0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

8 Aufrufe24 SeitenCFD for Win

Mar 28, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

CFD for Win

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

8 Aufrufe

CFD for Win

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- ART. the Design of Large Diameter Skim Tanks Using CFD for Maximum Oil Removal
- AJK Fluids 2019
- IJET-16257
- Aero
- 61784194-eBooks
- Convective Heat Transfer and Aerodynamics in Axial Flow Turbines
- Wind Effects on ‘Z’ Plan Shaped Tall Building- A Case Study_published copy.pdf
- Practical Application of Validated Computer Models for Fire Hazard Analysis in.pdf
- ACMOS-87 Computer fluid dynamics of wind loads around tall buildings
- Definition of on-site and Off-site Explosion Loading
- Chapter2
- Bre Cfdchecklist Dg511
- Dinamica de Fluidos Computacional
- Engineer Example CV
- Icossar05 Fp,Fg,Fb
- 71212181.pdf
- Recent Advances in Educational Methods
- Quick Start — FLOW-3D v11.1
- Detached Eddy Simulation - 2
- Aerodynamic Optimization and Open Field Testing of a 1 KW Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 24

Renewable Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

including explicit wind turbulence

Y. Li a, A.M. Castro a, T. Sinokrot b, W. Prescott b, P.M. Carrica a, *

a

IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA

b

LMS International, a Siemens Business, 2425 Oakdale Boulevard, Coralville, IA 52241, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A high ﬁdelity approach for wind turbine aero-elastic simulations including explicit representation of the

Received 19 November 2013 atmospheric wind turbulence is presented. The approach uses a dynamic overset computational ﬂuid

Accepted 6 November 2014 dynamics (CFD) code for the aerodynamics coupled with a multi-body dynamics (MBD) code for the

Available online 2 December 2014

motion responses to the aerodynamic loads. Mann's wind turbulence model was implemented into the

CFD code as boundary and initial conditions. The wind turbulence model was validated by comparing the

Keywords:

theoretical one-point spectrum for the three components of the velocity ﬂuctuations, and by comparing

Wind turbine aerodynamics

the expected statistics from the CFD simulated wind turbulent ﬁeld with the explicit wind turbulence

Computational ﬂuid dynamics

Multi-body dynamics

inlet boundary from Mann model. Extensive simulations based on the proposed coupled approach were

Wind turbulence conducted with the conceptual NREL 5-MW offshore wind turbine in an increasing level of complexity,

Wake ﬂows analyzing the turbine behavior as elasticity, wind shear and atmospheric wind turbulence are added to

the simulations. Results are compared with the publicly available simulations results from OC3 partici-

pants, showing good agreement for the aerodynamic loads and blade tip deﬂections in time and fre-

quency domains. Wind turbulence/turbine interaction was examined for the wake ﬂow. It was found that

explicit turbulence addition results in considerably increased wake diffusion. The coupled CFD/MBD

approach can be extended to include multibody models of the shaft, bearings, gearbox and generator,

resulting in a promising tool for wind turbine design under complex operational environments.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

including waves and platform stability. The complex operational

Current trends of wind turbine design favor larger size which environment causes another critical factor as maintenance cost,

tends to be more cost-effective. However, this results in more especially for offshore farms with expensive accessibility. Of all

complex turbine systems with more demanding structural con- components in a turbine, gearbox, drivetrain and generator

straints. These large turbines, with rotor diameters over 120 m, contribute most to downtime, while rotor hub and blades are the

expose the wind turbine to high wind shear and turbulence. The next critical factors [1].

long and slender blades are subject to large amplitude changes in Development of methodologies and techniques capable of

wind loads, causing reliability issues due to fatigue. Variable-speed, modeling the interaction between realistic wind loads and the

variable-pitch and yaw control are needed for the turbine system to structural components is the most promising way to improve de-

achieve best performance. High tip speeds due to the long blades signs that will better perform in complex operational environ-

introduce noise and environmental impacts. Challenges increase ments. This covers the ﬁelds of aerodynamics, elasticity and wind

when several wind turbines are operated as wind farms, with simulations.

stronger velocity gradients and ﬂuctuations caused by momentum Due to advances in high performance computing (HPC) tech-

deﬁcits and wake turbulence of upwind turbines. The above- niques, the high ﬁdelity but computationally expensive computa-

mentioned issues tend to be relieved when operating offshore, tional ﬂuid dynamics (CFD) methods have shown great potential for

where the turbines are exposed to higher, more constant wind accurate wind turbine aerodynamic predictions. CFD has the

advantage over traditional, lower cost methods like Blade Element

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 319 335 6381. Momentum (BEM) that all the geometry is resolved and the forces

E-mail address: pablo-carrica@uiowa.edu (P.M. Carrica). and moments over all the structure are predicted, and not subject

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.014

0960-1481/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 339

to external input of lift, drag and momentum coefﬁcients. Also, directly by Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS). However, the

BEM-based models are greatly dependent on empirical corrections computational cost is way beyond current computer capabilities.

to account for 3D effects, unsteady inﬂow and dynamic stall, all of Another accurate but less expensive method is Large Eddy Simu-

these naturally predicted by CFD. Another advantage is that the lation (LES), which is an approximate solution to the NeS equations

wake and its turbulence are predicted, which is not possible with where the smallest scales are not solved directly but modeled [16].

BEM. These advantages come at a cost of orders of magnitude more One advanced atmospheric turbulent model was proposed by

expensive runs, but opens the possibility of better results for Bechmann [17]. Based on LES and incorporated in the CFD code

transient loads and wakes. EllipSys3D, the model provides improved representation of the

Various CFD or hybrid BEM/CFD methods have been attempted anisotropy of the atmospheric turbulence. However, LES still re-

for wind turbine simulations. Examples include the use of the quires unmanageably large computational resources and is not yet

generalized actuator disc method, combining BEM method and the practical for engineering use. Currently the most adopted models

NaviereStokes (NeS) equations, to represent the blade geometry for wind turbulence simulations are based on the construction of

by surface forces acting upon the incoming ﬂow. This method has spectral tensors such as the Sandia model [18] and the Mann wind

been applied to study turbines and turbine wakes [2] and wind turbulence model [19,20]. Mann's model is capable of simulating all

farms [3]. The method was improved by the more sophisticated three velocity components of a 3D incompressible turbulence ﬁeld.

actuator line [4] and actuator surface [5] approaches. Other Most of the aerodynamic codes capable of including wind turbu-

methods modeled the rotor directly by constructing body-ﬁtted lence are based on BEM, and thus interaction between wind tur-

grids, including unstructured multi-grid RANS [6], compressible bines and the turbulent ﬁeld cannot be predicted. In this respect,

RANS with overset grid technique [7] and NURB-based (Non-Uni- CFD provides a good methodology to simulate turbulence/turbine

form Rational B-splines) approach for turbine geometry [8]. interaction. Troldborg et al. [21] studied wind turbine wake with

There are two widely used approaches for structural modeling both resolved rotor geometry and rotor model using actuator line/

of modern wind turbines, ﬁnite element methods (FEM) and multi- actuator disc methods, applying Mann's model for the turbulent

body dynamics (MBD). FEM allows for complex blade deformations, inﬂow. The turbulent velocity ﬁeld was introduced via body forces

which is common for large-scale wind turbines, but can be very in the momentum equation. Schulz et al. [22] conducted a DES

costly. The long and slender blade justiﬁes the use of beam theory simulation for wind turbine in both ﬂat and complex terrain to

in the structural modeling, with the classic beam theory for small evaluate the inﬂuence of inﬂow turbulence on blade load and po-

deformations or second-order non-linear beam theory for large wer response.

deformations. The dynamic interaction between components of the The objective of this paper is to present a high ﬁdelity approach

turbine system in large-scale become important, including the for wind turbine aero-elastic simulation including the atmospheric

rotor-shaft-gearbox-generator dynamics. This involves different wind turbulence and wind shear. This is achieved by coupling an

body motions for each component of the turbine system, in which overset dynamics CFD solver to predict the aerodynamics of the

the components are combined with connections where loads and turbine in motion, and an MBD solver to predict the motions of the

displacements are communicated from one component to the other turbine system under the aerodynamic loads. The Mann model

[9]. MBD is highly accurate to model slender bodies [10] and much recommended in the IEC 61400-1 ed. 3 standard [23] is used to

faster than FEM, and is thus adopted by most of the simulation tools explicitly model turbulence, and was implemented into the CFD

for wind turbine analysis. code as inlet boundary and initial conditions. Extensive simulations

Coupling BEM and MBD perhaps is the most widely adopted based on the proposed approach were conducted with the NREL 5-

approach for wind turbine aero-elastic simulations to date, allow- MW offshore wind turbine. Results were compared and analyzed

ing efﬁcient and good predictions for rotor aerodynamics and non- with the publicly available simulation results from offshore code

linear structural responses. These include the two primary design comparison collaboration (OC3) participants.

codes applied by the U.S. wind industry, AeroDyn/FAST and Aero-

Dyn/ADAMS. However, limits from the aerodynamic predictions

restrict the BEM/MBD applications. A more advanced aerodynamic 2. Mathematical and numerical methods

predictor such as CFD provides a better solution, with less modeled

inputs and the ability to predict the turbine wake. 2.1. Structural solver

Most efforts to couple CFD and computational structural dy-

namics (CSD) solvers have been reported in the rotorcraft com- The multi-body dynamics (MBD) simulation code Virtual.Lab

munity. Examples are the coupled overset CFD solver Overﬂow-D Motion [24,25], is used in simulating the structural dynamics for

and the ﬂexible multi-body dynamics code DYMORE [11] and the turbine. Virtual.Lab Motion uses a set of generalized co-

coupled unsteady RANS unstructured grid solver FUN3D and the ordinates that are based on a generalized Cartesian coordinate

rotorcraft CSD code CAMRAD II [12]. CFD/CSD coupled studies for system (X, Y, Z) and Euler parameters (e0, e1, e2, e3) to formulate the

wind turbines are also available. Corson et al. [13] performed equations of motion [26]. The multi-body system consists of

coupled ﬂuidestructure interaction (FSI) simulations for a 13.2 MW interconnected bodies that can be rigid or ﬂexible, each of which

blade design using the commercial CFD solver AcuSolve and the may have translational and rotational displacements. The bodies

MBD solver FAST. Bazilevs et al. [14] proposed an FSI procedure for are connected by force and joint elements that describe their dy-

wind turbine simulations using a FEM based CFD solver and a namic and kinematic constraints. The code has the capability to

structural solver based on the isogeometric rotation-free Kircho- simulate realistic motions of complex mechanical system such as

hoffeLove composite shell and the bending strip method. The vehicles and powertrains.

coupled approach was applied to both rotor-only and the full tur- The motion of constrained bodies in the MBD code is described

bine conﬁguration including tower and nacelle [15] for the NREL 5- by a set of differential-algebraic equations (DAEs) that consist of the

MW baseline wind turbine, showing a good combination of accu- differential equations of motion and a set of algebraic constraint

racy and efﬁciency. equations

A realistic transient turbulent wind ﬁeld is important for wind

turbine simulations. In general, the most “correct” and accurate

fðq; tÞ ¼ 0 (1)

way to simulate the turbulent ﬁeld is to solve the NeS equations

340 Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361

i

€ þ fTq l ¼ Q iv þ Q ie

Miq (2) incompressible ﬂows are

i

" #

where q ¼ ½q1 q2 … qn T is the vector of the generalized co- vu 1

_

þ V$½ðu xÞ5u ¼ Vp þ V$ Vu þ VuT

þS (5)

ordinates that consists of the translational and rotational co- vt Reeff

ordinates of each body in the system measured in the global frame

and n is the number of bodies in the system. f is a set of kinematic

V$u ¼ 0 (6)

constraints, fTqi is the Jacobian of the vector of constraints f with

respect to the generalized coordinates of body i, and l is the vector

where u is the ﬂuid velocity, x_ is the grid velocity to account for

of the Lagrange multipliers for the constraints. Mi is the mass

moving or deforming grids, 5 denotes dyadic product, and S is a

matrix of the body i, Qiv is the quadratic velocity vector used to

source term due to body forces, e.g. a rotor or propeller model, and

describe Coriolis and centrifugal terms, obtained by the partial

is zero in this paper for explicit wind turbine simulations. p is the

derivatives of the kinetic energy of the body with respect to time t

dimensionless piezometric pressure, p p pabs/rU20 þ z/Fr2 þ 2k/3

¼ ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

and the generalized coordinates q; Qie is the vector of the external

with pabs the absolute pressure, Fr ¼ U0 = gL is the Froude number;

forces applied on the body i.

Reeff is the effective Reynolds number, deﬁned as Re1 eff ¼ Re

1

þ nt ,

In order to solve the set of DAEs (Eqs. (1) and (2)), Eq. (1) is

Re ¼ rlU0L/ml is the Reynolds number for water (l ¼ w) or air (l ¼ a). k

modiﬁed by taking the second partial derivative with respect to

and nt are the dimensionless turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent

time t

eddy viscosity, respectively, obtained from the turbulence model. In

this work we use a delayed detached eddy simulation (DDES)

€ ¼ ftt fq q_ q_ 2fqt q_ ¼ g

fq q (3)

q model [33] based on Menter's shear stress transport model (SST)

[34], a two equation model for the turbulent kinetic energy k and

where subscript q and t denote their partial derivative, respectively.

the speciﬁc dissipation rate u. No boundary layer transition model

The DAEs can then be written in matrix form by combining Eqs.

was used, implying that the boundary layer is considered fully

(2) and (3) as

turbulent.

It is noted that conservation laws (mass, momentum, geometry)

M fTq €

q Qv þ Qe

¼ (4) are satisﬁed inside the computational domain but not in cells using

fq 0 l g

fringe overset points. Conservative overset algorithms are difﬁcult

to implement in general curvilinear grids [35], and overset con-

where Qe contains the external loads and is where the wind loads

servation errors are usually small if good practices are followed

are added.

when constructing the grids.

The incompressible CFD code CFDShip-Iowa v4.5 is used as the The coupled aero-elastic approach is done by exchanging the

ﬂow solver for the turbine simulations. Its ability to accurately necessary information between the CFD and the MBD codes at run

simulate complex turbine aerodynamics has been extensively time. The forces and moments computed by the CFD code are sent

tested against data for the NREL phase VI wind turbine [27]. to the MBD code as Qie for each body in Eq. (2), and the positions/

CFDShip-Iowa v4.5 is a ﬁnite difference, unsteady Reynolds- rotations obtained by the MBD code are sent to the CFD code and

Averaged NaviereStokes (URANS) or Detached Eddy Simulation used to move the CFD grids to recompute the convective term and

(DES) solver. It uses structured multi-block body-ﬁtted curvilinear solid boundary conditions.

grids with overset capabilities to accommodate complex geome- Fig. 1 schematically describes the approach for discretization.

tries and motions. Both single phase and two-phase (air/water) Blades and tower are slender and thus can be well approximated by

ﬂow problems can be considered. The air/water problem is ﬂexible one-dimensional structures. The system is discretized into

addressed by using a semi-coupled method [28] where the water interconnected bodies and represented in the MBD code by their

ﬂow is decoupled from the air solution, but the air ﬂow uses the generalized coordinates at the center of gravity (CG) with proper

unsteady water ﬂow as a moving immersed boundary condition. position and orientation. The interconnection between bodies is

The free surface is modeled with an unsteady single-phase level set described and constrained by bracket joints for rigid turbine sim-

capturing approach [29], where only the water ﬂow is solved with ulations that allow no motions between two bodies, and beam force

enforced kinematic and dynamic free surface boundary conditions elements for ﬂexible turbine simulations that allow 6 DOF for each

on the interfaces, allowing robust computations and large ampli- body. Since the CFD grids are much ﬁner than the discretization in

tude and/or steep waves. This approach allows for the simulation of the MBD code, special treatment was done to accommodate the

an off-shore wind turbine attached to a ﬂoating structure under information exchange for this non-matching domain discretization,

incoming waves, though the capability is not demonstrated here. as shown in Fig. 1. The CFD grids used to discretize the geometry

Dynamic overset grids are used to solve grid deformations and (blades, tower, etc.) consist of a body-ﬁtted surface grid attached to

relative motions [30], with the interpolation coefﬁcients between solid surfaces, and extend into the volume of the ﬂuid to resolve the

the grids recomputed dynamically at run time with the code Suggar ﬂow ﬁeld. Each grid cell is assigned a set of integer IDs that are

[31]. Large-scale computations are achieved using high perfor- associated with the bodies it belongs to. As an example, a cell may

mance computing (HPC) with an MPI-based domain decomposition have ID values i and i 1 indicating that some part of the cell is

approach [32]. For complete details the reader is referred to the associated with body i and another part with body i 1. Integration

references [28e30,32] and literature therein. of the forces and moments for each cell on the surface grid is

All variables and properties are non-dimensionalized by the performed with respect to the CG of the corresponding body to

characteristic length L and velocity U0 of interest, and the liquid obtain the forces and moments contributing to each body, as

properties. For wind turbine simulations, they are chosen as the needed by the MBD code. To integrate the forces and moments

rotor radius and the prevailing incoming wind velocity. correctly, weights of the contribution for each cell to its associated

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 341

body are estimated based on the fraction of cell area belonging to both codes non-linear iterations are needed, due to the nonlinear

that body. The MBD code provides the motions for each body in nature of the equations of motion of the constrained multi-body

terms of 3 global positions and the rotational matrix with respect to system and the ﬂuid ﬂow. The CFD code obtains the overset

its initial conﬁguration. Due to issues to be discussed later in this domain-connectivity-information (DCI) from Suggar at run time,

section, positions/rotations from more than one body will be and then non-linear iterations are performed to properly couple

applied to the cell even if the cell is only associated with one body. turbulence, level set, non-linear convection terms of the mo-

Fig. 2 shows a ﬂow chart depicting the strategy to couple the mentum equations, and motions. Forces and moments are

CFD code and the MBD code. The coupling between structure and computed after the pressure implicit split operator (PISO) loop to

ﬂuid is made in explicit form. This is adequate for the case of a wind obtain solenoidal velocity ﬁeld. When the computations reach the

turbine since the added mass due to ﬂow acceleration by the mo- communication time, positions/rotations are sent by the MBD code

tion of the structure is negligible compared to the mass of the to the CFD code which deforms the grids and obtains the new DCI

blades, tower and other moving components. for the next time step, while the updated forces and moments are

Communication and exchange of the forces and moments sent to the MBD code to compute the new motion responses. The

computed from the CFD code and the positions/rotations computed MBD code is much faster than the CFD code, thus MBD code shares

from the MBD code are needed so each program has the necessary one processor with the CFD code with no signiﬁcant performance

information to perform its computations. Communication is made penalty.

through two communication ﬁles, one for forces and moments, and Some important issues need to be addressed for a successful

one for positions and rotations, so that the CFD code writes the coupling of the CFD and MBD codes. One is related to the imple-

appropriate forces and moments that the MBD code needs to mentation of the positions provided by the MBD code into the CFD

perform the multi-body dynamic computations, and the MBD code grids. Since the MBD model is composed by rigid bodies connected

writes the computed positions and rotations resulting from the by ﬂexible beam connections, direct implementation of the body

input forces and moments. During the initialization stage, the CFD positions into the CFD grids can (and will) cause a collapse of the

code reads and splits the grids according to user directives for surface grids as the bodies partially overlap each other on moderate

parallel decomposition, while the MBD code reads the information or large deformations. To prevent this unphysical behavior, the new

of the system model that includes mass, position and orientation of position of the surface grid point is obtained by a weighted average

each body, structural properties and kinematic constraints of the of the positions of the two bodies whose CGs bound the grid point.

system's components. Then the CFD code sends the initial forces Since the CGs behave physically and do not collapse, the new grid

and moments to the MBD code, zero for a simulation starting from obtained with this interpolation process is well behaved.

scratch or the values from a speciﬁc restart solution for a restart Another issue related to the CFD grid deformation and motion is

run. Afterwards, the two codes begin their independent computa- related to reﬁnement grids, designed to capture ﬂow features of

tions until the time for communication speciﬁed by the user. For importance like tip vortices and regions of separation. These grids

342 Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361

have to follow the blades accurately, which for deforming blades with * denoting conjugation and 〈,〉 ensemble averaging. Eq. (8) is

becomes difﬁcult. An average of the motions of all bodies belonging valid for inﬁnitesimally small dki. For isotropic ﬂows the velocity

to each blade is used to move the reﬁnement grids attached to the spectrum tensor Fij is related to the three dimensional energy

blade. spectrum by

EðkÞ 2

Fij ðkÞ ¼ d ij k ki kj (9)

The wind turbulence model proposed and developed by Mann 4pk4

[19,20] was implemented into the code CFDShip-Iowa v4.5 to

provide appropriate initial and inlet boundary conditions. Based on where the energy spectrum E(k) is modeled using the von K n

arma

the construction of a velocity-spectrum tensor for atmospheric model

surface-layer turbulence, the model includes turbulence ﬂuctua-

tions and the effect of shear in the atmospheric boundary layer. By

construction, the model reproduces the second-order statistics as

L4 k4

found in the atmosphere and provides a solenoidal velocity ﬁeld. EðkÞ ¼ a32=3 L5=3 17=6 (10)

Particular to this work is the computation of a valid pressure ﬁeld 1 þ L2 k2

consistent with the generated velocity that is used to impose

appropriate inlet and initial conditions. with a z 1.5 the Kolmogorov constant, 3 the turbulence dissipation

and L a length scale that for high Reynolds numbers approaches the

limit L z 0.43L11 with L11 the integral length scale. The integral over

2.4.1. Spectral representation of the velocity ﬁeld all wave numbers of the energy spectrum equals the total turbulent

The velocity is modeled as a stochastic ﬁeld using the general- kinetic energy k. Performing this integration leads to a32/3L5/

3

ized FouriereStieltjes integral ¼ 1.453s2isoL which allows to eliminate the turbulence dissipation

Z by the mean turbulent ﬂuctuations siso related to the turbulent

uðxÞ ¼ eik$x dZðkÞ (7) kinetic energy by k ¼ 3/2s2iso.

It is practically impossible to determine E(k) experimentally.

However, one-dimensional spectra can be determined by single-

where the integration in the wave number vector k spans the entire

point velocity measurements. A relationship exists between the

wave number space, and Z is a orthogonal stochastic process

one-dimensional spectra and the three dimensional spectrum [36]

related to the velocity-spectrum tensor Fij by

which if applied to the von Ka rman model in Eq. (10) allows to

obtain the one-dimensional spectra for the streamwise and trans-

〈dZi* ðkÞdZj ðkÞ〉 ¼ Fij ðkÞdk1 dk2 dk3 (8)

verse directions as

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 343

9 2=3 5=3 1 It is usually sufﬁcient to have the velocity ﬁeld as the solely wind

F1 ðk1 Þ ¼ a3 L 5=6 (11)

55 turbulence input for most of the simulation tools, and thus there is

1 þ ðLk1 Þ2

no description for the computation of the corresponding pressure

ﬁeld in Mann model. However, the pressure ﬁeld is needed for CFD

3 3 þ 8ðLk1 Þ2 simulations. This can be obtained by solving the NeS equations in

Fi ðk1 Þ ¼ a32=3 L5=3 11=6 ði ¼ 2; 3Þ (12) the frequency domain as done in the context of DNS simulations

110

1 þ ðLk1 Þ2 using spectral methods [36]. In the frequency domain pressure

modes are computed as.

b

kj G j

b

p ðkÞ ¼ i (20)

2.4.2. Discrete representation in Fourier modes k2

Eq. (7) is approximated by a discrete Fourier series as

b ¼ ik F u u

G (21)

X X j k j k

ik$x b ik$x

ui ðxÞ ¼ e u ðkÞ ¼ e Cij ðkÞnj ðkÞ (13)

k k where F f$g denotes the Fourier transform operator and the hat

transformed variables. The product ujuk in Eq. (21) is computed in

where ub ðkÞ are the Fourier modes of the velocity ﬁeld and nj(k) are

the physical domain with the generated velocity ﬁeld

independent Gaussian complex variables with unit variance. In and then transformed to the frequency domain where Eqs. (20) and

Ref. [20] the relationship between the velocity spectrum and the (21) are evaluated. Pressure in the physical domain is then

coefﬁcients Cij(k) is found leading to obtained by applying the inverse Fourier transform to Eq. (20) using

2 3 an FFT.

k2 z1 k3 þ k1 b k1 z1 k2

!1=2 6 7

Eðk0 Þ$2p2 6 k3 k1 b þ k2 z2 k1 z2 k1 7

Cij ðkÞ ¼ 6 7

L1 L2 L3 k40 6 7

4 k20 k20 5 2.4.4. Implementation into CFDShip-Iowa v4.5

2

k2 2

k1 0 The general schematic for the implementation of Mann wind

k k

turbulence model into CFDShip-Iowa v4.5 as wind turbulence

(14) boundary condition is shown in Fig. 3, which also shows cross

sections in the Mann's box with non-dimensional axial velocity

z1 ¼ C1 k2 C2 =k1 ; z2 ¼ k2 C1 =k1 þ C2 (15) U. A stationary Mann wind turbulence box is generated as a pre-

processing step computing FFTs using the FFTW library [37].

bk21 k21 þ k22 k3 ðk3 þ bk1 Þ Since by construction the velocity ﬁeld is periodic, the di-

C1 ¼ 2 ; mensions of the box are chosen to be several integral length

k2 k1 þ k22

0 qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 1 (16)

scales such that velocities at the opposite faces of the box can be

k2 k20 bk1 k21 þ k22 considered to be uncorrelated. As depicted in Fig. 3, at time t ¼ 0

C2 ¼ 3=2 arctan@ 2 A the front face of the Mann box is coincident with the inlet of the

k2 þ k2 k0 bk1 ðk3 þ bk1 Þ

1 2 CFD domain. Using Taylor's hypothesis of frozen turbulence, ve-

locity and pressure at the inlet are interpolated from a plane

G within the Mann box located at x ¼ L1 Uht, where L1 is the

b¼ sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

(17) longitudinal dimension of the Mann's box and Uh is the mean

2

k3 $ 2 F1 13; 17 4 2

6 ; 3; k wind velocity at hub height. This plane is made to go back to the

front of the box once it reaches the back using the fact that the

generated velocity ﬁeld is periodic. This procedure is equivalent

where Li are the dimensions of the physical domain, to having the Mann box moving forward as depicted in Fig. 3.

qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

k¼ k21 þ k22 þ k23 is the magnitude of the wave number and Using the same Taylor's hypothesis velocity and pressure are

qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ initialized at t ¼ 0.

k0 ¼ k2 þ 2bk1 k3 þ ðbk1 Þ2 is the magnitude before shear distor-

tion. The model includes the effect of shear through the dimen-

sionless distortion time b where G ¼ 3.9 is used as recommended by 3. Simulation design

the IEC and 2 F1 is the hypergeometric function. The parameters of

the model siso and L are estimated following the IEC standard from 3.1. Simulation turbine

where

The conceptual NREL 5-MW offshore wind turbine [38] is used

0:56zh zh < 60 m as geometry for the simulations. Fig. 4 and Table 1 show the ge-

L½m ¼ (18)

33:6 m zh > 60 m ometry and basic properties of the turbine that consists of the

baseline rotor, nacelle, tower and ﬂoating support platform struc-

siso ½m=s ¼ 0:55Iref ð0:75Uh ½m=s þ 5:6Þ (19) ture. It is a utility-scale, conventional three-bladed upwind

variable-speed variable-pitch controlled turbine, and has been

where zh and Uh are the hub height and mean wind velocity at the widely used as the reference turbine by other researchers and wind

hub height, respectively. Units are indicated in brackets. Iref is a turbine industries, including the Offshore Code Comparison

reference turbulent intensity speciﬁed according to the wind clas- Collaboration project (OC3) and its continuation (OC4). Notice that

ses deﬁned in the IEC standard. Once the Fourier modes u b ðkÞ are the design rated tip speed of the turbine is 80 m/s, with Mach

computed the physical velocity is obtained by inversion of Eq. (13) number less than 0.3, justifying the use of an incompressible code

using an FFT. as ﬂow solver.

344 Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361

3.2. Grid design the tower grid form the body rotor-nacelle-tower, such that turbine

yaw motion can be considered. In addition, a child could be added

Fig. 5 shows the grid design for CFD simulations. The system to the body rotor such that the blade pitch motion can be controlled

consists of the grids deﬁning the turbine, including accurate or predicted. The dynamic overset technique is applied to re-

geometrical representations of the three blades, tips and tower/ compute the overset coefﬁcients at run time with the code Sug-

ﬂoating platform as documented in Refs. [38,39], and an approxi- gar. With this approach, full control or prediction of the turbine can

mate nacelle and hub due to insufﬁcient geometric information for be realized with the rotating rotor, blade pitch and yaw control, and

these components. In addition to the turbine grids, a Cartesian motions of the ﬂoating turbine under winds and waves. For all

background grid is used to set for the boundary conditions, with the simulations in this paper a second-order implicit Euler scheme was

grids reﬁned near the expected free surface location with the still used for temporal terms. For the spatial discretization, the

water level at z ¼ 0 m so that ocean wave motions (to be introduced convective terms are discretized with a fourth-order upwind biased

in a future work) can be well captured. The background grid scheme, while a second-order centered scheme is used for the

extends 5.1 x/R 5.1, 2.5 y/R 2.5, and 5.1 z/R 6 with viscous terms. The time step was chosen such that the blades rotate

the center of the turbine located at x/R ¼ 0 in order to minimize 0.5 degrees per time step. In total 20 rotor revolutions were

boundary effects. With this conﬁguration, the presence of the tur- included for each simulation case.

bine does not signiﬁcantly disturb the inlet ﬂow. Grid spacing in the

air side is designed to be less than that of the Mann's box so as to

capture the wind turbulence generated by the explicit wind tur- 3.3. Structural model

bulence model. Three Cartesian blade reﬁnement grids are used to

resolve the ﬂow around the blades, and one Cartesian air reﬁne- The multi-body system model for the turbine consists of blades,

ment grid is constructed to resolve the wake ﬂow close to and hub, nacelle and tower/ﬂoating platform as the substructures or

behind the rotor. A Total of 14 grids are used with about 6 M grid components that are linked by the appropriate kinematical con-

points. Gaps are present between blade roots and hub and between straints at their interfaces, as can be seen in Fig. 6. Each turbine

hub and nacelle so that blade pitch and rotor shaft rotation are component comprises one or several rigid bodies connected by the

possible. Boundary conditions on solid surfaces are set as no-slip, relevant connection. The structural properties of each component

with grid spacing set so that the condition yþ 1 is satisﬁed as include mass and center of gravity, ﬂap-wise, edge-wise, torsional

required by the turbulence model. Inlet condition for the back- and extensional section stiffness, as well as ﬂap-wise and edge-wise

ground grid is speciﬁed with prescribed ﬂow velocities of uniform, section inertia. In this paper, construction of the model follows the

log-law proﬁle or turbulent winds, while zero-gradient boundary structural information speciﬁed in Refs. [38,39]. The structural

conditions are applied elsewhere with the exception of the exit, model of the turbine consists of 6 components: 3 blades, nacelle,

which uses zero second derivative condition on the velocity (zero hub, and tower/ﬂoating platform. Each blade component comprises

traction). Note that static water and ﬁxed tower/support platform of 48 bodies, the tower/ﬂoating platform component has 11 bodies,

are considered in this paper, resulting in a no-slip boundary at the and the nacelle and hub only contain 1 body each. In total the tur-

free surface of the background grid. This uses the implementation bine multi-body system has 157 bodies. Bracket joints are used as

described in Ref. [28] to impose the free surface as an immersed the connection in all components for the rigid turbine simulations

boundary, with no roughness or wall functions. to prevent any relative motion between two bodies, while beam

The grids are organized in a parent/child hierarchy, as shown in force elements are used as connections for the ﬂexible turbine

Table 2. The blades, tips, hub and the blade reﬁnements together simulations, allowing 6 degrees of freedom (6 DOF) for each body.

form the body rotor that rotates around the shaft; nacelle, tower- For the kinematic description between turbine components,

platform, air reﬁnement and the body rotor form the body rotor- appropriate kinetic joints or constraints are applied: each interface

nacelle, allowing motions of the whole turbine under winds and of the blade and hub is connected by the bracket joint, restraining

waves. Though not included in the present simulations, another relative motions between the components; a revolute joint is used

hierarchy can be constructed with body rotor and the nacelle grid between the hub and nacelle along the rotational axis of the rotor to

forming the body rotor-nacelle while the body rotor-nacelle plus allow rotor rotation and constrain other DOFs; similarly, another

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 345

revolute joint is used at the interface of nacelle and tower for the AeroDyn [41] as aerodynamic solver but different MBD-based

yaw motion. structural solvers, FAST [42] and Bladed Multibody were

compared (Hereby called NREL FAST and GH Bladed). Table 3 sum-

3.4. Simulation cases marizes all cases evaluated, where rigid turbine simulations are

named 2.x and ﬂexible turbine simulations are labeled 3.x. The

The test cases were chosen with incremental level of complexity simulation matrix includes cases with moderate wind condition

from the publicly available OC3 results [40], to include rigid and with the mean hub height wind speed of 8 m/s and rotor speed of 9

ﬂexible turbines with or without wind turbulence. Several re- RPM, rated wind condition with mean hub height wind speed of

visions for each simulation case performed independently by a 11.4 m/s and rotor speed of 12.1 RPM, uniformly distributed wind

group of international participants from universities, research in- proﬁle, wind shear with log-law wind proﬁle, wind turbulence, rigid

stitutions and industries with expertise in wind energy makes the and ﬂexible turbine. For the wind turbulence, a box of

OC3 project a good benchmark for the utility-scale offshore wind 256 128 128 points was used with length increment DL ¼ 10 m

turbine. for Mann's model, generating a turbulence ﬁeld with dimension of

The simulation matrix from OC3 phase I was simulated, 2560 m 1280 m 1280 m. Reference turbulence intensity is 0.14, a

excluding the water/wave effects. Simulations results of two par- medium turbulence level and is consistent with the OC3 simulation

ticipants from OC3 that both use the BEM-based aerodynamic code conditions.

346 Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361

Table 1 Table 2

Basic properties of NREL 5-MW offshore wind turbine. Grid system information.

Baseline turbine properties Name i max j max k max Total points Hierarchy

Rating 5 MW

Nacelle 51 48 61 149 K Rotor-nacelle

Rotor orientation, conﬁguration Upwind, 3 blades

Tower 201 48 61 588 K Rotor-nacelle

Rotor diameter, hub diameter 126 m, 3 m

RefAir 48 51 61 149 K Rotor-nacelle

Hub height 90 m

Hub 51 48 61 149 K Rotor

Cut-in, rated, cut-out wind speed 3 m/s, 11.4 m/s, 25 m/s

Blade1 151 48 61 442 K Rotor

Cut-in, rated rotor speed 6.9 RPM, 12.1 RPM

Tip 1 51 48 61 149 K Rotor

Rated tip speed 80 m/s

Blade2 151 48 61 442 K Rotor

Control Variable speed, collective pitch

Tip 2 51 48 61 149 K Rotor

Drivetrain High speed, multiple-stage gearbox

Blade 3 151 48 61 442 K Rotor

Overhang, shaft tilt, precone 5 m, 5 , 2.5

Tip 3 51 48 61 149 K Rotor

Blade Ref 67 48 92 295 K Rotor

Tower properties Blade Ref 67 48 92 295 K Rotor

Elevation to tower base above SWL 10 m Blade Ref 67 48 92 295 K Rotor

Elevation to tower top 87.6 m Background 244 101 123 3.03 M Earth

Total 6.7 M

Floating platform properties

Depth to platform base below SWL 120 m

Elevation to platform top above SWL 10 m While all simulation in this paper are performed at constant

Depth to top of taper below SWL 4m rotational speed, only case 2.1a in OC3 involves a constant rotor

Depth to bottom of taper below SWL 12 m

speed, as shown in Tables 3 and 4. The simulation case with con-

Platform diameter above taper 6.5 m

Platform diameter below taper 9.4 m stant rotor speed of 9 RPM at wind speed of 8 m/s for rigid turbine

Fig. 5. Grid system. Slice in x shows background (black) and wake reﬁnement (green) grids. Axis-aligned slices on the blades show blade reﬁnements (brown). Tip grid in (a) and a

horizontal cross-section showing overset grid topology around airfoil (b). (Grid points skipped in all directions for clarity; points skipped not the same for different grids.) (For

interpretation of the references to color in this ﬁgure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 347

was to serve as the basic and simplest validation case in OC3 wind speed of 8 m/s, where NREL FAST determined that a rotor

project, and complexity was gradually added to include the turbine speed of 9.3 RPM was optimal while GH Bladed obtained 9.1 RPM.

control system, ﬂexibility and wind turbulence. For wind speed Detailed discussion is included in the following sections.

below the rated wind speed of 11.4 m/s, variable rotor speed

controller with ﬁxed blade pitch was applied to maximize turbine 4. Results and discussion

power, and variable pitch controller with ﬁxed rotor speed was

applied for wind speeds beyond the rated wind speed so as to 4.1. Mann wind turbulence model predictions

maintain a constant rated power and regulate the generator speed.

One example can be found by comparing cases 2.1a and 2.1b at The validation of the explicit turbulence model is conducted in

two steps: ﬁrst the generated Mann box is validated by comparing

with the theoretical isotropic one-point spectrum; then in step 2 a

Table 3 CFD wind turbulence simulation for an open ﬁeld (i.e. no wind

Simulation conditions for the selected cases from OC3 phase I.

turbine) is conducted with the applied Mann wind turbulence

Case DOFs Wind condition Turbine model as inlet boundary and initial conditions. Statistical compar-

ﬂexibility ison is made to show the validity of the implementation. To

2.1a None: constant rotor speed compare the isotropic one-point spectrum, the parameter (G) to

Steady, uniform,

and ﬁxed blade pitch control the anisotropic wind ﬂuctuations is set to 0 in step 1, and

no shear: Vhub ¼ 8 m/s

2.1b None: controlled rotor speed Rigid

thus the model reduces to isotropic wind turbulence. In addition,

2.2 None: controlled blade pitch Vhub ¼ 11.4 m/s, Iref ¼ 0.14 (B)

Turbulence model ¼ Mann the mean prevailing velocity is set to 0 for convenient comparison.

3.1 Tower, drivetrain, blades Steady, uniform, Flexible In step 2, all parameters were set appropriately to include aniso-

controlled rotor speed no shear: Vhub ¼ 8 m/s tropic and sheared wind turbulence, while mean velocity of 8 m/s

3.2 Tower, drivetrain, blades Vhub ¼ 11.4 m/s, Iref ¼ 0.14 (B) was used in the prevailing wind direction, resulting in a total

controlled blade pitch Turbulence model ¼ Mann

simulation time of 320 s. The CFD grid for this simulation consists

348 Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361

Table 4

Summary of OC3 results for wind speed 8 m/s.

Rotor speed [RPM] Mean 9.000 9.334 9.329 9.000 9.136 9.128

Min 9.000 9.332 9.324 9.000 9.133 9.125

Max 9.000 9.337 9.335 9.000 9.139 9.132

s 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.002 0.002

Thrust [kN] Mean 384.97 394.74 409.63 372.32 375.62 378.61

Min 377.70 387.30 406.30 361.06 364.19 376.07

Max 387.00 396.90 412.70 374.49 377.90 381.26

s 2.60 2.66 1.46 3.77 3.82 1.36

Shaft torque [kN m] Mean 2096.40 2033.76 2031.62 1975.54 1948.36 1945.01

Min 2019.00 2025.00 2019.00 1863.94 1931.70 1933.54

Max 2115.00 2036.00 2043.00 1998.38 1958.56 1954.30

s 27.37 2.88 5.87 37.40 5.87 5.31

Power [kW] Mean 1975.81 1987.95 1984.80 1861.90 1864.04 1859.23

Min 1902.86 1979.34 1971.58 1756.72 1847.71 1847.86

Max 1993.34 1990.74 1996.72 1883.43 1873.13 1867.93

s 25.79 2.86 5.81 35.25 5.66 5.12

only of the same background grid used for turbine simulations. The the spectra for the three velocity components from the Mann

Mann model parameters used in step 2 are later applied to turbine model compare well with the theoretical curves. Due to the ﬁnite

simulations in turbulent wind. size of the Mann box and the cell, there are truncations in the

Fig. 7 shows a Mann's turbulence box with slices colored the calculated spectrum for low wave number (limited by the size of

axial velocity. The distribution of the velocity ﬂuctuations is the box) and for large wave number (limited by the size of the

random in space, with velocities mostly within ±1 m/s and the cell). The wave number is bound by {2p/L1, 2p/DL} where L1 is the

largest wind ﬂuctuations reaching ±3 m/s sparsely distributed in longitudinal dimension of the Mann box, and DL ¼ 10 m is its

the box. Fig. 8(a) shows the time history of velocities ﬂuctuations length increment, leading to a resolvable range of wave numbers

at the point that corresponds to the position of the turbine hub. {0.0025 m1, 0.6283 m1} for the simulations.

From Taylor's frozen hypothesis, the spatial information in the Since the turbulence is introduced as initial and boundary

axial direction x is related to temporal information, and thus ve- conditions, there is a decay of turbulence in time, seen as a decay

locities at a point in the box moving in the x-direction is inter- with position in the CFD computation. Decay of the turbulence is

preted as velocities at a ﬁxed point in space over time t. Since the due to the fact that no production such as shear exists downstream

turbulence is isotropic with zero mean velocity, all other points to balance the dissipation, with the only exception being the vi-

should have similar behavior. As can be seen in Fig. 8(a), all ve- cinity of the free surface where no-slip boundary exists due to the

locities ﬂuctuate within ±3 m/s with zero net velocity, but no still water considered in the current simulations. This expected

similar or periodic pattern exists for the three velocity compo- phenomenon in a viscous computation has been observed by

nents in time. Statistics for all points in the box show zero mean Larsen [44], and is alleviated using a turbulence scaling factor (SF)

velocity and unit variance. In addition, Fig. 8(b) shows a compar- in the Mann model, which is calculated based on the actual vari-

ison of the one-point spectrum computed using the parametric ance level in the box and the target longitudinal turbulence stan-

spectral estimation method by Burg [43] and the theoretical one- dard deviation s1,target ¼ siso/0.55 based on the requested

point spectrum as deﬁned in Eqs. (11) and (12). It can be seen that turbulence intensity, such that SF ¼ s1,target/s1,box multiplies all

velocity ﬂuctuations. Fig. 9 shows the time history of turbulent

velocities for 4 points located at approximately hub height and

center of the turbine (y ¼ 0 m and z ¼ 90 m) and at different non-

dimensional axial locations including the inlet of the simulation

domain, right in the position of the turbine at x/R ¼ 0 and further

downstream to the exit of simulation domain approximately at x/

R ¼ 5. Recall that all spatial dimensions are non-dimensionalized by

the rotor radius R. It can be seen that for all locations the 3 velocities

components ﬂuctuate randomly around their expected mean ve-

locities, 1 for u and 0 for v and w. The ﬁgure essentially shows that

the turbulent ﬁeld solved by CFD with the explicit wind turbulence

at the inlet is appropriately transported through the whole simu-

lation domain throughout the simulation, but turbulence decay due

to viscous losses mentioned previously is observed, as velocities

closer to the inlet tend to have larger ﬂuctuations than more

downstream locations.

Fig. 10 shows mean and standard deviation of the velocities on

vertical and horizontal transects crossing the turbine hub. The

mean velocity is maintained in u ¼ (1, 0, 0) while the standard

deviation for u (s1) satisﬁes the requested reference turbulent

intensity of 0.14 for axial velocity, and standard deviations for v

Fig. 7. Demonstration of the Mann turbulence box with axial velocity ﬂuctuations. (s2) and w (s3) are about 0.1 and 0.08, respectively, satisfying the

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 349

Fig. 8. Mann wind turbulence box validation (a): velocity ﬂuctuations along the streamwise direction; (b) one-dimensional spectrum for each velocity component computed from

the generated turbulence ﬁeld compared against the theoretical (input) model spectrum.

requirements by the IEC standard that s2 0.7s1 and s3 0.5s1. not converged. The largest structures resolved are 400 m in

Note also that, due to the long time it takes for the largest tur- size (wave number 0.0025 m1 as stated earlier in this section,

bulent structures to cross the averaging points, the total averaging the dimensional velocity is 8 m/s, and the integration time is

time only covers 6.4 of the largest structures and the statistics are 320 s).

Fig. 9. Time history of turbulent velocities at hub height (y ¼ 0; z ¼ 90 m) and different axial positions.

350 Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361

4.2. Aerodynamic predictions the time history of thrust and torque once the periodic behavior has

been reached for wind speed of 8 m/s, and Table 5 quantitatively

Case 2.1a provides a good scenario to compare results of the CFD compares statistics. As can be seen in Fig. 11, both CFD and the OC3

approach presented herein (from now on called the CFD approach results predict similar trends for thrust and torque for the rigid

or simply CFD) against the widely used aerodynamic solver Aero- turbine under uniformly distributed wind. Being a 3-bladed tur-

Dyn under ﬁxed operational conditions without controller. For all bine, a decrease in thrust and torque occurs every 1/3 rotation due

performed simulations with CFD, at the initial time step blade 1 to the presence of the tower. Using GH Bladed as baseline, quan-

was placed downward right in front of the tower, and thus at every titative comparisons in Table 5 show that the CFD approach has

complete rotation blade 1 is passing the tower while half rotation close predictions to both NREL FAST and GH Bladed. For thrust, CFD

later is at the uppermost position. Turbine rotation is counter clock- predicts an average value of 389 kN with standard deviation of

wise when seen facing downwind. Fig. 11 shows a comparison of 2.7 kN, 4.5% larger than GH Bladed, while NREL FAST predicts

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 351

Table 5

Thrust and torque for wind speed 8 m/s.

Thrust [kN] Mean/difference 388.9 (4.46%) 385.0 (3.41%) 385.0 (3.41%) 372.3 (0.00%)

Min/difference 382.0 (5.79%) 378.2 (4.74%) 377.7 (4.60%) 361.1 (0.00%)

Max/difference 392.5 (4.81%) 388.2 (3.66%) 387.0 (3.34%) 374.5 (0.00%)

s 2.71 2.75 2.60 3.77

Shaft torque [kN m] Mean/difference 1945.7 (1.51%) 1899.6 (3.84%) 2096.4 (6.12%) 1975.5 (0.00%)

Min/difference 1869.8 (0.32%) 1830.5 (1.79%) 2019.0 (8.32%) 1863.9 (0.00%)

Max/difference 1980.1 (0.92%) 1929.0 (3.47%) 2115.0 (5.83%) 1998.4 (0.00%)

s 27.53 26.53 27.37 37.40

Thrust [kN] Mean/difference 402.6 (6.34%) 398.2 (5.18%) 409.6 (8.19%) 378.6 (0.00%)

Min/difference 396.0 (5.29%) 391.4 (4.07%) 406.3 (8.03%) 376.1 (0.00%)

Max/difference 406.7 (6.66%) 401.7 (5.35%) 412.7 (8.23%) 381.3 (0.00%)

s 2.30 2.40 1.46 1.36

Shaft torque [kN m] Mean/difference 1934.6 (0.53%) 1886.1 (3.03%) 2031.6 (4.45%) 1945.0 (0.00%)

Min/difference 1853.3 (4.15%) 1811.2 (6.33%) 2019.0 (4.42%) 1933.5 (0.00%)

Max/difference 1974.5 (1.03%) 1918.4 (1.84%) 2043.0 (4.54%) 1954.3 (0.00%)

s 25.73 23.71 5.87 5.31

larger than GH Bladed. For torque, CFD shows an average magni- aerodynamic blade-load calculations” with “differences in the

tude of 1946 kN m with standard deviation of 27.5 kN m, while mean magnitude of rotor torque of about 5%” for all participants.

NREL FAST predicts an average of 2096 kN m with standard devi- Regarding this fundamental test, CFD shows good agreement with

ation of 27.4 kN m, 1.5% lower and 6.1% higher than GH Bladed, both methods.

respectively. Beside the good agreement for averaged magnitudes, Further investigation of the individual blade loads is beneﬁcial

all three methods exhibit similar statistics for this case, including to explain and understand the aerodynamic behavior of the rotor

maximum, minimum and standard deviation of the thrust and and quantify the effects of the tower shadow and tilt/precone angle.

torque. Notice that NREL FAST and GH Bladed share the same Fig. 12 shows the time history of thrust and torque for blade 1. The

aerodynamic code, and yet a difference of 3.4% is reported for thrust loads experienced by the blades show periodic oscillations, with a

and even a larger 6.1% difference for torque. As pointed out in the sharp drop of 6.3% in thrust and 10.6% in torque every time the

OC3 ﬁnal report [40] “certain differences were apparent in the blade passes by the tower. The tilt causes a lower relative velocity of

352 Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361

the wind with respect to the blade when the blade is rotating from transformed to the blade system as seen by the airfoil section. The

bottom to top, and the opposite when the blade is coming back AOA is deﬁned as the difference in angle between the chord of the

down from top to bottom. This effect is caused by the tip of the airfoil and the ﬂow direction far upstream of the airfoil. Use of the

blades moving back and forth in the axial direction as they rotate. velocity far upstream of the airfoil would be inappropriate since it

The tilt also results in a change of the angle of attack of airfoil would not contain the induced ﬂow in the axial and tangential

sections, which increase as the blade moves upwards and decreases directions. Using the velocity too close to the airfoil does not work

when blade moves downwards, changing the sectional behavior either, since the inﬂuence of the airfoil affects the streamlines and

including axial and tangential forces. The consequence is ﬂuctua- causes errors in the AOA. Necessarily, a compromise needs to be

tions in thrust and torque with approximately 2% and 5% amplitude, made to estimate the ﬂow direction so that represents the ﬂow

respectively. impacting the airfoil but not overly affected by it. Similarly, the

induction factors are computed from velocities obtained from CFD

4.3. Effect of elasticity and the location of the points selected to compute the velocities

used to estimate the induction factors affect the results. A more

Case 3.1 was designed to test aero-elastic capabilities of the advanced method to compute the AOA is described in Ref. [45] and

simulation codes by OC3. However, as mentioned in the simulation used here, but still results are not ideal. In light of this, the AOA and

cases section, OC3 simulations have a variable-speed variable-pitch the induction factors have to be considered a qualitative estimate to

controller, which is not included in the CFD simulations. An analysis evaluate behavior and trends.

is conducted here to estimate the inﬂuence of the controller before The average axial velocity over a set of points approximate half

comparing results with elasticity. The control algorithm seeks the chord length around the foil is used to compute the axial induction

maximal turbine power, with the rotor speed adjusted at run time factor a. Of those points, only the points on the suction side are used

and resulted in around 9.3 RPM for both the rigid and ﬂexible to compute the tangential induction factor a0 . The force coefﬁcients

turbines by NREL FAST and 9.1 RPM by GH Bladed. These results in Cl, Cd, Cn and Ct are computed evaluating forces on a section of the

signiﬁcant decreases in standard deviation for the power, by a foil and using the same velocity used to compute the AOA. The

factor of 9 for NREL FAST and 6 for GH Bladed, see cases 2.1a and computations are conducted in the airfoil system of reference, so

2.1b in Table 4. The turbine can then be operated with more stable transformations are applied to project velocities from the earth

power output. Increasing the rotor speed at constant wind in- reference system, where velocities are computed by CFD, to the

creases tip speed ratio and thus usually helps to improve efﬁciency. blade reference system. These transformations account for yaw, tilt,

However, the torque decreases slightly for the case with controller, precone, and rotor angle.

by 3% for NREL FAST and 1.4% for GH Bladed. The thrust increases Fig. 14 shows time histories of the AOA, a and a0 for blade 1 at 5

about 2.5% for NREL FAST and 0.8% for GH Bladed. In this case of selected radial positions for wind speed of 8 m/s. Notice that at r/

moderate wind speeds, higher rotor speed results in larger thrust R ¼ 0.16 the method by Shen et al. [45] becomes unstable due to

and smaller torque for the ﬂexible turbine. separation, resulting in noise in the prediction of the AOA. The

Fig. 11 and Table 5 show turbine thrust and torque for rigid and presence of the tower is clear when the blade is on the bottom

ﬂexible blades and tower. Comparing with its rigid turbine coun- (integer number of rotations) by an increase in axial induction

terpart, the CFD approach predicts an increase of 3.5% for average factor and decrease in angle of attack. Since the tilt moves the blade

thrust and 0.6% decrease for torque, in close agreement with cases downstream when moving from bottom to top, the incoming wind

2.1b and 3.1 for the OC3 results. For the ﬂexible turbine the mean velocity in the airfoil system of reference decreases as the blade

magnitude of thrust predicted by CFD is 6.3% higher than results moves from bottom to top and increases when moving from top to

from GH Bladed, while NREL FAST predicts 8% more than GH bottom. At the same time, when the blade is at the top it is

Bladed. The average torque is 0.5% lower than GH Bladed, and NREL immersed deeper into the wake, resulting in lower axial velocities.

FAST is 4.5% higher. Due to the lack of a controller, the standard As a consequence, for all sections with r > 0.5R, the AOA has a

deviation predicted for the loads by CFD are much larger than those trough in uniform wind approximately when the blade is at the top

in OC3 participants. Since the OC3 results deviated from the and a high when it is on the bottom. The axial induction factor is

nominal rotor speed of 9 RPM due to the use of the controller, as highest when the blade is at the top and a minimum for the blade

discussed in the previous paragraph, the differences between OC3 on the bottom, approximately amax ¼ 0.4 and amin ¼ 0.33 at r/

participants and the CFD results could be higher or lower than R ¼ 0.93. The AOA is below the stall angle of attack (shown as insets

those reported in this study. in Fig. 14) for all sections except r/R ¼ 0.16 at the root, 0.28 < a < 0.4

Loads for the individual blades for the rigid and ﬂexible cases are and a0 < 0.1, indicating operation of the turbine close to design

shown in Fig. 12. Neglecting the effect of the tower, which causes a point.

sudden drop in thrust and torque when the blade is at the bottom, For uniform wind, a ﬂexible blade results in slightly higher

there is a minimum in loads when the blade is approximately at the AOAs, a lower induction factor for sections closer to the shaft and a

top, and a maximum when the blade is approximately at the bot- higher induction factor near the tip. The higher axial induction

tom. This behavior can be explained in terms of changes in the factor near the tip of the blade is expected as the blades deform and

angle of attack due to ﬂow and geometry, as discussed below in gets deeper into the wake. Due to deﬂections, the blade twist de-

reference to Fig. 14. creases a small amount close to the root to about 1 in average at

Classical BEM characterize the airfoil sections in terms of pa- the tip, resulting in larger AOAs for ﬂexible blades.

rameters describing local ﬂow and forces. These include the The trends seen in AOA and a determine the blade load behavior

sectional angle of attack (AOA), axial induction factor (a) and shown in Fig. 12. The blade thrust is the integration of the differ-

tangential induction factor (a0 ), lift (Cl) and drag (Cd) coefﬁcients, ential normal force Fn ¼ Cn (1/2rVrel 2

c), where Cn is the normal

normal (Cn) and tangential (Ct) coefﬁcients. CFD results can be force coefﬁcient, Vrel is the relative velocity seen by the airfoil and c

inspected to obtain these airfoil parameters, though the deﬁnition is the chord length. For AOAs below stall, Cn is approximately

of some of them makes evaluation somewhat ambiguous. Fig. 13 proportional to AOA, while ignoring tilt and precone

shows the streamlines at 4 different spanwise sections of blade 1 2

Vrel ¼ (V0(1 a))2 þ (ur(1 þ a0 ))2. Note that this approximation is

colored by dimensionless axial velocity, exhibiting streamlined only used here for the sake of simplicity. Examining Figs. 12 and 14,

ﬂow on all sections except near the root. Flow velocities were the increase in AOA for a ﬂexible turbine results in larger Cn than for

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 353

Fig. 13. Instantaneous ﬂow ﬁeld contoured by non-dimensional axial velocity in blade system at wind speed 8 m/s.

Fig. 14. Time history of angle of attack (left), axial induction factor a (center) and tangential induction factor a0 (right) at selected radial positions for blade 1 with wind speed 8 m/s.

354 Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361

Fig. 15. Average pressure coefﬁcient and standard deviation at selected radial positions for wind speed 8 m/s at uniform wind (a) and log-law wind (b) proﬁles (solid: rigid turbine;

dashed: ﬂexible turbine).

a rigid turbine, with consequent higher thrust. In addition, AOA and Fig. 12. Ct exhibits less differences between rigid and ﬂexible re-

(1 a)2 determine the trend of Fn and thus the blade thrust, sults, consistent with the torque behavior shown in Fig. 12.

showing periodic oscillations with primary trough when blade is at Fig. 17 shows the lift coefﬁcient Cl and AOA over two rotor rev-

the top and secondary trough when it is close to the tower, peaking olutions for the rigid (Fig. 17(a)) and ﬂexible (Fig. 17(b)) turbines.

approximately 0.1 rotation before and after passing the tower. The steady-state angle of attack-lift coefﬁcient curve is shown in

Fig. 15 shows the average and standard deviation of the pressure Fig. 17(c). Note that the zero azimuthal angle in Fig. 17(c) corre-

coefﬁcient Cp for the rigid and ﬂexible turbines at 5 different radial sponds to the blade pointing downwards (tower passage), while

sections. The section at r/R ¼ 0.16 is very close to the root and in the 180 corresponds to the blade atop. As shown in Fig. 17(a) and (b),

transition from cylindrical to airfoil section. From 60% chord to the both rigid and ﬂexible turbines display a small delay between Cl

trailing edge, Cp at the pressure side is slightly smaller than at the and AOA. Time changes in AOA and aerodynamic loads are caused

suction side, indicating that in that portion of the section the lift by tilt angle effects, as discussed before, resulting in changes of the

coefﬁcient is negative. At the same time, this section also shows AOA of amplitude determined by the tilt angle and a frequency

large lift coefﬁcient from 0 to 60% chord. However, the strong determined by the rotation frequency. In addition, the presence of

adverse pressure gradient after 20% chord is an indicator of possible the tower causes additional transient in AOA and loads. Similar

ﬂow transition and separation. This is consistent with the high AOA dynamic effects exhibiting time lag and hysteresis were observed in

shown for that section in Fig. 14. Standard deviations for Cp at this an experiment conducted by Fuglsang et al. [46] in which the dy-

section are large, further conﬁrming the unsteadiness and separa- namic AOA is controlled by a pitching motion mechanism with

tion. All other sections show standard behavior of attached ﬂow, imposed amplitude and frequency, achieving similar effects as

with small standard deviation and moderate pressure gradients on caused by tilt. Fig. 17(c) shows primarily a counter clockwise path in

the suction side. Note that pressure coefﬁcients for the elastic and all sections except at r/R ¼ 0.16, indicating a smooth ﬂow and the

rigid turbines have almost identical trends. absence of dynamic stall. When the blade rotates from the top and

Fig. 16 shows radial distribution of average and standard devi- approaches the tower between 270 and 0 , a secondary counter

ation of the normal and tangential coefﬁcients Cn and Ct for the clockwise path is formed as the blade passes the tower. Paths for

rigid and ﬂexible turbines. Since the structure is very rigid close to the rigid and ﬂexible turbines stay close at inboard sections, but

the root, there is no signiﬁcant difference between rigid and ﬂexible then gradually depart from each other, as can be seen in the

results, but differences are apparent for higher r/R for Cn. Cn is partially intersected loops at r/R ¼ 0.55 and fully separated at r/

essentially ﬂat with mean magnitude around 1.0 for 0.6 < r/R < 0.8, R ¼ 0.93.

where most of the torque is produced, while the ﬂexible turbine The drag coefﬁcient Cd, not pictured, shows similar trends as the

gradually increases from 1.0 at r/R ¼ 0.6 to 1.1 at r/R ¼ 0.8. The lift coefﬁcient, with the particularity that Cd in the section r/R ¼ 0.16

losses at the tip are clear for both rigid and ﬂexible turbine, but the is about 10 times higher than at other sections, due to the much

ﬂexible turbine shows larger Cn. This explains the large difference thicker geometry of the airfoil in the root/airfoil transition region,

for the blade thrust between rigid and ﬂexible blade as shown in and also exhibiting signiﬁcant ﬂuctuations as observed for the lift.

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 355

Fig. 18 and Table 6 compare the predicted blade 1 tip deﬂections 3.011 m, respectively. The maximum deﬂection is 3.692 m for CFD,

from CFD and by OC3 participants. The deﬂections are respect to 3.37 m for NREL FAST and 3.149 m for GH Bladed.

the coned coordinate system that rotates with the rigid rotor. For the In-Plane (IP) deﬂections, all three methods predict

Positive out-of-plane (OoP) deﬂection points downwind in the essentially sinusoidal patterns, determined mainly by centripetal

coned coordinate system, positive in-plane (IP) deﬂection points force, blade rotation and tilt effects, but dominated by gravity. Due

from leading edge to trailing edge, opposite to the blade rotational to the CM offset to the blade pitch axis and the twist angle, cen-

direction. Due to the rotational and tilt effects, all blade deﬂections tripetal forces cause a negative deﬂection towards leading edge,

exhibit cyclic oscillations. while aerodynamic forces from the wind push the curve to negative

OoP deﬂection is important since it is related to the structural deﬂections, leading to asymmetric oscillations with smaller

strength and fatigue of the blade, and to tower clearance issues. deﬂection towards trailing edge and larger deﬂection towards

Since thrust is the largest contributor to the OoP tip deﬂection, the leading edge. CFD predicts an average 0.345 m for IP deﬂections,

predicted deﬂection follows similar trends as those observed and while NREL FAST and GH Bladed show an average value of 0.318 m

discussed in Fig. 12 for blade thrust. The primary trough occurs and 0.304 m, respectively. All three methods also show similar

approximately when blade is at the top with the least inﬂuence deﬂection amplitudes.

from gravity, and the secondary trough is induced by the tower

shadow with mean magnitude of about 3.5 m. If the tower was not 4.4. Effect of wind shear

present, the deﬂection would keep increasing to a maximum value

with the blade on the bottom where the gravity effect is maximum Realistic wind proﬁles account for the atmospheric boundary

due to the tilt and precone angle. As a consequence, the tower layer shear and turbulence. In this paper, wind shear is modeled

shadow contributes to increase the blade/tower clearance. As seen with the log-law wind proﬁle as inlet boundary condition,

in Table 6, CFD shows OoP mean deﬂection of 3.592 m, while NREL u(z) ¼ u(zref)ln(z/z0)/ln(zref/z0), where zref is the hub height and z0 is

FAST and GH Bladed predict averaged deﬂections of 3.244 m and the surface roughness. The surface roughness is taken as the value

356 Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361

Fig. 18. Deﬂections for blade 1 tip for wind speed 8 m/s.

for a smooth sea condition, z0 ¼ 104 m. A rougher surface will turbulence. The anisotropic model parameters used in Section 4.1

result in larger z0 and the larger wind shear. With the non- step 2 were applied to all simulations in turbulent wind. Elec-

dimensional axial wind speed at hub height as 1, the wind speed tronic Annex I shows a video comparing the cases with and without

experienced by a blade of 63 m long at the tip is 0.912 at lowest turbulence for a ﬂexible turbine.

position and 1.039 at the top (ignoring tilt), a 14% difference. Such Supplementary video related to this article can be found at

difference exposes the airfoil to changing inﬂow conditions within http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.014.

a blade rotation, which subsequently leads to signiﬁcant different Note that no time history results were reported by OC3 partic-

blade load behavior than with uniform wind proﬁle. ipants for the wind turbulence cases, but statistics and results in

Fig. 11 compares the time history of turbine thrust and torque frequency domain were reported, allowing for some comparison.

for uniform and log-law wind and Table 5 shows quantitative Also note that the OC3 cases have a pitch controller which signiﬁ-

values. The general trends are similar to those with uniform wind, cantly changes the behavior of the turbine, making comparisons

but the mean thrust is about 1% lower and the torque about 2% with ﬁxed pitch CFD only qualitative.

lower for both rigid and ﬂexible turbines. The individual blade Fig. 19 shows time histories of thrust and torque with wind

behavior, shown in Fig. 12, exhibits a signiﬁcant increase in thrust turbulence, including a case for rigid turbine without wind turbu-

and torque when the blade is at the top and a decrease when the lence for reference. The corresponding statistics are shown in

blade is at the bottom, as expected. A logarithmic wind velocity Table 7, including OC3 results [40]. The rigid turbine with wind

distribution immediately results in higher AOAs when the blade is turbulence shows small increases of 0.2% in mean thrust and 1.4% in

at the top and the incoming wind speed is higher, with a dramatic mean torque respect to the case without turbulence, while the

decrease when the blade is at the bottom adding the effect of lower elastic turbine sees an increase of 4.7% for thrust and decrease of

wind speed with the tower shadow effect, see Fig. 14. Conversely, 4.9% for torque under wind turbulence, consistent with the trends

the axial induction factor tends to be ﬂatter than for uniform winds.

Due to the blade loads affected by wind shear, blade OoP de-

ﬂections under log-law wind follow closely the individual blade

Table 6

loads shown in Fig. 14, see Fig. 18 for time history of deﬂections and

Blade 1 tip deﬂections for wind speed 8 m/s.

Table 6 for mean and standard deviation values. IP deﬂections are

less affected by the vertical wind distribution due to the large edge- Participant CFD NREL FAST GH Bladed

wise stiffness of the blade, but the deﬂection from trailing edge to Case Uniform wind Log-law 3.1 3.1

leading edge (negative IP) decreases by a small amount. Out-of-plane Mean 3.592 3.559 3.244 3.011

deﬂection [m] Min 3.510 3.309 3.109 2.857

Max 3.692 3.709 3.370 3.149

4.5. Effect of wind turbulence s 0.059 0.107 0.090 0.098

In-plane Mean 0.345 0.340 0.318 0.304

The Mann wind turbulence model described in Section 2.4 was deﬂection [m] Min 0.703 0.702 0.795 0.749

applied to both rigid and ﬂexible turbines at the rated condition of Max 0.001 0.007 0.164 0.139

s 0.246 0.249 0.334 0.311

11.4 m/s with uniform wind to investigate effect of wind

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 357

Fig. 19. Thrust and torque for wind speed 11.4 m/s.

seen in OC3 results. Large ﬂuctuations exist due to the wind only to turbulence and therefore relatively weak. The zero-

turbulence, with approximately 7 times larger standard deviation frequency component of the PSD is thus related to the average of

for both thrust and torque compared to the no wind turbulence the variable (thrust or torque). From Fig. 20, though deviation exists

case. between CFD and OC3 participants due to the controller, the results

Power spectrum densities (PSD) for thrust and torque are shown for both rigid and ﬂexible turbine are very similar in the frequency

in Fig. 20. CFD data from the 5th to 19th rotation was used to domain. All simulation results show a primary peak at around

perform the one-sided PSD estimates using FFT. No periodicity was 0.6 Hz, corresponding to the blade passage frequency, and then

enforced explicitly, but deviations from periodic behavior are due followed by peaks at higher harmonics of the blade passage fre-

quency (1.2 Hz, 1.8 Hz). Since the integral of the power spectrum

over all frequencies is the corresponding statistical variance, OC3

results in general show slightly higher energy content for thrust

Table 7 and noticeable lower energy content for torque. For operation at

Thrust and torque for wind speed 11.4 m/s, including OC3 results for FAST and GH the rated condition (11.4 m/s), a control system was used by OC3

Bladed.

participants while CFD simulations use the rated rotor speed of 12.1

Participant CFD NREL FAST GH Bladed RPM. The controller uses generator torque control for wind speeds

Case No Wind 2.2 2.2 below 11.4 m/s, and blade pitch control to maintain the rated power

turbulence, turbulence, for wind speed beyond the rated condition, resulting in the use of

rigid rigid the generator torque controller for the uniform wind case and both

Thrust [kN] Mean 758.7 760.0 606.4 576.2 generator torque and blade pitch controllers for the wind turbu-

Min 737.3 640.0 365.0 273.9 lence case. The consequence is that the power control reduces

Max 768.8 858.0 835.8 864.3 ﬂuctuations in torque for the OC3 results. Additionally, OC3 results

s 7.23 48.88 82.83 89.40

Shaft torque Mean 4267.34 4327.05 4031.00 3895.73

show smoother curves due to the larger frequency window

[kN m] Min 4003.72 2890.96 3015.00 2606.10 (0.0333 Hz) than CFD (0.0144 Hz).

Max 4385.58 5706.80 4410.00 4531.79 Fig. 21 compares blade tip deﬂections for 11.4 m/s with and

s 88.59 619.86 263.50 430.10 without wind turbulence. The OoP deﬂection increased consider-

ably respect to the 8 m/s case shown in Fig. 18, where the average

Case Wind turbulence, ﬂexible 3.2 3.2

OoP deﬂection was approximately 3.6 m, increasing now to 6.3 m.

Thrust [kN] Mean 795.8 633.4 588.4 The turbulence-induced ﬂuctuations are considerable, reaching a

Min 694.1 409.7 358.1

maximum of almost 8 m, still far from the blade-tower design

Max 869.9 855.1 855.7

s 44.40 84.51 79.81 clearance of 13.2 m. Turbulence effects on IP deﬂection are much

Shaft torque Mean 4113.9 4010.0 3873.6 smaller, but still clearly noticeable. The power spectrum density of

[kN m] Min 2983.4 2896.0 2583.1 blade tip OoP and IP deﬂections are shown in Fig. 22. Peaks at low

Max 5067.5 4698.0 4625.7 frequency compare well, but at higher frequencies CFD losses en-

s 519.06 301.90 444.62

ergy faster. Unfortunately a fair comparison is not possible since the

358 Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361

Fig. 20. Power spectrum density of thrust and torque (wind speed ¼ 11.4 m/s).

Fig. 21. Blade tip deﬂections for wind speed 11.4 m/s.

Fig. 22. Power spectrum density of blade tip deﬂections for wind speed 11.4 m/s.

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 359

Fig. 23. Vortical structures represented by Q ¼ 1 for cases with and without wind turbulence, for mean hub height wind speed 11.4 m/s.

Fig. 24. Axial velocities at different axial positions and at hub height (z ¼ 90 m, z/R ¼ 1.428, top) and at top tip height (z ¼ 153 m, z/R ¼ 2.428, bottom) for wind speed 11.4 m/s.

360 Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361

use of a controller by OC3 introduces frequencies not present in was examined for the wake ﬂow to analyze the inﬂuence of wind

CFD. turbulence on wake diffusion, ﬁnding that explicit turbulence

addition results in considerably increased wake diffusion.

4.6. Flow ﬁeld Future work will focus on the development of a gearbox model

that enables investigation of interaction between aerodynamic

Vortical structures for the cases with and without turbulence loads and gearbox reaction including shaft-gearbox-generator dy-

are shown in Fig. 23 for a wind speed of 11.4 m/s. The vortical namics, allowing prediction of gear-level loads resulting from tur-

structures rendered as isosurfaces of Q ¼ 1, colored with axial ve- bulent wind ﬂuctuations. Also, studies of the offshore wind turbine

locity. The case without wind turbulence has strong tip and hub under incoming waves with the mooring lines model recently

vortices, as well as vortex detachment from the tower. Notice the implemented by Ref. [47] will be performed.

tip-type vortices forming at the gap in the grid between the hub

and the blade root. The tip vortices cannot be resolved beyond x/

Acknowledgments

R ¼ 1, the region covered by the ﬁner reﬁnement grid. In the case

with turbulence vortical structures are present in the system as

This research was supported by IAWIND (Grant IOEI 188570301)

part of external atmospheric turbulence. These turbulent structures

under project “Tool Development for Direct Simulation of Interac-

interact with the turbine, in particular with the tip vortices which

tion between Aerodynamic and Gearbox Loads,” and the National

become unstable and breakdown closer to the rotor. External wind

Science Foundation under grant 1066627, with Dr. Ram Gupta as

turbulence also diffuses the wake faster, as can be seen comparing

manager of the Energy for Sustainability Program. Computations

the cross sections at y/R ¼ 0.8 for the cases with and without wind

were performed in Helium, the high performance computing

turbulence.

resource at the University of Iowa.

Cross sections of the wake are shown in Fig. 24. Axial velocity on

lateral traverses at hub and top tip height for x/R ¼ 1, 1, 2, 3, 4 are

plotted. The CFD results show that the ﬂexibility of the turbine has References

little effect on the wake, an important point since it suggests that

[1] Spinato F, Tavner PJ, Van Bussel GJW, Koutoulakos E. Reliability of wind tur-

wake studies can be performed with reasonable approximation bine subassemblies. IET Renew Power Gener 2009;3:387e401.

using rigid turbines. The wind turbulence, on the other hand, has a [2] Sørensen JN, Shen W, Munduate X. Analysis of wake states by a full-ﬁeld

considerable effect in the wake by adding, as expected, an effective actuator disc model. Wind Energy 1998;1:73e88.

[3] Sørensen JN, Mikkelsen R, Troldborg N. Simulation and modelling of turbu-

eddy viscosity that diffuses the wake faster. This effect highlights

lence in wind farms. In: Proceedings EWEC 2007; 2007.

the importance of proper estimation of the atmospheric and local [4] Sørensen JN, Shen W. Numerical modeling of wind turbine wakes. J Fluids Eng

turbulence to properly predict the wakes in a wind farm. 2002;124:393.

[5] Shen W, Zhang J, Sørensen JN. The actuator surface model: a new Naviere-

Stokes based model for rotor computations. J Sol Energy Eng 2009:131.

5. Conclusions and future work [6] Potsdam MA, Mavriplis DJ. Unstructured mesh CFD aerodynamic analysis of

the NREL phase VI rotor. In: 47th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting; 2009.

A high ﬁdelity approach for wind turbine aero-elastic simula- [7] Duque EP, Burklund MD, Johnson W. NaviereStokes and comprehensive

analysis performance predictions of the NREL phase VI experiment. J Sol En-

tions including explicit representation of the atmospheric wind ergy Eng 2003;125:457e67.

turbulence has been presented. The approach uses a dynamic [8] Bazilevs Y, Hsu M-C, Akkerman I, Wright S, Takizawa K, Henicke B, et al. 3D

overset CFD code to compute the aerodynamics coupled with an simulation of wind turbine rotors at full scale. Part I: geometry modeling and

aerodynamics. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 2011;65:207e35.

MBD code to predict the motion responses to the aerodynamic [9] Hansen M, Sørensen JN, Voutsinas S, Sørensen N, Madsen HA. State of the art

loads. The IEC 61400-1 ed. 3 recommended Mann wind turbulence in wind turbine aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerosp Sci 2006;42:

model was implemented into the CFD code as boundary and initial 285e330.

[10] Bauchau OA. Computational schemes for ﬂexible, nonlinear multi-body sys-

conditions. The wind turbulence model was validated by

tems. Multibody Syst Dyn 1998;2:169e225.

comparing the generated stationary wind turbulence ﬁeld with the [11] Bauchau OA, Bottasso CL, Nikishkov YG. Modeling rotorcraft dynamics with

theoretical one-point spectrum for the three components of the ﬁnite element multibody procedures. Math Comput Model 2001;33:1113e37.

[12] Biedron RT, Lee-Rausch EM. Rotor airloads prediction using unstructured

velocity ﬂuctuations, and by comparing the expected statistics from

meshes and loose CFD/CSD coupling. In: 26th AIAA applied aerodynamics

the CFD simulated wind turbulent ﬁeld with the explicit wind conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States; 2008.

turbulence inlet boundary from Mann model. Extensive simula- [13] Corson D, Grifﬁth DT, Ashwill T, Farzin S. Investigating aeroelastic perfor-

tions based on the proposed coupled approach were conducted mance of multi-megawatt wind turbine rotors using CFD. In: 53rd AIAA/

ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials confer-

with the conceptual NREL 5-MW offshore wind turbine in an ence 20th AIAA/ASME/AHS adaptive structures conference 14th AIAA, Hon-

increasing level of complexity, so as to validate and analyze the olulu, Hawaii, United States; 2012.

aerodynamic predictions, elasticity, wind shear and atmospheric [14] Bazilevs Y, Hsu M-C, Kiendl J, Wüchner R, Bletzinger K-U. 3D simulation of

wind turbine rotors at full scale. Part II: ﬂuidestructure interaction modeling

wind turbulence. Results were compared with the publicly avail- with composite blades. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 2011;65:236e53.

able simulations results from OC3 participants, showing good [15] Hsu M-C, Bazilevs Y. Fluidestructure interaction modeling of wind turbines:

agreement for the aerodynamic loads and blade tip deﬂections in simulating the full machine. Comput Mech 2012;50:821e33.

[16] Smirnov A, Shi S, Celik I. Random ﬂow generation technique for large eddy

time and frequency domains. simulations and particle-dynamics modeling. Trans ASME-I-J Fluids Eng

The study shows that the turbine is well designed with mostly 2001;123:359e71.

attached ﬂow along the blade under normal operational conditions, [17] Bechmann A. Large-eddy simulation of atmospheric ﬂow over complex

terrain [Ph. D diss.], Risø-PhD-28(EN). Risø National Laboratory, Technical

showing angle of attack, axial induction factor, lift coefﬁcient and University of Denmark; 2006.

airfoil pressure distributions within high-performance range. The [18] Veers PS. Three-dimensional wind simulation. No. SAND-88-0152C, CONF-

analysis with a log-law wind proﬁle inﬂow shows its strong inﬂu- 890102-9. Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States: Sandia National Labo-

ratories; 1988.

ence on the blade thrust and torque and deﬂections, pointing to the

[19] Mann J. The spatial structure of neutral atmospheric surface-layer turbulence.

need of considering realistic wind proﬁles when designing large- J Fluid Mech 1994;273:141e68.

scale wind turbines. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the [20] Mann J. Wind ﬁeld simulation. Probab Eng Mech 1998;13:269e82.

[21] Troldborg N, Zahle F, Rethore P-E, Sørensen NN. Comparison of wind turbine

results including atmospheric turbulence. The CFD results also

wake properties in non-sheared inﬂow predicted by different computational

suggest that wake studies can be performed with reasonable ac- ﬂuid dynamics rotor models. Wind Energy 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/

curacy using rigid turbines. Wind turbulence/turbine interaction we.1757.

Y. Li et al. / Renewable Energy 76 (2015) 338e361 361

[22] Schulz C, Klein L, Weihing P, Lutz T, Kra [35] Tang HS, Casey Jones S, Sotiropoulos F. An overset-grid method for 3D un-

complex terrain under atmospheric inﬂow conditions. J Phys Conf Ser steady incompressible ﬂows. J Comput Phys 2003;191:567e600.

2014;524:012134. [36] Pope SB. Turbulent ﬂows. Cambridge University Press; 2000.

[23] International Electrotechnical Committee. IEC 61400-1: wind turbines part 1: [37] Frigo M, Johnson S. The design and implementation of FFTW3. Proc IEEE

design requirements. International Electrotechnical Commission; 2005. 2005;93:216e31.

[24] Prescott WC. Numerical integration technique for multi-body dynamic system [38] Jonkman JM, Butterﬁeld S, Musial W, Scott G. Deﬁnition of a 5-MW reference

software. In: Symposium on international automotive technology, Pune; wind turbine for offshore system development. NREL/TP-500-38060. National

1999. Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2009.

[25] LMS International. Virtual.Lab online help manual. 2013. [39] Jonkman JM. Deﬁnition of the ﬂoating system for phase IV of OC3. NREL/TP-

[26] Haug EJ. Computer aided kinematics and dynamics of mechanical systems. 500-47535. National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2010.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1989. [40] Jonkman JM, Musial W. Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration (OC3) for IEA

[27] Li Y, Paik K-J, Xing T, Carrica PM. Dynamic overset CFD simulations of wind task 23 offshore wind technology and deployment. NREL/TP-5000-48191.

turbine aerodynamics. Renew Energy 2012;37:285e98. National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2010

[28] Huang J, Carrica PM, Stern F. Semi-coupled air/water immersed boundary [41] Laino DJ, Hansen AC, Minnema JE. Validation of the AeroDyn subroutines

approach for curvilinear dynamic overset grids with application to ship hy- using NREL unsteady aerodynamics experiment data. Wind Energy 2002;5:

drodynamics. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 2008;58:591e624. 227e44.

[29] Carrica PM, Wilson RV, Stern F. An unsteady single-phase level set method for [42] Jonkman JM, Buhl Jr ML. FAST user's guide. NREL/EL-500-29798. National

viscous free surface ﬂows. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 2007;53:229e56. Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2005.

[30] Carrica PM, Wilson RV, Noack RW, Stern F. Ship motions using single-phase [43] Marple Jr SL. Digital spectral analysis with applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

level set with dynamic overset grids. Comput Fluids 2007;36:1415e33. Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1987. 512 p.

[31] Noack RW. SUGGAR: a general capability for moving body overset grid as- [44] Larsen TJ. Turbulence for the IEA annex 30 OC4 project. Risø-I-3206(EN). Risø

sembly. In: 17th AIAA computational ﬂuid dynamics conference, Toronto, National Laboratory; 2013.

Ontario, Canada; 2005. [45] Shen WZ, Hansen MOL, Sørensen JN. Determination of the angle of attack on

[32] Carrica PM, Huang J, Noack R, Kaushik D, Smith B, Stern F. Large-scale DES rotor blades. Wind Energy 2009;12:91e8.

computations of the forward speed diffraction and pitch and heave problems [46] Fuglsang P, Antoniou I, Sørensen N, Madsen H. Validation of a wind tunnel

for a surface combatant. Comput Fluids 2010;39:1095e111. testing facility for blade surface pressure measurements. Risø-R-981(EN). Risø

[33] Gritskevich MS, Garbaruk AV, Schütze J, Menter FR. Development of DDES and National Laboratory; 1998.

IDDES formulations for the keu shear stress transport model. Flow, Turbul [47] Quallen S, Xing T, Carrica PM, Li Y, Xu J. CFD simulation of a ﬂoating offshore

Combust 2011;88:431e49. wind turbine system using a quasi-static crowfoot mooring-line model. In:

[34] Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering 23rd International ocean and polar engineering conference (ISOPE-2013),

applications. AIAA J 1994;32:1598e605. Anchorage, AK, United States; 2013.

- ART. the Design of Large Diameter Skim Tanks Using CFD for Maximum Oil RemovalHochgeladen vonruben_ramirez_7
- AJK Fluids 2019Hochgeladen vontexpectations
- IJET-16257Hochgeladen vonGayathri Venkat
- AeroHochgeladen vonhyyh13
- 61784194-eBooksHochgeladen vonAjan Kumar
- Convective Heat Transfer and Aerodynamics in Axial Flow TurbinesHochgeladen voncramerps2084
- Wind Effects on ‘Z’ Plan Shaped Tall Building- A Case Study_published copy.pdfHochgeladen vonRajdip Paul
- Practical Application of Validated Computer Models for Fire Hazard Analysis in.pdfHochgeladen vonSpongebob Fans
- ACMOS-87 Computer fluid dynamics of wind loads around tall buildingsHochgeladen vonIoan Sorin Leoveanu
- Definition of on-site and Off-site Explosion LoadingHochgeladen vonElla Agbettor
- Chapter2Hochgeladen vonAliAAdib
- Bre Cfdchecklist Dg511Hochgeladen vonsdfsdfwe3f44
- Dinamica de Fluidos ComputacionalHochgeladen vonabraham
- Engineer Example CVHochgeladen vonIrina Olariu Duceac
- Icossar05 Fp,Fg,FbHochgeladen vonlamkinpark3373
- 71212181.pdfHochgeladen vonCatherine Peters
- Recent Advances in Educational MethodsHochgeladen vonHarold Taylor
- Quick Start — FLOW-3D v11.1Hochgeladen vonXinwei Li
- Detached Eddy Simulation - 2Hochgeladen vonClement Chima
- Aerodynamic Optimization and Open Field Testing of a 1 KW Vertical-Axis Wind TurbineHochgeladen vonmtl0612
- Off Performance of a Multi Stage Supersonic Turbine.pdfHochgeladen vonChoon Seng
- CFD Pro 14.5 L07 Mesh QualityHochgeladen vonMahir Soyer
- 3D CFD Scaling Grid Independence TestHochgeladen vonNagesh Kintali
- CFD Techniques - An overview (G.S.V.L. Narasimham).pdfHochgeladen vonGautham Narayan
- Computational Fluid DynamicsHochgeladen vonJagdeep Sekhon
- cfd mastersHochgeladen vonJon Csehi
- Wiki Introduction to CFDHochgeladen vonShubham Raizada
- BestPractices_in_CFDHochgeladen vonmima
- AerodynHochgeladen vonpostscript
- Computational Fluid Dynamics (Cfd)Hochgeladen vonAdinda Natasya

- Rotating Shaft whirling of shaftHochgeladen vonGinu Thomas
- paper_fowtHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Dynamics of an Eccentric Rotational Nonlinear Energy SinkHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Aeroelastic Coupling Analysis of the Flexible Blade of a Wind TurbineHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Transient Response of the Flexible Blade of Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbines in Wind Gusts and Rapid Yaw ChangesHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion of a Flexible AircraftHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Numerical Investigations of Aeroacoustic Aspects of Clarinetlike InstrumentsHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- 2010_Bifurcation Analysis of Nose-Landing-Gear Shimmy With Lateral and Longitudinal Bending (2)Hochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Aerodyn Theory ManualHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Chapter--Macro-Fiber Composite Actuated Piezoelectric Robotic FishHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Advances in Energy Harvesting MethodsHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Nonlinear Vibration Analysis of an Axially Moving Drillstring System With Time Dependent Axial Load and Axial Velocity in Inclined WellHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Nonlinear Dynamics : A Primer Modeling the Jeffcott Rotor %28Campos 2005%29Hochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Investigations on Bending-Torsional Vibrations of Rotor During Rotor-stator Rub Using Lagrange Multiplier MethodHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Rotordynamics IntroductionHochgeladen vonBharath Chandra Reddy
- IntroRotorDynamics.pdfHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Chaotic vibration analysis of rotating, flexible, continuous shaft-disk system with a rub-impact between the disk and the stator.pdfHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- NRELWindTurbineModelingWorkshop UMASS AgendaHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- A coupled non-linear mathematical model of parametric resonance.pdfHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Stability O EngHochgeladen vonLenin Valerio
- Influence of Non-linearities on the Limits of Stability of Ships Rolling in Head SeasHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- SPAR Platforms Technology and Analysis MethodsHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Introduction to Programming With MatlabHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- 9789812774828_0009Hochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- 9789812774828_0008Hochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Lecture 21Hochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Orthogonal PolynomialHochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1
- Lecture Notes CT 4145Hochgeladen vonmohdsolihat1

- Hydraulic SimilitudeHochgeladen vonhzwch
- A Droplet Transport Model for Channel and Pipe Flow Based on Particle KineticHochgeladen vonRochdi Demagh
- NarsipurPomeroySelig 2012Hochgeladen vonidora27
- UnitOpI(12-2) 060116 (1)Hochgeladen vonHairi Hang
- CHAPTER 7 Heat TransferHochgeladen vonaimanrsln
- [R1] Shark Skin Surfaces for Fluid Drag Reduction in Turbulent FlowHochgeladen vonEtienne Gatt
- Pump HandbookHochgeladen vonSuranga Gayan
- Nozzle design using fluentHochgeladen vonSriram Ganesan
- Chapter 4 BearingsHochgeladen vonewfsd
- Powder CharacterizationHochgeladen vonecternal
- Garme2012_Resistance and PoweringHochgeladen vonSrikanth Shivram
- 1-s2.0-0307904X9090074F-main (1)Hochgeladen vonAbhijeet
- relief device.pdfHochgeladen vonwawaniesya
- Avoid Leakage in Pipe SystemsHochgeladen vonAlexander
- Airfoil Design07.pdfHochgeladen vonaerokosmos
- Mechanics of Fluids Rr220301Hochgeladen vonNizam Institute of Engineering and Technology Library
- New Concept for an Effective Reynolds Number.pdfHochgeladen vonmrccahmed
- Analysis of Steady-state Characteristics of Misaligned Hydrodynamic Journal Bearings With Isotropic Roughness EffectHochgeladen vonTao Ye
- Marsh FunnelHochgeladen vonAndré Mattos
- Pressurised Atomisation of High Flashpoint Liquids - Implications for Hazardous Area ClassificationHochgeladen vonasit_eng
- Heat Transfer BibliographyHochgeladen vonali
- Bee Code -Fluid PipingHochgeladen vonHussain
- sump designHochgeladen vonJessica Huber
- Wellbore HydraulicsHochgeladen vonFranklyn Frank
- Navier Stokes Anlytical SolutionHochgeladen vonDaniel Silva
- Fell Chapter 1Hochgeladen vonKroze
- Kuliah 4 5 Dan 6 Internal IncompressibleHochgeladen vonEko Hermawan
- MTO Application in Steel IndustryHochgeladen vonNikhil Kumar Chennuri
- Aerodynamic HeatingHochgeladen vonDhimas Afihandarin
- 1-s2.0-S0017931001003143-mainHochgeladen vonvilasap

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.