0
Research Papers

Development and Validation of a CFD Technique for the Aerodynamic Analysis of HAWT

[+] Author and Article Information
S. Gómez-Iradi

CFD Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GH, UKsugoi@liverpool.ac.uk

R. Steijl

CFD Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GH, UKr.steijl@liverpool.ac.uk

G. N. Barakos1

CFD Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GH, UKg.barakos@liverpool.ac.uk

1

Corresponding author.

J. Sol. Energy Eng 131(3), 031009 (Jul 09, 2009) (13 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3139144 History: Received July 15, 2008; Revised January 05, 2009; Published July 09, 2009

This paper demonstrates the potential of a compressible Navier–Stokes CFD method for the analysis of horizontal axis wind turbines. The method was first validated against experimental data of the NREL/NASA-Ames Phase VI (Hand, , 2001, “Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment Phase, VI: Wind Tunnel Test Configurations and Available Data Campaigns,” NREL, Technical Report No. TP-500-29955) wind-tunnel campaign at 7 m/s, 10 m/s, and 20 m/s freestreams for a nonyawed isolated rotor. Comparisons are shown for the surface pressure distributions at several stations along the blades as well as for the integrated thrust and torque values. In addition, a comparison between measurements and CFD results is shown for the local flow angle at several stations ahead of the wind turbine blades. For attached and moderately stalled flow conditions the thrust and torque predictions are fair, though improvements in the stalled flow regime are necessary to avoid overprediction of torque. Subsequently, the wind-tunnel wall effects on the blade aerodynamics, as well as the blade/tower interaction, were investigated. The selected case corresponded to 7 m/s up-wind wind turbine at 0 deg of yaw angle and a rotational speed of 72 rpm. The obtained results suggest that the present method can cope well with the flows encountered around wind turbines providing useful results for their aerodynamic performance and revealing flow details near and off the blades and tower.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Pressure transducer distribution from Ref. 2 and blade planform employed for computations. The dashed lines on the blade represent the full pressure transducer distribution at five span sections and the square dots represent the pressure transducers at 4% and 36% chords on the suction surface of the blade. The five solid lines represent the flow angle measurement spherical-tip five-hole probes used in the H data set experiments (these probes were removed for S data set experiments).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) C-topology around the blade and extension around the hub and tip. (b) Mesh around the blade tip. (c) Computational domain boundaries.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

(a) Schematic of the wind-tunnel configuration. (b) Outer and (c) inner topologies of the sliding grid surface between wind-tunnel walls and rotor disk. Distances are normalized with the maximum aerodynamic chord of the blade, c=0.737 m.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

(a) Outflow and (b) inflow topologies on the sliding grid surface between the spinner and nacelle. (c) Schematic of the complete configuration. (d) Surfaced nacelle, spinner, and tower with multiblock outflow topologies.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparisons of pressure coefficients at two spanwise sections (46.6%R and 95%R) at full blade azimuth angles excluding the region between 120 deg and 240 deg for the 7 m/s, 10 m/s, and 20 m/s validation cases.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison between LFA and SFA measurements for three different wind-speeds (7 m/s, 10 m/s, and 20 m/s). The CFD values were extracted at the same locations as the probes used for experiments. The probes were not modeled in the CFD calculations.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Pressure coefficients at four different spanwise sections at 0 deg azimuthal angle (3 deg pitch, 0 deg yaw, 7 m/s wind-speed, and 72 rpm rotational speed)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Unsteady pressure (p′/ρu∞2) on wind-tunnel walls at six different azimuth angles (3 deg pitch, 0 deg yaw, 7 m/s wind-speed, and 72 rpm rotational speed)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Pressure coefficients at four different span sections at 0 deg and 180 deg azimuthal angles (3 deg pitch, 0 deg yaw, 7 m/s wind-speed, and 72 rpm rotational speed)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of the experimental integrated torque of a single blade during a full revolution with the WMB calculated ones (rotor tower and isolated rotor topologies)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Side and front views of the λ2 isosurface colored with contours of distance perpendicular to the rotational plane

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Tower loads for four azimuth angles (3 deg pitch, 0 deg yaw, 7 m/s wind-speed, and 72 rpm rotational speed)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Influence of tower on the predictions of the surface pressure distributions at stations near the root of the blade. The results are shown for the 7 m/s case and for azimuthal angles between 90 deg and 180 deg.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In