Queen Mary, University of London

CFD Study of a Wind Turbine Rotor

Federico Malatesta

Supervisor : Professor John Williams

April, 2012

School of Engineering and Materials Science

Third Year Project DEN 318

This report entitled:

CFD Study of a Wind Turbine Rotor

was composed by me and is based on my own work. Where the work of the others has been used, it is fully acknowledged in the text and in captions to table illustrations. This report has not been submitted for any other qualication.

Name:

Federico Malatesta

Signed:

Date:

April 4, 2012

Abstract There is nowadays strong debates in regard to the eects on the environment of fossilbased energy sources and countries have applied new energy policies with the aim to be less dependent on such energy sources while increasing the development of energies based on renewable sources such as wind, sun and water. Wind based energy is having an important role, but to properly develop, more advanced design tools are needed. Computational Fluid Dynamics is here being applied to the study of a full scale smallsized two-bladed wind turbine to gain a general understanding of the aerodynamics and performance features. The wind turbine is based on the one used in the well-known NREL Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment Phase VI. By using the commercial CFD package ANSYS FLUENT, this study tried to simulate the experiment for wind speed velocities of 7, 10 and 15 m/s. Results of pressure and torque have been directly compared and suggested that results appear to provide accurate results for pre-stall velocities, whereas for higher velocities where stall eects occur, the study fails to provide acceptable data.

Contents
List of Symbols List of Figures List of Tables 1 Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 World Energy Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of Wind Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NREL Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment Phase VI . . . . . . . . . . . . Motivation and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv vii x 1 1 2 4 6 7 9 9 9

2 Aerodynamics and Performance of Wind Turbines 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Working principles of HAWTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aerodynamics of aerofoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Wind turbine aerodynamics theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 Actuator disk method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Blade element method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Navier-Stokes equation solvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 20

3 Numerical Modelling of Wind Turbines 3.1 3.2

Navier-Stokes equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Turbulence Modelling and Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2.1 SST model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

i

3.3 3.4

Computational mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 FLUENT NS Solver

3.4.1 4 Method 4.1 4.2

Single moving reference frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 29

Geometry model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.2.1 4.2.2 Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Prismatic layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.3

FLUENT setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Solution method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 40

5 Results 5.1

Flow visualisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 U = 7m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 U = 10m/s U = 15m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.2

Pressure distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 Pressure coecients at U = 7m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Pressure coecients at U = 10m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Pressure coecients at U = 15m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Surface blade pressure and limiting streamlines . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.3

Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 52

6 Discussion 6.1 6.2

Comparison with the NREL Phase VI experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Comparison with previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 58

7 Conclusions and future work 7.1

Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 60 61 65

Acknowledgements References A NREL Phase VI blade data

ii

B Wake ow visualization

67

B.1 U = 10m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 B.2 U = 15m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

iii

List of Symbols
Acronyms BC CFD DNS FVM HAWT LES MRF NREL NS SRF SST TSR UAE UNFCC VAWT Boundary Condition Computational Fluid Dynamics Direct Numerical Simulation Finite Volume Method Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Large Eddy Simulation Multiple Moving Reference Frame National Renewable Energy Laboratory Navier-Stokes Single Moving Reference Frame Shear Stress Transport Tip Speed Ratio Unsteady Aerodynamic Experiment United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Vertical Axis Wind Turbine

Greek letters r Local speed ratio Angle of attack

iv

mech overall , R

Mechanical or electrical eciency Overall eciency Angular velocity Density Blade tip speed ratio [rad/s] [kg m3 ]

Roman letters r0 vt A a a c CD CL CP Cp CT D L p Q Re T t Distance vector of the origin of the moving coordinate system from the origin of the stationery system Translating velocity vector of the moving coordinate system Cross-section area Axial induction factor Angular induction factor Aerofoil chord length Coecient of drag Coecient of lift Coecient of power Coecient of pressure Coecient of thrust Drag force Lift force Pressure Torque Reynolds number Thrust time
v

[m2 ]

[m]

[N] [N] [N m2 ] [Nm]

[N] [s]

U Ud Uw y+

Freestream wind velocity Flow velocity going through the rotor Flow velocity in the rotor wake region Non-dimensional height of the rst cell from the solid wall Shear and normal surface force

[m/s] [m/s] [m/s]

[N m2 ]

vi

List of Figures
1.1 1.2 1.3 Dutch windmills, World Heritage Site, Kinderdijk, The Netherlands . . . . Top 10 Countries by Wind Energy Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NASA Ames National Research Centre Complex (a) and the wake ow visualization of the NREL rotor (b). 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 2 3

NREL S809 blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Schematic view of a wind turbine components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Aerofoil prole as seen by virtually cutting a wind turbine . . . . . . . . . 11 Parts of an aerofoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Summary of forces acting on an aerofoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Stream-tube concept used for Actuator Disk method . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Variation of Ct and Cp as function of induction factor a . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Power coecient variation with TSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Main steps of a pressure-based solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Single moving reference frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Three dimensional model of the NREL Phase VI blade . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Aerofoil proles of the blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Blade tip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Semi-cylindrical domain and dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Surface mesh of the blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Details of the mesh of the blade tip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Section view of the volume mesh showing higher density of elements in proximity of the downstream wake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.8 4.9

Section view of the volume mesh at 30 % of the blade . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Details of the prismatic layers in proximity of the leading edge (a) and trailing edge (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
vii

4.10 Names given to mesh parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.11 Convergence plot of Cm and CL at U = 7m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.1 Streamlines (left) and contours (right) of relative velocity magnitude in m/s. U = 7m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5.2 5.3 Contours of velocity magnitude for all radial stations in m/s. U = 7m/s . 43 Streamlines (left) and contours (right) of relative velocity magnitude in m/s. U = 10m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5.4 5.5 Contours of velocity magnitude for all radial stations in m/s. U = 10m/s Streamlines (left) and contours (right) of relative velocity magnitude in m/s. U = 15m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 Contours of velocity magnitude for all radial stations in m/s. U = 15m/s Cp at U = 7m/s Cp at U = 7m/s Cp at U = 7m/s r/R = 0.3 45 44

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

r/R = 0.63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 r/R = 0.95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 r/R = 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 r/R = 0.63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 r/R = 0.95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 r/R = 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 r/R = 0.63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 r/R = 0.95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5.10 Cp at U = 10m/s 5.11 Cp at U = 10m/s 5.12 Cp at U = 10m/s 5.13 Cp at U = 15m/s 5.14 Cp at U = 15m/s 5.15 Cp at U = 15m/s

5.16 Limiting streamlines with contours of static surface pressure on the blade in Pa. U = 7m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.17 Limiting streamlines with contours of static surface pressure on the blade in Pa. U = 10m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.18 Limiting streamlines with contours of static surface pressure on the blade in Pa. U = 15m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.19 Experimental and computational torque variation with U . . . . . . . . . 50 5.20 Variation of the NREL experimental and computational power output as function of wind speed velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.21 Change of experimental and computational CP as function of TSR . . . . 51

5.22 Variation of computational and experimental CP with wind speed . . . . . 51 6.1 6.2 Comparison of computational results of torque obtained from previous work 54 Computed limiting streamlines comparison from 7 to 15 m/s (top to bottom) 56
viii

A.1 NREL Phase VI wind turbine blade data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 A.2 S809 Aerofoil coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 B.1 Front view of the rotor. U = 10m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 B.2 SIde view of the wake. U = 10m/s B.3 Top view of the wake. U = 10m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

B.4 Front view of the rotor U = 15m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 B.5 Side view of the wake U = 15m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 B.6 Top view of the wake U = 15m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

ix

List of Tables
1.1 1.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 World total primary energy supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phases of the NREL Phase VI experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4

Number of elements and nodes by parts and total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Assigned boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Spatial Discretization scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Machine specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1 World Energy Today

Worlds largest economies are to face important challenges in the next near future; energy demand is not likely to decrease and simultaneously the need for shifting from fossil fuel to renewable sources has become a priority. Even though worlds economies are still in an uncertain nancial situation, in 2010 the world energy consumption grew 5.6 % in 2010 which is the largest increase since 1973 [1] with fossil fuels still being the major source of energy as can be seen in Table 1.1 [2].
Table 1.1: World total primary energy supply [2] Fuel Oil Coal Natural gas Biofuels and waste Nuclear Hydro Other* % 32.8 27.3 20.9 10.2 5.8 2.3 0.8

*Other includes solar, wind, heat, geothermal etc.

Fossil fuels are the main cause of the environmental changes that our planet is experiencing such as Greenhouse eect and air pollution with direct consequences on human health, further some of the major countries exporting oil petroleum are in rather unstable political and economical situations including wars. These listed features, are among the many that caused many countries to adopt new energy policies aimed at addressing climate changes and gathered together in numerous occasions such as the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 where more than 160 countries under the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) reached an agreement imposing to the 37 most industrialised economies to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a level of 5 % compared to 1990 levels over a period of 5 years from 2008 to 2012 [3]. A similar UN conference took place in December 2009 in Copenhagen [4] which reinforced the goal to set the maximum temperature rise from the pre-industrial era to 2 C. Subsequently, G9 member countries reached an agreement in July of the same year in which a reduction of global emissions of 50 % by 2050 was set. Even though no specic strategy was given to reach those targets [4], renewable energy sources such as wind and sunlight have experienced a large development in the last years and if properly developed could increase its share in the global energy supply. For example, according to Jacob and Masters [5], if 214,000-236,000 wind turbines of 1.5 MW rating were installed in the U.S., roughly 60 % of coil generated energy could be replaced by wind energy, thus complying with the Kyoto Protocol.

1.2

Overview of Wind Energy

The use of wind as a form of energy dates from 5000 B.C. in Egypt where people navigated the Nile River on sail boats powered by wind. Windmills were rst utilised in China then in the Middle East for food processing by the 11th century. Then, Europeans imported this technology to do mechanical work as especially seen in the Netherlands for draining lakes and rivers (Figure 1.1 ).

Figure 1.1: Dutch windmills, World Heritage Site, Kinderdijk, The Netherlands[6]

With the advent of the Industrial Era, windmills continued to be used and towards
2

the end of the nineteenth century rst experiments took place rst in the USA and later in Denmark to generate electricity from wind. Afterwards, years of low interest in wind energy began and lasted till the oil crisis in the 1970s, which caused many countries to seek new forms of energy sources [6]. Nowadays wind power is a fully active contributor to electricity production and as reported in [7] in the last two decades there have been tremendous advances in the energy eciency of wind turbines, in fact a 2006 wind turbine would produce 180 times more electricity than one at the same location installed 20 years before and at half the cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Looking at Table 1.1, wind energy as part of renewable energy only represents a small fraction of the total global energy supply, however the same is not true for many Western countries; for instance in the European Union, in 2005, energy produced by wind resources was 2.8 % and is set to reach 22.6 % by 2030 [7]. Similar is the scenario for the United States where in 2008 wind energy amounted to 2.7 % and is foreseen that it will reach 20% by 2030 [8]. European countries, along with the USA and China, generate most of the world wind power (see Figure 1.2) and also host leading wind turbine manufacturing companies, in fact in 2004 it was estimated that 82 % of all turbine in the world were built by European companies [7].

Figure 1.2: Top 10 Countries by Wind Energy Capacity [9]

1.3

NREL Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment Phase VI

Although the overall ow physics of wind turbines was understood, experimental data were needed to promote advance in technology and to conrm theoretical and numerical models. This task was addressed by more than one research centre such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the USA and later by a consortium composed mainly by european institutions named MEXICO (Model rotor EXperiments In COntrolled COnditions) concluded in 2006.

(a)

(b)

Figure 1.3: NASA Ames National Research Centre Complex (a) and the wake ow visualization of the NREL rotor (b).

In this report, given the large amount of literature, the experiment carried out by the NREL will be the one used for CFD simulation, namely NREL Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment (UAE) Phase VI [10] [11]. This experiment took place in 2000 at the NASA Ames Research Centre 80 ft 120 ft wind tunnel (the largest wind tunnel in the world). The wind tunnel has capability of reaching speed in the test section up to 50 m/s but in the experiment, speed ranged from 5 to 25 m/s which corresponds to real cut-in and cut-o wind speeds and its typical turbulence intensity is generally less than 0.5 %. In gure Table 1.2 a summary of the dierent experimental phases is shown.
Table 1.2: Phases of the NREL Phase VI experiment [10] Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
kg Air Density ( m3 )

Wind speed ( m ) s 5.0 7.0 10.0 13.1 15.1 20.1 25.1

Rotational speed (RP M ) 71.7 71.9 72.1 72.1 72.1 72.0 72.1

1.244 1.246 1.246 1.227 1.224 1.221 1.220

The rotor featured a rated power of 19.8 kW with two twisted blades based on the
4

S809 aerofoil with a diameter of 10.1 m (see Figure 1.4). The rotational speed was kept constant for each phase of the experiment at a value of roughly 72 RPM. The rotor was supported by a 0.4 m diameter tower with height of 12.2 m (see Figure 1.3). Yawed and non-yawed ow congurations were tested as well as upwind and downwind ones. One blade of the rotor was equipped with pressure taps at 30, 47, 63, 80 and 95 % of the blade span allowing to have pressure reading and subsequently, values of Cn, Ct and Cm were obtained.

Figure 1.4: NREL S809 blade [10]

1.4

Motivation and Objectives

Wind power has great potential to increase its eciency and therefore its development. Aerodynamics is one of the major factor that aects the functioning of wind turbines and the NREL experiment was indeed aimed at obtaining a clear overview of the ow behaviour along with structural dynamics. But also aeroacoustics, aeroelasticity, wind farm design and boundary layers dynamics are important related scientic elds that need to be better explored [11]. Prior to recent experiments, theoretical models such as the Actuator Disk Method were developed and were able to give quite accurate results for performance prediction, then improvements were achieved with the Blade Element Method which allowed to look closer at the dynamics of rotating blades but was mainly valid in two dimensions and approximate corrections had to be made to obtain realistic three-dimensional results. These methods are therefore not enough to progress in wind power. A quite recent alternative came from Computational Fluid Dynamics which thanks to experiments such as the NREL Phase VI, could rely on a validation tool. The goal of this research project is indeed to reproduce the NREL Phase VI experiment by using the commercial CFD package called ANSYS FLUENT. To achieve this, a number of steps, which also represent objectives of this work, were laid out at the beginning of the project which can be summarised as follows: 1. Research and acquire basic knowledge of wind turbine aerodynamics and related numerical modelling; 2. Carry out extensive reading of related scientic publications or any relevant documentation; 3. Generate an adequate mesh for the problem; 4. Identify and apply a correct simulation setup; 5. Extract results and compare with experimental data and results from previous numerical studies; 6. Identify source of errors.

1.5

Literature review

One very important stage in the progress of the project is to acquire as much information regarding past and current state of the wind turbine aerodynamics paying particular attention to what has been achieved in CFD regarding the NREL UAE experiment. In 2000, in conjunction with the NREL report release a total number of 18 institutions from Europe and the United States participated in modelling the experiment using different models such as Panel and Vortex methods, BEM and NS solvers. The results and comparison were published in [12]. The NREL UAE experiment provided to be an important validation tool for a wide range of computational methods and after the release of this material, a large numbers of scientic papers have been published by institutions from many countries. Since reporting a full list of papers would a very laborious process, only the most important and the ones that have been of great help for this project will be reported. The PhD theses by Carcangiu [13] and Ivanell [14], provided to be important documents for the scope of this project, giving important specic details regarding the simulation of wind turbines, in particular, the thesis by Carcangiu provided useful guidelines for wind turbines modelling using the code FLUENT. Equally, Masters theses also were found to give useful information on this topic such as the one from Chen [15] and Mozafari [16], with the former regarding the simulation of the NREL experiment and the latter concerning the numerical modelling of a tidal turbine, both using FLUENT. Instead, Gupta [17] modied the code PUMA2 to conduct Large Eddy Simulation (LES) including the NREL experiment; Gupta also collaborated with Sezer-Uzol and Long to carry out a comparison of inviscid and LES results [18] . Again the same experiment was studied by Disgrakar [19] making use of the code OpenFoam.

In regard to published articles, the NREL Phase VI experiment has been simulated using a wide range of numerical methods and turbulence models. Dierent mesh congurations were tested with the NS solver NSU3D by Potsdam and Mavriplis at the Wind Energy Research Center of the University of Wyoming [20]. A Detached-Eddy simulation was performed by Johansen et al. [21] using the code EllipSys3D. Studies were also carried out to improve and optimise aerodynamic characteristics of the rotor, such as the one performed by Chao and van Dam [22] who modied the original S809 aerofoil with a thickened inboard part and the sharp trailing edge was replaced with
7

a atback one. Regarding CFD studies of the NREL with the use of the FLUENT code, the following material was also found: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27].

Chapter 2

Aerodynamics and Performance of Wind Turbines

2.1 Overview

There are two main categories of Wind turbines, namely Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines (HAWT) and Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWT). HAWTs compared to VAWTs have higher power outputs making them more cost-eective, therefore are today the most common used concept. However HAWTs operate at their maximum only if the quality of the wind is high, that is for low turbulence intensity whereas VAWTs can still operate eciently [28].

2.2

Working principles of HAWTs

Wind turbines generate power by extracting kinetic energy from the wind and transforming it in mechanical energy and ultimately transformed in electrical energy via a generator. As the air passes through the rotor, there will be a force distribution acting on the blade, which subsequently generates a torque acting about the rotor shaft [14]. The process between the shaft and generator can be of dierent types and below is a list of the most currently used ones [14] (Figure 2.1 shows the main components of HAWTs): 1. Wind turbine with gearbox, also called Danish concept: The rotor shaft is connected to the generator through a gearbox that increases the angular velocity; 2. Wind turbine with gearbox: This is a newer concept and does not require a gearbox which is substituted by a direct drive;
9

3. Hybrid: This type is a combination of the previous two, and presents a gearbox with fewer steps. But due to this, the size of the generator has to be larger.

Figure 2.1: Schematic view of a wind turbine components [6]

The environmental air ow is not continuous and is subjected to oscillations in its magnitude and direction. To overcome this, modern turbines are able to change pitch and to yaw. Further, angular velocity can also be adjusted following the change in the wind speed. The wind speed at which a turbine starts operating is called cut-in and is about 3.5 m/s, then the velocity at which it stops is called cut-o, this value is determined by the wind turbine manufacture, although generally is around 25 m/s, the RPM is also limited for safety reasons [13]. Following these reasoning, other three categories can be listed as follows [14]: 1. Pitch control: As wind speed increases, the pitch angle can be modied in order to properly adjust to the wind direction. This helps the turbine to reach the rated power; 2. Stall control: As for the NREL Phase VI turbine, blades are designed to work well within a specic range of wind speeds. Above this, the blades will encounter stall and thus a lift drop will be experienced. The maximum power output occurs at the stall speed; 3. Active stall: Once the rated power is achieved, stall is voluntarily initialised by pitching the blades.
10

2.3

Aerodynamics of aerofoils

Analysing a section view of a wind turbine, it could be clearly seen that the cross section of the blade has the shape of an aerofoil prole (Figure 2.2), in fact a blade is built using aerofoil proles at dierent angles and chords belonging to one or more aerofoil families. It can be then understood rst of all, that a two-dimensional aerodynamics of an aerofoil must be analysed.

Figure 2.2: Aerofoil prole as seen by virtually cutting a wind turbine blade [6]

Figure 2.3: Parts of an aerofoil

The literature regarding aerofoils is wide (for example [29] [30]) therefore only a brief review will be reported. As shown in Figure 2.3, a typical aerofoil has an upper and lower surface. The sharp rear and the soft front ends of the aerofoil are called trailing edge and leading edge respectively and the line that connects them is named chord line and its total length is c. The maximum distance between the chord line and mean camber line is called camber. The angle between the chord line and the direction of the incoming air ow is named angle of attack, . As the wind ows over the aerofoil, velocity will increase on the upper surface and decrease on the lower one, additionally, according to the Bernoullis principle: 1 2 U + p = 0 2 higher pressure will occur on the bottom and lower pressure on the upper part.
11

(2.1)

As can be see in Figure 2.4 the air owing over the aerofoil generates two forces, one pointing upward and perpendicular to the wind speed direction called lift L, and one pointing parallel and in opposite direction of the wind namely drag D caused by pressure distribution and friction force. The resultant force of lift and drag is called normal force N. Further, this force distribution acting on the aerofoil will create a moment force which usually acts at a quarter of the chord length.

Figure 2.4: Summary of forces acting on an aerofoil

As the angle of attack increases so will lift and drag steadily up to a point where the ow will separate from the aerofoil, at this point, the aerofoil is said to have reached stall.

2.4

Wind turbine aerodynamics theory

Over the years, size of wind turbines increased exponentially and so did the level of complexity, therefore the then used methods had to be improved from Momentum Theory till the nowadays softwares capable of solving Navier-Stokes equations. In this paragraph a brief review of the most important models used for wind turbines performance and aerodynamics will be illustrated. As summarised in [13] and [14], the most common models used for the study of wind turbines or other rotating machineries are as follows: 1. Actuator Disk Method 2. Blade Element Method 3. Navier-Stokes equations solvers

12

2.4.1

Actuator disk method

This method, here being applied in 1-D, is very useful for analysing the energy extracted by the rotor even though no information is given for the rotor itself. As can be seen in picture below (Figure 2.5) the rotor is represented by a disk, the incoming free stream ow is enclosed in a so-called stream-tube with a smaller radius than the disk, then downstream the rotor the same stream-tube concept is applied to the ow but with a larger radius.

Figure 2.5: Stream-tube concept used for Actuator Disk method

Thrust T is dened as being the force acting on the stream wise direction and is obtained by the pressure dierence between the two faces of the rotor:

T = pA where A = r2 is the area covered by the rotor and r is the radius of the rotor.

(2.2)

As can be seen in Figure 2.5, U represents the freestream air velocity, Ud is the ow speed going through the rotor and Uw is the the one in the wake region. In using this model the ow is assumed stationery, frictionless and incompressible [31] therefore the Bernoullis principle can be applied through the stream tube and an equation for the pressure dierence occurring through the rotor can be found: 1 2 2 p = (U Uw ) 2

(2.3)

By applying momentum integral equation to a control volume surrounding all stream tubes, the following relation can be derived:

T = Ud A(U Uw ) = m(U Uw )
13

(2.4)

where m is called the mass ow rate. Then combining equations (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) the following relation can be derived: 1 Ud = (U + Uw ) 2

(2.5)

Which means that the ow through the rotor travels at a velocity which is the mean value of the freestream and downstream ones. By then applying Energy Equation to this control volume, an expression for the Power can be also found as follows: 1 2 2 P = uA(U Uw ) 2 Then the following axial induction factor, a can be introduced:

(2.6)

Ud = (1 a)U then combining equation (2.7) and (2.5) the following can be obtained:

(2.7)

Uw = (1 2a)U if then (2.8) is substituted in (2.7) and (2.4):

3 P = 2U a(1 a)2 A

(2.8)

(2.9)

and
2 T = 2U a(1 a)A

(2.10)

Then available power can be dened as: 1 3 Pavl = AU 2 for which a dimensional parameter, namely CP can be dened as: P
1 3 U A 2

(2.11)

CP = Likewise, thrust coecient, Ct is given by:

(2.12)

14

Ct =

T
1 2 U A 2

(2.13)

If CP and Ct are plotted against variation of the axial induction factor a (Figure 2.6) some important features can be observed.

Figure 2.6: Variation of Ct and Cp as function of induction factor a [31]

The maximum CP = for a = 0.5.

16 , 27

which occurs for a = 1 , is known as the Betz limit, and a = 1 3

It must be remembered that this theory considers an ideal wind turbine and is known that for factors greater than 0.5 this theory is no more valid due to increase in the complexity in the ow behaviour; further a real ow leads to a decrease in the value of CP,max due to the followings [32]: Rotation of the wake downstream the rotor; Finite number of blades and related losses; Aerodynamic drag. The power output of the rotor can also be expressed in terms of eciency: Pout 1 AU 3 2

overall =

= mech CP

(2.14)

where mech is the mechanical, or electrical, eciency of the components of the wind turbine. Next the eect of rotation will be included in the above explained linear momentum theory. If is used to denote the angular velocity applied to the ow and to denote
15

the actual angular velocity of the turbine rotor and a control volume is created rotating at the same , the energy equation can be applied in order to obtain an expression for the pressure dierence between just upstream and downstream of the rotor [32]: 1 p2 p3 = ( + )r2 2 (2.15)

it is already been observed in equation (2.2) that the torque is equal to pressure dierence multiplied by area, therefore if (2.15) is multiplied by an element of length dA the thrust for said element, dT , is: 1 dT = (p2 p3 )dA = [( + )r2 ]2rdr 2 Then an angular induction factor a can be expressed as: 2

(2.16)

a = Therefore (2.16) becomes:

(2.17)

1 dT = 4a (1 + a ) 2 r2 2rdr 2

(2.18)

Moreover, a thrust expression can also be written in terms of the axial induction factor a: 1 2 dT = 4a(1 a) U 2rdr 2 If then (2.19) and (2.18) are set equal to each other, the following is obtained: a(1 a) 2 r2 = 2 = 2 r a (1 + a ) U

(2.19)

(2.20)

where r is the local speed ratio and if the the radius of the rotor, R, is substituted in the above expression, the parameter tip speed ratio TSR is found: R U

r =

(2.21)

Next, the momentum equation will be applied to the same control volume and for this case the equilibrium dictates that the torque Q being applied on the rotor must be equal to the change in the angular momentum of the wake; therefore, if an annular element is

16

considered, the momentum equation reduces to: 1 dQ = 4a (1 a) U r2 2rdr 2 Therefore, at this element, power, dP is:

(2.22)

dP = dQ

(2.23)

Then, substituting for dQ from and applying the denition of r , (2.23) becomes: 1 3 8 dP = AU [ 2 a (1 a)3 dr ] r 2 Then, dP can be expressed in a non-dimensional form: dP
1 3 AU 2

(2.24)

dCp =

(2.25)

which represents the contribution to the total Cp from a singular annular element. Then, after a series of mathematical steps including integration, change of variables and substitution (as described extensively in [32] the following is obtained:

Cp,max =

8 64 5 x + 72x4 + 124x3 + 382 63x 12 ln x 4x1 7292 5

0.25

(2.26)
13a

Cp,max can the be plotted as a function of dierent values of ration in Figure 2.7 which also reports the Betz limit from the previous simple linear momentum theory and from the graph it can be observed that as the ratio increases, Cp approaches its theoretical maximum value. 2.4.2 Blade element method

The Blade Element Method (BEM) which was invented by Glauert in 1935 [31] consists in applying the conservation of momentum to annular control volumes and is widely used for calculations of aerodynamic loads and performances [33] As presented in the previous chapter, one dimensional momentum theory coupled with rotational eects gives expression for power and torque, however no specic information is given regarding phenomena occurring on the blade, thus no specic details regarding rotor geometry such as twist, size and number of blades can be obtained. With BEM, by coupling momentum theory

17

Figure 2.7: Power coecient variation with TSR [32]

with local aerodynamic phenomena, these features can indeed be studied. Nowadays, BEM is widely applied as a design tool in industry and is not as expensive as CFD in terms of computing resources. In applying these method, two important assumption have to be taken into account [31]: Each annular element is independent from each other; Forces applied on the ow by the action of the blades are constants which consequently implies the assumption of innite blades. In order to correct the last assumption, a parameter named Prandtls Tip Loss Factor is used, also, since the method is created for working in two dimensions, further corrections have to be introduced. Since derivation of the BEM governing equations is not in the interest of this report, if the reader is interested in further readings, a more detailed explanation can be found in books such as [31] or [32] 2.4.3 Navier-Stokes equation solvers

With the development of Computational Fluid Dynamics, many ow problems that before were unsolvable by analytical methods or by experiments, could nally be studied. With CFD, the Navier-Stokes (NS) equations are discretised with various methods such as Finite Dierence or Finite Volume Methods (FVM) [34] that transform the dierential NS equations into an algebraic form which can be then put into computer programming
18

languages such as FORTRAN or C (as used in FLUENT) which resolves the problem and output results in form of data and graphics. Then with the advance of computing capabilities, more user-friendly softwares (or codes) such as FLUENT (which uses FVM) were created giving a wider access to CFD capabilities.

19

Chapter 3

Numerical Modelling of Wind Turbines

The choice of modelling strategy for wind turbines is vital to the successful outcome of the simulation and there are, nowadays, dierent methods that can be applied [7]. In this chapter the main features of CFD and how is applied to the study of wind turbines will be discussed.

3.1

Navier-Stokes equations

Navier-Stokes equations named after their creators names represent in mathematical form all uid mechanics phenomena and here are presented in their non-conservation form (for the derivation from rst principles of said equations, the reader is suggested to refer to [34]): Conservation of Mass: D + Dt V = 0

(3.1)

20

Conservation of Momentum: Du p xx yx zx = + + + + fx Dt x x x z p xy yy zy Dv = + + + + fy Dt y x y z Dw p xz yz zz = + + + + fz Dt z x y z

(3.2)

(3.3)

(3.4)

Where V represents the velocity vector, u, v and w are the components of the velocity in the x, y and z direction respectively, p is pressure, s represent normal and shear stresses acting on the surfaces of the 3D uid particle, then fx , fy and fz represent the body forces per unit in the x, y and z direction respectively. The mathematical notation D indicates a so-called substantial derivative of a scalar quantity, e.g: D = +V Dt t

(3.5)

It should be noted that the energy equation has not been mentioned, indeed in this CFD study, this equation is not solved because thermal phenomena are small enough to be considered as negligible. The above set of partial dierential equations represent a suitable form of the continuity and momentum equation for numerical calculations.

3.2

Turbulence Modelling and Simulation

Many uid mechanics problems are commonly solved by applying assumptions such as incompressible, inviscid, laminar and steady ow. These assumptions are needed because uid ow, such as in rotating machineries, presents a rather unpredictable behaviour which would cause a full solution to be highly complex. Among these complicated features, turbulence is one that shines among the others. In this section, given the size and complexity of the subject, only a brief introduction will be given with slightly more emphasis on turbulence modelling for wind turbines.

But before an important non-dimensional number named Reynolds number Re which

21

expresses the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces has to be introduced and is dened as: U L

Re =

(3.6)

where is the dynamic viscosity, U is the freestream ow velocity and L is the reference length which in the case of an aerofoil is the chord length c. Turbulent ow is widely present in nature, examples are cloud formations or smoke forming from a re and in simple words this type of ow could be described as having signicant irregularities, unsteady motion and recirculation in position and time [35]. As Re increases the inertia forces increase their action up to a point where this increasing action is so signicant that causes the formation of turbulent scales in the ow [36], subsequently, as a general rule of thumb, the following Re are dened as starting points of turbulence: Re > 500, 000 along a surface or > 20, 000 along an obstacle for external ows Re > 2, 300 for internal ows Given its complexity turbulence is a major target of numerical modelling and below is a list of the most important numerical methods (all information were taken from [35]): Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS): DNS features the complete solution of the Navier-Stokes equations coupled with some initial boundary conditions. Virtually, DNS has the capability to produce high quality results, but its applicability is limited by the required computational power. Given the advance in computing eciency that occurred in the last few decades, DNS is now taking an important role in the subject. Turbulence-Viscosity models: With this method, the Reynolds equations are solved by averaging the velocity eld to a mean value. There are dierent types of this particular model and some are listed below: 1. : This models presents two equations being solved in terms of two turbulence parameters, namely and . It is widely used in CFD commercial packages. 2. : This model is similar to the previous one except for the way the second parameter is mathematically treated. It is too widely used in CFD.

22

3. Spalart - Allmaras. Here, only one equation is being solved. The model has its best application in aerodynamics and has proven to be rather accurate. Further, it has the important advantage of being computationally faster than others. Reynolds stress: In previous models, turbulent viscosity is ruled by a hypothesis, which therefore limits the accuracy of those models. For Reynolds-stress models, instead, stress parameters are solved which in turn gives further information in regard turbulence length or time scale. Large-Eddy simulation (LES): LES focuses on directly solving the large structures (or eddies) of the ow whereas the smaller ones are modelled, thus it has high applicability for ow presenting vortices or separation. 3.2.1 SST model

The proves to provide good performance in free shear ows , adverse pressure gradients and separated ows (with the last two being fully experienced in wind turbines), however its accuracy is limited by the dependency of the model from the freestream boundary conditions. [13]. An implementation to this model comes from the Shear-Stress Transport (SST) model created by Menter in 1993 [37]. And as reported in [38] the two methods mainly dier for the following characteristics: Starting from the inner part of the boundary layer and going towards the more outside region, the SST change from a to giving a better treatment of the boundary layer. In SST the treatment for the turbulent viscosity is changed to accommodate for the transport eects of the principal turbulent shear stress. For reference the SST equations are listed below: k () + (Vi ) = (k ) + Gk Yk + Sk t xi xj xj () + (Vi ) = ( ) + G Y + D + S t xi xj xj (3.7)

(3.8)

where Gk is the turbulence kinetic energy generated by mean velocity gradients, G represents the generation of , Y and Y are the dissipation due to turbulence of and

23

, and represent the diusivity of and , D is the cross-diusion term, S and S are the source source terms arbitrarily dened by the user [38]. In regard to the near-wall turbulence modelling, an important parameter is the socalled non-dimensional wall distance (generally called y+ ) which is dened as: y+ = u y
w

(3.9) where w is the wall

where u is the friction velocity (which is dened as u =

shear stress at the wall), is the kinematic viscosity and y is the normal distance from the wall of the rst cell. boundary layer, a y + of 1 should be achieved, although it has been observed that even values up to 6-7 are acceptable [23]. With the application of the SST , as explained in [38], in order to fully solve the

3.3

Computational mesh

As previously introduced, a computational grid or mesh is needed to be generated to proceed with the CFD calculation, indeed, this could potentially be the most important, and as was experienced in this project, the most dicult one. A general denition can be found in [39] which states that .. a mesh is discretization of a geometric domain into small shapes..; in two dimensions these shapes would be triangles or quadrilaterals, and tetrahedral and hexahedra in three. Alternatively, a mesh can also be dened as being the locus where partial dierential equations are solved according to the solver discretization method. Meshes can be divided in three main groups based on the shapes of the elements, namely structured, unstructured and hybrid. In the rst one, the structure presents itself as quite homogeneous and vertices of the elements are all of similar dimensions. Unstructured mesh instead presents elements of dierent vertices and shapes and are often used for complex shapes. Finally a hybrid mesh can be either a combination of the previous ones or dierent blocks of structured elements built together to form an unstructured conguration. All of the above types of meshes have been successfully used for wind turbines, however a structured hexahedral mesh tends to be quite the preferable choice due to its ability to generate less elements than an unstructured mesh of same size and quality.

24

3.4

FLUENT NS Solver

The software ANSYS FLUENT solves the governing ow conservation equations by applying the Finite Volume Method with which in the case of a wind turbine problem will restrict to the solution continuity and momentum equation only. The method can be summarised in the following steps [40] [13]: The ow domain is discretized into a nite set of control volumes; Solution by integration of the governing equations in each control volume in order to obtain algebraic equation equations in which the unknowns are velocities, pressure and other scalar quantities Numerical solution of the equation to solve the entire solution eld. Based on the problem specications, two dierent numerical strategies can be chosen, namely Pressure-based and Density-based solver. The former which is the one chosen for this study, is aimed at the solution of low-speed incompressible ows whereas the latter is for high-speed ows where the compressibility eects are signicant. The main steps involved in a pressure-based solution can be dened as follows [40] [13]: 1. Velocities are solved through the momentum equation; 2. Continuity is satised by solving a pressure correction equation, which basically consists in obtaining a velocity eld being corrected by pressure until continuity is satised, which can be achieved by two algorithms: 3. Solution is achieved by means of iterations according to the chosen algorithm. Fluent allows to choose between: segregated : equations are solved one after the other. The required memory is relatively low, however this causes the simulation to take longer time to conclude; coupled : it requires 1.5 to 2 times more memory than the previous and solves momentum and pressure-based continuity equation simultaneously as form of a system while the remaining scalar equations are solved as in the segregated algorithm. Figure 3.1 represents the above steps expressed as form of a ow graph.

25

Figure 3.1: Main steps of a pressure-based solution

3.4.1

Single moving reference frame

This study concerns a rotating object therefore the mesh must be properly modelled to achieve this and in FLUENT there are dierent strategies that can be used. The one used here is called single moving reference frame (SRF). A moving reference frame permits an unsteady problem respect to the absolute reference frame to become steady in respect to the moving reference frame. In simple words, the whole computational domain is assumed to be rotating at the angular velocity of the turbine rotor. This particular method is well suited for this problem since there is only one rotating wall, in fact, if there were more than one rotating in opposite direction and/or dierent rotational speed, such as a rotor-stator problem, then the domain should be divided in more volumes with each one being assigned a dierent reference frame namely Multiple Moving Reference Frame (MRF). In both cases, the mesh itself remains unmodied unlike dynamic mesh which allows to change the mesh shape [38]. In applying SRF, the governing equations have to be properly modied by including two more acceleration terms, namely the Coriolis and Centripetal acceleration. From a theoretical point of view, this methodology can be explained as follows [38]: considering a moving coordinate system (blue) translating and rotating at an angular v
t

velocitiy respect to a stationery coordinate system (green) as shown in Figure 3.2. The
26

distance between the origin of the moving and stationary coordinate systems is represented by vector and the axis of rotation is dened as = . r a
0

Figure 3.2: Single moving reference frame [38]

Now, introducing a CFD system in Figure 3.2 and denoting its distance at any point from the origin of the moving reference frame with the , a velocity relation can be r expressed: = vr r v u

(3.10)

where r = t + and r is the relative velocity as seen from the moving frame, u v v is the absolute velocity as viewed from the stationery frame, is the velocity of v ur the moving frame relative to the stationery frame, is the translational velocity of the v
t

moving frame and is the angular velocity. Then, using an absolute velocity formulation, that is, where the absolute velocity terms in the momentum equation are expressed as dependent variables, the continuity and momentum equation can be reformulated as follows: + t and ( ) + (r ) + [ ( t )] = p + + F v v v v v (3.12) t The term ( t ) represents a combined expression for both the Centripetal v v
27

(r ) = 0 v

(3.11)

and Coriolis acceleration [38]

28

Chapter 4

Method
After having introduced some general information regarding wind turbines and main features of numerical modelling, the following chapter will be focused on explaining the methodology applied for this wind turbine study.

4.1

Geometry model

A three-dimensional geometry model of the NREL blade was generated in SOLIDWORKS (see Figure 4.1 and 4.2) based on the S809 aerofoil and NREL blade data given in [10] (see Appendix A for blade and aerofoil geometry data). The trailing edge was modied in order to have a few millimetres thick edge, this better represents the real blade and also helps to avoid low quality mesh elements, as a very thin edge would be hard to be handled by the meshing software.

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.1: Three dimensional model of the NREL Phase VI blade

29

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.2: Aerofoil proles of the blade

In regard to the tip of the blade, since no specic data is given in the geometry documentation, it was approximated to a soft dome as shown in Figure 4.3. It must be noted that the blade tip plays an important role in the generation of torque, therefore it is recommended that the 3D model represent real geometry.

Figure 4.3: Blade tip

4.2

Mesh

The chosen software used for the generation of the mesh is ANSYS ICEM CFD and is capable of generating structured, unstructured and hybrid meshes and dierent algorithms are available to the user based on the desired type of the nal grid.
30

4.2.1

Dimensions

At the initial stages of the project, eorts were focused on trying to create a structured mesh, however, due to its complexity and required level of experience, it was decided to create an unstructured mesh, although this brings the disadvantage of generation of a higher number of elements, therefore increasing the computational times.

It also has to be noted that although the rotor is featured with two blades, only one blade is actually being treated thus allowing to halve the computational mesh (see Figure 4.4). This is due to the application of periodic boundary conditions which are explained in Section 4.3.

The unstructured mesh is made of triangular elements for the surface parts (see Figure 4.6), tetrahedral elements for the ow volume domain (Figure 4.5) and prismatic elements were used for creating layers around the blade surface in order to have a ner mesh in proximity of the boundary layer (Figure 4.9 and 4.8). Half of a cylindrical domain was built around the blade and as shown in Figure 4.4, given the radius of the blade R = 5.029m, the inlet was placed at 3 R upstream of the blade, the outlet at 6 R downstream, the length of the radius of the domain was set to 3 R. Further, since the hub of the blade was not included in the geometry, half cylinder with a radius of 0.508m was set as a boundary of the volume as shown in Figure 4.4. It is believed that the negligence of the hub may introduce inaccuracies, however as was learnt in previous literature such as [18], [15] and [24], this approximation should not introduce relevant errors. From readings, it was found that various combinations of the domain dimensions were used and mostly gave acceptable results; for example Cargangiu [13] placed the outlet at 10 R from the blade, whereas Mahu and Popescu [26] used a 20 R, instead Van Rooij and Arens [24] used a downstream length of 6 R. Other used dimensions can be found in the list of references given in the Literature review (1.5). To conclude, it seemed reasonable that the domain dimensions used for this simulation would have the potential to provide acceptable results.

31

Figure 4.4: Semi-cylindrical domain and dimensions

Mesh elements size can be well controlled in the software and therefore allowed to input larger elements at the outer boundaries of the mesh and a very ne mesh on the blade surface (Figure 4.6 and 4.7) and as can be seen in Figure 4.5, the ner density mesh occurs at the location of the blade and in proximity of the downstream wake and upstream incoming ow eld. The reason for having ner elements in the wake lays on the fact that the wake ow eld directly aects the ow through the wind turbine and therefore pressure and torque distribution.

Figure 4.6: Surface mesh of the blade

Figure 4.7: Details of the mesh of the blade tip

32

Figure 4.5: Section view of the volume mesh showing higher density of elements in proximity of the downstream wake.

4.2.2

Prismatic layers

For treating the boundary layer zone, for unstructured meshes, prismatic layers are generated. The methodology used consisted in rst generating a surface mesh, then create prismatic layers and nally ll the volume with tetrahedral elements. This avoided pyramidic elements (which are not handled well by FLUENT) between the prismatic layers and the rest of the volume (Figure 4.8 and 4.9).

The number of layers was chosen to be 20 at a growth ratio from the rst cell at 30 % and in regard to the estimation of the height of the rst layer, it was found that based on a Re of 1 106 , to achieve a y + of 4 5, the rst cell height should be 2 105 m then renements will be performed directly in FLUENT in order to achieve an average of y + = 1.

33

Figure 4.8: Section view of the volume mesh at 30 % of the blade

(a) Leading edge

(b) Trailing edge

Figure 4.9: Details of the prismatic layers in proximity of the leading edge (a) and trailing edge (b)

34

The total size of the mesh turned out to be rather large with a total number of roughly 8.28106 elements and 2.93106 nodes (Table 4.2). It has to be noted that mesh element counting increased with simulations due y + renements causing the prismatic layers to be subdivided in further layers.
Table 4.1: Number of elements and nodes by parts and total Part Blade surface Other surfaces Volume Prismatic layers Total Elements 303,350 17,198 3,375,276 4,580,220 8,277,746 Nodes 2,931, 056

In comparison for example, Carcangiu [13] with a structured mesh had 3.5 millions, Uzol and Long [18] with an unstructured tetrahedral mesh had 3.6 and 9.6 millions whereas Huang et al. [43] had 3.06 millions elements with a structured one. Overall, it appears that element number could be drastically lowered by adopting a structured methodology.

4.3

FLUENT setup

When the mesh was completed, it then could be imported into FLUENT and after checking for possible errors and overall quality of the mesh, the simulation setup could be started.

As was explained in Section 3.4.1, the application of a single moving reference frame gives the advantage of rendering the transient nature of a rotating problem a steady problem, however it was observed that at high wind speed velocities, when residuals reached a constant value, a small quasi-sinusoidal trend would develop; this suggests, that the problem still presents unsteady features, therefore, an appropriate transient input should be given in the software as done by Carcangiu [13]. Each part of the mesh was named as shown in the Figure 4.10. 4.3.1 Boundary conditions

The setting of the Boundary Conditions (BCs) is a very important step, therefore BCs have to be properly applied. Below is a list of the used boundary conditions:

35

Figure 4.10: Names given to mesh parts

Velocity-Inlet When dealing with incompressible ows, the velocity must be specied at the inlet of the mesh. It can be specied as both constant and variable, either normal to the surface or acting with a specied angle (as would be in a yaw-study case). In this case it was specied as constant and perpendicular to the boundary. Turbulence conditions also have to be dened here and the default turbulence parameters of the NASA Ames Wind Tunnel were used, that is, inlet turbulence intensity of 0.5 % and viscosity ratio set to 10 [12]. Pressure-Outlet This boundary condition was applied at the outlet of the domain and sets the pressure at the boundary at a specic static pressure value. In this study, the obvious choice was to put the value equal to zero so that the pressure at the outlet would be equal to the atmospheric operating pressure (standard pressure at sea level was used, i.e. 101,325 Pa) No-Slip Wall This condition is applied to the solid surface of the blade, and implies the velocity of the uid particle to be zero at the wall. Periodic Since the wind turbine rotor rotates at a constant angular velocity thus presenting a periodically repeating nature; the software allows to apply periodic boundary con36

ditions to specic surfaces as shown in Figure 4.10 giving the great advantage of reducing the size of the domain. In this study, since, a two-blade wind turbine is considered, the domain can be halved (180 ); instead if the wind turbine was threebladed, the computational domain would reduce to a third (120 ) of the original size. Symmetry This boundary conditions allows a surface to be treated as a zero-shear wall. A summary of the assigned boundary conditions is given below.
Table 4.2: Assigned boundary conditions Part Blade Fareld Inlet Periodic faces Outlet Half cylinder BC type No-slip wall Symmetry Velocity-Inlet Periodic Pressure-Outlet Symmetry

4.3.2

Solution method

As was introduced in Section 3.4, the pressure-based discretization scheme is being applied and since computing hardware permitted, the coupled algorithm, which solves in one step the system of momentum and pressure-based continuity equation, could also be used, thus reducing computational times. With FVM, scalar quantities are dened at the centre of cells whereas convection terms are stored at the face of the cells. These last terms can only be found by means of interpolation from the centre of the control volume, namely upwind scheme. In the software, there are dierent methods that can be used such as rst- or second-oder upwind scheme. According to the FLUENT Theory Guide [38], the latter is in most cases preferable as error margins are decreased. However, as recommended by FLUENT, the solution should initialised with rst-order upwind scheme and when some convergence is achieved, it can be switched to second order. This is done in order to limit divergence problems. A summary of the inputs for the discretization method is given in Table 4.3.

37

Table 4.3: Spatial Discretization scheme Gradient Pressure Momentum Turbulent Kinetic Energy Specic Dissipation Rate Least Squares Cell Based Standard Second Order Upwind Second Order Upwind Second Order Upwind

Initially simulations were run on computers available to students at Queen Mary, University of London, then with an increased computing power demand, nal simulations were run with parallel computing oered by FLUENT on a machine with the following characteristics (Table 4.4).
Table 4.4: Machine specications Processor name Number of cores Number of threads Memory size Intel i7-2600K 4 8 32 GB

Three simulations were run at a freestream velocity of 7, 10 and 15 m/s with a constant angular velocity of 72 RPM (7.54 rad/s). For each simulation, computational time was between 4-5 hours, and coecient of moment along with coecient of lift and continuity were used as convergence parameters. In Figure 4.11 the convergence plots for Cm and CL for the 7 m/s simulation is shown. It can also be observed that at the 100th iteration, the discretization schemes for momentum, turbulent kinetic energy and specic dissipation ratio are switched from rst to second order upwind which causes a visible increase in coecient of moment.
2

1.5

CL Cm

R esi d ua l s

0.5

0.5

1.5 0 50 100 150 200 I t er a t i on 250 300 350

Figure 4.11: Convergence plot of Cm and CL at U = 7m/s

38

4.3.3

Post-processing

When solution is completed a wide range of data can be extracted from the code and can be read on either the solver itself or on third-part softwares specialised in post-processing. Care must be taken when extracting results, especially for integral aerodynamics which require the specication of reference values of length and velocities.

39

Chapter 5

Results
In this chapter the results of the three simulations will be presented. The quantity and type of results that can be extracted from this type of numerical study is large, starting from integral aerodynamics, to pressure distribution and up to including wake study. Provided the aim of this report, results will restrict to pressure and pressure coecients distribution on the blade, generated torque and a general overview of the ow eld around the rotor. From literature review it was found that the pressure coecient distribution at dierent radial stations of the blade is one of the main parameter to be analysed and compared with experimental data. This is mainly because a direct and simple comparison can be performed, further, pressure controls most of aerodynamic phenomena, therefore errors in pressure values will probably aect other parameters too.

First, as presented in next section, the ow eld at radial stations r/R = 0.3, 0.63 and 0.95 will be shown with both streamlines and contours of relative velocity. From these gures, ow separation and circulation can be easily spotted. Then in 5.2, using the same radial positions Cp (as usual in aerodynamics) will be plotted against the nondimensional chord distance x/c where is the chord length of the aerofoil at each section. Values of coecients of pressures were computed with the following formula: P P 2 0.5(U + (r)2 )

Cp =

(5.1)

Where the P P represents static pressure, r is the blade radius at each specic radial position and , which is the rotor angular velocity, is equal to 7.54 rad/s.
40

Further information regarding the separation of the ow is given in 5.2.4 where both faces of the blade are presented with surface pressure and limiting streamlines. Lastly, turbine performance results are given in terms of torque, power and coecient of power as a function of free stream velocity and tip speed ratio. From the torque values extracted from FLUENT, power was found by multiplying the torque by the angular velocity, the coecients of power were obtained with equation (2.12). Values of the TSR were found with (2.21). More gures of the ow eld can ca be found in Appendix B.

41

5.1
5.1.1

Flow visualisation
U = 7m/s

(a) r/R = 0.3

(b) r/R = 0.3

(c) r/R = 0.63

(d) r/R = 0.63

(e) r/R = 0.95

(f ) r/R = 0.95

Figure 5.1: Streamlines (left) and contours (right) of relative velocity magnitude in m/s. U = 7m/s

42

Figure 5.2: Contours of velocity magnitude for all radial stations in m/s. U = 7m/s

5.1.2

U = 10m/s

(a) r/R = 0.3

(b) r/R = 0.3

(c) r/R = 0.63

(d) r/R = 0.63

(e) r/R = 0.95

(f ) r/R = 0.95

Figure 5.3: Streamlines (left) and contours (right) of relative velocity magnitude in m/s. U = 10m/s

43

Figure 5.4: Contours of velocity magnitude for all radial stations in m/s. U = 10m/s

5.1.3

U = 15m/s

(a) r/R = 0.3

(b) r/R = 0.3

(c) r/R = 0.63

(d) r/R = 0.63

(e) r/R = 0.95

(f ) r/R = 0.95

Figure 5.5: Streamlines (left) and contours (right) of relative velocity magnitude in m/s. U = 15m/s 44

Figure 5.6: Contours of velocity magnitude for all radial stations in m/s. U = 15m/s

45

5.2
5.2.1

Pressure distribution
Pressure coecients at U = 7m/s
r /R = 0. 30 5 E x p e ri me nt CFD 4 4 5 E x p e ri me nt CFD r /R = 0. 63

C p

C p 0 0.2 0.4 x/c 0.6 0.8 1

1 0 0.2 0.4 x/c 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.7: Cp at U = 7m/s

r/R = 0.3

Figure 5.8: Cp at U = 7m/s

r /R = 0. 95

r/R = 0.63

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.2 0.4 x/c 0.6 0.8 1 E x p e ri me nt CFD

C p

Figure 5.9: Cp at U = 7m/s

r/R = 0.95

46

5.2.2

Pressure coecients at U = 10m/s

r /R = 0. 30 5 E xp e ri me nt CFD 4 3 3 2 C p C p 2 4

r /R = 0. 63 E xp e ri me nt CFD

1 1

1 0 0.2 0.4 x/c 0.6 0.8 1

1 0 0.2 0.4 x/c 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.10: Cp at U = 10m/s

r/R = 0.3

Figure 5.11: Cp at U = 10m/s

r/R = 0.63

r /R = 0. 95 4 E xp e ri me nt CFD

2 C p 1 0 1 0 0.2 0.4 x/c 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.12: Cp at U = 10m/s

r/R = 0.95

47

5.2.3

Pressure coecients at U = 15m/s

r /R = 0. 30 2.5 5 E x p e ri me nt CFD 2 4 1.5 3 C p C p 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 1 1.5 0 0.2 0.4 x/c 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2

r /R = 0. 63 E x p e ri me nt CFD

0.4 x/c

0.6

0.8

Figure 5.13: Cp at U = 15m/s

r/R = 0.3

Figure 5.14: Cp at U = 15m/s

r/R = 0.63

r /R = 0. 95 4 E xp e ri me nt CFD

2 C p 1 0 1 0 0.2 0.4 x/c 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.15: Cp at U = 15m/s

r/R = 0.95

48

5.2.4

Surface blade pressure and limiting streamlines

(a) Pressure side

(b) Suction side

Figure 5.16: Limiting streamlines with contours of static surface pressure on the blade in Pa. U = 7m/s

(a) Pressure side

(b) Suction side

Figure 5.17: Limiting streamlines with contours of static surface pressure on the blade in Pa. U = 10m/s

49

(a) Pressure side

(b) Suction side

Figure 5.18: Limiting streamlines with contours of static surface pressure on the blade in Pa. U = 15m/s

5.3

Performance

1400 CFD 1300 1200 1100 T or q ue(N m) 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 6 8 10 12 14 16 V el oc i t y , U (m/s) 18 20 E x p e ri me nt

Figure 5.19: Experimental and computational torque variation with U

50

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 V el oc i t y , U (m/s) 14 15 16 CFD E x p e ri me nt

Figure 5.20: Variation of the NREL experimental and computational power output as function of wind speed velocity
0.4 CFD 0.35 0.3 0.25 CP 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 E xp e ri me nt

P ow er (k W )

2.5

3.5

4 4.5 t i p sp eed r a t i o

5.5

Figure 5.21: Change of experimental and computational CP as function of TSR

0.4 CFD E x p e ri me nt 0.35 P ow er c oef f i c i en t , C P 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 6 8 10 12 V el oc i t y , U (m/s) 14 16

Figure 5.22: Variation of computational and experimental CP with wind speed

51

Chapter 6

Discussion
This chapter will focus on the analysis of the results given in the previous chapter. Particular attention is given to understand the physics of the ow eld and how aects the performance of the wind turbine. With the help of results obtained in the material listed in the Literature Review, a comparison of computational results will also be presented. This, in parallel with the comparison with experimental results, can give important details regarding inaccuracy occurred in the study and how results may be improved in the possibility of future works or for the benet of the reader. The reader must note that the same mesh has been used for all three computations, therefore changes were not made except for y + renements which were performed directly in the software. The mesh was created based on many trials of the 7m/s case and therefore properly optimised for this particular ow eld. However, at 15m/s, ow phenomena experienced by the rotor are much dierent from the ones at 7m/s which may suggest that a new mesh should be generated with particular attention to the mesh in the region of the boundary layer.

6.1

Comparison with the NREL Phase VI experiment

From page 30 to 32, streamlines and contours of relative velocity magnitude are displayed; the reader must note the relative velocity is the one seen by the leading edge of the blade and not the one seen standing far from the rotating rotor. This type of velocity is preferred since it gives more information for aerofoil aerodynamics. In Figure 5.1 can be observed that at U = 7m/s the ow is attached on most of the blade surface except for small regions shown in (c) and (e), in fact at 30 % of the blade,
52

the separation seems to be minimum. Figure 5.16 (b) gives more precise information; indeed it can be observed that on the suction side, starting from roughly x/c = 50 60%, streamlines deviates from the parallel inboard streamlines, deviating their path towards a spanwise direction which is due to centrifugal acceleration caused by rotation [23]. At U = 10m/s separation seems to be widely experienced at 63 % of the blade, further Figure 5.17 shows that the spanwise movements now occupy most of the suction side blade except for a small area starting from roughly 60 % to the tip. Then separation eects are magnied at all section for a wind speed of 15 m/s here according to experiment analysis the blade has encountered stall, for which this large ow separation would be explained. Now key information will be given from the pressure coecient distribution and as shown in pages 44 to 46, at U = 7m/s the Cp plots at three radial stations agree rather well with experimental ones, although, lower pressure is experienced at the inbound region (Figure 5.8 and 5.9). Disagreement seems to increase with wind speed and especially for the suction side of the blade. Indeed, at U = 10m/s, a signicant region of higher pressure is experienced at r/R = 0.63 from the leading edge up roughly 45 % of the chord for the low pressure side. However at other sections, Cp s show rather good agreements with experimental data although uctuations are noticeable on the suction sides. Lastly, plots at 15 m/s wind speed clearly show signicant errors on all suction sides with usually higher values than experimental ones. Still, it is interesting to note, that on all pressure sides, agreement is mostly present. The above paragraphs suggest that the numerical method is not properly capturing highly circulating turbulent ows occurring at post-stall speeds. This can be indeed conrmed by performance results, in fact, as displayed in Figures 5.19 and 5.20, the computational error increases with higher wind speeds; in fact at 7 m/s, the predicted torque and power are 7.5 % higher than the calculated ones which, for the purpose of this report, is an acceptable results. It is not the case for higher speeds such as at 10 m/s where the error is up to 27.5 % and for the post-stall wind speed of 15 m/s where the torque is 65.25 % lower than expected.

It is easy to conclude that the simulation for U = 7m/s, for which the mesh was specically optimised, is the one that gave the best results.

53

6.2

Comparison with previous work

However, this is not the whole picture, in fact, a comparison with previous work will provide an insight to how well other numerical simulations have performed in this particular NREL study. In the graph below, a comparison of shaft torque values obtained from previous studies with results from FLUENT and with the NREL experiment is presented. The results are taken from the following articles with the used CFD code written in brakets: Srensen et al.(EllipSys3D)[41], Mo and Lee (FLUENT) [23], Le Pape and Lecanu (elsA) [42], Huang et al. (P-WENO) [43] and Potsdam and Mavriplis (OVERFLOW) [20]. It has to be noted that results at 13 m/s have been included in the comparison although the case was not performed in this study.

2000

CFD FLUENT Experiment Sorensen et al. Mo and Lee Le Pape and Lecanu

1800

1600

Huang et al. Potsdam and Mavriplis

1400 T or q ue(N m)

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

10

12 14 V el oc i t y , U (m/s)

16

18

20

Figure 6.1: Comparison of computational results of torque obtained from previous work

As can be observed, CFD results have large disagreements among each other and present a wide range errors and discrepancies from the experimental results. The studies that compare better are the ones from Srenses et al., Huang et al. and Mo and Lee, with the latter presenting a better simulation of performance in the range from 13 m/s to 15 m/s, which is the one where most studies encounter higher inaccuracies This gives an
54

overview of the diculty that CFD solvers encounter in processing torque results especially for post-stall velocities, in fact at 7 m/s most results appear to agree accurately. Results obtained in this study are generally of lower quality in comparison to others, nevertheless, if compared with results from Le Pape and Lecanu (2004) , results appear in the same range and coincide at 15 m/s (although the 13 m/s case was not treated). As reported in the same publication, the SST turbulence model is used and reasons for incorrect drop in the generated torque appears to be due to unexpected early loss of torque and normal force coecient and at 15 m/s the main contribution to torque appears to be supplied by the blade root, whereas the laboratory results show the opposite. It may be summarised that according to Le Pope and Lecanu (2004), the NS solver encounters diculties at capturing important eects of ow separation at stall speed, in fact, after this initial loss, torque is recovered comparing well with NREL experiment [42]. In regard to the simulation carried out by Mo and Lee [23] with FLUENT, torque is predicted very well as well as pressure distribution. The SST model is again used (conrming being a favourite choice) and the mesh is structured with 3 106 hexahedral elements. As commented by the authors in the article, predicted results were surprisingly accurate and the stall was properly being simulated [23]. Next, a comparison will also be made in terms of surface limiting using results from the last two mentioned references (Figure 6.2). The blades shown in (a) represent the surface streamlines obtained from this study, then in (b) and (c), results from Le Pape and Lecanu, and Mo and Lee are presented respectively. If (c) is taken as reference, it can be seen that at 7 m/s in (c) ow is mostly two dimensional meaning that radial movements are very limited to a small area close to the root (this is due to an high angle of attack ), instead in (b) and even more (c) this area expands towards the which clearly should not occur. At a higher wind speed of 10 m/s, (c) shows that from x/c 0.5 down to the trailing edge, spanwise components of the streamlines have increased their eects; instead in (c), separated ow occupies larger surface which is again magnied in (a). Then at post-stall speed, radial translations cover the whole suction surface for which a direct comparison cannot really made, however the reader might have observed a pattern, in the sense that results obtained in this study clearly show that the stall phenomenon occurs at an earlier stage.

55

(a) FLUENT

(b) Le Pape and Lecanu [42]

(c) Mo and Lee [23]

Figure 6.2: Computed limiting streamlines comparison from 7 to 15 m/s (top to bottom)

The reader must note that further data is much needed in order to have a clear and thorough overview of the whole ow eld, such as integral aerodynamics (lift, drag, normal and tangential force) and its dependancy with variation angle of attack, which goes beyond the scope of this report. Further a wake study as performed by Ivanell [14] and tip
56

aerodynamic analysis such as the one done by Ferrer and Munduate [44] can provide further and important details.

57

Chapter 7

Conclusions and future work

General aspects of capabilities of Computational Fluid Dynamics applied to wind turbines have been analysed and discussed. A total of three simulations have been computed and results of pressure, torque and power and ow eld velocity magnitudes have been compared with experimental results. It has been observed that good agreement with the NREL experiment occur for low speed wind velocity where the ow on the blade is attached and stall eects are minimum or absent. The following conclusions can be drawn: CFD codes such as ANSYS FLUENT are powerful tools and are experiencing important developments. However, as observed in recent research publications, the accuracy of said packages is debatable. Therefore as of now, they are not reliable in form of designing tools. The application of CFD to wind turbines is relatively recent. Increase in number of publications has been seen after the release of the NREL UAE Phase VI experimental data providing an important validation tool for CFD methods. Although with few exceptions, as seen in Chapter 5 and 6, stall phenomenon is predicted with diculties by CFD packages and turbulence models. Among these, the SST is a common choice for wind turbine studies. Results obtained from simulations agree well with experiments at 7 m/s and with increasing velocities inaccuracy increases. However the shapes of the trends for pressure and performance results have been predicted.

58

7.1

Future work

Given the nature of a dissertation of undergraduate level, important aspects of such computational study have been excluded. For example 2D dimensional CFD studies are very important in the process of optimisation and for identifying the correct method, and a mesh independence study have been carried out bur without a methodic approach. This was mainly due to time constraints, in fact such studies can be taken to Master and PhD levels. In the possibility of future studies in the eld CFD applied to wind turbine or rotating machineries, it is recommended that step-by-step method be adopted, starting from the basics of CFD and wind turbine theory and gradually up to solution of a full scale three-dimensional problem. In particular, meshing strategy and turbulence modelling are among the important factors to be considered in such study.

59

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my family, friends and my supervisor for all their support. I also would like to thank Aleksandar Pai from the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and sc Naval Architecture (FAMENA), University of Zagreb for providing important inputs and computing resources.

60

References
[1] British Petroleoum. Bp statistical review of world energy, June 2011. [2] International Energy Agency. Key world energy statistics, 2011. [3] UNFCC. http://unfccc.int/kyotoprotocol/items/2830.php. [4] International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2010. executive summary, 2010. [5] M.Z. Jacobson and G.M. Masters. Exploiting wind versus coal. Science 24, page 1438, 2001. [6] Vaughn Nelson. Wind Energy. Renewable Energy and the Environment. CRC Press, 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300, 2009. [7] European Wind Energy Technology Platform. Wind energy: A vision for europe in 2030, September 2006. [8] U.S. Department of Energy. 20 % wind energy by 2030: Increasing wind energys contribution to u.s. electricity supply, July 2008. [9] Global Wind Energy Council. Global wind statistics 2011, February 2012. [10] M.M. Hand, D.A. Simms, L.J. Fingersh, D.W. Jager, J.R. Cotrell, S. Schreck, and S.M. Larwood. Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment Phase VI : Wind Tunnel Test Congurations and Available Data Campaigns. Technical report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), December 2001. [11] Scott Schreck. The nrel full-scale wind tunnel experiment introduction to the special issue. Wind Energy, 5(2-3):7784, 2002. [12] D. Simms, S. Schreck, M. Hand, and L.J. Fingersh. NREL Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment in the NAS-Ames Wind Tunnel: A Comparison of Predictions to Measurements, June 2001.
61

[13] Carlo Enrico Carcangiu. CFD-RANS Study of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines. PhD thesis, Universita degli Studi di Cagliari, January 2008. [14] Stefan S. A. Ivanell. Numerical Computations of Wind Turbine Wakes. PhD thesis, Gotland University, January 2009. [15] Yen-Pin Chen. A Study of the Aerodynamic Behaviour of a NREL Wind Turbine using CFD Methodology. Masters thesis, Wright State University, 2009. [16] Amir Teymour Javaherchi Mozafari. Numerical Modelling of Tidal Turbines: Methodology Development and Potential Physical Environmental Eects. Masters thesis, University of Washington, 2010. [17] Ankur Gupta. Computational Fluid Dynamic Simulation od Wind Turbines. Masters thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 2006. [18] Nilay Sezer-Uzol, Ankur Gupta, and Lyle N. Long. 3-d time-accurate inviscid and viscous cfd simulations of wind turbine rotor ow elds. In Parallel Computational Fluid Dynamics 2007, volume 67 of Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, pages 457464. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009. [19] Dnyanesh A. Disgrakar. Simulation of Flow over Wind Turbines. Masters thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2010. [20] Mark A Potsdam and Dimitri J Mavriplis. Unstructured mesh CFD aerodynamic analysis of the NREL Phase VI rotor. Convergence, (January):118, 2009. [21] J. Johansen, N. N. Srensen, J. A. Michelsen, and S. Schreck. Detached-eddy simulation of ow around the nrel phase vi blade. Wind Energy, 5(2-3):185197, 2002. [22] D. D. Chao and C. P. van Dam. Computational aerodynamic analysis of a blunt trailing-edge airfoil modication to the nrel phase vi rotor. Wind Energy, 10(6):529 550, 2007. [23] Jang-Oh Mo and Young-Ho Lee. CFD investigation on the aerodynamic characteristics of a small-sized wind turbine of NREL PHASE VI operating with a stallregulated method. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 26:8192, 2012. 10.1007/s12206-011-1014-7.

62

[24] R. P. J. O. M. van Rooij and E. A. Arens. Analysis of the experimental and computational ow characteristics with respect to the augmented lift phenomenon caused by blade rotation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 75(1):012021, 2007. [25] Xiang Gao and Jun Hu. Numerical simulation to the eect of rotation on blade boundary layer of horizontal axial wind turbine. In World Non-Grid-Connected Wind Power and Energy Conference (WNWEC), 2010, pages 1 4, nov. 2010. [26] Razvan Mahu and Florin Popescu. NREL phase VI rotor modelling and simulation using ANSYS FLUENT 12. [27] Lu Qunfeng, Chen Jin, Cheng Jiangtao, Qin Ning, and L.A.M. Danao. Study of cfd simulation of a 3-d wind turbine. In Materials for Renewable Energy Environment (ICMREE), 2011 International Conference on, volume 1, pages 596 600, may 2011. [28] K. Pope, I. Dincer, and G.F. Naterer. Energy and exergy eciency comparison of horizontal and vertical axis wind turbines. Renewable Energy, 35(9):2102 2113, 2010. [29] Jr. John D. Anderson. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. McGraw-Hill, 2001. [30] Ira H. Abbot and Albert E. Von Doenho. Theory of Wing Sections. Dover Publications, Inc, New York, 1959. [31] Martin O. L. Hansen. Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines. Hearthscan, London, 2008. [32] J.F. Manwell, J.G. McGowan, and A.L. Rogers. Wind Energy Explained. Theory, Design and Application. Wiley, 2009. [33] M.O.L. Hansen, J.N. Srensen, S. Voutsinas, N. Srensen, and H.Aa. Madsen. State of the art in wind turbine aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 42(4):285 330, 2006. [34] Jr. John D. Anderson. Computational Fluid Dynamics. The Basics with Applications. McGraw-Hill, 1995. [35] Stephen B. Pope. Turbulent ows. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000. [36] CFX. Cfx-5 solver theory. turbulence and wall functions.

63

[37] Florian M. Menter. Zonal two equation turbulence models for aerodynamic ows. AIAA, 93 - 2906, 1993. [38] ANSYS Inc. Ansys uent theory guide, November 2010. [39] Marshall Bern and Paul Plassmann. Mesh generation. [40] ANSYS. Introduction to ANSYS FLUENT 14. [41] N. N. Srensen, J. A. Michelsen, and S. Schreck. Navierstokes predictions of the nrel phase vi rotor in the nasa ames 80 ft 120 ft wind tunnel. Wind Energy, 5(2-3):151 169, 2002. [42] A. Le Pape and J. Lecanu. 3d navierstokes computations of a stall-regulated wind turbine. Wind Energy, 7(4):309324, 2004. [43] Juan-Chen Huang, Herng Lin, Tsang-Jen Hsieh, and Tse-Yang Hsieh. Parallel preconditioned weno scheme for three-dimensional ow simulation of nrel phase vi rotor. Computers and amp; Fluids, 45(1):276 282, 2011. ce:title22nd International Conference on Parallel Computational Fluid Dynamics (ParCFD 2010)/ce:title xocs:full-nameParCFD/xocs:full-name. [44] E Ferrer and X Munduate. Wind turbine blade tip comparison using cfd. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 75(1):012005, 2007.

64

Appendix A

NREL Phase VI blade data

Figure A.1: NREL Phase VI wind turbine blade data [10]

65

Figure A.2: S809 Aerofoil coordinates

66

Appendix B

Wake ow visualization
B.1 U = 10m/s

Figure B.1: Front view of the rotor. U = 10m/s

67

Figure B.2: SIde view of the wake. U = 10m/s

Figure B.3: Top view of the wake. U = 10m/s

68

B.2

U = 15m/s

Figure B.4: Front view of the rotor U = 15m/s

69

Figure B.5: Side view of the wake U = 15m/s

Figure B.6: Top view of the wake U = 15m/s

70