Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Power coefficient CP
0.5
is the rotor power extracted from the wind. The second FVM
0.4 CFD
term on the right hand is the axial component of the
force exerted by the pressure on the CV, which is not 0.3
equal to zero but is negligible due to its little eect on
0.2
the power calculation.2
The combination of Eqs. (1)(4) can easily yield the 0.1
expressions of both power and thrust, but can neither - 0
nally determine the rotor aerodynamic performance nor 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
obtain the blade aerodynamic conguration. These lim- Tip speed ratio
itations can be overcome by introduction of the blade
element method dividing the blade into small elements Fig. 1. Power coecient with tip speed ratio.6
that act independently of surrounding elements and op-
erate aerodynamically as two-dimensional airfoils whose
aerodynamic forces can be calculated based on the lo- an optimal rotor must have maximum power coecient.
cal ow conditions. The combination of the momentum The Rankine-Froude ow theory gives the rotor power
theory and the blade element approach sets up the so- coecient
called blade element momentum (BEM) theory which
2P
involves an iterative process to determine the aerody- CP = = 4a(1 a)2 , (7)
namic forces and also the induced velocities at the rotor AV03
a (Cl cos + Cd sin ) when a = 1/3, the maximum value of CP can be ob-
= , (5)
1a 8 sin2 tained as 16/270.593, which is the well-known Betz
a (Cl sin Cd cos ) limit, giving an extremely signicant theoretical upper
= , (6) limit without regard to any losses resulting from wake
1a 8 sin cos
rotation, viscosity, and innite blade number assump-
where a and a are the axial and tangential induction tion, etc.
factors dened as a = (V0 V )/V and a = /, re- Because of its simplicity and high eciency, BEM
spectively. V0 is the freestream velocity, V is the axial theory is widely used and wind turbine researchers have
velocity at the rotor, is the angular velocity of the been accumulating rich experiences on BEM methods.
wake just behind the rotor, is the angular velocity of Therefore, wind turbine aerodynamic designs are almost
the rotor; is the inow angle, is the rotor solidity, based on BEM theory.
Cl and Cd are the lift coecient and drag coecient, A recent attempt to design a high-performance
respectively. 1.5 MW wind turbine blade has been made by Wang
A limitation of the BEM theory is that when axial et al.68 based on Pareto optimal theory for multi-
induction factor is greater than 0.5, there would be neg- objective optimization, taking maximum annual energy
ative ow in the wake. This contravenes the Rankine- production and minimum blade mass as the optimiza-
Froude ow theory and therefore the classic momentum tion objectives. The design acquires comprehensively
theory breaks down. To overcome this problem, sev- optimal solutions rather than a single aerodynamically
eral thrust coecient formulas for large induced velocity optimum solution which are obtained usually from the
states have been proposed on the basis of experimental conventional single-objective optimizations. This blade
investigations.3 design has been tested through aerodynamic calcula-
The BEM method with modication often predicts tion, aeroelastic validation, aeroacoustic calculation and
the gross performance of wind turbines with accept- wind tunnel experiment. A 1/16-scale model of this
able accuracy at a cost of high dependence on empir- blade was tested in a 12 m 16 m wind tunnel, demon-
ical 2D airfoil data. BEM methods are applied not strating that the maximum power coecient for the
only in wind turbine designs but also in static perfor- scaled model was as high as 0.492. Moreover, both
mance calculations. Meanwhile BEM methods have also the computational uid dynamics (CFD) method and
been extended to some unsteady applications by cor- a free-vortex method (FVM) were applied to calculate
recting 2D experimental data to account for dynamic the aerodynamic performance with the maximum power
stall and three-dimensional (3D) rotational eects.4,5 coecient 0.505 and 0.528 (Fig. 1), respectively, for the
The upgraded models are successfully embodied into full-scale blade.
some well-known codes AERODYN5 and BLADED.6
2.5 1.2
Aerodynamic coefficient
2.0 Static
1.0 Dynamic
1.5
Lift coefficient Cl
1.0 0.8
0.5
0 0.6
-0.5
Measured coefficient 0.4
-1.0
StC coefficient
-1.5 0.2
-90 -40 10 60 110 160 210
11 14 17 20 23 26 29
Angle of attack/() Angle of attack/()
2.0 Statuary
ally overestimate the loads compared to measurement
1.5 data on a wind turbine blade over a range of operating
conditions, none of which can fully represented the ow
1.0 physics. Rotational augmentation is still a hot spot for
the wind turbine aerodynamic performance prediction,
0.5 and a rigorous approach is still the urgent need.
0
0 10 20 30 40 C. Dynamic stall
Angle of attack/()
When a wind turbine is subjected to the time vary-
Fig. 4. Cl at 0.3R statuary and rotating blade.25
ing uctuations in the wind or control actions inducing
frequent changes of angle of attack, dynamic stall phe-
Wind tunnel tests conducted in Refs. 2629 have nomena in responsible of a stall delay and hysteresis
suggested that the stall delay phenomenon can be found loop in aerodynamic characteristics are often observed.
pervasive existing at any radial locations and through- The dynamic stall processes with various mo-
out all blade operating envelopes, particularly intense tion patterns have been investigated in detail. Both
at the inboard sections of the blade. Comparative anal- experiments4450 and computational uid dynamics
yses of MEXICO and UAE Phase VI experimental data methods5156 revealed that the prominent features
regarding rotational augmentation have also been per- within a full cycle of dynamic stall are incessant spread-
formed by Schreck et al.30 ing of ow reversal on the suction side, the formation
The stall delay phenomena remain incompletely and convection of a large-scale leading edge vortex, mas-
characterized and understood. However, it has been sive ow separation, and ow reattachment. A typical
widely accepted that two main contributions are com- dynamic stall curve of the lift coecient for an oscil-
monly indicated for these phenomena. One is the Cori- lating airfoil is depicted in Fig. 5,57 where the dynamic
olis force, which acts in the chordwise direction alle- stall features are distinctively dierent from the steady
viating the adverse pressure gradient and hence tends characteristics.
to delay separation. On the other hand, the centrifu- Dynamic stall on wind turbine is more compli-
gal force tends to pump airow from blade root to tip, cated because of its rotation and highly unsteady exter-
resulting in a thinner boundary layer. nal operational environment, and produces large excur-
The eect of rotational augmentation must be sions of the aerodynamic loads during the vortex break-
taken into account for better predicting rotor perfor- down, resulting in fatal structural failures and violent
mance. One approach is that the 3D data can be vibrations.58,59 Therefore, the development of dynamic
obtained directly from rotor experiments or numerical stall engineering models has been necessitated. Sev-
calculations.3134 An alternative as a common method eral empirical and semi-empirical dynamic stall mod-
is to build a kind of stall delay model able to adjust els are available for the wind rotor aerodynamic analy-
2D aerodynamic data to account for 3D rotational ef- sis in despite of original intention for helicopter appli-
fects by a series of correction formula. For this, various cations, which have been documented by Leishman.60
stall delay models have been proposed.3543 Compara- Among these models, Leishman-Beddoes dynamic stall
tive study on six of such models has been carried out model61 and its modied version62 are most widely used
with the use of a vortex wake code.25 The results from in wind industry. However, results from the applications
062001-5 A brief review on wind turbine aerodynamics Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 2, 062001 (2012)
600
rate dynamic stall models and delay stall models are
500 required, which can be developed only through much
400 more experimental and computational studies. CFD
0 200 400 600 800 methods have provided deep insight to wind turbine
X/mm owelds. However, CFD methods have not been used
(b) 60 age angle
for design purposes with condence. Nevertheless, with
the increase in computer power and with the advances
Fig. 7. Tip vortex at nominal wind speed 12 m/s.86
in computational techniques the CFD solver is becom-
ing a promising and powerful tool for analysis of wind
turbine aerodynamics. Wind turbine experiments are
fore often common to utilize wind tunnel testing which essential not only for understanding of the aerodynamic
can be executed under controlled test conditions. mechanism but also for code validation.
A well-known experiment is the NREL unsteady By consideration of the complexity of wind turbine
aerodynamics experiment (UAE) Phase VI turbine test operation conditions, the investigation of turbine aero-
in the NASA Ames 24.4 m 36.6 m wind tunnel ac- dynamic is still particularly challenging for wind energy
complished in 2000. The test model was a two-bladed exploitation.
stall-regulated wind turbine with a diameter of 10.1 me-
ters. More detailed information about the experiment 1. H. Glauert, in: W. F. Durand ed. Aerodynamic Theory
has been documented by Hand.29 (Springer, Berlin, 1935).
2. R. Mikkelsen, J. N. Srensen, and W. Z. Shen, Wind Energ.
Another systemic wind turbine test in wind tunnel 4, 121 (2001).
is the so-called model experiment in controlled condi- 3. M L. Buhl Jr. A New Empirical Relationship between Thrust
tions (MEXICO) subjected to the European 5th Frame- Coecient and Induction Factor for the Turbulent Windmill
work Programme.85 The MEXICO turbine had a three- State (Boulevard, Golden, Colorado, USA, 2005).
bladed pitch-controlled upwind rotor that was 4.5 m in 4. M. O. L. Hansen, Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines (Earthscan
diameter and was tested in the NFAC 9.5 m 9.5 m Publications Ltd., 2008).
5. J. R. P. Vaza, J. T. Pinhob, and A. L. A. Mesquitaa, Renew.
wind tunnel. Energy 36, 1734 (2011).
It is worthy to note that a large-view ow eld 6. T. G. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Zhong, et al., Chin. Sci. Bull.
measurements using PIV technique with high resolu- 57, 466 (2012).
tion CCD cameras on a rotating small wind turbine 7. L. Wang, T. G. Wang, and Y. Luo, Appl. Math. Mech. Eng.
model were conducted in a 3.2 m wind tunnel at the Ed. 32, 739 (2011).
Low Speed Aerodynamics Institute of China Aerody- 8. L. Wang, T. G. Wang, and J. H. Wu, et al., J. NUAA 43, 672
(2011). (in Chinese)
namics Research and Development Center (CARDC).86
9. M. A. Kotb, and M. M. Abdel Haq, Wind Eng. 16, 95 (1992).
The strong tip vortex was clearly captured in the ex- 10. F. N. Coton, T. G. Wang, and R. A. M Galbraith, Wind
periment (Fig. 7). The results show that the tip vor- Energy 5, 199 (2002).
tex rstly moves inward for a very short time and then 11. F. N. Coton, and T. G. Wang, Journal of Power and Energy
moves outward with the wake expansion while its vor- 213, 33 (1999).
ticity decreases with time after just trailed from the 12. T. G. Wang, and F. N. Coton, J. Wind Een. Ind. Aerod. 89,
873 (2001).
trailing edge of the blade tip and then increases contin-
13. B. F. Xu, and T. G. Wang, J. NUAA 43, 592 (2011). (in
uously with rapid roll-up to form a strong tip vortex. Chinese)
14. M Dssing, Vortex Lattice Modelling of Winglets on Wind
Turbine Blades (Ris National Laboratory, Technical Univer-
VII. CONCLUSIVE REMARKS sity of Denmark, Denmark, 2007).
15. S. Chkir, Energy Procedia 6, 777 (2011).
16. X. Shen, X. C. Zhu, and Z. H. Du, Energy 36, 1424 (2011).
Recent progresses in wind turbine aerodynamics 17. K. Badreddinne, H. Ali, and A. David, Renew. Energy 30,
have been selectively presented in this paper. BEM 2019 (2005).
062001-7 A brief review on wind turbine aerodynamics Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 2, 062001 (2012)
18. L. A. Viterna, and D. C. Janetzke, Theoretical and Exper- 49. G. Z. McGowan, K Granlund, and M. V. Ol, AIAA J. 49,
imental Power from Large Horizontal-axis Wind Turbines, 1511 (2011).
NASA-TM-82944 (NASA, Cleveland, USA, 1982). 50. M. V. Ol, L. Bernal, and C. K. Kang, et al., Exp. Fluids 46,
19. C. Lindenburg, Stall Coecients, Aerodynamic Airfoil Co- 883 (2009).
ecient at Large Angles of Attack, ECN-RX-01-004 (Na- 51. E. Dumlupinar, and V. Murthy, in: Proc. 29th AIAA Applied
tional Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, Aerodynamics Conference (Hawaii, 2011)
USA, 2001). 52. A. Spentzos, G. Barakos, and K. Badcock, et al., AIAA J. 43,
20. J. L. Tangler, Wind Energy 3, 247 (2004). 1023 (2005).
21. F. Richez, I. Mary, and V. Gleize, et al., Theor. Comp. Fluid 53. C. Marongiu, and R. Tognaccini, in: Proc. 48th AIAA
Dyn. 22, 305 (2008). Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Fo-
22. S. Schmidt, and F. Thiele, Flow Turbul. Combul. 71, 261 rum and Aerospace Exposition (Florida, 2010)
(2003). 54. M. R. Visbal, AIAA J. 49, 2152 (2011).
23. S. Eisenbach, and R. Friedrich, Theor. Comp. Fluid Dyn. 22, 55. T. Xu, P. Sullivan, and M. Paraschivoiu, J Aircraft 47, 328
213 (2008). (2010).
24. M. R. Visbal, R E. Gordnier, and M C. Galbraith, Exp. Fluids 56. M. Sanchez-Rocha, M. Kirta, and S. Menon, in: Proc. 44th
46, 903 (2009). AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (Nevada,
25. S. O. Breton, F N. Coton, and G. Moe, Wind Energy 11, 459 2006).
(2008). 57. K. Mulleners, and M. Rael, Exp. Fluids 52, 779 (2012).
26. G. Ronsten, J Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 39, 105 (1992). 58. A. C. Hansen, X. Cui, and C. P. Buttereld, J. Solar Energ.
27. J. M. Savino, and T. W. Nyland, Wind Turbine Flow Vi- Eng. 112, 310 (1990).
sualisation Studies, NASATM-89903 (NASA Lewis Research 59. S. Schreck, M. Robinson, and M. Hand, et al., Wind Energy
Center Cleveland, USA, 1985). 3, 215 (2000).
28. W. J. McCroskey, Measurements of Boundary Layer Transi- 60. J. G. Leishman, Wind Energy 5, 85 (2002).
tion, Separation and Streamline Direction on Rotating Blades 61. J. G. Leishman, and T. S. Beddoes, J. Am. Helicopter Soc.
(NASA, USA, 1971). 34, 3 (1989).
29. M. M. Hand, D. A. Simms, and L. J. Fingersh, et al., Unsteady 62. K. Pierce, and A. C. Hansen, J. Solar Energ. Eng. 3, 200
Aerodynamics Experiment Phase VI: Wind Tunnel Test Con- (1995).
gurations and Available Data Campaigns (National Renew- 63. W. Sheng, R. A. McD. Galbraith, and F. N. Coton, J. Sol.
able Energy Laboratory Golden, Colorado, 2001). Energ. Eng. 130, 13 (2008).
30. S. Schreck, T. Sant, and D. Micallef, Rotational Augmentation 64. R. Pereira, G. Schepers, and M. D. Pavel, in: Proc. 49th
Disparities in the MEXICO and UAE Phase VI Experiments, AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Hori-
(National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard zons Forum and Aerospace Exposition (Florida, 2011).
Golden, Colorado, 2010). 65. W. Sheng, R. A. McD. Galbraith, and F. N. Coton, in: Proc.
31. S. J. Schreck, Rotationally Augmented Flow Structures and 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (Nevada,
Time Varying Loads on Turbine Blades (National Renewable 2008).
Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado, 66. S. Gupta, and J. G Leishman., Wind Energy 9, 521 (2006).
2007).
67. M. H. Hansen, M. Gaunaa, and H. Aagaard, A B-L Type Dy-
32. P. K. Chaviaropoulos, and M. O. L. Hansen, J. Fluids Eng. namic Stall Model in State-Space and Indicial Formulations,
122, 330 (2000). RisR-1354 (Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark,
33. W. Z. Shen, and J. N. Srensen, J. Comput. Phys. 150, 518 2004).
(1999). 68. J. W. Larsena, S. R. K. Nielsen, and S. Krenk, J. Fluid Struct.
34. J. Johansen, and N. N. Srensen, Wind Energy 7, 283 (2004). 23, 959 (2007).
35. J. L. Tangler, and M. S Selig, An Evaluation of an Empirical 69. C. Lu, and T. G. Wang, Appl. Math. Mech-Engl. 32, 393
Model for Stall Delay Due to Rotation for HAWTS (National (2011).
Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, Colorado, 1997). 70. W. Zhong, and T. G. Wang, J. NUAA 43, 640 (2011). (in
36. H. Snel, and V. Holten, in: Proc. 20th European Rotorcraft Chinese)
forum (Amsterdam, 1994) 71. F. R Menter, in: Proc. 24th Fluid Dynamics Conference (Or-
37. Z. H. Du, M. S. Selig, and S. Michael, in: Proc. 36th AIAA lando, Florida, 1993).
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (Nevada, 1998) 72. N. N. Srensen, J. A. Michelsen, and S. Schreck, Wind Energy
38. P. M. Sforza, and M. Pasquale, in: Proc. Intersociety Energy 5, 151 (2002).
Conversion Engineering Conference (Boston, 1991) 73. C. E. Carcangiu, J. N. Srensen, and F. Cambuli, et al., Phys.:
39. H. Dumitrescu, and V. Cardos, AIAA J. 42 408 (2004). Conf. Ser. 75, 012031 (2007).
40. N. V. Raj, An Improved Semi-Empirical Model for 3-D Post- 74. N. N. Srensen, J. A. Michelsen, and S. Schreck, Wind Energy
Stall Eects in Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines [MS Thesis]. 5 151 (2002).
(University of Illinois, Urbana Champagne, 2000). 75. A. Spentzos, G. N. Barakos, and K. J. Badcock, et al., J.
41. P. K. Chaviapoulos, and M. O. L Hansen, J Fluid Eng. 122, Aircraft 44, 1118 (2007).
330 (2000). 76. R. K. Zhang, and J. Z. Wu, Wind Energy 15, 407 (2012).
42. B. C. Johansen, J, and P. B Anderson, in: Proc. 2006 Euro- 77. F. Porte-Agel, Y. T. Wu, and H. Lu, et al., J. Wind Eng. Ind.
pean Wind Energy Conference, (Athens, 2006). Aerod. 99, 154 (2011).
43. C. Lindenburg, Investigation into Rotor Blade Aerodynamics, 78. N. Sezer-Uzol, A. Guptab, and L. N. Longa, Lecture Notes in
(Petten, Netherlands 2003). Computational Science and Engineering 67, 457 (2009).
44. S. J. Schreck, J. Aircraft 33, 279 (1996). 79. P. Sagaut, Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows
45. L. W. Carr, J. Aircraft 25, 6 (1988). (Springer, Germany 2005).
46. C. Shih, L. Lourenco, and L. Van Dommelen, et al., AIAA J. 80. B. J. Geurts, and F. Bos, Phys. Fluids 17, 13 (2005).
30, 1153 (1992). 81. J. Johansen, N. N. Srensen, and J. A. Michelsen, et al., Wind
47. S. J. Schreck, W E. Faller, and M. C. Robinson, J. Aircraft Energy 5, 185 (2002).
39, 868 (2002). 82. J. Larsen, in: Proc. of ANSYS Conference & 26th CADFEM
48. D. Rival, and C. Tropea, J. Aircraft 47, 80 (2010). Users Meeting (Darmstadt, 2008)
062001-8 T. G. Wang Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 2, 062001 (2012)
83. J. G. Schepers, A.J. Brand, and A. Bruining, et al., Final Re- Netherlands Petten, Netherlands, 2002).
port of IEA Annex XIV: Field Rotor Aerodynamics, ECN-C-
97-027 (Energy Research Centre of The Netherlands, Petten, 85. H. Snel, J. G. Schepers, and B. Montgomerie, J. Phys.: Conf.
The Netherlands 1997). Ser. 75, 1 (2007).
84. J. G. Schepers, A. J. Brand, and A. Bruining, et al., Final
Report of IEA Annex XVIII: Enhanced Field Rotor Aerody- 86. J. P. Xiao, J. Wu, and L. Chen, et al., Appl. Math. Mech.
namics Database, ECN-C-02-016 (Energy Research Centre of Engl. Ed. 6, 729 (2011).