{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01676829268292683, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.563559322033898, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Going Large or Going Small in Plant Design: Comparison between a P.P. with three small Kaplan turbines and a P.P. with just one Large Kaplan turbine

Very often small turbine manufacturers are requested to produce sizeable turbines, too large in terms of physical dimensions, power or designing capacity. In these cases clever alternative solutions should be found to meet customers’ needs. For instance: in the old times twin runner Francis turbines were an option instead of one large machine, or if a too large Pelton turbine cannot be manufactured or designed, a good option is to install a medium size Francis and a small Pelton. Likewise, a similar approach needs to be taken should the manufacturer be asked for a too large Kaplan. Facing this situation a good option is to install three or more small Kaplan turbines. This particular case was studied in depth and after all the considerations had been made, the following question arouse: Is this a way out for the manufacturer or is it really the best option for the customer? The choice made as a way out for the manufacturer became the best option for the customer and a success for both parties. This paper aims to encourage developers and engineering firms to search for more options than the traditional one to find the best option in plant design.