Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Thomas Kinsey
Laboratoire de Mecanique des
Fluides Numerique,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Laval University,
Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
e-mail: thomas.kinsey.1@ulaval.ca
Guy Dumas1
Laboratoire de Mecanique des
Fluides Numerique,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Laval University,
Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
e-mail: gdumas@gmc.ulaval.ca
Introduction
flows bypass the effective aerodynamic body which is not the case
when considering the flow through a turbine. These corrections
for bluff bodies are thus not expected to accurately account for
blockage effect in the specific case of hydrokinetic turbines.
More recently, Bahaj et al. [4] performed experimental measurements on a three-bladed horizontal-axis hydrokinetic turbine
(HAHT) in a cavitation tunnel and a towing tank. They corrected
their results to account for blockage using a method based on an
actuator disk model of a hypothetical turbine which was first proposed by Barnsley and Wellicome [5] (hereafter referred to as the
BW correction). In the latter, the Glauerts equations have been
modified to account for the wake expansion of the turbine. The
BW correction depends on the blockage ratio e, the velocity in the
testing facility U, the drag coefficient of the turbine CD, and the
estimated velocity through the turbine a2U which is calculated
iteratively. This technique is used in the present study to correlate
the results of the OFHT in different confined environments and
details are presented in Appendix A.
Sorensen et al. [6] proposed a blockage correction based on the
same analysis but which necessitates measurement of the wake
width instead of the drag coefficient, doing so the correction is
obtained explicitly.
Blockage effects on the performance of tidal turbines have also
been investigated recently in order to propose modifications to the
classical LanchesterBetz limit [7,8] which formally applies for
turbines considered unconfined. Such an adaptation to this theory
has been proposed by Garret and Cummins [9] for cases presenting a certain level of blockage in a closed-section channel (no
free-surface).
Houlsby et al. [10] followed the same procedure as Garret and
Cummins by studying the streamtube associated with the flow
through a hypothetical turbine but with an extension to open channel flow. They presented a step by step procedure to compute the
theoretical power available from an unconfined case (equivalent
to the LanchesterBetz limit), a confined flow by horizontal
planes and an open-channel flow with confinement through freesurface proximity. The free-surface case has also been studied by
C 2016 by ASME
Copyright V
Problem Definition
CX t
CY t
(1)
CM t
ht H0 sinc t /
(2)
(3)
Vy t H0 c cosc t /
(4)
where h0 and H0 are, respectively, the pitching and heaving amplitude, X is the pitching velocity, Vy is the heaving velocity, c is the
angular frequency (2pf), and / is the phase difference between
the two motions. In this study, the pitching axis is located on the
chord line at a distance xp/c 0.4 from the leading edge, c being
the chord length. The pitching amplitude is h0 80 deg, the
Xt
1
q U2 b c
2
Y t
1
q U2 b c
2
Mt
1
q U 2 b c2
2
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Ph t Mt Xt
(9)
Pt Py t Ph t
(10)
Py Ph
P
Pa 1
q U 3 AT
2
(11)
Tidal
River
13
23.5
804000
1.58.8
0.52
1.53
81000
0.65
X
c
CX
1
2 H0
2
q U AT
2
(12)
Blockage Parameters
Figure 2 presents the principal parameters to define the blockage ratio of a turbine in a channel. Following the Nomenclature
usually adopted in aero and hydrodynamics [1,3,4,9], we define
the blockage ratio e as the ratio of the turbine swept area AT to the
cross-sectional area of the channel A
AT WT HT
A
W H
(13)
where WT, HT, W, and H are the frontal dimensions of the turbine
and the domain as presented in Fig. 2. The confinement can be analyzed in terms of vertical confinement HT/H and horizontal confinement WT/W. A turbine is considered centered in the channel
when HT/H WT/W. The impact of vertical and horizontal confinements is addressed in Sec. 6.1. Moreover, the values of blockage ratio are limited by e 100% for a fully confined turbine and
e 0% for an unconfined one.
Numerical Methodology
Fig. 2 Computational
conditions
domain
and
exterior
boundary
Fig. 3 Description of the overset mesh technique and the interface characteristics
Fig. 4 Characteristics of the mesh shown on a vertical slice at a midspan position for a
blockage of e 5 50%
Validation
Dz
3D-1
3D-2
3D-3
4.65
9.44
24.71
200
292
400
0.04 c
0.03 c
0.02 c
ts/cycle
CX
C^Y
C^M
CP
Time
3D-3
3D-3
3D-3
500
1 000
2 000
2.525
2.509
2.474
3.462
3.553
3.525
0.950
0.952
0.952
0.775
0.791
0.784
Space
3D-1
3D-2
3D-3
1 000
1 000
1 000
2.467
2.490
2.509
3.494
3.522
3.553
0.947
0.954
0.952
0.784
0.789
0.791
at arctanVy t=U ht
Results
Fig. 6 Power coefficient (CP ) with respect to the reduced frequency for an unconfined NACA 0015 oscillating foil of aspect
ratio 7 at Re 5 500,000 (xp/c 5 0.33, H0/c 5 1.0, h0 5 75 deg)
(14)
(15)
Fig. 8 Evolution of vorticity fields (red counterclockwise and blue clockwise) for an unconfined hydrofoil (e 5 0.2%) at reduced frequencies of f * 5 0.08 and 0.22
Fig. 9 Evolution of vorticity fields (red counterclockwise and blue clockwise) at a reduced
frequency of f * 5 0.12 for an unconfined hydrofoil (e 5 0.2%) and for a blockage of e 5 49.7%
The need to discriminate between horizontal and vertical confinements can be studied by comparing the cases presenting a
same blockage ratio but different confinement asymmetry (CA)
defined as
HT =H
(16)
CA
WT =W
A turbine is considered perfectly centered when CA 1. The
different channel cross sections tested are presented in Fig. 13.
Results in Table 4 show that for high blockage ratios, e.g.,
e 33%, the performance seems to be unaffected by the aspect
ratio of the channel. However, when the CA of two channels are
very different, the impact can be significant as observed for the
e 12% cases with a relative difference of about 6% on the power
extracted. Figure 14 presents the instantaneous power coefficient
signal for a different CA for a fixed blockage ratio of e 12%. It
is shown that the more the channel is narrow (WT/W ! 1) the
more it gets close to the two-dimensional (2D) result (corresponding to the case CA e).
Transactions of the ASME
WT/W
HT/H
CA
100
20
44.7
1
11.5
17.5
28.4
46
11.5
23
11.5
17.25
11.5
11.5
10.5
100
20
8.9
16.1
14
9.1
5.7
3.5
7
3.5
5.25
3.5
4.3
3.5
3.2
0.10
0.50
0.22
1.0
0.87
0.57
0.35
0.22
0.87
0.43
0.87
0.58
0.87
0.87
0.95
0.02
0.10
0.22
0.124
0.14
0.22
0.35
0.57
0.29
0.57
0.38
0.57
0.47
0.57
0.63
0.20
0.20
1.00
0.124
0.16
0.39
1.00
2.63
0.33
1.31
0.44
0.99
0.54
0.66
0.67
1.00
1.09
1.09
1.43
1.25
1.21
1.18
1.17
1.38
1.35
1.48
1.47
1.59
1.78
2.13
C0P CP
3
U
U0
(17)
C0D CD
2
U
U0
(18)
where C0P and C0D are, respectively, the equivalent power and drag
coefficients of the corresponding hypothetical unconfined turbine
while CP and CD are the power and drag coefficients of the confined turbine. Similarly, the reduced frequency can be correlated
for different blockage ratios with the following expression:
f0 f
Blockage Corrections
U
U0
(19)
where f 0 and f * are, respectively, the equivalent reduced frequency of the corresponding hypothetical unconfined turbine and
the reduced frequency of the confined turbine. For a turbine with
known optimal operating conditions, this relation could allow to
estimate the reduced frequency corresponding to the peak performance if the turbine was installed in another confined environment. Equation (15) for the maximum effective angle of attack
returns the same result regardless of the blockage. However, by
using f 0 instead of f * in this expression, the maximum effective
angle of attack perceived by the confined foil (a0max ) is obtained.
The latter is more representative of the actual flow dynamics as it
takes into account the blockage.
The BW correction is applied to the present OFHT results for
the power and drag coefficients as presented in Fig. 17. Ideally,
the correction formula should bring all the points to fit on a single
curve.
Transactions of the ASME
Fig. 16 Impact of an off-centered turbine on its performance for a blockage ratio of e 5 12% and a reduced frequency of f * 5 0.18. (a) Mean streamwise velocity profiles at an upstream distance of x 5 2 c from the turbine. (b)
Evolution of the instantaneous power coefficient on the oscillating cycle showing the differences on peak values
between the downstroke and the upstroke.
Fig. 17 Blockage correction of Barnsley and Wellicome applied to the present OFHT results CP (f*; e) and CD (f*; e)
0
0
and the corresponding hypothetical unconfined results CP f 0 ; e and CD f 0 ; e
Conclusion
Acknowledgment
Financial support from NSERC Canada, FRQNT Quebec, Marine Renewable Canada and Laval University are gratefully
acknowledged. A special thanks to Mike Shives from the University of Victoria as well as Robert J. Cavagnaro from the University of Washington for their useful inputs on blockage effects.
Computations were performed on the supercomputers Colosse at
Laval University and Guillimin in Montreal, both managed by
Calcul Quebec and Compute Canada. This essential resource is
here gratefully acknowledged.
Nomenclature
A
AT
b
c
CP
CP
C0P
CD
C0D
CA
f
f*
f0
g
h
H
HT
H0
L
M
P
Pa
Py
Ph
Re
t
T
U
U0
Vy
W
WT
X
xp
Y
a
aT=4
c
e
h
h0
q
/
X
^
Bernoulli
Using Bernoulli for stations 1 to 4, 1 to 2, and 3 to 4, leads to
the following expressions:
1
p p4 q U 2 b24 1
2
1
p2 p3 q U 2 b24 a 24
2
(A3)
(A4)
Momentum Budget
The momentum budget on a control volume including the whole
channel gives a first expression for the drag on the turbine
(A5)
D q U 2 A A A4 b24 A4 a 24 p p4 A
Substituting Eq. (A3) in Eq. (A5), we get
1
D q U 2 A4 b24 a 24 A b24 1 q A U2 b24 1
2
(A6)
which can be expressed in terms of A4 only using continuity
1
D qA4 U 2 b4 a4 b4 2a4 1
2
(A7)
(A1)
(A2)
(A8)
(A9)
We have now two equations for the drag on the turbine that
must be equal. Equaling Eq. (A7) and Eq. (A9) and using continuity, we get
Fig. 19 Sketch of the flow past an idealized hydrokinetic turbine showing the expansion of
the stream tube and the different velocities and dimensions used for blockage corrections.
Adapted from Ref. [10].
a2
a4 b4 a4
b4 2a4 1
(A10)
Considering an unconfined actuator disk. The drag on the turbine is obtained through a momentum budget on a control volume
including the stream tube
2
1
CD
1
a4
a02
1
1 a04
2
(A21)
1 0
C a02 1 a02
4 D
(A15)
In order to obtain the blockage correction, we want to determine the equivalent unconfined upstream velocity U 0 that would
lead (in the unconfined case) to a same power extracted than in
the confined case [1]. This implies a same flow velocity through
the turbine and a same drag on the turbine than those of the confined case.
So we basically have the following relations:
CD U2 C0D U 02
(A16)
a2 U a02 U0
(A17)
(A23)
U 0 a 22 CD =4
(A14)
(A20)
(A13)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1
a2 b4
a2 b4
e
1
a4 a4
a4 a4
1
q At U 03 a02 1 a04 2
2
a2
D 2 q At U 02 a02 1 a02
a4
(A19)
(A12)
and then by expressing Eq. (A10) in terms of a4, we get a quadratic equation for a2/a4 which the positive solution (only the positive root has physical meaning) is
v
"
#
u
2
u
b4
t
1 1 e
1
a4
a2
b
a4
e 41
a4
P q At U 03 a02 2 1 a04
(A11)
(A18)
1
b
a2
4e
a4 a4
a4
D q At U 02 a02 1 a04
(A24)
3
U
;
U0
CD0 CD
2
U
;
U0
f0 f
U
U0
(A25)
References
[1] Glauert, H., 1947, The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory, 2nd ed.,
Cambridge University Press, New York.
[2] Maskell, E. C., 1963, A Theory of Blockage Effects on Bluff Bodies and
Stalled Wings in Closed Wind Tunnel, Aeronautical Research Council, London, ARC R&M No. 3400.
[3] Pope, A., and Harper, J., 1966, Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, 2nd ed.,
Wiley, New York.
[4] Bahaj, A., Molland, A., Chaplin, J., and Batten, W., 2007, Power and Thrust
Measurement of Marine Current Turbines Under Various Hydrodynamic Flow
Conditions in a Cavitation Tunnel and Towing Tank, Renewable Energy,
32(3), pp. 407426.
[5] Barnsley, M. J., and Wellicome, J. F., 1990, Final Report on the 2nd Phase of
Development and Testing of a Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Test Rig for the
Investigation of Stall Regulation Aerodynamics, Carried Out Under ETSU
Agreement No. E.5A/CON5103/1746.
[6] Srensen, J. N., Shen, W. Z., and Mikkelsen, R., 2006, Wall Correction Model
for Wind Tunnels With Open Test Section, AIAA J., 44(8), pp. 18901894.
[7] Betz, A., 1920, Das Maximum der Theoretisch M
oglichen Ausn
utzung des
Windes Durch Windmotoren, Z. Gesamte Turbinenwesen, 26, pp. 307309.
[8] Lanchester, F. W., 1915, A Contribution to the Theory of Propulsion and the
Screw Propeller, Trans. Inst. Naval Archit., LVII, pp. 98116.
[9] Garret, C., and Cummins, P., 2007, The Efficiency of a Turbine in a Tidal
Channel, J. Fluid Mech., 588, pp. 243251.
[10] Houlsby, G., Draper, S., and Oldfield, M., 2008, Application of Linear
Momentum Actuator Disc Theory to Open Channel Flow, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Report No. OUEL 2296/08.
[11] Whelan, J., Graham, J., and Peir
o, J., 2009, A Free-Surface and Blockage Correction for Tidal Turbines, J. Fluid Mech., 624, pp. 281291.
[12] Gauthier, E., Kinsey, T., and Dumas, G., 2013, RANS Versus Scale-Adaptive
Turbulence Modeling for Engineering Prediction of Oscillating-Foils
Turbines, 21th Annual Conference of the CFD Society of Canada, Sherbrooke,
Canada, May 69, p. CFDSC2013186.
[13] Kinsey, T., and Dumas, G., 2008, Parametric Study of an Oscillating Airfoil in
a Power Extraction Regime, AIAA J., 46(6), pp. 13181330.
[14] Kinsey, T., and Dumas, G., 2012, Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of
a Hydrokinetic Turbine Based on Oscillating Hydrofoils, ASME J. Fluids
Eng., 134(2), p. 021104.
[15] Kinsey, T., and Dumas, G., 2012, Optimal Tandem Configuration for
Oscillating-Foils Hydrokinetic Turbine, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 134(7),
p. 031103.
[16] Kinsey, T., and Dumas, G., 2012, Three-Dimensional Effects on an OscillatingFoils Hydrokinetic Turbine, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 134(7), p. 071105.
[17] Kinsey, T., and Dumas, G., 2014, Optimal Operating Parameters for an Oscillating
Foil Turbine at Reynolds Number 500 000, AIAA J., 52(9), pp. 18851895.
[18] Zhu, Q., and Peng, Z., 2009, Mode Coupling and Flow Energy Harvesting by
a Flapping Foil, Phys. Fluids, 21(3), p. 033601.
[19] Zhu, Q., 2011, Optimal Frequency for Flow Energy Harvesting of a Flapping
Foil, J. Fluid Mech., 675, pp. 495517.
[20] Ashraf, M., Young, J., Lai, J., and Platzer, M., 2011, Numerical Analysis of an
Oscillating-Wing Wind and Hydropower Generator, AIAA J., 49(7),
pp. 13741386.
[21] CD-Adapco, 2014, STAR-CCM V9 User Guide, http://www.cd-adapco.com/
products/star-ccm
[22] Menter, F., 1994, Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications, AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 15981605.
[23] Bullivant, W. K., 1941, Tests of a NACA 0025 and 0035 Airfoils in the FullScale Wind Tunnel, Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, VA, NACA
Report No. 708.
[24] Kinsey, T., Dumas, G., Lalande, G., Ruel, J., Mehut, A., Viarouge, P., Lemay, J.,
and Jean, Y., 2011, Prototype Testing of a Hydrokinetic Turbine Based on Oscillating Hydrofoils, Renewable Energy, 36(6), pp. 17101718.