In-Situ Testing of a Darrieus Hydro Kinetic Turbine in ColdHydro Kinetic Turbine in Cold Climates

Shamez KassamShamez KassamMSc Thesis DefenseAdvisor: Dr Eric BibeauAdvisor: Dr. Eric Bibeau

In co-operation with: Manitoba HydroNew Energy Corporation IncNew Energy Corporation Inc

University of Manitoba

Hydro PowerHydro Power

2 Sources of Hydro Powery

Marine RiverMarine River

Wave Tidal Potential E

Kinetic EEnergy Energy

NRCAN ClassificationLarge Hydro over 50 MWSmall Hydro 1 to 50 MWMini Hydro 100 kW to 1 MWMini Hydro 100 kW to 1 MWMicro Hydro under 100 kW

Hydro Power CapacityHydro Power Capacity

Marine PowerMarine Power225 GW estimated by NRCAN and HATCH Energy

Potential River PowerInstalled capacity ofInstalled capacity of 72,500 MW in Canada3,500 MW from small hydro across 359 siteshydro across 359 sites

Kinetic River PowerYet to be assessed

Research ObjectiveResearch Objective

Evaluate Performance and DemonstrateEvaluate Performance and Demonstrate the Viability of River Kinetic Power in Cold Climates

Deployment of a 5 kW non-ducted Darrieus turbine

Performance evaluation in extreme cold conditions

Grid connect a kinetic turbine

Assess viability of a long term installation in Canada

Literature ReviewLiterature Review

Performance: Vertical Axis Hydro Turbiney

Non-Ducted

33% t 35%

Ducted

45% t 55%33% to 35% 45% to 55%

Ducts increase the local velocity across the rotor over 1.5 times

Literature ReviewLiterature Review

Laboratory TestingLaboratory TestingExtensive research into modeling (BEM)Models developed for optimizationL b t t ti t lid t d lLaboratory testing to validate models

On-Site TestingOnly one other Canadian grid connected kinetic turbine in 1983Turbine tested in St. Lawrence River (Darrieus)Testing took place during summer monthsg p g

Lack of KnowledgeIssues pertaining to a year round installation in CanadaIssues pertaining to a year round installation in Canada Operation in cold climates

Literature ReviewLiterature Review

Frazil IceActive Frazil

Small disks of ice: 1 – 4 mm diameter, 1 – 100 μm thickFormed in turbulent, supercooled watersDescribed as a blizzard of sticky ice particlesAccumulated rapidly into larger structures up to 30 m in diameter and 5 m in thickness

Passive FrazilPassive FrazilSlushy and non stickyDerived from active frazil in warmer waterGroup together to form blockages

Literature ReviewLiterature Review

Frazil Ice on Hydro PoweryActive frazil builds on turbine inlet vanes and trash racksUp to 30% power loss observed at Rivière-des-Praires25% d ti i fl th Ni Ri25% reduction in flow on the Niagara River

Frazil Ice PreventionFrazil Ice PreventionIce cover prevents water from super coolingReduces incoming active frazil into passive frazil

Experimental Set UpExperimental Set Up

Test SitePointe Du Bois generating stationEssential facilities and equipment available on siteL t d th Wi i Ri i th C di Shi ldLocated on the Winnipeg River in the Canadian Shield

River

FlowSpillway

Bridge

Bridge Boat

Station

Experimental Set UpExperimental Set Up

Anchoring and DeploymentAnchoring and DeploymentSolid rock river bed excellent for anchoringShore anchors installed at Points A, B, and C30ft 18ft t h l d l d i i t 200830ft x 18ft pontoon research vessel deployed in winter 2008

Experimental Set UpExperimental Set Up

DAQ: HardwareQData Acquisition System3 independent systems logging mechanical, electrical and video datavideo dataHoused in a box for protection, organization, and ease of transportation

930-A

DAQ BOX

RS-232

120 VAC in from shore FANPower bar

CT box

Disconnect switch

DT85

boat computercomputer

Power from Turbine

Power to Inverter

Camera Input

Experimental Set UpExperimental Set Up

DAQ: SoftwareData analyzed on hourly basisSoftware consolidates mechanical and electrical dataDaily graphs are complied and posted onlineDaily graphs are complied and posted onlineEmail alarm system

Flow EstimationFlow Estimation

Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter

ADV used to validate flow meter

Accuracy vital for performance calculations

Requires particulates laced within flow

Flow

Signal full of erroneous spikes and required filteringfiltering

CVParticle InjectionTurbulence

Flow EstimationFlow Estimation

De-Spiking ADV Signalp g g

2

Test 7Raw Signal

2 methods assessedMean replacement -1.9

Test 6Mean Replacement

-1.4

Test 6Interpolation Replacement

0

1

s)

pInterpolation replacement

-2

-1.95

)

-1.8

-1.6

)3

-2

-1

Flow

(m/s

Based on 1g criterion

Both estimate mean flow -2.1

-2.05

Flow

(m/s

-2.4

-2.2

-2

Flow

(m/s

0 10 20 30 40 50-4

-3

Time (s)

within 0.5%

Interpolation replacement 0 10 20 30 40 50-2.2

-2.15

Time (s)0 10 20 30 40 50

-2.8

-2.6

Time (s)p pgives more true flow pattern

Time (s)e (s)

Turbine PerformanceTurbine Performance

Winter TestinggProvided consistent power for 1260 hoursPower output with a 4.5% standard deviation in a steady flow with 1% standard deviationsteady flow with 1% standard deviation Turbine stalled repeatedly and required manual re-start

Turbine PerformanceTurbine Performance

Winter PerformancePerformance was poor at 10% efficiency

expected 30%expected 30%

Drive train housed in heated and insulated enclosureand insulated enclosure

Turbine support arms were found to be the major source of power loss

Winter testing had flat bar arms

Power Loss Due to Support ArmsPower Loss Due to Support Arms

Numerical Model2-D drag analysis conducted on rotating armUsing optimal Tip Speed Ratio (TSR) for array of flow ratesModel computes power loss per revolution for array of arm dragModel computes power loss per revolution for array of arm drag coefficients

FResults

Effect of Support Arms on Performance

L i f tF

Vd r a gF

ResultsPredicted loss of 1474 W

4000

5000

6000

7000s

[W]

θ

V∞ Arm drag distribution

Summer tests showed a measured loss of 1405 W 31000

2000

3000

4000

Pow

er L

oss

( , )P V∞ Ω1405 W

1.5

22.5

3

00.511.5

0

Mean Flow [m/s]Drag Coefficient (Cd)

Turbine PerformanceTurbine Performance

Summer Testingg3 arm profiles were tested for performance

Flat Bar

Profile arms tested in both rear and front position on vessel

Flat Bar

vessel

Water to wire efficiency based on output to grid

Profile Turbine designed with these arms

based on output to grid

Rotor efficiency based on f

Hydrofoil

grid output plus quantified losses

Turbine PerformanceTurbine Performance

Water to Wire Efficiency Net Rotor EfficiencyFlat Bar 9.6%Profile 21.3%Profile Front 23.6%

Flat Bar 15.9%Profile 28.6%Profile Front 29.1%

Hydrofoil 26.5% Hydrofoil 35.4%

Cold Climate OperationCold Climate Operation

IcingIcingAll aluminum pontoon research vessel encased in ice within daysSplashing from waves allowed ice to grow up towards theSplashing from waves allowed ice to grow up towards the deckIce accumulation pulled on chains and brought

Data Acquisition Shed

Temperature Data forPinawa, Manitoba

5

on chains and brought bow underwaterIce was manually cleared on a weekly -15

-10

-5

0

e (d

eg C

)

cleared on a weekly basisDetrimental to sensor located near water level

-30

-25

-20

Tem

pera

ture

10 yr Average2008 Average

located near water level -40

-35

Jan 01

Jan 0

4Ja

n 07Ja

n 10Ja

n 13

Jan 16

Jan 19

Jan 2

2Ja

n 25Ja

n 28Ja

n 31

Feb 03Feb 0

6Feb

09Feb 12Feb 1

5Feb

18Feb 21Feb 2

4Feb

27Mar 0

2Mar

05Mar 0

8Mar 1

1Mar

14Mar 1

7Mar 2

0Mar

23Mar 2

6Mar 2

9

Date

Cold Climate OperationCold Climate Operation

IcingIcingMultiple sensors lost

Load cell, Flow meters, Cameras

Ice did not accumulate on turbine bladesIce growth between pontoons would stall rotorIce bergs impacted rotor frequently when removing iceTurbine was removed for spring break up

Turbine DurabilityTurbine Durability

Risk of Impact During Summer MonthsRisk of Impact During Summer MonthsAnalyzed vibration readings for 2 months

A d f f i t f l iAssessed frequency of impacts from logs in summer

Qualified based Type of Impacts Number of Mean Time Qualified based on level of impacts

Type of Impacts Impacts [hours]

minor 8 148.35

VAHT deflects impacts rather than absorb

small 23 51.60

medium 5 237.36t a abso b medium 5 237.36

large 2 593.39

Turbine DurabilityTurbine Durability

Affect on PerformanceLast days of winter testing showed performance of damaged blades

Summer testing began with pristine blades

Effi i diff f 0 8% ith TSR diff f 0 24Efficiency difference of 0.8% with TSR difference of 0.24

ConclusionsConclusions

Turbine operates at over 35% efficiency and can self p ystartOperates well in winter if free of iceD fl i hi h f iDeflects impacts which are frequent in summerProtection required for winter installation (ice bergs)Safe deployment and cost effective anchoringSafe deployment and cost effective anchoringProduces reliable and consistent clean energy