Accepted Manuscript

Velocity and performance correction methodology for hydrokinetic turbines

experimented with different geometry of the channel

Vimal Patel, T.I. Eldho, S.V. Prabhu

PII: S0960-1481(18)30977-7

DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.027

Reference: RENE 10454

To appear in: Renewable Energy

Received Date: 07 October 2017

Accepted Date: 07 August 2018

Please cite this article as: Vimal Patel, T.I. Eldho, S.V. Prabhu, Velocity and performance correction
methodology for hydrokinetic turbines experimented with different geometry of the channel,
Renewable Energy (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.027

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 VELOCITY AND PERFORMANCE CORRECTION METHODOLOGY FOR

2 HYDROKINETIC TURBINES EXPERIMENTED WITH DIFFERENT GEOMETRY
3 OF THE CHANNEL

4 Vimal Patel1, T.I. Eldho2 and S.V.Prabhu1

5 1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

6 2Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 Address for Correspondence

24 Dr. S.V. Prabhu,

25 Professor,
26 Department of Mechanical Engineering,
27 Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay,
28 Powai, Mumbai, India
29 Pin: 400 076
30 Telephone: 91-22-25767515
31 Fax: 91-22-25726875
32 E-mail: svprabhu@iitb.ac.in

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

34 ABSTRACT

35 The aim of the present work is to study the influence of channel geometrical parameters on
36 the performance of Savonius type hydrokinetic turbine and to present velocity correction
37 methodology to determine the actual performance of the turbine. In the present experimental
38 work, the effect of geometry of channel bottom and channel side wall distance on the
39 performance of a Savonius turbine is investigated. Elevated channel bottom (hump) enhances
40 the velocity of flow by reducing the depth of flow. Experimental results indicate that nearly
41 an increase of 83% in power output is achieved by placing the turbine on the hump with
42 reference to the turbine placed at the bottom of the channel. Similarly, the effect of channel
43 sidewall location on the performance of turbine is studied for two separate cases, i. Constant
44 flow rate - water spilling not allowed from blocked region and ii. Variable flow rate -water
45 spilling over the blocked region allowed. In both the cases, the obtained coefficient of power
46 is achieved above 0.45, considering the inlet velocity of flow. The results suggest that the
47 potential head difference between the turbine inlet and outlet has the predominant effect on
48 the power output of the turbine when a rotor is placed between the two closely located side
49 walls.
50
51 Considering the above facts, a new methodology is developed to find the corrected velocity
52 to correlate the results obtained from restricted, high blockage canal flow with the
53 performance which can be obtained from the same turbine when operated in a negligible
54 blockage flow domain. Experimental results indicate that there is a vast variation in the
55 maximum coefficient of power for all the cases studied if the velocity correction is not
56 considered. However, with the application of the present velocity correction method, the
57 corrected results are closer with the unblocked case.
58
59 Keywords: Savonius turbine, Hydrokinetic turbine, Maskell's correction, blockage effect,
60 channel parameters, velocity correction
61

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Nomenclature

A Cross section area of water flow at specific section m2

b Distance between side walls of channel (Variable) m
c1 Distance between inlet side wall channel (Fix) m
P
Cp 
Coefficient of power 1
Cp   DH  Vi 3
2
4T
Ct Coefficient of torque Ct 
Vi 2 D 2 H
D Diameter of turbine rotor m
Dp Diameter of vane pipe m
dZ Height of hump m
E Specific energy of water flow at specific section m
e Gap between two vanes of turbine rotor m
Ep Potential head of water flow at specific section m
Ev Velocity head of water flow at specific section m
g Gravitational acceleration m/s2
H Height of turbine vane m
Hw Water depth in water channel m
n Number of vanes used in turbine

PT Mechanical power output from turbine W

P 1 Water power available about the turbine sections W
T

P 11 Water power supplied to the turbine at inlet section W

T

Q Volume flow rate passing from specific channel section m3/s

Rs Radius of turbine shaft where dynamometer connected m
S Spring balance reading kg
T Available torque on turbine shaft Nm
U Velocity of water flow m/s
V1 Free stream velocity of channel water flow m/s
Vi Velocity of flow at specific section ‘i’ m/s
Vc Corrected velocity of water m/s
W Weight on the load pan kg
Ww Width of the water channel m
y Depth of water flow at specific section m

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Z Water depth at specific section m

ρ Density of water kg/m3
ω Angular velocity of turbine rotor rad/s
62
Suffices:
1 Related property at channel section 1
2 Related property at channel section 2
5t Property of water flow at turbine side section ‘5’
5os Property of water flow at outside region of turbine at section ‘5’
63
Short forms
TSR Tip Speed Ratio
BR Blockage ratio
64
65

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

66 1. INTRODUCTION
67 The hydrokinetic turbines are generally used for power production in order to run the
68 pumping systems or to charge the batteries. Hydrokinetic turbines utilize the kinetic energy of
69 water flow for the power development. The Savonius, Darrieus and axial flow lift driven
70 turbines are commonly used hydrokinetic turbines for power production. Apart from low
71 power output, Savonius turbine has good starting characteristics with simple constructional
72 features. Hence, it is ideal for the power production in remote locations which are situated
73 nearer to the water flow resources.
74
75 The enhancement of power output by increasing the mass flow rate striking the advancing
76 vane of the turbine can be achieved by means of a systematic arrangement of deflector plate
77 at the inlet section of the turbine. The influence of the deflector plate on the performance of
78 Savonius turbine is investigated by Golecha et al. [1, 2]. They experimentally studied eight
79 different orientations of deflector plate and improved the coefficient of power (Cp) by 50%.
80 In the present investigation, an effect of Savonius turbine is compared with two specific
81 cases, (i) by diverting complete flow towards the turbine region using a deflector plate (ii)
82 allowing spilling of water flow from turbine region.
83
84 The power output from a turbine can also be enhanced by preventing flow spill out from
85 turbine vane using vane end plate or modification of the shape of the turbine vane. The effect
86 of different shapes of vane end plate is experimentally studied by Jeon et al. [3] on the
87 performance of Savonius helical shaped wind turbine [4]. They achieved 36% rise in
88 coefficient of power with the use of end plate compared to the case of without end plate
89 vanes. An innovative airfoil shaped vane is evaluated by Tartuferi et al. [5] in order to
90 enhance the power output from Savonius type wind turbine. Considering the importance of
91 the end plate, all experiments are carried out with the use of circular end plate in the present
92 investigation.
93
94 The power output of Savonius turbine can also be improved, if the velocity of the flow at the
95 inlet to the turbine enhances. Ponta and Jacovkis [6] investigated four different types of
96 variable open channel sections which increase the flow velocity in the vicinity of Darrieus
97 type hydrokinetic turbine. They identified the channel profile which gained high velocity of
98 flow near rotor area from the medium current speed of water [7]. They successfully enhanced
99 the velocity of naturally available water current using well-designed sidewall shape.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

100 However, the performance evaluation of Savonius turbine by velocity enhancement using
101 channel bottom section (use of hump) is not reported in the open literature. Further, the
102 influence of gradual decrement of the side wall distance on the performance of Savonius
103 hydrokinetic turbine is also not explored. Hence, in the present investigation, velocity
104 enhancement using channel bottom surface (use of hump) is explored.
105
106 A detailed discussion of velocity correction due to blockage effect of Savonius type wind
107 turbine is reported by Alexander et al. [8, 9, 10]. Roy and Saha [11] carried out an
108 experimental study for the correction of blockage effect on the performance of Savonius type
109 wind turbine for open wind tunnel case. They suggest a velocity correction approach for a
110 specific blockage ratio and tip speed ratio of Savonius turbine. A theory of the blockage
111 effects on bluff bodies and stalled wings in a closed wind tunnel is explained in detail by
112 Maskell [12]. Werle [13] explained the calculation of wall blockage correction with simple
113 algebraic relations for general wind turbines. However, velocity correction method
114 specifically for hydrokinetic turbine or for open channel water flow is still not reported.
115
116 The difference of the flow field around hydrokinetic turbine and wind turbine is broadly
117 described by Patel et al. [14]. They pointed out that, it is essential to investigate various
118 parameters separately for a hydrokinetic turbine and a wind turbine specifically due to change
119 in the free surface contour in a hydrokinetic turbine. Hence, in the present investigation, the
120 effect of potential head difference is considered on the performance of the turbine.
121
122 The use of velocity corrections formulation developed for a wind turbine may not be directly
123 applicable for blockage corrections for a hydrokinetic turbine operating in a shallow water
124 channel flow due to the effect of a free surface change. Vennell [15, 16, 17] explained that
125 the hydrokinetic turbines operating in a channel can have the theoretically larger coefficient
126 of power, even above the Betz limit in specific conditions. The specific condition to achieve a
127 high coefficient of power requires high water channel blockage. Whelan et al. [18, 19]
128 presented theoretical results for highly blocked configurations, like hydrokinetic turbine
129 array, when it is placed in shallow water channel [20]. The effect of a free surface change on
130 the power output of the hydrokinetic turbine is theoretically discussed by Vogel et al. [21].
131 Kolekar et al. [22, 23] concentrated on resolving the effect of boundary proximity and
132 blockage in channel flow on the hydrokinetic turbine performance with experimental and
133 CFD studies. A detailed discussion related to the tunnel blockage correction is also described
6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

134 by Bahaj et al. [24]. However, the effect of potential head difference about the turbine unit is
135 not related directly with corrected velocity in the available literature. In the present
136 investigation, experiments are carried out in order to obtain the velocity correction
137 methodology which correlates the performance of turbine obtained from high blockage water
138 channel experimental results with the performance that can be expected from the same
139 turbine if it operates with negligible blockage of real flow domain.
140
141 The effect of overlap ratio and aspect ratio on the performance of the Savonius hydrokinetic
142 turbine is investigated by Patel et al. [25]. They compared the results obtained by their
143 experiments with Maskell’s velocity correction method, conventional velocity correction
144 method and without considering any correction method. Finally, they adopted Maskell’s
145 correction method to take care of blockage effect. Cuerva and Sanz Andres [26] proposed an
146 extended formulation of the power coefficient of a wind turbine, which is the generalization
147 of the Betz Lanchester expression for the power coefficient as the function of the axial
148 deceleration of the wind speed. Numerical simulation is a very useful tool to investigate
149 different parameters [27] like moment of inertia [28], flow instability [29], rotor
150 configurations [30], length of the blade and blade angle [31], twisted vane [32], J shaped
151 straight vane [33], aspect ratio and solidity [34] etc. on the performance of the Savonius or
152 Darrieus turbine. However, with numerical simulations, it is difficult to investigate the effect
153 of change of free surface contour on the performance of the hydrokinetic turbine. Hence, in
154 the present investigation, an experimental investigation is conducted to study the effect of
155 channel geometry considering the variation of free surface contour.
156
157 The effect of blockage on the wind turbine is generally related to blockage ratio i.e., the ratio
158 of the area of turbine or test specimen section to the area of wind tunnel test section.
159 However, for hydrokinetic turbine operating in a shallow water channel, the effect of water
160 channel blockage may not be directly related to blockage ratio, like wind tunnel experiments.
161 In case of hydrokinetic turbine operating in a shallow water open channel, the effect of area
162 reduction using bottom geometry results in different physics compared to the reduction in
163 area by the decrease in sidewall distances. In case of wind tunnel experiments, additional
164 power output from the turbine, due to high blockage, enhance because of the development of
165 pressure difference between the upstream and downstream side of the turbine. However, in
166 case of open channel hydrokinetic turbine, additional power output from the turbine, due to
167 high blockage, enhances because of the potential head rise at upstream compared to the
7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

168 downstream of the turbine test section. Hence, there is a need for a detailed investigation of
169 channel geometrical details on the performance of a hydrokinetic turbine. The area reduction
170 by channel bottom geometry may behave differently compared to area reduction by side wall
171 geometry. Accordingly, the aim of the present work is decided to study the hydrodynamic
172 performance of the Savonius turbine with the discrete geometrical aspect of the channel and
173 to develop the velocity correction methodology. In the present work, it is decided to
174 investigate the performance of Savonius turbine individually for three different channel
175 geometrical parameters (1) Effect of channel bottom hump – variable velocity of flow (2)
176 Effect of side wall when the flow is constrained to pass from the blocked side wall and
177 turbine region - constant flow rate condition and (3) Effect of side wall if the flow is allowed
178 to spill out from the side wall and turbine region - variable flow rate condition.

179 2. DATA REDUCTION

180 Tip speed ratio is the ratio of the tangential velocity of the rotor vane at the tip to the free
181 stream velocity of water
D
TSR  (1)
2Vi
182 Coefficient of power (Cp) is the ratio of mechanical power developed by the turbine rotor to
183 the actual hydrokinetic power available from the projected area covered by the rotor.
2 PT
Cp  (2)
 DHVi 3
184 where PT indicates mechanical power developed by the rotor,
PT  T 
(3)
 W  S  gRs

185 Coefficient of torque (Ct):

4T
Ct  (4)
Vi 2 D 2 H
186 Blockage ratio (BR) is the ratio of the projected area covered by the rotor of the turbine to the
187 projected flow area in the water channel.
HD
BR  (5)
H wWw

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

188 Uncertainties in various basic parameters, like coefficient of power, tip speed ratio, and
189 coefficient of torque at the maximum coefficient of power are around 1.83%, 2.93% and
190 3.46% respectively. Uncertainty calculations are carried out based on Moffat [35, 36].
191
192 EFFECT OF CHANNEL BOTTOM GEOMETRY
193 The velocity of flow in an open channel can be enhanced using provision of projected
194 portions from channel bottom, i.e., hump if the incoming flow is subcritical in nature. Power
195 output from hydrokinetic turbine can be improved if the mass flow rate and subsequently
196 velocity of flow, striking on the impeller increases. Hence, there is a possibility to enhance
197 the power output from the same size of turbine if it is employed above the hump in an open
198 channel flow. The velocity of flow can be enhanced up to critical even supercritical by using
199 proper bottom geometry of channel section. The conceptual discussion related to the flow
200 velocity enhancement around the turbine and subsequently power output mechanism from
201 turbine is presented in following paragraphs using the concept of specific energy curve and
202 critical parameters of flow.
203

204 3.1 Conceptual discussion

205 The specific energy indicates total energy, if channel bottom is considered as reference
206 datum. So, the specific energy, E, at specific channel section can be obtained as,
Vi 2 (6)
E  y
2g
Q2 (7)
E  y  E p  Ev
2 gA2
where,
y = Depth of flow measured from channel bottom.
Vi = Velocity of flow at the same section
Q = Flow rate passing from the channel
A = Cross sectional area of the flow at the same section
207

208 3.1.1 Specific energy curve for laboratory channel

209 Specific energy curve indicates the variation of specific energy for various depth of the flow.
210 The specific energy curve is drawn, as shown in Fig. 1, for the channel facility available in

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

211 Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Power laboratory of Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. The
212 available channel parameters which are considered for the calculation and specific energy
213 curve are indicated in Table 1.
214
215 The potential head (Ep) curve is drawn by considering Ep=y. Subsequently, velocity head (Ev)
Q2 Q2
216 curve is drawn by considering Ev   for various y. Similarly, specific
2 gA2 2 g b  y 2

217 energy curve is plotted considering E  E p  Ev . The obtained specific energy curve is shown

218 in Fig.1. Point C in Fig. 1 indicates the minimum specific energy. The flow depth related to
219 point C is termed as critical depth and velocity as critical velocity.
220

Kinetic energy flow rate (W)

0 100 200 300

0.3
Flow depth - y (m)

0.2
y1
C
0.1 y2

0
0 0.1 E2 0.2 0.3
E1 2
2 Specific energy - E (m)
(a) Effect of hump on flow depth (b) Variation of specific energy at section
‘1’ and ‘2’ for 100mm hump height (dz)
221
222 Fig.1 Characteristics of flow pattern after providing hump in channel
223

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table1:Details of channel available in laboratory

Sr.
Channel parameter Quantity
No.

1 Available discharge from the circulating pump (Q) 0.1035 m3/s

2 Bottom width of channel (Ww) 0.75 m

3 Available free stream velocity (Vc) 0.46 m/s

4 Available water level (y1), without use of hump 0.3 m

224
225 The variation of kinetic energy flow rate with reference to subsequent velocity head is also
226 presented on secondary horizontal axis for available laboratory channel flow. Figure 1
227 indicates that, the available velocity head (Ev), and subsequently kinetic energy flow rate
228 above the hump, is inversely propositional to the square of the flow depth available on hump.
229 The concept reveals that, there is a great potential to enhance the power output from a
230 hydrokinetic turbine if it is used with lower flow depth region. The flow depth in a open
231 channel can be decreased using an arrangement of hump at the channel bottom portion.

232 3.1.2 The perception of velocity enhancement with use of hump

233 Figure 1 indicates a horizontal rectangular channel of width Ww carrying discharge Q with
234 depth y1, available in the laboratory. At section 2, a smooth hump of size dZ is provided on
235 the channel bottom. Assuming specific energy at section1 as E1, the specific energy, E2, at
236 section 2 will be less compared to section 1 by amount dZ.

E2  E1  dZ (8)

237 The available flow is subcritical at section 1, hence, by reduction of specific energy, the depth
238 of flow also reduces. Subsequently, the free water surface also drops at section 2 as indicated
239 in Fig. 1. Due to the decrease in the height of the water surface at section 2, the velocity of
240 flow has to increase to maintain constant mass flow rate condition. In conclusion, by
241 providing a hump of definite height at the channel bottom, the velocity of the flow above the
242 hump can be increased, if the incoming flow is in the subcritical region.
243

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

244 3.2 Experimental investigation for evaluation of channel bed- hump effect

245 3.2.1 Experimental setup

246 A laboratory scale model is fabricated at Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. The actual
247 experimental set-up used for conducting tests on Savonius rotor is shown in Fig. 2. The set-
248 up consists of a Savonius rotor, supporting structure and bottom wall plate for provision of
249 hump. The structure is fabricated using studs and mild steel plates. The geometric details of
250 the rotors considered for the present study are indicated in Table 2 and a schematic diagram is
251 shown in Fig. 3.
252 Table 2: Geometric details of the rotors
253
Sr. Height of Vanes Diameter of Vanes Gap between two vanes
Number of Vanes
No. H Dp e
n
(mm) (mm) (mm)
1 64 152 2 30
254

(1) Channel (2) Hump (3) Turbine rotor (4)

Load pan (5) Spring balance
Fig. 2 Experimental set up with hump Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of experimental set
up
255
256 An arrangement of rope brake dynamometer is used for the measurement of torque and
257 subsequently power developed by Savonius rotor. Details of the turbine rotor used in the
258 present study are given in Table 2. The provision for the alteration of the hump height is
259 made as an integral part of the experimental set up. All experiments are performed with the
260 constant water flow rate of 0.1035 m3/s. Torque measurement is carried out by gradually
261 loading the rotor and marking spring balance reading and angular speed of the rotor. Each
262 experiment is repeated thrice.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

263 3.2.2 Experimental procedure

264 Initially, experiments are carried out without the use of a hump. The details of various hump
265 heights considered for the investigation are shown in Table 3 along with the measured flow
266 depth at just upstream side of the rotor. The velocity is calculated with a specific flow depth.

Table 3 Details of parameters investigated

Parameters Set I Set II Set III Set IV Set V

Height of hump used [dZ], mm 0 100 125 135 155

Measured Depth of flow above hump [y],

0 180 150 140 130
mm
Calculated Velocity of flow above hump
0.46 0.69 0.83 0.89 0.96
[Vi], m/s
267

268 After completion of experiments without the use of a hump, provision of hump is
269 implemented as an integral portion of experimental setup as shown in Fig. 4. The experiments
270 are carried out for four different heights of hump. The depth of flow above hump is measured
271 each time and subsequently velocity is calculated.

272 3.2.3 Results and discussion

273 The prime objective of the use of the hump is to increase the velocity of flow near the rotor
274 zone, subsequently to enhance power output from the turbine. Also, with use of a hump, it is
275 possible to keep the bearing and the supporting structure below the water surface for
276 prevention from water and debris. The calculations indicate that, the naturally available flow
277 velocity in the present channel is characterized as subcritical flow region. So, it is possible to
278 increase the velocity of flow using the provision of hump. The results obtained for different
279 heights of hump from the present study are shown in Fig. 4. For validation of the present
280 experimental results and calculations, the obtained experimental results are compared with
281 the experimental results published by Golecha et al. [1] as well as CFD results of Kacprzak et
282 al. [37] shown in Fig. 4 (c). Due to frictional effect of bearings and other mechanical
283 components, the experimental results indicates lower performance compared to CFD results.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1.6

Power output from turbine ( W )

1.2

0.8

0.4

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Speed of turbine (RPM)
(a) Use of hump to raise the velocity of (b) Variation of power output at different
flow hump heights

0.8 1.6
0.2

Power output from turbine (W)

Coefficient of power (Cp)
Coefficient of power (Cp)

0.16 0.6 1.2

0.12
0.4 0.8

0.08

0.2 0.4
0.04

0 0
0
0 50 100 150 200
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Tip Speed Ratio (TSR) Height of hump (mm)

(c) Variation of coefficient of power at (d) Variation of maximum coefficient of

different hump height power (Cpmax) and maximum power output
(Pmax) with reference to hump height

Fig. 4 Experimental results indicating effect of hump height on performance of turbine

284
285 Figure 4 (a) represents the actual photograph during experimentation. Figure 4 (b) represents
286 the variation of obtained power output from the turbine for different hump heights. It is

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

287 observed that there is a remarkable increase in the power output and the speed of the turbine
288 obtained from the same turbine rotor using greater height of the hump. For evaluation of the
289 performance enhancement of a turbine for different hump height condition, variation of
290 coefficient of power for different hump heights is shown in Fig. 4 (c). Results indicate that,
291 there is a remarkable increase in the power output observed by the use of a hump. However,
292 the coefficient of power remains nearly same for all cases.

293
294 For comparative assessment of effect of hump height on power output and performance of the
295 turbine, the variation of maximum coefficient of power Cpmax and maximum power output
296 obtained with variation of hump height is shown in Fig. 4(d).From Fig. 4(d), it can be
297 concluded that, provision of specific height of a hump increases the power output for a given
298 size of turbine rotor. However, it has very little effect on coefficient of power of the turbine
299 rotor if it is calculated considering a velocity at just upstream of the turbine rotor. Here it is to
300 note that hump height could not be raised above 155 mm in the laboratory due to overflow
301 observed with use of more height of hump.

302 3. EFFECT OF CHANNELSIDE WALL FOR CONSTANT FLOWRATE

303 CONDITION - WATER SPILLING NOT ALLOWED FROM BLOCKED
304 REGION
305 The presence of a hydrokinetic turbine, which operates in a shallow water flow with the
306 narrow side wall, changes the free surface contour of the flow and subsequently performance
307 of the turbine. The effect of the side wall on the performance of the turbine is evaluated for
308 two different cases. (1) The incoming flow rate kept constant for different side wall distance
309 – constant flow rate condition. In this case, the spilling of the water flow from the blocked
310 region is not allowed. Complete water flow is constrained to pass from the blocked region (2)
311 Flow is allowed to spill out for different side wall distance – variable flow rate condition.
312 Here, it is to be noted that, the spanwise location of the Savonius hydrokinetic turbine in the
313 rectangular section open channel also affects the performance of the Savonius turbine. The
314 turbine performs better if its advancing vane is placed near to the channel side wall [38].
315 However, to maintain consistency, the turbine is located centrally for all the cases in the
316 present investigation.

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

317 4.1 Conceptual discussion

318 When a turbine rotor is placed in between two closely located side walls, inlet kinetic energy
319 of water gets converted into potential head rise or stagnation pressure rise due to resistance
320 offered by the blocking plate and turbine rotor. This stagnation pressure head rise alters the
321 velocity and flow field condition around the turbine rotor as shown in Fig. 5 (A).
322

(A) Conceptual representation of channel side wall (B) Rotor details

effect

323 Fig. 5 Effect of presence of the rotor in closely located side wall and rotor details
324
325 In the present investigation, the effect of the side wall and subsequent rise in the potential
326 head at the upstream side of the turbine is evaluated for the performance of Savonius turbine.

327 4.2 Experimental set up and procedure

328 Experimental set up is prepared to evaluate the effect of channel side wall on the performance
329 of a Savonius turbine maintaining constant flow rate for each case. The 'S' type straight
330 bladed Savonius rotor is used with two semi cylindrical vanes. The schematic diagram and
331 the actual photograph of experimental set up is shown in Fig. 6 (A) and (B) respectively. The
332 geometric details of the rotor used in present experiments are indicated in Table 4, and Fig. 5
333 (B), and the geometric details of the channel used in the experiments are shown in Table 5.
334
335
336
337

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4 Geometric details of rotor

Sr.
Parameters Note
No.
1 Height of Vanes (H) 100 mm
Vane diameter /
2 50 mm
Vane pipe diameter (Dp)
3 Gap between vanes (e) 10 mm

4 Number of Vanes (n) 2

5 Diameter of rotor (D) 90 mm

6 Diameter of turbine rotor shaft (Ds) 10 mm

338
339

Table 5 Details of the channel

Sr.
Parameters Note
No.

1 Width of channel (C1) 760 mm

2 Available flow rate in the channel (Q) 0.083 m3/s

Velocity of flow (V1)
3 0.56 m/s
(Far up stream, centrally located section)
Side wall plate dimensions Height = 300 mm
4
(both inlet and side partition) Width = 510 mm
620, 540, 460,
5 Distance between two sidewalls (b1)
380 and 300 mm
340
341 The flow velocity in the present channel is measured by an electromagnetic flow meter. Flow
342 velocity is measured at two different sections at upstream side of the turbine. At each section,
343 the velocity is measured at three different locations (near to right, middle and left of channel)
344 and at each location velocity is measured at two different flow depths (near to the center and
345 bottom). Average velocity at the far upstream section, middle location and at central flow
346 depth is considered for the calculations. Velocity of flow shown in Table 5 is measured
347 before the placement of turbine in the channel. The flow depth is measured at different seven
348 locations as shown in Fig.6 (C).

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[1] Top support plate [2] Rotor [3]

Side wall plate [4] Wall of channel
[5] Deflector plate
(B) Actual experimental (C) The locations where
(A) Schematic diagram set up the flow depths are
measured
349 Fig. 6 Details of experimental set up
350
351 Velocity of the flow is calculated using continuity equation at specific sections. The change
352 in the depth of flow at the upstream and downstream of the turbine is also measured to
353 evaluate its effect on performance of turbine. Using flow rate and average flow depth at a
354 specific section, the velocity of the flow is calculated at a definite section. Experiments are
355 carried out for five different side wall distances (b1) as indicated in Table 5.

356 4.3 Results and discussion

357 Experiments are carried out for five different side wall distances (b1) namely 620mm,
358 540mm, 460mm, 380mm and 300mm keeping same inlet section width c1. The constant inlet
359 flow rate between two side wall plates is maintained by diverting the complete flow of the
360 channel using a deflector plate. The depth of the flow measured at seven different locations
361 for the measurement of velocity and potential head difference is shown in Fig. 6 (C). The
362 measured flow depth at different locations are mentioned in the appendix – A. The velocity at
363 the turbine inlet (section 4) is calculated using continuity equation from total flow rate, depth
364 of flow (y4) and width of the blocking plate (b1)at the same section (4).
365
366 Initially, side wall plates are placed 620mm offset from each other symmetrically about the
367 turbine rotor axis. The flow depth at all locations, torque and power output from the turbine is
368 measured for each side wall plate distances. The obtained results are presented as the
369 variation of coefficient of power (Cp), coefficient of torque (Ct) with tip speed ratio (TSR) as

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

370 shown in Fig. 7. The coefficient of power (Cp), Coefficient of torque (Ct) and tip speed ratio
371 (TSR) is calculated using velocity of flow available at section 4, which is just at upstream side
372 of turbine inlet. The velocity of flow is calculated by continuity equation using the available
373 flow depth at the same section. Similarly, the procedure is repeated for various distances
374 between the side wall plates.
375
376 The results indicate that the coefficient of performance (Cp) and the coefficient of torque (Ct)
377 enhanced as the side wall plate are placed closer to each other. It is also noted that, tip speed
378 ratio is also enhanced, even more than 1, as the side wall plate is placed closer. This suggests
379 that the tangential velocity at the tip of the vane is higher than the flow velocity available at
380 the inlet section (4) of the turbine.
381
382 The overall effect of side wall plate on maximum coefficient of power Cpmax is presented in
383 Fig. 8. The maximum coefficient of power (Cpmax) increases with the decrease in the distance
384 between the blocking plate.
385

0.6 0.6
Coefficient of torque ( Ct )
Coefficient of power (Cp)

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Tip Speed Ratio (TSR) Tip Speed Ratio (TSR)
(a) Variation of coefficient of power for (b) Variation of coefficient of torque for
different side wall distance different side wall distance
386
387 Fig. 7 Effect of blockage plate for constant flow rate condition
388

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Maximum coefficient of power ( Cpmax )

Maximum coefficient of power ( Cpmax )
0.6 0 0.6
0.035

0.03
0.4 -0.02 0.4

 Ev
0.025

 E
0.2 -0.04 0.2 0.02

0.015
0 -0.06 0
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
Side wall distance (mm) Side wall distance (mm)

(a) Comparative assessment of variation (b) Comparative assessment of variation

of maximum coefficient of power and of maximum coefficient of power and
change in velocity head, ∆Ev specific energy, ∆E
389
390 Fig. 8 Effect of blockage plate for constant flow rate condition
391
392 To obtain the functional relationship for rising trend of coefficient of power, the variation
393 of maximum coefficient of power is compared with the change in the velocity head and
394 specific energy between upstream (Section 4) and downstream (Section 5) as shown in
395 Fig. 8. The change in velocity head is calculated using eq. (9).
396
V42 V52 (9)
Ev  
2g 2g
397
398 The negative trend of change in velocity head (∆Ev) indicates that, velocity at the outlet
399 of the turbine gets enhanced compared to the inlet velocity. The magnitude of velocity
400 head difference increases as the side wall distance decreases. However, the positive
401 values of the maximum coefficient of power for all the side wall distances, indicates that
402 the derived power does not depends only on the inlet kinetic energy of the flow.
403
404 To obtain the mechanism from where the energy is derived for turbine power output, the
405 variation of the maximum coefficient of power and specific energy at the inlet and outlet
406 is drawn for different side wall distances as shown in Fig. 8(b). The results indicate that

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

407 the trends in the variation of maximum coefficient of power (Cpmax) and specific energy
408 change (∆E) at inlet and outlet section with side wall distances are similar. These similar
409 trends indicate that the power output from the turbine (PT) depends predominantly on
410 change in specific energy (∆E = E4 – E5), rather than the change in velocity head (∆Ev).
411
412 The above concept can be proved with theoretical consideration also. From the energy
413 balance between the turbine inlet section 4 and outlet section 5,
414
V42 P V2 (10)
Z4   T  Z5  5
2 g  gQ 2g

PT   gQ  E4  E5    gQ  E p  Ev  (11)

415 The equation (11) indicates that the power output from the turbine depends only on the
416 change of specific energy at inlet (section 4) and outlet (section 5) of the turbine for any
417 distance of sidewall, if the flow rate (Q) passing from the turbine in all cases is same. To
418 evaluate this functional relationship, variation of maximum power output (Pmax) with
419 sidewall distance is compared with the change of specific energy (∆E=∆Ev+∆Ep) at the
420 inlet and outlet of turbine sections as shown in Fig. 9 (a).
421
Maximum coefficient of power ( Cpmax )

2.5 0.6 0.1

Change in potential head,  Ep ( m )

Change in specific energy,  E (m)
Maximum power, Pmax ( W )

0.032
2
0.08
0.4
1.5 0.028

0.06
1 0.024
0.2
0.04
0.5
0.02

0 0.02
0
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
Side wall distance (mm) Side wall distance (mm)

(a) Comparative assessment of variation (b) Comparative assessment of variation

of maximum power and change in of maximum coefficient of power and
specific energy, ∆E change in potential head, ∆Ep
422
423 Fig. 9 Effect of blockage plate for constant flow rate condition

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

424 Similar trends in the variation of maximum power output (Pmax) and change in specific
425 energy (∆E) with side wall distance suggests that power output from a hydrokinetic turbine
426 depends on change in specific energy, if placed between closely located sidewall plates. The
427 results indicate that, there is a need to consider the effect of change in specific energy (∆E) at
428 the inlet and outlet rather than only to focus on kinetic energy extractions between the inlet
429 and outlet of turbine, when hydrokinetic turbine is placed between two closely placed
430 sidewalls. Figure 9 (b) shows similar trends of variation of maximum coefficient of power
431 and variation of potential head difference (∆Ep = Z4 – Z5) with the sidewall distance However,
432 it is not appropriate to correlate both the functions directly with each other.

433 4.4 Consideration of conventional velocity corrections

434 Due to the presence of the turbine in the test section, the flow area in the wind tunnel reduces.
435 Hence, as the flow passes through the restricted blockage area of the wind tunnel, the velocity
436 of the flow increases compared to the free stream velocity. Hence the power output obtained
437 from the test setup indicates the higher value (subsequently Cp) compared to the same turbine
438 operate without any blockage. Hence to predict the actual performance of the turbine, it is
439 necessary to consider appropriate velocity correction method. The Maskell's velocity
440 correction method is well-known for the wind turbine application.
441
442 In the present investigation, the experiments are carried out for high blockage conditions. The
443 obtained results indicate the value of maximum coefficient of power as high as 0.49 for
444 highest blockage case. Ross and Altman [9] reviewed different correction methods to study
445 the influence of blockage. Maskell [12] was first to address this influence of blockage for
446 bluff bodies. Alexander provided an improved method of Maskell’s method by comparing the
447 drag of flat plates normal to the free stream with the drag of Savonius turbines normal to the
448 free stream [9]. The graphical relationship for the Savonius turbines indicated by Ross and
449 Altman [9] is digitized and with appropriate curve fitting, following relation is obtained
450 between m (ratio of wake area to channel cross-sectional area) and blockage ratio (BR).

m  8.14  BR   7.309  BR   3.23 (12)

2

451 Using the value of m obtained Eq. 12, corrected local velocity (Vc) is obtained by the Eq. 13.
452
Vc 2 1 (13)

U 2
1  m  BR 

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

453 The change of corrected maximum coefficient of power, obtained using corrected velocity
454 from Eq. (13), is compared with the Cp value obtained by considering upstream velocity at
455 section 4. The obtained results are indicated in Fig. 10.
456

Based on Maskell's corrected velocity (Vc)

Maximum coefficient of power ( Cpmax )

1.6 1.6

Maximum coefficient of power ( Cpmax )

Based on inlet velocity ( section 4 )

0.3

0.4 1.2 1.2

Velocity ( m/s )
0.2
0.8 0.8

0.2
0.1
0.4 0.4

0
0 0 0
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
Side wall distance (mm) Side wall distance (mm)

(a) Comparison of maximum coefficient of (b) Comparison of corrected velocity obtained

power obtained with Maskell’s velocity with Maskell’s method with downstream
correction with upstream velocity velocity at section 5.
457
458 Fig. 10 Consideration of Maskell’s velocity correction
459
460 Results indicate that, the variation trend of maximum coefficient of power obtained by using
461 Maskell’s corrected velocity and maximum coefficient of power obtained using upstream
462 velocity (velocity at section 4) is quite similar. However, the value obtained by Maskell’s
463 corrected velocity indicates quite lower value compared to value obtained using upstream
464 velocity.
465
466 The corrected velocity obtained by Maskell’s correction method is compared with the inlet
467 velocity at section 4 and outlet velocity at section 5 as shown in Fig. 10 (b). It may be
468 concluded that, for a fixed inlet width of the side channel wall, rise in the potential head of
469 water at the upstream is directly related to the blockage area. The exit velocity (velocity at
470 outlet section 5) also indicates the similar trend. The large fluctuation in the exit velocity is
471 due the formation of wavy surface arising due to the rotation of the rotor. Hence, the depth of
472 the flow also varies during the rotation of the impeller. The exit velocity at section 5 is

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

473 calculated using average flow depth at section 5. Hence, greater fluctuation at section 5
474 reflects in the fluctuation in velocity at the same section.

475 4. EFFECT OF SIDE WALL PLATE FOR VARIABLE FLOW RATE CONDITION–
476 WATER FLOW IS ALLOWED TO SPILL OUT FROM BLOCKED REGION

477 5.1 Conceptual discussion

478 In case of turbine placed in a large width channel or river, it is difficult to divert the complete
479 flow rate from the turbine region. However, if the flow is not constrained to pass from the
480 side wall, then there is a possibility of spillage of the flow from turbine region due to the
481 resistance offered by the turbine as shown in Fig. 11(c). If the turbine placed between two
482 closely located sidewalls, then the rise in the potential head at the upstream side may not be
483 elevated in this case. There is a possibility that water may spill out from the side of the walls
484 without delivering its power to the turbine rotor.
485
486 If the turbine is placed between the widely located side walls, then it might be possible that
487 the significant potential head may not rise at the upstream side of the turbine. This may not
488 enhance the power output subsequently by change in potential head and might adversely
489 affect the coefficient of power of the turbine. Hence, there is a need of the investigation for
490 the distance between the two side walls on the performance of the turbine.

491 5.2 Experimental set up and procedure

492 The same turbine rotor is used which was used in constant flow rate case. However, to allow
493 water spilling from the turbine region, front converging deflector plate is removed in present
494 experimental set up. The geometric details of the rotor and channel details are indicated in
495 Table 4 and 5 respectively. The schematic representation of the setup and the actual
496 experimental set up is shown in Fig. 11 (A) and (B) respectively.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[1] Top support plate [2]

Rotor [3] Side wall plate [4]
Wall of channel
(a) Schematic diagram (c) The locations
(b) Actual experimental set up where the flow
depth is measured
Fig. 11 Experimental set up
497

498 5.2 Results and discussion

499 Initially, the side wall plates are placed at b1 = 620mm, symmetrically about the turbine rotor
500 axis without the deflector plate. Flow is allowed to spill out from the side wall plates. Similar
501 to the constant flow rate condition, experiments are carried out for five different open side
502 wall distances (b1), The measured flow depth at different locations is mentioned in the
503 Appendix – B. It is observed that the span wise depth of the flow approaching the inlet of
504 side wall plate is nearly constant at specific section 2. The obtained results are shown in Fig.
505 12. Calculations of different parameters shown in Fig. 12 are carried out using far upstream
506 constant free stream velocity of the flow (Section 1). Average velocity of far upstream
507 section 1, middle location and at central flow depth is considered for the present calculations.
508 The geometric details of the rotor are given in Table 4 and details of channel are given in
509 Table 5.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 12 Effect of open blockage on the performance of the turbine

510
511 Figure12 shows that, for all side wall distances, maximum coefficient of power (Cpmax)
512 obtained by considering the inlet velocity of the flow to the turbine are nearer or slightly
513 more than that of Betz limit. This clearly indicates that the power delivered to the turbine is
514 not only from the kinetic energy of the water flow but also from some other form of
515 hydropower i.e., the potential head of water flow. It also reveals that there is no substantial
516 rise in the tip speed ratio. The possible reason for this observation is, in the present case, the
517 variation of flow depth is minor compared to the constant flow rate case, due to allowed
518 overflow from the blocked region. Hence, the variation between the incoming and outgoing
519 velocity is comparatively small, which predominantly keeps the tip speed ratio nearly
520 constant. However, this is not the case for variable flow rate situation. Here, the additional
521 velocity component due to the variation of the flow depth is quite high resulting in variation
522 of TSR for different blocked cases. This is quite contrary to the situation with open side wall
523 plate for constant flow rate condition. The increasing trend of maximum coefficient of power
524 (Cpmax) is observed as the side wall plate is placed closer to each other.
525
526 The overall effect of side wall plate on obtained maximum coefficient of power (Cpmax) is
527 shown in Fig. 13. The maximum coefficient of power (Cpmax) increases with the decrease in
528 the distance between the blocking plates. To obtain the functional relationship for rising
529 trend of coefficient of power, the variation of maximum coefficient of power (Cpmax) is

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

530 compared with the change in velocity head (∆Ev) and the change in specific energy (∆E) at
531 the upstream (Section 4) and the downstream (Section 5) side of the turbine zone as shown in
532 Fig. 13(a) and Fig. 15(b) respectively. From the results, it can be observed that, when side
533 walls are kept very nearer to each other, the fraction of blocked region due to the rotor
534 becomes quite high. Hence, an appreciable amount of potential head rise can be observed in
535 the flow section, due to the restricted flow from the turbine section. This causes increase in
536 the power coefficient. On the other hand, slow rise of potential head restricts the Ev
537 enhancement at widely located side wall distances.
538
Maximum coefficient of power ( Cpmax )

Maximum coefficient of power ( Cpmax )

0.75 0.75
0

0.7 0.04
0.7
-0.005
0.65 0.65
 Ev

 E
-0.01 0.03
0.6 0.6

-0.015
0.55
0.55
0.02

0.5 -0.02
0 200 400 600
0.5
0 200 400 600
Side wall distance (mm)
Side wall distance (mm)

(a) Comparative assessment of variation (b) Comparative assessment of variation

of maximum coefficient of power and of maximum coefficient of power and
change in velocity head, ∆Ev specific energy, ∆E
539
540 Fig. 13 Effect of blockage plate for variable flow rate condition
541
542 The velocity at different locations can be obtained using the total flow rate and the flow depth
543 at a particular section. The velocity at the turbine exit section 5, at the turbine region (V5t) and
544 the turbine outside region (V5 os), is calculated using Eq. 14 and 15.
545

1 1  A5tV5t  A5 osV5 os
AV (14)

 V12  V2  V 2  (15)

 gAV
1 1  z1    gA5tV5t  5t  z5t    gA5osV5os  5os  z5os   PT
 2g   2g   2g 
546

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

547 Subsequently, the flow rate passing from the turbine section and the spill out flow rate can be
548 obtained using velocity and measured flow depths at specific sections. The flow area is
549 calculated considering flow depth at specific sections and available width of considered
550 section. Using velocities obtained at section 5, both turbine sub section (V5t) and turbine
551 outside sub section (V5os), the velocity of flow at section 4, both at turbine sub region (V4t)
552 and turbine outside sub region (V4os) can be calculated using continuity Eq. 16 and 17.
553
A4tV4t  A5tV5t (16)

A4 osV4 os  A5osV5os (17)

554 Subsequently, the change in the velocity head, potential head and specific energy can be
555 calculated using Eq. 18, 19 and 20 respectively.
556
V42t V52t (18)
Ev  
2g 2g
E p  Z 4t  Z 5t (19)

V2  V2  (20)

E   4t  Z 4t    5t  Z 5t 
 2g   2g 
557
558 Similar to the constant flow rate condition, the variation of maximum coefficient of power
559 (Cpmax) and change in velocity head (∆Ev) at inlet and outlet sections (4 and 5) of the turbine
560 is drawn for different side wall distances as shown in Fig. 13(a).
561
562 The results shown in Fig. 13(a) indicate completely negative trend of change of velocity head
563 (∆Ev) for all blocking plate distance. Decreasing trend of change in the velocity head (∆Ev)
564 indicates that the velocity at the outlet of the turbine (section 5) gets enhanced in comparison
565 with the inlet velocity (section 4). However, the maximum coefficient of power in all cases of
566 side plate distance indicates positive value. There is a increasing trend of maximum
567 coefficient of power (Cpmax) with the decrease in the side wall distance. The results clearly
568 indicate that, the power output achieved from the turbine (PT) is not only delivered from the
569 kinetic energy of water from inlet. This conclusion is similar to that observed for the
570 constant flow rate conditions.
571

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

572 To obtain the mechanism from where energy is derived to the turbine, the variation of the
573 maximum coefficient of power (Cpmax) and the change of specific energy (∆E) at the inlet
574 section 4 and outlet section 5 is drawn for different side wall distances as shown in Fig.
575 13(b). The results indicate that there is a reasonably good matching trends of the variation of
576 maximum coefficient of power (Cpmax) and specific energy change (∆E) at inlet and outlet
577 section for different side wall distances. These similar trends of maximum coefficient of
578 power and specific energy change with side wall distances suggests that the power output
579 from the turbine predominantly depends on the change in specific energy instead of change in
580 velocity head alone.
581
582 The results can be validated with theoretical consideration as explained below. Considering
583 energy balance between section 4 and 5 within turbine region,
V2  V2  (21)
PT   gA4tV4t  4t  Z 4t    gA5tV5t  5t  Z 5t 
 2g   2g 
584 The power output from the turbine completely depends on the change in the specific energy
585 (∆E) between the specific energy at section 4 and section 5 and the flow rate (Q4t) passing
586 within the turbine region.
PT   gQ4t  E  (22)

587 Figure 14(a) indicates comparatively good match between the maximum power output (Pmax)
588 and the change in specific energy (∆E) for different sidewall distances. Hence, it may be
589 concluded that the power output from the hydrokinetic turbine placed between the closely
590 located sidewall plates predominantly depends on the change in specific energy.
591

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Maximum coefficient of power ( Cpmax )

0.6

Change in potential head,  Ep ( mm)

Change in specific energy,  E (m)
0.04
0.72
Maximum power ( Pmax )

0.56
40
0.68
0.52
0.03

0.64
0.48
38

0.44 0.02 0.6

0.4 0.56
36
0 200 400 600
0 200 400 600
Side wall distance (mm)
Side wall distance (mm)

(a) Comparative assessment of variation (b) Comparative assessment of variation

of maximum power and change in of maximum coefficient of power and
specific energy, ∆E change in potential head, ∆Ep
592
593 Fig. 14 Effect of blockage plate for the constant flow rate condition
594
595 Hence, there is a need to consider effect of change in specific energy at inlet and outlet rather
596 than only to focus on kinetic energy difference, when the hydrokinetic turbine is placed
597 between the two closely placed sidewalls. Variation of maximum coefficient of power
598 (Cpmax) and change in potential head (∆Ep = Z4 – Z5) difference at the inlet and outlet of
599 turbine with side wall distance match reasonably well as shown in Fig. 14(b). However, it is
600 not appropriate to correlate both functions directly with each other.
601 Figure 14(b) indicates that, by decreasing the distance between the side wall plates,
602 considerable variation in the potential head difference is observed. This indicates that the
603 difference between potential head before and after turbine rotor increases drastically between
604 blocking plate. Hence, it indicates that, the potential head variation about turbine rotor also
605 contributes to enhance power output from turbine. This may be the reason to observe higher
606 Cp beyond Betz limit. Here, it is also observed that, the velocity of the flow after the turbine
607 rotor is increased substantially compared to the inlet of turbine rotor, as the side wall distance
608 decreases. The possible reason for increase in the velocity at the outlet of the turbine may be
609 due to the energy gained from the potential head from inlet. The energy generated from the
610 potential head variation contributes for the power output from the turbine as well as velocity
611 enhancement at the outlet of the turbine rotor.

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

612 5.3 Consideration of velocity corrections

613 As discussed in the section 4.4, the corrected velocity is calculated for all different blockage
614 cases using Maskell’s correction method and revised coefficient of power is obtained using
615 the corrected velocity. The obtained results are shown in Fig. 15, along with the value of
616 maximum coefficient of power obtained using the upstream velocity at the inlet section 4 of
617 the turbine region.
Based on far upstream velocity ( section 1 )

Based on Maskell's corrected velocity (Vc)

Maximum coefficient of power ( Cpmax )

1 0.5 2.5 1.6

Maximum coefficient of power ( Cpmax )

0.8 0.4 2
1.2

Velocity ( m/s )
0.6 0.3 1.5
0.8
0.4 0.2 1

0.4
0.2 0.1 0.5

0 0 0 0
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
Side wall distance (mm) Side wall distance (mm)

(a) Comparison of maximum coefficient of (b) Comparison of corrected velocity obtained

power obtained with Maskell’s velocity with Maskell’s method with downstream
correction with upstream velocity velocity at section 5.
618
619 Fig. 15 Consideration of Maskell’s velocity correction
620
621 Results indicates that, the variation trend of maximum coefficient of power obtained by using
622 Maskell’s corrected velocity and maximum coefficient of power obtained using upstream
623 velocity (velocity at section 4) is quite different.
624 The corrected velocity obtained by Maskell’s correction method is compared with inlet
625 velocity at section 4 and outlet velocity at section 5. Result indicates that the quite similar
626 rising trend is obtained between Maskell’s corrected velocity and velocity at inlet. Which
627 indicates that the variation in the flow area at inlet to the turbine (A4) is directly related to the
628 blockage ratio (BR), or blocking area. Subsequently it can be concluded that, for fixed inlet
629 width of side channel wall, rise in the potential head of water at upstream is directly related to
630 the blockage area. The exit velocity (velocity at outlet section 5) also indicate the similar
631 trend.

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

632 5. Velocity correction method for hydrokinetic turbine operating in shallow water with
633 high blockage
634 Wind turbine indicates greater power output when experimented in the wind tunnel with
635 highly blocked test section, compared to the power output that can be achieved, if it is used in
636 open space i.e. low blockage case. The specific reason behind this enhanced power is the
637 development of high local velocity in the blocked section. Many researchers have given the
638 correction methodology to correct the results obtained from a highly blocked wind tunnel
639 experiments. Same concept can be thought for the velocity corrections for a hydrokinetic
640 turbine. There is a need to develop velocity correction methodology to correlate the results
641 obtained from a high blockage water channel (Shallow water depth with narrow side wall)
642 with the performance of the turbine which can be obtained, when operate with a negligible
643 blockage flow domain.
644
645 Patel et al. [14, 25] discussed in detail about the difference between the flow field about
646 hydrokinetic turbine and wind turbine. They clearly indicated that the difference of the static
647 pressure and potential head variation cannot be ignored in the hydrokinetic turbine. Hence, to
648 obtain the correlation for corrected velocity, in case of a hydrokinetic turbine operating in a
649 high blocked channel section, it is required to consider the static pressure and potential head
650 difference about the hydrokinetic turbine. Consider the pressure, kinetic and potential energy
651 heads about inlet (Section 4) and outlet (Section 5) sections of the turbine as shown in Fig.
652 16.

653
654 Fig. 16 consideration of various flow heads about turbine unit for high blockage case
655
656 Considering energy balance about section 4 and section 5, for unit weight of the fluid,

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

p4 V42 p4 V52 P1
  Z 4 btm    Z 5 btm   T (23)
 g 2g  g 2g m g r

PT1
657 where,  indicates water power available to the turbine per unit weight flow rate of
mr g
658 water, for mechanical power development

659 m r indicates the reference mass flow rate responsible for the power development PT1 ,

660 Considering, p4   gZ 4top and p5   gZ 5top

PT1  V42 V52 


      Z 4  Z5  (24)
mr g  2 g 2 g 

PT1
661 Eq. (24) indicates that the water power, per unit weight flow rate of water i.e., 
available
mr g
662 to the turbine depends upon the change in the kinetic head and potential head about the
663 turbine. Experimental results indicates that, as the flow blockage decrease, the potential head
664 variation (Z4 – Z5) about the turbine decreases. Subsequently, if turbine operates in very high
665 flow depth and large width of flow domain, the change in the potential head (Z4 - Z5) about
666 upstream and downstream side can be ignored. However, if turbine operates in highly
667 blocked condition, than the change in the potential head cannot be ignored. The equivalent
668 kinetic energy head developed due to the difference in the potential energy head can be
669 written as follows.
2
Vadd
 dZ  Z 4  Z 5 (25)
2g
670 Considering equivalent kinetic head development instead of change in a potential head, Eq.
671 (24) can be considered as,
672 Total theoretical power supplied to the turbine( PT11 )at inlet section 4 = Normal rate of supply

673 of kinetic energy at the section 4 + Additional rate of supply of equivalent kinetic energy
674 which can be derived from the change in potential head
1  1  2
PT11  m r V42  m r Vadd (26)
2 2
675 The eq. (26) also indicates that, if it is require to develop same power output ( PT11 )completely

676 from the kinetic energy or equivalent corrected velocity, without utilization of change in the
677 potential head,

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

678 Corrected rate of supply of the kinetic energy = Normal rate of supply of kinetic energy at
679 section 4 + Additional rate of supply of kinetic energy derived from a change in potential
680 head (dZ)
1  2 1  2 1  2
PT11  m r Vc  m r V4  m r Vadd (27)
2 2 2
681
or corrected velocity,

Vc  V42  Vadd
2
(28)
682 where,
683 V4 = Q/A4 (for the case of hump)
684 V4 =Q/A4 (constant flow rate case - water spilling not allowed from blocked region)
685 V4=V1 or free stream velocity (variable flow rate case - water spilling is allowed from blocked
686 region)
687 A4 = Channel water flow area at just upstream side section 4 of the turbine (b4×Z4)
688 Vadd  2 g (dZ )
689
690 As the mechanical power developed by the turbine is not only due to normal rate of kinetic
691 energy input to the turbine, but some fraction of the developed power is derived from the
V2 
692 change in the potential head. Considering potential head (dZ) and kinetic head  4  supply
 2g 

V2 
693 to the turbine as equivalent kinetic head  c  supply to the turbine, the corrected coefficient
 2g 
694 of power, Cpc, can be calculated from Eq. (29)
695
PT
C pc  (29)
1 
m r Vc2
2

m r    DH  Vc
Where,

PT = Actual power developed from turbine

696
697 Using the developed method of the corrected velocity, the corrected coefficient of power is
698 calculated and compared on the common scale as shown in Fig. 17 for all the evaluated cases.
699 It is observed that, potential head difference at upstream and downstream of the turbine was

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

700 negligible in the cases of hump only, hence dZ is considered as zero to obtain corrected
701 velocities (Vc) in this case. In case of constant flow rate case, velocity at the upstream side of
702 the turbine (section 4) can be obtain using continuity equation, V4 = Q/A4, where, A4 can be
703 calculated from the measured flow depth (Z4) and channel width (b4) at just upstream of the
704 turbine section (section 4).
705
706 The comparison indicates that, if corrected velocity is not considered, the vast variation in
707 maximum coefficient of power is recorded for all the evaluated cases. Some of the cases
708 indicates coefficient of power more than the Betz limit. Even the Figs. 10 and 15 indicate
709 that, the coefficient of power obtained by the Maskell's velocity correction method, also
710 indicates quite high value of the maximum coefficient of power. However, if the case of zero
711 height of hump considered as unblocked case (which indicates least blockage case among all
712 evaluated cases), the corrected coefficient of power from the presented velocity correction
713 method indicates very nearer to the unblocked case of the Savonius turbine for all different
714 evaluated cases. This validates the methodology adopted for the derivation of velocity
715 correction.

Side wall distance ratio

( side wall distance / channel width)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Maximum coefficient of power ( Cpmax )

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 200 400 600
716 Side wall distance (mm)
717 Fig. 17 Validation of the proposed velocity correction method
718

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

719 In spite of the different values of the velocity change and the potential head change with
720 different configurations of the channel geometry, the coefficient of power after applying the
721 present velocity correction method indicates a unique value.
722
723 The article highlights that, if velocity correction not applied, the experimental results will
724 indicates vast variation in the power coefficient with the same geometry of the rotor for
725 different channel geometrical features.

726 6. Conclusions
727 The effect of open channel geometry on the performance of Savonius type hydrokinetic
728 turbine is investigated separately for three different cases, (i) Effect of channel bottom
729 geometry (ii) Effect of channel side wall – for constant flow rate condition (iii) Effect of side
730 channel wall – for variable flow rate condition. Following are the conclusions that may be
731 drawn from the present study
732
733 (i) The performance of Savonius hydrokinetic turbine is evaluated using five different height
734 of the channel bottom geometry – hump heights. Results indicate that, with the rise of 55% of
735 hump height, power output is raised by 236% reference to lower height of hump. In spite of
736 substantial amount of raise in power output, coefficient of power remains nearly about
737 constant. It is also observed that the speed of the turbine is substantially increased with
738 enhancement of the hump height, but the tip speed ratio obtained for all different hump
739 heights are nearly same. The specific energy curve indicates that, using hump, the kinetic
740 energy flow rate or velocity head is enhanced above the hump. Hence, it may be concluded
741 that the use of a hump enhances the power output from the turbine by increasing the kinetic
742 energy flow rate near upstream of the turbine. It is also observed that, the coefficient of
743 power obtained using various hump height cases are within the Betz limit and normal range
744 of the Savonius turbine performance.
745
746 (ii) The performance of the turbine is studied for different channel side wall distances. The
747 flow rate of water passing from turbine region is all the cases were kept constant. The
748 experiments are carried out for different five different side wall distances. The results indicate
749 substantial raise in the coefficient of power and tip speed ratio as distance between channel
750 sidewall distances kept closer. It is observed that, nearly 269% of maximum coefficient of
751 performance enhances by decreasing 52% of side wall distance of channel, keeping same

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

752 flow rate conditions in all cases. The velocity of flow at the downstream side of turbine is
753 enhanced compared to the inlet side of the turbine. The close matching of graph between
754 maximum power output (Pmax) and change in specific energy (∆E), for different sidewall
755 distance, concludes that power output from hydrokinetic turbine, if placed between closely
756 located sidewall plates, depends on change in specific energy. Unlike the effect of hump,
757 power output enhancement from the turbine is predominantly due to the change in potential
758 head between upstream and downstream of the turbine rotor. Maximum coefficient of power
759 of 0.49 is obtained with side wall distance ratio of 0.39 (b1/c1=300/760).
760
761 (iii) The effect of side wall distance on the performance of the turbine is studied by allowing
762 the water flow to spill out from the turbine region from the side wall plate. Similar to the
763 constant flow rate condition, experiments are carried out for five different open side wall
764 distances. Results indicate that, for all side wall distances, maximum coefficient of power
765 (Cpmax)obtained from a turbine in all cases are nearer or more that of Betz limit. It is observed
766 that, nearly 27% of maximum coefficient of performance enhances by decreasing 52% of side
767 wall distance of channel, allowing flow to spill out from the turbine region. It clearly
768 indicates that, power delivered to the turbine is not only from the kinetic energy of the water
769 flow but also from Potential head of water flow.
770
771 (iv) The proposed velocity correction methodology is specifically derived for the case of
772 highly blocked hydro turbine case, considering potential head difference about the turbine.
773 Generally, width of the laboratory canals are restricted to smaller size considering the flow
774 capacity requirement of the pump and motor. In such cases, coefficient of power calculated
775 from the experimental observations will be quite high compared to the same turbine operating
776 in the large flow depth and width river or actual canal. Hence, the effect of blockage cannot
777 be ignored to predict a power coefficient obtained from restricted canal width. The present
778 experimental results indicate vast variation of the coefficient of power for different cases of
779 the blockage. Even blockage correction methodology which are generally used for wind
780 turbine also cannot predict comparatively good results. Hence, to obtain the actual
781 performance of the turbine or power coefficient, the presented methodology of the velocity
782 correction will be quite useful, specifically for the turbine operating in highly blocked
783 shallow water depth canal.
784
785 Overall conclusion can be summarized as
37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

786 o Blockage corrections related to hydrokinetic turbine test in open channel

787 cannot be made directly from blockage area ratio like wind tunnel experiments
788 for wind turbine. The effect of area reduction from channel bottom behave
789 differently than the reduction in area by channel side wall in case of open
790 channel experiments for hydrokinetic turbine
791 o There is a need to consider the effect of change in specific energy at the inlet
792 and outlet rather than only to focus on kinetic energy difference, when
793 hydrokinetic turbine is placed between two closely placed sidewalls in shallow
794 water channel flow.
795 o The presented velocity correction method will be quite useful in the prediction
796 of actual performance of the turbine as it appropriately corrects for blockage.
797

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

798 References
[1] Golecha, K., Eldho, T.I. and Prabhu, S.V., 2011. Influence of the deflector plate on the
performance of modified Savonius water turbine. Applied Energy, 88(9), pp.3207-
3217.

[2] Kailash, G., Eldho, T.I. and Prabhu, S.V., 2012. Performance study of modified
Savonius water turbine with two deflector plates. International Journal of Rotating
Machinery, 2012.

[3] Jeon, K.S., Jeong, J.I., Pan, J.K. and Ryu, K.W., 2015. Effects of end plates with
various shapes and sizes on helical Savonius wind turbines. Renewable Energy, 79,
pp.167-176.

[4] Kamoji, M.A., Kedare, S.B. and Prabhu, S.V., 2009. Performance tests on helical
Savonius rotors. Renewable Energy, 34(3), pp.521-529.

[5] Tartuferi, M., D'Alessandro, V., Montelpare, S. and Ricci, R., 2015. Enhancement of
Savonius wind rotor aerodynamic performance: A computational study of new blade
shapes and curtain systems. Energy, 79, pp.371-384.

[6] Ponta, F.L. and Jacovkis, P.M., 2008. Marine-current power generation by diffuser-
augmented floating hydro-turbines. Renewable energy, 33(4), pp.665-673.

[7] Ponta, F. and Dutt, G.S., 2000. An improved vertical-axis water-current turbine
incorporating a channelling device. Renewable energy, 20(2), pp.223-241.

[8] Alexander, A.J. and Holownia, B.P., 1978. Wind tunnel tests on a Savonius
rotor. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 3(4), pp.343-351.

[9] Ross, I. and Altman, A., 2011. Wind tunnel blockage corrections: Review and
application to Savonius vertical-axis wind turbines. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 99(5), pp.523-538.

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[10] Ross, I.J., 2010. Wind tunnel blockage corrections: an application to vertical-axis
wind turbines (Doctoral dissertation, University of Dayton).

[11] Roy, S. and Saha, U.K., 2014. An adapted blockage factor correlation approach in
wind tunnel experiments of a Savonius-style wind turbine. Energy Conversion and
Management, 86, pp.418-427.

[12] Maskell, E.C., 1963. A theory of the blockage effects on bluff bodies and stalled wings
in a closed wind tunnel (No. ARC-R/M-3400). AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL LONDON (UNITED KINGDOM).

[13] Werle, M.J., 2010. Wind turbine wall-blockage performance corrections. Journal of
Propulsion and Power, 26(6), pp.1317-1321.

[14] Patel, V., Eldho, T.I. and Prabhu, S.V., 2017. Experimental investigations on Darrieus
straight blade turbine for tidal current application and parametric optimization for
hydro farm arrangement. International Journal of Marine Energy, 17, pp.110-135.

[15] Vennell, R., 2013. Exceeding the Betz limit with tidal turbines. Renewable Energy, 55,
pp.277-285.

[16] Vennell, R., 2012. The energetics of large tidal turbine arrays. Renewable Energy, 48,
pp.210-219.

[17] Vennell, R., 2012. Realizing the potential of tidal currents and the efficiency of turbine
farms in a channel. Renewable Energy, 47, pp.95-102.

[18] Whelan, J.I., Graham, J.M.R. and Peiro, J., 2009. A free-surface and blockage
correction for tidal turbines. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 624, pp.281-291.

[19] Cavagnaro, R. and Polagye, B., 2014, April. An evaluation of blockage corrections for
a helical cross-flow turbine. In Proceedings of the 3rd Oxford Tidal Energy Workshop.
Oxford, UK.

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[20] Stansby, P. and Stallard, T., 2016. Fast optimisation of tidal stream turbine positions
for power generation in small arrays with low blockage based on superposition of self-
similar far-wake velocity deficit profiles. Renewable Energy, 92, pp.366-375.

[21] Vogel, C.R., Houlsby, G.T. and Willden, R.H.J., 2016. Effect of free surface
deformation on the extractable power of a finite width turbine array. Renewable
Energy, 88, pp.317-324.

[22] Kolekar, N. and Banerjee, A., 2015. Performance characterization and placement of a
marine hydrokinetic turbine in a tidal channel under boundary proximity and blockage
effects. Applied Energy, 148, pp.121-133.

[23] Nishino, T. and Willden, R.H., 2012. Effects of 3-D channel blockage and turbulent
wake mixing on the limit of power extraction by tidal turbines. International Journal
of Heat and Fluid Flow, 37, pp.123-135.

[24] Bahaj, A.S., Molland, A.F., Chaplin, J.R. and Batten, W.M.J., 2007. Power and thrust
measurements of marine current turbines under various hydrodynamic flow conditions
in a cavitation tunnel and a towing tank. Renewable energy, 32(3), pp.407-426.

[25] Patel, V., Bhat, G., Eldho, T.I. and Prabhu, S.V., 2017. Influence of overlap ratio and
aspect ratio on the performance of Savonius hydrokinetic turbine. International
Journal of Energy Research, 41(6), pp.829-844.

[26] Cuerva, A. and Sanz-Andrés, A., 2005. The extended Betz–Lanchester

limit. Renewable energy, 30(5), pp.783-794.
[27] Ferrari, G., Federici, D., Schito, P., Inzoli, F. and Mereu, R., 2017. CFD study of
Savonius wind turbine: 3D model validation and parametric analysis. Renewable
Energy, 105, pp.722-734.

[28] Arab, A., Javadi, M., Anbarsooz, M. and Moghiman, M., 2017. A numerical study on
the aerodynamic performance and the self-starting characteristics of a Darrieus wind

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

turbine considering its moment of inertia. Renewable Energy, 107, pp.298-311.

[29] Ducoin, A., Shadloo, M.S. and Roy, S., 2017. Direct Numerical Simulation of flow
instabilities over Savonius style wind turbine blades. Renewable Energy, 105, pp.374-
385.

[30] El-Baz, A.R., Youssef, K. and Mohamed, M.H., 2016. Innovative improvement of a
drag wind turbine performance. Renewable Energy, 86, pp.89-98.
[31] Altan, B.D., Altan, G. and Kovan, V., 2016. Investigation of 3D printed Savonius rotor
performance. Renewable Energy, 99, pp.584-591.

[32] Kumar, A. and Saini, R.P., 2017. Performance analysis of a Savonius hydrokinetic
turbine having twisted blades. Renewable Energy, 108, pp.502-522.

[33] Zamani, M., Maghrebi, M.J. and Varedi, S.R., 2016. Starting torque improvement
using J-shaped straight-bladed Darrieus vertical axis wind turbine by means of
numerical simulation. Renewable Energy, 95, pp.109-126.

[34] Sengupta, A.R., Biswas, A. and Gupta, R., 2016. Studies of some high solidity
symmetrical and unsymmetrical blade H-Darrieus rotors with respect to starting
characteristics, dynamic performances and flow physics in low wind
streams. Renewable Energy, 93, pp.536-547.

[35] Moffat, R.J., 1988. Describing the uncertainties in experimental results. Experimental
thermal and fluid science, 1(1), pp.3-17.
[36] Moffat R.J., 1982. Contributions to the theory of single-sample uncertainty analysis.
ASME J Fluids Eng;104:250–64.
[37] Kacprzak, K., Liskiewicz, G. and Sobczak, K., 2013. Numerical investigation of
conventional and modified Savonius wind turbines. Renewable energy, 60, pp.578-
585.
[38] Patel Vimal, Eldho T. I., Prabhu S. V., 2017, Effect of the Span Wise Location in the
Rectangular Section Open Channel on the Performance of Savonius Hydrokinetic Turbine, 44th
National Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Power, December 14-16, 2017, Paper No.
203.

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

799 Appendix A

800 Measured average flow depth (y) for constant flow rate case- Water spilling not allowed
Side wall distance (mm)
7. Section
Section 8. Uncertainty
No. 300 380 460 540 620

1 Far Upstream 328 285 253 227 212 ±1

2 Convergent IL 338 292 260 237 208 ±1
3 Convergent OL 311 275 242 218 205 ±1
4 Turbine IL 280 243 212 190 173 ±1
5 Turbine OL 194 165 143 133 137 ±3*
6 Turbine channel OL 108 114 119 135 161 ±2*
7 Far downstream 181 185 190 192 203 ±1

801

802 Appendix B

803 Measured average flow depth (y) for variable flow rate case- Water spilling allowed
Side wall distance (mm)
9. Section
Section 10. Uncertainty
No. 300 380 460 540 620

1 Far Upstream 197 194 197 195 195 ±1

2 Convergent IL 205 202 204 201 201 ±1
3 Convergent OL 206 199 196 195 195 ±1
4 Turbine IL 170 165 166 159 159 ±1
5 Turbine OL 129 126 129 123 123 ±3*
6 Turbine channel OL 144 145 150 149 149 ±2*
7 Far downstream 193 188 190 195 195 ±1

804 * The uncertainty at turbine outlet is higher, due to high wave formation generated due to the
805 rotating turbine vane.

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

1. Performance investigation of Savonius hydrokinetic turbine is carried out for different

channel blockage cases, using experimental approach.
2. Performance of same turbine is evaluated when it is operated with different side wall
distances and different heights of the hump.
3. The novel velocity correction methodology is developed and validated specifically for the
case of highly blocked hydro turbine case, considering potential head difference about the
turbine.
4. Data are presented as coefficient of power and tip speed ratio along with the potential head
change about turbine unit.
5. The correlation of potential head change with the power coefficient is established first
time in the present investigation, for different type of channel geometrical blockage cases.