You are on page 1of 4

Water vortex hydropower technology: a state‑of‑the‑art review of developmental trends

the vortex by modifying the basin shape from a rectangular As we have shown, the concept of harnessing hydropower
channel to a cylindrical chamber with a tangential inlet, and from the free-surface vortex can date as far back as the 1930s
slanted baffle guide was introduced in the system (Zotlöterer or perhaps even before (Bartholomew 2005). That said it
2008) as is outlined in Fig. 5. took 75 years before the concept was given real commercial
In Zotlöterer’s (2004) original design and pilot model, the attention. This is most likely to be a result of the increased
impeller consisted of four large radii curved runners posi- incentives for small-scale renewable generation and the
tioned concentrically in the centre of rotation. Later, Zotlö- domestication of renewable energy technologies. Since Zot-
terer developed and patented (Zotlöterer 2011) an improved löterer’s installation in 2006, both academic and commercial
runner which consisted of a cylindrical runner with a plural- research on this topic exploded with a plethora of various
ity of blades uniformly distributed over the circumference to designs to improve efficiency through the shape of the vortex
improve hydraulic to mechanical energy transfer efficiency. chamber (Mulligan and Casserly 2010; Dhakal et al. 2015),
The height of the runner is designed to be equal to head the inlet arrangement (Mulligan and Casserly 2010) and
of the power plant to which it is to be installed. Figure 6 the shape of the impeller (Dhakal et al. 2013; Khan 2016;
outlines both of these runners installed at Obergrafendorf. Wichian and Suntivarakorn 2016; Rahman et al. 2016; Chat-
In 2015, Kouris developed another vortex hydropower tha et al. 2017; Dhakal et al. 2017; Kueh et al. 2017). Such
turbine assembly which focused on modularity as opposed to research prompted collaborative efforts between academia
civil installation for hydropower generation (Kouris 2015). and industry (Urbani and Steinmann 2010; Vorteco 2018)
In this case, the water is supplied to the cylindrical chamber to commercialize the technology for use on the global stage
circumferentially using a circular inlet pipe which generates which will be discussed in further detail throughout this
circulation and vortex flow as per previous systems. With article.
this modification, it is easy to fabricate as well as transport
the system to site for installation. In this way, the system can
be easily transported and assembled on the site.

Fig. 5  a Plan and b elevation of Zotlöterer’s later patent (Zotlöterer 2008)

Fig. 6  a Early impeller (Zotlöterer 2004, Zotlöterer’s 2006 installation) and b improved impeller Zotlöterer (2011) both located in the Ober-
grafendorf pilot plant

13
A. B. Timilsina et al.

Water vortex hydropower: theory 1983; Mulligan 2015). As a result, it is usually a custom
and practice to describe such flow phenomena in terms of cylindrical
coordinates where vθ, vr and vz are the tangential, radial
The difficulty surrounding analysis in the vortex and axial velocities usually described at some radial
hydropower turbine is the additional dimension of an position r from the centre of rotation. In the context of
air–water–turbine interface generated in the vortex cham- the GWVHP, a free-surface vortex (in the absence of an
ber or basin. This makes it particularly difficult to analyse impeller) causes liquid rotation around a common centre
as it prompts the following questions: usually coinciding with the orifice or intake at the bottom
of the vortex chamber. The flow and rotational strength
1. How does the free-surface vortex effect previously in a GWVHP is governed by the circulation parameter
understood depth–discharge relationships for hydro- given by:
power turbines? 𝛤 = 2𝜋rv𝜃 (1)
2. Where does the free-surface interact with the turbine and
what happens to the free-surface when a load (torque) is The circulation parameter is in turn governed by the
put on the turbine? approach flow geometry in the system (Knauss 1972;
3. What is the velocity distribution across the impeller– Mulligan 2015, Mulligan et al. 2016a, b) such as the inlet
water interface? width and inlet radius which will be discussed in the next
4. What is the optimum position, shape, size and number section. Often it is described that the flow strength and
of runners for the impeller? rotation is governed by the Coriolis effect (Kouris 2017)
5. At what speed should the impeller be operated to ensure which is erroneous as Coriolis forces only become domi-
maximum efficiency? nant at large length scales (Möller 2013). Furthermore, it
is always often safe to assume that the flow is axisymmet-
The above questions are crucial for the design and opera- ric, that is there is little or no variation of vθ and pressure
tion of a hydropower plant for a particular site. To this p with respect to the angle 𝜃 . Because no external forces
day, hydraulic physical modelling still remains the most (other than gravity) are introduced to the system, the flow
accurate method for design investigation (Sassaman et al. becomes purely irrotational (Einstein and Li 1951) such
2009) through the use of hydraulic similitude (Sassaman that the tangential velocity vθ (defining the azimuthal or
et al. 2009; Mulligan and Casserly 2010). In recent years, rotating velocity) increases inversely with the radius due
this has been supported by 3D computational fluid dynam- to the conservation of angular momentum by v𝜃 ∝ 1∕r  .
ics modelling in the context of vortex hydropower gen- Thus, the circulation in the flow field can often be assumed
eration (Wanchat and Suntivarakorn 2012; Dhakal et al. to be constant as a first approximation (Mulligan et al.
2015; Gautam et al. 2016; Shabara et al. 2015a, b; Chattha 2018a, b). As vθ increases towards the centre of rotation,
et al. 2017, Dhakal et al. 2017, Kueh et al. 2017; Nishi the pressure, or in this case the free surface depresses
and Inagaki 2017). That said, simple analytical methods hyperbolically according to the Bernoulli principle to
still remain vital for early design choices and estimations. form the classic air core of the whirlpool (Rouse 1943).
The following sections outline a collection of relevant Regarding the radial and axial velocity, it is these flow
analytical work that has been completed on the topic of components that maintain energy and ensure continuity
free-surface vortices which can be utilized in the analysis of flow Q throughout the system (Daggett and Keulegan
of the GWVHP. Although there are many variations of the 1974; Mulligan et al. 2018a, b). Daggett and Keulegan
GWVHP, the foregoing methods and techniques will be (1974) found that in the case of free-surface vortex flows
outlined in relation to a system that generates a free-sur- through a horizontal orifice usually have strong radial
face irrotational vortex in a basin where the hydropower velocities confined in a layer close to the bottom/floor
turbine is located concentrically in the vicinity of the vor- (where the base is flat) and at the free-surface whereas the
tex air core and a load is placed on the turbine impeller to axial velocities were found to be concentrated around the
introduce a momentum difference between the vortex flow orifice or vortex intake. Mulligan et al. (2018a, b) further
and the turbine blade to produce hydraulic power. substantiated these findings for a vortex chamber using
laser-induced fluorescence techniques and observed strong
localized axial velocity layers close the outer walls of the
Vortex flow field tank. In their study, further analysis using ultrasonic Dop-
pler techniques, Mulligan et al. (2018a, b) also uncovered
A vortex can be defined as a rotating motion of a multi- cellular secondary structures occupying the sub-surface
tude of material particles around a common centre (Lugt of the vortex which they claim govern energy transfer and
stability of the flow system.

13
Water vortex hydropower technology: a state‑of‑the‑art review of developmental trends

Prior to 2006, no analytical work was performed using dimensionless parameters were recognized which deter-
the above techniques on this flow phenomena in the context mined a simple relationship for the discharge in the system
of hydropower generation other than for the application of by:
vortex mitigation near reservoir and pump station intakes
k𝛼 √ 1
(Knauss 1987). However, it must be pointed out that the Q= � �n𝛼 gd 2
vortex chamber hydraulic structure is not a novel hydraulic 5𝛼d (3)
hin
structure in light of the water vortex drop shaft which was
originally developed in 1947 (Drioli 1947) for energy dis- where kα and nα are auxiliary empirical parameters which
sipation purposes. Like the GWVHP, the vortex drop shaft, close the system using the following equations:
(particularly the scroll or subcritical vortex dropshaft stud-
ied extensively by Mulligan 2015; Mulligan et al. 2016a, k𝛼 = −0.12𝛼 3 + 0.79𝛼 2 − 0.62𝛼 + 0.36 for 1.3 ≤ 𝛼 ≤ 6.22
b and Mulligan et al. 2018a, b), hosts the same conditions (4)
given that it contains an approach flow channel conveying and
water to a circular or spiral vortex chamber to generate free-
surface vortex conditions. Unlike the GWVHP plant, there
n𝛼 = 0.05𝛼 2 − 0.39𝛼 − 0.55 for 1.3 ≤ 𝛼 ≤ 6.22 (5)
has been a plethora of analytical and physical investigations The article also includes design charts which have inte-
undertaken on the subcritical vortex chambers (Laushey and grated the above equations into (Fig. 13 in Mulligan et al.
Mavis 1952; Stevens and Kolf 1959; Kleinschroth and Wirth 2016a, b). The above set of equations can be used to design a
1981; Mulligan 2015; Mulligan et al. 2016a, b and Mulligan geometry for the water vortex hydropower plant based on the
et al. 2018a, b) from which techniques for designing the fixed depth–discharge criteria generally dictated by the site
GWVHP can be easily leveraged. Knauss (1987) and more of interest. The equations have been applied and substanti-
recently Mulligan (2015) provides a comprehensive review ated by the Kadagaya group who designed a vortex chamber
of these studies. In the subsequent sections, the authors high- for a 7.5 kW GWVHP in Junín, Peru (Kadagaya 2017).
light proposals using previous analytical and experimental
research which may help future researchers in the analytical Pressure, tangential velocity and vortex–turbine
design of the GWVHP. interaction

As discussed in the previous section, the pressure and tan-


Depth–discharge relationship gential velocity field in a free-surface vortex in the absence
of an impeller can be determined by assuming the flow to
As discussed previously, the flow and rotational strength in be fully irrotational. This is valid for the case of full-air core
a gravitational water vortex hydropower plant are governed vortex as outlined in Fig. 1 (Einstein and Li 1951; Mulligan
by the circulation parameter Γ which itself is controlled by et al. 2018a, b). As a first approximation, the velocity and
the approach flow geometry (Mulligan et al. 2016a, b). To pressure up to the air core in the absence of an impeller can
demonstrate this, one simply must determine the tangential be determined using Eq. (1) for an irrotational assuming
velocity vθ at the inlet to the plant through continuity by a constant circulation. Thus, the ideal tangential velocity
vθ = Q/bhin where b is the inlet width and hin is the depth equation follows:
of water at the inlet (Mulligan et al. 2016a, b). By substitu-
𝛤v
tion in Eq. (1), we arrive at the following expression for the v𝜃 (r) = (6)
2𝜋r
vortex strength:
By substitution of Eq. 6 into the radial momentum equa-
2𝜋rin Q
𝛤v = (2) tion of the Navier–Stokes equations, it is easy to arrive at
bhin
an equation to describe the pressure or free-surface profile
Thus, it can be seen that the strength is strongly depend- as follows:
ent on the geometry parameter rin/b which Mulligan et al. ( )
(2016a, b) denoted as 𝛼 . As 𝛼 increases (rin increases or b 𝜌𝛤 2 1 1
hr = hin − − 2 (7)
decreases), so too thus the strength and vice versa. To under- 8𝜋 2 r2 rin
stand this parameter in more detail, Mulligan et al. (2016a,
b) undertook an empirical study whereby the authors inves- This equation was tested by Mulligan et al. (2012) which
tigated twelve different geometries for the subcritical vortex agrees well with the overall flow field with some discrep-
chamber in the context of vortex drop shafts which can be ancy near the vortex core. However, Anwar (1965), Quick
easily adapted for use in the GWVHP. In their study (Mul- (1961) and more recently Mulligan et al. (2018b) found that
ligan et al. 2016a, b), relationships between the governing interpreting air core speeds in this fashion can introduce

13
A. B. Timilsina et al.

errors in as much as 50% which is assumed to be a result of in the initial water level at free-running (zero torque) con-
strong axial velocities in the air core region not accounted ditions. This characteristic of turbine–vortex interaction is
for in the irrotational flow model (Mulligan et al. 2018b). most likely attributed to the fact that the turbine is partially
Mulligan et al. (2018b) thus revised this tangential velocity a reaction turbine. This generated head difference may per-
model to account for strong axial gradients near the core as haps be a good metric for performance and power output
follows: estimation; however, there is still no research available that
( ) has measured this effect or provided estimations using the
𝛤v (
h d
) 2r above-combined vortex model equations. As discussed pre-
v𝜃 (r) = 1− (8) viously, although the tangential velocity field dominates
2𝜋r 5𝛼d
the flow field, the axial velocity still represents a sizeable
The above equations can be used as a first estimate to portion of the flow close to the turbine. This flow velocity
determine the velocity range close to the vortex core to can be estimated by continuity through the vortex core or
determine maximum angular velocities for the proposed through the orifice or intake of the turbine and shouldn’t
turbine unit. However, in the presence of a turbine impel- be neglected when considering turbine shape to maximize
ler, the system behaves more differently. Firstly, in order efficiency.
to generate power due to a load on the turbine generator, a
torque must be produced in the turbine shaft. As a result, the Theoretical power output
impeller causes a change in momentum in the velocity field
in the vicinity of the impeller. The free-surface vortex then As seen from Fig. 7, water from a hydropower source is passed
breaks up into two zones: tangentially into a vortex chamber which sets up conditions of
strong circulation. The velocity near the core then rotates the
1. The irrotational flow field which lies outside the turbine co-axially placed runner which can have vertically curved or
impeller radius for r > rb where rb is the radius of the three-dimensional curved blades. For any hydropower turbine,
blade where the tangential velocity field follows either the maximum power obtainable is as follows:
Eqs. 7 or 8 and P = 𝜌gQH (11)
2. For r < rb , the turbine blade which moves as a solid
where H is the gross head at the site and Q is the flow rate
body induces a rotational flow field where vθ(r) = ωr/2
passing through the turbine. The maximum power output
where ω is the angular velocity of the blade.
from the GWVHP unit considered alone, using the princi-
pals of a reaction turbine (Williamson et al. 2014), can be
This type of “combined” vortex model was proposed
determined by:
many years ago by Rankine (1872). Since then, there have
been promising developments on the overall distribution P = 𝜑v 𝜌gQ(H − h1 − h2 − h3 ) (12)
including the further theoretical advancements on this where φv denotes the efficiency of the vortex turbine, h1
approach were made by Rosenhead (1930), Rott (1958), is the head loss along the radius, h2 is the head loss at the
Scully (1975), Odgaard (1986), Mih (1990), Vatistas et al. orifice or intake and h3 is the kinetic energy of the outflow.
(1991), Hite and Mih (1994), Chen et al. (2007) and Sun and Thus, it is important to limit or minimize the head loss
Liu (2015) which resulted in various smoothed transitions between the upstream river water level and the approach to
between the rotational and irrotational flow fields which the vortex chamber as a first attempt to optimize the design.
removed the non-smoothness of Rankine’s model. Odgaard On the other hand, because the turbine is often classed
(1986) and Vatistas et al. (1991) models have been shown to as a mixture between a reaction and an impulse turbine,
be promising candidates for estimating the overall velocity momentum principles could also be applied to approximate
field given by: the power output as undertaken by Mulligan and Casserly
( ) (2010), as follows:
𝛤 r
v𝜃 (r) = (Vatistas et al. 1991) (9) (
Pout = T𝜔 = Q𝜌 vi − vb r𝜔
)
(13)
2𝜋 (r2n + r2n )1∕n
c

In this, we utilize the shaft output power Pout using the


𝛤 generated torque T and the impellor angular velocity. Using
( 2
)
v𝜃 (r) = 1 − e−𝜉r ∕2𝜈 (Odgaard 1986) (10)
2𝜋 momentum principles, the torque generated can be estimated
As the vortex–turbine interaction, the torque generated using a force generated on the impeller–water interface by
which results in the generation of a rotational flow region estimating the difference between the initial velocity near the
tends to affect the overall flow field by causing a decrease

13

You might also like