Accepted Manuscript

Design and Performance of Composite Runner Blades for Ultra Low Head
Turbines

Huidong Li, Daqing Zhou, Jayson J. Martinez, Zhiqun Daniel Deng, Kenneth I.
Johnson, Matthew P. Westman

PII: S0960-1481(18)31060-7

DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.110

Reference: RENE 10537

To appear in: Renewable Energy

Received Date: 09 January 2018

Accepted Date: 31 August 2018

Please cite this article as: Huidong Li, Daqing Zhou, Jayson J. Martinez, Zhiqun Daniel Deng,
Kenneth I. Johnson, Matthew P. Westman, Design and Performance of Composite Runner Blades
for Ultra Low Head Turbines, Renewable Energy (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.110

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Design and Performance of Composite Runner Blades for Ultra Low

2 Head Turbines

5 Huidong Lia), Daqing Zhou a,b), Jayson J. Martinez a), Zhiqun Daniel Deng a),c)*,

6 Kenneth I. Johnson a) and Matthew P. Westman a)

8 a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, P.O. Box 999, Richland, Washington 99352 USA
9 b) Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, P.R. China
10 c) Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Tech, 311 Durham Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061
11 *Corresponding author: Zhiqun.deng@pnnl.gov
12

13 Abstract
14 Stream sites are abundantly available for small, ultra low head, hydropower applications with minimal
15 environmental and ecological impacts compared to large-scale hydropower projects. However, little
16 attention has been paid to these resources because of the relatively high weight and deployment costs of
17 small turbines compared to the amount of power generated, which results from the use of stainless steel
18 (SS) as the turbine material. Therefore, this study investigated the potential of replacing the machined SS
19 blades in a small propeller-type turbine with light-weight composite blades compression molded from a
20 fiber reinforced polymer. Using computational fluid dynamics models and finite element analysis, a carbon
21 fiber-reinforced thermoplastic was selected from three candidate composite materials for its lower density
22 and smaller blade tip displacement. Injection molded blades using this material were then manufactured
23 and tested in a lab-scale turbine performance test loop to compare with the SS blades of the same design.
24 With the same flow rates, the composite turbine blades generated more power but required a slightly higher
25 head (~0.08 m) than the SS blades. Both the composite and SS blades displayed similar peak turbine
26 efficiencies, demonstrating the viability of the composite material in replacing SS from the perspective of
27 power-generation performance.

28 Keywords: Hydropower, Ultra low head turbine, Renewable energy, Composite, Hydroelectric turbine.

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

29

30 1. Introduction
31 Hydropower is one of the main renewable energy sources supporting human activities to date. Compared
32 to other forms of renewable energy, such as solar and wind, the capacity of hydropower is much more
33 developed. In 2015, global hydroelectricity generation was 3837 TWh, accounting for almost 17% of the
34 total electricity consumption, and was estimated to increase to 4102 TWh in 2016.[1, 2] This is largely due
35 to the abundance of hydropower resources and the economic benefits associated with large hydropower
36 projects, such as electricity generation, irrigation, and flood control.[3] However, large-scale hydropower
37 facilities inevitably have some economic, social, and environmental disadvantages, such as high
38 deployment cost, long-term planning needs, limitations on navigation, and potential blocking of fish
39 migration passages.[4-6] On the other hand, small, mini, and micro hydropower sites (categorized based on
40 their potential power output) are abundantly available worldwide. Because of the relatively small scale of
41 the latter sites, the hydropower facilities for these sites are typically small “run of river” structures. They
42 do not use reservoirs to store water and therefore do not alter the river’s natural water flow. As a result,
43 compared to large dams, these small-scale hydropower facilities potentially pose much smaller
44 environmental and ecological impacts and require shorter time to deploy.

45 To date, most published literature about small hydro technologies covers technologies with hydraulic heads
46 between 2 m and 30 m. Hydropower resources with hydraulic heads lower than 3 m are considered ultra
47 low head (ULH) sites. ULH hydropower resources are widely available around the world. In addition to the
48 environmental benefit mentioned above, they typically have the advantage of low power transmission loss
49 because the consumers of ULH hydropower are usually close to the deployment sites.[7] Therefore, they
50 have a great potential to significantly contribute to power generation for the world with minimal
51 environmental impacts. However, to date, few reports about ULH applications are available.[8] Most of the
52 turbine systems reported in those literature used traditional metal materials (e.g. stainless steel and
53 aluminum) as the turbine material, which would incur relatively high civil engineering and deployment
54 costs of these hydro plants compared to the amount of electric energy that they can generate. One of the
55 primary reasons for the high generation cost for these applications is the low power-to-weight ratio of the
56 turbine runner. Because the power generated by the turbine is proportional to the product of the head and
57 flow, sites that have ultra-low heads require higher volumetric flow rates to achieve the same power
58 generated as sites that have higher heads. Thus, ULH sites require a larger runner diameter for the same
59 power output. Although the flow rate (and consequently the generated power) is proportional to the square
60 of the runner diameter, the turbine weight is proportional to the cube of the runner diameter, which reduces
61 the power-to-weight ratio.[9] This indicates that, when designing a turbine runner for ULH applications,

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

62 the volume and weight of the runner would increase more rapidly if one is to increase the runner diameter
63 to improve the power gain. In addition, the cost of a turbine system is related to both the volume of the
64 material used and the transported weight. A large turbine weight can significantly increase the
65 transportation and installation costs of the project because of the amount of labor and the size of the
66 equipment required. Thus, it is important to reduce the weight (and hence the deployment cost) of the
67 turbine to make ULH applications more economically viable. In an effort to resolve this issue and fill the
68 knowledge void in the literature, this paper presents both theoretically analysis and experimental
69 performance of a scaled-down turbine model to demonstrate the potential to replace heavy machined,
70 stainless steel turbine blades with light-weight, high-strength composite blades manufactured by
71 compression molding.

72 Composites have been the primary material used for large wind turbine blades because of their high specific
73 strength, stiffness, and reasonable cost.[10] However, they have not yet made significant inroads into
74 hydroelectric turbines due to the lack of research in this area. Currently, the most common hydro turbine
75 blade material is SS, which has a density in the range of 7500–8000 kg/m3. In comparison, composite
76 materials generally have densities between 1500 kg/m3 for carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRP) and
77 2500 kg/m3 for glass fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRP). Therefore, replacing SS with composite materials
78 could reduce the weight of turbine components by up to 80%. Substituting composites in multiple turbine
79 components, especially the turbine housing, blades, and hub, could significantly reduce the weight and
80 deployment costs at remote or rural ULH sites. Because of the significantly reduced weight, composite
81 turbine blades would also enable them to spin up and generate electricity at lower water flow speeds.
82 Furthermore, compared to SS, composite materials can offer better resistance to corrosion, which is
83 particularly important in hydroelectric turbines. From the material cost standpoint, the price of carbon fiber
84 (the key cost component of CFRP) has gradually reduced over the past several years and is currently about
85 ten times the cost of SS.[11, 12] Considering the weight saving from low densities of composites and the
86 fill ratio of carbon fiber in CFRP, the total material costs of hydro turbines using these two types of materials
87 are becoming more and more similar. Based on these merits, the application of composite materials has
88 recently been explored in hydrokinetic tidal turbines [13, 14] However, only a very small number of reports
89 about the development or use of composite materials in hydroelectric turbines have been published to date,
90 and those were limited to either theoretical studies or a very specific application.[15, 16] Reports about the
91 application of composite turbines in small hydro systems, how composite mechanical properties affect the
92 turbine performance and durability, and how the turbine performance compares to that of SS turbines have
93 generally been lacking. In the study reported here, composite blades for a propeller-style turbine were
94 designed, fabricated, and its electricity-conversion performance in a turbine performance flow loop was

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

95 measured for comparison with their SS counterparts. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and finite
96 element stress analyses were also conducted to evaluate the performance of several different composite
97 materials.

98 2. Methods
99 2.1 Design and fabrication of the composite turbine blade
100 Runner blade: The hydraulic turbine used in this study was a Kaplan-type turbine designed for ULH sites
101 at which the head is less than 1 m. The runner blade of the turbine had a slim shape to match the most
102 probable operating conditions at ULH sites (i.e., low rotation speeds and large discharge). The diameter of
103 the runner was 0.25 m and the hub-to-tip diameter ratio was 0.218. Both SS and composite blades were
104 fabricated to compare the performance. However, for the composite blades, because of the lower elastic
105 modulus of the material, the thickness of the blade near its base was increased (Figure 1a) to reduce the
106 bending stress and tip deflection during operation. The physical blade model used in this study was made
107 from carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic (RTP-1389). The average weight of the composite blade was
108 15.3 g, compared to 74.0 g for each SS blade.

109 Turbine housing: The turbine had an S-shaped housing (Figure 1b) such that the turbine shaft could exit
110 out of the housing to couple with an external generator for energy conversion. The runner blades were
111 bolted to the SS hub, which was coupled to the main shaft. A rear bulb body that housed bearings was
112 positioned directly behind the hub, which also prevented turbulence and low pressure zones from forming
113 behind the runner. The bulb body was supported inside the housing by two pillars with ellipsoidal cross
114 sections, which also helped guide the water flow. The maximum diameter of the bulb body was 0.591 times
115 the diameter of the runner.

Figure 1. Designs of the composite blade and the turbine housing for this study: (a) CAD representations
of the composite blade and the stainless steel blade; (b) CAD representation of the turbine housing; and
(c) photo of the turbine housing with an inset showing the composite blades installed on the turbine.

116

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

117 2.2 Pressure distribution and stress analyses

118 The flow performance of the blades was analyzed using a CFD model in the Fluent® software (version
119 6.3.26). The continuity equation and the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations for an incompressible
120 flow were used:

ui
121 0 (1)
xi

 p  2ui
122 u j (ui )   Fi   (2)
x j xi x j x j

123 where 𝑢𝑖 is the instantaneous flow velocity along the i direction, 𝑥𝑖 and 𝑥𝑗 the orthogonal coordinates, 𝜌 the

124 density of the fluid, 𝑝 the pressure field of the fluid, 𝐹𝑖 the external force, and µ the turbulent viscosity.

125 The Spalart-Allmaras model [17] was used as the turbulence model because of its high convergence rate
126 and lower requirement for the mesh quality. The finite volume method was used to discretize the governing
127 equations. A second-order central difference method was used for the pressure term. The second-order
128 upwind scheme was applied for the turbulent viscosity term and the momentum term. For pressure-velocity
129 coupling, the Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure-Linked Equations-Consistent method [18] was adopted.
130 Pressure boundary conditions were applied to the entrance and exit of the turbine. The flow through the gap
131 between the turbine housing and the runner blades was neglected. The rotation of the runner was set by
132 using the general grid interface method in the rotating coordinate system. The no-slip condition was applied
133 to the other solid wall boundaries and the standard wall function was used for the regions near the wall. The
134 model used an unstructured tetrahedral mesh with 2.1 million cells. The average Y+ value was 50.

135 The pressure field obtained from the CFD analysis was then mapped onto an ANSYS® (version 15) finite
136 element model of the blade to calculate the stresses and deflections of the SS and composite blades.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

137 2.3 Experimental setup of the scaled-down performance test loop

138 To assess the performance of the composite turbine, a closed-loop test rig (Figure 2) was assembled using
139 0.254 m Schedule 80 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes that had an inner diameter of 243 mm. The test rig
140 was approximately 2 m wide and 10 m long. It consisted of a centrifugal pump, PVC pipes, the turbine
141 setup, a permanent magnet generator (GL-PMG-1500, Ginlong Technologies, Ningbo, China), a surge tank,
142 and various measurement equipment, including a flow meter (FMG905, Omega Engineering, CT, USA), a
143 differential pressure sensor (Model 645-1, Dwyer Instruments, IN, USA), a tachometer, and a torque meter
144 (TQ513, Omega Engineering, CT, USA). The half of the loop containing the turbine and the measuring
145 equipment was installed inside a water flume (Figure 2b) that already had some existing piping in place and
146 provided mechanical support for the loop. Two 7.62 cm thick honeycomb-style flow straighteners (PC2
147 polycarbonate honeycomb, Plascore, Michigan, USA) were placed within the loop upstream of the flow
148 meter. A section of the loop upstream of the flow meter was made using a polycarbonate pipe for visual
149 observation of the flow. A vertical tube with a ball valve was installed at this section for removal of the
150 entrained air bubbles in the loop prior to the tests.

Figure 2. The performance test loop for testing the composite Kaplan turbine blades: (a) the CAD representation of
the test loop, and (b) a photo of the test loop.

151

152 The generator was supported and stabilized by a custom aluminum frame. The surge tank was 1.83 × 0.91
153 × 1.52 m3 in size and was used to prevent any potential pressure surge that might damage the test loop. The
154 pressure sensor measured the water pressure differential between the locations immediately before and after
155 the turbine (as specified in ISO/IEC 17025:2005) to obtain the value of the water head. The tachometer was
156 used to measure the turbine’s rotational speed. The torque meter was coupled between the main shaft of the
157 turbine and the shaft of the generator to provide readings of the instantaneous torque generated by the
158 turbine.

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

159 The voltage output of the generator was inverted and then connected to a load bank (Model 627, Sotcher
160 Measurement Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), which provided a variable load to balance the power generated by
161 the turbine. The readings from the sensors and measurement equipment were monitored in real time by a
162 graphic user interface written in LabView (National Instruments, Austin, TX, USA).

163

164 2.4 Testing method of turbine performance

165 The performance of both the composite turbine blade and the SS turbine blade was evaluated in the test rig
166 for comparison. Prior to testing the turbine model, the pump was turned on to create a flow with the ball
167 valve opened, until no air bubbles were observed passing through the transparent section of the loop. The
168 alignment between the main shaft and the generator’s shaft was checked by a laser alignment tool (Model
169 830, Fluke Corp., Everett, WA, USA). The centrifugal pump was first turned on at zero rotational speed.
170 The flow rate was then slowly increased by gradually increasing the pump frequency. During the test, as
171 the flow rate was increased, the rotational speed of the turbine was held at 630 revolutions per minute (rpm)
172 by adjusting the resistive load of the load bank. The 630 rpm speed was the optimal rotational speed
173 determined by the design operation head of the turbine and our previous work with a similar turbine of
174 larger diameter.[19, 20]

175 The internal mechanical friction loss (𝜏𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠) of the turbine was determined using the following equation:

176 𝜏𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 𝜏0 ‒ 𝜏𝐺0 (3)

177 where 𝜏𝐺0 is the reading from the torque meter when the turbine is spinning at 630 rpm with no load applied,

178 and 𝜏0 is the theoretical torque calculated from the readings of the flow meter and the pressure sensor at the

179 same conditions:

𝜌𝑔𝑄0𝐻0 ∗ 0.5 ∗ 30
180 𝜏0 = 𝑛∗𝜋 (4)

181 where 𝜌 is the density of water, 𝑔 is the standard gravity, 𝑄0 is the flow rate, 𝐻0 is the head calculated from

182 the reading of the differential pressure sensor, and 𝑛 is the rotational speed of the runner in rpm while there
183 is no load applied to the generator. The factor of 0.5 is the turbine efficiency obtained from the CFD
184 simulation using the measured values of the head and flow rate when the rotational speed of the turbine was
185 tuned to 630 rpm and no load was applied to the turbine.

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

186 To measure the efficiency of the turbine at different flow rates, the frequency of the pump was increased to
187 increase the flow in the test loop, and the resistive load (load bank) on the generator was manually increased
188 so the rotational speed of the turbine was maintained at 630 rpm. Because the torque meter was installed
189 outside the turbine housing, thus measuring the torque after the torque loss at the turbine, the actual torque
190 at the turbine is calculated by adding 𝜏𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 to the reading from the torque meter (𝜏𝐺):

191 𝜏 = 𝜏𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 + 𝜏𝐺 (5)

192 The output power (𝑃) of the turbine is calculated by:

𝑛𝜋
193 𝑃 = 𝜏 ∗ 30 (6)

194 and the efficiency (𝜂) is given by:

𝑃
195 𝜂 = 𝜌𝑔𝑄H (7)

196 where 𝑄 and 𝐻 are the flow rate and head values obtained from the sensors.

197 During the measurements, the flow rate was gradually increased to each of the set values. The readings
198 from the sensors were recorded after the turbine had been running at each flow rate for at least one minute
199 and there was no significant fluctuation (reflected by the sensor readings) of the pressure and flow observed
200 in the loop. When the flow rate reached approximately 0.12–0.13 m3/s, large fluctuations in the pressure
201 (and hence the sensor readings) started to appear and became more pronounced as the flow increases further.
202 Therefore, the tested flow rates were limited to below 0.13 m3/s for both safety and measurement accuracy
203 considerations.

204 The performance of the turbine model with the SS blades was measured first. The blades were installed at
205 the optimal blade angle (13.3 degrees between the blade surface and the plane normal to the axial direction
206 of the turbine) determined by CFD simulation. To compensate for the slightly larger blade deflection than
207 that of the SS blade (as discussed in the CFD and Finite Element Analysis section), the composite blades
208 were then installed with a slightly smaller blade angle (9.4 degrees) to reduce the discharge so the operating
209 conditions of the two different types of blades could be as close as possible.

210 3. Results and discussion

211 3.1 CFD and Finite Elemental Analysis (FEA) results
212 Three different composite material candidates were considered in this study: epoxy resin with chopped
213 carbon fibers (HexMC, “Composite 1”), thermoplastic with short carbon fibers (RTP-1389, “Composite

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

214 2”), and polyester with short glass fibers (BMC-300, “Composite 3”). Table 1 compares the material
215 properties of 316 SS and the three composite material candidates considered for this study.

Compressive/
Commercial
Fiber Volume Elastic Density, Tensile
Material Product
Fraction (%) Modulus, (MPa) (g/cm3) Strength
Name
Limit (MPa)
Stainless steel 316 SS ----------------- 210,000 7.85 Yield = 290

“Composite 1”: Epoxy + HexMC 55 40,000 1.55 -290 / 300

chopped carbon fibers (carbon fiber
filled)
“Composite 2”: RTP-1389 50 44,800 1.51 -145 / 145
Thermoplastic + short (carbon fiber
carbon fibers filled)
“Composite 3”: BMC-300 50 12,500 1.9 -124 / 70
Polyester + short glass (glass fiber
fibers filled)
216 Table 1. Elastic properties of the blade materials evaluated in this study.

217 The elastic moduli of the composite materials are only a fraction of that of the SS and their
218 compressive/tensile strength limits are also similar to or lower than that of the SS. Because of the much
219 lower elastic moduli, if the composite version of the runner blade takes the same shape as that of the SS
220 blade, the composite blade will bend more (i.e., larger tip deflection) under the same flow conditions. A
221 larger tip deflection reduces the turbine efficiency. In addition, the mechanical stress is highest at the blade
222 root. Compared to a SS blade of the identical design, the composite blade would be more prone to breaking.
223 Therefore, the root geometry of the composite blade was modified (Figure 1a) to increase the blade
224 thickness at the base for reduced bending stress and tip deflection of the blade. CFD simulations of the
225 original and modified blade geometries were conducted to analyze the flow and the pressure distribution
226 profile on the blade surfaces (Figures 3 and 4). The results are summarized in Table 2. Compared to the
227 original blade design, the root-stiffened design had higher turbine efficiency but the blade efficiency was
228 slightly lower. Overall, both designs had fairly similar theoretical performances with 1% or less differences
229 in efficiencies, thereby validating the use of the root-stiffened composite blade design.

Rotating Blade Turbine

Flowrate Speed Efficiency Efficiency Output
Blade Design (m3/s) (r/min) (%) (%) （W）

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The original
0.133 630.3 77.55 67.85 517.5
blade
Root-stiffened
0.133 630.3 76.95 68.89 526.1
blade
230 Table 2. CFD results for the original and the root-stiffened blade designs.

231

Tip
Deflection Axial Stress Range
Blade Material (mm) (MPa)
Original Blade Design
316 SS 1.0 -174 to 123
HexMC Carbon Fiber Filled (Composite 1) 5.2 -174 to 123
Root-stiffened Blade Design
HexMC Carbon Fiber Filled (Composite 1) 2.6 -130 to 94
RTP-1389 Carbon Fiber Filled (Composite 2) 2.3 -130 to 94
BMC-300 Glass Fiber Filled (Composite 3) 8.3 -131 to 94
232 Table 3. Tip deflection and stress results for the original and root-stiffened blade designs with 316 SS and the three
233 composite candidate materials.

234 Finite element analyses (Figures 3, 4 and 5) were conducted to compare the tip deflections and blade stresses
235 of the two blade geometries with the different blade materials considered. Table 3 shows that the stress
236 ranges are a function of the blade geometry, but the tip deflection is a function of both the geometry and
237 the elastic modulus. Regardless of the blade design, the SS blade not surprisingly showed the smallest tip
238 deflection compared to all the composite alternatives (Table 2) because of its much higher elastic modulus.
239 Composite 3 suffered the largest tip deflection due to its having the lowest elastic modulus of the group. It
240 was also the only material for which the maximum axial stress exceeded its compressive and tensile strength
241 limits. The root-stiffened blade design exhibited only half the deflection of the original blade. The
242 maximum blade stress was also significantly reduced by the modified design. Among the three composite
243 candidates, Composite 2 had the least amount of tip deflection, 2.3 mm, which was quite close to that of
244 the SS blade. The centripetal acceleration corresponding to the 630 rpm rotational speed was also applied
245 to the model. However, the change in deflections and stresses was found to be negligible.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

246 Composites 1 and 2 performed similarly in the FEA simulation, showing nearly identical tip deflections
247 and axial stresses that are well below their respective tensile strengths. Because Composite 2 has a lower
248 density and was developed specifically for injection molding of small detailed parts, it was chosen to mold
249 the composite blades for the test turbine in this study.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Pressure distribution profile of the stainless steel blade at

630 rpm and 0.59 m head: (a) in-flow face of the blade with
positive pressure (MPa), and (b) out-flow face of the blade with
negative pressure (MPa).
250

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. Pressure distribution profile of the root-stiffened blade

design for the composite materials at 630 rpm and 0.59 m head: (a)
in-flow face of the blade with positive pressure (MPa), and (b) out-
flow face of the blade with negative pressure (MPa).

251

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. Stress distribution (MPa) of the stainless steel blade (a)

and the RTP-1389 carbon fiber blade (b).
252

253 3.2 Performance test results

254 As shown by the FEA results, at 630 rpm, the root-stiffened blade made of the Composite 2 material would
255 have a tip deflection that is approximately 1.3 mm more than the SS blade. To reduce the tip deflection of
256 Composite 2 to closer match the SS blade, for the actual performance testing in the test loop, the stiffened
257 root of the composite blade was further extended toward the blade tip by about 6 mm on each side. Both
258 the SS blade and the composite blade were tested to compare their performances.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 6. Effective head of the turbine as a function of the flow rate.

259 Figure 6 compares the measured head as a function of the flow rate for the turbines made of the two different
260 blade materials. For both blade materials, the head was increased as a linear function of the flow rate and
261 the slopes of the increase were nearly identical, because of the very similar blade designs. However, at the
262 same head, the flow rate of the turbine with the composite blades was about 0.01 m3/s lower than that of
263 the turbine with the SS blades. This was most likely because of the reduced blade angle of the composite
264 blades compared to that of the SS blades.

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

265 Figure 7 compares the power output of the turbine with the two different blade materials as a function of
266 the flow rate. The power output values were obtained from the measured torque and the rotational speed of

Figure 7. Power of the turbine as a function of the flow rate.

Figure 8. Efficiency of the turbine as a function of the flow rate.

267 the turbine. At the same flow rate, the turbine with the composite blades generated more power than the
268 turbine with the SS blades. However, considering the results shown in Figure 6, it is clear that the power
269 output advantage of the composite blade came from the higher head (~0.08 m) that it had at the same flow
270 rate. The turbine efficiency comparison (Figure 8) actually shows that between 0.08 m3/s and 0.11 m3/s, the
271 turbine with the composite blades was actually less efficient than the one with the SS blades. The turbine
272 with the SS blades reached its maximum efficiency at a flow rate of ~0.11 m3/s, whereas the turbine with
273 the composite blades still had not quite reached its maximum efficiency at 0.115 m3/s. During the test,
274 significant pressure fluctuations started to appear when the flow rate was increased beyond this point, which
275 caused large fluctuations in the power output. Therefore, we were unable to continue the testing at higher
276 flow rates to determine the critical flow rate for the maximum turbine efficiency for the composite blades.
277 The large pressure fluctuations were most likely a result of flow separation on the turbine blades at the
278 relatively high flow rates, because the rotational speed of the turbine was kept constant at 630 rpm during
279 the test regardless of the increased flow rate.

280 The difference in the flow rates corresponding to the maximum turbine efficiencies of the two blade
281 materials was most likely due to the slightly changed flow fields caused by the modified design and the tip
282 deflection of the composite blade.

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

283 For both blade materials, the turbine efficiency was markedly lower than the theoretical values derived
284 from the CFD analysis (Table 2). Both materials showed a maximum efficiency of about 57%, nearly 11%
285 lower than the CFD results. The difference between the experimental and theoretical values may result from
286 the following factors related to the test setup that were not taken into account in the CFD simulations:

287 (1) In the actual test model, there was a slight mismatch between the inner diameter of the turbine
288 housing (0.254 m) and that of the PVC pipe connected to it (0.243 m), due to the standard size of
289 available PVC pipes. This created a small step in the test loop that would slightly disrupt the flow.
290 (2) The S-shaped design of the turbine housing and the 90° turns in the test loop introduce abrupt
291 changes in the flow direction and thus may increase energy loss in the system.
292 (3) The manufacturing and installation tolerances of the blades and the turbine.
293 (4) The actual working head achieved by the pump during the experiment was between 0.2 m and 0.55
294 m (compared to the 0.59 m head used in the CFD analysis). Hydraulic head of such low values
295 would also lower the turbine efficiency.

296 Despite the relatively low efficiencies displayed by both blade materials due to the limitations of the actual
297 experimental setup, the results demonstrate that, solely from a performance point of view, the composite
298 runner blades are capable of achieving turbine efficiency and output power that are similar to or higher than
299 those of the conventional SS blades.

300 4. Conclusion
301 This study evaluated the viability and theoretical performance of Kaplan-type turbine blades made from
302 three different composite materials and compared them to the performance of a SS blade of the same design.
303 The performance of a scaled-down turbine model using composite blades was experimentally measured in
304 a test loop and compared to the SS blade performance.

305  Using sequential computational fluid dynamics and finite element structural analysis, a carbon
306 fiber-reinforced thermoplastic (RTP-1389) was chosen for the blade prototype fabrication because
307 it was predicted to have smaller tip deflection and lower density than the other two candidate
308 composite materials.
309  At the same flow rates, the turbine with the composite blades generated more power at a slightly
310 higher head than the turbine with the SS blades.
311  Both turbines showed similar peak turbine efficiency, demonstrating the potential of composite
312 materials to replace SS as the turbine material from the perspective of power generation.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

313 However, development of a hydroelectric turbine using a completely new material is a complex design
314 effort that would also require investigation of the durability (wet aging, aging under high mechanical loads,
315 fatigue, resistance to cavitation, etc.) of the turbine as well as field trials to realistically assess its viability.
316 These tasks will be performed in our future studies.

317 5. Acknowledgements
318 This study was funded by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program at the Pacific
319 Northwest National Laboratory. The authors would like to express their gratitude to Robert Mueller, Joshua
320 Hubbard, and Hector Delamora for their assistance in the setup of the turbine performance test loop.

321

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References
[1] U.S.E.I. Administration, International Energy Statistics, www.eia.gov, 2015.
[2] P.R. Secretariat, Renewables 2017 Global Status Report, http://www.ren21.net/gsr-2017/, 2017.
[3] F.A.M. de Faria, A. Davis, E. Severnini, P. Jaramillo, The local socio-economic impacts of large
hydropower plant development in a developing country, Energy Economics 67(Supplement C) (2017)
533-544.
[4] I. Yüksel, Hydropower in Turkey for a clean and sustainable energy future, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 12(6) (2008) 1622-1640.
[5] B. Dursun, C. Gokcol, The role of hydroelectric power and contribution of small hydropower plants
for sustainable development in Turkey, Renewable Energy 36(4) (2011) 1227-1235.
[6] D.K. Okot, Review of small hydropower technology, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 26
(2013) 515-520.
[7] K. Shimokawa, A. Furukawa, K. Okuma, D. Matsushita, S. Watanabe, Experimental study on
simplification of Darrieus-type hydro turbine with inlet nozzle for extra-low head hydropower utilization,
Renewable Energy 41 (2012) 376-382.
[8] D. Zhou, Z. Deng, Ultra-low-head hydroelectric technology: A review, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 23-30.
[9] L. Summit Blue Consulting, Small Hydropower Technology and Market Assessment, 2009.
[10] L. Mishnaevsky, K. Branner, H.N. Petersen, J. Beauson, M. McGugan, B.F. Sørensen, Materials for
Wind Turbine Blades: An Overview, Materials 10(11) (2017) 1285.
[11] J. Sloan, Autocomposites and the myth of $5/b carbon fiber, 2017.
https://www.compositesworld.com/columns/autocomposites-and-the-myth-of-5lb-carbon-fiber. (Accessed
12/15/2017.
[12] L.K. Gudukeya, C. Mbohwa, Improving the Efficiencies of Pelton Wheel in Micro-Hydro Power
Plants, the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, IEOM
Society International, Bogota, Colombia, 2017.
[13] P. Davies, G. Germain, B. Gaurier, A. Boisseau, D. Perreux, Evaluation of the durability of
composite tidal turbine blades, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences 371(1985) (2013).
[14] H. Li, Modeling and simulation of hydrokinetic composite turbine system, Missouri University of
Science and Technology, 2014.
[15] M. Whitehead, Design and Manufacturing Study of Hydroelectric Turbines Using Recycled and
Natural Fiber Composites, Oregon State University, 2013.
[16] U.S.D.o. Energy, Developing New Water Turbine Technology for Clean Hydropower, 2015.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[17] P. Spalart, S. Allmaras, A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, 30th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics1992.
[18] J.P. Van Doormaal, G.D. Raithby, Enhancements of the simple method for predicting incompressible
fluid flows, Numerical Heat Transfer 7(2) (1984) 147-163.
[19] H. Chen, Y. Zheng, D. Zhou, P. Shen, H. Liu, Design and development of an eco-gate pump
installation based on computational fluid dynamics, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 231(14) (2016) 2636-2649.
[20] P. Shen, D. Zhou, H. Chen, Blade Comparison and Selection and Performance Analysis of Micro-
head Bidirectional Turbine Based on CFD, Water Resources and Power 32(11) (2014) 150-154.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 Performance of a composite turbine blade was compared to that of a stainless steel blade.
 A composite material was selected from candidate materials using finite element analysis
 The composite blades generated more power but required a slightly higher head.
 The composite and stainless steel blades showed similar peak turbine efficiency.