UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SÃO JOÃO DEL REI

Engenharia Mecânica

DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO DESCRIBE IN-STREAM

WATER WHEEL POWER GENERATION

Andre Ribeiro Pedrozo de Paula

São João Del Rei 05 de Dezembro de 2014

i
 André Ribeiro Pedrozo de Paula

Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso

Relatório apresentado como Trabalho de

Conclusão de Curso Obrigatório do Curso de
Engenharia Mecânica

Professor Orientador: Dr. José Antônio da Silva

ii
Executive Summary

This report provides a theoretical analysis of an in stream water wheel, where it is possible
to calculate the efficiency of the system. The power generation by the water wheel is
divided into four different intervals where each one has a different behaviour and has to be
analysed separately. To enable the model to be adjusted with experimental results two
parameters were added during the development of the model, the Ploss and the Dropfactor
these parameters are related with the obstruction effect, which is the effect caused by one
blade in another when they are submerged.

For the calculus of the power generation the dimensions of the wheel had to be described
as a function of ϴ, therefore geometric relations had to be found for each of the four
intervals.

The values of the parameters added to the model were found by a comparison of the model
results with experimental results. The DropFactor was found to assume different values for
different numbers of blades while Ploss was found to be constant

After the adjustments, the results obtained by the model were considered satisfactory as
they were close to the experimental results, what means that this model can be used to
optimize the constructive parameters of a water wheel by changing the input values to find
how this change will modify the efficiency of the wheel.

iii
Resumo

O trabalho apresenta uma análise teórica de uma roda d’água do tipo In-Stream, que
permite realizar o cálculo de eficiência do sistema. A geração de energia pela roda d’água é
dividida em 4 partes que possuem características diferentes e por isso são analisadas
separadamente. Para permitir a calibração do modelo através de resultados experimentais,
dois parâmetros foram adicionados, Ploss e Dropfactor, estes estão relacionados ao
Obstruction Effect, que é um efeito causado pela influência de uma pá sobre a outra quando
submersas em um dado momento.

Para o realizar o cálculo, as distâncias necessárias foram encontradas em função de um ângulo ϴ,

que representa a distância angular percorrida pela pá a partir do momento em que está
submersa, para isto relações geométricas foram encontradas para cada intervalo.

Os valores dos parâmetros foram encontrados em uma comparação com os resultados

experimentais. Para o Dropfactor foram descobertos diferentes valores para diferentes
números de pás, já Ploss foi considerado constante.

Os resultados encontrados pelo modelo foram considerados satisfatórios por apresentar

similaridade com os resultados obtidos através de experimentos.

iv
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ iii
Resumo .............................................................................................................................................. iv
1. Introduction: ............................................................................................................................... 1
2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Electricity generation and environmental impacts ....................................................................... 2
2.2 Renewable energy .................................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Water Wheels ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Stream water wheels .................................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Technical Background ................................................................................................................... 7
3 Theoretical analysis................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 The Obstruction Effect .......................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................ 11
3.3 Input Data ................................................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Development of the model – Interval 1 ...................................................................................... 12
3.5 Development of the model – Interval 2 ...................................................................................... 16
3.6 Development of the model – Interval 3 ...................................................................................... 18
3.8 Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 21
3.7 Development of the model – Interval 4 ...................................................................................... 21
4 Adjustment of the model .......................................................................................................... 22
5 Conclusion. ................................................................................................................................ 24
6 Future Works ............................................................................................................................ 25
References ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Appendix 1 : ...................................................................................................................................... 28

v
Table of Figures.

Figure 1 – A graph showing the electricity supplied by fuel type in UK, 2011 [6] .................................. 2
Figure 2- Overshot water wheel [14] ...................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3– Breast shot water wheel [14] .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4 - Undershot water wheel [14] ................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5 – Results of Muller experimentations 19]................................................................................. 9
Figure 6 - Comparison of efficiencies between Theory and experiment [19] ........................................ 9
Figure 7 - The four stages of the water wheel power generation ........................................................ 10
Figure 8 - The Obstruction Effect .......................................................................................................... 11
Figure 9 - Water wheel dimensions ...................................................................................................... 13
Figure 10 Schematic of distance ........................................................................................................... 14
Figure 11 – Location of points Pb and Pc .............................................................................................. 14
Figure 12 wheel dimensions at interval 2 ............................................................................................. 16
Figure 13 – Distance travelled by the control volume .......................................................................... 19
Figure 14 – Location of points Pa and Pb ............................................................................................... 20
Figure 15 A Graphic showing the efficiency for the different number of blades ................................. 23

vi
vii
 1. Introduction:

In these days one of the main concerns related to the environment is the emission of carbon
dioxides (CO2) in atmosphere. This is due to the fact that a CO2 gas plays an important role,
as the main cause, for the global warming. Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) forecast an increase in the temperature will increase by 1.9 °C in the
next century [1]

The energy production by burning fossil fuels, as coal and gases, correspond to 86% of the
total energy production (2010) in the world [2] and is the responsible for release 26% of the
total amount of CO2 present in the air [3]. In respect to these numbers, the interest, of
governments and researchers, in renewable energy has been increasing in the last 15 years.
The production of energy by using renewable sources, such as wind and water, is free from
gases emissions and has a much lower environmental impact when compared with fossil
fuels sources as well its production is renewable and their sources are endless. However,
the renewable resources are responsible for just 1.3% [2] of the energy production in the
world.

In UK it is estimated that there are 20,000 weirs and mills sites in the country that together
could be responsible for the production of 600 to 1000MW of renewable energy. Water
wheels are mechanisms that could be used to generate energy using the flow of the rivers
and can be a viable solution to decentralizes the electricity energy production and for
domestic energy generation [5].

Although water wheels have been used since the ancient times, few studies were done and
as a result of it there is a lack of knowledge in respect to their efficiencies and design
parameters. The aim of this work is to create a new analytical model of an in stream water
wheel where it will be possible to optimize the constructive parameters of the wheel by
comparing what happens with the efficiency when one of this parameters is changed.

1
2 Literature Review

2.1 Electricity generation and environmental impacts

In UK the majority of electricity is generated by the burning of gases which in 2011

corresponded of 41 % of the electricity supplied by the country , the second principal fuel
used for this purpose is the coal which is responsible to generate 29%. The distribution of
electricity generation by fuel can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – A graph showing the electricity supplied by fuel type in UK, 2011 [6]

As can be seen by the graph, coal and gas are responsible to supply 70% of the energy in the
country what is a concern for the government as long as the energy production by these
fuels are responsible for a series of environmental impacts in conjunction with a
dependence of international suppliers taking into account that the production of natural
gases in UK has been declining since 2000 [6].

To produce energy from natural gases is necessary to extract them and construct a natural
gas power plant, this can possible destroy the natural habitat of animals and plants and
cause land resources impacts including erosion, loss of soil productivity and landslides. In
addition , the burning of natural gases produces nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, which
will be released to the atmosphere contributing for the global warming [7].

2
When it comes to the coal the same occurs in the process of burning, gases as carbon
dioxide, nitrogen and mercury compounds are released to atmosphere in a scale much
bigger than in the burning of natural gases, as well as this the entire process of generate
energy by using coal requires a high amount of water that when removed from a lake or
river aquatic life can be affected along with animals and people who depends on this
aquatic resources [8].

2.2 Renewable energy

Stimulated by recent EU strategies for energy security and tackling climates changes, UK has
established a target that by 2020, 15% of the final energy consumption should come from
renewable energy [6]. The main renewable sources that are being used to electricity
generation are wind and water, the first is responsible to generate 45% of the total
renewable electricity produced in UK while the second contributes with 16% [6].

Wind power

Wind power is generated by the movement of the air, when the sun heat the land, the air
above warms and rises than cold air replaces it, what creates the wind used to move the
wind turbines and generate electricity. UK is considered to be the best place in Europe for
wind power generation and also one of the bests in the world [9]. The advantages of using
wind turbines are enormously, one of the most important is that once they are built the
energy produced by the turbine is a clean energy which does not release gases for the
atmosphere

Hydropower

Stream and rivers are created by rain or melted snow that usually comes from hill and
mountains and tends to move to the oceans, the energy of that moving can be used to
generate electricity and is called hydropower. The hydropower electricity generation can be
classified into four categories depending on the energy potential, as showed in Table 1:

3
Category Output/unit Storage

Small <10 MW Run-of-river

Medium 10-300 MW Run-of-river/Dam and reservoir

Large >300 MW Dam and reservoir

Table 1: Classification of Hydropower

Small hydropower can be generated by using:

 Turbines: Flowing water is directed to a system of blades rotating in the vertical or

horizontal axis. They have been well studied and present a high efficiency but are
high cost alternatives with a certain complexity for manufacturing.

 Water Wheels: Water wheel is a mechanism to convert energy from the flow or the
head differences of a river to mechanical or electric energy, where water can enters
at either the middle or the top of the wheel and also can act along the base. Water
wheels are machines of simple and cheap manufacture when compared to turbines,
on the other hand are not well developed and presents lower efficiencies.

2.3 Water Wheels

Historical Background

Described by Roman, Greek and Chinese, water wheels are believed to be emerged with the
purpose of pump water and mill grain, these early models had vertical shaft which requires
no gearing to transmit power to the millstone. Water wheels were the main power
generator until the introduction of the steam engines at the end of the 18 th century [10], in
that moment 30,000 water wheels were supposed to be operating in England [11].

The first engineer to study the efficiency of water wheels was John Smeaton , in 1759 he
built a variety of models and test then to determine their efficiency , he found that the
undershot water wheels had a maximum efficiency of 30% while the overshot could reach
about 60% [12] After that a French engineer applied modifications in the original design of
the undershot water wheels , this new concept received his name and it is called as Poncelet
water wheel and could reach efficiencies of 65% [10]. A new adjustment was done by a

4
Swiss engineer Walter Zuppinger who developed the most efficient design for this type of
wheel. [12]
Although water wheels are mechanisms with low cost of implementation when compared
with water turbines, and presents high efficiencies for use in different conditions of flow
velocities and head, their use starts do decrease in the middle of the 20th century as well as
the researches focused on their development, as an evidence of it the number of water
wheels counted to be in operation in the beginning of the 20th century in the province of
Baden-Württemberg in Germany was 3,554 but in the most recent count in 1977 this
number has decreased to only 18 wheels. [12][13]

Types of Water Wheel

Water wheels are classified accordingly to the entrance of the water, they can be:

 Overshot wheels: The most common design of water wheel, employed for head
differences between 2.5 - 10 m and flow rates smaller than 2 m3/ s per m of width.
The water enters above the wheel and the gravitational energy is the responsible for
generate the movement of the buckets; can reach efficiencies around 85%. [10]

Figure 2- Overshot water wheel [14]

 Breast shot wheels: Generally used to head differences between 1.5 to 4 m, the
wheel received the water nearly to the level of its axis. This wheel was used with
flow rates of 0.35 to 0.65 m3/ s per m of width. It was found by experiments that
this type of wheel can achieve an efficiency of 79% [10]

5
 Figure 3– Breast shot water wheel [14]

 Undershot wheels: It is the cheapest and simplest type to design and

construct, commonly used for head differences smaller than 2.5m. Water
enters in the wheel below it axis and it is generally used with high flow rates
between 0.5 and 0.95 m3 / s per m of width. , compared with the wheel types
described above presents the lowest values of efficiency [10].

Figure 4 - Undershot water wheel [14]

2.4 Stream water wheels

Stream water wheels are a specific type of undershot wheels employed when there is no
potential energy available; it generates energy by the motion of the fluid using the kinetic
energy of the current. Although it is classified as inefficient when compared with other types
of water wheels, which benefits from potential energy, [15] it can be very important for
domestic electricity generation as long as it is not necessary to build any special structure to

6
support and operate the wheel, it can be fixed in the bank of the channel or moored on a
barge [16].

2.5 Technical Background

Head:

Head is used to describe the energy in a flowing fluid system. The head is calculated by
equation 1, which takes into account three physical components [17].
𝑃 𝑉2
ℎ = 𝑧 + 𝜌𝑔 + 2𝑔 (1)

z: Potential energy per unit of weight of the fluid

𝑃
: Energy due to pressure per unit of weight of the fluid
𝜌𝑔

𝑉2
: Dynamic pressure, the kinetic energy per unit of weight of the fluid, the main
2𝑔

component used in the calculus of stream water wheels

Hydropower:
Hydropower, Pin , is the potential power that can be generated by the fluid and can be
calculated by equation 2 [17]:
𝑃𝑖𝑛 = 𝑄 × ɣ × ℎ (2)
Where:
Q is the fluid flow rate [ m3/s] ; h is the head [ m ] ; ɣ is the specific weight of the fluid [
kN/m3]
When there is only kinetic energy the hydropower can be also calculated by equation 2.1
[19]:
Pin = A × 𝜌 × V0 3 ( 2.1)
Where A is the fluid area in contact with the blade , 𝜌 is the fluid density and V0 is the flow
velocity
Drag force

The drag force can be understood as the force applied in the blades by the water due to the
blades resistance to the water flow [19].

1
𝐹= 𝜌 × Cd × 𝐴 × Vr2 (3)
2

7
Cd is the drag coefficient of the blade, A is the submerged blade area and zVr is the relative
velocity between water and blade, ρ is the fluid density.

Work Done

The work done can be calculated by the integral of the moment, M, at the centre of the
wheel [16].
M=F ×d (4)

𝛳
Work done = ∫0 𝑀(𝛳)𝑑𝛳 (5)

Where d is the distance between the wheel centre and the centroid of the blade, 𝛳 is the
angular displacement of the blade.

Output Power
The power generated by the wheel is calculated by :

𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘 𝑑𝑜𝑛𝑒
Pout = (6)
𝜏

τ is the time of one complete revolution of the wheel.

Efficiency

The efficiency is given by:

𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝜂= (7)
𝑃𝑖𝑛

Muller 2010 [19] conducted experiments by varying the number of submerged blades in a
stream water wheel and found that the efficiency can be improved with an increasing in the
number of blades, what probably affects the momentum exchange [19]. Fig. 5.

8
 Figure 5 – Results of Muller experimentations 19]

Fig. 5 also shows that the greater efficiencies occurs for a velocity ratio of V out/ Vin between
0.4 to 0.55 .
Weisbach developed a formula to calculate the efficiency taking into consideration the
number of submerged blades [20]:
16
𝜂 = 81 ×Z1 (8)
𝑉𝑖𝑛
Z1 is the number of submerged blades and should be < 𝑉𝑖𝑛−𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 . Fig 6 shows a comparison

between Weisbach formula and the experimental results [19]

Figure 6 - Comparison of efficiencies between Theory and experiment [19]

It can be seen that the results given by the theory are roughly the same of the experimental
results until a certain number of blades when the results starts to diverge.

9
Damming up effect

The damming up effect occurs when the water wheel acts as a weir, what can increase the
efficiency due to the potential energy created by the difference between the downstream
and upstream water level. [21]

3 Theoretical analysis

Using the theory explained in the Technical Background a model to describe the water
wheel power generation was developed. The model was divided into four intervals as shown
in Fig. 7. The red blade in this report represents the blade that is being analysed.

Figure 7 - The four stages of the water wheel power generation

For each interval the system has a different behaviour, which will be explained in the next
section of this report.
The model is suitable to be used with different number of blades. When the number of
blades changes, the angle α, which is the angle between the blades, Fig 7.a , also changes
and therefore the behaviour of each stage is altered.
The angle ϴ, Fig 7.c , is defined as the angle between the moment that the blade enters in
the water and the current position of the blade .The power of each part is calculated as a
function of ϴ and the total power is the sum of the power generated by the blade in each
interval.
The angle β , Fig 7.d is defined as the angle between the moment that the blade enters in
the water and the vertical axis

10
3.1 The Obstruction Effect

It is possible to see from Fig.7 that in intervals 2, 3 and 4 the portion of water that is
propelling the blade in analysis is obstructed by the blade that is coming after. This effect is
called in this report the Obstruction Effect and will affect the moment generated by the
wheel. For that reason the blade will be divided in two parts to be analysed separately when
this effect is present. The area considered to be affected is shown in Fig 8, represented by
the grey area. On this model, independently of the number of submerged blades, this effect
will be considered to be caused only by the blade that comes right behind the blade in
analysis. Although the effect of the other submerged blades will not be considerate by the
Obstruction Effect it will be accounted in the calculus of the flow velocity thus it will
contribute for a decrease in the total power generation.

Figure 8 - The Obstruction Effect

3.2 Assumptions

Initial assumptions were made for the conception of the model:

 The wheel is assumed to be in an open channel hence there is no existence of

damming-up effect
 At the end of the movement the water velocity is assumed to be 1.5 times the blades
velocity, this assumption was made based on the fact that the water loses energy to
propel the blades and as a result of this the velocity of the water will be reduced.
Although this phenomenon is known to exist no relevant data was found about the
magnitude of this reduction. This value was adopted as a security value as it will
keep the flow velocity slightly higher than the blades velocity at the end of the
movement.
 The blade starts to do work at the moment that it penetrates the water and work is
done until the blade leaves the water
 As the velocity profile of the water during the period that it is applying the force in
the blade is not known, a parameter called DropFactor was added to the model to allow

11
 changes in the velocity drop. This parameter will enable the model to make changes in
the decay of the velocity when it will be adjusted by the use of experimental results.
The DropFactor is understood as the percentage of the variation of the velocity that will
be experimented by the control volume in the part that is being analysed.

3.3 Input Data

The parameters listed below are the main parameters of the geometry of the wheel and the
dynamics of the system, for the calculus of the power output and efficiency it is necessary to
known them. As the purpose of the model is to help in the choice of the best parameters, it
is necessary to adopt an initial value for the parameter to be optimized and then execute
the model. To find how the system will behave when this value is changed it is necessary to
adopt another value for the variable and then execute the model again. By doing this for a
range of values, it will be possible to determine the value that will return the higher
efficiency.
The parameters to be used as input data are described below:

Symbol Parameter
Cd Drag coefficient of the blade
b Width of the blade
z Length of the blade
l Radial distance between the end of the blade and the wheel centre
d Vertical distance between the waterline and the wheel centre
Vf0 The velocity of the Stream
c The relation between the blade tangential velocity and the initial stream
velocity (Vb/Vf0)
Nr Number of blades
q The relation between the final velocity of the flow and the blade’s
tangential velocity (Vf2/Vb)
Table 2 – Input data parameters
It is important to mention that the blade’s velocity will be calculated by the use of “ c “ and
in this report will be considered to be the tangential velocity at the end of the blade

3.4 Development of the model – Interval 1

This part of the model can be used to calculate the power generated by the blade when the
portion of the water which is applying the force in the blade is not being influenced by any
other blade. The values of ϴ to be used in the following equations are the ones included in
the intervals defined below:
0< ϴ <α if α < β or 0 < ϴ < β if α > β .
The necessary dimensions to the development of this section are shown in Fig.9:

12
 Figure 9 - Water wheel dimensions

a (ϴ) is the radial distance between the water and the wheel centre
d is the vertical distance between the waterline and the wheel centre
d0 is the submerged length of the blade
As mentioned before the power is calculated by Eq. 5 which is a function of ϴ hence the
variables used in this calculus has to be expressed in terms of ϴ
Area
The submerged area of the blade is directly proportional to ϴ; the calculus of the area as a
function of ϴ is described below:
A(ϴ) = d0 x b (9) where :

𝑑
d0 = 𝑙 − 𝑎(𝛳) (10) ; 𝑎(𝛳) = cos(𝛽−𝛳) (11) ; β = acos( 𝑑/𝑙) (12)

Relative velocity
The relative velocity is the difference between the flow velocity and the blade’s velocity at
the blade’s centroid and has to be calculated for each ϴ , as the flow velocity decreases as ϴ
becomes higher.
To reduce the complexity of the model and simplify the velocity calculus, the control volume
of water which is supposed to be applying the force in the paddle was considered to have
the same velocity behaviour of a particle with constant acceleration.
The Torricelli’s equation, Eq. 13, was used to calculate the acceleration and the
instantaneous velocity.
Vf 2 = Vf 0 2 + 2 × 𝑎 × 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡 (13) where:
Vf is the instantaneous velocity; V f 0 is the initial velocity of the flow ;

13
a is the acceleration and “dist” is the distance travelled by the control volume
Vf can be calculated by the equation below:
Vf = Vf 0 − ( DropFactor × [ Vf0 − (𝑞 × 𝑉𝑏 )] ) (14)
Where [ Vf0 − (𝑞 × 𝑉𝑏 )] represents the total variation in the stream velocity
As the velocity in ϴ = β and the initial velocity of the flow are known it is possible to find the
acceleration if dist is calculated, therefore geometric relations were found to enable this
calculus. The distance found represents the distance travelled by the control volume
between the moment it gets in touch with the blade and the blade’s centroid position when
ϴ = β . The distance is shown in Fig. 10 for a better understanding

The distance of the centroid will be the coordinate “x” of

the point P ( x , y) located in the circumference where “y”
is the vertical distance between the wheel centre and the
centroid of the blade. The equations for the calculus of the
distance are presented below:
Y = 𝑑 + 0.5 d0 (15)

Circumference equation: 𝑥 = √𝑙 2 − 𝑦 2 (16)

Figure 10 Schematic of
distance Using the value found in Eq. (15) , for ϴ = β , in

Eq.(16) it is possible to find the value of “dist“ , hence by

the use of Eq. (13) , it is possible to find the acceleration in
the first half of the movement.
The next step to find the instantaneous velocity is to find a
relation of the distance travelled for each ϴ, this is done by
using the same method described above, the only variation
is that the distance will be the difference between the
point Pb (Xb,Y’) , located in the centroid of the submerged
part of the blade, and the point Pc (Xc , Y’) located in the
circumference . These points are shown in Fig 11.
The value of Y’ can be found by Eq. 17:
Figure 11 – Location of points Y’ = [𝑎(𝛳) + 0.5d0] × cos(𝛽 − 𝛳) (17)
Pb and Pc
The value of Xc can be found by Eq. 16 while for Xb it was
necessary to find an equation that describes its in function of ϴ, the equation is shown
below:
[𝑎(𝛳)+0.5d0] ×cos(𝛽−𝛳)
Xb = (18)
2tan(𝜑)

14
Finally the distance as a function of ϴ can be calculated by Eq. (19):
[𝑎(𝛳)+0.5d0] ×cos(𝛽−𝛳)
dist (𝛳) = √𝑙 2 − 𝑦 2 − (19)
2tan(𝜑)

Hence the instantaneous velocity as a function of ϴ is calculated by:

Vf (𝛳 ) = √ V02 + 2 × 𝑎 × 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡(𝛳) (20)

In order to express the relative velocity it is necessary to find the component of Vf (𝛳 ) in the
direction perpendicular to the blade, this component can be calculated by Eq. 21 :

Vfc (ϴ) = Vf (ϴ) × cos ( β - ϴ ) (21)

The relative velocity, Vr can be finally calculated by Eq. 22 :

Vr(ϴ) = Vfc (ϴ) − Vb (22)

Where Vb is the blade tangential velocity at the centroid and is given by:

Vb = ω × Larm (23) ω is the angular velocity of the wheel

and Larm (ϴ) is the distance between the centroid of the blade and the wheel centre and can
be expressed by:

𝑑0
Larm (ϴ) = 𝑎(𝛳) + (24)
2

Power
As the calculus of the submerged blade area and relative velocity are in function of ϴ , the
drag force can be expressed in terms of ϴ .

𝜌 ×𝐶𝑑 × 𝐴(𝛳) ×𝑉𝑟2 (𝛳)

F(ϴ) = (25)
2

Thus the moment is given by:

M(ϴ) = F(ϴ) X Larm(ϴ) (26)

The work done can be calculated as the integral of the moment M(ϴ) :

𝛳
W = ∫0 𝑀(𝛳)𝑑𝛳 (27)

And the power generated by the blade in the first interval is given by:

15
 𝑊
Pout1 = (28)
𝜏

τ is the time of one complete revolution of the wheel.

3.5 Development of the model – Interval 2

The values of ϴ to be used at this part are the ones included in the interval below:

α< ϴ <β

However, If α > β , this part of the model will have the same behaviour of the first interval
and will have been taken into consideration by the calculations performed before.

For α < β the Obstruction Effect will be affecting the drag force in the blade, hence, as
mentioned before, it is necessary do divide the blade in two parts. Part A will be the part of
the blade which is not being affected by other blades while Part B is the part where the
Obstruction Effect is considered. The total power generated in this interval will be the sum
of the power generated by each part of the blade. Figure 12 shows the division of the blade
as well as the important dimensions to find the geometric relations used in the calculations.

Figure 12 wheel dimensions at interval 2

The dimensions exposed by Fig. 12 are:

da0 - Length of the blade in Part A ;

db0 - Length of the blade in Part B ;

16
lb Radial distance between the wheel centre and the end of Part B ;

Lbr Vertical distance between the end of Part B and the wheel centre.

The equations that related these dimensions with the angle ϴ are described below.

Lbr = 𝑙 × cos(𝛽 + 𝛼 − 𝛳) (29) 𝛽 + 𝛼 − 𝛽 is the green angle shown by Fig. 12.

𝐿
𝑏𝑟
Lb = cos(𝛽−𝛳) (30)

db0 = 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑎(𝛳) (31)

da0 = 𝑙 − 𝑙𝑏 (32)

Area
The equation that relates the area with ϴ are:
Ab(ϴ) = db0 x b (33) Aa(ϴ) = da0 x b (34)

Relative velocity
As the power generation is calculated separately in each part it is necessary to find the
relations of the tangential velocity of the blade, Vbb and Vba, and the coordinate Y’ at each
centroid. After find these values it is possible to find the instantaneous velocity Vf by using
the same method described in 3.4
It is important to highlight that the acceleration is considered to be constant for 0 < ϴ < β ,
Part B

Larmb (ϴ) is the distance between the centroid of Part b and the wheel centre and can be
expressed by:

db0
Larmb (ϴ) = 𝑙𝑏 − (35)
2

Hence,

Yb’ = Larmb × cos(𝛽 − 𝛳) (36)

Vbb = 𝜔 × 𝐿𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑏 (37)
Part A
da0
Larma (ϴ) = 𝑙𝑏 + (38)
2

Ya’ = 𝐿𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑎 × cos(𝛽 − 𝛳) (39)

Vba = 𝜔 × 𝐿𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑎 (40)

17
As well as the instantaneous velocity the relative velocities Vra and Vrb can be described by
the same procedure used in the previous section.
Power
For the calculus of the power generated in Part A , Pout2a, the same relations presented in
section 3.4 can be used . However, the geometric relations have to be substituted for the
relations found in this section. It is also important to mention that the integration limits
used for the work calculus are:
ϴ = 𝛽 for the superior limit and ϴ = α for the inferior limit.
On the other hand for Part B a new coefficient, which will account for the loss of power due
to the Obstruction Effect, is introduced. This coefficient is denominated Ploss and will be
determined by the adjustment of the model with experimental results. This process will be
explained in a subsequent section of this report. The moment will be calculated as in Part A,
nevertheless, the equation used for the power output is the Eq. 41
𝑤2𝑏
Pout2b = (1 − 𝑃𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠) × (41)
𝜏

Where Ploss is given as percentage and 𝑤2𝑏 is the work done in Part B
The total power generated by the blade in interval 2 is given by:
Pout2 = Pout2a + Pout2b (42)

3.6 Development of the model – Interval 3

The beginning of this interval is defined as the point where ϴ becomes higher than β and
the blade starts to suffer a different acceleration that the used in the previous sections.
However, the angle limits for this interval is related to the values of β and α as shown
below:
𝛼
β < ϴ <β+ if α < 2β or β < ϴ < 2β if α > 2β
2

For α < 2β , the end angle of this interval will represent the angle where the Part A of the
blade , the part which is not being affected by the Obstruction Effect, will no longer exist
and the calculus will be entire based on Part B. On the other hand for α > 2β , this angle will
be the angle that blade leaves the water.
At this interval most of the geometric relations that are going to be used are the same of the
ones presented in previous section; this is possible due to the fact that the equality shown
below is valid for the entire range of values that are going to be assumed for ϴ and β
𝐶𝑜𝑠(𝛽 − ϴ) = 𝐶𝑜𝑠 (ϴ − 𝛽)

18
The necessary relations for the output power calculus are described below:
Area
For α < 2β
The submerged area of the blade can be calculated by the use of Eq. 33 and 34.
For α > 2β
The submerged area of the blade can be calculated by Eq.9 .
Relative velocity
As the acceleration in this part of the cycle is different from Intervals 1 and 2, it has to be
calculated to be used in the calculus of the instantaneous velocity.
Acceleration:
The acceleration can be found by the same process employed in section. However,
modifications have to be done in response to the initial and final velocity of the water as
well as the distance travelled which is showed by Fig 13.

Figure 13 – Distance travelled by the control volume

The acceleration 𝑎2 , can be found by the use of the following equations:

Vf2β 2 = Vf 2 + 2 × 𝑎2 × 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡 (46) where:
Vf is the velocity of the portion of the water in contact with the blade when it is in the
position ϴ = 2𝛽 , calculated by Eq.14 .
Vf2β is the velocity of the control volume when ϴ =2𝛽 and is described by:
Vf2β = Vf 0 − ( (1-DropFactor) × [ Vf0 − (𝑞 × 𝑉𝑏 )] ) (47)

19
Instantaneous velocity:

After finding the acceleration on intervals 3 and 4, the instantaneous velocity as a function
of ϴ can be described as:

Vf2 (𝛳 ) = √ V𝑓2 + 2 × 𝑎2 × 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡2 (𝛳) (48)

Where 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡2 (𝛳) is the distance travelled by the water when it is decelerated by a2 and can
be calculated by the following methods:
For α < 2β
The distance will be the coordinate Xca and Xcb of the points Pa(Xca , Ya) and Pb(Xcb , Yb )
located in the centroids of Parts A and B , as shown in figure 14 .

Figure 14 – Location of points Pa and Pb

The coordinates points located in the blade can be found by the use of a straight line
equation:
𝑌
𝑋 = (49)
𝑡𝑔(90+𝛽−𝜃)

Thus to calculate the values of Xca and Xcb it is necessary to find Ya and Yb and then use the
Eq.49.
The values of Ya and Yb can be found by Eq. 39 and 36 respectively.
For α > 2β
The method to find the distance is the same used above however, the coordinate Y of the
centroid can be found by the use of Eq.17.
Blade’s velocity:
For α < 2β the velocity can be find by Eq.37 and 40 .

20
For α > 2β the velocity can be found by Eq.23.
As the velocity of the control volume and the blade’s velocity were found it is possible to
calculate the relative velocity by the same method described in section 1
Power
For α < 2β
The total power generated by the blade in interval 3, Pout3 , can be calculated by the use of
the same methods described in part 2, however, the limits of integration, in the calculus of
the work done, have to be changed by the extremes of the interval which θ is contained.
Hence the total power generated will be:
Pout3 = Pout3a + Pout3b
For α > 2β
the power output can be calculated by Eq. 28

3.8 Efficiency

To find the efficiency it is necessary to calculate the input power, Pin , by Eq. 2.1 and the total power
output, Ptotal , which will be the sum of the power generated in each interval of this model. The
efficiencyis given by:
𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
η= (50)
𝑃𝑖𝑛

3.7 Development of the model – Interval 4

This interval will only exist if α < 2β, and will be used to calculate the power generated by
the blade when the whole submerged part is being affected by the Obstruction Effect.
Area:
The area can be calculated by Eq.9
Relative velocity:
The distance travelled by the control volume can be calculated by the use of Eq. 17 and 49 ,
hence it is possible to find the instantaneous velocity by the use of Eq. 48
The relative velocity can be calculated by Eq 21 and 22 , using the instantaneous velocity
found in this section.
Power
The work done is calculated by the same method described in section 3.4 , while the power
generation will be calculated by Eq.41 which takes into account the Obstruction Effect , by
the use of the coefficient Ploss.

21
4 Adjustment of the model

As mentioned in the previous sections, two coefficients were adopted in the conception of
the model Ploss and DropFactor. As their values were not known, to find them it was
necessary to compare the results obtained by the model with experimental results The
experimental results used to adjust these constants are the results presented in [19]. These
results are the values of efficiency obtained by the use of different number of blades in the
same wheel. The experiments were performed using 8, 12 and 24 blades and the results are
shown by Fig 5.
The method adopted to define these two constants are presented in the next sections, to
execute the required calculations the software Matlab was used, the program is showed in
Appendix 1.
Drop Factor
To adjust the DropFactor it was necessary to find experimental results where the
Obstruction Effect was not present, it would enable the coefficient Ploss to be cancelled,
what in turn would leave the model with the DropFactor as the only unknown constant. By
the comparison of the efficiency values found by the model with the experimental results
the DropFactor could be found.
As mentioned in section 2, there is a lack of researches in the water wheel field therefore no
experimental results with these conditions were found. However, in the experiments done
by Muller [19] in the 8 blades wheel, the blade which is doing work is affected by the
Obstructed Effect just for a short period of time, what made this configuration to be
selected for the adjustment.
The method used to find the best value for DropFactor was to define twenty values for this
constant, between 0 and 1, and then calculate the efficiency of the wheel by the use of this
model. The results were then compared with the efficiency found by Muller[19] and the
value of the DropFactor which gave the closest results to the experiments was adopted as
the DropFactor for 8 blades.
It is important to mention that the number of submerged blades and the angle between
then will affect the Dropfactor as long as it will increase the obstruction of the stream, thus
the constant will assume one value for each number of blades .The method used to find
these values were the same explained above but they were find after the definition of Ploss.
Ploss
To define Ploss the DropFactor has to be known, what will make Ploss the only unknown
constant. Due to this fact , the experimental result used to define Ploss was the one found
with the 12 blades design , this result was chosen due to the fact that it is the configuration
where the angle between the blades and the number of submerged blades are close to the
values of the 8 blades design, therefore adopting the value of the 8 blades DropFactor for
the 12 blades configuration will give the most accurate results for the available options.

22
To find Ploss, 20 values between 0 and 0.5 were tested In the model and the results
compared with the results showed by Fig 5.
Although Ploss is constant, it will cause a higher loss on the power generated when the
angle between the blades is shorter. This occurs because smaller angles mean that the
Obstruction Effect will be present on the blade for a longer period.
After the Ploss was found, it was used to adjust the DropFactor for the wheels with a higher
number of blades. The values of Dropfactor and Ploss for different number of blades are
shown in Table 2. It is important to mention that the numbers of blades showed in this table
are the ones where the efficiency results were possible to extract from [19].

Model parameters
Number of Blades Ploss DropFactor
8 0 0.05
12 0.2 0.05
15 0.2 0.15
17 0.2 0.17
20 0.2 0.25
24 0.2 0.3
Table 3 – The values of the parameters DropFactor and Ploss , defined for a different
number of blades.

After the values of DropFactor and Ploss were found a graphic was done to show the results
obtained by the model.

Figure 15 A Graphic showing the efficiency for the different number of blades

23
 As can be seen in the graphic, the efficiency values calculated by the model are close
to the values found by experimentations showed by Fig.5 , it is also possible to see that the
values of C that the efficiency assumes the maximum values are increasing as the number of
blades increases , this effect can be observed in both graphics, illustrated by Fig.5 and 15.
The values found by the model are also presented in Table 4.

Efficiency for different values of C

Number of blades C Efficiency
8 0,33 0,2
12 0,35 0,29
24 0,41 0,42
Table 4 – The values of efficiency for a different numbers of C (Vblade/Vflow).

5 Conclusion.

A new mathematical model, with new coefficients used to take into consideration the the
Obstruction Effect, was created and good results were achieved by the use of this model, a
fact that could be noted by the similarity of the efficiency curves of the model Fig.15 and of
the experimental results Fig.5, although they differ in some aspects such as the optimum
value of C , the bigger efficiencies values found for each configuration are roughly the same.

The two parameters introduced in this report Ploss and DropFactor proved to be important
tools to adjust the model as a change in their values can change the behaviour of the system
and leads the model to find more accurate results.

On the other hand there is some weakness in the model when it comes to describe the real
reaction of the blades to the Obstruction Effect. There is also no evidence in experimental
works that the acceleration of the system will be the same for the entire half of the
movement and then change to another value of constant acceleration after the blade pass
through the vertical position. Also the final velocity of the water was assumed to be 1.5
times the blade`s velocity, this assumption was not based in any evidence but in a security
limit, a change in this value would change the entirely behaviour of the system and would
possible change the efficiency curve.

To prove the efficiency of the model more adjustments were necessary to be done,
unfortunately there is not enough experimental results to be used for this adjustments.

24
6 Future Works

Some recommendations can be given for future works:

 A study of the shape of the blades, changing the shape will change the drag
coefficient what could mean an improvement in the efficiency values.
 Development of prototype to perform some experiments about the influence caused
by an increase in the number of the blades
 A study about the characteristics of the flow of water wheels. Understanding how
the blade interacts with the water, how the energy is transferred and how these
characteristics can be optimised.

25
References

[1] http://climate.nasa.gov/effects [Acessed 15 January 2014]

[2] BP. Energy Outlook 2030 summary tables. 2011. [Acessed 15 January 2014]

[3] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html [Acessed 18 January

2014]

[4] http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/features/featurepotential-power-. [Acessed 10

February 2014]

[5] ( Potential for using the floating body structure to increase the efficiency of a free stream
energy converter).

[6] www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65898/5942-
uk-energy-in-brief-2012.pdf [Acessed 10 February 2014]

[7] http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html [Acessed 10

February 2014]

[8] http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/coal.html [Acessed 10

February 2014]

[9] http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/adaptation/wind_power.shtml [Acessed 10 February

2014]

[10] Denny, M (2004), The efficiency of overshot and undershot waterwheels, European Journal of
Physics, March 2004, Issue 2
[11] McGUIGAN D., 1978, Small Scale Water Power, Wheaton & Co. Ltd., Exeter.
[12] MÜLLER G., Water Wheels as a Power Source, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Civil
Engineering Department, Belfast
[13] NEUMAYER H., REMPP W., RUPPERT J., SCHWÖRER R., 1979, Untersuchungen am
Wasserrad-Triebwerk der Kunstmühle W. Seifried KG, Waldkirch-Br., . (Investigation of a
water wheel power plant at the flour mill W. Seifried KG, Waldkirch/Breisach , in German),
Techn. Report, University of Stuttgart/Germany

26
[14]- http://www.alternative-energy-tutorials.com/hydro-energy/waterwheel-design.html
[Acessed 10 February 2014]

[15] Muller, G.U., Denchfield, S. and Shelmerdine, R. (2007) Stream wheels for applications in
shallow and deep water. In, 32nd IAHR Conference 2007, Venice, Italy, 01 - 06 Jul 2007

[16] Jones, Z. (2005) Domestic electricity generation using waterwheels on moored barge, School of
the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University.
[17] Hogan, S. (2005) Run of River Micro-Hydropower: A solution to the Banff Corridor’s
Electrical Capacity Dillemma
[18] http://physics.info/drag/ [Acessed 10 February 2014]

[19] G. Müller, R. Jenkins & W.M.J. Batten (2010) Potential, performance limits and environmental
effects of floating water mills,2010 Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau ISBN 978-3-939230-00-7.

[20] Weisbach J., Die Statik der Bauwerke und die Mechanik der Umtriebsmaschinen, Zweiter Teil,
Ingenieur- und Maschinenmechanik. Zweite Abteilung ‚Die Mechanik der Umtriebsmaschinen’, 5.
Auflage, Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Germany, 1883.

[21] Gotoh, Masahiro, Kowata, Hisashi, Okuyama, Takehiko, Katayama, Shyusaku, (2001)
Characteristics Of A Current Water Wheel Set In A Rectangular Channel, Proceedings of
FEDSM’01:2001 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, May 29-June 1, 2001 New
Orleans, USA

27
Appendix 1 :

% INPUT DATA

ro=1000; %Density

Cd=2; % Drag coefficient

width=0.250; %Blade width

length= 0.050; %blades lenght

Nblades = 12; % number of blades

vflow = 0.58; %flow tangential velocity m/s

c=0.33; %vblade/vflow

l =0.275 ; %distance between the blade edge and

the wheel centre

d = 0.225 ; %vertical distance between wheel

centre and waterline

Ploss=0.2 ; %The potential loss due to the

shadowing effect

Dropfactor1 =0.05; %percentage of the total drop of

velocity wich occurs in part 1

Dropfactor2 =1-Dropfactor1; %percentage of the total drop of

velocity wich occurs in part 2

q=3/2; % relation between the final velocity (flow) and the blade velocity
= (final/blade)

%-------------X---------------X---------------------X---------------------
Pin = width*length*ro*(vflow^3)*0.5;

%PART I

%0 < teta < alpha

alpha=2*pi/Nblades; %angle between the blades

teta = linspace(0,alpha,100);

%calculus

Vblade=c*vflow; %blades tangential velocity

Vangular = Vblade/l;
periodA=2*pi/Vangular;

28
teta0= acos(d/l); %is the path done by the blade when it starts to make
work

a = d./cos(teta0-teta); %Radial distance between water and the wheel centre

d0 = l-a; %submerged length of the blade

A = d0.*width; %submerged area of the blade

%finding the relative velocity

%FINDING THE DEACELERATION OF THE WATER -DeA-(PAG 94 LOGBOOK)

% (considering the considering the velocity drops 25% until teta0)

fi = teta0; %angle to consider the Vfinal

cof=tan(0.5*pi-fi+teta0); %straight line coefficient%

Ysup=cos(fi-teta0)*l; %superior limit%

Yinf=d;
Yd=linspace(Yinf,Ysup,100);
Xr= Yd/cof; %Straight line X
Xc=(l^2-Yd.^2).^0.5; %circunference X
dist1=Xr+Xc;

avgdist=sum(dist1)/100; %average distance between 0 and fi

Vfinal1 = vflow-Dropfactor1*(vflow-(q*Vblade))%*cos(fi-teta0)));

dea=(((Vfinal1)^2)-(vflow^2))/(2*avgdist); %deaceleration

%now that i have the deaceleration is necessry to find the velocity for
%each teta

avgdist2=(l^2-((0.5.*(l.*cos(teta0-teta)+d)).^2)).^0.5 - (( l.*cos(teta0-
teta)+d)./(2.*tan(0.5.*pi-teta0+teta)));

Vteta = ((vflow^2)+2*dea.*avgdist2).^0.5; %velocity of the water at teta

Vr = Vteta.*cos(teta0-teta)-Vblade; %relative velocity

Force= 0.5*ro*Cd.*A.*Vr.*Vr;

Larm = a + d0./2;

Moment=Force.*Larm;

delta=alpha/100; %used to solve the integral by definition

29
Smoment=sum(Moment)*delta*Nblades;

Pout1 = Smoment/periodA;

%-------------X---------------X---------------------X---------------------

%CALCULUS OF PART II PG 97 LOGBOOK

% alpha < teta < teta0

% REGION B - INFLUENCED BY THE SHADOW

tetab = linspace(alpha,teta0,100); % the same as teta ,just defined in a

different interval

Lb=l.*cos(teta0-tetab+alpha); %vertical distance between the center and

the end part b

Lb2=Lb./cos(teta0-tetab); %radial distance between center end end of [art

b

ab = d./cos(teta0-tetab); %non submerged part of the blade

db=Lb2-ab; %submerged part of the blade

Ab = db*width;

Rb = Lb2 - db/2 ; %radius of the center of the blade (region B)

Vb = Vangular*Rb ; %tangential velocity in region B

avgdist2b = (l^2-((Rb.*cos(teta0-tetab)).^2)).^0.5 -(( Rb.*cos(teta0-

tetab))./(tan(0.5.*pi-teta0+tetab)));

Vteta2b = ((vflow^2)+2*dea.*avgdist2b).^0.5; %velocity of the water at

part b in teta B

Vrb = Vteta2b.*cos(teta0-tetab)-Vb;

ForceB= 0.5*ro*Cd.*Ab.*Vrb.*Vrb;

Momentb=ForceB.*Rb;

deltab=(teta0-alpha)/100;

Smomentb=sum(Momentb)*deltab*Nblades;

Pout2b= (1-Ploss)*Smomentb/periodA;

%REGION A - NOT INFLUENCED BY THE SHADOWN

da=l-Lb2; % lenght of part A

Aa=da*width;

30
avgdist2a=(l^2-((0.5.*(l.*cos(teta0-tetab)+d)).^2)).^0.5 - (( l.*cos(teta0-
tetab)+d)./(2.*tan(0.5.*pi-teta0+tetab)));

Vteta2 = ((vflow^2)+2*dea.*avgdist2a).^0.5; %velocity of the water at tetab

Vra = Vteta2.*cos(teta0-tetab)-Vblade; %relative velocity

ForceA= 0.5*ro*Cd.*Aa.*Vra.*Vra;

LarmA =Lb2+(da/2);

MomentA=ForceA.*LarmA;

SmomentA=sum(MomentA)*deltab*Nblades;

Pout2a=SmomentA/periodA;

Pout2=Pout2a+Pout2b

%-------------X---------------X---------------------X---------------------

%PartIII

%REGION B IN PART III

teta3 = linspace(teta0,teta0+(0.5*alpha),100); % the same as teta ,just
defined in a different interval

Lbb=l.*cos(teta0-teta3+alpha); %vertical distance between the center and

the end part b

Lb3=Lbb./cos(teta3-teta0); %radial distance between center an end of part

b

ab3 = d./cos(teta3-teta0); %non submerged part of the blade

db3=Lb3-ab3; %submerged part of the blade

A3b = db3*width;

%---------------------------------------------------------------------
%calculus of the deaceleration 75% until 2*teta0

Vfinal2 = Vfinal1-Dropfactor2*(vflow-(q*Vblade*cos(fi-teta0)));

fi3b = 2*teta0; %angle to consider the Vfinal

cof3=tan(0.5*pi-fi3b+teta0); %straight line coefficient%

Ysup3=cos(fi3b-teta0)*l; %superior limit%

Yinf3=d;
Yd3=linspace(Yinf3,Ysup3,100);
Xr3= Yd3/cof3; %Straight line X

31
dist3b=Xr3 ;

avgdist3=sum(dist3b)/100 %average distance between 0 and fi

dea3=(((Vfinal2)^2)-(Vfinal1^2))/(2*avgdist3); %deaceleration
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------
avgdist3b = ((Lb3-(db3/2)).*cos(teta3-teta0))./(tan(0.5.*pi-teta3+teta0));

Vteta3b = ((Vfinal1^2)+2*dea3.*avgdist3b).^0.5; %velocity of the water at

part b in teta 3

Vblade3b=Vangular*(Lb3-(db3/2));

Vr3b = Vteta3b.*cos(teta3-teta0)-Vblade3b; %relative velocity

Force3b= 0.5*ro*Cd.*A3b.*Vr3b.*Vr3b;

Moment3b=Force3b.*(Lb3-(db3/2));

delta3=(0.5*alpha/100);

SMoment3b=sum(Moment3b)*delta3*Nblades;

Pout3b=(1-Ploss)*SMoment3b/periodA;

%REGION A IN PART III

da3=l-Lb3; %lenght of the part a

Larm3A = Lb3 + da3/2; %Lever Arm of part A

Aa3=da3*width;

avgdist3a= ((Lb3+l).*cos(teta3-teta0))./(2.*tan(0.5.*pi-teta3+teta0));

Vteta3a = ((Vfinal1^2)+2*dea3.*avgdist3a).^0.5;

Vblade3a=Vangular*Larm3A;

Vr3a = Vteta3a.*cos(teta3-teta0)-Vblade3a; %needs to calculate vblade

Larm3A = Lb3 + da3/2;

Force3A= 0.5*ro*Cd.*Aa3.*Vr3a.*Vr3a;

Moment3A=Force3A.*Larm3A;

SMoment3A=sum(Moment3A)*delta3*Nblades;

Pout3a=SMoment3A/periodA;

32
%-------------X---------------X---------------------X---------------------

% PART IV - JUST REGION B teta0+alpha/2 < teta < 2*teta0

teta4 = linspace(teta0+(0.5*alpha),2*teta0,100); % the same as teta ,just

defined in a different interval

Lbb4=l.*cos(teta4-teta0); %vertical distance between the center and the

end part b

Lb4=Lbb4./cos(teta4-teta0); %radial distance between center and end of

part b

ab4 = d./cos(teta4-teta0); %non submerged part of the blade

db4=Lb4-ab4; %submerged part of the blade

A4b = db4*width;

Larm4 = ab4 + db4/2;

avgdist4b= ((Larm4).*cos(teta4-teta0))./(tan(0.5.*pi-teta4+teta0));

Vteta4b = ((Vfinal1^2)+2*dea3.*avgdist4b).^0.5;

Vblade4b = Larm4*Vangular;

Vr4b = Vteta4b.*cos(teta4-teta0)-Vblade4b;

Force4b= 0.5*ro*Cd.*A4b.*Vr4b.*Vr4b;

Moment4b=Force4b.*Larm4;

delta4 = (2*teta0-(teta0+(0.5*alpha)))/100;

SMoment4b=sum(Moment4b)*delta4*Nblades;

Pout4=(1-Ploss)*SMoment4b/periodA;

Pt= Pout1+Pout2b+Pout2a +Pout3a+Pout3b + Pout4;

eff = Pt/Pin

33