0
Research Papers

10-MW Wind Turbine Performance Under Pitching and Yawing Motion

[+] Author and Article Information
Vladimir Leble

School of Engineering,
University of Glasgow,
James Watt South Building,
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
e-mail: v.leble.1@research.gla.ac.uk

George Barakos

Professor
School of Engineering,
University of Glasgow,
James Watt South Building,
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
e-mail: George.Barakos@glasgow.ac.uk

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Solar Energy Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF SOLAR ENERGY ENGINEERING: INCLUDING WIND ENERGY AND BUILDING ENERGY CONSERVATION. Manuscript received March 19, 2016; final manuscript received April 17, 2017; published online May 11, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Douglas Cairns.

J. Sol. Energy Eng 139(4), 041003 (May 11, 2017) (11 pages) Paper No: SOL-16-1132; doi: 10.1115/1.4036497 History: Received March 19, 2016; Revised April 17, 2017

The possibility of a wind turbine entering vortex ring state (VRS) during pitching oscillations is explored in this paper. The work first validated the employed computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method, and continued with computations at fixed yaw of the NREL phase VI wind turbine. The aerodynamic performance of the rotor was computed using the helicopter multiblock (HMB) flow solver. This code solves the Navier–Stokes equations in integral form using the arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian formulation for time-dependent domains with moving boundaries. With confidence on the established method, yawing and pitching oscillations were performed suggesting partial vortex ring state during pitching motion. The results also show the strong effect of the frequency and amplitude of oscillations on the wind turbine performance.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Corbetta, G. , and Mbistrova, A. , 2015, “ The European Offshore Wind Industry—Key Trends and Statistics 2014,” European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), Brussels, Belgium, Technical Report.
Ho, A. , and Mbistrova, A. , 2015, “ The European Offshore Wind Industry—Key Trends and Statistics 1st Half 2015,” European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), Brussels, Belgium, Technical Report.
Corbetta, G. , Ho, A. , Pineda, I. , Ruby, K. , Van de Velde, L. , and Bickley, J. , 2015, “ Wind Energy Scenarios for 2030,” European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), Brussels, Belgium, Technical Report.
Fried, L. , Qiao, L. , Sawyer, S. , Shukla, S. , and Bitter, L. , 2014, “ Global Wind Report 2014: Annual Market Update,” Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), Brussels, Belgium, Technical Report.
Arapogianni, A. , Genachte, A.-B. , Ochagavia, R. M. , Vergara, J. P. , Castell, D. , Tsouroukdissian, A. R. , Korbijn, J. , Bolleman, N. C. , Huera-Huarte, F. J. , Schuon, F. , Ugarte, A. , Sandberg, J. , de Laleu, V. , Maciel, J. , Tunbjer, A. , Roth, R. , de la Gueriviere, P. , Coulombeau, P. , Jedrec, S. , Philippe, C. , Voutsinas, S. , Weinstein, A. , Vita, L. , Byklum, E. , Hurley, W. L. , and Grubel, H. , 2013, “ Deep Water—The Next Step for Offshore Wind Energy,” European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), Brussels, Belgium, Technical Report.
Sebastian, T. , and Lackner, M. A. , 2011, “ Offshore Floating Wind Turbines—An Aerodynamic Perspective,” AIAA Paper No. 2011-720.
Larsen, T. J. , and Hanson, T. D. , 2007, “ A Method to Avoid Negative Damped Low Frequent Tower Vibrations for a Floating, Pitch Controlled Wind Turbine,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 75, p. 012073.
Jonkman, J. , 2008, “ Influence of Control on the Pitch Damping of a Floating Wind Turbine,” AIAA Paper No. 2008-1306.
Nielsen, F. , Hanson, T. , and Skaare, B. , 2008, “ Integrated Dynamic Analysis of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2006-92291.
Karimirad, M. , and Moan, T. , 2011, “ Ameliorating the Negative Damping in the Dynamic Responses of a Tension Leg Spar-Type Support Structure With a Downwind Turbine,” European Wind Energy Conference (EWEC), Brussels, Belgium, Mar. 14–17, pp. 97–101.
Iino, M. , Chujo, T. , Iida, M. , and Arakawa, C. , 2012, “ Effect of Forced Excitation on Wind Turbine With Dynamic Analysis in Deep Offshore Wind in Addition to Japanese Status of Offshore Projects,” Energy Proc., 24, pp. 11–17. [CrossRef]
Koyanagi, T. , Karikomi, K. , Iwasaki, S. , and Nakamura, A. , 2015, “ Stability Analysis of Floating Wind Turbine Using 1/64 Scale Model,” 12th German Wind Energy Conference (DEWEK 2015), Bremen, Germany, May 19–20.
Hansen, A. C. , and Cui, X. , 1989, “ Analysis and Observations of Wind Turbine Yaw Dynamics,” ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 111(4), pp. 367–371. [CrossRef]
Madsen, H. A. , Sorensen, N. N. , and Schreck, S. , 2003, “ Yaw Aerodynamics Analyzed With Three Codes in Comparison With Experiment,” ASME Paper No. WIND2003-519.
Le Pape, A. , and Gleize, V. , 2006, “ Improved Navier–Stokes Computations of a Stall-Regulated Wind Turbine Using Low Mach Number Preconditioning,” AIAA Paper No. 2006-1502.
Hand, M. , Simms, D. , Fingersh, L. , Jager, D. , Cotrell, J. , Schreck, S. , and Larwood, S. , 2001, “ Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment Phase VI: Wind Tunnel Test Configurations and Available Data Campaigns,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, Technical Report No. NREL/TP-500-29955.
Jeong, M.-S. , Kim, S.-W. , Lee, I. , Yoo, S.-J. , and Park, K. , 2013, “ The Impact of Yaw Error on Aeroelastic Characteristics of a Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Blade,” Renewable Energy, 60, pp. 256–268. [CrossRef]
Xu, B. F. , Wang, T. G. , Yuan, Y. , and Cao, J. F. , 2015, “ Unsteady Aerodynamic Analysis for Offshore Floating Wind Turbines Under Different Wind Conditions,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A, 373(2035), p. 20140080.
Snel, H. , and Schepers, J. , 1995, “ Joint Investigation of Dynamic Inflow Effects and Implementation of an Engineering Method,” Energy Research Center of the Netherlands (ECN), Petten, The Netherlands, Technical Report No. ECN-C-94-107.
Qiu, Y.-X. , Wang, X.-D. , Kang, S. , Zhao, M. , and Liang, J.-Y. , 2014, “ Predictions of Unsteady HAWT Aerodynamics in Yawing and Pitching Using the Free Vortex Method,” Renewable Energy, 70, pp. 93–106. [CrossRef]
Jeon, M. , Lee, S. , and Lee, S. , 2014, “ Unsteady Aerodynamics of Offshore Floating Wind Turbines in Platform Pitching Motion Using Vortex Lattice Method,” Renewable Energy, 65, pp. 207–212. [CrossRef]
Sant, T. , and Cuschieri, K. , 2016, “ Comparing Three Aerodynamic Models for Predicting the Thrust and Power Characteristics of a Yawed Floating Wind Turbine Rotor,” ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 138(3), p. 031004. [CrossRef]
Tran, T. , and Kim, D. , 2015, “ The Aerodynamic Interference Effects of a Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Experiencing Platform Pitching and Yawing Motions,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 29(2), pp. 549–561. [CrossRef]
Tran, T.-T. , and Kim, D.-H. , 2015, “ The Platform Pitching Motion of Floating Offshore Wind Turbine: A Preliminary Unsteady Aerodynamic Analysis,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 142, pp. 65–81. [CrossRef]
Rockel, S. , Camp, E. , Schmidt, J. , Peinke, J. , Cal, R. B. , and Hölling, M. , 2014, “ Experimental Study on Influence of Pitch Motion on the Wake of a Floating Wind Turbine Model,” Energies, 7(4), pp. 1954–1985. [CrossRef]
Brocklehurst, A. , Steijl, R. , and Barakos, G. , 2008, “ CFD for Tail Rotor Design and Evaluation,” 34th European Rotorcraft Forum (ERF), Liverpool, UK, Sept. 16–19, pp. 846–866.
Bak, C. , Zhale, F. , Bitsche, R. , Kim, T. , Yde, A. , Henriksen, L. C. , Andersen, P. B. , Natarajan, A. , and Hansen, M. H. , 2013, “ Description of the DTU 10 MW Reference Wind Turbine,” DTU Wind Energy, Roskilde, Denmark, Technical Report No. I-0092.
Osher, S. , and Chakravarthy, S. , 1983, “ Upwind Schemes and Boundary Conditions With Applications to Euler Equations in General Geometries,” J. Comput. Phys., 50(3), pp. 447–481. [CrossRef]
Eisenstat, S. C. , Elman, H. C. , and Schultz, M. H. , 1983, “ Variational Iterative Methods for Nonsymmetric Systems of Linear Equations,” SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 20(2), pp. 345–357. [CrossRef]
Spalart, P. R. , Jou, W. , Strelets, M. , and Allmaras, S. R. , 1997, “ Comments on the Feasibility of LES for Wings, and on a Hybrid RANS/LES Approach,” First AFOSR International Conference on DNS/LES, Ruston, LA, Aug. 4–8, pp. 137–147.
Steijl, R. , and Barakos, G. , 2008, “ Sliding Mesh Algorithm for CFD Analysis of Helicopter Rotor-Fuselage Aerodynamics,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 58(5), pp. 527–549. [CrossRef]
Jarkowski, M. , Woodgate, M. A. , Barakos, G. N. , and Rokicki, J. , 2013, “ Towards Consistent Hybrid Overset Mesh Methods for Rotorcraft CFD,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 74(8), pp. 543–576. [CrossRef]
Rieper, F. , 2011, “ A Low-Mach Number Fix for Roe’s Approximate Riemann Solver,” J. Comput. Phys., 230(13), pp. 5263–5287. [CrossRef]
Carrión, M. , Woodgate, M. , Steijl, R. , and Barakos, G. , 2013, “ Implementation of All-Mach Roe-Type Schemes in Fully Implicit CFD Solvers—Demonstration for Wind Turbine Flows,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 73(8), pp. 693–728.
Gómez-Iradi, S. , Steijl, R. , and Barakos, G. N. , 2009, “ Development and Validation of a CFD Technique for the Aerodynamic Analysis of HAWT,” ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 131(3), p. 031009. [CrossRef]
Carrión, M. , Steijl, R. , Woodgate, M. , Barakos, G. , Munduate, X. , and Gomez-Iradi, S. , 2014, “ Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of the Wake Behind the MEXICO Rotor in Axial Flow Conditions,” Wind Energy, 18(6), pp. 1023–1045. [CrossRef]
Carrión, M. , Woodgate, M. , Steijl, R. , Barakos, G. N. , Gomez-Iradi, S. , and Munduate, X. , 2015, “ Understanding Wind-Turbine Wake Breakdown Using Computational Fluid Dynamics,” AIAA J., 53(3), pp. 588–602. [CrossRef]
Somers, D. , 1997, “ Design and Experimental Results for the S809 Airfoil,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, Technical Report No. NREL/SR-440-6918.
Menter, F. , 1994, “ Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Björck, A. , 1990, “ Coordinates and Calculations for the FFA-W1-xxx, FFA-W2-xxx and FFA-W3-xxx Series of Airfoils for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines,” The Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden (FFA), Ulvsunda, Sweden, Technical Report No. FFA TN 1990-15.
Leble, V. , and Barakos, G. , 2016, “ Demonstration of a Coupled Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Analysis With High-Fidelity Methods,” J. Fluids Struct., 62, pp. 272–293. [CrossRef]
Carrión, M. , Steijl, R. , Woodgate, M. , Barakos, G. , Munduate, X. , and Gomez-Iradi, S. , 2014, “ Aeroelastic Analysis of Wind Turbines Using a Tightly Coupled CFD-CSD Method,” J. Fluids Struct., 50, pp. 392–415. [CrossRef]
Dehaeze, F. , and Barakos, G. , 2012, “ Hovering Rotor Computations Using an Aeroelastic Blade Model,” Aeronaut. J., 116(1180), pp. 621–649. [CrossRef]
Dehaeze, F. , and Barakos, G. N. , 2012, “ Mesh Deformation Method for Rotor Flows,” J. Aircr., 49(1), pp. 82–92. [CrossRef]
Steijl, R. , Barakos, G. , and Badcock, K. , 2006, “ A Framework for CFD Analysis of Helicopter Rotors in Hover and Forward Flight,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 51(8), pp. 819–847. [CrossRef]
Gómez-Iradi, S. , 2009, “ CFD for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Peterson, E. W. , and Hennessey, J. P. , 1978, “ On the Use of Power Laws for Estimates of Wind Power Potential,” J. Appl. Meteorol., 17(3), pp. 390–394. [CrossRef]
ISO, 1975, “ Standard Atmosphere,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, Standard No. ISO 2533:1975.
Horcas, S. G. , Debrabandere, F. , Tartinville, B. , Hirsch, C. , and Coussement, G. , 2015, “ Hybrid Mesh Deformation Tool for Offshore Wind Turbines Aeroelasticity Prediction,” CFD for Wind and Tidal Offshore Turbines, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 83–94.
Lee, W. T. , Bales, S. L. , and Sowby, S. E. , 1985, Standardized Wind and Wave Environments for North Pacific Ocean Areas, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Bethesda, MD.
Schepers, J. G. , 2012, “ Engineering Models in Wind Energy Aerodynamics: Development, Implementation and Analysis Using Dedicated Aerodynamic Measurements,” Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Krogstad, P.-Å. , and Adaramola, M. S. , 2012, “ Performance and Near Wake Measurements of a Model Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine,” Wind Energy, 15(5), pp. 743–756. [CrossRef]
Burton, T. , Sharpe, D. , Jenkins, N. , and Bossanyi, E. , 2002, Wind Energy Handbook, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Hunt, J. , Wray, A. , and Moin, P. , 1988, “ Eddies, Streams, and Convergence Zones in Turbulent Flows,” Summer Program 1988, Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford, CA, pp. 193–208.
Jeong, J. , and Hussain, F. , 1995, “ On the Identification of a Vortex,” J. Fluid Mech., 285, pp. 69–94. [CrossRef]
Rand, O. , 2006, “ A Phenomenological Modification for Glauert’s Classical Induced Velocity Equation,” J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 51(3), pp. 279–282. [CrossRef]
Leishman, J. G. , 2006, Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bayati, I. , Belloli, M. , Facchinetti, A. , and Giappino, S. , 2013, “ Wind Tunnel Tests on Floating Offshore Wind Turbines: A Proposal for Hardware-in-the-Loop Approach to Validate Numerical Codes,” Wind Eng., 37(6), pp. 557–568. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Hypothetical flow states of FOWT during pitching motion. From left to right: windmill state, turbulent wake state, vortex ring state and propeller state. (Adapted with permission from Tran and Kim [24]. Copyright 2015 by Elsevier.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Grid employed for the NREL phase VI rotor without the tower: (a) slice through the volume close to the blade surface, (b) surface mesh, and (c) computational domain (part of the boundaries removed for clarity)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Grid employed for the DTU 10 MW RWT rotor without the tower: (a) slice through the volume close to the blade surface, (b) surface mesh, (c) computational domain for most of the cases, and (d) computational domain for case A2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Results of mesh convergence study. Thrust coefficient and power coefficient as function of the grid size. (a) Thrust coefficient and (b) power coefficient.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Regions of instrumentation and tower influence on measured pressure. Definitions of positive yaw and azimuth angles are also included. (a) Boom and instrumentation wake interference and (b) regions of rotor plane where pressure measurements are influenced by instrumentation and tower. (Adapted with permission from Hand [16]. Copyright 2001 by National Renewable Energy Laboratory.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison between experimental data and CP values at different spanwise stations for various yaw misalignments: (a) 46.6% R, yaw 0 deg, (b) 63.3% R, yaw 0 deg, (c) 95.0% R, yaw 0 deg, (d) 46.6% R, yaw 10 deg, (e) 63.3% R, yaw 10 deg, (f) 95.0% R, yaw 10 deg, (g) 46.6% R, yaw 30 deg, (h) 63.3% R, yaw 30 deg, and (i) 95.0% R, yaw 30 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Snapshot of the flow field for the atmospheric boundary layer inflow case (A3). Contours of axial velocity W (m/s), and iso-surface of Q = 0.05 criterion (see Eq. (2) for definition of Q).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Shape of the rigid and deformed rotor of DTU 10 MW RWT

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Fixed yaw test cases: (a) employed notation for yaw angles, and (b) thrust and power as function of the rotor revolution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Power as function of time (a) and yawing amplitude (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Instantaneous vortices visualized with the iso-surfaces of Q = 0.05 criterion colored by the pressure coefficient CP. Yawing amplitude 3 deg, and yawing period 8.8 s. (a) Yaw−3 deg, (b) yaw 0 deg, (c) yaw 3 deg, and (d) yaw 0 deg (see figure online for color).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Yaw angle and yaw angular velocity as function of time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Thrust and power as function of time (a) and pitching amplitude (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Instantaneous vortices visualized with the iso-surfaces of Q = 0.05 criterion colored by the pressure coefficient CP. Pitching period 8.8 s, pitching amplitude 3 deg (a)–(d), and 5 deg (e)–(h). (a) Pitch −3 deg, (b) pitch 0 deg, (c) pitch 3 deg, (d) pitch 0 deg, (e) pitch −5 deg, (f) pitch 0 deg, (g) pitch 5 deg, and (h) pitch 0 deg (see figure online for color).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Sinusoidal pitch test cases. Definition of the employed notation for pitch angles (a), and (b) the pitch angle and pitch angular velocity as function of time for pitching amplitude 3deg.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Estimated ratio of induced velocity as function of inflow velocity ratio (a) and ratio of inflow velocity as function of time (b) for pitching wind turbines with pitching amplitude of 3 deg and 5 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