Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Hydrokinetic turbine design through performance prediction and hybrid

metaheuristic multi-objective optimization
Luan Cavalari Labigalini *, Ricardo de Vasconcelos Salvo, Rafael Sene de Lima,
Rodrigo Corrêa da Silva, Ismael de Marchi Neto
Mechanical Engineering Department, Federal University of Technology - Paraná, Estrada dos Pioneiros, 3131 Londrina, Paraná, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Small wind turbines (SWT) and hydrokinetic turbines (HT) are affordable ways to distribute power generation
Hydrokinetic turbine from renewable resources. In order to better harness such available sources and to design future equipment as
Turbine performance validation efficient as possible, this paper aims to develop a layout optimization. Firstly, the Blade Element Momentum
Power curve
(BEM) method is applied to validate the aerodynamic models from literature with experimental data. It intends
BEM
Metaheuristic algorithms
to replicate turbine operation and its performance. The power and thrust curves could be well-predicted ac­
Multi-objective optimization cording to tip-speed ratio (TSR) variation. Secondly, meta-heuristic algorithms based on natural behaviour are
used to find the best hydrokinetic turbine design in a hypothetical environment subjected to a single person’s
electricity demand. Later, an analysis of a higher power supply will also be made. The optimization was carried
out concerning power and blade inertia, and the layout parameters used as input were the rotor diameter, the
number of blades, and the rotational speed. Cavitation effect was taking into account and tried to be avoided at
chord calculation. The most efficient algorithm could find a turbine with a power coefficient 18% lower than the
Betz Limit.

1. Introduction
The fight against climate change is one of the most important con­
cerns for humanity in the 21st century [1–3]. Projections indicate that
until 2050, the deadline year of long term Paris Agreement targets,
energy demand might be almost 50% higher if compared to the 2018
value [4]. Analysing electricity exclusively, the tendency of demand rate
increase has been corroborated, as shown in Fig. 1. Between 2011 and
2017, whilst the global average value was 7.48%; whilst emerging
countries such as China and India presented more expressive numbers:
the first was almost 36%, and the second more than 33% [5]. This
tendency continued until 2018, whose strong economic and popula­
tional growth were pointed out as the main reason [6]. However, such
demand was not carried out “cleanly”, as fossil gas emissions have just
intensified [3]. If electrification effort is strengthened in a sustainable
manner, carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced as far as 25% by 2050,
in comparison to 2018 [7]. Therefore, it is shown to play an important
role in such accomplishment. Governance, policies, and treaties are
being made towards [6,8,9], though mismatched with the required short
(2030) and long term targets from the Paris Agreement [7,10].
Besides offering electricity, access to it is equally important. The
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [11] in its fourth report
“Tracking SDG7: The Energy Progress Report” shows that, in 2012,
almost 13% of the world’s population (roughly one billion people) lived
without access to electricity; most of these resided in underdeveloped
countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and Central and Southern Asia [12]. In
2018, still 860 million people – 11% of the world population – endured
these conditions [10]. It must be kept in mind that even in countries
where universal access to electricity was achieved between 2010 and
2016 [11], i.e. Brazil, still have large areas where part of the population
does not have access to electricity. Territorial size [13], and local terrain
also make it difficult to transport energy. For instance, the Brazilian state
of Roraima still is not interconnected to the others by SIN (from Por­
tuguese Sistema Interligado Nacional), the national grid [14]. Its elec­
tricity was imported from Venezuela until 2019 and is now locally
generated by thermoelectric plants that consume up to 1 million litres of
diesel per day [15]. The predictions are to unalter this status until 2024
[16].

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: luanclabigalini@gmail.com (L. Cavalari Labigalini), ricardosalvo@utfpr.edu.br (R.V. Salvo), rafaellima@utfpr.edu.br (R. Sene de Lima),
rodrigosilva@utfpr.edu.br (R. Corrêa da Silva), ismaelneto@utfpr.edu.br (I. de Marchi Neto).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114169
Received 17 December 2020; Accepted 12 April 2021
Available online 23 April 2021
0196-8904/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Cavalari Labigalini et al.
Fig. 1. Annually electricity demand per person development from different countries along the last decades [5].
Fig. 2. Cost prediction of power generation from Renewable and Fossil sources. Data from [27].
Hence, renewable energy resources are shown as a trustworthy and
affordable solution. Among these, hydropower stands out as the most
consolidated. In 2012, it was essential for more than 150 countries in
their energy mix, 25 of these depended on it to supply at least 90% of
their electricity demand, and 12 of them depended for 100% [17]; in
2019, Brazil surpassed 63% [18]. But most importantly, in 2012, from
roughly 1 billion people without such access [12], one third were able to
access natural flowing water instead [19]. It arises as an alternative way
to retrieve energy from water: through hydrokinetic turbines, which
deal exclusively with water’s kinetic energy. This kind of turbine can
provide a few families and reach remote areas [19]. In fact, more than
half of 19,000 mini-grid installed until the end of 2019 were entirely or
partially sourced by hydro, which was able to supply roughly 47 million
people [10].
Considering this local power generation, the countries’ hydro po­
tential becomes even wider [20–22]. In Brazil, some data are provided in
order to estimate local potentials. Through geographical data and per­
formance from already existing turbines, the possible power generation
downstream of the Iguaçu river – whose free-stream velocity may vary
2
Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169
between 1.7 and 2.5 m/s – is 159.89 MWh/year, while further down­
stream of the Paraná river this is 680.26 MWh/year– in a current ve­
locity of almost 1.6 m/s [23]; through computational fluid dynamics and
an affordable array of hydrokinetic turbines, 815.3MWh/year to Jamari
river, which free-stream velocity is roughly 1.5 m/s, and 258.1 MWh/
year to Curuá-Una river, with an average river velocity of more than 1.2
m/s [24]. In comparison to other ways of power generation, the cost
required from hydro resources is quite reasonable, as can be seen in
Fig. 2. Despite it needs a higher initial cost (roughly 3,125 U$/kW) than
other renewable sources (2,000 U$/ kW from a wind turbine, for
example [25]), hydrokinetics’ payback time can easily be reached, once
its lifetime is approximately 50 years [26]. Aligned to the look for better
efficiencies, designing such projects most effectively turns out to be not
only ordinary but also necessary.
Hydrokinetic and wind turbines have their performance approxi­
mated by BEM theory (Blade Element Momentum), whose development
began with the “Disk Actuator Theory”, provided by Rankine-Froude,
and afterward perfected according to new theories. Moreover, optimi­
zation techniques are well-used tools to minimize (or maximize) an
L. Cavalari Labigalini et al.
equation subjected to a domain of feasible solutions under specific
criteria [28], in which a heuristic approach capable to solve non-linear
problems [29] has been widely applied in engineering and other fields.
Since Paris Agreement’s long-term targets might be unreachable
considering current technologies, and will only be reached through in­
novations regarding energy efficiency [30], the current work proposes a
hydrokinetic turbine layout optimization. It was solely allowed after the
replication and validation of turbine performance prediction according
to available experimental data. Section 2 deals with the methodology
applied from validation to optimization, while Section 3 brings results
from both parts. Finally, Section 4 concludes and projects further
researches.
2. Methodology
In order to optimize a hydrokinetic turbine, it is required to previ­
ously replicate its performance through models present in literature and
described in Section 2.1 via algorithms coded in Python language. This
reproduction is considered accurate through comparison with experi­
mental data. Then, optimization is made by techniques described in
Section 2.2, which aim is to provide a single person’s power demand.
Those techniques were also compared to each other on computational
cost and result accuracy matter, whose objective functions were set
regarding the power coefficient maximization and inertia minimization -
thus starting torque for operation initialization is reduced. The inputs
and its constraints are different from earlier studies: rotor diameter,
number of blades, and rotational speed. The constants are reduced to
river free-stream velocity, water density, and river depth available to
turbine installation.
2.1. Models and theories present in literature
The beginning of turbine performance prediction was with the “Disk
Actuator Theory”, also known as Rankine-Froude theory [31,32], which
consisted of analysing the axial and unidimensional momentum from a
flow against an “obstacle” – called actuator disk. It means an underes­
timation around not only the wake and rotational velocities effects, but
also any change of pressure and axial velocity along the blade length
[33]. Eq. (1), the power measurement, summarizes it. Eqs. (2) and (3),
the power and thrust coefficient respectively, bring the introduction of
the axial induction factor. Due to its one-dimensional approach, this
theory does not take into account the rotor layout, as for example the
number of blades and the interaction between them. In order to over­
come such limitations, theories had been developed to a better under­
standing and replication of the flow around the turbine structure and its
rotational movement [34].
1 was also applied by previous works aiming at a similar optimization
P = ρAU0 3 CP (1)
2 approach [40–42].
CP = 4a(1 − a)2 (2)
CT = 4a(1 − a) (3)
Where ρ is the fluid density, A is the cross-section disc area, U0 is the
free-stream velocity, CP is the power coefficient, a is the axial induction
factor and CT is the thrust coefficient.
Developed in 1878 by Froude-Drzewiecki the Blade Element Theory
(BET) [35,36] proposes a finite volume division across the blade into
two-dimensional differential elements. At each section, the conservation
law of mass, angular and axial moment, and energy allow the analysis of
lift and drag forces over the rotor. Consequently, some turbine param­
eters can be determined, such as the local blade chord and torsion, and
the rotational speed, as can be seen from Eq. (4) to (8) [34]. It must be
highlighted how the rotor is dealt within this theory: instead of a static
disk, the approach is within rotational blades. Moreover, a known and
3
Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169
radially constant free-stream velocity is assumed, and also the acting
forces (two-dimensional direction, the lift, and drag) at each section are
independent of the other blades [33]. This is only possible due to the “lift
line” hypothesis [33], whose profile width is infinitesimal and enables to
determine not only the local velocity but also the forces. Thus, a
tangential induction factor – similar to the axial factor introduced by
Rankine-Froude – is added into the theory, which represents the
“obstacle” impact over the rotational wake-flow. This parameter is
previously null in the “Disk Actuator Theory”, once its rotational speed
is ignored.
Cn = CL cosΦ + CD sinΦ (4)
Ct = CL sinΦ − CD cosΦ (5)
where Cn and Ct are the normal and tangential forces coefficient,
respectively, CL and CD are the lift and drag coefficients, respectively,
and Φ is the flow angle. Eq. (6) brings its definition from the velocity
triangle.
Φ = α+θ (6)
(1 − a)
tanΦ = (7)
(1 + a’ )λr
λr =
rω
(8)
U0
Where α is the angle of attack, θ the blade torsion angle, a’ is the
tangential induction factor in the rotor plane, λr the local tip-speed ratio,
r is the blade radial coordinate and ω is the turbine rotational speed.
Studies around a correction of an infinite number of blades towards a
finite number began with Prandtl and Betz and are characterized by the
tip-loss factor [37] development, presented in Eq. (9). From its trivial
definition, the ratio between local and free-stream circulation is
concluded that such effect retains along the blade length and causes a
helicoidal wake [38]. Aligning the previous theories (the axial analysis
from “Disk Actuator” and the rotating operation) and gathering the
involved forces from BET – subjected to a correction of the finite number
of blades from the tip-loss factor -, Glauert postulated in 1935 his
optimal rotor theory: the Blade Element Momentum (BEM) [39].
It consists of determining the triangle of velocities – whose angles are
correlated by Eq. (6) and (7) – proposed by BET and directly affected by
induction factors, though calculated by new correlations (Eq. (11) and
(12), respectively). Thus, it is enabled to calculate the inflow angle and
loads at each blade section. In this way, an iterative loop is started, once
a uniform load distribution along the blade section is assumed [33] and
new values for induction factors are found – until a stop criterion is
achieved. BEM is also the most generalized and the most applied
nowadays on turbine projects, from hydrokinetics to wind turbines, and
[ ( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ) ]
2 −1 B(R − r) 1 + λ2
F = cos exp − (9)
π 2R
Rω
λ= (10)
U0
1
a= (11)
4Fsin2 Φ
+ 1
σ Cn
1
a’ = 4FsinΦcosΦ (12)
σ Ct − 1
Where F is the tip-loss factor, B is the number of blades, R is the rotor
radius and λ is the tip-speed ratio. Moreover, Eqs. (13), (14), and (15) are
shown as, respectively, the proposal from Glauert to a tip-loss factor,
power, and thrust coefficient. The last is also corrected against axial
L. Cavalari Labigalini et al. Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169

induction factors above a critical number [33]. • the tangential induction factor correlation, as made by Jonkamn (Eq.
[ ( )] (24)) [47];
2 B(R − r)
F = cos− 1 exp − (13) (√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
π 2rsinΦ 1 4
a’ = 1 + 2 a(1 − a) − 1 (24)
2 λr
CP = 4aF(1 − a)2 (14)
⎧
⎪
⎪ 1 • the ways to obtain the tip-loss factor, as developed by Burton (Eq.
⎨ CT = 4aF(1 − a)
⎪ for a≤
3 (25)) [48] and by Moriarty and Hansen (Eq. (26)–(28)) [49];
( ) (15)
⎪ 1 1 [ ( )√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )]
⎪
⎪
⎩ CT = 4aF 1 − (5 − 3a)a for a> 2 −1
(
B λ ( λ )2̅
(25)
4 3 r
F = cos exp − − 1 1+
π 2 λr 1− a
Since then, models are created in order to increase flow detailing. In
spite of the fact that free-stream is irrotational, its interaction with a 2
[ (
B(R − r)
)]
rotating machine will cause its rotation in the same direction, commonly FTip = cos− 1
exp − (26)
π 2rsinΦ
produced by propellers, or in the opposite direction, what happens with
[ ( )]
turbines [43]. This wake effect should not be neglected, as it is vital to 2 B(r − RHub )
the machine performance. It must be taken into account not only due to FHub = cos− 1
exp − (27)
π 2rsinΦ
its angular energy but also due to its axial velocity, both of them at the
rotor plane. From an understanding that circulation is mainly a conse­ F = FTip FHub (28)
quence of lift force along the blade, Wilson and Lissaman [44] have
included it on its formulation presented at Eq. (16) and (17) – and have
also dealt on the same rotor plane as developed by Glauert on BEM • the overvalues of thrust coefficient, as characterized by Spera (Eq.
theory. Additionally, de Vries [45] pointed out an inconsistency at these (29)) [50], Buhl (Eq. (30)) [51] and Manwell; McGowan; Rodgers
equations regarding non-orthogonality between inducted and relative (Eq. (31)) [52];
{
velocities. Against it, their method differs from Wilson and Lissaman CT = 4aF(1
( − a) ) for a ≤ aC (29)
only in the proposed tangential factor, presented in Eq. (18). In a matter CT = 4F aC 2 + (1 − 2aC )a for a > aC
of flow spatial parameters, Shen in 2005 [46] treated BEM bi-
⎧
dimensionality in the non-annulment of forces at the tip, which should
⎨ CT = 4aF(1 − a)
⎪ for a ≤ 0.4
tend to zero once fluid directly passes from the pressurized blade side to ( ) ( )
(30)
8 40 50
suction one. Therefore, it was proposed a semi-empirical tri-dimensional ⎪
⎩ CT = + 4F − a+ − 4F a2 for a > 0.4
9 9 9
model among involved forces, resulting in a new expression for the tip-
loss factor in Eq. (19) and (20). ⎧
⎨ CT = 4aF(1 − a)
⎪ for a ≤ 0.4
aF(1 − aF) σCL cosΦ (31)
= (16) ⎪
⎩ CT = 0.96 +
F(a − 0.4)[F(a + 0, 4) − 0.286 ]
for a > 0.4
(1 − a)2 4sin2 Φ 0.6427

a’ F σ CL
= (17) • and finally, the approximation of power coefficient, carried out by
(1 + a’ ) 4cosΦ
Branlard (Eq. (32)) [33], Letcher (Eq. (33)) [53], Jonkamn (Eq. (34))
a’ F(1 − aF) σ CL [47] and Brasil Júnior et al. (Eq. (35)) [54].
= (18) ∫
(1 − a)(1 + a’ ) 4sinΦ 8 λ
CP = 2 a’(1 − a)λr 3 dλr (32)
[ ( )] λ λhub
2 B(R − r)
F1 = cos− 1
exp − g (19)
π 2rsinΦ
Bλ2 (1 − a)(1 + a ) Rc *Rr Ct
′

[ ] dCP = (33)
1 2πsinΦcosΦ
g = exp − (Bλ − 21) + 0.1 (20)
8 ∫R [ ]
2 CD cosΦ
Moreover, Shen also proposed new models for induction factors and CP =
λR
λ2r sin2 Φ[cosΦ − λr sinΦ][sinΦ + λr cosΦ] 1 −
CL sinΦ
dr
thrust coefficient, presented from Eq. (21) to (23). H

(34)
aF(1 − aF) σ C t F1
= (21) ∫
(1 − a)2 4Fsin2 Φ 8 λ
CD
CP = a’ (1 − a)(1 − cotΦ)λr 3 dλr (35)
’
λ2 0 CL
a F(1 − aF) σ Cn F1
= (22) Where RHub is the hub radius, ac is the critical axial induction factor,
(1 − a)(1 + a’ ) 4sinΦcosΦ
and c is the local chord section. In the present work, all models were
⎧ 1 implemented and compared to experimental data, similar to preceding
⎪
⎨ CT = 4aF(1 − a)
⎪ for a⩽aC =
3 papers [49,55].
(23)
⎪
⎩ C = 4[a2 F2 + (1 − 2a F)aF ]
⎪
for a > aC =
1
2.2. Optimization methods
T C C
3
Where F, in this particular case, is the tip-loss factor from Glauert
(Eq. (13)). Optimization problems aim is to find a solution that better fits a
Besides the cited models, other researches were focused on correct: desired minimal or maximal value from an objective function, whether
subjected or not to domain constraints, also particular to each case. This
can be not only treated as a single objective, demanding less computa­
tional effort and complexity to solving, but also multi-objective, which

4
L. Cavalari Labigalini et al.
approach is peculiar: outputs compete against themselves in order to
supply a set of optimal solutions.
Methods are mainly separated into two fields differing from an exact
or approximated outcome: deterministic and heuristic, respectively. An
example from the first is a technique called Gradient Descent, which
makes use of calculus theories and is mostly applied in the learning
process of artificial neuron networks. However, once it needs complete
knowledge of function behaviour – for example, its derivatives –, it
becomes unable to get a feasible solution effortless. Hence the heuristic
approach is commonly used, predominantly in a randomized search
manner through the entire domain.
In 1983, one of the precursors from meta-heuristics methods was
developed: the Simulated Annealing (SA) algorithm [56]. It was based
on how the annealing solid process occurs among atoms arrangement,
whose path is traced towards less energy (or entropy) as possible. The
objective function is measured by a state energy equation. It follows an
iterative process according to a temperature decrease, which once again
is calculated from the minimal and maximal probability of accepting a
solution or not. As a matter of example, Zhang et al. [57] applied it to
design an economically feasible grid, containing the power generation
from renewable sources (solar and/or wind) and the energy storage
(chemically, by hydrogen, or by batteries).
Built-in 1995, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [58] method was
inspired by bird food exploration: each bird flock individually looks for a
source with more food abundance and communicates with each other in
order to check whether that is the most plentiful or not. Due to its low
computational cost and complexity, PSO has been used to optimize en­
gineering problems. Borhanazad et al. [59] investigated an optimal
hybrid-grid layout containing photovoltaic cells, wind turbine, and
diesel generator; Djavareshkian and Esmaeili [60] computationally
simulated three NACA profiles with different chords and thickness, in
order to develop an ideal hydrofoil regarding drag, lift and pressure
coefficient.
Similarly, the Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) [61] technique is based on
nectar search from a swarm of bees. Their strategy consists to divide
them into three groups: employed, onlooker, and scout bees. The last is
responsible to locate possible nectar sources surrounding the hive, as
soon as the onlooker bees send employees to rummage it. From a
computational perspective, food resource is a possible optimal solution
and is measured in a probability manner, taking into account its nectar
quantity and its distance from the hive. Yildiz [62] made use of this
method in structural problem optimization, which dealt with an auto­
motive component.
Flower Pollination Algorithm (FPA) [63] procedure occurs similar to
the ABC, being differentiated on its search methodology. Instead of
nectar exploration, it was inspired by plant reproduction mechanism, in
which pollen – treated as an optimal solution – is transferred until a
flower gamete is reached. The method can be divided into four rules,
which are run at each iteration process:
i. firstly, a global search is made, called biotic pollination, through
a probabilistic distribution, the Lévy flight;
ii. secondly, from a possible optimal source, a local search – or
abiotic pollination – proceeds in order to check vicinities
solutions;
iii. thirdly, these solutions are compared to the minimum (or
maximum) value already found;
iv. finally, the switch between global or local search according to a
probability distribution – as well as ABC verification.
For example, a study conducted to compare the preceding method
among others was made by Bekdaş et al. [64] who looked for optimizing
the weight of truss.
It can also be cited from recent applications of other swarm opti­
mization methods in engineering. Fetanate Khorasaninejad [65] used
the Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) algorithm, which is inspired in ant
5
Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169
Fig. 3. Validation results of axial induction factor models.
colonization, seeking the costless layout of a hybrid grid (wind and solar
sources) to attend to specific power demand, varying the number of
wind turbines, photovoltaic cells and batteries; in the same way, Kamjoo
et al. [66] also optimized the cost involving power generation from
renewable resources, but with Genetic Algorithms (GA).
3. Results
The results are divided into the following order: Section 3.1 is
dedicated to the turbine models validation, presented in Section 2.1;
assuming the performance replication; then layout optimization is per­
formed in Section 3.2 with techniques of Section 2.2.
3.1. Performance validation
The models presented in Section 2.1 are validated according to
experimental data provided by a small wind turbine called G1, whose
wind tunnel tests were developed at the Technical University of Munich
(TUM) [55]. It is made of 3 blades, a rotor and hub radius of 0.550 m and
0.054 m respectively. Its blade design is composed of the RG14 airfoil
profile (from 14% of blade’s length; the first part is made of cylindrical
profile and a transition until the airfoil) and was designed to a tip-speed
ratio equals to 6.6 (or a rotational speed of 850 rpm). Otherwise, the
experimental data used in this study is performed in a tip-speed ratio of
7.
The proposed validation process consists of evaluating each variable
at a time on the iterative BEM model. If a specific variable has not been
analysed yet, the experimental data is used instead. As parameters are
validated, the investigated theory is assumed as replicated and replaces
the experimental data. The exceptions are the chord and twist blade
distributions, which are specific to each turbine. The coefficients vali­
dation order is the axial induction factor, tip-loss factor, tangential in­
duction factor, design power coefficient, flow parameters (angle of
attack, drag and lift distribution), and the power coefficient curve. The
blade is divided into 100 sections, in order to local calculate and to
enable a better comparison.
3.1.1. Axial induction factor validation
The theories around the axial induction factor are solved whether
analytically or numerically through an open-source library. When
required, an initial guess of 0.33 is used. It should be highlighted that for
those models which depend on the tip-loss factor, for now, its value is
assumed to be 1.0. The results can be seen in Fig. 3.
Theories developed by Glauert (Eq. (11)) and Wilson and Lissaman
(Eq. (16)) present a good-prediction during most of the blade, with a
natural deviation at the tip due to the tip-loss factor simplification. On
the other hand, the model proposed by Shen et al. (Eq. (21)), at least for
the axial induction factor does not show enough aerodynamical
replicability.
L. Cavalari Labigalini et al.
Fig. 4. Validation result of tip-loss factor correlations, according to Glauert
axial induction factor model.
Fig. 5. Validation result of tip-loss factor correlations, according to Wilson and
Lissaman axial induction factor model.
3.1.2. Tip-loss factor validation
As the tip-loss factor proves to be essential concerning validation of
the axial induction factor, this variable is kept forward to the next
validation step. However, only theories from Glauert and Wilson and
Lissaman are analysed. Figs. 4 and 5 show their respective results. In this
step, a correlation for a higher induction factor from Buhl (Eq. (30)), also
used previously [67], is applied.
The hypothesis that the failure in predicting axial induction factor
resides over tip-loss factor simplification is confirmed. However, some
tip-loss models present themselves as ineffective. The Moriarty and
Hansen (Eq. (26)–(28)) equations, which take into account possible
losses also at the hub did not show good results for either of the two axial
induction factor theories. Also, two combinations of tip-loss factor
model and axial induction factor are proven to be unsuccessful: Shen
et al. (Eq. (19) and (20)) model with Gluaert equation, and Burton’s
(2011) (Eq. (25)) proposition with Wilson and Lissaman equations. All
the other combinations are able to predict satisfactorily the aero­
dynamical behaviour.
The best results are obtained with Wilson and Lissaman’s axial in­
duction factor corrected by Shen et al. tip-loss factor, their values along
most of the blade provided the lowest difference to the experimental
data. In comparison with Glauert’s axial induction factor and Prandtl
(Eq. (9)) tip-loss factor, for example, their values are underestimated at
the tip – just as most other Wilson and Lissaman axial induction factor
combinations. The likely justification for such results resides in the
model’s complexity. The correlation proposed by Wilson and Lissaman
better modelled the axial induction factor by considering the flow at
wake plane and the lift force that resulted from it. In the same direction,
the tip-loss factor predicted by Shen et al. corrects the physical incon­
sistency over forces at the tip.
6
Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169
Fig. 6. Validation result of tangential induction factor correlations.
Table 1
Power coefficient models validation, at the experimental tip-speed ratio point.
Model Result Error (%)
Experimental 0.4204 –
Glauert [39] (Eq. (14)) 0.3582 14.80
Jonkman [47] (Eq. (34)) 0.1384 67.08
Letcher [53] (Eq. (33)) 0.2004 52.33
Branlard [33] (Eq. (32)) 0.5123 21.86
Brasil Junior et al. [54] (Eq. (35)) 0.4145 1.40
3.1.3. Tangential induction factor validation
Due to the lack of experimental data regarding tangential induction
factor, its validation is made indirectly: through the flow angle (Eq. (7)).
It gathers Wilson and Lissaman’s axial induction factor and Shen et al.
tip-loss factor – validated before -, with the tangential induction factor
correlations. The flow angle depends on both parameters, so an iterative
process is carried on until this value converges. A tolerance of 1E-6 is
used in this process. Such convergence is measured by the difference
between the previous epoch angle, and the current one. The result can be
seen in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6 makes evident the development of models regarding the tur­
bine’s fluid dynamical performance prediction. Glauert’s (Eq. (12))
theory diverges at the blade tip. The other most recent theories can
better replicate the flow angle. Thus, both axial and tangential induction
factors can be well predicted concerning the experimental data, and by
the convenience of an adoption of an entire model, it adopted the theory
provided by Vries (Eq. (18)).
3.1.4. Experimental power coefficient validation
With induction and tip-loss factor validated, it is possible to verify
the power coefficient at the experimental tip-speed ratio. In the same
iterative manner of the tangential induction factor validation, the power
coefficient is locally calculated, only then numerically integrated by the
trapezoidal method – available in an open-source library. In addition, it
must be highlighted that the model integration limits and variables
differ from each other. The results can be seen in Table 1, whose per­
centual error is according to experimental data.
The difficulty of applying power coefficient equations begins with
their complex understanding and replication. Such an obstacle, wors­
ened by the model’s inefficiency, maybe the reason for the over­
valuation from Jonkman and Letcher outcomes. It is interesting to note
that Glauert’s power coefficient is well replicable and is not ignored in
the following evaluations. Therefore, it gathers to Brasil Junior et al.
model, whose result impresses by its accuracy. According to the authors,
their method considers flow losses around the blade, as long as the angle
of attack, drag, and lift coefficients are regarded.
L. Cavalari Labigalini et al.
Fig. 7. Validation result of the angle of attack prediction.
Fig. 8. Validation result for drag coefficient prediction.
Fig. 9. Validation result for lift coefficient prediction.
3.1.5. Flow parameters validation
A good model must be able to predict the entire power coefficient
curve. Tip-speed ratio variation can cause drastic changes in the flow, as
the stall phenomena. The crucial parameter for it is the angle of attack.
Its validation is carried on similarly as the flow angle, whose prediction
was made through Eq. (6): torsion and flow angle from the previous step
are used (Fig. 6). Fig. 7 presents the results in comparison to the
experimental data.
Despite the brief deviation at the tip – probably due to axial induc­
tion factor deviation at the same region -, the angle of attack can be well
predicted. A direct consequence of the results above is the precise
determination of lift and drag coefficients. Otherwise, this statement is
only valid while the stall effect is not present. Therefore, the current
work uses the same methodology as Martínez et al. [68] in order to
7
Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169
Fig. 10. Validation results for the power coefficient curve.
predict those coefficients regarding different flow conditions – either
angle of attack or Reynolds number. Figs. 8 and 9 show the outcome of
that method for the drag and lift coefficient, respectively.
Like the previous angles (flow and attack), the coefficients are mostly
well estimated along the blade, as can be seen on both figures. The
difference against the experimental data is around a millesimal scalar.
Nevertheless, the methodology fails to provide a good estimation at two
specific blade locations: near the hub, and the tip. The first one coincides
with not only higher angles of attack (Fig. 7), which enables stall effect
and is a known issue on predicting those coefficients, but also with the
blade part, whose cross-section is the cylindrical or transition profiles.
The second one is an error propagation from the angle of attack
misprediction.
3.1.6. Power coefficient curve validation
Assuming that the main parameters were validated, and fluid co­
efficients generally well estimated, the power coefficient curve can be
determined. As already mentioned in earlier single-point validation, the
models to be compared are those from Glauert (Eq. (14)) and from Brasil
Junior et al. (Eq. (35)), and in addition, the results from a simulation
made in an open-source software developed by the Technical University
of Berlin (from the German TU Berlin) called QBlade [69]. It was used as
a reference, due to its establishment on a matter of wind turbine pro­
jects. The iterative process kept the same – each variable is calculated
step-by-step and the error measurement according to previous and
current epoch flow angle -, but the only difference is concerning the
tolerance criteria: from 1E-6 to 3E-2. It is adopted due to the tough
convergence issue, which is common and also the focus of other works
[70]. Regarding QBlade simulation, its tolerance is the software default
of 1E-6. Fig. 10 shows the comparison between the results.
Predicting the power generation performance under different envi­
ronmental conditions, from either wind or a hydrokinetic turbine, is
extremely helpful. Through Fig. 10 above, such a statement is explicit: if
the Glauert method is considered for turbine design, it can be either
undersized (for example, when the tip-speed ratio is between 3 and 5, or
8 and 9) or oversized. Moreover, it must be noted its values behaviour
along the curve: while the others follow the experimental pattern – a
decrease following a limited increase -, the Glauert power coefficient’s
values tend to rise boundlessly. Finally, the outcome obtained from
Brasil’s Junior et al. model provides the curve performance in a
considerable accurate manner, with results even closer to the experi­
mental data than those obtained with consolidated software. Gathered
according to the validation methodology conducted in the present work,
such prevision became key to the turbine power prediction.
3.1.7. Thrust coefficient curve validation
In an initial attempt to also validate the thrust coefficient curve in the
same manner, the results were not satisfactory. At each tip-speed ratio, a
simple integration from local values across the blade length alike the
L. Cavalari Labigalini et al. Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169

Table 3
Summary of all Project and operational constants.
Constant Value
3
Density [kg/m ] 997.00
Free-stream velocity [m/s] 1.65
Atmospheric pressure [Pa] 100,000.00
Vapor pressure [Pa] 3,170.00
Gravity [m/s2] 9.81
Depth [m] 1.00
Drag coefficient 0.00723
Lift coefficient 1.07
Angle of attack [◦ ] 5.40
Minimum pressure coefficient − 1.66
Security factor [%] 5.00

Fig. 11. Validation results from the thrust coefficient curve.

Table 4
Summary of variables domain constraint.
Table 2 Variable Minimum value Maximum value
Summary of all correlations validated intending to replicate the turbine’s Rotor diameter [m] 0.499 0.849
performance. Number of blades 3 12
Parameter Model Equation Rotational speed [rpm] 189.188 370.541

Axial induction factor Wilson e Lissaman [44] (16)

Tip-loss factor Shen et al. [46] (19) and (20)
Tangential induction factor Vries [45] (18)
Drag and Lift coefficients Martínez et al. [68]
Power coefficient Brasil Junior et al. [54] (35)
Thrust coefficient Buhl [51] (30)
Correction Buhl [51] (30)
power coefficient is inconsistent with the models’ correlations itself.
Instead, Eq. (36) proposes to consider an average value along the same
distance. The results can be seen in Fig. 11.
∫R
CT (r)dr
CT,avg = H
∫R
dr
H
In contrast with the power coefficient correlations, all models
applied to predict thrust coefficient have a satisfactory outcome. Espe­
cially at low tip-speed ratio operations, once its parameter result is
similar to experimental data and the results of all models overlap. Once
again, higher numbers of tip-speed ratio prove to be delicate in the
matter of predicting the turbine performance: while Spera’s method (Eq.
(29)) overvalues it, the others undervalue. Although Manwell’s corre­
lation presents the best response in high tip-speed ratio, the authors
opted to made use of Buhl’s proposal (Eq. (30)), once its differences are
rather small and this correlation was also used by the National Renew­
able Energy Laboratory (NREL) in a software similar to the one devel­
oped for this work called AeroDyn [71]. Finally, Table 2 contains a
summary of all validated theories, which are used in the conceptual
design and optimization.
3.2. Design optimization
From the turbine operation being able to be replicated as reached in
Section 3.1, a design optimization can be conducted. The optimization is
made through metaheuristic methods from Section 2.2, and multi-
objective concerning power coefficient maximization and blade inertia
minimization. Instead of a small wind turbine, a hydrokinetic turbine is
developed, as both types are based on the same theory and because of
Brazil’s hydro source availability.
Blades’ hydrofoil profile selected is the NACA 4412. The project is
based on a hypothetical environmental condition: 25 ◦ C of temperature,
free-stream water velocity of 1.64788 m/s, and a river depth equal to 1
m. Such velocity is chosen due to a Reynolds number from the NACA
experimental data [72], whose value equals 1.64E6. Intending to obtain
–
other hydrodynamic parameters unavailable experimentally, the open-
source software XFOIL [73] developed by the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) is also used. The drag and lift coefficients are close
to the experimental, and the highest ratio is 148 at an optimum angle of
attack of 5.4◦ . Torsion and chord, intrinsic turbine variables, are defined
respectively by Eq. (6) and the correlation proposed by Silva et al. [74],
which is optimized to locally avoid cavitation. A summary of these and
other constants used in the current procedure is presented in Table 3.
The layout variables to be analysed under a constraint domain are
the rotor diameter, the rotational speed, and the number of blades. In
Brazil, a single person’s residential electricity demand/month predicted
(36)
by 2026 is 182 kWh [75]. Under an assumption of a constant generation
along the day and month, it leads to an average power requirement of
252.78 W.
Thus, assuming exclusively to rotor diameter delimitation a power
coefficient of 0.5793 (Betz limit) and 0.2, through Eq. (1) it is able to
define its minimum and maximum values, respectively. From these
numbers, the rotational speed constraints are calculated considering a
tip-speed ratio recommendation of 3 and 10. Despite hydrodynamical
coefficients do not significatively harm themselves concerning Reynolds
number variation due to rotational speed changes’ [68,76], it is sought
to minimize any of these effects. Therefore, the lower tip-speed ratio is
applied to the lower rotor diameter, and vice-versa. As also usually
suggested in the literature, the number of blades should be between 3
and 12. The hub diameter is calculated according to the correlation [77].
Table 4 presents the summary of variables constraints values.
The blade inertia is also optimized, intending to minimize future
manufacturing costs and to decrease the resistance to the turbine
movement. A similar investigation was already carried out [78], and the
inertia correlation proposed is applied in the present work. It must be
highlighted that any material density is not taking into account, since
blade loads or structural approaches are not in the scope of this work.
Consequently, as soon as the blade mass is estimated by Mark Drela et al.
[79] approximation, its density is reduced to 1.
The multi-objectivity is performed in the same manner as Wood [80],
in which the variables to be optimized are gathered in the same single
function, but weighted among each other. Hence, both must be
normalized according to reference numbers, in order to restrictedly
enable their comparison. Apart from that, the infinity of possible com­
binations can provide an also infinity of possible turbine power –
whether supplying the demand or not. Against it, a penalty parabolic
function is evaluated, whose minimum is reached when the turbine

8
L. Cavalari Labigalini et al. Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169

Table 5 from each hybrid method. Table 6, finally, presents the results obtained.
Optimization parameters from each method. Fig. 12 shows that, though the SA method allows a local minimum
Parameter Value avoid, the initial estimate plays a role in the final and well-developed
solution. As can be seen in Fig. 12, optimal solution development ap­
Initial population 100
Iterations 300 pears to exist in countless regions, which can disable global solution
ABC achievements. This statement is clarified by a comparison between
Maximum trials 100 method’s cost values, despite all results disparity are irrelevant in a
FPA matter of engineering: taking as reference the lowest cost value from
Switch probability 0.80
PSO
PSO-SA, the ABC-SA provides a solution 0.0070% higher, while the
Inertia coefficient 1 found by FPA-SA, 0.00017%. On the other hand, their computational
Deceleration coefficient 0.99 cost is much lower: almost 76% to ABC-SA and approximately 74% to
Cognitive coefficient 2 FPA-SA.
Social coefficient 2
Regarding the hydrokinetic turbines, the common parameters among
SA
Iterations 100 the designs are the rotational speed and the number of blades, which are
Initial switch probability 0.80 respectively the maximum and minimum constraints values. Conse­
Final switch probability 0.001 quently, the difference between them is exclusively the rotor diameter
Maximum trials 50 (and indirectly, the hub diameter and tip-speed ratio). However, in a
matter of manufacturing, such millesimal contrast can be treated as
provides the desired power – of 252.78 W. Therefore, the cost function scornful.
to be minimized is presented in Eq. (37) and (38). Therefore, under the environmental conditions imposed, the ABC-SA
( ( ) ( )) hybrid method provides a better solution, which enables turbine layout
O = γ (1 − ε)
CP ref
+ε
J
(37) parameters to be better balanced concerning power coefficient, blade
CP Jref inertia and computational cost. An emphasis must be put on the change
in usage of the power coefficient, which is roughly 17.92% lower than
( )2 ( )
P P the Betz limit. Fig. 13 brings the chord, torsion, and solidity distribution
γ = 9, 999 − 19, 998 + 10 (38)
Pref Pref along the blade length.
The low solidity values from the optimized hydrokinetic turbine as
Where the subscript ref concerns the reference values, γ the penalty
shows in Fig. 13 should be emphasized. That interval validates the BEM
parabolic function, and ε the weight between optimized variables. The
method application, as already investigated by prior researchers
Betz limit is chosen for the power coefficient reference, and the founding
inertia from an alike research [81], divided by its blade material density
[82], leads to a reference blade inertia of 9.438E-5. The weight applied Table 6
among them is 0.5. The algorithm to iteratively measure turbine per­ Optimum results and each hydrokinetic turbine design parameters.
formance can be seen in Appendix A, in which the tolerance criterion is
Result ABC-SA FPA-SA PSO-SA
set to 1E-6.
The optimization procedure is made in a hybrid manner: first, a so­ Cost value (E-4) 8.304140 8.304096 8.304082
Power coefficient 0.475503 0.475502 0.475503
lution is obtained from either ABC, FPA, or PSO models; then, the SA Total inertia (E-5) [kg*m2] 4.176411 4.176585 4.176527
method is used in order to avoid the local minima [83]. All of them start Rotor diameter [m] 0. 550832 0. 550844 0.550840
with a population of 100 possible solutions, and the ABC and FPA, due to Hub diameter [m] 0.13771 0.13772 0.13772
their nature, are commonly simulated multiple times (20 in this work) to Number of blades 3 3 3
Rotational speed [rpm] 370.5412 370.5412 370.5412
go through as many populations as possible. The firsts algorithms run
Tip-speed ratio 6.4853 6.4854 6.4854
through 300 epochs, while SA runs through 100. These and all other Power [W] 252.769 252.779 252.776
required parameters can be seen in Table 5. Simulation time [s] 519.30 573.21 2150.67
Fig. 12 shows the optimal cost value development through epochs

Fig. 12. Optimization results from the hybrid models ABC-SA, FPA-SA and PSO-SA.

9
L. Cavalari Labigalini et al. Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169

Fig. 13. Chord, torsion and solidity distribution along the blade length.

different models of flow parameters were proposed and results proved

Table 7
satisfactory. It also differed from an established use of Prandtl’s tip-loss
Optimum results from ABC-SA hybrid method, to each hydrokinetic turbine
factor and Glauert models of axial and tangential induction factors and
design parameters of multiple quantities of persons.
power and thrust coefficients.
1 person 2 persons 4 persons An optimization procedure was performed. This process was con­
Demanding power [W] 252.780 505.56 1011.11 ducted regarding the turbine size (rotor diameter and the number of
Result blades) and operation (rotational speed), in order to find the highest
Power coefficient 0.475503 0.479950 0.480096
efficiency and lowest cost possible. It is important to remember that this
Total inertia (E-5) [kg*m2] 4.176527 10.931000 18.020000
Rotor diameter [m] 0.550840 0.775759 0.900000 algorithm does not require many environmental conditions as input,
Hub diameter [m] 0.13772 0.19395 0.22501 which can spread its applicability to any local installation. It has pre­
Number of blades 3 3 3 sented itself as a powerful tool to better harness renewable resources and
Rotational speed [rpm] 370.5412 349.6910 349.6910
to gather the ongoing computational evolution techniques. Among all
Tip-speed ratio 6.4854 8.6195 10.0000
Power [W] 252.776 506.03 681.310
the methods, those which are substantiated in a statistical approach,
such as ABC and FPA, have proven to be more computational cost-
effective, than those which are restrictedly based on search-space,
[82,84]. Also, the power demand is supplied by an optimal turbine, such as PSO. Further investigations can involve the Computational
whose rotor diameter is around half of the river’s depth. It creates the Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation and prototyping aiming the validation
possibility of finding another design, which could increase power gen­ of the purposed hydrokinetic turbine and the discussion around its
eration. This proposition can be analysed taking into account as many fabrication, and also the airfoil impact on the power generation and
persons as the new turbine would be able to supply. Table 7 presents the overall design.
results and turbine design parameters for 2 and 4 people’s power de­
mand. In the same way as the first analysis, the variables constraints are 5. Appendix
altered, and concerning the rotor diameter, this is corrected if the higher
or lower value surpass the river’s depth in 0.1 or 0.2 m, respectively. Appendix A. Algorithm.
It is interesting to observe some design parameters under those Constants required: Summarized in Table 3.
environmental conditions. Even with an increase of power demand, as Inputs: Rotor diameter, rotational speed, number of blades.
before, the optimal turbines are made of 3 blades and a as higher rota­ Calculate hub diameter [81];
for i = 1 to Ns (number of sections along blade length, set to 100):
tional speed as possible, which can be an indication of a project Initial guess values to error, axial and tangential induction factors, and flow angle
recommendation. Also, the only modification regards the rotor diameter (respectively set to 10, 1/3, 0, and 10);
and acted not only indirectly on hub diameter and tip-speed ratio, but while error > tolerance criteria:
also on power coefficient growth. All these contributed to enabling an Compute flow angle (Eq. (7));
Compute BET coefficients (Eq. (4) and (5));
electricity supply for 2 people, which means that a single optimal hy­
Compute tip-loss factor (Eq. (19) and (20));
drokinetic turbine under the external conditions from Tab. 3 cannot Compute thrust coefficient (Eq. (30));
provide enough power for 4 people. Compute chord [74] and solidity;
Compute new axial induction factor (Eq. (16));
4. Conclusions Compute new tangential induction factor (Eq. (18));
Compute error between flow angle from previous and current epoch;
Update values from error, axial and tangential induction factors, and flow
This presented study considered, first of all, the rare analysed issue angle;
on clearly replicating a turbine performance and their involved pa­ end while
rameters, due to whether the lack of experimental data to validate it or Compute torsion angle (Eq. (6));
Compute local power coefficient argument (Eq. (35));
the difficulty on implementing those correlations; and finally, the pos­
Compute single blade section inertia [78,79];
sibility of optimizing an entire turbine, regarding variables not investi­ end for
gated before. Instead of following a unique model, a combination of (continued on next page)

10
L. Cavalari Labigalini et al. Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169

(continued ) [29] Yang X-S, Cui Z, Xiao R, editors. Swarm Intelligence and Bio-Inspired Computation:
Theory and Applications. Edição: 1. Amsterdam ; Boston: Elsevier; 2013.
Compute power coefficient integral (Eq. (35));
[30] IEA. Energy Technology Perspectives 2020 - Special Report on Clean Energy
Compute turbine power (Eq. (1)); Innovation. International Energy Association; 2020.
Compute total blade inertia [82]; [31] Rankine WJM. On the Mechanical Principles of the. Action of Propellers; 1865.
Compute cost function (Eq. (37) and (38)). [32] Froude RE. On the part played in propulsion by differences of fluid pressure.
Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects 1889;30:16.
[33] Branlard E. Wind Turbine Aerodynamics and Vorticity-Based Methods:
Fundamentals and Recent Applications. Springer International Publishing; 2017.
[34] Wood D. Blade Element Theory for Wind Turbines. In: Wood D, editor. Small Wind
Declaration of Competing Interest Turbines: Analysis, Design, and Application, London: Springer London; 2011, p.
41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-175-2_3.
[35] Froude W. On the elementary relation between pitch, slip and propulsive
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial efficiency. London: Institution of Naval Architects; 1878.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [36] Drzewiecki S, Gauthier-Villars (Paryż).. Méthode pour la détermination des
éléments mécaniques des propulseurs hélicoïdaux. Paris: imprimerie Gauthier-
the work reported in this paper. Villars et Fils 1892.
[37] Prandtl L, Betz A. Vier Abhandlungen zur Hydrodynamik und Aerodynamik:
References (Flüssigkeit mit kleiner Reibung; Tragflügeltheorie, I. und II. Mitteilung;
Schraubenpropeller mit geringstem Energieverlust). Selbstverlag des Kaiser
Wilhelm Instituts für Strömungsforschung 1927.
[1] Roser M, Ritchie H, Ortiz-Ospina E. World Population Growth. Our World in Data
[38] Goldstein S, Prandtl L. On the vortex theory of screw propellers. Proceedings of the
2019.
Royal Society of London Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and
[2] Siirola JJ. Speculations on global energy demand and supply going forward. Curr
Physical Character 1929;123:440–65. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1929.0078.
Opin Chem Eng 2014;5:96–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2014.07.002.
[39] Glauert H. Airplane Propellers. In: Durand WF, editor. Aerodynamic Theory: A
[3] IEA. Key World Energy Statistics 2019. International Energy Association; 2019.
General Review of Progress Under a Grant of the Guggenheim Fund for the
[4] U.S. Energy Information Administration. International Energy Outlook 2019. U.S.:
Promotion of Aeronautics, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1935, p.
2019.
169–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-91487-4_3.
[5] Ritchie H. Energy Production and Consumption. Our World in Data 2021.
[40] Riglin J, Carter F, Oblas N, Schleicher WC, Daskiran C, Oztekin A. Experimental
[6] EIA. International Energy Outlook 2019. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of
and numerical characterization of a full-scale portable hydrokinetic turbine
Energy; 2019.
prototype for river applications. Renewable Energy 2016;99:772–83. https://doi.
[7] IRENA. Global Energy Transformation: A roadmap to 2050 (2019 Edition). Abu-
org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.07.065.
Dabi: International Renewable Energy Agency; 2019.
[41] Schleicher WC, Riglin JD, Oztekin A. Numerical characterization of a preliminary
[8] Bracken LJ, Bulkeley HA, Maynard CM. Micro-hydro power in the UK: The role of
portable micro-hydrokinetic turbine rotor design. Renewable Energy 2015;76:
communities in an emerging energy resource. Energy Policy 2014;68:92–101.
234–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.032.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.046.
[42] Wang W-Q, Yin R, Yan Y. Design and prediction hydrodynamic performance of
[9] IEA. Renewables Information Overview (2020 edition). International Energy
horizontal axis micro-hydrokinetic river turbine. Renewable Energy 2019;133:
Association; 2020.
91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.106.
[10] Secretariat R. Renewables 2020 Global Status Report. Paris: REN21; 2020.
[43] Spera DA, editor. Wind Turbine Aerodynamics Part A: Basic Principles. Wind
[11] Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United
Turbine Technology: Fundamental Concepts in Wind Turbine Engineering, Second
Nations; 2015.
Edition, ASME Press; 2009, p. 281–350. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.802601.ch5a.
[12] Hart C, Saling S. To cut poverty in Asia and the Pacific, ‘Energy Plus’ package a
[44] Wilson RE, Lissaman PBS. Applied aerodynamics of wind power machines. NASA
must, says UN report. UNDP 2012. https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/h
STI/Recon Technical Report N 1974;75.
ome/presscenter/pressreleases/2012/01/19/to-cut-poverty-in-asia-and-the-pacifi
[45] Vries O de. Fluid dynamic aspects of wind energy conversion, 1979.
c-energy-plus-package-a-must-says-un-report.html (accessed October 9, 2019).
[46] Shen WZ, Mikkelsen R, Sørensen JN, Bak C. Tip loss corrections for wind turbine
[13] IBGE. IBGE presents Brazil’s new territorial area: 8, 8,515,767.049 km2 2012.
computations. Wind Energy 2005;8(4):457–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)
https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/en/agencia-press-room/2185-news-agency/
1099-182410.1002/we.v8:410.1002/we.153.
releases-en/12321-asi-ibge-presents-brazils-new-territorial-area-8-8515767049-
[47] Jonkman JM. Modeling of the UAE Wind Turbine for Refinement of FAST{_}AD.
km.
National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO (US); 2003. https://doi.org/
[14] Eletrobras.. Principais Linhas de Transmissão -. Sistema Eletrobras - 2018 2018..
10.2172/15005920.
[15] Oliveira V. Sem fornecimento da Venezuela, custo para manter energia em RR
[48] Burton T, Jenkins N, Sharpe D, Bossanyi E. Wind Energy Handbook. John Wiley &
chega a R$ 1,6 bilhão em um ano. G1 2020. https://g1.globo.com/rr/roraima/noti
Sons; 2011.
cia/2020/03/09/sem-fornecimento-da-venezuela-custo-para-manter-energia-em-
[49] Moriarty PJ, Hansen AC. AeroDyn Theory Manual. National Renewable Energy
rr-chega-a-r-16-bilhao-em-um-ano.ghtml (accessed October 14, 2020).
Lab., Golden, CO (US); 2005. https://doi.org/10.2172/15014831.
[16] ONS. Sistema de Transmissao - Horizonte 2024 n.d.
[50] Spera D. Wind Turbine Technology. United States: 1994.
[17] IRENA. Hydropower. International Renewable Energy Agency; 2012.
[51] Buhl ML. New Empirical Relationship between Thrust Coefficient and Induction
[18] ANEEL. Capacidade de Geração do Brasil. BIG - Banco de Informações de Geração
Factor for the Turbulent Windmill State. National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL),
2019. https://www2.aneel.gov.br/aplicacoes/capacidadebrasil/capacidadebrasil.
Golden, CO (United States); 2005. https://doi.org/10.2172/15016819.
cfm (accessed November 4, 2019).
[52] Manwell JF, McGowan JG, Rogers AL. Wind energy explained: theory, design and
[19] Vermaak HJ, Kusakana K, Koko SP. Status of micro-hydrokinetic river technology
application. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2011.
in rural applications: A review of literature. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:
[53] Letcher TM. Wind energy engineering: a handbook for onshore and offshore wind
625–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.066.
turbines. 2017.
[20] Jacobson P. Assessment and Mapping of the Riverine Hydrokinetic Resource in the
[54] Brasil Junior ACP, Mendes RCF, Wirrig T, Noguera R, Oliveira TF. On the design of
Continental United States. 2012. https://doi.org/10.2172/1219876.
propeller hydrokinetic turbines: the effect of the number of blades. J Braz Soc Mech
[21] Black & Veatch. Phase II UK Tidal Stream Energy Resource Assessment. The
Sci Eng 2019;41:253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-019-1753-4.
Carbon Trust 2005.
[55] Maniaci DC, Kelley CL, Chiu P. Assessment of Scaled Rotors for Wind Tunnel
[22] O’Rourke F, Boyle F, Reynolds A. Tidal current energy resource assessment in
Experiments. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States);
Ireland: Current status and future update. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(9):
Sandia National Laboratories, Los Angeles, CA; 2015. https://doi.org/10.2172/
3206–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.039.
1235645.
[23] de Araújo MA. Prospecção de Parques Hidrocinéticos: Comparação entre Projetos
[56] Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP. Optimization by Simulated Annealing.
Preliminares no Rio Iguaçu e Paraná. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso:
Science 1983;220(4598):671–80.
Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana; 2016.
[57] Zhang W, Maleki A, Rosen MA, Liu J. Optimization with a simulated annealing
[24] dos Santos IFS. Análise técnica e econômica de parques hidrocinéticos com base em
algorithm of a hybrid system for renewable energy including battery and hydrogen
previsões numéricas (CFD) e dados experimentais. Dissertação (Doutorado) -
storage. Energy 2018;163:191–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Mecânica. Universidade Federal de
energy.2018.08.112.
Itajubá 2019.
[58] Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of ICNN’95 -
[25] Corrêa da Silva R, de Marchi Neto I, Silva Seifert S. Electricity supply security and
International Conference on Neural Networks, vol. 4, 1995, p. 1942–8 vol.4.
the future role of renewable energy sources in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968.
2016;59:328–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.001.
[59] Borhanazad H, Mekhilef S, Gounder Ganapathy V, Modiri-Delshad M, Mirtaheri A.
[26] Kaunda CS, Kimambo CZ, Nielsen TK. A technical discussion on microhydropower
Optimization of micro-grid system using MOPSO. Renewable Energy 2014;71:
technology and its turbines. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;35:445–59. https://
295–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.05.006.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.035.
[60] Djavareshkian MH, Esmaeili A. Heuristic optimization of submerged hydrofoil
[27] Williams AA, Simpson R. Pico hydro – Reducing technical risks for rural
using ANFIS–PSO. Ocean Eng 2014;92:55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
electrification. Renewable Energy 2009;34(8):1986–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/
oceaneng.2014.09.033.
j.renene.2008.12.011.
[61] Karaboga D. An Idea based on honey bee swarm for numerical optimization, 2005.
[28] Sierksma G. Linear and integer programming: theory and practice. New York:
Marcel Dekker; 2002.

11
L. Cavalari Labigalini et al.
[62] Yildiz AR. A new hybrid artificial bee colony algorithm for robust optimal design
and manufacturing. Appl Soft Comput 2013;13(5):2906–12. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.asoc.2012.04.013.
[63] Yang X-S. Flower Pollination Algorithm for Global Optimization. In: Durand-Lose
J, Jonoska N, editors. Unconventional Computation and Natural Computation,
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2012, p. 240–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
32894-7_27.
[64] Bekdaş G, Nigdeli SM, Yang X-S. Sizing optimization of truss structures using
flower pollination algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 2015;37:322–31. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.asoc.2015.08.037.
[65] Fetanat A, Khorasaninejad E. Size optimization for hybrid photovoltaic–wind
energy system using ant colony optimization for continuous domains based integer
programming. Appl Soft Comput 2015;31:196–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2015.02.047.
[66] Kamjoo A, Maheri A, Dizqah AM, Putrus GA. Multi-objective design under
uncertainties of hybrid renewable energy system using NSGA-II and chance
constrained programming. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2016;74:187–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.07.007.
[67] Marten D, Pechlivanoglou G, Nayeri C, Paschereit C. Integration of a WT Blade
Design Tool in XFoil/XFLR5, 2010.
[68] Martínez J, Bernabini L, Probst O, Rodríguez C. An improved BEM model for the
power curve prediction of stall-regulated wind turbines. Wind Energy 2005;8(4):
385–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-182410.1002/we.v8:410.1002/
we.147.
[69] Marten D, Peukert J, Pechlivanoglou G, Nayeri C, Paschereit C. QBLADE: An Open
Source Tool for Design and Simulation of Horizontal and Vertical Axis Wind
Turbines. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering 2013;3:264–9.
[70] Abutunis A, Hussein R, Chandrashekhara K. A neural network approach to enhance
blade element momentum theory performance for horizontal axis hydrokinetic
turbine application. Renewable Energy 2019;136:1281–93. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.105.
[71] Pratumnopharat P, Leung PS. Validation of various windmill brake state models
used by blade element momentum calculation. Renewable Energy 2011;36(11):
3222–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.03.027.
12
Energy Conversion and Management 238 (2021) 114169
[72] Wadcock A. Investigation of low-speed turbulent separated flow around airfoils
1987.
[73] Drela M. XFOIL. MIT; 2001.
[74] Silva PASF, Shinomiya LD, de Oliveira TF, Vaz JRP, Amarante Mesquita AL, Brasil
Junior ACP. Analysis of cavitation for the optimized design of hydrokinetic
turbines using BEM. Appl Energy 2017;185:1281–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.02.098.
[75] EPE, ONS. Projeção de demanda de energia elétrica para os próximos 10 anos
(2017-2026). Rio de Janeiro: Ministério de Minas e Energia - MME; 2017.
[76] Wood D. Blade Element Calculations. In: Wood D, editor. Small Wind Turbines:
Analysis, Design, and Application, London: Springer London; 2011, p. 77–99.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-175-2_5.
[77] Penche C. ESHA. Guide on How to Develop a Small Hydropower Plant. Brussels:
European Small Hydropower Association; 2004.
[78] Amarante Mesquita AndréL, Amarante Mesquita AL, Palheta FC, Pinheiro
Vaz JRogério, Girão de Morais MV, Gonçalves C. A methodology for the transient
behavior of horizontal axis hydrokinetic turbines. Energy Convers Manage 2014;
87:1261–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.06.018.
[79] Drela M, Hall S, Lagace PA. Ingrid Kristina Lundqvist. Gustaf Naeser: Heidi Perry,
et al. Area and Bending Inertia of Airfoil Sections; 2006.
[80] Wood D. Blade Design, Manufacture, and Testing. In: Wood D, editor. Small Wind
Turbines: Analysis, Design, and Application, London: Springer London; 2011, p.
119–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-175-2_7.
[81] Vaz JRP, Wood DH, Bhattacharjee D, Lins EF. Drivetrain resistance and starting
performance of a small wind turbine. Renewable Energy 2018;117:509–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.10.071.
[82] Singh K. Blade element analysis and experimental investigation of high solidity
wind turbines. Mestrado: University of Calgary; 2014.
[83] Dekkers A, Aarts E. Global optimization and simulated annealing. Math Program
1991;50(1-3):367–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01594945.
[84] ISLAM QMd, ISLAM SA k. m. The Aerodynamic Performance of a Horizontal-Axis
Wind Turbine Calculated by Strip Theory and Cascade Theory. JSME International
Journal Series B 1994;37:871–7. https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmeb.37.871.