CFD Validation of Moment Balancing Method on Drag-Dominant Tidal Turbines (DDTTs)

• Published in: Processes Vol. 11; no. 7; p. 1895
• Main Authors: Zhang, Yixiao, Mittal, Shivansh, Ng, Eddie Yin-Kwee
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 01.07.2023
• Subjects: Actuator disc theory; Airfoils; Algorithms; Analysis; Balancing; Design optimization; Drag; Energy; Error analysis; Flow velocity; Fluid dynamics; Inlet flow; Methods; Momentum theory; Regression analysis; Reynolds number; Rotor speed; Simulation; Simulation methods; Thrust; Tip speed; Turbines; Turbulence models; Velocity
• ISSN: 2227-9717; 2227-9717
• DOI: 10.3390/pr11071895

Current performance analysis processes for drag-dominant tidal turbines are unsuitable as disk actuator theory lacks support for varying swept blockage area, bypass flow downstream interaction, and parasitic rotor drag, whereas blade element momentum theory is computably effective for three-blade lift-dominated aerofoil. This study proposes a novel technique to calculate the optimal turbine tip speed ratio (TSR) with a cost-effective and user-friendly moment balancing algorithm. A reliable dynamic TSR matrix was developed with varying rotational speeds and fluid velocities, unlike previous works simulated at a fixed fluid velocity. Thrust and idle moments are introduced as functions of inlet fluid velocity and rotational speed, respectively. The quadratic relationships are verified through regression analysis, and net moment equations are established. Rotational speed was a reliable predictor for Pinwheel’s idle moment, while inlet velocity was a reliable predictor for thrust moment for both models. The optimal (Cp, TSR) values for Pinwheel and Savonius turbines were (0.223, 2.37) and (0.63, 0.29), respectively, within an acceptable error range for experimental validation. This study aims to improve prevailing industry practices by enhancing an engineer’s understanding of optimal blade design by adjusting the rotor speed to suit the inlet flow case compared to ‘trial and error’ with cost-intensive simulations.