
stress amplitude is not so large but that the mean stress is quite large, obviously this comes from the large
pretension that the Superbolt gives. To more clearly show this, a plot over a segment of the time is plotted in
Figure 27.

Figure 26. Segment of the transformed stresses and blade positions, percentage of opened and percentage
of maximum force. Shows stress peaks at the start of every blade adjustment.

Figure 27. Segment of stress in the piston rod, showing a high mean stress and low amplitude stress.

36

4.2.4 Rainflow counting

As earlier described Rainflow counting is a method of signal analysis where mean points and amplitudes are
extracted from the signal via an algorithm. The script divides the mean stresses and the amplitude stresses into
intervals and then it stores these intervals in vectors, it also stores the number of times a cycle in the specific
interval has occurred. After this it is possible to make a color contour plot to show how the stresses are
distributed. In this script was also the scaling of the time done. Since the measurement only lasted for 17h and
the dimensioning time for the runner is 40 years it was necessary to multiply this measurement up to 40 years.
The plot shows amplitude stress on the x-axis and mean stress on the y-axis, the color represents the number of
times that combination of amplitude and mean stress has occurred during 40 years of normal service, see Figure
28 for the piston rods Rainflow plot. Notable in the figure is that the most common of the amplitude stresses are
below 10MPa.

Figure 28. Color contour plot of extracted Rainflow matrix, colors representing the number of times that
the specific combination of mean stress and stress amplitude occurs during 40 years of normal service.

4.2.5 Stress spectrum

With the now extracted stress prognosis over 40 years it was possible to create a stress spectrum that can be used
to evaluate the fatigue risk based on the material properties. As described earlier the spectrum was derived by
using a constant ratio between amplitude and mean stress and by that transforming the loads to be of the type
with zero mean stress, i.e. R=-1. The stresses were also normalized. The largest stress gets value 1 and the rest of
them get a value representing their size as a fraction of the largest stress. They are also sorted in size with the
largest one first to be able to evaluate them. A plot of the normalized stress steps with zero mean stress for the
piston rod can be seen in Figure 29.

37

Figure 29. Compensated mean stress spectrum, sorted and normalized to have the largest stress first at
value 1, following stresses are fractions of the biggest stress.

4.2.6 Material properties

The material in the piston rod is SS2541 and in the upper sleeve it is SS2387. Depending on the type of loading
and which area that is being evaluated the material get different property degradation according to FKM. The
first parameter that was accounted for was the number of load cycles. Since the analysis is done over 40 years
there are a lot of load cycles. Both of the materials are steels so they have a fatigue strength factor of 0.4
according to Table 3. With use of equation (1) the fatigue strength for completely reversed stress could be
calculated for the two materials, see Table 17.
Table 17. Material properties at 10^6 cycles.
Material R [MPa] f

[MPa]
m

SS2541
SS2387

910
840

W ,

0.4
0.4

W , zd

364
336

The next step was to calculate the design factors. Since the design factor consists of both the stress gradient and
the stress concentration factor, these two needs to be calculated first. The stress concentration factors were
determined according to the analytic expressions in equations (3) to (6), and Figure 15 and Figure 16. To
calculate them dimensions were needed, see Table 18 for dimensions and calculated stress concentration factors.

38

Table 18. Stress concentration factors for the three evaluation points.
Components Area
Dimensions [mm] Kt
Piston rod
Oil inlet hole D=210
3.0716
d=70
r=8
Upper sleeve Oil inlet hole D=280
3.0827
d=210
R=8
Sealing slot
a=7.6
4.3
r=1
t=4.4
The areas that were evaluated were very small in comparison to the whole design, therefore smaller FEM models
were needed to be able to have a mesh fine enough to get useful values for calculating the stress gradient. The
smaller models were made only by a 30 degree model and only the area surrounding the evaluation point was
included. They were given fixtures, loads and mesh according to Figure 30. With help of the controlled mesh
size in the evaluation point it was possible to determine the distance needed in the gradient calculations. The
results from the gradient calculations can be seen in Table 19. The sizes of the applied loads are calculated from
the large models tensions in a cross section of the region were the load is to be applied.

Figure 30. FEM models used to determine stress gradients for the small evaluation areas. Red arrows are
fix constraint, green arrows are symmetry constraints and blue arrows are force loads.
Table 19. Results from FEM and variable values needed to calculate gradients.
Component
Evaluation area
S (Mesh size in 1a [MPa]
2 a [MPa]
area) [mm]
Piston rod
Oil inlet hole
0.8
685
500
Upper sleeve Oil inlet hole
0.8
-750
-575
Sealing slot
0.5
-1200
-680

G
0.34
0.29
0.87

The last of the factors that needed to be calculated was the roughness factor. It was done with equation (11), an
assumed surface finish of 3.2m from turning or 6.3m from drilling [19] and factors from Table 3. The result
can be seen in Table 20 . With all the needed factors determined it was possible to calculate the final design
parameters with equation (12) and earlier determined factors and the remaining of the factors according to Table
20. The resulting design factors can be seen in Table 20.

39

Table 20. The different factors needed to calculate the design parameters and
parameters for the evaluation points.
Component Evaluation K K Roughness Design Surface Surface
t
f
area
factor K r factor coating treatment
ratio
~
factor
factor K
Piston rod
Upper
sleeve

Oil
inlet 1.086
hole
Oil
inlet 1.108
hole
Sealing slot 1.160

the calculated design

Nonlinear
factor

Design
parameter

KWK ,

Kf

KS

0.88

2.83

0.9635

0.89

2.78

0.9421

0.93

3.7

0.8792

K NL , E

The final material fatigue strengths for completely reversed stress in the components evaluation areas were then
determined with equation (13), see results in Table 21.
Table 21. Final fatigue strengths for the components in the evaluation points.
Evaluation area
Fatigue strength for
completely reversed
stress [MPa]
Piston rod oil inlet hole
378
Upper sleeve oil inlet hole
357
Upper sleeve sealing slot
382

4.2.7 Evaluation according to FKM guideline

The component is evaluated according to two different criterions. The first one is Miners rule which is the more
conservative of the two, the other one is Miners consistent rule which is a modified version of the first one. The
main difference between them is the regard to the fatigue limit. That means that if Miners rule is used there is no
possibility to reach infinite component life. The reason why both are used is that if Miners rule is not fulfilled
then the Miners consistent rule might be refined enough to give a suitable result with out the need for component
design change. Or if the component is far from failing the elementary criteria then there may be room for design
optimizations.
The degree of utilization determines if the component has the required fatigue strength. If this value is larger
than 1 then the component does not fulfill the criterions. In this case the safety factor was chosen to be 1.5
according to Table 7, since there are no possibilities to inspect the components regularly and the consequences of
a failure would be severe. As mentioned earlier the critical damage sum was chosen to be 0.3 due to that the
components are made of steel.
The calculated component amplitude fatigue strengths for the different evaluations were calculated with
equation (15) and the results can be seen in Table 22. This clearly shows that Miners elementary rule is more
conservative.
Table 22. Amplitude strengths for evaluated components for the two different evaluation criterions.
Component
Evaluation
Miners elementary Miners consistent
point
rule BK [MPa]
rule BK [MPa]
Piston rod
Upper sleeve

Oil inlet hole

Oil inlet hole
Sealing slot

164
283
308

376
404
440

40

4.2.8 Degree of utilization

The degrees of utilization are calculated for the different components with equation (16) and Table 22, the
results from this can be seen in Table 23.
Table 23. Degree of utilization for evaluated points.
Component
Evaluation
Largest stress Degree of utilization
point
amplitude
in a
Miners
BK ,
spectrum a ,1
elementary rule
Piston rod
Upper sleeve

Oil inlet hole

Oil inlet hole
Sealing slot

[MPa]
244
183
148

2.24
0.97
0.72

Degree

of

utilization

a BK , Miners consistent
rule.
0.97
0.68
0.50

4.2.9 Other evaluation criterions

In this section the other structural design evaluations are presented. The evaluations were nominal stress levels in
the components, thread stress amplitude and buckling. For each evaluation their criterions are calculated and
presented.

4.2.9.1 Nominal stress levels

The nominal stress levels were calculated for each components smallest cross section and the maximum
occurring load. The nominal stress criterions were calculated with equation (18), results from this can be seen in
Table 24. The nominal stress levels for the two components smallest cross sections can be seen in Table 25 and
are calculated with equation (17).
Table 24. Results from calculations of critical values for nominal stress levels.
Component
Material
Chosen
Rm
2Rp
critical value
3
3
[MPa]
[MPa]
[MPa]
Piston rod
SS2541
303
499
303
Upper sleeve SS2387
280
453
280
Table 25. Results from nominal stress level calculations.
Component
Region for smallest Smallest
Load case
cross section.
cross section
area [mm2]
Piston rod
Oil inlet hole
25198
Maximum open
Upper sleeve Sealing slot
23975
Maximum close

Force[kN]

4940
6128

Nominal stress
in
cross
section [MPa]
196
255

4.2.9.2 Stress amplitude in threads

The stress amplitude in the threads needed to be evaluated separately since they were not a part of the FEM
simulation and could therefore not be evaluated with the same method. They could not be included in the FEM
model since that would lead to a large area of very small elements and with a very complex contact search
between the Superbolt and the piston rod. The stress amplitude was determined by assuming a normal load cycle.
The worst case from Figure 19 was used. It is to yield opening and closing at near fully opened runner. The
evaluated stresses were the nominal stresses in the cross section where the thread is placed. The stresses were
calculated with equation (17) and Table 26, also for results see Table 26. The two calculated nominal stresses
gives the width of the load cycles and the amplitude is given by dividing the width with two. The calculated
stresses were then compared to the criteria that BSK99 gives for bolts for 20^6 load cycles with constant
amplitude. Critical amplitude for this type of joint can also be seen in Table 26.

41

Table 26. Stress amplitude in threads.

Load case Force Resulting
Cross section
[kN]
force [kN]
[mm2]
Closing
55
4000
30450
Closing
105
844
30450

Nominal stress
[MPa]
131.4
110.8

Amplitude
stress [MPa]

Critical
amplitude [MPa]

10.2

22.5

4.2.9.3 Buckling
With use of equations (19) to (25), and with help of Table 9 and values according to Table 27, the load carrying
capacity could be calculated. The load carrying capacity could then be compared to the maximum occurring
load. If the load is lower than the capacity there is no risk for buckling of the upper sleeve. Results from these
calculations can be seen in Table 28.
Table 27. Values for constants used to calculate the load carrying capacity for the upper sleeve under
compression load.
Variable
Explanation
Values
Cross section area
0.026929m2
A
gr

f yk

Value of characteristic tensile strength limit

680MPa

f yd

Value of dimensioning tensile strength limit

567MPa

Ek

Characteristic young modulus

210GPa

Enlargement factor for actual length

L
D
d

Actual length
Outer diameter
Inner diameter

0.978m
0.280m
0.210m

Constant for determining , dependent on type of cross

section.

0.21

Table 28. Results from load carrying capacity calculation and maximum occurring load.
Load carrying capacity
Maximum occurring load
14510kN
6000kN

42

4.3 Evaluation of other design aspects

The other design aspects that were evaluated in this comparison are described in this section. The evaluations
have been performed with help of interviews where a set of evaluation points were discussed. The design
comparison is made on two levels, one general and one specific regarding Nsaforsen to give an example of how
the designs may differ in a specific case. The evaluation points used in each comparison are to find general
differences. Where it is possible to make specific comparisons calculations have been done to give a case
specific example of how the two designs may differ.

4.3.1 Assemblage comparison

The first point on the assemblage comparison was to determine the assemblage order for the new design. It was
soon discovered that is was not so easy to give a universal answer to that question. But after some discussion a
suggestion was given of how the assemblage probably would be carried out. It is important to understand the
order of assemblage since it affects some of the details in the design, this will be explained later.
The suggested assemblage order starts with that all the components have been tried in its positions one by one
and without seals [20]. This is done to make sure that there is not any component which does not fulfill the
tolerances and that there is not any grip between parts that should have clearance. The assemblage performed in
four steps is described below and Figure 31 shows each step.
1.
2.
3.
4.

The first step of the actual assemblage would be to mount the upper nut on the piston rod. It should then
be measured so that it is at the correct height and after that secured to the rod
The rod is lowered into the hub. With the piston rod and the nut secured to the hub it is rotated so the
bottom of the hub is facing upwards.
After this the upper sleeve is lowered down into the hub and around the piston rod with its seals in
place.
Next the piston rod is measured to make sure that it is on the correct height in relation to the piston. If
the piston rod is on the wrong height then the upper nut must be rotated to alter the height.

Figure 31. Assemblage order described in four steps. In the first step the nut is mounted and secured on
the correct height of the piston rod. In step two the piston rod is lowered into the hub and secured to it.
The hub is rotated upside down and the upper sleeve is mounted in step three. The last step is to control
measure the piston rod height, and possibly adjust it by rotating the upper nut.

43

After this the assemblage is as with the old design, the piston and the lower sleeve are mounted and the rod is put
under pretention with the Superbolt, see Figure 32 for Nsaforsen at that state of assemblage.

Figure 32. Nsaforsen runner hub turned upside-down ready for mounting of the lower sleeve.
Since the assemblage comparison could only be made very general the outcome of it was mostly the answers of
the questions given in Table 10. The new design does not affect the assemblage of the other components nor
does it require more space to be fitted into the hub. The hub orientation during the assemblage is not either
affected.
The first question in Table 10 that indicates a difference is regarding the tools needed. The question does not aim
at hand tools but on tools that are needed for lifting and fitting the components, and this is the reason why it is
important to know the assemblage order. Here are of course differences since the design contains parts that have
other dimensions, but what was stated as important was that holes for lifting must be placed accurately out of
center of gravity points since it affects how easy it is to smoothly fit the components. Other tools that was seen
as important was some kind of locking device to lock the upper nut to the piston rod to assure that the preset
distance from the nut to the top of the rod would be held constant. A third important remark was that the upper
nut will need some screws to lock the piston rod to the hub body. Not as rigorous as the old design but just so
that it can hold the piston rod in place while the hub is turned upside down during the assemblage.
The total assemblage time was estimated to be a little longer due to the extra measurements that are needed to
make sure that the piston rod is on the correct height. It was not the actual measurements that were estimated to
take longer time but the adjustments if it would be on the wrong height. The two following questions regarding
quality control and incorrect assemblage are also connected to this part of the assemblage. There may be a risk
that the height of the piston rod is hard to adjust absolutely correct. How big this problem would be is hard to
evaluate because it is depending on several factors. First of all there are not so tight tolerances on the actual rod
height since the piston position is not affected by it, and therefore it is possible that the preset of the upper nut is
enough to give a correct position. The problem may only occur if there is very little clearance between the rod
and the upper sleeve. This problem is enhanced when the surfaces are of stainless steel since that increases the
risk for galling. In this case the stainless steel coated part of the rod is fitted into the stainless steel sleeve so it
may be a risk for galling.
The last evaluation point was if there would be any scaling effects with the new design. It was stated that there
are always more problems when things get really big since they get more and more difficult to handle smoothly
the bigger they get. And that the bigger the components get the harder it is to achieve the correct tolerances. The
two scaling effects in combination leads to that the new design might be more sensitive for becoming
problematic to assemble.

44

4.3.2 Manufacturing comparison

The manufacturing comparison that was carried out was based on a set of evaluation points, see Table 11. As
earlier mentioned the comparison was made on two levels, one general level and one specific regarding
Nsaforsen. For the more general comparison some conclusions about principal differences could be drawn, and
from the specific evaluation some calculations could be done for the total manufacturing time for the two designs
in Nsaforsen. The manufacturing time for the two designs in Nsaforsen has been estimated by a production
engineer. The times for the old design are based on the actual time spent when it was finished and the time that it
should have taken. The time estimated for the new design was based on the components size, shape, material and
tolerances.
Before it is possible to make these estimations one must make a judgment of how it is being produced. In the old
design the piston rod was produced from a wrought bar, which was turned and milled to the final shape and
tolerances. In the new design it is possible to produce the piston rod from machining a round bar. The upper
sleeve would be made with centrifugal casting in the same was as the lower sleeve. The reason for that it has to
be casted is the dimensions and the material. The machining has been divided in three parts for the piston rod
and into two for the upper sleeve. This is due to different operation types and sometimes different machines. The
machines that are needed [21] and the cost factor for each operation [22] can be seen in Table 29.
Table 29. Machines needed for manufacturing and their hourly rates.
Machine type
Machine id
Machine cost factor
NC-mill
665
1
Lathe
670
1.155
Boring machine
681
1.350
In the comparison it was assumed that the cost and time for the upper nut in the new design was equal to the
threaded holes in the hub. The other differences in the hub were seen as equal in manufacturing time. For
manufacturing cost calculation see Table 30. The set-up time was included in the time approximations.
Table 30. Manufacturing cost calculations for the two designs.
Component
Operation
Time unit [A]
Rough turning
1
Piston rod
Fine turning
5
New design
Drilling and threads 3
Turning
3
Upper sleeve
Drilling
0.375
Total
12.375

Old design
Total

Piston rod

Rough turning
Fine turning
Drilling and threads

1
7
5
13

Machine id
670
670
681
670
665

Machining cost
1.155
5.775
4.05
3.465
0.375
14.820

670
670
681

1.155
8.085
6.750
15.990

The more general comparison in this section is made out by the remaining questions from Table 11. They were
evaluated in terms of if they would be affected if the new design was to be used. The tool wear would not be
affected since the two materials are practically the same to machine, and there would not be any additional tools
needed since the lower sleeve would be machined for both designs. When it comes to quality control and control
measurements there may be some difficulties for large runner hubs. Since the hub body has two areas of high
tolerances these two areas could be forced to be made from different directions, meaning that the hub must be
rotated between these two operations. This could occur if the hub is too deep to machine both areas from one
side. The problem that it could lead to is to control measure that the two areas are concentric enough after the
machining.

45

4.3.3 Procurement comparison

Procurement is very case sensitive and therefore hard to make general comparisons about. Both designs are
possible to make alterations to that would have large impacts on the procurement for both of them. Example of
this is that if it is a very large runner then the wrought bar may be replaced by a round bar to reduce the costs.
This would lead to the need of a bolted flange and extra machining of the bar. Another example is if the upper
sleeve would be really small then it might be possible to buy a pipe instead of a casted piece. This leads to that
the procurement comparison is mostly done on the specific case.
This specific case can be seen as in general valid for this size of runner. In the specific case the costs for material
and services is bought from other companies are regarded. Since the piston rods are made out of steel, they need
surface coating of laser welded stainless steel on some surfaces. The two designs need different amount of
coating and the costs for this is estimated based on the actual costs from Nsaforsen. Mutual for the two designs
is the oil inlet, this requires a long hole drilling operation which is not performed at AW and is purchased from
another company. The costs for this operation are seen as equal in both cases. The costs for purchased services
and materials [21] can be seen in Table 31, all values calculated into cost units.
Table 31. Comparison of purchased services and material for the two designs with Nsaforsen premises.
Component
Material cost Duroc coating and
Deep hole
Total
laser welding
drilling
Piston rod
5.083
4.621
6.470
New design
21.026
Upper sleeve
4.852
Old design

Piston rod

16.174

7.394

6.470

30.037

In the comparison the other aspects listed in Table 12 were also evaluated. This was also done with the specific
case seen as generally valid for this runner size. It was then found that there are differences between the two
designs when it comes to delivery time, see Table 32 for delivery times [21]. Both designs need a lower sleeve
so the upper sleeve in the new design does not affect the total delivery time. The delivery time for Nsaforsen is
the actual delivery time plus time for offers, for the new design the time for the lower sleeve is used but the time
has been reduced due to the lower sleeve was ordered during vacation months. With the new design the number
of available suppliers does not increase, so in that sense the two designs are equal.
Table 32. Delivery time comparison for the materials.
Component
Delivery time
New design
Piston rod
1 Week
Upper sleeve
8 Weeks
Old design
Piston rod
13 Weeks

46

5 Results
In this chapter the results from the different evaluations are collected and evaluated. Each evaluation aspect is
given its own section. All costs in the tables in this section are calculated into a cost unit.

5.1 Results for structural evaluation

The fatigue results are compared to the old design; the other structural results are compared against its critical
limits. For collected results see Table 33 and Table 34. For each result an additional safety factor is calculated, it
is done to show how close the result is to fail the criteria. If the factor has a value larger than 1, the design fulfills
the criteria.
Table 33. Fatigue evaluation results for the new and old designs.
Evaluation
type

Design

Component

Evaluation
point

Criteria

<1

Degree of
utilization
Miners
elementary
rule
2.24

Degree of
utilizatio
n Miners
consistent
rule
0.97

Fatigue

New

Piston rod

Oil
hole

inlet

Fatigue

New

Upper
sleeve

Oil
hole

inlet

<1

0.97

0.68

Fatigue

New

Upper
sleeve

Sealing slot

<1

0.72

0.50

Fatigue

Old

Piston rod

Notch

<1

2.31

1.0

Criteria
fulfilled?

Yes Miners
consistent
rule
Yes Miners
elementary
rule
and
Miners
consistent
rule
Yes Miners
elementary
rule
and
Miners
consistent
rule
Yes Miners
consistent
rule

Leaves
an
additional
safety factor of
criteria/load
level
1.03

1.03 and 1.47

1.39 and 2

Table 34. Structural evaluation results for the new design.

Evaluation
type

Component

Evaluation
point

Criteria

Nominal
stress
levels
[MPa]

Amplitude
stress
in
threads
[MPa]

Buckling

Criteria
fulfilled

Nominal
stress
levels

Piston rod

<303MPa

196

Yes

Nominal
stress
levels
Amplitude
stress
in
threads
Buckling

Upper sleeve

<280MPa

255

Yes

1.1

Piston rod

Cross
section at
oil
inlet
hole
Cross
section at
sealing slot
Treads

Leaves
an
additional
safety factor of
criteria/load
level
1.546

<22.5MPa

10.2

Yes

2.2

Upper sleeve

>6000kN

14510kN

Yes

2.48

5.2 Results from assemblage comparison

The most important result from the assemblage comparison is that the new design would be possible to assemble
without any drastic changes. The comparison also gave knowledge of that it is important to have locking devices
for the piston rod since it would not be possible to assemble without. It also needs some locking for the whole
rod to the hub so that the hub can be placed upside down during the assemblage. It also gave some other results
such as that the new design probably takes slightly longer time to assemble and that it may be problems with
positioning the piston rod at the correct height.

47

5.3 Results from manufacturing comparison

The manufacturing comparison show in the specific case that there may be some cost reductions with the new
design. The reduction in the specific case can be seen in Table 35. The cost reduction comes mostly from the
reduced need to drill holes in the flange for mounting the piston rod to the hub. In the more general case it is
likely to assume that there is some time differences between the designs and that they are approximately the
same percentile as in the specific example. This is possible to assume since the new design has slightly simpler
geometries than the old design. How big these differences are is very case sensitive and as mentioned in the
procurement comparison alterations are possible in both designs and that would change the manufacturing time
too.
Table 35. Results from manufacturing comparison.
Total manufacturing Total manufacturing
cost
time
New design
14.820
12.375
Old design
15.990
13
Reduction

7.3%

5%

5.4 Results from procurement comparison

As described in the procurement comparison it was mostly done on the specific example and due to the case
sensitivity in procurement it was hard to make a general evaluation. From the calculations in the specific case it
is clear that if the new design has any real benefits then they probably are in procurement, see Table 36. The new
design has its largest benefits from the lower material costs and some of the cost reductions comes from the
reduced need of coating. In the table the reduced delivery time are also listed, the new designs delivery time is
controlled by the upper sleeve whilst for the old design it is the wrought rod that controls the total time.
Table 36. Results from procurement comparison.
Procurements Delivery time
New design
21.026
8 weeks
Old design
30.037
13 weeks
Reduction

30%

38%

With the manufacturing and procurement costs for the specific example added together it is clear that the new
design may have some cost reduction potential. The total cost reductions can be seen in Table 37.
Table 37. Total cost reduction possible for the two designs in Nsaforsen.
Total costs
New design
35.846
Old design
46.027
Cost reduction

22.1%

48

6 Conclusions
In this chapter conclusions from the comparison are collected. The results from the comparison make out the
base for the conclusions and some come from own insights learned during the evaluation. After the evaluation it
is clear that some of the expectations on the new design were not completely fulfilled. While some of them were
proven true. The results chapter shows that the new design has some important advantages. These are valid under
the conditions listed throughout the report. Conclusions from the evaluations:

Structurally there are very small differences between the two designs. Their fatigue strengths are
practically the same when given the same space in the runner hub.

To assemble the new design does not require any radical changes but it might take longer time due to
control measurements and possibly some extra adjustments.

The manufacturing comparison shows that there may be difference between the two designs but they
are very small. The calculated difference in the specific example is so small that it probably is within
the accuracy for the estimations.

There are definitely procurement differences between the two designs when the old design is produced
from a wrought bar. It is probably also lower costs for the new design when the old design is machined
from a large bar, but this has not been evaluated.

From these conclusions it is obvious that the two designs are in general quite similar. Therefore it is hard to give
a definite answer to which of them that is superior. It is probably so that they have different areas were they are
the better choice. It is mostly dependent on the exact design solutions and the planned production. To this come
also a lot of other aspects that could affect which of the two to choose, e.g. is size of the runner, current material
prices and available time for design.

49

7 Discussion
In this chapter the whole design evaluation is discussed, first the new design in general is discussed and after that
the comparison is discussed. Some sources of error are enlightened and discussed.

7.1 The new design

The new design has proven to have some of the expected advantages. According to this evaluation it is possible
to change to it with some cost benefits. It is important to remember under which conditions that this has been
evaluated and that the biggest differences come from the different bars used for the rods.
Structurally one must also remember some of the details in the design during the comparison. Especially the
position of the sealing slots since this gives an important difference when it comes to fatigue properties. Since all
the sealing slots are placed in the components that is under compression. This gives the design better fatigue
strength. If the sealing were to be placed in the rod they would be under tension and that would make the rod
much more sensitive for fatigue. Also important is simplicity of the rod in general since the fatigue properties
were the dimensioning factor. It does not allow any vast changes which would induce stress concentrations such
as sharp notches.
The new design does not give any extra fatigue strength with reduced total space required in the hub. The reason
for this is that in the upper sleeve it is not the fatigue strength that is critical; instead it is the nominal stress
levels. This makes it hard to make big reductions on the total size, although there is room for some small
optimization, but that would only reduce the sleeve diameter with a few millimeters.

7.2 Discussion regarding structural calculations

The structural calculations are described in their full extent as they are performed. But their validity must be
discussed. In the fatigue calculations the whole result is based on a one point read out from the FEM simulations
results. That makes the readout very important for the whole result. Therefore the nodes are chosen with the
highest value so that the result is as conservative as possible. How conservative it actually gets is an uncertainty.
It is suspected that it might be quite conservative, since the maximum node value is higher than the average node
values in the region surrounding the nodes. Other uncertainties in the fatigue calculations are the measured
service loads. The signal has not been analyzed in such way that it can be determined if it is a hard or easy load
case. The signal also contains a lot of fast and short regulations and it has not been established if this is noise
from the measurements or if the machine in Sollefte actually behaves like that. This gives some additional
uncertainties of how conservative the calculations are.
In the calculations two things has been left out. It has not been calculated how the hub body is loaded or how its
fatigue is affected by the new design. The other thing that has been left out is the effects of corrosion, since the
piston rod is made out of steel it might be affected by corrosion. The design has been adapted to this by using a
seal in the top of the upper sleeve to reduce the risk for moist on the piston rod.

7.3 Discussion regarding other design aspects

The other aspects of the two designs that could be discussed is mostly that the cost comparison is only made on
Nsaforsen, this gives uncertainties on how the costs are for the two designs on a machine of another size. The
comparison is fairly correct for machine sizes similar to Nsaforsen. Simple study shows that there are no
problems to purchase piston rods for the new design with twice the diameter. It is suspected that the cost for the
upper sleeve may increase more rapidly due to the centrifugal casting technique.
As shown in the results chapter the new design has advantages when it comes to delivery time. They are valid for
Nsaforsen but are universal when comparing the wrought bar against the round bar. The advantages with this
might be several. Initially this gives the design engineer longer time to complete the design. The shorter delivery
time may have an advantage in manufacturing. If something would go very wrong during the manufacturing
there may be time to order a new bar without that much time lost. The earlier mentioned problem with the need
to rotate a large hub to be able to machine both the areas with high tolerances is something that both the designs
have. The problems it could lead to are probably higher in the new design due to that the sleeve and the piston
rod needs a high degree of concentricity to be possible to assemble.

50

8 Future work
There are still areas were the new design could be improved, and areas of further evaluation that is needed before
a design change could be fully implemented. The comparison performed so far is only done at one hydro power
plant, to further establish the differences and advantages more comparisons are needed. They should be done at
both smaller and bigger plants then Nsaforsen. This is needed to verify if there are any significant scaling
effects, i.e. if the two designs have different advantages at different sizes.
Since the new design is an adaption of an existing design it has a development potential. The design was adapted
to Nsaforsen with its existing flaws and compromises. The most problematic area of manufacturing in the new
design is the deep hole for the oil inlet. This is hard to produce with high tolerances and it is very hard to confirm
that it is correctly assembled. Therefore a suggestion is to try to find an oil inlet solution that neither needs the
deep hole nor needs the drilled channels that the original design has. A possible way to solve this is to have an
inserted sleeve in the bottom of the rod. This solution would not need a high tolerance long hole in the rod.
Further simple optimizations that could be done is to move the oil inlet chambers in the rod to the sleeves
instead, this would give the rod slightly better fatigue properties, which could make some small size reduction
possible. This in its turn could reduce the size of the sleeve and by that give a little more space in the runner hub
but it is probably in the range of millimeters.
Depending on the hub design there might be problems with room for the upper nut, in these cases alternatives are
needed. A suggestion then is to secure the rods threads in a large thread directly in the hub body. This alternative
needs to be structurally evaluated. Since the runner hub is made out of a simpler material and the stress
amplitudes in the threads therefore cannot be too high.
An additional aspect that may need an overview if the new design would be implemented is the assemblage
routines. The new design leads to a slightly altered assemblage order and that needs to be documented and
established in a correct way. The assemblage order that is suggested under the assemblage comparison is only
one alternative, but if it is the best way or not has not been evaluated.
Future work is also needed in the calculations procedure. As mentioned in the discussion it is necessary to
evaluate the service signal, since there are uncertainties of how conservative it is. Also an evaluation method
where not only one value determines the final result, a method where more nodes or all the nodes were evaluated
without the need of performing it one by one and with a lot of manual work would be useful and less time
consuming.

51

9 References
[1] ANDRITZ: Company Profile (ANDRITZ AG: 2009)
http://www.andritz.com/ANONIDZ63CC61C04DE2A6FC/about-us
[9 September 2009]
[2] NATIONALENCYKLOPEDIN: Vattenenergi (Nationalencyklopedin: 2009)
http://www.ne.se/vattenkraftverk
[9 September 2009]
[3] Leif Vinogg and Ivar Elstad: Hydropower development vol. 12, Mechanical Equipment (Norwegian
University of Science and Technology: 2003)
[4] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: File:Water_turbine.jpg (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: June 2005)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_turbine.jpg
[9 September 2009]
[5] Arne Morten Lundhaug Johnsen: Technologies for storage reservoirs, dams and waterways (renewable.no)
http://www.renewable.no/sitepageview.aspx?sitePageID=1113
[9 September 2009]
[6] OJSC Power machines: Equipment for small hydro power stations (OJSC Power machines: 2002-2006)
http://english.power-m.ru/themes/english/materials-document.asp?folder=1456&matID=2108
[9 September 2009]
[7] Superbolt: Products (Superbolt, Inc.: 2009)
http://www.superbolt.com/products.html
[9 September 2009]
[8] Ingvar Rask and Staffan Sunnersj: HLLFASTHETSTEKNISK DIMENSIONERING (Sveriges
verkstadsindustrier: 1992)
[9] Wikimedia commons: File:pedalarm_Bruch.jpg (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: June 2007)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pedalarm_Bruch.jpg
[9 September 2009 altered by rotation and crop view]
[10]E. Haibach: FKM-Guideline ANALYTICAL STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF COMPONENTS IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING (Forschungskuratorium Maschinenbau (FKM): 2003)
[11] Walter D. Pilkey: Formulas for Stress, Strain, and Structural Matrices (2nd Edition) (John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.: 2005)
[12] Walter D. Pilkey and Deborah F. Pilkey: Peterson's Stress Concentration Factors (3rd Edition) (John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.: 2008)
[13] Mikael Helin, Structural Analysis Engineer, (September 2009)
[14] Lars Gransson and Sture kerlund: Stlkonstruktioner,
STLKONSTRUKTIONER BSK99 (Boverket, byggnadsavdelningen:1999)

BOVERKETS

HANDBOK

OM

52

[15] Octave (University of Wisconsin: 2009)

http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/index.html
[16] Cygwin (Red Hat, Inc.: 2009)
http://www.cygwin.org/cygwin/
[17] SolidWorks Premium 2009 (Dassault Systmes 2008)
http://www.solidworks.com/
[18] SolidWorks Simulations 2009 (Dassault Systmes 2008)
http://www.solidworks.com/sw/products/fea-design-simulation-software.htm
[19] Karl Bjrk: Formler och Tabeller fr Mekanisk Konstruktion, sjtte upplagan (Karl Bjrks Frlag HB)
[20] Peter Sverresson, Assemblage technician, (October 2009)
[21] Hkan Hedman, Work preparation leader, (October 2009)
[22] Peter Knutsson, Sales engineer, (October 2009)

53

Appendix A Basic dimensions for Nsaforsens piston

rod

Appendix B Basic dimensions for new design piston

rod

Appendix C Basic dimensions for new design upper

sleeve