Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software was used to compare the performance of a handmade wind turbine blade with that of a conventional factory made model. The geometry was simplified to 2D aerofoils and the surrounding flow field was analysed at a Reynolds number of 80,000. It was found that the lift/drag characteristics of the two aerofoils across a range of angles of attack were virtually identical, meaning that the torque force exerted on the wind turbine blades would also be identical and therefore as would the power outputs of the two turbines. However, the simple model ignored a number of important issues, such as 3D effects and the influence of manufacturing quality on the idealised blade geometry. Further modelling and/or experimental validation work is needed to increase confidence in the quality of the results.
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 1 2 3 Introduction to Small Scale Wind Power .................................................................................... 3 Aims and Objectives .................................................................................................................. 3 Basic Aerodynamic Theory of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines (HAWTs) ....................................... 4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4 The Aerofoil ....................................................................................................................... 4 Lift and Drag, Thrust and Torque ........................................................................................ 5 Reynolds Number.............................................................................................................. 8 Boundary Layers................................................................................................................. 9 Stall.................................................................................................................................... 9 Aerofoil Geometry ........................................................................................................... 10
Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) ............................................................... 11 4.1 4.2 The Modelling Process ..................................................................................................... 11 CFD for Wind Turbine Analysis ......................................................................................... 12
Building the Model .................................................................................................................. 12 5.1 5.2 5.3 Modelling Software .......................................................................................................... 12 Modelling Strategy ........................................................................................................... 12 Aerofoil Geometry ........................................................................................................... 13 2D Modelling Domain ............................................................................................... 13 Turbulence Model .................................................................................................... 14
5.3.1 5.3.2 6 7 8 9 10
LIFT
DRAG
LEADING EDGE
THICKNESS
TRAILING EDGE
AIRFLOW
CHORD
Figure 3 Aerofoil terminology
Figure 5 shows how the lift and drag forces are defined on an aerofoil as forces perpendicular and parallel to the airflow. As the air travels over the top of the aerofoil, it accelerates and consequently pressure decreases in this area. Lower pressure on the top of the aerofoil than the bottom creates a suction force called lift. Lift is the force that keeps aeroplanes in the sky. Drag on the other hand, acts in the same direction to the airflow and is generally considered a nuisance, as for example in an aeroplane, extra fuel must be used to overcome the drag forces. Drag forces arise mainly from
friction between the viscous fluid and the surface of the aerofoil (skin friction drag) and the difference in pressure between the leading and trailing edges of the aerofoil (form drag).
LIFT
RESULTANT FORCE
AIRFLOW
DRAG
When comparing different aerofoils, it is often more useful to look at lift and drag coefficients rather than the total lift and drag forces on acting on the aerofoil. Lift and drag coefficients are nondimensional numbers used to quantify the amount of lift or drag on a given aerofoil under a given set of flow conditions, e.g. Reynolds number or AoA. They can be defined as follows:
CL = Lift coefficient (dimensionless) CD = Drag coefficient (dimensionless) 3 = Fluid density (kg/m ) V = Velocity (m/s) 2 A = Area of blade (m ), for 2D aerofoil calculations a blade length of 1 is used and only the chord length (m) is required
It should be noted that in the context of a wind turbine, the airflow seen by the aerofoil is not equal to the oncoming wind velocity. Figure 6 illustrates how the airflow onto the aerofoil (the relative wind velocity) is a result of both the oncoming wind velocity and the airflow due to blade rotation.
Figure 6 Velocity triangle relating oncoming wind velocity and blade rotation to the relative velocity seen by an aerofoil section of a wind turbine blade
The Tip Speed Ratio (TSR) is a commonly used parameter in wind turbine design and relates the speed at which the blade tip is travelling (r) to the velocity of the oncoming wind:
TSR = Tip speed ratio (dimensionless) = Angular velocity of the turbine (Hz) r = Turbine radius (m), i.e. blade length V = Wind velocity (m/s)
When calculating the power output of a wind turbine, it is often more relevant to resolve the resultant aerodynamic force into torque and thrust rather than lift and drag. Torque is the useful force that causes the blades to rotate, whilst thrust is the redundant component that merely pushes against the tower. The power produced by a wind turbine can be calculated very simply as follows:
It can be clearly seen from Figure 7 that increasing the ratio of lift to drag will result in maximum torque.
TORQUE
AIRFLOW
DRAG
THRUST
TORQUE
TORQUE
THRUST THRUST
TORQUE
Figure 7 Aerodynamic forces on an aerofoil resolved as torque and thrust forces on a wind turbine (Adapted from [1])
Re = Reynolds number (dimensionless) 3 = Fluid density (kg/m ) V = Fluid velocity (m/s) L = Characteristic length (m), e.g. aerofoil chord length = Dynamic viscosity (kg/ms)
3.5 Stall
The lift force produced by a given aerofoil can be increased by raising the angle of attack (AoA), i.e. lifting the leading edge. At low AoAs, air flows smoothly over the aerofoil and lift increases linearly. Drag also increases, but not as rapidly as lift, resulting in an increased torque force and therefore
increased power output for the wind turbine. However, as the AoA increases further, the separation point (which previously had been nestled at the trailing edge, having little influence on the flow characteristics) jumps forward. Lift reaches a maximum at the stall angle and drag increases dramatically as the boundary layer becomes separated over the majority of the aerofoils upper surface. Beyond the stall angle, the large turbulent wake greatly reduces lift and as a result a wind turbine with stalled blades will become both noisy and inefficient.
X LIFT
X ANGLE OF ATTACK
Figure 9 The development of stall with increasing angle of attack and its effect on lift.
of fluids to be modelled or the details of any solid edges or flow inlets/outlets. The simulation is then ready to be run and when a converged solution is found, it must be carefully analysed to establish whether the mesh is appropriately modelling the flow conditions. Generally, some form of mesh refinement will be necessary to put in further detail around the areas of interest.
Figure 12 Cross-section of a wind turbine blade showing the 2D aerofoil section to be modelled (turquoise) and the airflow around it (red)
Figure 13 Geometry of the standard NACA0012 aerofoil (top left), conventional wind turbine blade tip LS0413 aerofoil (top right) and the Piggott turbine blade tip aerofoil (bottom)
To model varying AoAs, the free-stream airflow was rotated, whilst the aerofoil remained horizontal. A wind velocity of 4.5m/s with a TSR of 5.5 was used, giving an inlet velocity of 25.155m/s. As the geometry was relatively simple, a structured quadrilateral mesh was used to maximise the accuracy of the model.
FAR-FIELD BOUNDARY
AIRFLOW
AEROFOIL
to the turbulent nature of the physical flow conditions that are being modelled close to and beyond the stall angle, complex time-varying simulations would be required to correctly simulate this behaviour. As a result, the data obtained from this simple steady-state model in this region cannot be considered reliable. With regards to the drag coefficient, Figure 15 clearly demonstrates that the S-A model gives a far better match to the experimental data. As a result, it was decided to use the SA turbulence model for the main analysis.
Lift Coefficient
Angle of Attack
Figure 15 - Comparison of k- RNG and S-A turbulence models for the NACA0012 aerofoil for validation against low Reynolds number experimental data
As previously mentioned, accurately modelling the boundary layer is critical for successfully predicting the drag on an aerofoil. It is necessary to have sufficient mesh in the area adjacent to the aerofoil surface to accurately resolve the rapidly spatially varying fluid properties within this region. In order to establish the validity of the model within the boundary layer, a mesh independence study was carried out. This involved doubling the resolution of the mesh in the region closet to the aerofoil surface and re-running the model to see the impact on the parameters of interest, in this case, lift and drag. This is an iterative process and the model is said to be mesh independent when the parameters of interest no longer change between iterations. Throughout the process, y+ values around the aerofoil were monitored. y+ is a non-dimensional measure of the height of the cell adjacent to the aerofoil surface against the height of the boundary layer (and other turbulence parameters) and is an indicator of how accurately the boundary layer is being modelled. After successfully conducting the mesh independence study, the y+ values were found to be 1.4 or below (when using the S-A turbulence model, it is recommended that the values of y+ around the aerofoil are around 1 or below [8]). Figure 16 graphically demonstrates the ability of the refined model to resolve the boundary layer sufficiently. Each arrow on the illustration begins in the centre of an individual cell and it is clear to see that the higher cell density close to the aerofoil surface allows the correct velocity profile (as seen in Figure 8) to be resolved.
Figure 16 Vector plot showing the development of the boundary layer around the aerofoil. Colours and arrow length represent the magnitude of the velocity with arrow direction representing the direction.
6 Results
Using the validated model, simulations were run of the conventional wind turbine blade tip aerofoil (LS0413) alongside the Piggott turbine blade tip aerofoil. The angle of attack was varied between 0 and 15 at a Reynolds number of 80,000. Figure 17 displays the lift and drag coefficient data for both aerofoils.
7 Analysis
Figure 17 clearly indicates that the performance of the two wind turbine blade tip aerofoils is virtually identical. This result is highly unexpected as the geometries of the two aerofoils are very different. This would seem to suggest that wind turbines using either of these profiles would produce similar amounts of power. The Piggott aerofoil is a far simpler shape to manufacture, as the lower surface is effectively a flat surface and therefore it is a far more appropriate design for lowcost hand manufacturing as virtually no performance is sacrificed.
8 Evaluation
Although the Piggott aerofoil may seem to have an identical performance to the conventional LS0413 aerofoil, the model used was very simple and a number of factors that will influence the performance of a wind turbine blade in real life were not included, for example:
3D effects Real wind turbine blades are both twisted and tapered and encounter increasing relative wind speeds towards the tip due to the rotation of the blade. Vortices are also created at the ends of the blades due to the difference in pressure between the upper and lower surfaces of the aerofoil. In order to correctly model the geometry of a wind turbine blade, a 3D model would need to be built. Transition point The point along the surface of the aerofoil at which the flow transitions from laminar to turbulent is of critical importance to determining the drag on the aerofoil. To date, no computational techniques are capable of predicting the location of this point and experimental measurements must be taken to determine its location. As a result, the entire boundary layer was modelled as turbulent and the drag is likely to be an overprediction. Idealised geometry The wind turbine blade tips were modelled as ideal aerofoil geometries, however this would not be the case in the real world. In particular, a hand-made wind turbine blade is likely to be full of defects arising from poor manufacturing technique, especially at the tip where the size of the aerofoil relative to the size of the tools is smallest. These defects, although they may seem small, could have a critical impact on the aerofoils performance as they could trip the flow from laminar to turbulent and consequently increase drag. The surface roughness of the wind turbine blades was also not modelled, which could also similarly affect the drag. Accuracy of CFD As shown by Figure 15, the model still has a significant degree of inaccuracy, especially near and above the stall angle. Further modelling is required to increase the accuracy of the model, in particular unsteady simulations to more accurately determine performance around stall angle. Experimental validation Although the model was validated using the NACA0012 aerofoil, the flow physics may be slightly different around the two test aerofoils and as a result experimental data for these would give more confidence in the results.
9 Conclusion
Hugh Piggotts DIY wind turbine has been shown to have comparable performance to that of a conventional wind turbine. In the simplified model of the aerofoils at the blade tips, both exhibited virtually identical lift and drag characteristics, implying that the torque force exerted on the blades
and consequently the power produced by the turbine would also be identical. However, the simple model neglects many important factors such as 3D effects, geometric variations deriving from manufacturing defects and the location of the transition point. As a result, further modelling and/or experimental work is required to give more confidence in the results of this study.
10 References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
How Stuff Works.com. Available: www.howstuffworks.com, Accessed 18th July 2010 H. Piggott. (2010, Scoraig Wind. Available: www.scoraigwind.com A. Doig, "Off-grid Electricity for Developing Countries," IEEE Review, pp. 25-28, 1999. 16th July). My Aviation Tutor. Available: http://myaviationtutor.com R. E. a. K. Sheldahl, P. C., "Aerodynamic Characteristics of Seven Airfoil Sections Through 180 Degrees Angle of Attack for Use in Aerodynamic Analysis of Vertical Axis Wind Turbines," Sandia National Laborotories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA1981. K. Kishinami, et al., "Theoretical and Experimental Study on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine," Elsevier, 2005. R. Bhaskaran. 1st July). Cornell Fluent Tutorials - Flow Over an Airfoil . Available: http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/fluent/airfoil/index.htm Fluent_Inc. (2005). Fluent 6.3.26 User Manual.