1

2 Prakriteesh Sarma 1, Geert Slachmuylders 2

3 1 Turbulent NV; prakriteesh.sarma@turbulent.be
4 2 ATWEO BV; geertslachmuylders@gmail.com
5
6 To be sent to emanuele.quaranta@ec.europa.eu / quarantaemanuele@yahoo.it before 05 June 2020.
7

8 1. Replacement of gravitational vortex turbine with improved vortex turbine

9 In many countries all over the world a significant part of the hydropower has not been developed
10 due to the height limitations and design constraints of traditional turbines. Many hydropower
11 potential studies also limit their range to a minimum of 4 to minimum 2 meter, thus excluding a large
12 portion of the hydraulic potential. These low head sites can be exploited at low cost and using civil
13 works constructed with local labor when using a new non-conventional turbine. The complexity with
14 these low head sites is the large flow required to reach sizable power production. When trying to
15 utilize classic turbine designs for these sites, debris, cavitation, and an uneconomical scaling of the
16 rotor hinder a successful business case. A novel turbine called the
17 gravitational vortex turbine has been developed and installed in
18 several installations all over the world. Previous Gravitational vortex
19 turbine designs have shown the usefulness of the technology, but the
20 rotor and basin dimensions were such that the solution reached
21 higher cost per kW. The current vortex turbine design, as proposed by
22 Turbulent, was designed to solve these issues and make the vortex
23 technology a realistic option for hydropower development of these
24 low head sites in small and middle sized rivers and increase the use
25 of vortex turbines for rural electrification. Figure 1 Turbulent vortex turbine concept
26
27
28 The current case study describes the replacement of the rotor, drivetrain, and power electronics of a
29 previously installed gravitational vortex turbine in Bali. This turbine is installed to provide
30 sustainable energy to the Green School by using the small height difference and large flow of the

Figure 2 (a) previous vortex turbine and (b) submerged outlet at nominal flow

31 Ayung river. The site has a head of 1.85m and a flow of 1.5m3/s. The previous turbine was not able to
32 produce more than 5kW at the max point and was limited to 1kW by a wrong generator sizing. The
33 rotor also required a large amount of maintenance as it would get blocked by debris (coconuts,
34 branches, palm fronts, stones) which are abundant in the Ayung river. After a flood destroyed the
35 drivetrain and power electronics a new solution was needed.
36

Sustainability 2020, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 5

37 Design parameters
38 A normal Turbulent turbine design has a basin outer diameter of 3.9m for these head and flow
39 parameters. Also, the outlet is usually free (discharges to atmospheric pressure) or can be equipped
40 with a diffuser (negative pressure at the outlet). However, for this site, the existing basin, has a
41 diameter of 7.9m. Also, the outlet is completely submerged in case of rated flow (Fig 2b). These
42 factors necessitated a customized solution for the retrofit, so that the performance measures are
43 acceptable even for the oversized basin. A series of free surface CFD simulations were conducted
44 using the interFoam solver in OpenFOAM (Fig 3) to size the rotor and validate the performance of
45 the retrofit. After commissioning, it was found that the measured performance of the plant exceeds
46 performance predicted by CFD.
47
48 Table 1 CFD predicted vs measured results

Parameter Value
Impeller diameter 1.18 m
Blade row height 0.44 m
Speed 96 rpm
Nominal flow 1.5 m3/s
Predicted head 2.05 m
Measured 1.85m
Net predicted power 14.1 kW
Net Measured power 13 kW 49
50 Figure 3 CFD model for Bali turbine
Predicted hydr. efficiency 54.6%
Measured hydr. efficiency 55.8% 51
52 This optimization allows the Turbulent design to produce 13kW with the current site. Due to the
53 design of the Turbulent turbine this could be achieved with a relatively small and lightweight turbine
54 (rotor and drive train are approximately 6 times smaller than the previous GWWP and weight is
55 limited to 550kg) and at a relatively low cost.

56
57 Figure 4 (a)installation with winch and manual lifting (b) first test run

58 The turbine itself was installed in less than 1 day (fig 4a), commissioning was completed after 3 days
59 (fig 4b). The turbine operated as designed and produced an average power of 13kW. The flood proof
60 design was tested just 1 day after installation during an evening storm (fig 5). The turbine not only
61 survived the flood but also let all the debris and bed load pass through without harm to the blades
62 or structure.

63
64 Figure 5 first flood event with inlet completely submerged
 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 5

65 Low ecological impact

66 The design of a vortex turbine allows it to be installed in rivers with minimal height differences. In
67 the case of this site in Bali, the head was already available due to a natural cascade of boulders. To
68 ensure enough water would be deviated into the turbine, a small gabion weir (2.5m wide, 1.5m height)
69 was built (see figure 6, left side). A 20-meter bypass canal brings the water to the turbine after which
70 it is returned straight back into the river. This way the river flow is not interrupted and no barrier for
71 fish movement is created.

72
73 Figure 6 intake structure

74 Fish friendly design

75 Fish friendly turbines are becoming more and more important, especially under the EU water
76 framework. Having a low ecological impact is closely related to having a low or no fish mortality.
77 With that in mind the turbine was designed according to design rules taken from previous empirical
78 research spearheaded by M. Odeh [2] and EPRI [3].
79
80 Potential damage mechanisms are identified in 4 categories: mechanical, pressure, shear, and
81 cavitation [1]. Mechanical causes include strike, abrasion, and grinding. Pressure fluctuations, shear
82 stress, turbulence, and cavitation are related to flow characteristics.
83
84 Comparison between the limit values as defined by Alden turbine labs research
85 [2] and Turbulent results:
86 Table 2 comparison of Alden turbine lab fish survival parameters vs CFD simulated and validated values of Turbulent
87 designs

Parameter Threshold Turbulent

Peripheral runner speed < 40 ft/s (12.2 m/s)

5.88 m/s at 100 rpm
Preferably < 20 ft/s (6.1
m/s)

Pressure
> 10 psia (0.7 bar) minimum of 13.25 psia
Rate of change of pressure
< 80 psi/s (550 kPa/s) Localized maximum of 540 kPa/s
Shear stress
< 180 /s maximum of 18.23 /s

88
89 The rotor of the gravitational vortex turbine developed by Turbulent is designed to turn at a low
90 velocity below 100rpm and utilizes the flow pattern of the vortex to create a very small relative
91 velocity difference at the inlet of the turbine. From table 2, it can be seen that the Turbulent design
92 has results that ensure fish survival according to the Alden turbine labs design rules. Together with
93 this it has a blade design that with particularly rounded curves that guide the debris and fish to the
94 center of the blade and away from grinding locations in the outside edge. Research by Amaral et al.
95 [3] show that a rounded blade edge can reduce fish impact damage. From figure 7 it can also be seen
96 that at the maximal strike speeds of the vortex runner the total survival is already close to 100% and
97 that the bulbous leading edge mainly has benefits for reducing impact severity as well as guiding
98 debris into the blade buckets.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 5

99 From Fig 8, we get the minimum pressure (nadir) = -1x104 Pa (relative) = 13.25 psia
100

101 Figure 7 impact of strike speed and L/t ratio on fish survival [4] Figure 8 Pressure plot on a longitudinal section

102 The rate of change of pressure (as experienced by a fish as it travels through the turbine) can be
103 calculated by the material derivative of pressure and contains an advective part and an unsteady
104 part:
105
𝐷𝑝 𝑑𝑝
106 = ⃗ . 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑(𝑝)
(𝑢𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑦) + 𝑉
𝐷𝑡 𝑑𝑡
107
108 The unsteady part of rate of pressure change mainly depends on the rotor rotation speed and the
109 variation of pressure in different sectors. This was estimated to be ~240 KPa/s from CFD data.
110
111 For evaluation of the limiting value of the advective part, gradient of pressure, and magnitude of
112 velocity are plotted below. The limiting value of the advective part is thus 3x10 5 Pa/s.
113 Total pressure change = 540 KPa/s.

114
115 Figure 9 Grad(p) < 1x105 Pa/m for most regions of the rotor except at localized hotspots at the blade tip. Magnitude of
116 velocity ~ 3 m/s.

117 Shear stresses:

118
119 Figure 10 Tangential and axial velocity plots

120 The shear stresses are indicated by the velocity gradients. Since the radial component is negligible,
121 only tangential and axial velocities are considered.The radial gradient of tangential velocity = 14.85
122 /s and the radial gradient of axial velocity = 10.57 /s. This gives a total radial gradient of 18.23 /s, well
123 below the limits for shear stress.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 5

124 Conclusion
125 The novel Turbulent vortex turbine design, combined with the refurbishment of the existing
126 gravitational vortex basin structure, can be seen as a successful case which demonstrates that a vortex
127 turbine can produce energy at an acceptable cost while also having little to no ecological impact. The
128 current study already indicates fish-friendliness of the turbine based on CFD results and established
129 fish-friendliness metrics. Detailed on-site testing will be conducted in the near future to further
130 demonstrate this aspect.
131 Funding: “This research received no external funding”

132 Acknowledgments: ..

133 Conflicts of Interest: “The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

134 References
135 1. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1995. Proceedings: 1995 turbine passage survival workshop. U.S.
136 Army Corps of Engineers Portland District, Portland, Oregon
137 2. M. Odeh, 1999, A Summary of Environmentally Friendly Turbine Design Concepts.
138 3. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2008. Evaluation of the effects of turbine blade leading edge
139 design on fish survival. Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory Inc., EPRI Report No. 1014937.
140 4. Amaral, Stephen V., George Hecker , and Douglas A. Dixon. "Designing Leading Edges of Turbine Blades
141 to Increase Fish Survival from Blade Strike”,." Paper presented at EPRI Conference on Environmentally-
142 Enhanced Hydropower Turbines. Washington, D.C., USA, May 2001.
143

© 2020 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms
and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
144