See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326057381

Experimental Evaluation of Advanced Archimedes Hydrodynamic Screw

Geometries

Article  in  Journal of Hydraulic Engineering · August 2018

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001479

CITATION READS
1 1,572

4 authors, including:

Samuel Harding Dirk Nuernbergk

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 82 PUBLICATIONS   177 CITATIONS   
28 PUBLICATIONS   131 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Chris Rorres
Drexel University
65 PUBLICATIONS   1,590 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Archimedes in the 21st Century View project

Turbulence measurements from velocimeters on compliant mid-water moorings, part 2: motion correction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chris Rorres on 24 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Experimental Evaluation of Advanced Archimedes
Hydrodynamic Screw Geometries
Jerry L. Straalsund 1; Samuel F. Harding 2; Dirk M. Nuernbergk 3; and Chris Rorres 4

Abstract: There is increasing interest in the application of Archimedes hydrodynamic screws (AHS) to generate hydroelectric power.
Although numerous theoretical and experimental investigations have been published on this application of AHS over the last decade, there
have been no experimental evaluations in the literature of blade shapes other than the helicoid. This paper provides the results of bench-scale
testing of three-dimensional (3D)-printed models to evaluate the performance of various shapes and parameters for AHS. Three different
screws are investigated to experimentally compare the new blade shapes: the helicoid, strake, and reverse strake. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
HY.1943-7900.0001479. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Archimedes screw; Water power; Hydropower plant; Low head hydropower; Low head turbine; Flight shapes; Helicoid;
Strake; Gap flow; Hydrodynamic screw.

Introduction
Since Archimedes’ time 23 centuries ago, the blades of an Archi-
medes screw have had the shape of a helicoid. This shape was used
in the past mostly for ease of manufacture. Blades (or flights) of
ancient screws were constructed by layers of long, pliable twigs
nailed together along a helical path and covered with tar pitch
(Vitruvius 1914). Later, the ends of wooden staves were inserted
into a helical groove in the central shaft [Fig. 1(a)]. Both techniques
are difficult to apply if the blades have a shape other than that of a
helicoid. Today, most manufacturers of small to medium-sized
screws use metal flights made by welding individual sections
formed from flat, slit, annular, metal blanks. These blanks are
formed into a helical shape by hammering, cold pressing, or the
use of rolling machines [Fig. 1(b)].
The first documented tests using an Archimedes screw for
power generation (rather than the lifting of water) were performed
by Brada (1999). Since then, the use of Archimedes hydrodynamic
screws (AHS) has spread rapidly worldwide (Lashofer et al. 2013)
and many more tests and optimizations have been accomplished to
improve their performance. However, all reported previous testing
has been performed with screw blades that were helicoidal in shape
(e.g., Dellinger 2015; Dellinger et al. 2016; Erinofiardi et al. 2017;
Kibel and Coe 2011; Kozyn and Lubitz 2017; Lashofer et al. 2011;
Lisicki et al. 2016; Lyons and Lubitz 2013; Lubitz et al. 2014;
Nuernbergk 2012; Rohmer et al. 2016; Saroinsong et al. 2015).
1
President, Percheron Power LLC, 6855 W. Clearwater, A101-260,
Kennewick, WA 99336. Email: jls@percheronpower.com
2 blade even though the strake blade’s wetted surface is greater.
Research Engineer, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,
WA 99354. Email: samuel.harding@pnnl.gov
3
Technical Consultant, D-99084 Erfurt, Germany. Email: dirk.nuernbergk@
gmail.com
4
Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Dept. of Mathematics, Drexel Univ.,
Philadelphia, PA 19104 (corresponding author). Email: crorres@cs.drexel
.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 26, 2017; approved on
December 21, 2017; published online on June 13, 2018. Discussion period
open until November 13, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429.
In 2012, one of the authors [C. Rorres, “Methods and apparatus
for moving fluid using a strake,” Patent No. WO 2014047619 A2
(2014)] proposed that a blade with the shape of a surface known as
a strake has several possible advantages over a helicoid. Fig. 2 com-
pares the profiles of a strake and reverse strake, together with the
helicoid blade shape. The reverse strake in Fig. 2(c) is simply the
strake in Fig. 2(a) rotated by 180° about a line perpendicular to
the shaft axis, or turned upside down. Fig. 2 shows the experimental
orientation of the three screws in which the water moves from the
top to the bottom.
Rorres [“Methods and apparatus for moving fluid using a
strake,” Patent No. WO 2014047619 A2 (2014)] showed that one
of the theoretical advantages of a strake is that the resulting screw
has a greater calculated bucket volume per turn, V B , than does a
helicoid screw. The bucket volume per turn refers to the volume of
water in one pitch of the screw contained within the buckets of
water between the blades when they are filled to maximum capacity
without overflowing. This assumes that the strake screw and heli-
coid screw have the same outer radius Ra , inner radius Ri , pitch S,
inclination β, and number of blades N. The authors hypothesized
that because the strake blade provides a greater bucket volume per
turn than does a helicoid blade, for a given inlet flow the strake
screw could operate at reduced speed, thus reducing frictional
losses and increasing efficiency. Although the strake blade presents
a greater wetted surface than a helicoid blade, the frictional losses
are very sensitive to the rotational speed; specifically, Muysken
(1932) showed that the power loss because of the wetted friction
of the blades is proportional to the fifth power of the rotational speed.
Consequently, a decrease in the rotational speed in the case of the
strake blade should increase its efficiency over that of a helicoid
Objectives
This paper analyzes the differences in performance for hydropower
generation of the three blade shapes in Fig. 2 using scaled test
screws. The objective of the experiment was to measure and com-
pare the performance of the three blade shapes to determine if the
theoretical advantages of the strake blade could be experimentally
confirmed. The experimental setup and the measurement results are

© ASCE 04018052-1 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018052

Fig. 1. (a) Manufacture of wooden replacement screw for an old Dutch windmill (image courtesy of Harmannus Noot); and (b) modern
flight-forming machine (image courtesy of Advanced Spiral Technology).

Fig. 3. Side view of Archimedes screw filled just to the top of the
Fig. 2. Three tested blade shapes: (a) strake; (b) helicoid; and central tube (without any overflow over the central tube). In the case
(c) reverse strake. illustrated, the water level entering from the left touches the maximum
filling point F for the first completely formed bucket of water between
the blades.
presented subsequently, followed by the methodology and results
of the comparisons of the efficiencies and other performance
characteristics for the three screw types. Table 1. Geometric parameters of three test screws
Appendix S1 provides details of the experimental setup and cal-
ibration and also provides details of the manufacture of the screws Parameter Symbol Value
using three-dimensional (3D) printing as an easy-to-use prototyp- Number of blades N 4
ing technology. Lee et al. (2015) previously used such 3D printing. Outer radius Ra 95.7 mm
Appendix S2 gives the mathematical descriptions of the screw cross Inner radius Ri 47.8 mm
sections needed to create the computer files for fabrication of the Pitch S 191.4 mm
Inclination angle β 20.6–29.1°
screws using this technology. Appendix S2 also contains math-
Gap G 0.4 mm
ematical descriptions of the zero-thickness surfaces defining these Total length — 766 mm (4 pitches)
three blades and the upper and lower edges of the blade profiles
when they have nonzero thickness.
Fig. 3 also illustrates an idealized concept of the flow behavior
Geometric Parameters of Three Test Screws of an Archimedes hydrodynamic screw. The water is essentially
transported by buckets of water that move with the rotation of
Fig. 3 illustrates the basic geometric parameters of an Archimedes the screw. The volume per turn, V U , is the volume of water con-
screw, including inner radius Ri , outer radius Ra , number of flights tained in one pitch of the screw, which is generally different from
N, pitch S, and inclination β. For the three screws tested, these five the previously defined bucket volume per turn V B . The ratio φ ¼
parameters were fixed throughout the tests at the common values V U =V B of these two volumes is called the filling factor. The screw
listed in Table 1. is said to be underfilled if φ < 1 and overfilled if φ > 1.
Note that Ri =Ra ¼ 0.5 and S=2Ra ¼ 1, which are common Although it may first appear that screws should be sized so that
ratios used in commercial hydropower screws today. Initially, three φ ¼ 1, in commercial practice the design and selection of the tur-
different inclinations of the screw were tested (20.6, 23.9–24.2, and bine represents a balance between the capital cost, desired flow
29.1°). The results presented in this paper are limited to an averaged capacity, and possible physical site constraints, as well as hydraulic
inclination angle β ¼ 24°. losses due to friction and leakage losses. In an idealized scenario

© ASCE 04018052-2 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018052

Table 2. Bucket volume per turn, V B , for three test screws
Screw type V B (L)
Strake 1.911
Helicoid 1.873
Reverse strake 1.780
for a given flow capacity and turbine dimensions, as φ increases
toward 1 the rotational speed to pass the same flow decreases,
which improves efficiency due to reduced friction and turbulence.
However, as φ becomes greater than 1 (the screw is overfilled),
some of the flow spills over the top of the center tube decreasing
the efficiency. Typically, the larger the turbine diameter, the greater
are the flow capacity and the capital cost. In some cases, a smaller
diameter turbine which operates at φ > 1 may deliver the maxi-
mum power per unit cost invested for a given flow rate, albeit
at a lower efficiency. This maximum-value analysis for commercial
plants usually occurs when φ is somewhere between 0.8 and 1.2
under normal flow conditions. Nuernbergk (2012) and Nuernbergk
and Lashofer (2016) further discuss this point.
Table 2 lists the bucket volumes per turn V B of the three test
screws computed using MATLAB R2017b programs written by
the authors (Rorres 2000).
Fig. 4 shows cross sections of the three test screws as viewed
for clockwise rotation from above the screw. Each test screw had
5.1-mm-thick blades, and the cross sections of the blades are shown
to scale.
Measured Parameters of Experiment
The experiment was focused on accurately measuring and record-
ing the following four parameters over a range of operating
conditions for the three test screws:
• rotational speed, n;
• torque, T;
• total flow rate, Q; and
• head difference, H.
The head difference, or geodetic head, H was determined from
measurements of the inflow water height hin and the outflow water
level hout (Fig. 3). The inflow and outflow speed of the water were
negligible.
An additional parameter, the leakage flow, QL , was also mea-
sured. When the screw in Fig. 3 is prevented from turning and
water is introduced upstream, water will leak through the turbine
depending upon the upstream water level, hin . At low values of
hin , the water will leak through the gap, G, between the screw
and the trough. If the upstream water level is increased enough,
Fig. 4. Cross-sectional views of the three test screws drawn to scale: (a) strake; (b) helicoid; and (c) reverse strake.
© ASCE 04018052-3
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018052
an additional leakage flow will develop when the water overflows
the top of the center tube (Point F). Parameter QL is defined as the
total leakage flow that occurs when the screw is prevented from
rotating and a water level, hin , is maintained upstream. For each
test screw, the leakage flow, QL , was measured as a function of
the inlet water height hin .
The equations and methodology utilized to compute and com-
pare the performance of the three screws based upon the measured
values from the experiment are provided in subsequent sections
with the experimental results.
Test Setup
Figs. 5–7 show the test setup used for the data measurements.
Appendix S1 provides additional details. The basic test article con-
sisted of the frame, Archimedes screw, bearings, and dynamometer
components (Fig. 5). The dynamometer components consisted of
an encoder and a magnetic clutch attached to a lever arm with a load
cell. Appendix S1 provides the details of all the instrumentation
used to obtain water levels, torque, speed and flow rate, as well
as calibration results of the flow meter and torque measurement
system. Taken collectively, the uncertainty in these instruments
contributed to an uncertainty of 2–3% in calculated power and ef-
ficiencies for tests ran at midrange power levels. Bearing friction
losses were not measured, but were judged to be negligible com-
pared with the torque generated by the turbine over the range of
experimentation. The ceramic hybrid bearings were designed for
high-performance racing bikes and are noted for their exceptionally
low friction. During setup, the turbine rotated freely on the bearings
with little noticeable force.
The test station (Figs. 6 and 7) included two pumps with asso-
ciated piping and valves. Water was pumped from the reservoir
through a calibrated flow meter, over an upper weir, and into the
upper bay. The water flowed through the Archimedes screw into the
lower bay, over the outlet weir, and back into the reservoir. Flow
rates were established through the use of one or both pumps and
controlled using the bypass and throttle valves. The purpose of
the upper weir was to minimize the dependence of pump head
and associated flow rates on the water level in the upper bay. Two
7.8-cm-diameter stilling wells (not shown) were fitted with ultra-
sonic level sensors and connected to the upper and lower water
measurement ports via flexible polymer tubing.
Experimental Procedure
The test article was placed in the test stand as illustrated in Fig. 7.
The elevation of the lower end of the test article was adjusted to set
J. Hydraul. Eng.

Fig. 5. Assembled test article with Archimedes screw, trough, and
dynamometer.
Fig. 6. Test setup with test article in test station. Dimensions are in
centimeters.
Fig. 7. Test setup with Archimedes screw installed.
the angle of inclination, which was measured with a calibrated
digital inclinometer. Data were collected for multiple series of test
runs. Each series was performed over a range of torques and speeds
while the other variables (Archimedes screw shape, inclination
angle, lower water level, and flow rate) were held at nominally
constant values. Flow rates were adjusted for each series by chang-
ing the valving and pump configuration. Lower water levels were
© ASCE
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018052
attained by setting the outlet weir height. Although the outlet water
level, hout , varied slightly (2%) with the flow rate over the flow
rate range of the experiment, the effect was small and was the same
for all three shapes, and calculations of head and efficiency were
based on the actual measured values of hin and hout .
The first series for a given shape and inclination was started at the
lowest flow rate. The first run in the series was initiated by setting
the brake voltage to a low value, starting the pump(s) and allowing
the system to come to a steady state in which the torque, upper and
lower water levels, flow rate, and rotational speed were constant.
After reaching a steady state, the system was operated for an addi-
tional 2 min while data were recorded to a file at a rate of 1 Hz.
Each data set included upper and lower water levels, torque,
speed, and flow rate. After the data record file was saved, the brake
voltage was incremented to a higher level. The system response was
a decrease in speed, an increase in water level in the upper reservoir,
and an increase in torque. After attaining steady state, data were
recorded in a new file for an additional 2 min. This process was
repeated with additional increments in brake settings until the
torque became too high for the Archimedes screw to turn. The
pump and valving configuration were then changed to achieve a
higher flow rate, the brake voltage was reset to a low voltage,
and a new series of runs was initiated. For the purpose of analyzing
the steady-state performance of the various test screws, the data
were averaged over 60-s periods for each data set. Appendix S1
describes the quality control procedures used to ensure that these
60-s periods did not include any transient effects. Special care was
taken to adjust and calibrate each measurement device of the test
bench. Appendix S1 further details the test bench, measurement
equipment, and calibration methods, including the precision or
resolution of each device.
Over 600 data sets were obtained for the three test screws. in
Table 3 summarizes the range of parameters and resulting data sets.
Experimental Measurement Data for Strake Blade
Figs. 8–11 illustrate the measured inflow height, torque, and cal-
culated mechanical power and efficiency as a function of rotational
speed for the strake blade test screw. Each figure shows seven
different curves in which the flow rate Q was kept fixed at seven
different values.
Interpolation of Measurement Data at Constant
Inflow Height
The curves with the seven filled circles or dots in each of Figs. 8–11
represent constant hin and identify the points on each flow-rate
curve at which hin ¼ Ra . The values of these points were found
by linear interpolation over two measured values of hin (those
immediately above and below Ra ) on each flow-rate curve. From
previous work, it was found that a filling factor φ ¼ 1 occurs at
about an inflow height of hin equal to the outer radius Ra for an
inclination angle of β ¼ 24° (Nuernbergk 2012). This requirement
(hin ¼ Ra ) was chosen to compare the data of the three screws in
the following section.
Fig. 8 displays the measured inflow height hin versus the rota-
tional speed n. This figure demonstrates that the inflow height de-
creased with increasing rotational speed when the flow rate Q was
kept constant. Very similar curves were found for the helicoid and
the reverse strake test screws.
Fig. 9 shows the measured torque T as a function of the rota-
tional speed n. As expected, the torque decreased with increasing
rotational speed n along each constant flow-rate curve.
04018052-4 J. Hydraul. Eng.
Table 3. Range of experimental parameters used in evaluation of Archimedes screw performance
Inclination Flow Inlet water Outlet water Head Speed Torque Number of
Shape (degrees) (L=s) level (cm) level (cm) (cm) (rpm) (N · m) data sets
Strake 20.6 1.0–5.8 3.6–14.6 0.0–9.9 24.6–50.0 10–200 0.13–1.41 446
24.2
29.1
Helicoid 20.6 1.7–5.7 3.9–14.4 0.1–8.7 29.1–47.2 24–192 0.19–1.44 198
23.9
29.1
Reverse strake 23.9 1.8–5.6 0.6–14.2 0.0–8.1 28.7–41.1 30–210 0.20–1.17 105

Fig. 8. Normalized inflow head hin =Ra versus rotational speed for Fig. 10. Mechanical power PM of screw versus rotational speed for
seven different flow rates. seven different flow rates.

Fig. 9. Torque T at shaft of screw versus rotational speed for seven

Fig. 11. Power efficiency η versus rotational speed for seven different
different flow rates.
flow rates.

Fig. 10 is the mechanical power PM as determined by Eq. (1) increases. Similar results were found for the helicoid and the
and the torque measurements in Fig. 9 reverse strake test screws.
Eq. (2) gives the theoretical hydraulic power Pth of a hydro-
60PM power site, where ρ is the density of water, g is the gravitational
T¼ ð1Þ
2πn constant, and H is the head difference (Fig. 3)

The mechanical power had a clear maximum for each particular Pth ¼ ρgQH ð2Þ
flow rate. This maximum mechanical power and the rotational where it is assumed that the inflow speed of the water is equal to its
speed at which it was attained both increased as the flow rate outflow speed.
Q increased. Letting PM denote the useful mechanical power at the shaft of
Fig. 10 shows that the mechanical power was approximately the screw, the power efficiency η is defined by
maximized for lower flow rates when the inflow height hin was
equal to Ra . However, for higher flow rates, the inflow height PM
η¼ ð3Þ
must be higher to attain the maximum mechanical power. This cor- Pth
responds well to the typical condition for a hydropower site, in
which the inflow height is constant for low to medium flow rates, The power efficiency curves in Fig. 11 were derived using
but at high flow rates (e.g., flooding conditions) the inflow head Eqs. (2) and (3), and the mechanical power data for PM in Fig. 10.

© ASCE 04018052-5 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018052

 There was a clear maximum for each efficiency curve depending
on the flow rate. The highest efficiencies were achieved for low
flow rates. As the flow rate increased, the maximum efficiency de-
creased and the rotational speed at which the maximum efficiency
was achieved increased. Very similar curves were found for the
helicoid and the reverse strake test screws.
Hydraulic Power Losses and Measurement of
Leakage Flow
The mechanical power PM is the theoretical power Pth minus the
hydraulic power losses Phydr and the bearing power losses Pbr , so
that, for a given screw angle, the power efficiency can also be
written as
Phydr Pbr
η ¼1− − ð4Þ
Pth Pth
Muysken (1932) thoroughly analyzed the hydraulic power
losses Phydr , describing them as the sum of losses at the entrance
of the screw; leakage losses QL ; friction losses between the water
and the trough, blades, and central tube; loss of kinetic energy of
the water at the outlet of the screw; and losses arising from a non-
optimal water level at the outlet of the screw. Muysken (1932) and
Nuernbergk (2012) showed that the most significant losses among
these are the leakage flow loss and the friction loss between the
water and the blades.
The leakage flow loss QL is the sum of the gap flow QG between
the trough and the blades and the overspilling flow QO of the water
spilling over the central tube. The leakage power loss PL is equal
to ρgQL H, so that from Eq. (2), the fraction of the power loss due
to the leakage flow is
PL Q L
¼ ð5Þ
Pth Q square of its outer radius, whereas its total flow increases propor-
Determination of Leakage Flow
Following testing, leakage flow tests were performed on each of
the three screws. Fig. 12 shows the measured leakage flows QL
of the three screws as a function of the inflow height hin (the height
of the water level of the upper water basin above the lower entrance
edge of the trough to the screw as shown in Fig. 3). The test
results in Fig. 12 were performed with the screw in a stationary
(nonrotating) position.
Fig. 12. Measurement of the leakage flow QL versus the inflow
height hin .
© ASCE 04018052-6
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018052
Initially, the leakage flow QL is only the gap flow QG, which
increases approximately linearly with increasing inflow height hin .
At a certain inflow height indicated in the Fig. 12, spilling over the
central tube begins, after which the leakage flow is the sum of the
gap flow QG and the overspilling flow QO.
During testing, it was also found that the leakage flow is depen-
dent on the stationary rotational position of the screw. The leakage
flow changes if the screw is turned by, for example 90°, in the flow
direction as shown for the helicoid data in Fig. 12.
The measured leakage flows were small compared with the
measured total flow, which ranged from 1.893 to 5.678 L=s in these
tests. This corresponds to hydraulic losses QL =Q of 3.5–10.0%.
Theoretical models of the leakage flow are found in Muysken
(1932), Nuernbergk and Rorres (2013), and Kozyn and Lubitz
(2015). The leakage flow QL affects the torque and performance
of Archimedes screws differently depending on whether the screws
are conventional screw pumps (used to lift water) or hydropower
screws, as tested in this experiment. More specifically, for hydro-
power screws the leakage flow, which is defined as the sum of the
gap and overspilling flows, contributes positively to the torque of
the screw because it contributes to the volume contained within
each bucket of the screw.
However, for screw pumps, neither the gap flow nor the over-
spilling flow contributes to the volume being transported to the
upper reservoir because their flow is opposite to the bucket flow
and is not replenished by water from the upper reservoir. This dif-
ference may be important when considering the performance differ-
ences between various blade shapes and the importance of dynamic
effects of the water entering the screw.
The flow in these scaled test screws was fully turbulent, as it is
for large-scale commercial screws. Consequently, similar gap-flow
behavior can be expected. In this experiment, the gap for the test
screws was less than 1 mm. According to Muysken (1932), as a
screw is scaled up, its gap flow increases proportionally to the
tionally to the cube of its outer radius. Therefore, because the gap
flow becomes a smaller proportion of the total flow for larger
screws, large-scale commercial screws can be expected to have
greater efficiency than the test screws.
Comparison of Flow Capacities of Three Test
Blades
One of the ways the three test screws were compared was by evalu-
ating their relative flow capacities. Because the experimental data
were generated over a range of nominally constant flow rates, the
flow capacities could be compared by evaluating the inlet heights or
rotational speeds that were required for the three screws to pass the
same flow rate. For the same flow, the screws with the highest
speed or inlet height will have the highest corresponding hydraulic
losses, and therefore will operate less efficiently. There was very
little difference between the three test screws regarding the inlet
water levels and rotational speeds required to achieve the nominal
flow rate of 3.785 L=s (Fig. 13). The data presented subsequently
were normalized to account for minor variations in the flow rates
from run to run by multiplying the measured inlet water height by a
factor 3.785=Q, where Q is the actual flow rate of the run.
Similarly, over the lower range of flow rates (3.785 L=s and be-
low), little difference was found in the flow capacities (the flow rate
for a given inlet height and rotational speed) of the three test screws.
However, at higher flow rates and for the same speed, the strake
required a markedly higher inlet water level to achieve the same
flow rate as the other two test screws (Fig. 14). Alternatively,
J. Hydraul. Eng.
Fig. 13. Comparison of inlet water level required for normalized flow
rate of 3.785 L=s for three test screws.
Fig. 14. Comparison of inlet water level required for normalized flow
rate of 5.68 L=s for three test screws.
for the same inlet water levels, the strake required significantly
higher rotational speeds to achieve the same flow rate (Fig. 15).
Comparison of Three Test Blades for Constant Head
Difference and Inflow Height
To effectively compare the performance behavior of the three test
screws, the measurement data were normalized by interpolation so
that certain parameters were equal. For example, the number of
blades, inner radius, outer radius, and pitch were fixed throughout
the experimental testing, and a single inclination angle of 24° was
selected for data evaluation. In addition, for comparison purposes
in this section, the data were evaluated and compared by setting the
inflow water height hin and head difference H at fixed values. Spe-
cifically, the inflow water height was fixed at the outer radius Ra of
the screw (95.7 mm) and the head difference was kept fixed at
0.325 m (Fig. 3). The head difference H was kept fixed by keeping
both the inflow water height hin and outflow water height hout fixed.
The outlet water height was kept fixed by the use of an overflow
weir in the lower reservoir (Fig. 6). The inflow water height was
kept mathematically fixed at Ra , as previously mentioned, by linear
© ASCE 04018052-7
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018052
Fig. 15. Comparison of flow rate Q for three different screws at
different rotational speeds (for hin ¼ Ra ).
Fig. 16. Comparison of available torque T at shaft of screw for the
three different screws over different rotational speeds (for hin ¼ Ra ).
interpolation of measured data for values of hin immediately above
and below Ra.
Keeping hin and H fixed throughout the measurements allowed
comparable measurements of the flows Q and torques T of the three
screws at different rotational speeds. From the measurements of
Q and T, the theoretical power Pth, mechanical power PM , and
the power efficiency η were determined for different rotational
speeds. In addition, these measurements were combined to deter-
mine the mechanical power as a function of the flow rate. These
calculations based on the experimental measurements are described
subsequently.
Fig. 15 shows the flow rate as a function of rotational speed. As
discussed in the previous section regarding flow capacity, the three
screws behaved similarly at lower rotational speeds. However, at
higher rotational speeds, the speed of the strake must be higher than
that of a helicoid or reverse strake to pass the same flow. For ex-
ample, to maintain a flow rate of 5.047 L=s the strake must rotate
25 rpm faster than the reverse strake, even though the strake has the
highest bucket volume per turn (Table 2). This result was counter to
the expected behavior of the strake.
Fig. 16 displays the torque as a function of rotational speed. This
figure shows remarkable consistency among the three test screws
J. Hydraul. Eng.
Fig. 17. Comparison of available hydraulic power Pth (top curves) and
mechanical power PM (bottom curves) of screw at different rotational
speeds (for hin ¼ Ra ).
Fig. 18. Comparison of power efficiency η for three different screws at
different rotational speeds (for hin ¼ Ra ).
regarding the decrease of torque as the rotational speed increased.
This decrease was a result of the decreasing filling level as the
rotational speed increased.
Fig. 17 displays the theoretical available hydraulic power
Pth and the mechanical power PM. As expected from Eq. (8)
and Fig. 16, all three screws delivered approximately the same
mechanical power at the same rotational speed.
Fig. 18 shows the power efficiency η of the three screws. As
with the torque, the values were fairly close to each other at the
same rotational speeds.
Fig. 19 displays the mechanical power as a function of the flow
rate rather than the rotational speed. The mechanical powers of the
three screws were approximately the same for the lower flow rates
(below about 3.7 L=s). However, for the higher flow rates (above
about 4.5 L=s), the strake’s mechanical power was less than that of
the helicoid.
Discussion and Planned Future Work
The testing of the three screw shapes in this report was in terms of
their use as producers of hydropower through the lowering of water.
© ASCE 04018052-8
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018052
Fig. 19. Mechanical power PN as function of flow rate Q (for
hin ¼ Ra ).
It should be expected that the advantages and disadvantages of the
three shapes will be different when the screws are used for lifting
water, as for irrigation and land-draining purposes and in waste-
water treatment plants. For example, in the case of a power-
generating screw, the gap flow and overflow over the central tube
(the total leakage flow) are both in the direction of the bucket flow,
so they increase the volume in each bucket, and this volume in-
crease contributes to the torque; whereas for a water-lifting screw
these overflows are in the opposite direction to the upward bucket
flow, and so they do not contribute to the water being lifted to the
upper reservoir. The larger theoretical capacity of the strake screw
over a helicoid or reverse-strake screw of the same outer radius
could be an advantage when lifting water.
The differences in bucket volume per turn V B among the three
test screw models were relatively small. In addition, the blades of
the test screws were a greater proportion of the cross-sectional area
than would be expected with full-sized commercial screws. Further
work by the authors is expected to include optimized designs
which will provide better separation among the values of the bucket
volume per turn for each screw type.
The differences in the mechanical performance and efficiencies
of the three screws at the higher flow rates is postulated by the au-
thors to be associated with the effect of the blade shapes on the
dynamics of the water entering the screws. Further work is expected
to include examinations of the effects of the aperture and shape of
the entry blades.
Conclusions
This paper presented experimental results for three blade shapes for
Archimedes hydrodynamic screws used in hydropower generation:
helicoid, strake, and reverse strake. The measurement data for all
three test screws were smooth and showed the expected theoretical
behavior. For example, the torque varied as expected for larger rota-
tional speeds proportional to 1=n when the flow rate Q was kept
constant. There was a clear maximum for each curve of efficiency η
versus rotational speed n. The maximum efficiencies were highest
at the lowest flow rate. With increasing flow rates, the maximum
efficiencies occurred at increasing rotational speeds and increasing
inlet water levels. These observations were similar for all three test
screws.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 The comparison of the inflow heights of the three test screws
showed that at flow rates of 3.785 L=s and below, the flow
capacities of the three shapes were almost identical, despite the dif-
ferences in the theoretical bucket volume per turn V B associated
with the blade shapes. At higher flow rates, the strake design re-
quired significantly higher inflow heights than did either the heli-
coid or the reverse strake, which is counter to the idea that higher
bucket volume per turn will lead to more flow capacity. Conse-
quently, for the strake design, higher rotational speeds were needed
than for the helicoid or the reverse strake to pass the required
flow rate.
A constant inflow water level was then chosen for all three pro-
totypes to facilitate a fair comparison of the different units. Again,
at the lower flow rates the power, torque, flow capacities, and
efficiencies were remarkably similar for the three shapes. At the
higher flow rates, differences in the mechanical performance and
efficiencies were due to the head differences required to accommo-
date the same flow for a given speed and flow rate. Of the three
screws, the strake design required the highest head difference for
the same flow.
For power-generating screws, the relative shape of the screw
blades appears to have minimal effect on the torque for the lower
rotational speeds and flows. All three test screws behaved very sim-
ilarly. However, at the higher speeds and flows, the test screws dis-
played differences in the inflow height, volume per turn, and filling
factor actually achieved by the screw. Based on the results of this
experiment, these differences are believed to be due to the different
dynamic entrance effects of the three screws, and were in opposite
relation to the theoretical V ma values of the three test screws.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the US Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE), under Award No. DE-EE0007247. The authors gratefully
acknowledge the support of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
which was provided through a Cooperative Research and Develop-
ment Agreement and Technology Assistance Program Agreements
between Percheron Power, LLC and Battelle Memorial Institute,
Pacific Northwest Division under US Department of Energy
Contract No. DE-AC05-76RL01830.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
G = gap between screw and trough (m);
g = gravitational constant (m=s2 );
H = head difference (m);
hin = inflow (upper) water height (m);
hout = outflow (lower) water height (m);
N = number of blades;
n = rotational speed (m−1 );
Pbr = bearing power losses (kW);
Phydr = hydraulic power losses (kW);
PL = leakage power (kW);
PM = mechanical power (kW);
Pth = theoretical hydraulic power (kW);
Q = total water flow (L=s);
QG = gap leakage flow (L=s);
QL = total leakage flow (L=s);
QO = overflow leakage flow (L=s);
© ASCE 04018052-9
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018052
Ra = outer radius of screw (m);
Ri = inner radius of screw (m);
S= pitch of screw (m);
T= torque at shaft of screw (N · m);
VB = bucket volume per turn (L);
VU = volume per turn (L);
β= inclination of screw (rad);
η= power efficiency;
ρ= density of water (kg=m3 ); and
φ= filling factor.
Supplemental Data
Appendixes S1 and S2, Figs. S1–S9, and Table S1 are available
online in the ASCE Library (www.ascelibrary.org).
References
Brada, K. 1999. “Wasserkraftschnecke ermöglicht Stromerzeugung über
Kleinkraftwerke.” Maschinenmarkt 14: 52–56.
Dellinger, G. 2015. “Etude expérimentale et optimisation des performances
hydrauliques des vis d’Archimède utilisées dans les micro centrales
hydroélectriques.” Ph.D. thesis, Université de Strasbourg.
Dellinger, G., A. Terfous, P-A. Garambois, and A. Ghenaim. 2016.
“Experimental investigation and performance analysis of Archimedes
screw generator.” J. Hydraul. Res. 54 (2): 197–209. https://doi.org/10
.1080/00221686.2015.1136706.
Erinofiardi, E., A. Nuramal, P. Bismantolo, A. Date, A. Akbarzadeh,
A. K. Mainil, and A. F. Suryono. 2017. “Experimental study of screw
turbine performance based on different angle of inclination.” Energy
Procedia 110 (Mar): 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03
.094.
Kibel, P., and T. Coe. 2011. Archimedean screw risk assessment: Strike and
delay probabilities. Rep. RA 1108. Totnes, UK: Fishtek Consulting.
Kozyn, A., and W. D. Lubitz. 2015. “Experimental validation of gap
leakage flow models in Archimedes screw generators.” Vol. 1 of
Renewable energy in the service of mankind, edited by A. Sayigh,
365–375. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Kozyn, A., and W. D. Lubitz. 2017. “A power loss model for Archimedes
screw generators.” Renewable Energy 108 (Aug): 260–273. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.062.
Lashofer, A., W. Hawle, F. Kaltenberger, and B. Pelikan. 2013. “Die
Wasserkraftschnecke–Praxis, Prüfstand und Potenzial.” Österreichische
Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft 65 (9–10): 339–347. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s00506-013-0054-x.
Lashofer, A., F. Kaltenberger, and B. Pelikan. 2011 “Wie gut bewährt sich
die Wasserkraftschnecke in der Praxis.” Wasserwirtschaft, 76–82.
Wiesbaden: Springer.
Lee, K-T., E-S. Kim, W-S. Chu, and S-H. Ahn. 2015. “Design and 3D
printing of controllable-pitch Archimedean screw for pico-hydropower
generation.” J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 29 (11): 4851–4857. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s12206-015-1032-y.
Lisicki, M., W. Lubitz, and G. W. Taylor. 2016. “Optimal design and
operation of Archimedes screw turbines using Bayesian optimization.”
Appl. Energy 183 (Dec): 1404–1417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy
.2016.09.084.
Lubitz, W., M. Lyons, and S. Simmons. 2014. “Performance model of
Archimedes screw hydro turbines with variable fill level.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 140 (10): 04014050. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943
-7900.0000922.
Lyons, M., and W. D. Lubitz. 2013. “Archimedes screws for microhydro-
power generation.” In Proc., ASME 7th Energy Sustainability Conf.
New York, NY: ASME.
Muysken, J. 1932. “Berekening van het nuttig effect van de vijzel.”
De Ingenieur 21 (Mei): 77–91.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
Nuernbergk, D. M. 2012. Wasserkraftschnecken: Berechnung und
optimaler Entwurf von archimedischen Schnecken als Wasserkraftma-
schine. Detmold, Germany: Moritz Schaefer.
Nuernbergk, D. M., and A. Lashofer. 2016. “Skalierung von
Wasserkraftschnecken—Ein Beitrag zur einer überfälligen Dimensio-
nierungsrechnung.” WasserWirtschaft 10 (Oct): 25–31.
Nuernbergk, D. M., and C. Rorres. 2013. “Analytical model for water
inflow of an Archimedes screw used in hydropower generation.”
J. Hydraul. Eng. 139 (2): 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY
.1943-7900.0000661.
Rohmer, J., D. Knittel, G. Sturtzer, D. Flieller, and J. Renaud. 2016.
“Modeling and experimental results of an Archimedes screw turbine.”
Renewable Energy 94 (Aug): 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene
.2016.03.044.
Rorres, C. 2000. “The turn of the screw: Optimal design of an Archimedes
screw.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 126 (1): 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9429(2000)126:1(72).
Saroinsong, T., R. Soenoko, S. Wahyudi, and M. N. Sasongko. 2015.
“The effect of head inflow and turbine axis angle towards the three
row bladed screw turbine efficiency.” Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 10 (7):
16977–16984.
Vitruvius. 1914. “The water screw.” Chap. VI in De Architectura.
Translated by Morris Hicky Morgan. New York: Dover, 1960.
295–297.

© ASCE 04018052-10 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018052

 SUPPLEMENTAL DATA

ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

Experimental Evaluation of Advanced

Archimedes Hydrodynamic Screw Geometries
Jerry L. Straalsund, Samuel F. Harding, Dirk M. Nuernbergk, and
Chris Rorres

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001479

© ASCE 2018

www.ascelibrary.org
View publication stats