Propellers and turbines can transfer shaft power to a fluid or extract power from a moving fluid. (Herein, the term propeller is used in the generic sense to include structures used for propulsion and for extracting energy from a moving fluid.) Currently known propellers generally employ blades that are aerodynamically shaped with cross sections or foils commonly referred to airfoils or hydrofoils depending on the fluid. The foils can produce a force commonly referred to as lift that enables the desired energy transfers. However, the foils also produce drag that transfers energy to unwanted forms such as heat. Extensive efforts have been spent on designing foils that produce as much lift as possible while creating as little drag as possible. A particular problem to be solved in this optimization process is to keep the flow attached to the surface of the foil at high angles of attack in order to achieve high lift coefficients. While attached, the resulting flow around the foil features streamlines that are mainly parallel to the surface of the foil. Equation 1 shows how the lift force FL produced by a foil depends on parameters such as the fluid density ρ, the flow velocity ν, the lift coefficient CL of the foil, and the active area A of the foil. Foil design is generally concerned with optimizing the lift coefficient CL, which may be a function of the flow velocity ν. The flow velocity ν can be described using a non-dimensional parameter known as Reynolds number NR as shown in Equation 2, where LC is the foil cord length and μ is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid.
The lift coefficient CL in Equation 1 is generally proportional to the attack angle of the foil until the foil begins to stall. The attack angle indicates the angle between the relative direction of the fluid flow and the foil's baseline (e.g., the line from the leading edge to the trailing edge of a simple foil.) Stalling results from the tendency of fluid flow to separate from the upper or back side of the foil causing the lift coefficient CL to drop when the attack angle becomes too large. Accordingly, the stall angle, which is the attack angle corresponding to stall, is the angle of attack where the lift coefficient CL is largest. Stall limits the performance of known propellers since beyond stall the foil will have greatly increased drag, as well as decreased lift. Further, the stall angle generally decreases with decreasing fluid velocity, so that the maximum lift that a foil can produce generally drops with the fluid velocity. These effects pose a problem for applications where power is to be efficiently transferred to or from a fluid at low flow speeds.
Varying the attack angle can temporarily produce dynamic lift coefficients that are larger than the maximum lift coefficient CL that can be achieved when a foil is held statically at a given angle of attack. This effect is known as dynamic lift since it involves dynamically changing the angle of attack of the foil.
Dynamic stall vortices are believed to cause of the larger lift coefficients CL associated with dynamic lift. In particular, the separating fluid flow near the leading edge of a foil 210 as shown in
U.S. Pat. No. 1,835,018 issued in 1937 to G. J. M. Darrieus discloses a propeller with cyclical thrust generation.
In accordance with an aspect of the invention, a propeller that can extract kinetic energy from a moving fluid or transfer kinetic energy to a fluid to produce thrust or create fluid motion, employs pitch changes of one or more blades in order to produce free vortices in the fluid. The propeller can thus achieve the high lift coefficients associated with dynamic lift. The pitch changes may further be adaptable so that the process of changing the attack angle can adapt according to current operating parameters such as propeller rotational velocity and free flow fluid velocity to optimize energy transfer efficiency. Embodiments of the propeller are particularly suited for low flow speeds, where the effects of low Reynolds number induced flow separation on the blades make other propellers inefficient.
In the case of energy extraction from the fluid, the fluid flow preferably rotates the propeller, while the pitch changes during propeller rotation may exceed the static stall angle and are of sufficient magnitude to shed vortices and create dynamic lift. In one specific embodiment, the shedding of vortices creates a flow pattern known as von Karman vortex street, and the resulting time averaged flow field distant from the propeller is that of a wake flow. The induced rotation may drive any shaft driven device such as a pump or an electrical generator.
In the case of momentum transfer to the fluid, the dynamic pitch changes during driven rotation may exceed the static stall angle and are of sufficient magnitude to shed vortices. In one specific embodiment, the shedding of vortices creates a flow pattern that is the inverse to the von Karman vortex street. The resulting time averaged flow field distant from the propeller in this configuration is that of a jet that efficiently produces thrust.
In another aspect of the invention, a propeller device employs unsteady aerodynamic effects, in order to transfer power efficiently to or from a fluid. While most advantageous at low Reynolds numbers, the propeller device can be employed at all flow speeds. Potential applications include but are not limited to propulsion solutions for mini and micro air vehicles, ocean tidal flow and wave power extraction, river and stream current power extraction, and efficient low wind speed wind power generation.
Use of the same reference symbols in different figures indicates similar or identical items.
In accordance with an aspect of the invention, a propeller used to transfer energy to or from a fluid employs pitching blades in order to use the large dynamic lift coefficients that result from shedding of vortices during dynamic pitching. The pitching can provide efficient energy transfers even at low fluid flow rates and can be adapted to changing conditions.
System 400 uses an offset mounting of blades 410 so that blades 410 are mounted at one or both ends on a disk or other base 415 at respective radial offsets from a main shaft 420 of propeller system 400. Each blade 410 has a pivot mounting that permits controlled rotation of the blade 410 for example, by a corresponding servo motor system 430. Servo motor system 430 may be constructed using a variety of systems including but not limited to an AC or DC servo motor or a hydraulic or pneumatic motor. Each servo system 430 allows a corresponding blade 410 to be rotated with respect to base 415. In the embodiment of
Base 415 is attached to a main shaft 420 and provides a linkage to blades 410, so that base 415 and main shaft 420 conduct the energy transfer between blades 410 and a device 440, which may be, for example, a generator or motor. In the embodiment of
Both main shaft 420 and blade shafts 412 feature respective angular position sensors 454 and 452 that determine the respective orientations of shafts 420 and 412. Additional sensors 456 can be used to sense properties of the fluid such as the average speed and direction of free fluid flow, so that at any point in time, a servo control system 450 that controls servo motors 430 can determine the desired pitching schedule of each blade 410 relative to the flow field. Sensors 452 and 454 can be implemented using standard system such as resolvers, tachometers, or encoders of any kind. Sensors 456 can measure any desired characteristic of the fluid including but not limited to measuring the fluid flow direction and magnitude. The flow field for example would preferably be oriented in any direction normal to main shaft 420 and can be measured using an anemometer of any kind and/or a weather vane type device. In limited applications, e.g., when extracting energy from a steady stream of known direction and magnitude, sensors 456 may not be needed and may be eliminated from system 400.
Servo control system 450 can be implemented using application specific hardware or a general purpose processing system programmed to select and implement a pitching schedule for varying the attack angles of blades 410. Servo control system 450 can be attached to base 415 or be separate from base 415 and communicate with systems 430 and 452 on rotating base 415 via wired or wireless connections. In particular, servo control system 450 can use the information transmitted from sensors 452, 454, and 456 to determine a pitching schedule, direct servo motor systems 430 to individually vary the pitches of respective blades 410, and monitor angular sensors 452 and 454 to determine whether blades 310 are pitching as required to generate a desired vortex shedding pattern in the fluid. As described further below, the desired vortex shedding pattern generally depends on whether energy is being extracted from or applied to the fluid.
While the example system of
Propeller system 400 as described above has at least one blade that is mounted eccentrically to a main shaft 420. A propeller having a single blade 410 is easier to analytically analyze since the wake field of one blade in a multi-blade propeller can affect the flow at other blades.
The attack angle of blade 410 generally depends on blade angle α, rotation angle θ, an angular velocity ω of base 420, and the direction and velocity of free stream fluid flow ν. More specifically, the orientation of the base line of a foil of blade 410 depends on angles α and θ. The fluid velocity at the foil, which is a vector sum of the blade velocity and the free stream fluid flow ν, depends on free stream fluid flow ν, rotation angle θ, and an angular velocity ω of base 415. However, if the free stream fluid velocity ν is small when compared to the rotational velocity of a blade 410, the attack angle of a blade 410 is approximately equal to angle α, and the pitching schedule for extracting energy from a constant free stream fluid flow or for momentum transfer in a specific can be a function rotation angle θ. Accordingly, for a low fluid velocity, mechanical linkages, gears or an active servo system with a fixed pitching schedule can vary blade angle α as a function of rotation angle θ, which has a defined relation to the background fluid flow vector ν.
One pitching schedule for low fluid velocities sinusoidally varies blade angle α with a frequency equal to the rotational frequency of base 415. This causes blade 410 to perform a combined pitching and plunging motion with respect to the flow, leading to an oscillatory blade path as shown in
The single blade configuration illustrated in
Sinusoidal pitch variation such as previously described is only one example of a pitching schedule. More generally, a propeller system such as system 400 of
The resulting pitching and plunging action of the selected pitching schedule of blades 410 can cause vortex shedding from blades 410 in a pattern precisely defined in space and time. In general, vortex shedding occurs as a result of pitching a foil past its stall angle of attack, at which point separation will occur as described above and illustrated in
Propeller 400 can efficiently extract energy from the fluid when the pattern of shed vortices forms a pattern known as the von Karman Vortex Street. In general, the pitching schedule required to produce a von Karman Vortex Street pattern depends on various operating parameters such as the fluid flow speed and rotational speed of the propeller, but the pitching schedule should always be oscillatory. Similarly, the pitch schedule of the foils needs to be controlled precisely to achieve the desired vortex shedding pattern. The left side of
It should be noted that, a mill in accordance with an embodiment of the invention can be self starting provided the proper angles of attack are set by mechanical or other means. In particular, a programmable control system such as servo control system 400 in
The momentum deficit due to energy extraction as illustrated by the flow profiles before and after propeller system 400 in
Although the invention has been described with reference to particular embodiments, the description is only an example of the invention's application and should not be taken as a limitation. Various adaptations and combinations of features of the embodiments disclosed are within the scope of the invention as defined by the following claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1835018 | Darrieus | Dec 1931 | A |
3258074 | Blickle et al. | Jun 1966 | A |
3326296 | Hill et al. | Jun 1967 | A |
3639077 | Slates | Feb 1972 | A |
3716014 | Laucks et al. | Feb 1973 | A |
3902072 | Quinn | Aug 1975 | A |
3995972 | Nassar | Dec 1976 | A |
4024409 | Payne | May 1977 | A |
4048947 | Sicard | Sep 1977 | A |
4137005 | Comstock | Jan 1979 | A |
4180367 | Drees | Dec 1979 | A |
4210299 | Chabonat | Jul 1980 | A |
4221538 | Wells | Sep 1980 | A |
4247253 | Seki et al. | Jan 1981 | A |
4264279 | Dereng | Apr 1981 | A |
4285636 | Kato et al. | Aug 1981 | A |
4313711 | Lee | Feb 1982 | A |
4329116 | Ljungstrom | May 1982 | A |
4340821 | Slonim | Jul 1982 | A |
4347036 | Arnold | Aug 1982 | A |
4368392 | Drees | Jan 1983 | A |
4380417 | Fork | Apr 1983 | A |
4415312 | Brenneman | Nov 1983 | A |
4422825 | Boswell | Dec 1983 | A |
4430044 | Liljegre | Feb 1984 | A |
4443708 | Lapeyre | Apr 1984 | A |
4449053 | Kutcher | May 1984 | A |
4464578 | Masubuchi | Aug 1984 | A |
4527950 | Biscomb | Jul 1985 | A |
4533292 | Sugihara | Aug 1985 | A |
4555218 | Jonsson et al. | Nov 1985 | A |
4566854 | Slezak | Jan 1986 | A |
4608497 | Boyce | Aug 1986 | A |
4622471 | Schroeder | Nov 1986 | A |
4630440 | Meyerand | Dec 1986 | A |
4656959 | Moisdon | Apr 1987 | A |
4672222 | Ames | Jun 1987 | A |
4719158 | Salomon | Jan 1988 | A |
4732350 | Lamont | Mar 1988 | A |
4752258 | Hochleitner et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
4808074 | South | Feb 1989 | A |
4832569 | Samuelsen et al. | May 1989 | A |
4914915 | Linderfelt | Apr 1990 | A |
4931662 | Burton | Jun 1990 | A |
5054999 | Jonsson | Oct 1991 | A |
5136173 | Rynne | Aug 1992 | A |
5256034 | Sultzbaugh | Oct 1993 | A |
5265827 | Gerhardt | Nov 1993 | A |
5269647 | Moser | Dec 1993 | A |
5311064 | Kumbatovic | May 1994 | A |
5391926 | Staley et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5462406 | Ridgewell et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5499904 | Wallace | Mar 1996 | A |
5577882 | Istorik et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5588798 | Fork | Dec 1996 | A |
5642984 | Gorlov | Jul 1997 | A |
5703474 | Smalser | Dec 1997 | A |
5708305 | Wolfe | Jan 1998 | A |
5789826 | Kumbatovic | Aug 1998 | A |
5808368 | Brown | Sep 1998 | A |
5929531 | Lagno | Jul 1999 | A |
5993157 | Perfahl | Nov 1999 | A |
6023105 | Youssef | Feb 2000 | A |
6036443 | Gorlov | Mar 2000 | A |
6109875 | Gross | Aug 2000 | A |
6191496 | Elder | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6231004 | Peebles | May 2001 | B1 |
6244919 | Valentini | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6293835 | Gorlov | Sep 2001 | B2 |
6360534 | Denniss | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6388342 | Vetterick, Sr. et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6394745 | Quraeshi | May 2002 | B1 |
6417578 | Chapman et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6448669 | Elder | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6516739 | Bartels et al. | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6622483 | Denniss | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6647716 | Boyd | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6711897 | Lee | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6731019 | Burns et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6756695 | Hibbs et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6768216 | Carroll et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6768217 | Chalmers et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6772592 | Gerber et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6790007 | Gingras et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6840738 | Swanberg | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6864597 | Ricker | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6872045 | Weaver et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6884020 | Kaare, Jr. et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6948910 | Polacsek | Sep 2005 | B2 |
20020078687 | Donnelly | Jun 2002 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 0040859 | Jul 2000 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20070215747 A1 | Sep 2007 | US |