Energy Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 155-162, 1987 0360-5442/87 $3.00 +O.

OO
Printed in Great Britain Pergamon Journals Ltd

A STUDY OF AN AXIAL-FLOW TURBINE FOR

KINETIC HYDRO POWER GENERATION

GABRIEL MILLER, DEAN CORREN, PETER ARMSTRONGand

JOSEPH FRANCESCHI
Department of Applied Science, New York University, 26-36 Stuyvesant Street,
New York, NY 10003, U.S.A.

(Received 24 January 1986)

Abstract-The ancient notion of installing turbines directly in waterways, without the use of civil
structures, has been reviewed recently. In an early study conducted for the New York Power
Authority (NYPA), we reached conclusions regarding the resource and types of kinetic hydro-
energy conversion systems (KHECS) which could be utilized. These studies established that a
kinetic hydro-energy resource sufficient to warrant the development of devices to exploit it exists
in New York State.
A technology assessment yielded a number of types of devices which could be practical, while
criteria including efficiency, simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and near-term commercialization indicated
an advantage to axial-flow propeller machines in both tidal flows and rivers. Rotor blades designed
according to the Glauert theory were tested and produced the necessary high efficiency (nearly
80% of the theoretical maximum). Fixed-pitch rotor operating curves yielded good load matching
with an induction generator.
Since units must operate reliably underwater for extended periods, variable-blade pitch or
variable-speed drive mechanisms add a degree of complexity which should be avoided, if possible.
These factors have been accommodated by careful rotor design and selection of drive and generating
components.
The culmination of the study involves the design, fabrication, and testing of a grid-connected,
full-scale prototype in New Yorks East River and the determination of the national resource. At
the prototype level this research project incorporates various examples of environmental and other
administrative permitting. The prototype experimental program is described.
With respect to resource assessment, an investigation is being performed to determine which
rivers of the U.S. are acceptable for KHECS utilization.

1. INTRODUCTION

American patents dating back to the turn of the century depict intuitively sensible but
inefficient designs of turbine/generators for direct submersion in streams and rivers. These
range from small units for isolated use in streams to large floating paddlewheel units for
major rivers. In this decade, a study of Radkey examined the river resource in the western
United States, the economics of ducted and unducted axial-flow turbine systems, and
performed small-scale rotor model tests, primarily on ducted rotors. Workers at Nova
Energy Ltd sought to develop a ducted Darrieus design for this application. We have
been investigating this technology since 1982 and sought to develop a practical and
economical KHECS. The results of the program to date are the subject of this paper.
The KHECS can be thought of as an underwater windmill. The fluid dynamics are
essentially the same, and the power available in the moving fluid is expressed by

P, = (1/2)pAU3, (1)

where p = fluid density, A = turbine frontal area, and U = freestream fluid velocity.
Systems in free flow regimes are compared according to the power coefficient, C,, which
is the ratio of the actual shaft power to the power available, i.e.

c, = (W/P,, (2)

where z = torque (Newton m) and w = angular velocity( rad/sec), thus giving power in W.
Betz showed that the maximum power that can be extracted by an unducted turbine in
155
156 GABRIEL MILLER et al.

such a flow is theoretically limited to 59.3% of P,. In comparing water turbines with
windmills, it should first be noted that water is about 850 times more dense than air. On
the other hand, typical water flows have 1/3rd to 1/5th the speed of typical winds. These
two opposing factors give the water turbine a 7-30-fold potential advantage in power per
unit rotor area according to Eq. (1). Other differences between the two systems in structural
requirements and overspeed potential tend to cancel out, leaving the above KHECS
advantage against which the costs of reliably surviving the underwater environment must
be assessed. To maintain and realize this advantage in practice requires careful design to
avoid cavitation, biofouling, seal leakage, and damage by submerged debris and ice, as
well as careful consideration of siting criteria. In addition, while such systems show an
economic advantage when compared to wind-energy systems, the additional question or
conditions under which there is an advantage of such systems with respect to traditional
micro-hydro power production must be addressed.

1.1 Generic and small scale research

In the Phase I study,3 a full range of devices was evaluated theoretically, including
vertical-axis, cross-axis, translational, and axial-flow turbines. Specific devices included
waterwheels, undershot and submerged; free, ducted and Wells rotor axial-flow turbines;
Darrieus, Savonius, and cyclogiro-type vertical-axis rotors; the Schneider Lift Translator.
It was concluded on the basis of turbine performance criteria that, while a number of
types of devices could be used, the axial-flow propeller turbine held the greatest promise
in tidal rivers and estuaries, and also in developed river systems. This conclusion was
based on the assumption that a simple machine could be produced to extract power at a
high C,. The Phase I study also included an evaluation of the New York State resource
for KHECS allocation. The methodology for the resource evaluation included examination
of USGS topological area maps and water resource data, along with National Oceano-
graphic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) tide tables and charts. Both non-navigable and
portions of navigable rivers were examined.
Since, according to Eq. (l), the power available in the flow varies as the cube of the
velocity and only directly as the area, constricted areas of accelerated flow are the prime
candidates for KHECS sites. A kinetic hydro-energy resource for use in both developed
river (undirectional) and tidal (bidirectional) systems, of approximately 300 MW exists in
New York State. However, the analysis did not take into account possible environmental
and institutional constraints.
In conjunction with these efforts, preliminary site-specific investigations were also carried
out to identify suitable sites for prototype and demonstration-scale testing. These studies
included geological, hydrological, legal, and environmental factors. A number of sites were
identified in New York State which would be suitable for KHECS siting. These include
the northern Niagara River (a unidirectional site), and the East Channel of the East River
in New York City. The specified favorable results led to a Phase II study,4 in which an
engineering and economic analysis was carried out to determine the approximate cost per
kW installed of representative KHECS units. A preliminary design for a 20 kW axial-flow
turbine KHECS was prepared and components specified. Price quotations were obtained
for components, fabricated parts, assembly, and installation. Prices were based on
commercial-scale production of 100 units for installation at ten standard sites of ten units
each. The result of this 1983 study was that the system would cost less the $17OO/kW
installed. This cost included the electrical interconnection equipment at shore but not the
electric transmission beyond the KHECS site. The study also included model tests of
various design parameters under controlled water-channel conditions. The test model
utilized a water-cooled magnetic particle brake, tachometer, and torque transducer to
perform dynamometry over a wide range of current speeds and rotor loadings. These tests
were conducted during May 1983 at the US Navys David Taylor Naval Ship Research
and Development Center (DTNSRDC) in Carderock, Maryland. The circulating water
channel facility was used, which permitted a wide range of stable water speeds for relatively
prolonged testing and photography.
 Kinetic hydro power generation 157

The first tests used 0.328 m radius rotors with chord and twist distributions designed
according to the Glauertmodel. Five rotors were tested, each with a different configuration
of number of blades, B, and design loaded tip speed ratio, X. All sections were of the
NACA 44XX series, a high-lift asymmetrical airfoil. Linear thickness tapers were used in
the range of 24% at the hub to 12% at the tip. Rotors were referred to by blade number
and design tip speed ratio, as in B2X4. For these tests, the rotors were fabricated with
steel spars and ribs with the internal volume filled with epoxy.
These tests showed reasonably high rotor efficiencies, and the operating curves at varying
current speeds for these fixed-pitch rotors indicated that it was possible to achieve good
load matching with a fixed speed electrical generator. Based on these results, an additional
study6 was performed, which includes further detailed rotor and nacelle model tests and
design and fabrication of a full-scale prototype for testing in the East River.
In a second set of model tests (December 1983), rotors with 0.413 m radii were added,
including conformal blades. This design involves the curving of rib sections so that they
lie along the surface of a cylinder coaxial with the rotor. This eliminates the flying trailing
edge of blades with flat tangential rib sections and aligns the blade sections with the
rotational flow implicity in the Glauert theory, which is important for the hydro-turbine
blades where a section chord length can be greater than its radial distance. These aspects
were added to the rotor naming scheme whereby, for example, B2X6CL denotes a conformal
two-bladed rotor with design tip speed ratio of six and a long 0.413m radius. For these
tests, the rotors were sand cast with integral hub flanges from fabricated patterns.
The Reynolds numbers based on apparent velocity and section chord length were about
400,000 for the model tests. This value is about 1/3rd-1/5th of the maximum value expected
for the full-scale prototype test. Figure 1 is a summary of rotor performance vs current
speed. The performance of conformal blades and tangential section blades can be compared
by examining the curves for rotors B2X4 and B2X4C, the only difference between the two
being the conformal setup of the sections in the B2X4C. A comparison of the curves for
B2X4CL and B2X4C illustrates the increased performance of long conformal blades.
A screen simulating the full-scale protection screen was tested with the B2X4C rotor.
This plumb bow screen has a single, vertical upstream spine, and parallel, horizontal grid
bars to protect the rotor and minimize the snagging of debris. Since the full-scale prototype
turbine is a downstream design, the screen-to-rotor distance is large, and the flow
interference is expected to be less significant than in the model tests. The curves for
B2X4CSA and B2X4CSF refer to the B2X4C rotor with the screen attached with its hoop
in the rotor plane and 0.1 m upstream of the rotor plane, respectively. These should be
compared with curve for B2X4C.
The best rotor was B3X4CL, a conformal three blade rotor with a design tip speed ratio
of four. Figure 2 is a plot of the power (torque and angular velocity data) for this rotor at
various speeds, fitted to simple parabolas which are forced to pass through the origin and
the derived no-load rotation point on the x axis. This rotor provided a peak C, of 0.46 at
3.05 m/set (nearly 80% of the theoretical maximum of 0.59). Figure 2 also shows the load
matching relationship between the operating curve of a typical induction generator and
that of rotor B2X4CL. It can be seen that the load matching efficiency at low current
speeds is limited by the fact that stall occurs at high current speeds, near the peak power.
More recent designs use more conservative values of section-lift coefficients and design
angles of attack so that the rotors will stall at lower values of angular velocity (i.e. tip
speed ratio).

1.2 Grid connection 30 kW East River experimental prototype

The favorable results of the water channel tests led to the establishment of a program,
sponsored by both NYPA and DOE, to design fabricate and test a full scale prototype in
New Yorks East River (which is actually a tidal estuary). The site was chosen because of
its high peak velocity (greater than 2 m/set), its proximity, and the availability of a bridge
from which the machine can be lifted for inspection and maintenance (although a
158 GABRIELMILLER et al.

POWER COEFFICIENT VS CURRENT SPEED

048 / , , I , 1 , I , # , I , , I 1 I

B3X4cL
0 46 - /
/

-E
.?
038-

:
E 036-

k
z 034-
a

j;ii

12
,,,,

14 16
J ,,,,j
18 2.0 22 2.4 26 28 30 32

Current speed I m /set I

Fig. 1. Summary of KHECS model rotor performance.

ROTOR B3X4CL- POWER VS ANGULAR VELOCITY

36001~~~~,~~~~,~~~~,,~,,,,,,1I

3400

3200 E

3000

2800

2600

2400
i
2200

2000

5 1800

: 1600
z
a 1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Angular velocity (rod/secl

Fig. 2. Performance of the KHECS model rotor B3X4CL.

commercial unit would not be secured in this way). The prototype and site schematic are
shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Complete information with respect to the test site and the prototype
fabrication can be found in Refs. 7 and 8. Installation is planned for the spring of 1987.
The permits required for the prototype testing involved a comprehensive investigation
 Kinetic hydro power generation 159

PYLON

MOUNTING RING

LOWER SPINE
eaOLI0~

Fig. 3. The 30 kW KHECS East River experimental prototype (side view).

BRIDGE SPAN

Fig. 4. Prototype experiment schematic (turbine end-on).

and contact with pertinent of Federal, State, City and community agencies and groups. A
number of these organizations required formal notification and approval to facilitate the
legal utilization of the East River site for the prototype program. The main agencies
included: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army
160 GABRIEL MILLER et al.

Corps of Engineers (COE), New York City Department of Transportation, Division of

Bridges, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The FERC, and U.S. Army COE were notified and assessed the project as prototype
research and development. Since this program was a temporary use of the site, no licensing
requirement applied beyond formal notification. The U.S. Coast Guard recommended
minor, margin light changes to the bridge and navigational aid requirements on the
prototype boom. These requirements were approved and integrated into the project design,
No licence was required by the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation which
viewed it as a research project. A legal agreement between NYPA and the City of New
York for the utilization of the bridge at the site was developed.
A number of factors must be considered when scaling up the results of the model test
to rotors and generators approaching commercial size. Because the unit must operate
reliably underwater for extended periods without servicing, variable-blade pitch or variable-
speed drive mechanisms were rejected. Drive and generator speed matching has effectively
been accommodated by careful rotor design and selection of drive and generation
components in a prototype turbine.
The 4.5m diameter prototype rotor uses a three/bladed conformal design with a design
tipspeed ratio of 4. The blades for this one-off turbine are cast aluminum (Al-Mag), having
a thickness taper from 18% to 11% from hub to tip, selected to balance performance and
strength. Twist angles for this rotor (measured from the rotor plane) range from 29.0 to
03.4 degrees, with chords from 0.89 to 0.24 meters at the hub and tip respectively. They
will be painted with anti-fouling paints over epoxy primers and tested with tip fairings.
Modest ducts may also be attached to the screen hoop to test their potential cost-
effectiveness.
Mechanically, the turbine has a downstream orientation, with the upsteam spine
supporting the protective screen bars and the turbine nacelle. The heart of the turbine is
the bearing housing which supports the rotor shaft and the gearbox/generator (or
dynamometer).
Electrically, the prototype is functionally equivalent to a commercial unit. The rotor is
coupled through a concentric shaft helical gear speed increaser to a 900 rpm induction
generator. This is connected directly to the three-phase 480 volt bridge power. The
interconnection is made using a standard motor starter with standard protective relaying.
Advantages of the induction generator include simplicity and ruggedness, simplicity of
interconnection, safety, improved load-matching, low cost, and no requirement to run at
synchronous speeds.
These advantages are particularly useful to KHECS economics, since stringent power
quality and safety requirements of the local utility can be met with a minimum of ancillary
equipment. Additionally, the load-matching efficiency of an induction generator with actual
operating curves of the fixed-pitch KHECS rotors can be excellent over a reasonably wide
range of water current speeds. The overall power coefficient from water to wire, including
rotor, screen, transmission, and generation losses is projected to be 35%. Power factor
correction capacitors may be included, if required, at little added expense and complexity.
Other key components of the prototype KHECS include double graphite/ceramic face
seals for the rotor shaft, for which actual leak rate data will be generated using moisture
and water level sensors. The prototype will be fully instrumented to measure mechanical,
electrical, and thermal parameters, and all signals will be monitored and logged by a
microprocessor-based data acquisition and control system.
The prototype turbine will be tested in four stages. First, dynamometry will be performed
on the rotor using a water-cooled air brake in a torque measurement cradle within the
nacelle. Operating curves will be prepared so that the final gearbox ratio can be selected.
Next, the dynamometer will be replaced with the gearbox and generator, and the KHECS
will be operated on-line, but still only during the flood cycle of the current. Third, the
turbine will be operated bidirectionally (a yaw bearing will be installed on the boom
support structure). Finally, the unit will be operated unattended for several months, then
dismantled and inspected.
 Kinetic hydro power generation 161

1.3 Resource assessment for the U.S.

Expanding the statewide Phase I and II,3*4 work, which was prebounded and directed
towards the New York State resource, to a nationwide resource assessment involves the
development of a more generic view of selecting suitable regions for KHECS allocation.
This generic view consists of two parts, first the identification of suitable regions (river
basins) in the U.S. (Regional Identification) and second, the identification of candidate sites
within these regions (Identification of Specific Sites).
The criteria for bounding a region is derived from previous studies Miller,3,4 and
Underwood-McClellan.9 Two of the three functional categories which define KHECS
siting requirements are used for this Regional Identification, namely, hydrologic and
geologic constraints. The selected alluvial parameters for region identification which affect
river velocity, power and shape are river flow, slope and river bed constituency. Analysis
of USGS computerized, field and map data is being utilized to identify applicable regions.
The second part of the resource assessment involves the Identification of Specific Sites
within the river basins and coastal zones of the identified regions. The analysis includes
all three functional categories of KHECS siting and combines the work of the Phase I and
II reports and that of Underwood-McClellan. The hydrologic and geologic categories are
developed to a greater degree than for part one (the Regional Identification), along with
the third functional category of project siting constraints.
Due to the voluminous nature of KHECS allocation, data analysis is the major task of
the present work. The use of an expert system Weiss, which combines a global site data
base together with a set of production rules for decision making of KHECS site
determination, is being developed at present. This methodology will assist KHECS
developers by reducing the complexity of ranking the numerous sites which exist within a
river basin or coastal zone.
The final product of this work will be a national resource assessment, ranking rivers
which fall into categories judged acceptable. In this way parties interested in utilizing the
power available from river and tidal currents can assess the potential for specific sites in
their area.

1.4 Anticipated commercial KHECS units

Although functionally similar, practical commercial KHECS units will differ in certain
respects from the prototype. The mainshaft bearing assembly, gearbox, and generator
would be unitized and watertight (similar to a submersible pump) without the use of a
separate nacelle. This would yield savings in materials and labor, and improve heat transfer.

FLOW )
SCREEN&

Fig. 5. Undirectional machine schematic. Fig. 6. Bidirectional machine schematic.

162 GABRIEL MILLER et al.

Whether unidirectional (Fig. 5) or bidirectional (Fig. 6), the units would be mounted on
concrete bases on the river bed or off anchored floating structures (like barges). The design
and installation of the bases will depend on the size and nature of the river site.
Demonstration projects with bottom/mounted turbines would be a natural outgrowth of
the prototype program.

Acknowledgements~The project was initially suggested by the NYPA. Phases I and II were sponsored by
NYPA with co-sponsorship for Phase 111 from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. The authors wish to acknowledge the work of J. Leyzorek
on the prototype design, and B. Rinehart of E.G. and G. Idaho, the technical monitor on the D.O.E. program.
The U.S. DOE is sponsoring the resource assessment as well as some of the prototype testing (since 1985).

REFERENCES

1. R. Radkey and B.D. Hibbs. Definition of cost effective river turbine designs. Final Report for the period
September 30, 1980 -December 31, 1981, Aerovironment, Inc., Pasadena, California, prepared for the U.S.
Deptartment of Energy, No. DE82010972 (1981).
2. B. Davis and D. Swan. Vertical-axis turbine economics for rivers and estuaries in modern power systems.
Nova Engineering Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Report. No. 1 (1983).
3. G. Miller, D. Corren and J. Franceschi. Kinetic hydro-energy conversion study for the New York State
Resource.. Phase I Final Report, prepared for New York Power Authority, New York, NYU/DAS 82-08
(1982).
4. G. Miller, D. Corren, J. Franceschi and P. Armstrong. Kinetic hydro-energy conversion systems and the
New York state resource. Phase II Final Report, prepared for New York Power Authority, New York,
NYU/DAS 83-108 (1983).
5. H. Glauert. Windmills and fans. In Aerodynamic Theory, Vol. IV, Chapt. XI, (Edited by W. F. Durand).
Gloucester, Mass. (1934), reprinted by Peter Smith, pp. 324-340 (1976).
6. G. Miller, D. Corren and P. Armstrong. Kinetic hydro-energy conversion system phases II and III model
testing. Final report, prepared for New York Power Authority, New York, NYU/DAS 84-127 (1984).
7. G. Miller, D. Corren and G. Birman. Test site for the kinetic hydro-energy conversion prototype experiment.
Prepared for New York Power Authority, New York, NYU/DAS 85-139 (1985a).
8. G. Miller, D. Corren and G. Birman. Design and fabrication of the prototype kinetic hydro-energy conversion
system (KHECS). Prepared for New York Power Authority, New York, NYU/DAS 85-140 (1985b).
9. Underwood and McClellan Ltd. An evaluation of the kinetic energy of Canadian rivers and estuaries. Report
to National Research Council of Canada (1980).
10. S. Weiss and C. Kulinkowski, A Practical Guide to Designing Expert Systems. Rowan & Allanheld, New
Jersey (1984).