J. of Thermal Science Vol.13, No.

2D CFD Analysis and Experimental Analysis on the Effect of Hub to Tip Ratios
on the Performance of 0.6 m Impulse Turbine

A. THAKKER M.EI.HEMRY
W a v e Energy Research Team, D e p a r t m e n t o f Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering,
University o f Limerick, Ireland
E-mail: Ajit.Thakker@ul.ie

The objective of this paper is to present the performance comparison of 2D Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
analysis with experimental analysis of 0.6 m impulse turbine with fixed guide vanes for both 0.6 and 0.7 hub to
tip ratio (H/F). Also the comparison of 2D CFD analysis of the said turbine with different values of H/T ranging
from 0.5 to 0.7. A 2D-cascade model was used for CFD analysis while uni-directional steady flow was used for
experimental analysis. The blade and guide vane geometries are based on 0.6 m rotor diameter, with optimum
profile, and different H/T of 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7. It was concluded from 2D CFD analysis that 0.5 I-I/T ratio
performances was higher than that of 0.6 and 0.7 H/T at peak efficiency and the operational flow range for 0.5
H/T was found to be wider than that of 0.6 and 0.7 H/T ratio.

Keywords: wave energy, impulse turbine, computational fluid dynamics (CFD).

CLC number: TK730.2 Document code: A Article ID: 1003-2169(2004)04-0297-06

Introduction different blade and guide vane geometrical parameters [2].

For the last two decades, scientists have been
investigating and defining different methods for power
extraction from wave motion. These devices utilize the
principle of an Oscillating Water Column (OWC). OWC
based Wave Energy Power Plants convert wave energy
into low-pressure pneumatic power in the form of bi-
directional airflow. Self-rectifying air turbines (which are
capable of operating uni-directionally in bi-directional
airflow) are used to extract mechanical shaft power,
which is further converted into electrical power by a
generator. Two different turbines are currently in use
around the world for wave energy power generation,
Wells Turbine, introduced by Dr. A.A. Wells in 1976
and Impulse Turbine with guide vanes by Kim et al. m.
Both kinds of turbines are currently in operation in
different power plants in Europe and Asia on experimental
as well as commercial basis. Currently, research around
the world is focused on improving the performance of
these turbines under different operating conditions.
The ultimate purpose of this research is to improve
the performance of impulse turbine with fixed guide
vanes for wave energy power conversion by modifying
Received April 24, 2003
A. THAKKER: Doctor
Therefore, as the starting point, it was decided to use a
different hub to tip ratio of 0.6 compared to the already
published and established optimum value of 0.7 E31. The
said turbine was designed, manufactured and tested at
uni-directional steady flow testing facilities of Wave
Energy Research Team at University of Limerick t4j. This
paper presents the work carried out to compare
experimental results with 2D CFD analysis for 0.6 and
0.7 H/T for 0.6 m impulse turbine.
Turbine Design and Manufacture
The basic turbine design and geometry was based on
the optimum design parameters by Setoguchi et al [3]. Two
different rotors with hub to tip ratio of 0.6 and 0.7 were
designed and manufactured at the University of Limerick.
The details of design parameters for rotors and guide
vanes are given in Table 1. Each rotor consists of 30
blades with 26 fixed angle mirror image guide vanes on
both sides of the respective rotor with inlet/outlet angle,
0 = 30 ° . Both turbines had a similar blade pitch to chord
of 0.5 as suggested in Setoguchi et al. [3]. A 2D sketch of
0.6 H/T ratio turbine at mid radius is shown in Fig. 1.
316 Journal of Thermal Science, Vol.13, No.4, 2004

Nomenclature Va Mean axial flow velocity, (m/s)

B Blade height, (m) z Number of rotor blades
Cr Torque coefficient ~o Pressure drop, (N/m z)
CA Input coefficient r/ Turbine efficiency
I-I/T Hub-to-Tip ratio 0 Setting angle of fixed guide vane, (Deg.)
Ir Chord length of rotor blade, (m) ¢ Flow coefficient
a Flow rate, (m3/s) gO Angular velocity of turbine rotor, (rad/s)
rR Mean radius, m p Air density, (kg/m3)
UR Circumferential velocity at rn, (m/s)

Table 1 Rotor blade and guide vanes geometry

Parameter Symbol 0.5 H/T 0.6 I-I/T 0.7 I-I/T

Blade profile: Elliptical
Number of blades z 30 30 30
Tip diameter (mm) D 600.0 600.0 600.0
Chord length (mm) lr 94.0 100.0 106.0
Rotor blade pitch (mm) Sr 47.0 50.0 53.0
Blade inlet angle 7' 60° 60° 60°
Pitch/chord ratio 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Blade profile: Elliptical
Pitch (mm) Sg 54. 58.0 61.0
Chord length (nun) lg 123.0 131.0 140.0
Number of GV g 26 26 26
GV inlet/outlet angle 0 30 ° 30° 30°

The turbine blades were manufactured using FDM

Flow
Rapid prototyping machines using ABS Plastic-P400.
The aluminium hub was manufactured using conventional
lg manufacturing techniques. The copper guide vanes were
fabricated using standard sheet metal procedures. The
details can be found in Thakker et al. tS[.

Experimental Facilities and Methodology

A schematic layout of the experimental rig at Wave

Energy Research Team, University of Limerick is shown
No. of blades in Fig.2. It consists of a bell mouth entry, 0.6 m test
z = 30
section, drive and transmission section, a plenum chamber
0.00 with honeycomb section, a calibrated nozzle and a
centrifugal fan. Air is drawn into the bell mouth shaped
open end; it passes through the turbine and then enters
the plenum chamber. In the chamber, the flow is
conditioned and all swirls/vortices are removed prior to
passing through a calibrated nozzle and finally exhausting
at the fan outlet. Using a valve at fan exit controls the
No. of guide vanes "-~ ~
flow rate. The maximum diameter of the test section is
g=26 ~ 0.6m with a hub-tip ratio of 0.6. Details of the test rig
calibration etc. can be found in Thakker et al. [51.

Flow Experimental Analysis

Fig.1 0.6 m impulse turbine with fixed guide vanes Experimental results on the running characteristics of
A. THAKKER et al. Effect of Hub to Tip Ratios on the Performance of 0.6 m Impulse Turbine 317

'~ Plenum chamber

Flow control valve ... -,
- 7, Rotor

Centrifugal fan .~ .~
,
~]//ff/ff
-- 1 DCmotor /

~ ":"?'~' H [ ,..]=~,ll].=,.......,=[.].~
; / ! \
/ ,'~ tj Drive
Nozzle Honeycomb section Torque transducer

Fig.2 Schematic diagram of 0.6 m diameter test rig at University of Limerick

Periodic ]
Guide vane ]
Mass flow inlet

-.I I Pressure outlet

Periodi~c ]

[ Turbineblade ]

Fig.3 Cells distribution over the domain

turbine are expressed in terms o f the torque coefficient Boundary condition

Cr, input coefficient CA and efficiency r/, which are It was necessary to set up three fluid zones using
plotted against the flow coefficient 0. The various sliding mesh technique. The three zones are the upstream
definitions are: guide vane, the rotor and the downstream guide vane.
Inflow is set as mass flow inlet, outflow is set as pressure
C T =T/[p(V2a +U2)blrzrR/2] (1)
outlet and periodic walls are set as transit;,onal to allow
CA = t ~ Q / [ p ( v 2 + U2R )bl~ ZVa / 2] (2) cascade effect on blade and guide vane to be simulated.
The fluid at rotor is defined as a moving reference frame
~) : 1Ja [ U R (3) with the angular speed equivalent to that o f the blade
(350 r/min). The flow is set as fully turbulent.
rI = Ta~ / tYpQ = CT / CAO (4)

C F D Technique Mesh and solver

Computational domain
The domain extended to 8.5 chord lengths upstream
and down stream, it is restricted to one blade to blade and
guide vane to guide vane passage with periodic boundaries.
The model was meshed in Gambit TM. The domain
was meshed using an unstructured mesh. The model was
meshed with 350 cells on the blade surface and total o f
13000 cells. An initial trial has been carried out with grid
size 8000, 13,000 and 22000 cells and the results from
318 Journal of Thermal Science, Vol.13, No.4, 2004

each grid size were very similar [61.It was found however, To further this discussion, coefficient of torque (Cr)
that an improvement in the cell aspect ratio at the inlet verses flow coefficient (~) and coefficient of input (Ca)
and outlet was required to speed up convergence with verses flow coefficient (0) plots are given in Figs.5 and 6
mass flow inlet boundary. For this reason, the medium respectively. Due to highly three-dimensional nature of
density grid was re-meshed, giving 13,000 cells, Fig.3. the flow, the 2-D CFD model under predicts the torque
The model was analyzed using the Fluent 5 TM. The solver coefficient and input coefficient. From Fig.5, it can be
used was a segregated solver as the flow is incompressible. observed that the computed values of torque coefficient
arrived from 2-D model is under-predicting the
Turbulence modeling experimental values.
Fluent provides a number of turbulence models, the
default one being the k-E model. The other models are the
RNG k-E model and the Reynolds Stress Equation Model. Torque Coefficient vs Row Coefficient for
0.6 w r ratio
The generic k-e model focuses on the mechanisms that
affect turbulent kinetic energy. The standard k-e model
2 ...... %, ,~: .....
has two equations, one for turbulent kinetic energy k, and
one for dissipation, E. The second turbulence model used
by Fluent is a variation of k-e model and called the RNG
k-E model. The Reynolds stress equations model analyzes
J 'i i
i • CFD_0.6. :

the effects of the turbulent flow rather than the flow itself.
Turbulent flow basically consists of an instantaneously
io.i i • E~0.8 i l

fluctuating flow superimposed on a steady mean flow. In

our computation, standard k-E model was used.
C F D Results and Discussion
Two cases have been analyzed in order to investigate
the effects of H/T on the efficiency of the impulse
turbine with fixed guide vanes for wave energy power
conversion. For 0.6 H/T, the performance of the turbine
using CFD analysis was compared with the results
obtained by experiments Fig.4. It can be noted from the
figure, that the CFD results are giving higher efficiency
when compared to experimental results. The difference
in the efficiency between experimental and CFD results
are due to that the CFD results are based on 2D analysis
and tip gap losses are not taken into account. Due to this
fact, actual pressure drops across the rotor cannot be
depicted. These are the main reasons that the CFD
analysis is predicting a higher efficiency when compared
to experimental analysis.
o; ROW Coefficient i
i
Fig.5 Torque coe~]cient vs. flow coefficient
Where as in Fig.6, we can see that the input
coefficient for experimental results is much higher than
what we get from CFD. This is due to the fact, that the
tip gap losses are not considered in the CFD analysis.
Therefore the actual pressure drop measured during
experiments is higher than the CFD predicted pressure
drop across the rotor. Thus we can say that 2D CFD is
not capable of picking up 3D losses in the system and for
better and more realistic performance predictions, 3D
CFD analysis are required.
Input Coefficient vs FlowCoefficlent for 0.6 H / l " ratio
3.5

Efficiency vs Flow Coefficient for 0.6 H/T ratio i 2

3,
z5
1.5
7
I
-; ~._06!
Jk Exp 0 6 1

0.5
0
0.8
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.6
Flow Coeffldent
0.4
0,2
0 CFD_0.6 :

-- 0
-0,2
Jk Exp_0.6
Fig.6 Input coefficient vs. flow coefficient
-0.4
-0,6
-0.8 The performance of the turbine using CFD was also
Flow Coefficient analyzed and compared with the experimental results
with 0.7 H/F. As shown in Fig.7 the computed efficiency
Fig.4 Efficiency vs. flow coefficient with 2-D CFD model gives qualitative agreement with
A. THAKKER et al. Effect of Hub to Tip Ratios on the Performance of 0.6 m Impulse Turbine 319

experimental results. The difference in efficiency between are not considered in the CFD analysis. Therefore the
CFD and experimental results is due to the fact that CFD actual pressure drop measured during experiments is
results are based on 2D analysis, where some losses are higher then the CFD predicted pressure drop across the
not taken into account. rotor. Again we can say that 3D CFD analysis is
required for predicting the performance of turbine
qualitatively and quantitatively.
Bficiency vs Row Coefficient for 0.7 H/T
ratio
Comparsion of CFD Results of 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7
I-I/T Ratio Turbines
++++.
~, 0s . . . . . .
i I. CFD 0.7 [
Comparison for the CFD results among 0.5, 0.6 and
0 l - : EXp 0.7 0.7 hub to tip ratio is shown in Fig.10 with respect to
-0.5 efficiency verses flow coefficient. The CFD results gives
-1 quite similar curves in trend, but the turbine with 0.5 hub
Row Coefficient
to tip ratio is giving higher efficiency when compared to
. + 0.6 and 0.7 hub to tip over the entire range of flow
Fig.7 Efficiency vs. flow coefficient coefficient.

A coefficient of torque Cr verses flow coefficient i

and coefficient of input CAverses flow coefficient 0 plots Efficiency vs Flow coefficient for 0.5,0.6 and !
are given in Figs.8 and 9 respectively. From Fig.8, it can 0.7 H/T ratio !
be observed that the computed values of torque i

coefficient from 2-D CFD model is under-predicting the 1 %+ _ +" +'~ = i

experimental values and experimental results are giving +o: . o+o+I

higher torque coefficient. -- " CFD 0.6 =i
i CFOo.s
In Fig.9, we can see that the input coefficient for -0.5 i

experimental results is much higher than what we get

-' i
from CFD. This is due to the fact, that the tip gap losses Flow Coefficient !

Fig.10 Efficiency vs. flow coefficient

Tar que Coefficient v s Row Coefficient for 0.7 Hrf ratio

2 Coefficient of torque (Cr) verses flow coefficient (0)

1.5 / and coefficient of input (CA) verses flow coefficient (0)
I Q C~:D 0.7 i plots are given in Figs.ll and 12 respectively. It can be
0.5 == Exp_0.7 [ seen from Fig.11, the 2-D computed values gives quite
~ o similar curves in trend for all the tested H/T ratio,
4O.5 however, 0.5 H/T ratio turbine is giving higher value for
Flow Coefficient torque coefficient for the full range of flow coefficient
when compared to the 0.6 and 0.7 H/T ratio.
Fig.8 Torque coefficient vs. flow coefficient The magnitude for the input coefficient, Fig.12, for

Input Coefficient vs Row Coefficient for Torque Coefficient vs Row Coefficient for
0.7 H/T ratio 0.5,0.6 and 0.7 Hrr ratio

3
2.5 "+- 0.60.5 ,i* +++
2
* ~Ff_O.Z 0.4 i I CFD_0.7
1.5
= EW._0.7 0.3 • CFD 0.6
0.2 CFD_0.5
-- 0.5 ~I- 0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ..01

Row Coemclent Row Coefficient

Fig.9 Input coefficient vs. flow coefficient Fig.ll Torque coefficient vs. flow coefficient
320
Input Coefficient vs Row Coefficient for
0.5,0.6 and 0.7 H/T ratio
0.8 , -
0.6
0.4
" 0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
ROW Coefficient
Fig.12 Input coefficient vs. flow coefficient
0.5 H/T ratio is higher than for 0.6 and 0.7 I-I/T ratio, but
due to the higher torque generating characteristics of 0.5
H/T ratio turbine, the overall performance was found to
be better than 0.6 and 0.7 H/T ratio turbine. Thus
performance of 0.5 H/T ratio turbine proves that it is a
better hub to tip ratio when compared to previously
established optimum value of 0.7 Setoguchi et al. I31.
Conclusions
The effects of hub to tip ratio on the performance of
the impulse turbine for wave energy conversion have
been investigated by 2-D CFD analysis and
experimentally by model testing under steady flow
conditions. The 2-D CFD results for 0.6 and 0.7 H/T
ratio gave higher efficiency when compared with
experimental results. This was due to the fact that tip gap
losses were not taken into 2-D CFD analysis.
The results from 2D CFD analysis suggested that 0.5
H/T ratio turbine performance was higher than that of 0.6
and 0.7 I-I/T ratios. A further study is required to clarify
the effect of hub-to-tip ratio on the performance of the
impulse turbine.
Journal of Thermal Science, Vo1.13, No.4, 2004
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial
support given by Wave Energy Research Team, Department
of Mechanical & Aeronautical Engineering, University
O CA CFD 0.7
of Limerick, Ireland.
" CA CFD 0.6
s _ p _ i n l e t CFD_0.5
--i
References
[1] Kim, T W, Kaneko, K, Setoguchi, T, et al. Aerodynamic
Performance of an Impulse Turbine with Self-Pitch-
Controlled Guide Vanes for Wave Power Generator. In:
Proceedings of the 1st KSMY-JSME Thermal and Fluids
Engineering Conference, Korea., 1988
[2] Thakker, A, Frawley, P, Kalleeq, H B. An Investigation of
the Effects of Reynolds Number on the Performance of
0.6 m Impulse Turbines for Different Hub to Tip Ratios.
In: Proceedings of the 12~ International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference, Kitakyushu, Japan, 2002.
682--686
[3] Setoguchi, T, Santhakumar, S, Maeda, H, et al. A Review
of Impulse Turbines for Wave Energy Conversion.
Renewable Energy, 2001, 23:261--292
[4] Thakker, A, Khaleeq, H B, Setoguchi, T. Performance
Comparison of 0.3 m and 0.6 m Impulse Turbine with
Fixed Guide Vanes - Part I. In: Proceedings of the 4 m
European Wave Energy Conference, Aalborg, Denmark,
2000a
[5] Thakker, A, Sheahan, C, Frawley, P, et al. The Concurrent
Engineering Approach to the Manufacture of Impulse
Turbine Blades using Rapid Prototyping. The Rapid
Prototyping Journal, 2001, 7(3): 1--5
[6] Thakker, A, Frawley, P, Kalleeq, H B, et al. Experimental
and CFD Analysis of 0.6 Impulse Turbine with Fixed
Guide Vane. In: Proceedings of 11th ISOPE Conference,
Stavanger, Norway, 200 l, 1: 625-- 629