International Journal of Green Energy: Please Scroll Down For Article

This article was downloaded by: [Biswas, A.
]
On: 14 March 2011
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 934653681]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Green Energy

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713597260
CFD Analysis of Flow Physics and Aerodynamic Performance of a

Combined Three-Bucket Savonius and Three-Bladed Darrieus Turbine
R. Guptaa; Agnimitra Biswasa
a
National Institute of Technology Silchar, Silchar, Assam, India
Online publication date: 09 March 2011
To cite this Article Gupta, R. and Biswas, Agnimitra(2011) 'CFD Analysis of Flow Physics and Aerodynamic Performance
of a Combined Three-Bucket Savonius and Three-Bladed Darrieus Turbine', International Journal of Green Energy, 8: 2,
209 — 233
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15435075.2010.548541
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2010.548541
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Green Energy, 8: 209–233, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1543-5075 print / 1543-5083 online
DOI: 10.1080/15435075.2010.548541
CFD ANALYSIS OF FLOW PHYSICS AND AERODYNAMIC

PERFORMANCE OF A COMBINED THREE-BUCKET
SAVONIUS AND THREE-BLADED DARRIEUS TURBINE
R. Gupta and Agnimitra Biswas

National Institute of Technology Silchar, Silchar, Assam, India
In this paper, the performance of a combined three-bucket Savonius and three-bladed

Darrieus turbine was analyzed computationally by using Fluent 6.2 CFD software. Two-
dimensional steady-state CFD simulations were performed for without overlap, and with
five overlaps namely 16.2%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 35%. The flow physics of the combined
Downloaded By: [Biswas, A.] At: 09:51 14 March 2011
turbine was analyzed with the help of pressure, velocity and vorticity contours. Further, the
aerodynamic coefficients were evaluated with respect to angle of attack for various tip speed
ratios. It was concluded that the power augmentation of the combined turbine occurred
for low overlap in Savonius turbine due to high aerodynamic lift-to-drag coefficient of the
Savonius turbine, caused by the increase of dynamic pressure from bucket-vortex interac-
tions on the concave face of the returning bucket. And it also occurred for high aerodynamic
lift-to-drag coefficient (14.5) of the Darrieus turbine from the increase of velocity difference
across the Darrieus blade with small overlap (16.2%) in Savonius turbine. For without or
with low overlap (16.2%), coanda flow occurred across the overlap between the inner edge
of bucket and the central shaft that migrated from the downstream side of the advancing
bucket towards the upstream side and then reached the concave face of the returning bucket
increasing dynamic pressure on it, and hence augmented power production for the combined
turbine. However, high value of overlap (20% onwards) caused vortex separations from the
inner edges of bucket destabilizing the coanda flow for which the aerodynamic coefficients
were lowered.
Keywords: Combined Savonius-Darrieus turbine; CFD analysis; Contours; Aerodynamic
coefficients
INTRODUCTION
Wind energy system is an important power generation technology whose continual
development and proliferation can suffice the energy needs of people and can salvage
the severe climate changes caused by the greenhouse gas emissions. With the improved
technology along with superior economics of wind energy systems, experts predict wind
power would capture 5% of the world energy market by the year 2020 (GWEC 2006).
Over the past ten years, global wind power capacity has continued to grow at an average
cumulative rate of over 30%. According to the figures released by Global Wind Energy
Council (GWEC), wind energy developing countries (more than 70) have taken the net
Address correspondence to R. Gupta, National Institute of Technology Silchar, Mechanical Engineering,

REC Road, Fakirtila, Silchar-10, Cachar, Silchar 788 010, India. E-mail: r_guptanitsil@yahoo.com
209
210 GUPTA AND BISWAS
wind energy installed capacity to a record high of 120,798 MW (GWEC 2008). The 120.8
GW of global wind capacity will produce 260 TWh and save 158 million tons of CO2 every
year. The top ten wind power market in terms of MW installed with market share and the
growth of installed wind energy capacity from 1996 to 2008 are shown in Figure 1(a) and
(b), respectively. The Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWTs) are simple in construction,
self-starting, inexpensive, suitable for low wind speed applications, and can accept wind
from any direction without orientation. The VAWTs are of different types, such as Savonius
turbine, Darrieus turbine, combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine, etc. VAWT would be desir-
able for wind power production apart from horizontal axis wind turbines, especially in low
wind speed regimes. Wind speed regimes are determined from the study of wind character-
istics of a region. Akdağ and Güler (2010) studied the wind characteristics such as monthly
average mean speeds, power densities, turbulence intensities, gust, wind directions, etc. of
Amasra, a Black Sea region in Turkey, taking 9 years of wind data. They estimated mean
capacity factors between 26.8% and 43.9% for 30 commercial wind turbines. Ucar and
Balo (2008) conducted a similar study on a site in the western part of Anatolia of Turkey
Figure 1 (a) Top 10 wind power market with market share and (b) growth of installed wind energy capacity from
1996 to 2008.
CFD ANALYSIS OF FLOW PHYSICS AND AERODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE 211
to evaluate yearly energy output and capacity factors of six commercial wind turbines, and
capacity factor of the turbines was found to be between 25 and 34.
Vertical Axis Wind Turbines are classified as Savonius turbine, Darrieus turbine,
combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine. Savonius turbine has high starting torque and its
power coefficient normally lies in between 15% and 35%. Ghosh et al. (2009) studied the
performances of a single-stage and a three-stage modified Savonius wind turbines for water
pumping with the help of mathematical modelling. Single-stage configuration showed a
maximum power coefficient of 19% at a Reynolds number of 120,000. The estimated dis-
charges for a single-stage turbine of 3 m diameter at design wind speeds of 6 and 8.5
m/sec were 5,000 and 6,000 m3 /month for roto-dynamic pumps. McWilliam and Johnson
(2008) studied the airflows around various Savonius turbine designs by using Particle
Image Velocimetry (PIV) in a closed loop wind tunnel. Results showed the dominance of
lift forces on the turbines. Further analysis showed considerable interactions between flow
over the forward blade and the wake of the trailing blade. Ozgener, Ozgener, and Dincer
(2009) investigated some exergoeconomic parameters (energy and exergy loss ratios) for
a 1.5 kW wind turbine system, linking capital costs and thermodynamic losses based on
some operating conditions. The combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine has its advantage
over individual Savonius and Darrieus turbines since it combines high starting torque of
Savonius turbine and high power coefficient of the Darrieus turbine. Gavalda, Massons,
and Diaz (1990) studied the performance of a self-adapting Savonius–Darrieus turbine
having two-bucket Savonius and two-bladed airfoil chord Darrieus turbines. They reported
a maximum power coefficient of 0.35 obtained at an overlap of 16.67%, and also showed
that the high starting torque of the combined turbine was caused by the reduction of the
zones of negative starting torque. Wakui et al. (2005) performed comparative analysis of
the performances of two different hybrid configurations of Savonius–Darrieus turbines;
one having two numbers of two-bucket Savonius turbines as the starter for a single two-
bladed Darrieus turbine with the Savonius turbines placed within the Darrieus turbine, and
the other, same configuration but with Savonius turbines mounted below the Darrieus tur-
bine. They observed that the second category of their turbine had performed better than the
former, which produced a maximum power coefficient of 0.18. Gupta, Das, and Sharma
(2006) studied experimentally the performance of a combined two-bucket Savonius and
three-bladed Darrieus turbine in an open circuit subsonic wind tunnel for overlap variations
between 16.2% and 25%. The maximum power coefficient was obtained as 0.25 at 20%
overlap. Again, Gupta, Biswas, and Sharma (2008) made a comparative study between
a three-bucket Savonius turbine and a combined three-bucket Savonius and three-bladed
Darrieus turbine through wind tunnel testing for without and with overlap variations of
16.2%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 35%. They showed that the maximum power coefficient of
the combined turbine was obtained at without overlap and that of Savonius turbine was
obtained at 20% overlap. And the maximum power coefficient of the combined turbine
was higher than the Savonius turbine, which was reported to be 0.51. Elmabrok (2009)
evaluated the performance of various designs of combined Darrieus–Savonius turbines.
The Darrieus turbine was a three wooden bladed system, which was combined individually
with different two-bladed Savonius turbine models, such as semi-circular type and Bach
type. It was concluded that the combined Darrieus and Bach type Savonius turbine would
self-start at low wind speeds, since the power and torque coefficients were higher than the
other design. Debnath, Biswas, and Gupta (2009) evaluated the performance of a combined
Savonius–Darrieus turbine of the design of Gupta et al. (2008) with overlap variations by
using Fluent 6.2 CFD software. The results showed good matching of computational and
experimental power coefficients for all overlap variations.
Thus, the recent works on the combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine have shown that
its power coefficient is much greater than the Savonius turbine. However, its aerodynamic
performances with respect to different design parameters like blade/bucket incidence,
overlap variations, tip speed ratios. etc. are still not evaluated. Further, the effects of the
individual components i.e. bucket and blade on the performance of the combined turbine
is required to be known. In the present paper, the performance of combined Savonius–
Darrieus turbine of the design of Gupta et al. (2008) was analyzed computationally by
using Fluent 6.2 CFD software.
PHYSICAL MODEL
The combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine had a three-bucket Savonius turbine
mounted on top of three-bladed Darrieus turbine, as shown in Figure 2. The buckets of
the Savonius turbine were 8 cm in diameter, 3 mm in thickness and 10 cm in height. To
remove any mechanical interference between the Darrieus blades and Savonius buckets,
the arcs of the buckets were shortened by almost 10◦ on the inner edges. The buckets had
the provision for five overlap variations, namely 16.2%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 35%. The
overlap is the distance of the inner edge of the bucket from the axis of rotation assuming the
arc is carried to the full semi-circle. The overlap ratio is the ratio of overlap to the bucket
diameter expressed in percentage. The Darrieus turbine was made up of similar aluminum
strips of width 12 mm, thickness 3 mm, diameter 8 cm, and height 10 cm, with blades
spaced 120◦ apart. Thus for the combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine, the total height was
20 cm. The central shaft was made of mild-steel of 15 mm diameter. Washers and nuts
having knurled surfaces were used to change the overlap. The turbine was fixed to the
shaft-using nut and bolt arrangement. The central shaft was connected to a base through a
ball bearing. The central shaft, base and the supports were made from mild steel, and the
blades were made from lightweight aluminium. The models were tested in an open circuit
Figure 2 Combined three-bucket-Savonius-three-bladed-Darrieus turbine.

subsonic wind tunnel available in the department. The brief description of the wind tunnel
and the experimental procedure were given in the paper of Gupta et al. (2006).
CFD FORMULATION OF THE COMBINED SAVONIUS–DARRIEUS TURBINE

Any computational formulation of a physical process is based on mathematical
modelling first, which starts with modelling of the physical system with its boundary condi-
tions, and then followed by the implementation of the governing mathematical equations.
The physical domain of the combined three-bucket Savonius and three-bladed Darrieus
turbine along with the boundary conditions is shown in Figure 3. Velocity inlet and out-
flow conditions were taken on the left and right boundaries, respectively. The top and
bottom boundaries of the computational domain signifying the sidewalls of the wind tunnel
had symmetry conditions on them. The buckets, blades, and the central shaft were set to
standard wall conditions.
The governing equation of the conservative form of Navier–Stokes equation in finite
difference form for incompressible flow of constant viscosity is as shown in Equations (1)
and (2).
∂
(ρ V r ) + ∇.(ρ V r V r ) + ρ(2ω
V r + ωωr)

= −∇Ps + ρg + ∇.(τ̄ ). (1)
∂t
According to the eddy viscosity concept of the Stokes’ hypothesis for Newtonian fluids,
the Reynolds stress tensor of the Equation (1), τ̄ , can be expressed as
2
τ̄ = μ[(∇ V r + ∇ V rT ) − ∇.V r I]. (2)
3
The simplest and most widely used two-equation turbulence model is the standard k–ε
turbulence model that solves two separate transport equations to allow the turbulent kinetic
Figure 3 Computational domain of the combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine.

energy and its dissipation rate to be independently determined. The standard k–ε model
is particularly suitable for flows though sharp corners, straight and curved edges like the
turbine blades as the model uses wall functions based on the law of the wall. The standard
k–ε equations of the turbulent model can be represented as

∂ ∂ ∂ μt ∂k
(ρk) + (ρkui ) = μ+ + Gk + Gb − ρε − YM + Sk (3)
∂t ∂xi ∂xj σk ∂xj

∂ ∂ ∂ μt ∂ε ε ε2
(ρε) + (ρεui ) = μ+ + C1ε (Gk + C3ε Gb ) − C2ε ρ + Sε .
∂t ∂xi ∂xj σε ∂xj k k
(4)
The values of the five constants of the standard k-ε turbulence model are taken as
Cμ = 0.09 C1ε = 1.44 C2ε = 1.44 σk = 1.0 σε = 1.3.

THE COMPUTATIONAL MODELLING

The CFD simulations were carried out by using Fluent 6.2 software. The meshing
was done in gambit of the package. Both uniform and nonuniform meshing was done
within the computational domain of the turbine. On the four rectangular edges of the com-
putational domain, uniform grid spaces were taken. Nonuniform grid spaces were taken
for the buckets and the blades. The densities of mesh were kept higher on the concave and
convex faces of the buckets than on the ends, since the flow physics on both sides of the
curved faces control the performance of the turbine. Similarly, the mesh density was kept
higher on the faces of the Darrieus blades than its ends. High mesh density was also kept
around the central shaft to capture the vortices that transport across the overlap. On the
blades as well as buckets, near wall boundary layers were built in gambit such that the dis-
tance of the first row of grid points in direction normal to the solid boundary was 0.004 cm.
There were 16 rows of boundary points on each face of the Savonius bucket, such that the
total number of cells within the boundary layer was around 4,440. The boundary layer was
extended more on the convex face than on the concave face. Similarly there were 10 rows
of boundary points on each face of the Darrieus blade, such that the total number of cells
within the boundary layer was around 770 up to a total depth of boundary layer of 0.3 cm.
Two extreme wind speeds considered for the simulation were 29.4 m/sec and 34.1 m/sec.
The tip speed ratios corresponding to these wind speeds were 0.451 and 0.215, respectively.
The maximum relative wind speeds between the bucket/blade and the surrounding air were
32.26 m/sec and 36.71 m/sec, respectively. And the chord Reynolds numbers with respect
to these wind speeds were 1.86 × 105 and 2.12 × 105 , respectively. The computations were
initially carried out with various levels of refinement of mesh. Unstructured (triangular)
meshing was done on the face external to the turbine. The computational mesh around the
buckets and blades are shown in Figure 4. The computations were initially carried out with
various levels of refinement of mesh as shown in Table 1 until grid independent limit mesh
(Masson, Ammara, and Paraschivoiu 1997) was reached. For this, CFD code was run for a
number of times with the same set of input parameters. The resolutions of the mesh at all-
important areas, like the curved and straight faces were varied in an attempt to reach grid
independent limit mesh. The computed y+ value of the grid independent mesh was within
5–20. The pitching moment coefficient was considered as the parameter for which grid
Figure 4 Computational mesh: (a) around combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine, (b) around the Savonius Buckets
(zoomed-in), (c) at the center across shaft and (b) around a Darrieus Blade (zoomed-in).
Table 1 Details of refinement levels of the grid of the combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine.
Refining level No. of nodes No. of cells (Triangular)
1 23, 382 38, 588

2 44, 034 75, 634
3 51, 778 89, 870
4 53, 491 92, 996
5 56, 203 96, 202
6 60, 024 104, 946
7 67, 103 116, 034
independent limit mesh was determined. Figure 5 shows the variation of Cm with different
refinement levels. The refinement level 7 was selected for final simulation.
In this study, steady state, incompressible flow was considered. The numerical sim-
ulation was carried out by solving the conservation equations for mass and momentum
with the help of unstructured-grid finite volume methodology coupled with moving mesh
technique (Fluent User Guide 2005). The finite difference forms of Navier–Stokes equa-
tion along with continuity and turbulence equations were solved by the in-built functions
Grid Independence
0.0027
Pitching Moment
0.0018
Coeff
0.0009
0
0 2 4 6 8
Refinement Level
Figure 5 Variation of pitching moment coefficient with various refinement levels of the grid of the combined
Savonius–Darrieus turbine.
of the Fluent 6.2 CFD package. The standard k-ε turbulence model with enhanced wall
function was chosen. The method of dynamic grid or rotating reference frame was imple-
mented. Single rotating reference frame was considered in which the buckets, blades and
the central shaft rotate relative to the incoming fluid stream. The sequential algorithm,
Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure-Linked Equation (SIMPLE), was used for solving all
the scalar variables. For the convective terms of the momentum equations and also for
the turbulence equations, the second order upwind interpolating scheme (Versteeg and
Malalasekera 1995) was adopted in order to achieve accurate results.
CONTOUR PLOT ANALYSIS OF THE COMBINED SAVONIUS–DARRIEUS

TURBINE
The contour plots of pressure, velocity, and vorticity were obtained from the CFD
simulations for the combined three-bucket Savonius and three-bladed Darrieus turbine for
bucket angles (or blade angles) of rotation of 110◦ , 230◦ , and 350◦ . The contours were
obtained for without overlap and with overlap variations of 16.2%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and
35%. The simulations were carried out for wind speed of 29.4 m/sec. Figure 6(a) to (f)
show static pressure contour plots for without and with the above five overlap variations.
Figure 7(a) and (b) show dynamic pressure contour plots for without and with 25% overlap
variation. Figure 8(a) to (f) show velocity contour plots for without and with the over-
lap variations. For all the angles of rotation, the pressure contour plots show decrease
of static pressure from the upstream side to the downstream side across the turbine. For
without overlap, Figure 6(a) shows a decrease of static pressure from 8.07 × 102 Pascal to
6.14 × 101 Pascal, from the upstream side to the downstream side of the advancing bucket
(at about 1 O’clock position, on top). For 16.2% overlap, the static pressure decreases from
5.85 × 102 Pascal to 1.73 × 102 Pascal from the upstream side to the downstream side of
the advancing bucket, as shown in the Figure 6(b). Therefore, with overlap of 16.2%, the
pressure difference between the upstream and downstream sides is lower compared to with-
out overlap. And for this, the lift generation of Savonius turbine decreases with overlap.
For 20% overlap, the static pressure difference across the advancing bucket further drops
resulting in still lower lift, as shown in Figure 6(c). Moreover, static pressures are negative
on the concave face of the returning bucket and also on the downstream side of the advanc-
ing bucket. The negative static pressure means high dynamic pressure, since total pressure
is always constant at any location of the flow domain. For without overlap, Figure 7(a)
Figure 6a Contour plot of static pressure of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ 230◦ &
350◦ for without overlap.
Figure 6b Contour plot of static pressure of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ 230◦ &
350◦ for 16 2% overlap.
shows that the maximum dynamic pressure on the convex side of the advancing bucket (at
1 o’clock position) is around 1.47 × 103 Pascal. However for 30% overlap, the pressure
increases to 4.13 × 103 Pascal. This increase of dynamic pressure on the convex side of the
bucket would have caused by the hitting of separated vortices from the convex face of the
bucket on to the Darrieus blade. It can also be observed from the pressure contours that
circular vortices have formed close to the concave face of the returning bucket (5 O’clock
Figure 6c Contour plot of static pressure of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ , 230◦ &
350◦ for 20% overlap.
Figure 6d Contour plot of static pressure of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ , 230◦ &
position), as shown in Figure 6(a) and (b). Due to the close interactions of the vortices with
the concave face of the bucket, the dynamic pressure has increased for which power will
be augmented. In dynamic pressure contours, high dynamic pressure of around 6.66 × 103
Pascal can be observed on the concave face of the bucket due to the occurrence of bucket-
vortices interactions (Figure 7a), which will result in high aerodynamic coefficient for the
bucket without overlap thereby augmenting power. However, with overlap of 25%, these
Figure 6e Contour plot of static pressure of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ , 230◦ &
Figure 6f Contour plot of static pressure of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ , 230◦ &
vortices tend to migrate towards the downstream side of the advancing bucket increasing
dynamic pressure on the upstream of Darrieus blade, as shown in Figure 7(b).
The velocity magnitude contours show that the velocity decreases from the upstream
side to the downstream side of the advancing bucket. For without overlap, Figure 8(a)
shows a decrease of velocity from 39 m/sec on the upstream side to 10 m/sec on the down-
stream side of the advancing bucket. For 16.2% overlap, Figure 8(b) shows a decrease of
velocity from 30 m/sec on the upstream side to 9 m/sec on the downstream side of the
advancing bucket. Similarly, for 25% overlap, Figure 8(d) shows a decrease of velocity
Figure 7a Contour plot of dynamic pressure of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ , 230◦
& 350◦ for without overlap.
Figure 7b Contour plot of dynamic pressure of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ , 230◦
& 350◦ for 25% overlap.
magnitude from 28 m/sec on the upstream side to 8 m/sec on the downstream side of the
advancing bucket. Therefore, with the increase of overlap, the velocity difference between
the two sides of the bucket is decreased resulting in the fall of lift generation for the
turbine.
Figure 9 (a) to (d) show the velocity vectors across the Darrieus blade at 60◦ blade
angle for without overlap and with 16.2%, 20%, and 30% overlap variations. These plots
show that, for both without and with overlaps, the velocities decrease from upstream side of
Figure 8a Contour plot of velocity magnitude of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ ,
230◦ & 350◦ for without overlap.
Figure 8b Contour plot of velocity magnitude of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ ,
230◦ & 350◦ for 16.2% overlap.
the blade to its downstream side. Further, with the increase of overlap, the flow is acceler-
ated on the upstream side of the blade. Figure 9(a) shows that, for without overlap, velocity
decreases from 29.5 m/sec from the upstream side of the blade to only 24.6 m/sec on the
downstream side of the blade. For 16.2% overlap, Figure 9(b) shows that velocity decreases
from 29.2 m/sec from the upstream side of the blade to 20.8 m/sec on the downstream side
of the blade. For 30% overlap, Figure 9(d) shows that velocity decreases from 41.6 m/sec
to 23.1 m/sec from upstream side to downstream side. Hence, the flow is accelerated on the
upstream face of the blade, and the velocity difference across the Darrieus blade increases
with the increase of overlap; therefore, the aerodynamic lift for the blade will also increase
Figure 8c Contour plot of velocity magnitude of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ ,
230◦ & 350◦ for 20% overlap.
Figure 8d Contour plot of velocity magnitude of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ ,
230◦ & 350◦ for 25% overlap.
simultaneously. However, too high overlap variation in Savonius turbine is undesirable

since it reduces lift for the next Darrieus blade. Figure 10(a)–(d) show the velocity vector
distributions across the Darrieus blade at 180◦ blade angle position. Figure 10(a) shows
that, for without overlap, velocity on the lower side of the blade is about 35 m/sec and that
on the upper side is about 30 m/sec. Figure 10(c) shows that, for 20% overlap, velocity on
the lower side of the blade is about 42 m/sec and that on the upper side is about 30 m/sec.
On the other hand Figure 10(d) shows that, for 25% overlap, velocity on the lower side of
the blade is about 47 m/sec and that on the upper side is about 42 m/sec. Thus, for higher
Figure 8e Contour plot of velocity magnitude of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ ,
230◦ & 350◦ for 30% overlap.
Figure 8f Contour plot of velocity magnitude of combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine for blade angle: 110◦ ,
230◦ & 350◦ for 35% overlap.
overlap as much as 25%, the velocity difference between the two sides of the blade at 180◦
blade angle position is lowered compared to that for 20% overlap, and hence reduces lift
for the blade.
Coanda Flow Analysis of the Combined Savonius–Darrieus Turbine

Coanda flow is defined as the flow of steep vortices across the overlap of the Savonius
turbine that migrates from the downstream side of the advancing bucket to the concave face
of the returning bucket (Fujisawa 1992). As the vortices are accumulated on the concave
Figure 9 Velocity vectors across the Darrieus blade at 60◦ blade angle for: (a) without overlap, (b) with 16.2%
overlap, (c) with 20% overlap and (d) with 30% overlap.
face of the returning bucket and interact with the bucket there, the power production of
the turbine is augmented by the increase of dynamic pressure on the concave face of the
bucket. Figure 11(a) shows the coanda flow around the central shaft for without overlap
condition for bucket (or blade) angles of rotation of 110◦ , 230◦ , and 350◦ . Though it is
called without overlap, but small gap between the central shaft and the inner edges of the
buckets is considered to accommodate for the space occupied by the fixing bolts of the
buckets. Figure 11(b) shows coanda flow around the central shaft for 16.2% overlap for
the same angles of rotation i.e., 110◦ , 230◦ , and 350◦ . Figure 11(c) shows the coanda flow
around the central shaft for 20% overlap for the same angles of rotation. Finally, Figure
11(d)–(f) show the coanda flow across the central shaft for 25%, 30%, and 35% overlap
variations. It is to be noted that the small gap for the fixing bolts is included within the
overlap values. The upstream side, downstream side, advancing bucket, returning bucket,
concave face, and overlap are marked in these plots. The coanda flows can be observed to
be migrating from the downstream side across the overlap at the central shaft. In addition,
the boundary layer vortices are also observed adjacent to the concave and convex faces of
the buckets. Figure 11(a), for without overlap and with angles of rotation of 110◦ , 230◦ , and
350◦ , shows that steep coanda vortices enter through the two gaps, glide past the central
shaft, and then reaches the concave face of the returning bucket in the upstream side for
which the dynamic pressure will increase there. Figure 11(b), for 16.2% overlap and with
Figure 10 Velocity vectors across the Darrieus blade at 180◦ blade angle for: (a) without overlap, (b) with 16.2%
overlap, (c) with 20% overlap and (d) with 25% overlap.
angles of rotation of 110◦ , 230◦ , and 350◦ , shows the similar influx of coanda vortices
of increased volume that migrate from the downstream side and flow through the overlap
between the shaft and the inner edges of the buckets, and finally reach the concave face of
the returning bucket.
Figure 11(c), for 20% overlap, also shows coanda vortices enter from the downstream
side through the overlap. However a hint of separated vortices can be observed at the inner
edge of advancing bucket, which would destabilize the coanda flow coming across the
overlap near that edge. Figure 11(d) and (e), for 25% and 30% overlaps, respectively, show
increase in the amount of separated vortices from the inner edges of the buckets inhibiting
the coanda flow from reaching the concave face of the returning bucket. For this reason,
both aerodynamic coefficients and performance of the combined Savonius–Darrieus tur-
bine will decrease. Figure 11(f), for 35% overlap, show almost complete destabilization of
coanda flow. The flow instead of reaching the concave faces re-circulates across the central
shaft thereby lowering its performance.
Figure 11a Coanda flow for without overlap for bucket angle: 110◦ , 230◦ & 350◦
Figure 11b Coanda flow for 16.2% overlap for bucket angle: 110◦ , 230◦ & 350◦
AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS OF THE COMBINED SAVONIUS–DARRIEUS

TURBINE
The aerodynamics coefficients of the combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine, like
lift (Cl ), drag (Cd ) and lift-to-drag (Cl /Cd ) coefficients were evaluated for without and
with five overlap variations of 16.2%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 35%. Figure 12(a)–(c) show
the composite plots of the comparisons of Cl , Cd and Cl /Cd between Darrieus blade and
Figure 11c Coanda flow for 20% overlap for bucket angle: 110◦ , 230◦ & 350◦
Figure 11d Coanda flow for 25% overlap for bucket angle: 110◦ , 230◦ & 350◦
Savonius bucket for various overlap variations. These figures show that the values of Cl
and Cl /Cd are higher for Darrieus blade. The highest Cl of 0.079 is obtained for without
overlap for Savonius bucket, whereas the highest Cl of 0.089 is obtained for 20% overlap
for Darrieus blade (Figure 12a). However, the highest Cl /Cd for the bucket is 10.5 obtained
for 16.2% overlap variation and that for the blade is 14.5, which is also obtained for the
same overlap variation (Figure 12c). Figure 13(a) and (b) show the variations of Cl and
Cl /Cd of the bucket with respect to angle of attack for four tip speed ratios of 0.215, 0.274,
Figure 11e Coanda flow for 30% overlap for bucket angle: 110◦ , 230◦ & 350◦
Figure 11f Coanda flow for 35% overlap for bucket angle: 110◦ , 230◦ & 350◦
0.333 and 0.451. Similarly, Figure 13(c) and (d) show the variations of Cl and Cl /Cd of
the blade with respect to angle of attack for the above tip speed ratios. Figure 13(a) shows
that Cl increases with the increase of angle of attack up to the maximum at certain angle of
attack and then decreases. The maximum Cl of 0.079 is obtained at an angle of attack of
81.41◦ for tip speed ratio of 0.451. Figure 13(b) also shows that Cl /Cd increases with the
increase of angle of attack up to the maximum at certain angle of attack and then decreases.
The maximum Cl /Cd of 10.41 is obtained at an angle of attack of 111.41◦ for tip speed
ratio of 0.333. Figure 13(c) and (d), for the blade, show the same trend in the variations
of Cl and Cl /Cd with angle of attack as that for the bucket. The maximum Cl of 0.089
is obtained at an angle of attack of 81.41◦ for tip speed ratio of 0.333 (Figure 13c). The
Bucket
0.105
Blade
0.09
0.075
0.06
Cl
0.045
0.03
0.015
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Overlap
Figure 12a Comparison of Cl between bucket and blade for various overlap values.
Bucket
0.07
Blade
0.06
0.05
0.04
Cd
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Overlap
Figure 12b Comparison of Cd between bucket and blade for various overlap values.
Bucket
16
Blade
14
12
10
Cl/Cd
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Overlap
Figure 12c Comparison of Cl /Cd between bucket and blade for various overlap values.
TSR = 0.451
0.09
TSR = 0.333
0.075 TSR = 0.274
TSR = 0.215
0.06
Cl_bucket
0.045
0.03
0.015
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
–0.015
Angle of Attack
Figure 13a Variation of Cl for bucket with respect to angle of attack for various tip speed ratios.
TSR = 0.451
12
TSR = 0.333
10
TSR = 0.274
8 TSR = 0.215
Cl/Cd_bucket
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
–2
Angle of Attack
Figure 13b Variation of Cl/Cd for bucket with respect to angle of attack for various tip speed ratios.
0.1 TSR = 0.451

TSR = 0.333
0.08
TSR = 0.274
0.06 TSR = 0.215

Cl_blade
0.04
0.02
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
–0.02
Angle of Attack
–0.04
Figure 13c Variation of Cl for blade with respect to angle of attack for various tip speed ratios.
16.2 TSR = 0.451

TSR = 0.333
13.5
TSR = 0.274
10.8
TSR = 0.215
8.1
Cl/Cd_blade
5.4
2.7
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
–2.7
Angle of Attack
–5.4
–8.1
Figure 13d Variation of Cl / Cd for bucket with respect to angle of attack for various tip speed ratios.
0.4
0.35
0.3
Expt
Cp
0.25 CFD
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42
Tip Speed Ratio
Figure 14 Variation of Cp with respect to tip speed ratio for 16.2% overlap.
maximum Cl /Cd of 14.5 is obtained at an angle of attack of 101.41◦ for tip speed ratio of
0.451 (Figure 13d).
Power coefficient (Cp ) of a wind turbine is defined as the ratio of power produced
by the turbine to the useful power contained in the wind. From our earlier published work
(Debnath et al. 2009), it can be seen that there is a good agreement between the experimen-
tal and computational results with respect to power coefficient for the same design of the
combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine. Figure 14 is reproduced from the earlier published
work of Debnath et al. (2009) showing the agreement at an overlap of 16.2%.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, the flow physics and aerodynamic performance of a combined three-
bucket Savonius and three-bladed Darrieus turbine was analyzed computationally based
on the contour plot analysis by using Fluent 6.2 CFD software. From the analysis, the
following conclusions are summarized:
i. Pressure and velocity magnitudes decrease from upstream to downstream side of the
advancing bucket of Savonius turbine resulting in overall lift for the turbine. However
with overlap, both pressure and velocity magnitude difference across the bucket is
decreased resulting in decrease of aerodynamic lift for the Savonius turbine. For the
Darrieus turbine, velocity also decreases across the blade causing aerodynamic lift for
the turbine. With increase in overlap, however, velocity difference across the blade
increases due to the flow being accelerated on the upstream side of the Darrieus blade
due to the increase of dynamic pressure on the downstream of Savonius bucket.
ii. Strong circular vortices are formed close to the concave face of the returning bucket for
without overlap and with low overlap (16.2%) resulting from the migration of Coanda
vortices from the downstream side of the advancing bucket on to the concave face of
the returning bucket increasing dynamic pressure on it. Due to the close interactions of
the vortices with the returning bucket, the power will be augmented for the combined
turbine. However, the advantage is lost with high value of overlap (20% onwards) due
to the separation of vortices from the inner edges of bucket, which migrate towards the
downstream side thereby destabilizing the Coanda flow, and hence lowering the aero-
dynamic coefficients after 16.2% overlap point. Power augmentation is also caused
by high aerodynamic lift-to-drag coefficient (14.5) of the Darrieus turbine from the
increase of velocity difference across the Darrieus blade with small overlap (16.2%)
in Savonius turbine.
REFERENCES
Akdağ, S. A., and Ö. Güler. 2010. Wind characteristics analyses and determination of appropriate
wind turbine for Amasra—Black Sea region, Turkey. International Journal of Green Energy
7(4): 422–33.
Debnath, B. K., A. Biswas, and R. Gupta. 2009. Computational fluid dynamics analysis of a com-
bined three-bucket Savonius and three-bladed Darrieus rotor at various overlap conditions.
International Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 1:033110–13.
Elmabrok, A. M. 2009. Estimation of the performance of the darrieus Savonius combined machine.
Proceedings of Ecologic Vehicles and Renewable Energies, Monaco, March 26–29.
FLUENT Inc. Fluent 6.2 documentation: user’s guide; 2005.
Fujisawa, F. 1992. On the torque mechanism of Savonius rotor. International Journal of wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 40: 277–92.
Gavalda, J., J. Massons, and F. Diaz. 1990. Experimental study on a self adapting Darrieus- Savonius
wind machines. International Journal of Solar and Wind Technologies 7(4):457–61.
Ghosh, P., M. A. Kamoji, S. B. Kedare, and S. V. Prabhu. 2009. Model testing of single- and three-
stage modified Savonius rotors and viability study of modified Savonius pump rotor systems.
International Journal of Green Energy 6(1):22–41.
Global wind energy market as of 2006. Press release of Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC).
Global wind energy market as of 2008. Press release of Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC).
Gupta, R., A. Biswas, and K. K. Sharma. 2008. Comparative study of three-bucket Savonius turbine
with combined three-bucket-Savonius-three-bladed-Darrieus turbine. International Journal of
Renewable Energy 33:1974–81.
Gupta, R., R. Das, and K. K. Sharma. 2006. Experimental study of a Savonius-Darrieus wind
machine. Proceedings of the International Conference on Renewable Energy for Developing
Countries, University of Columbia, Washington DC.
Masson, C., I. Ammara, and I. Paraschivoiu. 1997. An aerodynamic method for the analysis of
isolated horizontal-axis wind turbines. International Journal of Rotating Machinery 3: 21–32.
McWilliam, M., and D. A. Johnson. 2008. Velocity measurement of flow around model vertical axis
wind turbines. International Journal of Green Energy 5(1):55–68.
Ozgener, O., L. Ozgener, and I. Dincer. 2009. Analysis of some exergoeconomic parameters of small
wind turbine system. International Journal of Green Energy 6(1):42–56.
Ucar, A., and F. Balo. 2008. A seasonal analysis of wind turbine characteristics and wind power
potential in Manisa, Turkey. International Journal of Green Energy 5(6):466–79.
Versteeg, H. K., and W. Malalasekera. 1995. An introduction to computational fluid Dynamics, the
finite volume method. New York: Longman Scientific & Technical, p. 132.
Wakui, T., T. Yoshiaki, H. Takumi, and N. Toshio. 2005. Hybrid configuration of Darrieus & Savonius
turbines for stand-alone wind turbine-generator system. International Journal of Electrical
Engineering in Japan 150(4):13–22.

International Journal of Green Energy: Please Scroll Down For Article

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Green Energy: Please Scroll Down For Article

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Biswas, A.

International Journal of Green Energy

CFD Analysis of Flow Physics and Aerodynamic Performance of a

Online publication date: 09 March 2011

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

CFD ANALYSIS OF FLOW PHYSICS AND AERODYNAMIC

R. Gupta and Agnimitra Biswas

In this paper, the performance of a combined three-bucket Savonius and three-bladed

Address correspondence to R. Gupta, National Institute of Technology Silchar, Mechanical Engineering,

Figure 2 Combined three-bucket-Savonius-three-bladed-Darrieus turbine.

CFD FORMULATION OF THE COMBINED SAVONIUS–DARRIEUS TURBINE

Figure 3 Computational domain of the combined Savonius–Darrieus turbine.

Cμ = 0.09 C1ε = 1.44 C2ε = 1.44 σk = 1.0 σε = 1.3.

THE COMPUTATIONAL MODELLING

Refining level No. of nodes No. of cells (Triangular)

1 23, 382 38, 588

CONTOUR PLOT ANALYSIS OF THE COMBINED SAVONIUS–DARRIEUS

230◦ & 350◦ for without overlap.

simultaneously. However, too high overlap variation in Savonius turbine is undesirable

Coanda Flow Analysis of the Combined Savonius–Darrieus Turbine

AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS OF THE COMBINED SAVONIUS–DARRIEUS

0.1 TSR = 0.451

0.06 TSR = 0.215

16.2 TSR = 0.451

You might also like