Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Ver. 1.1
Aerodynamic performance of a solar tracker panel with a ±55° inclination angle w.r.t. the ground
Summary
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome January 2017
Aerodynamic performance of a solar tracker panel with a ±55° inclination angle w.r.t. the ground
1. Computational domain and mesh
Calculations have been carried out on a 2D rectangular domain, that extends 80 m up‐ and down‐
stream of the solar tracker panel. The domain extends also 80 m in the normal‐to‐the‐ground
direction, Figure 1. The panel has a ±55° inclination with respect to the ground, according to the
specifics given by Convert.
Figure 1 – Computational domain
The computational mesh entails 615.000 hexahedra. A detail of the mesh near the tracker panel is
shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 – – Detail of the computational grid near the panel
A summary of the mesh quality indicators is shown in the following Table 1, together with y+ values
on the panel surface.
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome January 2017
Aerodynamic performance of a solar tracker panel with a ±55° inclination angle w.r.t. the ground
Aspect ratio 1 80 10.33
Min. included angle 30 90 83
Table 1 ‐ Mesh quality indicators and y+
2. Numerical method
Computations were carried out using the steady‐state incompressible simpleFoam solver of the
OpenFOAM 2.3.x CFD library. Incompressible fluid flow assumption was taken into account as Mach
number (Ma = 0.08) is well below the threshold for compressibility effects to begin affecting the
flow field (Mathreshold = 0.3). Discretization of convective terms relied on a QUICK scheme, while
gradients were computing using central differencing scheme. The linearized Navier‐Stokes
equations were solved using smoothSolver for velocity and turbulence closure equations, with a
convergence threshold equal to 10‐8, while for pressure a GAMG (Generalized Algebraic Multi Grid)
solver was selected with a convergence threshold equal to 10‐6. Convergence of results was
achieved with convergence of CL e CD on the solar tracker panel surface.
2.1 Boundary conditions
At the inflow of the computational domain a logarithmic profile that reproduces the atmospheric
boundary layer was given. This profile was characterized with a 28 m/s velocity at 10 m distance
from the ground. Zero gradient conditions were selected for the outflow and in the free‐stream
surface parallel to the ground. On the solid surfaces no‐slip conditions were imposed, specifying a
roughness on the ground according to the specifics received from Convert.
2.2 Turbulence modelling and validation
Computations were carried out with three different approaches for turbulence closure:
1. standard k‐ model with wall functions [1], [2]
2. Launder Sharma k‐ model with low‐Reynolds approach (integration to the wall) [3]
3. Spalart‐Allmaras model [4]
In Table 2 the coefficients used in the code for these models are summarized.
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome January 2017
Aerodynamic performance of a solar tracker panel with a ±55° inclination angle w.r.t. the ground
Spalart‐Allmaras k‐standard e Launder‐Sharma
Cb1 0.1355 C 0.09
Cb2 0.622 C1 1.44
Cw2 0.3 C2 1.92
Cw3 2.0 C3 (only for LS) ‐0.33
Cv1 7.1 1.3
Cv2 5.0
t 2/3
0.41
Table 2 – Spalart‐Allmaras and k‐ (standard and Launder‐Sharma) model coefficients
In order to validate the results, the flow over an isolated flat plate with an angle of attack of 55° was
simulated, using a constant flow velocity equal to 17.8 m/s (that corresponds to the velocity value
at the height of the tracker panel center). With these assumptions the calculated Reynolds number
is Re=2.331.126.
A validation of the modeling approach and results, summarized in Table 3, is only possible using
available data on NACA four‐digit airfoils. Specifically, Table 3 illustrates the aerodynamic
performance of NACA0012 and NACA0018 at 55° angle of attack. To this end, in view of Viterna
theory [5] according to which at high angles of attack (>40°) C*L e C*D values are not dependent on
the profile shape, we can conclude that the Spalart‐Allmaras model returns realistic values for force
coefficients.
* *
Model C L
C D
* *
profile C L
C D
k‐ + wall
0.58 0.76
functions
NACA0012 0.965 1.345
k‐
Launder 0.61 0.88
Sharma NACA0018 0.965 1.345
Spalart
0.85 1.24
Allmaras
Table 4 – Lift and drag coefficients for isolated
Table 3 – Results for an isolated flat plate,
profile, from open literature
angle of attack 55°
This validation against available literature data highlights that the SA model is the one with better
agreement to literature. Therefore we computed also force coefficients for the case with angle of
attack equal to ‐55°, that are reported in Table 5. Again, comparison with Table 4 results in trend
with Viterna theory.
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome January 2017
Aerodynamic performance of a solar tracker panel with a ±55° inclination angle w.r.t. the ground
* *
model C L
C D
Spalart
0.97 1.39
Allmaras
Table 5 ‐ Results for an isolated flat plate, angle of attack 55°
Another reference to the accuracy of the selected turbulence model comes from [6], where the
Authors calculated lift and drag coefficients for a NACA0012 profile at Re=106 for angle of attack
‐12°<AoA<20° (corresponding to the stable region of lift). It is possible to report that for low angles
of attack the computed lift coefficient is practically identical to the measured one, while increasing
the angle of attack and approaching stall condition the maximum discrepancy is 7.5%. For an angle
of attack equal to 20°, after stall, the error is again negligible. Regarding CD, the computed value is
higher than the measured one for all the angles of attack, with an offset that is basically constant
with respect to experimental data. This leads to the conclusion that, being CD always over‐
estimated, the global effect is to over‐estimate CP for a conservative estimate.
Results summarized in the following, according to literature and previous experience, have an
uncertainty of ±8% on CL and +15% on CD.
3. Results, computations with ground effect
+55° arrangement, Figure 3
Figure 3 – Reference scheme. Black point: axis origin.
Green point: center of pressure. Yellow point: geometrical center of the tracker.
Normalized pressure, lift and drag coefficients with respect to the reference velocity of 20.08 m/s
taken at the maximum panel height (2.18 m) are:
Cp = 1.410
CL = ‐ 0.809
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome January 2017
Aerodynamic performance of a solar tracker panel with a ±55° inclination angle w.r.t. the ground
CD = ‐ 1.155
The center of pressure (green in the sketch) has coordinates x= 0.524 m y= 0.713 m with respect to
the origin (black in the sketch).
Cp distribution along the panel is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 – Cp distribution along the panel.
‐55° arrangement, Figure 5
Figure 5 – Reference scheme. Black point: axis origin.
Green point: center of pressure. Yellow point: geometrical center of the tracker.
Normalized pressure, lift and drag coefficients with respect to the reference velocity of 20.08 m/s
taken at the maximum panel height (2.18 m) are:
Cp = 1.755
CL = 1.006
CD = 1.438
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome January 2017
Aerodynamic performance of a solar tracker panel with a ±55° inclination angle w.r.t. the ground
The center of pressure (green in the sketch) has coordinates x= 0.63 m y= 0.86 m with respect to
the origin (black in the sketch).
Cp distribution along the panel is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6 – Cp distribution along the panel.
As a comparison, Eurocode EN 1991‐1‐4:2005+A 1 (2010 update) reports Cp=1.8 for a vertical
signboard [see pag. 63, (7.7)].
4. Appendix. Influence of inflow velocity profile
In order to estimate the influence of the logarithmic velocity profile at the inflow (conventionally
reproducing the atmospheric boundary layer) computations were carried out also with a constant
velocity profile equal to 17.6 m/s, that corresponds to the velocity value of the logarithmic profile
at the center of the panel (1.33 m above the ground).
+55° arrangement, Figure 3
Normalized pressure, lift and drag coefficients with respect to the reference velocity of 20.08 m/s
taken at the maximum panel height (2.18 m) are:
Cp = 1.184
CL = ‐0.682
CD = ‐0.967
The center of pressure (green in the sketch) has coordinates x= 0.511 m y= 0.695 m with respect to
the origin (black in the sketch).
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome January 2017
Aerodynamic performance of a solar tracker panel with a ±55° inclination angle w.r.t. the ground
Cp distribution along the panel is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 – Cp distribution along the panel.
‐55° arrangement, Figure 5
Normalized pressure, lift and drag coefficients with respect to the reference velocity of 20.08 m/s
taken at the maximum panel height (2.18 m) are:
Cp = 1.496
CL = 0.856
CD = 1.228
The center of pressure (green in the sketch) has coordinates x= 0.625 m y= 0.857 m with respect to
the origin (black in the sketch).
Cp distribution along the panel is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8 – Cp distribution along the panel.
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome January 2017
Aerodynamic performance of a solar tracker panel with a ±55° inclination angle w.r.t. the ground
We can conclude that results with constant velocity at the inflow under‐estimate the CP values with
respect to those with the logarithmic profile.
5. References
[1]. Launder, B.E., and Spalding, D.B., "Mathematical Models of Turbulence", Academic Press,
1972.
[2]. Launder, B.E., and Spalding, D.B., "Computational Methods for Turbulent Flows", Comp.
Meth in Appl Mech & Eng'g, Vol 3, 1974, pp 269‐289
[3]. Launder, B. E., and Sharma, B. I. (1974), "Application of the Energy Dissipation Model of
Turbulence to the Calculation of Flow Near a Spinning Disc", Letters in Heat and Mass
Transfer, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 131‐138.
[4]. P. R. Spalart, S. R. Allmaras, “A One‐Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows" P.R.
Spalart, La Recherche Aerospatiale, No. 1, 1994, pp. 5‐21.
[5]. Viterna, L.; Janetzke, D. (September 1982). Theoretical and Experimental Power from Large
Horizontal‐Axis Wind Turbines. NASA TM‐82944, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Cleveland, OH. Lewis Research Center
[6]. Douvi C. Eleni, Tsavalos I. Athanasios and Margaris P. Dionissios, March 2012, Evaluation of
the turbulence models for the simulation of the flow over a National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics (NACA) 0012 airfoil, Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research Vol. 4(3),
pp. 100‐111, March 2012
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome January 2017