See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303862681

A numerical study of the three-dimensional

incompressible rotor airflow within a Tesla
turbine

Conference Paper · September 2015

CITATIONS READS

3 200

2 authors:

Constantin Schosser Michael Pfitzner

Universität der Bundeswehr München Universität der Bundeswehr München
8 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS 215 PUBLICATIONS 860 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

IMPACT-AE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Constantin Schosser on 09 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Conference on Modelling Fluid Flow (CMFF’15)
The 16th International Conference on Fluid Flow Technologies
Budapest, Hungary, September 1-4, 2015

A numerical study of the three-dimensional incompressible

rotor airflow within a Tesla turbine

Constantin Schosser1, Michael Pfitzner2

1 Corresponding Author. Technische Thermodynamik, MB 5.1, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 31, 85577
Neubiberg, E-mail: constantin.schosser@unibw.de
2 Institut für Thermodynamik, LRT 10, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 31, 85577 Neubiberg, E-mail:

michael.pfitzner@unibw.de

ABSTRACT c [m/s] relative circ. velocity

The paper summarizes numerical and theoretical c p , c∗p [−] pressure coefficients
studies of incompressible, laminar airflow through n [1/min] rev speed
a single flow passage of a blade-less radial friction p [Pa] static pressure
turbine. The rotor geometry is based on an optim- r, d [m] rotor radius, diameter
ization of the performance solving simplified, in- s [m] half of gap width
compressible Navier-Stokes-Equations, presented in sf [−] safety factor
Schosser et al. [1]. At first, the influence of dimen- u [m/s] absolute circ. velocity
sionless machine parameters on performance and ef- v [m/s] radial velocity
ficiency with respect to mechanical loads were de- w [m/s] resultant velocity
rived from theoretical analysis. Inflow conditions for z [m] cylindrical coordinate
maximum performance and efficiency were theoret- Ω [−] angular velocity ratio
ically determined and later compared to a CFD. In α [◦ ] inlet angle
order to quantify the error of the theoretical analysis, β [−] friction parameter
the inflow effect on shaft power and flow behavior η [−] efficiency
was examined by CFD. The development of the fully µ [Pa · s] dynamic viscosity
developed axial velocity distribution in the inlet zone ν [m/s2 ] kinematic viscosity
is compared to the theoretical, optimum inflow. The νp [−] poisson ratio
influence of Reynolds number and rev speed on the ω [rad/s] angular velocity ratio
velocity profiles is investigated. Finally, the intended ρ [kg/m3 ] density
use of the Tesla turbine with its advantages in con- σϕ [MPa] circ. mechanical stress
trast to conventional turbo machinery is discussed. σy [MPa] yield strength
τ [Pa] shear stress
Keywords: laminar flow, CFD, friction, blade- ϕ [◦ ] circ. direction
less, Tesla turbine
Subscripts and Superscripts
NOMENCLATURE 1 at the inlet of rotor
2 at the outlet of rotor
A [m2 ] inlet area
is isentropic
C [−] normalized rel. circ. velocity
n normalized
C po [−] normalized power coefficient
r radial direction
C pt [−] economical power coefficient
t total
Cto [−] normalized torque coefficient
v valid
F [−] norm. circ. velocity profile
G [−] norm. radial velocity profile
M [Nm] torque 1. INTRODUCTION
P [W] shaft power Tesla turbines have been invented by the famous sci-
R [−] radius ratio entist Nikola Tesla [2] at the beginning of the 20th
Re [−] Reynolds number century. They are characterized by their particularly
U [−] normalized abs. circ. velocity simple and blade-less rotor design and consist of sev-
V [−] normalized radial velocity eral circular, parallel, flat disks with a central pas-
Z [−] normalized position in gap sage in the centre of rotation. All disks are equally
 ω the dimensionless pressures
swirled flow p (r) p (r)
c p (R) = , c∗p (R) = (4)
ρu12 p2
outlet gap
and the dimensionless machine parameters
3 r1 ν v1 r1 ω r
Figure 1. The Tesla turbine principle β= , V1 = , Ω = , R = . (5)
2 s v1 s u1 u1 r1
|{z}
1
Re
spaced with narrow gaps. Any type of fluid can enter
the gap at the outer radius of the disks. Driven by a The dimensionless governing equations are
!
pressure difference, the swirling flow delivered from dU (R) 1
nozzles or guide vanes follows its spiral path to the + − 2βR · U (R) + 2βΩR2 = 0, (6)
dR R
rotor outlet at the inner disk radius. Circumferential
shear stress induces torque and power. Dependent on
U (R)2
!
dP 1 2β
fluid, flow parameters and geometry, Tesla turbines − V12 · 3 + − = 0. (7)
are able to work efficiently [3]. Their main advant- dR R R R
ages are the low-cost design, robustness and compet- In order to evaluate theoretical and CFD analysis,
itiveness for small scale turbomachinery, which has following coefficients (normalized with their max-
recently been discovered by researchers [4], [5]. This imum occurring values) are introduced (see [1])
paper focuses onto the flow phenomena inside of this A1 v1 ρ1 · (u1 r1 − u2 r2 ) M·ω
turbine. The study is based on rotor dimensions of Cto = , C po = . (8)
an existing test rig designed for the determination of Mmax Pmax
velocity profiles inside the Tesla rotor by means of The economical power coefficient is defined as
PIV. The test facility and the demonstration of the P sha f t
measurement method has been presented in Schosser C pt =
23 . (9)
et al. [1], [6]. Laminar flow is expected for Re num- A1 · p1,t − p2
bers < 400 − 500, which is typical for Tesla turbine The total isentropic rotor efficency is given by
operations.
P sha f t
ηis =  . (10)
2. THEORETICAL MODEL ANALYSIS
  
u22 v22 u21 v21
ṁ
ρ p2 + 2 + 2 − p1 + 2 + 2
2.1. Incompressible, laminar flow
The fully analytical solutions of Eq. 6 and 7 have
The steady-state continuity equation, the ϕ− and r- already been published in Schosser et. al. [1]. Torque
momentum equations for the bulk flow [1], [7] (Fig. and power are computed by assuming parabolic velo-
2) city profiles between the disks and evaluating the res-
ulting circumferential shear stress. The assumed pro-
α u
1 files scale with the prevailing bulk velocities in both
v+ ∂v
∂r dr u+ ∂u
∂r dr
v w directions. Development effects at the rotor inlet are
neglected. Parameter β describes the flow rate and
τr determines the type of vortex in the gap and is there-
2 ϕ τϕ
dr fore crucial for the generated performance. Other
z important parameters are the inlet velocity V1 , the
u
v radius ratio R and the angular speed Ω, as well as
gap width: the real axial velocity distribution, which are invest-
2s dϕ igated and validated with CFD.
Figure 2. Cyl. coordinatesystem, control volume
2.2. Mechanical constraints
can be written as A constant rotation of a drilled disk, generates tan-
µ dc gential and radial mechanical stress. The stress max-
" # !
d (ρ · r · v) du u
= 0, ρ · v + − = 0, (1) imum is at the inner radius r2 (Dubbel et. al. [8]).
dr dr r s dz
Comparing its ratio with the yield strength of the
d p µ dv 3 + νp 2 2h
!2  2
dv u2
" # !
r2 r1
ρ v − + − = 0. (2) σϕ (r) = ρω r1 1 + +
dr r dr s dz 8 r1 r
(11)
1 + 3ν p r
!2 i
Eq. 1, 2 are non-dimensionalized using
− ,
c (r) u (r) v (r) 3 + ν p r1
C (R) = , U (R) = , V (R) = ,
c1 u1 u1 disk material, determines the mechanical limit of
(3) such a rotor. Rewritten into a dimensionless form,
the radius ratio R obviously limits the maximum an- exceed values greater 10 for maximum performance.
gular velocity Ω for a selected material (see Fig. 4). Fig. 5 shows, that the torque coefficient is almost
independent of Ω for β ≥ 10. As β increases with
decreasing gap width, the mass flow per gap is re-
ω stricted. Consequently, more gaps are needed for the
same magnitude of power, which increases the price
of a Tesla rotor. As a result, an upper limit of β val-
r1 ues between 20 to 30 is suggested.
r2
σϕ
3.2. Dimensionless inlet conditions
r
Tesla rotors can either be efficient or powerful. The
lower V1 , the higher is the isentropic efficiency. On
the other hand, a low V1 and radial mass flow leads
to low shaft power per gap. Fig. 6 and 7 show nor-
malized shaft power and efficiency as a function of
angular speed. The inlet velocity magnitude w1 is
Figure 3. Centrally drilled disk under rotation kept constant, their velocity components instead are
varied. This leads to a change of β and influences
power and efficiency. Low V1 corresponds to high β.

1.9 1

power coefficient C po [−]

σy
typical steel with s f = σmax = 2.0 β ≈ 4 − 160
angular vel. Ωv [−]

V1 =0.01
air at 25◦ V1 =0.1
0.75 V1 =0.2
1.8 V1 =0.3
V1 =0.4
0.5 V1 =0.5
V1 =0.6
1.7 V1 =0.7

mechanical limit
0.25 V1 =0.8
V1 =0.9
V1 =1.0
1.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
radius ratio R [−]
angular speed Ω [−]
Figure 4. Valid Ω values, limited by material σy
Figure 6. Influence of inlet angles on performance
The following model analysis and CFD comparison
considers these mechanical limits.
isentropic efficiency ηis [−]

1
3. TURBINE DESIGN PARAMETERS V1 =0.01
V1 =0.1
The design parameters of a Tesla rotor are presen- 0.75 V1 =0.2
ted here. The results are derived from the theoret- V1 =0.3

ical analysis. They offer the technical limitations of V1 =0.4

blade-less rotors. To simplify illustrations, Ω is nor- 0.5 V1 =0.5

V1 =0.6
malized by u1 = 100 ms . V1 =0.7
mechanical limit

0.25 V1 =0.8

3.1. Dimensionless friction parameter V1 =0.9

V1 =1.0
From Schosser et al. [1] it is known, that β should 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Ω angular speed Ω [−]
Figure 7. Influence of inlet angles on efficiency

3.3. Dimensionless radius ratio

Cto The influence of the radius ratio R2 = r2 /r1 is similar
V1 = 0.3 to the influence of the inlet condition (Fig. 8, 9). Low
R2 leads to high shaft power per gap. With increasing
R2 , the area of the disks inside the turbine’s gap, as
well as the pressure drop across the rotor is reduced.
β Low pressure drops lead to highest efficiencies. In
this investigation, β and V1 are constant, the radius
Figure 5. Mapping of torque coefficient Cto (β, Ω) ratio R2 is altered. The higher the radius ratio R, the
lower the maximum applicable angular speed. which is restricted by the mechanical design of the
Tesla rotor.
1
power coefficient C po [−]
V1 = 0.3 4. CFD MODEL ANALYSIS
β = 10 In order to analyse the theoretical, incompressible,
0.75
air at 25◦ laminar turbine investigation, various laminar CFD
calculations have been performed. The hexa mesh
0.5 is designed with ICEM 14.5. ANSYS CFX 14.5 is
R2 =0.8
used as a solver. To find a mesh independent solution,

mechanical limit
0.25 R2 =0.6 the grid has been refined until the outlet velocities
R2 =0.4 had converged. A stationary mesh with co-rotating
R2 =0.2
sidewalls and a rotating mesh show identical results.
0 Rotating domain results are presented here.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
angular speed Ω [−]
inlet
Figure 8. Influence of radius ratio R2 on perf.

1:1 periodic
isentropic efficiency ηis [−]

0.5
R2 =0.8
R2 =0.6
0.4 R2 =0.4
R2 =0.2
wall 1
0.3

0.2
mechanical limit

outlet
0.1

0 1:1 periodic
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Figure 11. ICEM Mesh, 1/4 disk, gap width 0.2
angular speed Ω [−]
mm, 756000 nodes, view 1
Figure 9. Influence of radius ratio R2 on efficiency
The applied CFD settings are:
3.4. Machine parameter relations • geometry: r1 =0.125m, r2 =0.03m, 2s=0.2mm
The economical power coefficient C pt (Eq. 9) relates • meshes: 224000, 540000, 756000, 1458000,
shaft power to the total pressure difference between 3400000 nodes (results from underlined mesh)
inlet and outlet. When C pt is maximized, the best
• rotating domain section (1:1 periodic interface)

Ω • air at 25◦C, no turb. model, no heat transfer

• inlet: w1 ≈ 105 ms , variable V1
• outlet: ambient pressure p2 = 1bar

C pt • residual convergence: 1 · 10−5 rms, 1 · 10−3 max,

auto timescale, double precision
V1 = 0.3
β = 10 • Ω is made dimensionless with u1 = 100 ms

R
wall 1
Figure 10. Mapping of power coefficient C pt (R)
outlet
compromise between power per gap and efficiency
is found. Fig. 10 introduces the economical power
mapping of a Tesla rotor in terms of machine para- wall 2
meters Ω and R for constant and best possible values 1:1 periodic
for inlet velocity ratio V1 and friction parameter β.
During the whole design process it is necessary to Figure 12. ICEM Mesh, 1/4 disk, gap width
consider the upper limit of the angular velocity Ωv , 0.2mm, 756000 nodes, view 2
4.1. Inlet conditions in more detail in the next section. Fig. 13 and 15
In the laminar CFD, as well as in the theoretical confirm the theory, that more power per gap leads to
model, the inlet velocity w1 (Fig. 2) is kept con- lower isentropic efficiencies - or vice versa.
stant. The inlet angle α, hence the velocity compon-

isentropic efficiency ηis [−]

ents u1 and v1 are variable. The significant difference 0.75
between theory and CFD is, that CFD can simulate
the development of the velocity profiles across the
rotor. All continuous curves are analytical results, 0.5
the symbols represent CFD results. The vertically
dashed lines in Fig. 13, 14 and 15 denote the mech-
anical limit of Tesla rotors of that size. Fig. 13 shows 0.25

mechanical limit
the performance map of a Tesla turbine over the
whole range of valid angular velocities and invest-
igated inlet conditions. It can be observed, that there 0
is a very good quantitative agreement between lam- 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
inar CFD and analytical solution at low inlet angles. angular speed Ω [−]
With increasing α and Ω, the solutions differ more
α = 5◦ α = 10◦ α = 15◦ α = 20◦ α = 25◦
and more from each other. The analytical solution
α = 5◦ α = 10◦ α = 15◦ α = 20◦ α = 25◦
overpredicts shaft power. Same applies to Fig. 14,
Figure 15. Isentropic efficiency, CFD comparison
1
power coefficient C po [−]

β ≈ 7 − 32
air at 25◦ 4.2. Inflow effect
0.75
The inflow effect on turbine performance is invest-
igated by CFD to estimate errors of the theoretical
0.5 model. In contrast to the expected profile devel-
opment across the rotor, the model simply scales
mechanical limit

0.25 parabolic z velocity profiles with the bulk velocit-

ies C (R), V (R) to compute turbine performance from
0 the resulting circumferential shear stress. In the first
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 CFD setup, "‘block profile"’ approximations are se-
angular speed Ω [−] lected at the rotor inlet (see Fig. 1). Due to the gap
between stator and rotor, this is expected to happen in
α = 5◦ α = 10◦ α = 15◦ α = 20◦ α = 25◦ real Tesla turbines. To quantify the fully developed
α = 5◦ α = 10◦ α = 15◦ α = 20◦ α = 25◦
flow, velocity profiles F (R, Z) in circumferential and
Figure 13. Performance map, CFD comparison G (R, Z) in radial direction are analysed.
V1
where the torque is plotted. Fig. 15 illustrates the dif- C (R, Z) = U (R, Z) − RΩ = · F (R, Z) (12)
R
1
torque coefficient Cto [−]

V1
V (R, Z) = −
· G (R, Z) (13)
R
0.75 The continuity equation in radial direction requires
Z 1
0.5 G (R, Z) dZ = 1. (14)
0
mechanical limit

0.25 Fn (R, Z) is normalized by dividing the profile F by

its numerical integral
0 F (R, Z)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Fn (R, Z) = R 1 . (15)
F (R, Z) dZ
angular speed Ω [−] 0
Moreover, factorized solutions in circumferential
α = 5◦ α = 10◦ α = 15◦ α = 20◦ α = 25◦
α = 5◦ α = 10◦ α = 15◦ α = 20◦ α = 25◦ Fn (R, Z) = Fn (Z) · C (R) (16)
Figure 14. Torque map, CFD comparison and radial direction
G (R, Z) = G (Z) · V (R) , (17)
ference between both solutions regarding isentropic
efficiency, where the deviation is at its worst. How- are sought. Fn (Z) and G (Z) are fully developed
ever, the qualitative agreement is satisfactory. To find CFD profiles. Numerous CFD calculations were per-
the reasons for that, the velocity profile is examined formed. As an example, the development of the ve-
locity profiles in circumferential and radial direction 0.6 block profile
of a typical operating point (Ω = 0.92, V1 = 0.27) is

is. efficiency ηis [−]

F, G profile
shown in Fig. 16, 17. The fully developed profiles 0.5 α = 5◦ theory
block profile
0.4 F, G profile
1.6 α = 15 ◦ theory
effectively ANSYS theoretical, parabolic profile 0.3
profiles Fn (R, Z) [−]

"block profile" block profile

approximation F, G profile
1.2 0.2 theory
R=1.00
R=0.99
0.1 α = 25 ◦
0.8 R=0.98
R=0.96 0
R=0.92
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0.4 R=0.80 angular velocity Ω [−]
Ω = 0.92 R=0.60

V1 = 0.27 R=0.40 Figure 19. Isentropic efficiency comparison

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
gap position Z[−] theory is generally overpredicting torque and power,
the first CFD shows the lowest performance. In terms
Figure 16. Velocity profiles Fn (R, Z) of efficiency, the trends of the presented solutions are
similar, but the deviations are a bit higher. Theoret-
ical results are overestimating isentropic efficiency.
0
Ω = 0.92 R=1.00
1 V = 0.27
Ω = 0.92
profiles G (R, Z) [−]

V1 = 0.27
R=0.99 circ. velocity U (R) [−] 1
R=0.98
−0.4 R=0.96
R=0.92
0.75
R=0.80
−0.8 R=0.60
R=0.40
0.5
block profile F, G profile theory

−1.2 effectively ANSYS

block profile F, G profile theory

"block profile"
0.25
approximation theoretical, parabolic profile
−1.6 Ω = 0.13
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
gap position Z[−]
radius ratio R [−]
Figure 17. Velocity profiles G (R, Z) Figure 20. Circ., abs. bulk velocity comparison

The CFD circumferential velocity distributions in

1 Fig. 20 are slightly higher than those from theory
power coefficient C po [−]

torque coefficient Cto [−]

block profile
α = 25◦ F, G profile and therefore explain the differences in performance
0.8 theory results (see Eq. 8). The first CFD shows the highest
block profile
U (R). The difference is caused by a higher pressure
F, G profile
0.6
theory
block profile 0
radial velocity V (R) [−]

0.4 α = 15 ◦
F, G profile
block profile Ω = 0.13
F, G profile Ω = 0.13
theory
theory Ω = 0.13
0.2 −0.25 block profile Ω = 0.92
α=5 ◦
F, G profile Ω = 0.92

0 −0.5 theory Ω = 0.92

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

angular velocity Ω [−]
−0.75
Figure 18. Performance map comparison
V1 = 0.27
Fn (R, Z), G (R, Z) are used as new inlet profiles in a −1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
second CFD. The performance and efficiency of both radius ratio R [−]
numerical computations and of the theoretical solu-
tion are illustrated in Fig. 18 and 19. At small inlet Figure 21. Radial bulk velocity comparison
angles the results show very good agreement. With
increasing inlet angles, the solutions slightly start to drop predicted by CFD compared to theoretical res-
separate from each other. With increasing angular ults (Fig. 22). The radial velocity distribution in-
speed, the solutions begin to separate as well. The stead, show good agreement (Fig. 21). The vari-
ations in computed efficiencies originate mainly from 4.3. Influence of the Reynolds number on
slightly different shaft power results. the velocity profiles
Fig. 16, 17 showed examples of the development of
1.6
the axial velocity distribution of a "‘block profile"’
inflow as a function of the radius. The fully de-
pressure c∗p [−]

1.2 veloped velocity profiles were fitted by a fourth-order

polynomial for the whole range of typical Reynolds
0.8 block profile Ω = 0.13 numbers. These fits are illustrated in Fig. 24 and
F, G profile Ω = 0.13 25. Neither in radial, nor in circumferential direc-
theory Ω = 0.13
0.4 block profile Ω = 0.92

velocity profiles Fn (R) [−]

F, G profile Ω = 0.92
1.6 polyn. fit from Eq. 18 theoretical, parabolic profile

V1 = 0.27 theory Ω = 0.92 1.4

0 1.2
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
radius ratio R [−] 1
0.8
Figure 22. Pressure drop across the rotor Re=59
0.6 Re=117

The radial development of the torque coefficient is 0.4 Re=175

Re=231
plotted in Fig. 23. It is interesting to see, that the 0.2
β ≈ 7 − 32 Re=286

0
0.75 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
torque coefficient Cto [−]

V1 = 0.27
gap position Z[−]

0.5 Figure 24. Fully developed velocity profiles Fn (R)

block profile Ω = 0.13
F, G profile Ω = 0.13
0.25 theory Ω = 0.13
0
velocity profiles G (R) [−]

block profile Ω = 0.92 Re=59

F, G profile Ω = 0.92 −0.2 Re=117
theory Ω = 0.92 Re=175
−0.4
0 Re=231
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 −0.6 Re=286

radius ratio R [−] −0.8

Figure 23. Torque coefficient comparison −1
−1.2
block profile simulation generates a little more torque −1.4 polyn. fit from Eq. 19 theoretical, parabolic profile
at high radius ratios. This can be explained by a −1.6
higher circumferential wall shear stress at the inlet 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
zone (see Fig. 16). With decreasing radius ratio, the gap position Z[−]
fully developed inflow simulation is gaining the up-
per hand again, now producing slightly more torque Figure 25. Fully developed velocity profiles G (R)
and power. This is valid for all simulated angular ve-
locities. Obviously, block profiles’ higher wall shear
tion, any dependency of the fully developed profile
stress in radial direction leads to a higher pressure
shape on Reynolds number is detectable. The fitting
drop. As the outlet pressure is kept constant, the inlet
functions for fully developed profiles are
pressure must increase. This makes the flow margin-
ally faster towards the outlet. Hence, the block pro- Fn (R) = 4.194 · Z 4 − 8.387 · Z 3 − 0.9811 · Z 2
filed inflow produces less total torque and power. De-
+ 5.175 · Z − 0.001824,
pendent on the angular velocity, shaft power differs
by up to 5% in this case. The differences in torque (18)
and pressure drop between theory and CFD, explain
the difference in isentropic efficiency of up to 10%
(see Fig. 15, 19). The difference between theoretical G (R) = 2.703 · Z 4 − 5.405 · Z 3 + 9.254 · Z 2
(19)
analysis and CFD, dependent on V1 and Ω (see Fig. − 6.551 · Z + 0.001283.
16, 19) cannot fully be attributed to the inflow effect.
 4.4. Influence of the revolution speed on
the velocity profiles
The fully developed velocity profiles determined
from CFD also depend only weakly on revolution
speed. The radial velocity profile G (Z) approximates
the parabolic profile quite well. Instead, the circum-
ferential velocity distribution Fn (Z) departs from a
parabolic velocity profile and definitively influences
the predicted shaft power.
5. CONCLUSION
To simplify the design process of Tesla turbines, the
flow analysis is coupled with the analytical equation
for tangential stress in centrally, drilled and rotating
disks, giving the max. applicable angular speed from
mechanical integrity considerations.
The influence of dimensionless machine parameters
on shaft power and isentropic efficiency are derived.
The best compromise between high efficiency and
shaft power per gap was found.
Moreover, various analytical results from theory are
analysed by laminar CFD. The limitations of the the-
oretical analysis are exposed. At higher inlet angles,
the theoretical solution deviates more and more from
the laminar CFD. The qualitative agreement instead,
is very promising. In search of reasons for that, an
investigation of the development of the velocity pro-
files and their influence on shaft power and efficiency
is performed by means of CFD. Fully developed pro-
files at the rotor inlet lead to higher predicted shaft
power. This and the fact that CFD produces higher
pressure drops, explain the deviations in efficiency.
Nevertheless, the inflow effect is only a partial ex-
planation. The difference increases with α/V1 and Ω.
The type of velocity distribution between the disks is
found for a typical range of Reynolds numbers. The
main difference between theory and laminar CFD is,
that the CFD profiles in both directions are not fully
parabolic and can best be approximated by fourth-
order polynomial functions.
Despite certain differences to the CFD, the theoret-
ical model is a very fast tool for dimensioning ro-
tors. In contrast to conventional turbines, Tesla tur-
bines can be scaled easily. With its simple design,
low manufacturing costs, the free choice of operating
fluid, its possibility to handle droplets and abrasive
particles, the Tesla turbine has the ability to find its
existence in small scale turbomachinery applications
[9], [10], [5], [11].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been supported by Prof. Dr.-Ing. S.
Lecheler and the Faculty of Mechanical Engineer-
ing of the University of the Federal Armed Forces
of Germany in Munich.
REFERENCES
[1] Schosser, C., Lecheler, S., and Pfitzner, M.,
2014, “A Test rig for the investigation of the
performance and flow field of Tesla friction
View publication stats
turbines”, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo
2014.
[2] Tesla, N., 1913, “Turbine”, US Patent
1,061,206, URL http://www.google.com/
patents/US1061206.
[3] Romanin, V. D., 2012, “Theory and Perform-
ance of Tesla Turbines”, Ph.D. thesis, Univer-
sity of California,Berkeley.
[4] Romanin, V. D., Krishnan, V. G., Carey,
V. P., and Maharbiz, M. M., 2012, “Ex-
perimental and analytical study of sub-watt
scale Tesla turbine performance”, ASME
2012 International Mechanical Engin-
eering Congress and Exposition, Amer-
ican Society of Mechanical Engineers, p.
1005Ű1014, URL http://proceedings.
asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
proceeding.aspx?articleid=1751200.
[5] Krishnan, V. G., Romanin, V., Carey, V. P.,
and Maharbiz, M. M., 2013, “Design and
scaling of microscale Tesla turbines”, Journal
of Micromechanics and Microengineering,
Vol. 23 (12), p. 125001.
[6] Schosser, C., Hain, R., Cierpka, C., Lecheler,
S., Kähler, C. J., and Pfitzner, M., 2013, “De-
termination of velocity profiles in small gaps
between parallel flat plates by means of tomo-
graphic PIV”, .
[7] Beans, E. W., 1961, “Performance character-
istics of a friction disc turbine”, Ph.D. thesis,
Pennsylvania State University.
[8] Dubbel, H., Beitz, W., and Kuttner, K.-H.,
1994, Handbook of mechanical engineering,
Springer-Verlag.
[9] Deam, R., Mace, B., Collins, R., and Lemma,
E., 2008, “On scaling down turbines to mil-
limeter size”, Journal of Engineering for
Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 130 (5), p.
052301, URL http://gasturbinespower.
asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
article.aspx?articleid=1426795.
[10] Krishnan, V. G., Iqbal, Z., and Maharbiz,
M. M., 2011, “A micro Tesla turbine for
power generation from low pressure heads
and evaporation driven flows”, Solid-State
Sensors,Actuators and Microsystems Confer-
ence (TRANSDUCERS),2011 16th Interna-
tional, IEEE, p. 1851Ű1854.
[11] Guha, A., and Sengupta, S., 2014, “Similitude
and scaling laws for the rotating flow between
concentric discs”, Proceedings of the Institu-
tion of Mechanical Engineers,Part A: Journal
of Power and Energy, Vol. 228 (4), p. 429Ű439.