V8N1 Papers Marsh Et Al

Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2013
Who should read this paper?

This paper will be of interest to marine renewable energy engineers, operators
and developers; and all those aficionados of the power and grace of vertical
(and horizontal) axis turbines, both above and below the water.

Why is it important?
Vertical axis turbines (think: eggbeater) are well suited to generating energy
from ocean tides and currents as they are omnidirectional and require no
complex yawing or pitching mechanisms in order to face into the flow.
However, the not-so-delicate play of water on the blades, struts, hubs and
shaft of such turbines results in complex hydrodynamic flows that need
to be fully understood in order to optimize turbine output, service life
and efficiency.
The authors put a new spin on computational fluid dynamics to simulate
the hydrodynamic performance of vertical axis turbines in three dimensions
(3D). In particular, they propose a new strut correction factor that results
in more accurate prediction of hydrodynamic flow properties. Improvements
in the prediction of vertical axis turbine performance will result in turbines
that will last longer while capturing more of the available energy held within
our oceans. Better understanding of the mechanics of vertical axis turbines
will enable the successful development and deployments at reduced scale.
Commercialization at larger scales is likely to soon follow, driven by an
increasing appetite for clean and sustainable energy.
About the authors
Philip Marsh is a PhD student at the National Centre for Maritime Engineering
and Hydrodynamics (NCMEH) at the Australian Maritime College (AMC).
His research includes hydrodynamics of vertical axis turbines, fluid-structure
interactions, computational fluid dynamics and ocean renewable energy.
Dev Ranmuthugala is the Acting Director, National Centre for Ports and
Shipping, and Associate Professor in Maritime Engineering at the AMC.
His research includes experimental and computational fluid dynamics to
investigate the hydrodynamic characteristics of underwater vehicles. Irene
Penesis is a Senior Lecturer in Mathematics at the NCMEH. Her research
includes varied applications of numerical and applied modelling techniques
mainly in the area of hydrodynamics, with a special interest in wave and
tidal energy. Giles Thomas is an Associate Professor and Acting Director
of the NCMEH. His research and teaching interests include fluid-structure
interaction, hydrodynamics, model testing, surfing and design.
Marsh, Ranmuthugala, Penesis and Thomas explain why
it is not good enough to think in two dimensions (2D)
when modelling fluid flow over a vertical axis turbine.
Fifty shades of flow
Philip Marsh
Dev Ranmuthugala
86 The Journal of Ocean Technology, VOL. 8, NO. 1, 2013
Irene Penesis
Giles Thomas
The Journal of Ocean Technology, VOL. 8, NO. 1, 2013 87 Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2013
PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS OF A STRAIGHT-BLADED VERTICAL
AXIS TURBINE USING DOUBLE-MULTIPLE STREAMTUBE AND
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS MODELS
P. Marsh
1
, D. Ranmuthugala
2
, I. Penesis
1
, G. Thomas
1
1
National Centre for Maritime Engineering and Hydrodynamics, Australian Maritime College,
University of Tasmania, Australia
2
National Centre for Ports and Shipping, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania,
Australia
ABSTRACT
Vertical axis turbines are increasingly being utilized to generate power from our oceans. However,
due to high levels of dynamic stall and flow interaction effects of the blades, struts, hubs, and
shaft, they exhibit complex hydrodynamic flows which need to be fully understood to increase
turbine output, service life, and efficiency. Double-Multiple Streamtube (DMS) and
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models were used to numerically investigate the power
generated and hydrodynamic properties of these turbines. Three-dimensional (3D) transient CFD
simulations were performed using an Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (URANS) solver.
The DMS model developed incorporated a new correction factor to account for strut drag effects.
All simulations were validated against Experimental Fluid Dynamics (EFD) testing of a three-
bladed turbine at the Australian Maritime College Circulating Water Channel. The DMS model
with a newly developed correction factor for strut drag demonstrated good agreement with the
CFD and EFD results for turbine power predictions across the operational tip speed ratio ()
range. The 3D CFD model of the full turbine geometry including struts, hubs, and shaft also
provided good agreement with EFD results for turbine power. The 3D CFD model without struts,
hubs, and shaft, and the DMS model without strut correction factors overpredicted turbine
performance especially at high , as the resistive torque generated by the struts, which reduces
power, was not accounted for. All simulation results demonstrate that strut drag, and the associated
resistive torque, must be modelled if accurate simulations of vertical axis turbine performance
are to be obtained.
KEY WORDS
Vertical axis turbine; Simulation; Modelling; Hydrodynamics; Double-Multiple Streamtube
(DMS); Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD); Experimental Fluid Dynamics (EFD); Strut;
Drag; Resistive torque; Ocean power; Tidal power
88 The Journal of Ocean Technology, VOL. 8, NO. 1, 2013 Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2013
NOMENCLATURE
AR = blade aspect ratio
c = blade chord (m)
c
a
= strut chord (m)
C
D
= drag coefficient
C
D
f
= finite span drag coefficient
C
D
i
= induced drag coefficient
C
D
0
= drag coefficient at zero
C
D
Strut
= strut drag coefficient
C
D
= freestream drag coefficient

C
L
= lift coefficient
C
L
f
= finite span lift coefficient
C
L
= freestream lift coefficient

C
N
= normal force coefficient
C
p
= power coefficient
C
p
1
= upstream power coefficient
C
p
2
= downstream power coefficient
C
Q
1
= upstream average torque coefficient
C
T
= tangential force coefficient
F = upstream tip loss factor
F' = downstream tip loss factor
f
up
= upwind momentum function
H = turbine height (m)
N = number of turbine blades
r = turbine radius (m)
R
e
= Reynolds number
T = blade thickness (m)
T
a
= average resistive torque (Nm)
T
up
= average upstream torque (Nm)
T
up
() = upstream torque at (Nm)
u = interference factor
u
new
= iteration interference factor
u' = second interference factor
V = local velocity (m/s)
V
e
= equilibrium velocity (m/s)
V' = first induced velocity (m/s)
V'' = second induced velocity (m/s)
V
i
= freestream velocity (m/s)
W = local relative velocity (m/s)
= blade angle of attack (rad)
b
= effective angle of attack (rad)
i
= induced angle of attack (rad)
= azimuth angle (rad)
= tip speed ratio
= kinematic viscosity (m
2
/s)
= density of water (kg/m
3
)
= rotational rate (rad/s)
INTRODUCTION
As global energy requirements increase many
countries are beginning to look to the ocean as
an immense source of clean and sustainable
energy to fulfill their energy needs, with many
different devices proposed to do so. Vertical
axis turbines, an example of which is shown in
Figure 1, are well suited to generating energy
from ocean tides and currents as they are
omnidirectional in nature and require no complex
yawing or pitching mechanisms. Furthermore,
the electrical generator can be installed out of
the water, easing installation and servicing.
However, vertical axis turbines exhibit
complex hydrodynamic flow properties due to
high levels of dynamic stall [Ferreira et al., 2009],
as well as complex strut [Paraschivoiu, 2002]
and wake interactions [Scheurich et al., 2010].
To successfully operate vertical axis turbines
and ensure their longevity and efficiency, these
complex flow properties need to be fully
comprehended. This study utilizes the Double-
Multiple Streamtube (DMS) model,
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), and
Experimental Fluid Dynamics (EFD) to analyze
the hydrodynamic flow properties and power
output of vertical axis turbines.
Tidal turbines exhibit complex flow properties
depending on their geometrical layout, which
has a significant impact on the power generated
as shown by Rawlings [2008], who noted
through EFD large variations in the power
generated across a number of turbines having
the same blade, hub, and shaft layout, but
different strut sections, attachment methods,
and strut locations. Any attempt to numerically
model vertical axis turbines requires the
hydrodynamic effects of the struts, hubs, and
shaft be accounted for. However, previous
DMS and CFD simulations of vertical axis
turbines have often been limited to two-
dimensional (2D) analysis models over limited
rotational rates [Lain, 2010; Malipeddi and
Chatterjee, 2012], which has resulted in the
poor resolution of these complex hydrodynamic
flow properties and thus poor power estimates
due to the lack of strut and tip loss modelling.
To improve simulation accuracy two numerical
methods, DMS models and three-dimensional
(3D) CFD, were used to simulate the
performance and hydrodynamic characteristics
of a vertical axis turbine over its entire
operational range. A DMS model for the turbine
was developed and then modified to include a
Figure 1: Three-bladed Experimental Fluid Dynamics vertical axis turbine at the Australian Maritime College.
PHILIP MARSH, 2012
new strut drag correction factor. Two 3D CFD
models, with and without struts, hubs, and
shaft, were developed. For clarity these 3D
CFD models will be referred to henceforth as
the 3D CFD model with or without appendages,
respectively. All simulations were validated
against EFD tests conducted at the Australian
Maritime College (AMC) Circulating Water
Channel (CWC) [Australian Maritime
College, n.d.].
A key parameter of interest in this study was
the power coefficient C
p
given by:
where frontal area S=2rH, r is the turbine
radius, H is the turbine height, is the water
density (set to 1000 for all simulations),
is the rotational speed, V
i
is the inflow velocity,
and Torque is determined by the DMS, CFD,
and EFD methods.
All results were compared across a range of tip
speed ratio , defined as:
LITERATURE REVIEW
Paraschivoiu [2002] conducted numerical studies
of the performance of vertical axis turbines
using a momentum-based DMS mathematical
model, which was an evolution of the single
and multiple streamtube models of Templin
[1974] and Strickland [1975]. This method
has proven to be very expeditious and has
demonstrated a high level of simulation accuracy
[Paraschivoiu, 2002]. However, it is dependent
on the inclusion of correction factors for 3D
effects such as strut drag and finite blade span
effects, as well as the accuracy of the lift and
drag tables used. In particular, DMS models
without strut correction factors overpredict
turbine power for high , as the resistive
torque caused by strut drag is not simulated.
Dai and Lam [2009] performed 2D CFD
simulations using the Shear Stress Transport
(SST) turbulence model to investigate the
performance of a three-bladed tidal turbine of
0.9 m diameter and found good agreement for
C
p
prediction at a single when compared
with EFD data from the Ifremer Wave-Current
Circulation Tank in Boulogne, France. They
also performed DMS simulations and again
found good agreement at the given , but did
not perform simulations for the entire range.
Lain [2010] also performed 2D CFD simulations
using similar modelling techniques to Dai and
Lam for the same turbine geometry and found
similar results; however, again these
simulations were limited to one .
Nabavi [2008] used 2D CFD methods to simulate
turbine C
p
, finding reasonable agreement against
EFD tests performed by Rawlings [2008] on a
three-bladed turbine with a diameter of 0.9144 m.
However, Nabavi corrected the 2D CFD results
for 3D effects by subtracting the arm drag C
p

obtained by EFD testing. Although this
provided good agreement with EFD results, this
correction method is not possible without EFD
results, negating the use of CFD alone to
simulate C
p
.
Malipeddi and Chatterjee [2012] used 2D
CFD methods to determine C
p
for a straight-
bladed turbine using the SST turbulence
model, and compared C
p
simulation results
(1)
(2)
against EFD tests published by Kiho et al.
[1996] for a 1.6 m diameter three-bladed
turbine. Results at low and high ranges
were reasonable, but poor predictions of
peak C
p
around middle were noted, with
C
p
prediction errors of more than 50%.
Castelli et al. [2010] compared 2D CFD
simulations of a 1.03 m diameter vertical axis
turbine with EFD wind tunnel data, and found
reasonable agreement using the SST and k-
turbulence models. These 2D simulations
however predicted a maximum C
p
of 0.59
compared to an EFD C
p
of 0.29, as the 2D CFD
model was unable to account for any strut or
tip loss effects. Castelli et al. compared 2D and
3D CFD simulation results at one and found
that the 3D model reduced C
p
predictions by
approximately 55%, but did not determine 3D
C
p
for more than one .
McLaren [2011] predicted C
p
at low using
a 2D CFD simulation model of a three-bladed
2.8 m turbine with the SST turbulence model.
Using this model C
p
was overpredicted by
57% when compared with EFD testing
conducted at the University of Waterloo
Fire Research Facility in Ontario, Canada, as
no strut drag or tip loss effects were simulated.
To improve simulation accuracy DMS models
with strut correction factors and 3D CFD
models with the full turbine geometry
including all appendages were developed by
the authors to improve C
p
predictions.
DOUBLE-MULTIPLE STREAMTUBE
(DMS) MODEL
Calculations of turbine torque and power
were performed using a DMS model based
on the simulation methods outlined by
Paraschivoiu [2002]. This DMS simulation
code incorporated correction factors for
finite blade span and tip loss effects, but
no dynamic stall modelling was performed
for simplicity. The model simulated the
performance of a vertical axis turbine as a
double actuator disk to take into account
the reduction in flow velocity as the flow
travels downstream through the turbine
blades. This actuator disk model and the
associated geometrical notations used are
shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Rotor geometry for a vertical axis turbine with two actuator disks.
PARASCHIVOIU, 2002
Interference factors were calculated to simulate
the reduction in flow velocity across the two
actuator disks as shown in Figure 2. Using the
interference factor u, the upstream velocity V
i

was reduced as it passed through the actuator
disk, and the local velocity V was given by:
(3)
The equilibrium velocity V
e
was determined as:
(4)
The downstream induced velocity V ' was
determined using V
e
as:
(5)
where u' is the second interference factor for
the downstream actuator disk.
The downstream velocity V'' was found as:
(6)
For the upstream and downstream turbine
sections, the local relative velocity W and the
angle of attack were determined
geometrically using:
(7)
and
where is the azimuth angle shown in Figure 2.
The upwind function f
up
was determined as:
where N is the number of blades, c is the blade
chord, and C
N
and C
T
, the normal and tangential
force coefficients, were respectively defined as:

and
Values of C
L
and C
D
were determined using lift
and drag tables at the local blade Reynolds
number R
e
where:
with being the kinematic viscosity of water.
The DMS model splits the turbine into
streamtubes for each azimuth angle , which are
further divided into upstream and downstream
sections. Solutions for the upstream sections
were calculated first for each azimuth section
by iteration, using the method outlined in
Figure 3. Once the upstream solutions were
obtained, the iteration process was repeated for
each downstream azimuth section, using V
e

determined from Equation 4 and u found from
the upstream solution as input for the downstream
iteration process. During this iteration process
updated values of u were found using:
(8)
(9)
(12)
(13)
(10)
(11)
where f
up
is calculated using Equation 9.
Once completed the upstream turbine blade
torque T
up
was determined over the span H of
the blades where:
(14)
From Equation 14 the average upstream half
cycle torque T
up
was calculated as:
The upstream half-cycle torque coefficient C
Q
1

and upstream power coefficient C
p
1

were
calculated as:
and
This method was repeated for the downwind
section to find the downstream C
p
2
, and thus
the total turbine power coefficient C
p
was
calculated as:
The DMS model was corrected for finite blade
span effects by assuming an elliptical lift
distribution over the blades, where the finite
blade span lift coefficient, C
L
f
, and drag
coefficient, C
D
f
, were determined using:
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
PHILIP MARSH, 2013
Figure 3: Flowchart of Double-Multiple Streamtube iteration process.
and
where:
and
where t is the thickness of the blade, and AR is
the aspect ratio, where:
With downwash, the effective angle of attack
b
becomes:
where:
The effects of tip losses were modelled by
cutting the vertical height of the turbine into
sections and using a modified version of the
method developed by Prandtl as outlined in
Paraschivoiu [2002], where a factor F was
calculated for the momentum transfer reduction
for each vertical section. For the upstream
section F was given by:
where:
with z being the distance of the section from
the middle of the rotor and s is:
Using the upstream factor F Equations 7 and 8
became:
and
This process was repeated for the downstream
section using the downstream section factor F'
where:
where s' is:
Lift and Drag Data
Lift and drag data for the NACA63
4
221
turbine blade section was not available at the
operational Reynolds numbers of the EFD
turbine, and thus NACA0025 data obtained
from Sheldahl and Klimas [1981] were used to
approximate lift and drag coefficients. The
effect of this substitution on simulation
accuracy is discussed in the results section.
New Strut Correction Factor
In order to account for strut drag, a new
correction factor is proposed, which gives the
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
drag on the struts C
D
Strut
as a function of the
rotational speed of the turbine as:
where C
D
0
is the drag on the strut section at zero
at the inflow Reynolds number, with drag
values taken from the drag coefficient tables of
Sheldahl and Klimas [1981]. This was combined
with Paraschivoius [2002] strut drag method,
where the resistive average torque T
a
on each
strut was determined by:
where c
a
is the chord of the strut.
Once the total torque of the turbine was found
using the DMS model, the average resistive
torque for all struts was subtracted, thus
correcting the DMS model results for strut drag.
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
(CFD)
To simulate and quantify turbine performance,
transient 3D CFD models were developed
using the commercial CFD package ANSYS
CFX [2010a]. All simulations were performed
using URANS methods with an element-based
finite volume approach. Turbine torque was
calculated using the inbuilt CFX CEL function
for torque, which integrates the pressure and
shear force distributions over the turbine surfaces.
Computational Domain
All 3D CFD meshes were generated using the
ANSYS CFX 13.0 mesher [ANSYS, 2010b].
Tetrahedral mesh elements were used to ensure
rapid meshing while accurately capturing all
hydrodynamic flow properties. Mesh refinement
was performed using either inflation layers or
by refining mesh density for regions around
the blades, hubs, struts, and shaft as well as for
the fluid domain encompassing the turbine
wake. Inflation layers were used to accurately
resolve the laminar sub-layer and buffer layer
to capture the flow properties. The first cell
height for all wall surfaces was chosen to
ensure a y+ < 1, as wall functions were not
used by the turbulence model. Figure 4 shows
an example of the inflation layers used on the
turbine blade surfaces.
Turbine rotation was simulated using a General
Grid Interface (GGI), which placed an
interface between the rotating inner domain
and the stationary outer domain, over which
flow properties are calculated using an
intersection algorithm between the meshes on
either side of the interface. The inside domain
was rotated at the desired corresponding to
EFD results. The GGI interface was set at 1.5 D
(diameter) from the axis of turbine rotation to
minimize any GGI algorithm errors in the
(33)
(34)
Figure 4: Example of mesh inflation layers used on the turbine
blade surfaces.
PHILIP MARSH, 2013
blade regions. To reduce mesh size, the turbine
and its surrounding elements were split along
the horizontal centreline plane, with the CFD
domain limited to the top half. Due to the
resulting symmetry, it is possible to simulate
the full domain by defining the bottom surface
as a plane of symmetry, as shown in Figure 5.
This is possible as no free surface effects were
modelled, and was acceptable for validation
purposes as the turbine was tested in the CWC
at an appropriate vertical depth to minimize
any free surface effects. The resulting CFD
mesh is shown in Figure 6, which also shows
domain sizes as determined by mesh
independence studies.
Boundary conditions are outlined in Table 1
for the domain shown in Figure 5, which were
set to simulate freestream operating conditions
as the EFD testing configuration exhibited a
low blockage ratio of less than 3.7%.
Turbulence Model and Discretization Methods
The SST turbulence model was used for all
CFD simulations as it has proven to be accurate
for the simulation of flows with high levels of
separation, adverse pressure gradients, and
stalled flow conditions [Lain, 2010], all
encountered during the normal operation of
vertical axis turbines due to the changes in
blade angles of attack over each revolution
[Paraschivoiu, 2002]. Turbulence intensity was
set to 5% in line with the flow in the AMC
CWC. Convergence for each time step was
deemed to be achieved when residuals converged
to within 10
-4
for each time step. All simulations
were run for at least five revolutions to ensure
periodic convergence, with most runs started
from previous simulations to reduce transient
start-up time, and thus overall simulation time.
For advection a high order scheme was used,
with the transient terms modelled using a
second order backwards Euler scheme. A time
step that equated to 3.6 of rotation per time
step was used for all CFD simulations, as
determined by temporal independence studies.
CFD Assumptions
To simplify the CFD models the following
assumptions were made:
Table 1: Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) boundary conditions for
all CFD models as shown in Figure 5.
PHILIP MARSH, 2013
Figure 5: Domain boundary condition nomenclature.
Figure 6: Mesh domain for 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics model
with appendages. All domain sizes in turbine diameters (D).
PHILIP MARSH, 2013
Flow was incompressible due to low Mach
number (less than 0.3).
Inlet flow was uniform.
The boundary effects were neglected as the
test rig was located at sufficient distances
away from the tank boundaries.
No free surface effects were included due
to the EFD testing depth, allowing the use
of symmetry to reduce domain size.
Mesh and Domain Independence
Mesh independence was evaluated for the 3D
CFD meshes with and without appendages to
ensure that the C
p
obtained was independent of
any meshing factors. Mesh independence was
determined when C
p
variations were less than
6%, as this resulted in a suitable balance between
overall simulation time and accuracy. All mesh
independence tests were conducted by evaluating
the change in C
p
for any geometrical or mesh
factor changes, which included changes in
domain length, width, height, time step, and
numerical discretization method. The ability to
use symmetry to reduce mesh size was also
verified, with minimal change in C
p
found
between the CFD mesh domain that used
symmetry and one that modelled the full domain.
Boundary layer refinements were performed,
by changing both the number of inflation layers
as well as the height of the boundary layer
regions, to ensure that boundary layers were
simulated accurately and to fully resolve
hydrodynamic flow near the wall surfaces.
Mesh independence was demonstrated at 3
million elements for the 3D model without
appendages as shown in Figure 7. Similarly for
the 3D mesh with appendages mesh independence
was achieved at 9.5 million elements.
Time studies were also performed to ensure
temporal independence. As an implicit solver
was used, there were no strict Courant number
restrictions due to the high levels of solution
stability. Temporal independence was
demonstrated at a time step corresponding to
3.6 of rotation per time step as shown in
Table 2 for the 3D CFD model without
appendages. Similar results were found for
the 3D model with appendages.
Table 2: Temporal independence for the 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics mesh without appendages at of 2.5 at a mesh size of 3 million
elements. Percentage change normalized by the 3.6 case.
Figure 7: Mesh size independence for the 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics
mesh without appendages at of 2.5 at 3.6 of rotation per time step.
PHILIP MARSH, 2013
EXPERIMENTAL FLUID DYNAMICS (EFD)
In 2012, a straight three-bladed vertical axis
turbine was tested in the AMC CWC, an 11 m
by 5 m by 2.5 m tank capable of maximum flow
speeds of 1.5 m/s [Australian Maritime College,
n.d.]. Measurements of torque and rotation speed
were made at an inflow velocity of 1 m/s, using
a combined torque and rotation speed sensor
mounted to the turbine shaft. To control turbine
speed a variable speed motor drive unit was
utilized, enabling testing at different from 1
to 3.5. Turbine dimensions are outlined in
Table 3, and the EFD test rig is shown in
Figure 8. Only preliminary EFD results are
presented in this paper and are used to validate
both the DMS and CFD numerical models.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results for C
p
predictions by the DMS and
CFD simulations against EFD testing results
are shown in Figure 9 at an inflow velocity of
1 m/s.
Although at low there are good correlations
between all numerical C
p
predictions and the
EFD results, at higher they differ significantly
in accuracy depending on the inclusion of strut
loss modelling. This is due to the strut drag
generating significant resistive torque at the
higher , which in turn reduces the C
p
. All
simulations resulted in C
p
- curves that
followed the expected shape, but were shifted
to higher C
p
and locations depending on the
application of strut correction modelling
techniques.
The DMS model without a strut correction
factor, labelled DMS in Figure 9, failed to
accurately predict turbine C
p
when compared
against the EFD results. At low ranges, C
p

was predicted reasonably accurately, with a
prediction error of less than 10% at = 1.75.
Figure 8: Vertical axis turbine installed in the Australian Maritime College Circulating Water Channel showing the gearbox, torque and rotation
speed sensor, turbine, and support frame.
PHILIP MARSH, 2013
However, there was a significant reduction in
simulation accuracy as increased, due to
hydrodynamic effects caused by the struts,
hubs, and shaft which were not included in the
numerical model. The accuracy at low was
influenced by the incorporation of correction
factors for finite blade span and tip losses, and
the induction factors that account for the
reduced velocity in the downstream turbine
areas. The shape of the C
p
- curve was similar
to the EFD results, but the entire curve was
shifted to higher . Thus, a DMS strut correction
model was proposed by the authors to account
for the additional resistive torque caused by
strut drag to improve C
p
simulation results
for all .
The DMS model with strut drag correction
factors, labelled DMS-S in Figure 9, was able
to predict C
p
performance well when compared
with the CFD results. Across the entire range
good agreement was found between the new
DMS model with strut correction factors
(curve DMS-S) and the 3D CFD results with
appendages (curve CFD-S), with a C
p
prediction
difference of less than 10% at = 2 between the
two models. Prediction accuracy was improved
at high due to the simulation of resistive
torque by the modified DMS model. Both the
maximum value and location of C
p
were
predicted well when compared to the 3D
CFD-S curve. When compared to EFD results
(curve EFD in Figure 9), there was reasonable
agreement at low , with a C
p
prediction error
of less than 25% at =2; however, as increased
the simulation error increased. This may be
due to the significant bearing losses in the EFD
results at higher , as they were not accounted
for in the experimental setup. Above =3 the
DMS model predicts negative C
p
, as the turbine
was no longer generating power. The location
was overpredicted, but when compared to
previous numerical simulations [Castelli et al.,
2010; Malipeddi and Chatterjee, 2012] this
Table 3: Turbine geometry, blade and strut section, and construction materials used for the Experimental Fluid Dynamics turbine.
method results in a more accurate representation
of the overall location and shape of the
C
p
- curve.
Lift and drag coefficient data for the
NACA63
4
221 section were not available at the
low operational Reynolds numbers of the EFD
turbine, and NACA0025 data were used as the
sections exhibit similar lift and drag coefficients
at high Reynolds numbers above 2 million
[Abbott and Von Doenhoff, 1959; Sheldahl and
Klimas, 1981]. The rationale for the substitution
of NACA63
4
221 blade section data with
NACA0025 data is demonstrated in Figure 9
when comparing all CFD and DMS C
p
results.
The DMS model C
p
predictions using the
NACA0025 section show good agreement
with CFD simulations that use the
NACA63
4
221 data. Although there are small
differences in the hydrodynamic lift and drag
coefficients of the two blade sections, these
differences do not significantly reduce the C
p

prediction accuracy of the DMS models. In
addition, at high the effects of strut drag on
turbine C
p
far outweighs the small differences
in lift and drag coefficients between the two
sections. Previous numerical simulations have
failed to account for this additional drag [Dai
and Lam, 2009; Lain, 2010; Malipeddi and
Chatterjee, 2012], which has a much greater
effect on C
p
prediction accuracy than the blade
section substitution used here.
The C
p
- curve for the 3D CFD model without
appendages, labelled CFD in Figure 9,
demonstrated reasonable agreement with the
Figure 9: Comparisons of C
p
for 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics results with appendages (CFD-S), and without appendages (CFD), DMS results
with (DMS-S), and without strut correction factors (DMS), and the EFD results (EFD).
PHILIP MARSH, 2013
EFD results at low , with a C
p
prediction
error of less than 30% at =1.5. However, it
overpredicted C
p
at high as the drag
generated by these additional components was
not accounted for. When compared with EFD
results, the 3D CFD model with appendages
(curve CFD-S) predicted both the C
p
- curve
trend and its maximum value with a higher
degree of accuracy than the CFD model
without appendages (curve CFD) and against
results from previous simulation models for
vertical axis turbines [Castelli et al., 2010;
Malipeddi and Chatterjee, 2012]. This result
reveals the need to model the full turbine
geometry to ensure that strut drag effects on
C
p
are simulated.
The results from the EFD testing, labelled
EFD in Figure 9, revealed low overall C
p

performance across when compared to
turbines of similar sizing tested by Rawlings
[2008]. As increased above 2.5, the EFD
testing C
p
was negative as no power was
produced due to the increase in resistive torque
generated by strut drag overcoming the positive
torque generated by the turbine blades. To
improve C
p
, the struts could be redesigned to
reduce this effect.
As increases, the C
p
predicted by all DMS
and CFD models moves away from the EFD
results, as shown in Figure 9. This may be due
to bearing losses that were not accounted for,
which would significantly reduce C
p
as
increases. Work to estimate bearing losses is
underway in order to correct all EFD C
p
results.
The effect of performing EFD testing in a
CWC has yet to be investigated but may also
effect C
p
measurements.
The 3D CFD model with appendages has
revealed significant w velocities of more than
0.5 m/s as shown in Figure 10, which are
associated with the vortices generated by the
blade tips, struts, hubs, and shaft, shown in
Figure 11. Clearly visible in Figure 11 are vortex
structures emanating from the blade tips, blade-
strut intersection points, struts, hubs, and shaft.
These vortices will reduce turbine performance
due to interference of the flow over the turbine
blades, reducing the total torque generated.
The DMS model developed is suitable for
turbine optimization studies not only of blade
section but also strut section. Turbine C
p
was
found to be greatly dependent on strut section
effects, and thus any optimization studies should
Figure 10 (left): Flow velocity w (m/s) for the 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics model with appendages at of 2.
Figure 11 (right): Vortex visualization of 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics model with appendages. Helicity of 6 m/s
2
at of 2.
PHILIP MARSH, 2013 PHILIP MARSH, 2013
account for the resistive torque generated by the
strut drag. Due to its accuracy and solution speed
when compared to CFD methods, the DMS
model could also be used to perform time-
efficient Fluid Structure Interaction studies of
vertical axis turbines to investigate their loading
characteristics. Validation of the new DMS model
strut correction factor using different turbine
geometries and inflow velocities is underway to
ensure its global applicability.
CONCLUSIONS
This study has demonstrated that turbine struts
must be modelled to accurately predict C
p
and
the shape of the C
p
- curve. This can be
performed either by using DMS models with
strut correction factors or by using full 3D
CFD models. The use of 2D CFD methods or
DMS models without strut correction factors
will result in C
p
overpredictions as increases,
since the resistive torque generated by strut
drag is not simulated.
The DMS model with the new strut correction
factor has accurately simulated vertical axis
turbine C
p
, improving simulation accuracy
when compared to those without strut correction
factors. This DMS model offers an alternative
method to CFD for the simulation of vertical
axis turbines, with the benefits of reduced
simulation time and computational requirements.
However, CFD enables numerical investigations
to be extended to include flow visualization
that enhances the understanding of vertical
axis turbine hydrodynamics.
The performance of an EFD vertical axis turbine
has been accurately simulated using 3D CFD
models with all appendages included. This work
has demonstrated that transient 3D CFD
simulations are now feasible without the use
of excessive computational resources or
unreasonable solution times. When using CFD
modelling, it is essential to use a 3D model in
order to capture the strut and 3D effects to ensure
sufficient accuracy, especially at higher .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Christopher Hawtone,
Matthew Skledar, Rowan Frost and Alan
Faulkner for conducting and providing the
EFD results.
REFERENCES
Abbott, I.H. and Von Doenhoff, A.E. [1959].
Theory of wing sections: including a
summary of airfoil data. New York:
Dover Publications.
ANSYS [2010a]. ANSYS CFX-solver theory
guide: release 13.0. Canonsburg: ANSYS Inc.
ANSYS [2010b]. ANSYS meshing users guide:
release 13.0. Canonsburg: ANSYS Inc.
Australian Maritime College [n.d.]. Circulating
Water Channel. Retrieved from https://
www.amc.edu.au/maritime-engineering-
and- hydrodynamics/circulating-water-
channel.
Castelli, M.R., Ardizzon, G., Battisti, L.,
Benini, E., and Pavesi, G. [2010]. Modeling
strategy and numerical validation for a
Darrieus vertical axis micro-wind turbine.
Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Expositions. Vancouver: AMSE.
Dai, Y. and Lam, W. [2009]. Numerical study
of straight-bladed Darrieus-type tidal
turbine. ICE-Energy, Vol. 162, pp. 67-76.
Ferreira, C.S., Kuik, G.N., Busel, G., and
Scarano, F. [2009]. Visualisation by PIV of
dynamic stall on a vertical axis wind
turbine. Journal of Experimental Fluids,
Vol. 46, pp. 97-108.
Kiho, S., Shiono, M., and Suzuki, K. [1996].
The power generation from tidal currents
by Darrieus turbines. Proceedings of the
World Renewable Energy Congress, Vol. 2,
pp. 1242-1255.
Lain, S. [2010]. Simulation and evaluation of a
straight-bladed Darrieus-type cross flow
marine turbine. Journal of Scientific and
Industrial Research, Vol. 69, pp. 906-912.
Malipeddi, A.R. and Chatterjee, D. [2012].
Influence of duct geometry on the
performance of Darrieus hydroturbine.
Journal of Renewable Energy, Vol. 43,
pp. 292-300.
McLaren, K. [2011]. A numerical and
experimental study of unsteady loading of
high solidity vertical axis wind turbines
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/
opendissertations/6091.
Nabavi, Y. [2008]. Numerical study of the duct
shape effect on the performance of a ducted
vertical axis tidal turbine (Masters thesis).
Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/
handle/2429/14704.
Paraschivoiu, I. [2002]. Wind turbine design:
with emphasis on Darrieus concept.
Quebec: Polytechnic International Press.
Rawlings, G. [2008]. Parametric
characterization of an experimental vertical
axis hydro turbine (Masters thesis).
Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/
handle/2429/14706.
Scheurich, F., Fletcher, T.M., and Brown, R.
[2010]. Simulating the aerodynamic
performance and wake dynamics of a
vertical-axis wind turbine. Journal of Wind
Energy, Vol. 14, pp. 159-177.
Sheldahl, R. and Klimas, P. [1981].
Aerodynamic characteristics of seen
symmetrical airfoil sections through
180-degree angle of attack for use in
aerodynamic analysis of vertical axis wind
turbines (SAND80-2114). Albuquerque:
Sandia National Laboratories.
Strickland, J.H. [1975]. The Darrieus turbine:
a performance prediction model using
multiple streamtubes (SAND 75-0430).
Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories.
Templin, R.J. [1974]. Aerodynamic performance
theory for the NRC vertical-axis wind
turbine (LTR-LA-160). Ottawa: National
Research Council of Canada.

V8N1 Papers Marsh Et Al

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

V8N1 Papers Marsh Et Al

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2013

Who should read this paper?

= freestream drag coefficient

= freestream lift coefficient

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi