Any wind energy specialist will

say that an open-rotor wind

turbine with an efficiency
greater than the Betz limit is
technological equivalent of a
bargain price for this bridge.

Perpetual motion
machines, time travel, and
open-rotor wind turbines
with an efficiency greater
than 59.3% cannot exist.

Turbine Power Output = .

1 3
= 59.3% 0 = .
2

How is it possible that our

turbine broke the Betz limit?

In the 1920s, three

researchers (Lanchester,
Betz, and Joukowski)
independently derived
actuator disc momentum
theory to express the
maximum efficiency of an
open-rotor turbine.
Albert Betz

This theory sets the maximum efficiency

of any open-rotor wind turbine as

= , ,

, < .

From the time that the Betz limit was

published, reaching it has become the
greatest challenge for inventors,
theoreticians, and developers of the
wind industry.

augmented turbine
Ideal Cp (Betz Limit, 59.3%)

It is now an accepted fact

that well-optimized
augmented wind turbines
can achieve efficiencies
above that of a Betz wind
turbine of comparable size.

The reason that wind augmenters

can achieve a greater efficiency is
that the combination of a nozzle
(aka concentrator) and diffuser
accelerates the airflow through the
throat and controls the expansion of
the flow to a larger exit area than
the stream tube of a Betz turbine.

Wind augmentation is making a

comeback since its appearance in the
1970s especially because of the
development of more accurate
analytical and computational models
enabling optimization of the
augmenter geometry.

 The work of Igra [8],[9] and a team of

researchers at Grumman Aerospace [6],[7] in
the late 1970s laid the groundwork for the
majority of subsequent research.
The analytical approach developed by De
Vries [10] introduced the base pressure
coefficient, a very important parameter in
the evaluation of augmenter performance.
Schaffarczyk and Phillips [11] analyzed the
performance of the augmenter in terms of
the loading applied to the turbine rotor.

 Lawn [12] evaluated sets of diffuser

configurations in terms of the resistance
coefficient and base pressure coefficient.
Jamieson [13] derived a generalized version
of Betzs momentum theory using the axial
induction factor to show that the
maximum efficiency of augmented turbines
is 88.8% energy conversion.

Modeling of wind augmentation

that would also include airborne
systems remains a relatively
unexplored topic, as illustrated by
the scarcity of related literature
outside patent documents.

 Since the fluid flow does not perform any

work in the concentrator and diffuser
sections of the wind augmenter, the flow can
be modeled with Bernoullis equation with a
correction factor to account for the pressure
loss due to gradual contraction and
expansion of the flow created by the wind
augmenter.

 The two empirical correction factors are

defined as the ratio of the difference in static
pressure and difference in dynamic pressure
between the two locations in the augmenter:
0 1
=
,
1 2 1 2
1 0
2
2

3 2
=
1 2 1 2
2 3
2
2

 The
measures the
obstruction to flow caused by the turbine
rotor [12].
It is defined as the ratio of the drop in static
pressure across the turbine and dynamic
pressure in the throat:
1 , , 2 , , 1 2
=
=
1 2
1
2
( 1 , ,
1
2
2

 The
is defined as the
ratio of the difference in static pressure
between the augmenter intake and exhaust
pressures and the free stream dynamic
pressure [10]:

0 , , 3 , , 0 3
=
=
1 2
1
2
( 0 , ,
0
2
2

 Summing the pressure drops and gains across each

section of the augmenter,
0 1 + 1 2 + 2 3 + 3 0 = 0.

Dividing by half of the air density

solving for 1 ,
1
=
0

1
2

and

20 20
+
2 2
1
3
+

(a)

(b)

Many critics of wind augmentation point out that

augmented turbines are often compared to the
same turbines without the augmenter, making the
reported performance increase meaningless.
A conservative approach calls for comparison
between turbines of the same intake area.

 The coefficient of performance is defined as

the ratio of the
to that of an
of the same diameter as the
augmenter intake, operating at the Betz
theoretical maximum efficiency.

27
1
=

16
0

1
3 1 , ,
=2
16 1
03 0
27 2

27
13 1
=
3
16
0 0
+

20
12

20
23

1.5

 Any expression for the coefficient of

performance of the augmented turbine should
reduce to the Betz limit when the effects of the
wind concentrator and diffuser are removed.
Setting = = 1, the base pressure
coefficient to = 0, and 1 = 0 ,
,

20
12

1+

27
=
=

1 +
16

20
23

1.5

 Since = 0, the resistance coefficient becomes

12 12
= 2 2
0 3
The coefficient of performance becomes
,

27
12 12
=
2 2
16
0 3

20 20
1+ 2 2
1
3
12 12
1+ 2 2
0 3

1.5

 Introducing Jamiesons axial induction factor

0 1
=
,
0

The coefficient of performance reduces to

,

27 0
20
27 1 02 32
=

1 2 =

1
16
16
3
03
27
=
4 1
16

Looks Familiar?

 The maximum of the expression on the previous

1
slide occurs for = 1 and = .
Substituting,
,

1
27
=
(4
3
16

Extraneous Solution
(Violates continuity)

1
1
3

The open-rotor turbine is at the

Betz limit!

Throat Velocity Ratio vs. Resistance and Base Pressure Coefficients

y

1.8

Velocity Ratio, (U /U )

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0

1
0.9

0.5

0.8

0.7

1.5

0.6

0.5

2.5

0.4

0.3

3.5

0.2

0.1

4.5
5

Coefficient of Performance vs. Resistance and Base Pressure Coefficients

1.5

0.5

0
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

For this reason, simulations [18]

attempting to model the
augmenter as a stationary volume
of revolution (no rotating turbine)
are insufficient to create an
accurate estimation of the power
output of the wind augmenter.

Other simulations [6],[9]

attempted to model the behavior
of augmenters as an internal flow
problem, in which the turbine
was placed inside a duct with a
set of boundary conditions at the
entrance and exit of the duct.

However, it has been recently

demonstrated by Werle and Presz
that these assumptions are
inaccurate since the system must be
treated as an external flow problem,
in which the flow around the wind
augmenter is equally important as
the flow through it.

With the new analytical model of the

turbine and these computational
considerations, it is possible to
perform high resolution CFD
simulations to predict the
performance of augmented turbines.

The simulations solved the

incompressible Reynolds Averaged
Navier Stokes equation with a twoequation linear-eddy viscosity model,
supplemented with an algorithm to
calculate the four dimensionless
pressure coefficients and

 The flow volume extends 2 chord lengths

upstream of the wind augmenter, 1.5 chord
lengths laterally, and 3 chord lengths
downstream.
The boundary conditions of the simulations
are the free stream velocity passing
normally through the farthest upstream
plane and a static pressure of 0 Pa at the
farthest downstream plane.

 To verify the computational model,

performance predictions were compared
to the actual performance of
A 60 W wind tunnel
test model

A 0.4 kW
augmented
airborne wind
turbine.

MARLEC 504E turbine:

60 W pancake generator
3-phase AC output
rectified to 12 VDC
6-bladed rotor with
safety ring

Dimensionless Parameters

Wind
Speed

CPE

3.5 m/s

1.932

2.121

1.264

1.702

= 59.3%

1
3
2

80%

Power
CP
1.133

=11.05 W

.
=
=
= 1.104.
11.05

= 2.5%

12.5 W

 The true advantages of wind

augmentation are seen by comparing the
power curves of the augmented turbine
to an equivalent conventional turbine in
low wind conditions.
The nearest comparable wind turbine is
the 0.4 kW AIR 30 Turbine manufactured
by Primus Windpower.

Power Output vs. Wind Speed: AIR 40 vs. Augmented MARLEC

100

90

80

Power Output (W)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

10

Freestream Wind Velocity (mph)

12

14

16

The same performance prediction

technique was applied to the
Energy Shark augmented airborne
wind electric generation system.

 A-PEGASUS (Airborne Portable Electric

Generation and Storage Universal System)
is an innovative, patent-pending airborne
electric generation technology.
The system comprises a tethered aerostat
with an augmented horizontal axis wind
turbine, a set of control systems to regulate
the internal pressure and altitude of the
tethered airship, and a hydrogen
generation, recovery, and storage system.

 By integrating airborne generation with

wind augmentation, the technology has
great potential to create a new market
for portable, cost-effective, selfsustaining distributed generation
systems in geographic regions
previously deemed unprofitable for
development of renewable energy.

 The system can carry additional payloads

enabling it to perform other missions
including:
Meteorological observation
Reconnaissance
Aerial surveillance
Radio telecommunications

Tethered Aerostat Specifications:

Length: 7 m (21 ft)
Volume: 20 m3 (1.75 tanks)
Payload: 10 kg (each)
PVC Thickness: 0.45 mm (18 mil)

Wind Augmenter:
Intake-to-throat area ratio:
Intake diameter: 1.7 m

0
1

= 2.0

Primus AIR-30 Wind Turbine

Rated Power: 0.4 kW

3-phase AC output rectified into 48VDC
Cut-in speed (un-augmented): 3.6 m/s

System Schematic

Turbine Wiring Diagram

Wind Speed
5.0 m/s
7.5 m/s
10 m/s

0.983
1.114
1.029

1.198
1.206
1.096

Dimensionless Parameters

0.321
0.277
0.235

CPE

0.410
0.386
0.392

75%
75%
75%

CP

0.605
0.506
0.416

Sample Dimensionless Parameters

Wind Speed

Power Output (W)

Predicted CP

Actual CP

2.5 m/s

0 (Cut-in speed)

-------------

-------

5.5 m/s

62

0.605

0.620

8.0 m/s

179

0.506

0.528

10 m/s

325

0.416

0.404

Energy Shark Airborne Turbine Power Curve

400

350

Average Power Output

300

250

200

150

100

50

2.5

7.5

10

Wind Speed (m/s)

Measured Power Output

CFD Predictions

Cubic Fit (Experimental)

Cubic Fit (CFD)

Comparison of CFD Predictions and Power Curves of

Airborne Turbine, AIR-30, and Betz Turbine

700

CFD Predictions
Energy Shark
1.17m diameter Betz turbine
AIR-30 Turbine

600

Power Output (W)

500

400

300

200

100

Wind Speed (m/s)

10

12

14

 The power curve of the Energy Shark prototype was

compared to that of four other conventional wind
turbines of similar size that are currently on the
market:
900

Power Output (W)

800
700
600
500
400
Marlec 910
AIR 30
Energy Shark
Whisper 100
Ampair 600

300
200
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14

Wind Speed (m/s)

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Purchase Cost (USD)

5500

6000

 The evaluation of the cost-competitiveness of the

technology was performed by comparing the
monthly energy production of the five turbines for
two situations where the wind speed distributions
are given by Rayleigh distributions centered at
average wind speeds of 2.5 m/s and 5.0 m/s.

MODEL

MONTHLY
ENERGY
PRODUCTION
(2.5 m/s AVG)

MONTHLY
ENERGY
PRODUCTION
(5.0 m/s AVG)

35.0 kWh

89.9 kWh

4.6 kWh

17.4 kWh

400 W

$849 (turbine)
$404 (15 m tower)
$1253

4.2 kWh

30.6 kWh

900 W

$2,875 (turbine)
$1,225 (17 m tower)
$4100

21.4 kWh

1077 kWh

600 W

$3280 (turbine)
$1138 (controller)
$1,225 (17 m tower)
$5643

37.1 kWh

1574 kWh

RATED
POWER
OUTPUT

Energy Shark
(50m Altitude)

400 W

Marlec 910

200 W

Primus
Windpower Air 30

Southwest
Whisper 100

Ampair 600

PURCHASE COST
$849 (turbine)
$2157 (2 airships)
$421 (augmenter)
$673 (helium)
$4100
$1,280 (turbine)
$155 (controller)
$472 (15 m tower)
$1907

IMAGE

1. The costs presented in the table do not

include the installation costs of the
turbines, which can vary significantly
depending on terrain, soil quality, and
necessary wire gauge for the transmission
distance.
Since the Energy Shark turbine requires
minimal ground work, the decrease in
installation costs further enhances its costcompetitiveness.

2. The prototype Energy Shark demonstrator

uses helium for its lighter-than-air gas,
while any future production models will
utilize hydrogen, thereby significantly
reducing the operation and maintenance
costs of the system.
3. An AIR-30 turbine was used to simplify
the initial development process of the
system. However, a permanent magnet
alternator (for DC applications) or
induction generator (grid-connected
applications) can be substituted, resulting
in substantial cost and weight savings.
4. Future airborne systems can also take
advantage of economies of scale, making
the technology even more cost-effective.

Follow-up research and development is recommended to

advance this technology in the following areas:
Replace the current aerostats with models designed to
be compatible with hydrogen and rated for extreme
winds up to 20 m/s;
Develop and implement the hydrogen generation,
storage, and recovery system for use in the aerostats;
Develop a set of ground controls that would enable
fully autonomous operation of the system;
Substitute a grid-connected induction generator in
place of the current permanent magnet alternator;
Implement Grade-A aircraft Dacron fabric for the wind
augmenter (used in an earlier 60W wind tunnel
model), rather than the polyester film which had a
strong tensile strength but poor puncture resistance.

As always, more
research is needed. It
will be focused on
evaluating the models
ability to predict the
performance of ducted
hydrokinetic turbines.

The operational test model will go

to a community in Jikawa Province,
Papua New Guinea for whom we
have just finished designing a
rainwater harvesting and
distribution system after
preliminary survivability tests.

[l]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]

Y. Ohya and T. Karasudani, "A Shrouded Wind Turbine Generating High Output Power with Wind-lens Technology,"
Energies, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 634-639, 2010.
B. William, "Lighter than air wind energy conversion system". United States of America Patent 4350897, 21 September
1982.
L. Potter, "Funneled Wind Turbine Aircraft". United States of America Patent 7786610, 22 May 2007.
B. Glass, "Power-Augmenting Shroud for Energy-Producing Turbines". United States of America Patent 8253265, 28
August 2012.
A. Anderson, "Portable Self-Inflating Airborne Wind Turbine System". United States of America Patent 13/926073, 25
June 2013.
K. Foreman, R. Oman and B. Gilbert, "Fluid Dynamics of DAWT's," Journal of Energy, vol. 2, pp. 368-374, 1978.
K. Foreman, R. Oman and B. Gilbert, "A Progress Report on the Diffuser Augmented Wind Turbine," in 3rd Biennial
Conference an Workshop on Wind Energy Conversion Systems, Washington DC, USA, 1975.
O. Igra, "Shrouds for Aerogenerators," AIAA Journal, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1481-1483, 1976.
O. Igra, "Research and Development for Shrouded Wind Turbines," Energy conservation and Management, vol. 21, pp.
13-48, 1980.
O. De Vries, "Fluid Dynamic Aspects of Wind Energy Conversion," AGARD-AG-243, 1979.
A. Schaffarczyk and D. Phillips, "DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR A DIFFUSOR AUGMENTED WIND-TURBINE BLADE," in EWEC,
2001.
C. Lawn, "Optimization of the Power Output from Ducted Turbines," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, vol. 217, no. 1, pp. 107-117, 2003.
P. Jamieson, "Beating Betz: Energy Extraction Limits in a Constrained Flow Field," Journal of Solar Energy Engineering,
vol. 131, no. 3, 2009.

[14] D. Phillips, P. Richards, G. Mallinson and R. Flay, "Computational Modelling of Diffuser Designs for a Diffuser
Augmented Wind Turbine," in 13th Australasian Fluid Mecahnics Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.
[15] R. Ghajar and E. Badr, "An experimental study of a collector and diffuser system on a small demonstration wind
turbine," International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education , vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 58-68, 2008.
[16] M. Werle and W. Presz, "Ducted Wind/Water Turbines and Propellers Revisited," Journal of propulsion and Power, vol.
24, no. 5, pp. 1146-1140, 2008.
[17] A. Aranake, V. Lakshminarayan and K. Duraisamy, "Computational Analysis of Shrouded Wind Turbine Configurations,"
in 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Grapevine, TX, 2013.
[18] T. Matsushima, S. Takagi and S. Muroyama, "Characteristics of a highly efficient propeller type," Renewable Energy, vol.
31, no. 9, pp. 1343-1354, 2006.
[19] M. Mashud and M. Ali, "HIGH-PERFORMANCE WIND TURBINE: A NEW APPROACH," in Proceedings of the ASME 2011
5th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Washington DC, 2011.
[20] G. Van Bussel, "The science of making more torque from wind: Diffuser experiments and theory revisited.," Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, vol. 75, no. 1, 2007.
[21] E. Hau, Wind Turbines: Fundamentals, Technologies, Applications, Economics, Berlin: Springer Heidelberg, 2006.
[22] B. Launder and B. Sharma, "Application of the Energy Dissipation Model of Turbulence to the Calculation of Flow Near
a Spinning Disc," Letters in Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 131-138, 1974.

Slide No.

Image Source

2,3

Martin St-Amant

V.L. Okulov

Unkwnown

Eric Hau [21]

10 (CW from top left)

Patrick Charpiat; Hot Cake Syrup (Kyushu University);

Paul Gipe; Paul Gipe

40

Primus Windpower

43, 44 (CW from top left)

Altaeros Energies; Pierre Rivard (Magenn); Makani Power

60

Dr. Larry Hull/ Centralia Rotary

All other images are the individual work of the researcher.

The research team would like to thank

for helping us to beat the Betz limit.