11 views

Uploaded by sork93

Three-Dimensional Corrections of Airfoil Characteristics Based on Pressure Distributions
Christian Bak, Jeppe Johansen, Peter B. Andersen
Risø National Laboratory

- B767 ATA 70-80 Student Book
- R/C Soaring Digest - Feb 2006
- Report on RC aeroplane
- (International Edition) John J. Bertin, Russell M. Cummings-Aerodynamics for Engineers,-Pearson (2013).pdf
- What is the Difference Between Low Speed Balancing and Dynamic Balancing in Turbine Rotor Perspective
- Gas Turbine Casing Response to Blade Vibrations
- Turbocharger Damages
- Borescope Inspections Reveal 7EA IGV Problems
- conversion
- FM Qpaper Nit Raipur Mech 5th Sem
- Gully Imece2010-38395 Final
- Tutorial 6
- Vehicle Aerodynamics
- Introduction to Aeronautics - A Design Perspective
- 213829703
- Compressor Presentation 1
- Blower Balance
- Report NACA 23012.pdf
- A Resume of the Advances in Theoretical Aeronautics
- AE324S11_HW2

You are on page 1of 10

Christian Bak, Jeppe Johansen, Peter B. Andersen1

Ris National Laboratory

DK-4000, Roskilde, Denmark

Phone: +45 4677 5091, Fax: +45 4677 5960

e-mail: christian.bak@risoe.dk

Abstract

This paper describes a new model for 3D correction of airfoil characteristics from 2D wind tunnel measurements.

Based on an analysis of the NREL/NASA Ames test, a model is proposed, which uses the difference between the

pressure on the blade with 3D flow effects and the pressure from the 2D wind tunnel test. Application of the new

model on three different rotors showed, that the agreement between the new model and measurements were good

concerning the thrust and the agreement was fair concerning the power. Compared to existing 3D correction

models the correspondence between power and thrust was better predicted using the new model. This indicates that

using the new model results in a more correct load distribution on the rotor.

Nomenclature

a

a

c

cd

cd,2D

cd,2D-MIN

cl

cl,2D

cl,3D

cl,lin

cm

cm, 2D

cm,lin

cn,2D

cn,3D

ct,2D

ct,3D

Cx

Cy

F=F()

r

R

Re

Vvind

Vrad

f=0

f=1

Tangential velocity induction [-]

Airfoil chord length [m]

Drag coefficient [-]

Drag coefficient from 2D wind tunnel measurements [-]

Minimum drag for cd,2D [-]

Lift coefficient [-]

Lift coefficient from 2D wind tunnel measurements [-]

Lift coefficient corrected for 3D effects [-]

=dcl,2D/da(a-a0) [-]

Moment coefficient [-]

Moment coefficient from 2D wind tunnel measurements [-]

Moment coefficient corresponding to cl,lin[-]

Normal force coefficient from 2D wind tunnel measurements [-]

Normal force coefficient with 3D correction [-]

Chordwise force coefficient from 2D wind tunnel measurements [-]

Chordwise force coefficient with 3D correction [-]

Driving force coefficient in annular element in rotor plane [-]

Axial force coefficient in annular element in rotor plane-]

Prandtls tip loss correction [-]

Local blade radius from rotor centre [m]

Rotor radius [m]

Reynolds number based on the chord length and relative flow speed [-]

Wind speed [m/s]

Velocity in radial direction on blade [m/s]

Angle of attack of flow on airfoil []

Angle of attack where separation occurs from the leading edge []

Angle of attack where separation starts from the trailing edge []

Inflow angle on rotor plane []

Air density [kg/m3]

Solidity of rotor in annular element [-]

Combined blade twist and tip pitch []

Rotational speed for rotor [rad/s]

Introduction

Calculation of power and loads for wind turbines is mainly carried out using aeroelastic codes, where the rotor

aerodynamics essentially are modeled by the Blade Element Momentum (BEM) theory, because this model is fast

and robust. Using this model the operational conditions, the blade geometry and the airfoil characteristics are

Presented at the European Wind Energy Conference & Exhibition (EWEC), 27. Feb. 2. Mar. 2006, Athens, Greece

Page 1 of 10

required to describe the forces on the blade in terms of lift and drag coefficients as a function of angle of attack.

Airfoil characteristics used in BEM calculations are typically based on 2D wind tunnel tests on airfoils. However,

a direct application of the 2D characteristics shows bad agreement between measured and calculated loads and

power. Therefore, there is a need for correction of the airfoil characteristics to include the 3D flow effects.

In this paper existing 3D correction models are described. Then an analysis is shown of the pressure measurements

carried out in the NREL/NASA Ames test. Based on this analysis a new model for 3D correction is presented

based on the difference between the 3D pressure distribution on the blades and the 2D pressure distribution from

2D wind tunnel measurements. Also, the model is tested on three different stall regulated rotors, where the model

is compared to measurements.

The need for 3D correction of airfoil characteristics has resulted in several models where the lift coefficient and for

some models also the drag coefficient are corrected in case of separation on the airfoil sections. Models are

developed by Snel et al. [1], Du and Selig [2], Chaviaropoulos and Hansen [3] and Lindenburg [4]. Using these

models 2D airfoil characteristics are corrected with a limited input. All the models are expressed as shown in eq.

( 1):

( 1)

cl ,3 D = cl ,2 D + f (c / r ,...) cl

cd ,3 D = cd ,2 D + f (c / r ,...)cd

where 2D refers to measurements from 2D wind tunnels, c/r is the ratio between the blade chord length and the

radius at the actual blade radius position, f(c/r,) means that all models are a function of c/r, but also that they can

be a function of other parameters. cl and cd are the difference between the cl and cd that would exist if the flow

did not separate and the cl and cd which is measured in a 2D wind tunnel. The function f(c/r,) varies from model

to model and can shortly be described as:

Snel et al. [1]:

c

fcl = 3( ) 2

r

Lindenburg [4]:

f cl = 3.1(

c

)2 ( )2

Vrel r

Du and Selig[2]:

d R

1 1.6(c / r ) a (c / r ) r

f cl =

1

d R

2 0.1267

b + (c / r ) r

d R

1 1.6(c / r ) a (c / r ) 2 r

f cd =

1

d R

2 0.1267

b + (c / r ) 2 r

= R / V 2vind + ( r )2

where a=b=d=1

Chaviaropoulos and Hansen [3]:

c

fcl ,cd = a( ) h cos n ( ) , where a=2.2, h=1 and n=4

r

The model by Snel et al. and Lindenburg contain solely a correction for cl and not for cd. Furthermore, Lindenburg

[4] has also proposed a model which is based on cn, which is the force coefficient orthogonal to the chord

direction. Some of the models described above will be applied and compared to the new correction model.

The NREL/NASA Ames experiment is analyzed to gain insight into the basic mechanisms for the 3D effects for a

wind turbine blade separating in normal operation [5]. In this experiment a two-bladed wind turbine with a rotor

diameter of 10.058m and a rotational speed of 72RPM has been tested in the worlds largest wind tunnel, which

has a test section of height 24.4m and width 36.6m. On the blades the pressure distributions at five radial positions

Page 2 of 10

are measured and the turbine experiences wind speeds from 5m/s to 25m/s. More turbines have been tested in wind

tunnels, but the results from this experiment are the most reliable and comprehensive. Compared to large and

modern wind turbines this turbine is uncommon, because it has only two blades and the design tip speed ratio is

only =6.3 compared to modern rotors which have around 8 or more. Despite this fact it is believed that the

physical mechanisms in general represent the conditions on rotating blades.

Measuring the pressure on the blades the forces can be integrated on the blade airfoils. This way the airfoil

characteristics can be determined. The corresponding angles of attack are, however, not measured directly and the

question about determination of angles of attack is frequently discussed because they are not trivial to measure.

Since the objective of the analysis of the experiment was to propose a model for correction of airfoil characteristics

for the BEM model the angles of attack were determined by inverse use of the BEM model as shown in eq. ( 2).

a=

a' =

1

F ( )4 sin 2

+1

Cy

1

F ( )4sin cos

1

Cx

= a tan(

( 2)

(1 a )V

)

(1 + a ')r

=

Here a and a are the axial and tangential induction factor, respectively, is the flow angle to the rotor plane, is

the rotor solidity, Cx and Cy are force coefficients in tangential and axial direction, respectively, F() is the

Prandtls tip loss correction, V is the wind speed, r is the rotor speed in the radius r and is the combined twist

and tip pitch of the blade. All entities in the above equation ( 2) are known apart from a, a and , so therefore the

angle of attack can be computed directly. This resulted in the 3D airfoil characteristics as shown in Figure 1 and

are furthermore compared to 2D wind tunnel measurements from Ohio State University [6]. Comparing to tests of

the S809 airfoil section in other wind tunnels it is necessary to subtract 0.53 from the actual angle of attack in the

2D wind tunnel test [7].

2.2

3D, r/R=63%

3D, r/R=80%

1.8

3D, r/R=95%

2D

1.6

1.4

2.0

3D, r/R=30%

3D, r/R=63%

1.8

3D, r/R=80%

1.6

3D, r/R=95%

2D

1.4

1.2

CD

CL

2.2

3D, r/R=30%

2.0

1.0

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

10

15

20

25

30

35

AOA

AOA

Figure 1 3D airfoil characteristics from the NREL/NASA Ames test based on angles of attack computed from

BEM. Furthermore, airfoil characteristics from 2D wind tunnel tests are shown at Re=750,000 from Ohio State

University, USA.

Because the blades are designed with airfoil S809 on the entire blade the deviation from the 2D data is primarily

3D effects. Effects from the Reynolds number varying from Re=500,000 to Re=900,000 are less important. Large

changes of the airfoil characteristics are observed on the inner part of the blade, r/R=30% and r/R=63%. For

r/R=80% the airfoil characteristics are close to 2D. The airfoil characteristics at r/R=95% deviates from 2D

because of tip effects. The size and the shape of these changes are as well observed on other rotors, Madsen and

Rasmussen [8] and Bak [9].

Most of the existing 3D correction models are based on the force coefficients for an airfoil. Since it is desirable to

propose a 3D correction model, which in more detail can determine the corrections, the pressure distributions on

the blade are analyzed to gain more insight into the 3D mechanisms. Especially the difference between the

pressure on the rotating blade and the pressure from a 2D wind tunnel test has been investigated. This difference is

obtained as shown in eq. ( 3):

Page 3 of 10

( 3)

The procedure is illustrated in Figure 2. If Cp is zero at all positions along the chord the flow is said to be 2D.

3

30%

2.5

63%

80%

2.5

95%

2D

2

1.5

-Cp

delta Cp

1.5

0.5

30%

63%

80%

95%

0.5

0

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

-1.5

0.5

-1.5

x/c

x/c

Figure 2 To the left: The pressure coefficient, Cp, for the S809 airfoil from a 2D wind tunnel test and from the

different radial positions at the blade. To the right: The difference between Cp for the blade at different radial

positions and Cp from a 2D wind tunnel test, Cp. Both plots are for =20.

Figure 3 shows a series of plots of Cp, to give an impression of how the pressure difference changes with changes

of the radius but also with changes in .

30%

63%

80%

95%

-1

0.5

=16

ox/c

-0.5

-1

-1.5

0.5

-0.5

=20

o

30%

63%

80%

95%

0.5

0

0

3

2.5

1.5

0.5

30%

63%

80%

95%

1.5

0.5

-1.5

3

2.5

Cp

0.5

-0.5

30%

63%

80%

95%

1.5

Cp

Cp

1.5

3

2.5

Cp

3

2.5

-1

-1.5

x/c

0.5

=24

o

x/c

-0.5

-1

-1.5

0.5

=28

o

x/c

Based on the analysis of the NREL/NASA Ames tests a model is proposed, which can correct airfoil

characteristics from 2D wind tunnel tests to 3D. With the proposed model it is the hypothesis that the 3D

corrections should be carried out based on the pressure and that it is the difference between the pressure in 3D and

2D, which should be modeled. Thus, the proposed model is to a greater extend based on the physics and the

mechanisms in the flow and furthermore the model allows the moment coefficient to be corrected in contrast to

several existing correction models. The starting point is to propose a model in the following form, eq. ( 4):

c r

x

Cp = Amplification( , , , ,....) Shape( , ,....)

r R

c

( 4)

Thus, the changes in pressure are described by the product between a shape function and an amplification function

of the pressure differences.

The amplification of the changes in pressure is estimated by analyzing Navier-Stokes equations for a rotating

blade. Especially the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force have shown to be important in connection to 3D

separated flow on a blade. It is assumed that the flow speed in chordwise direction is zero, when the flow

separates. These two kinds of forces are compared to the pressure forces on the blade. The three types of forces on

the blade are shown in eq. ( 5).

Page 4 of 10

r

1

Fpres ~ (( r ) 2 + Vwind 2 )c

2

r

Fcentrifugal ~ 2 rc 2

r

FCoriolis ~ 2 Vrad c 2

( 5)

The order-of-magnitude consideration between the centrifugal forces and Coriolis forces and the pressure forces

on the blades is shown in eq. ( 6)

r

Fcentrifugal

2

c

~

r

2

+

1

tan

(

)

r

Fpres

r

FCoriolis 2V

2

c

~ rad

r

2

+

+

r

(1

tan

(

))

r

Fpres

( 6)

Computations of the flow around the NREL rotor using 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) shows a value

of the radial velocity relative to the rotational speed of an airfoil section of around Vrad=1.6(r) at r/R=0.3 and

Vrad=0.6(r) at r/R=0.9 which approximately corresponds to Vrad=R/2. Thus, the relation between Coriolis and

pressure forces can be written as shown in eq. ( 7):

2Vrad R

~

r

r

r

FCoriolis R

2

c

~

r

r (1 + tan 2 ( + )) r

Fpres

( 7)

Even though the centrifugal forces have the direction from the root towards the tip and the Coriolis forces have the

direction from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the blade, it is assumed that it is the sum of the forces which

creates an acceleration of the flow and thereby a decrease in the pressure on the suction side. The resulting forces

are computed as a vector sum and are shown in eq. ( 8).

Amplification =

r

r

Fcentrifugal + FCoriolis

R

2

c

~ 1 + ( )2

r

r (1 + tan 2 ( + )) r

Fpres

( 8)

Analyzing the shape of Cp from the measurements at r/R=30% a simple empirical modeling of the shape was

proposed, eq. ( 9).

Shape =

f =1 2

5

x

(1 ) 2 (

)

2

c f = 0 f =1

( 9)

5

max( Shape) = ,

2

where x/c is the normalized chordwise position, is the actual angle of attack and f=1 and f=0 are the angles of

attack, where the flow around the airfoil is just about to separate (f=1) and just fully separated (f=0). This model of

the shape predicts qualitatively the shape of Cp for all radii, but for the NREL rotor it compares best to the

measurements on the inner part of the rotor.

The resulting model including both the shape function, eq. ( 9), and the amplification function, eq. ( 8), is shown in

eq. ( 10).

Cp =

2

f =1 2

5

x

R c

(1 ) 2 (

) 1 + ( ) /(1 + tan 2 ( + ))

2

c f = 0 f =1

r r

max (Cp ) =

5

R c

1 + ( ) /(1 + tan 2 ( + ))

2

r r

Page 5 of 10

( 10)

AOA=26deg

Model, r/R=63%

Model, r/R=30%

Model, r/R=80%

Test, r/R=63%

Test, r/R=30%

Test, r/R=80%

3

2.5

2

Cp

1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-1

x/c

Figure 4 Cp for the NREL/NASA Ames blade at 26 angles of attack at three radial positions: r/R=30%, 63% and

80%. In the plot measurements and model, eq.( 10), are shown.

Good agreement between the model and the measurements is observed for r/R=30% and 80%. However, the

agreement is not so good at r/R=63%. Figure 4 shows that even though the NREL/NASA Ames test was used as

the background for the model, the model cannot predict all the results from the test. This is due to the fact that the

flow around the rotor locally is dominated by vortex structures (especially around r/R=47%), which influences the

pressure on the blades. These structures and this influence are not assumed to be representative for all rotors.

Therefore, the model only includes the main mechanisms, which is assumed to dominate rotors in general.

The model should be used for the airfoils on the actual rotor, so that cn, ct and cm, which refers to -chord

position, are determined by integrating Cp along the different blade sections specific airfoil shapes as shown in

eq. ( 11).

x / c =1

cn =

x

Cpd ( )

c

x / c=0

y / c = y / c ( trailing _ edge )

ct =

y

Cpd ( )

c

y / c = y / c ( leading _ edge )

x / c =1

cm =

( 11)

y / c = y / c (trailing _ edge )

x

x

y

y

Cp ( 0.25)d ( )

Cp ( )d ( )

c

c

c

c

x / c=0

y / c = y / c ( leading _ edge )

With the entities computed from eq. ( 11) the 3D normal, tangential and moment coefficients are computed as

shown in eq. ( 12).

cn ,3 D = cn ,2 D + cn

( 12)

ct ,3 D = ct ,2 D + ct

cm ,3 D = cm ,2 D + cm

The 2D data used from, e.g. wind tunnel tests, can be rather uncertain for angles of attack above maximum lift.

This is due to the increased drag from the separated flow, which increase the blocking in the wind tunnel, so that

the pressure on the 2D airfoil is different from an airfoil subject to free flow. From the analysis of the

NREL/NASA Ames test it is observed that the pressure distributions are rather similar for high angles of attatck,

when the flow is fully separated. Thus, it is assumed that the 2D pressure distributions are unchanged for angles of

attack, where full separation is obtained. Therefore, cn,2D, ct,2D and cm,2D should be assumed constant for angles of

attack greater than f=0, i.e. where the airfoil obtains fully separated flow.

Because airfoil characteristics for aerodynamic computations using BEM typically require lift and drag in the

input, these can be determined from eq. ( 13).

cl ,3 D = cn ,3 D cos( ) + ct ,3 D sin( )

( 13)

cd ,3 D = cn ,3 D sin( ) ct ,3 D cos( )

Results

The new 3D correction model is applied to three different rotors:

1. the NREL rotor tested in the NASA Ames wind tunnel,

2. the Tellus rotor at Ris National Laboratory and

3. a modern active stall regulated rotor

Page 6 of 10

Computations with the 3D correction model are compared to measurements and to some of the described existing

3D correction models. All computations are carried out using an aerodynamic BEM code. The 3D correction

model is available and is implemented into a computer code with a graphical user interface.

Data for this rotor is shown in Table 1. The rotor is uncommon compared to large modern rotors, which typically

have three blades, a rotor diameter which is ten times bigger and a design tip-speed-ratio around 8.

Table 1 Data for the NREL/NASA Ames rotor.

Number of blades

Rotor diameter [m]

Rotational speed [RPM]

Design tip-speed-ratio, [-]

Tip speed [m/s]

Airfoil series

Power control

2

10.058

72.0

6.3

37.9

S809

Stall

In Figure 5 to Figure 7 the airfoil characteristics for the rotor at three radial sections are seen. Apart from 2D wind

tunnel data, the data extracted from the NREL/NASA Ames test and the new model, also three other 3D correction

models are shown: Snel et al. [1], Chaviaropoulos and Hansen [3] and Lindenburg [4]. It is seen that the Snel et al.

model and the new model predicts the airfoil characteristics quite well. However, it should be noted that the model

by Snel et al. does not include 3D correction of the drag.

NREL ph. VI, radius = 80 %

3

1

Snel et al.

Lindenburg

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

2D

3D measurements

2.5

2

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

2D

measurements

0.8

0.6

Cl

Cd

1.5

1

0.4

0.5

0.2

-0.5

-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 5 3D corrected airfoil characteristics for r/R=80% compared to 2D measurements, other 3D correction

models and measured 3D data.

NREL ph. VI, radius = 63 %

3

2.5

2

1

Snel et al.

Lindenburg

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

2D

3D measurements

0.8

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

2D

measurements

0.6

Cl

Cd

1.5

1

0.4

0.5

0.2

0

-0.5

-10

0

-5

10

15

20

25

30

-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 6 3D corrected airfoil characteristics for r/R=63% compared to 2D measurements, other 3D correction

models and measured 3D data.

Page 7 of 10

3

2.5

2

1

Snel et al.

Lindenburg

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

2D

3D measurements

0.8

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

2D

measurements

0.6

Cl

Cd

1.5

1

0.4

0.5

0.2

-0.5

-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 7 3D corrected airfoil characteristics for r/R=30% compared to 2D measurements, other 3D correction

models and measured 3D data.

In Figure 8 the mechanical power and the thrust are seen. Again the model by Snel et al. and the new model make

a rather good prediction of the rotor loads. It is seen that the models by Chaviaropoulos and Hansen over predicts

and the model by Lindenburg under predicts both power and thrust. However, the new proposed model and the

model by Snel et al. predict both the power and thrust fairly well. At wind speeds above 13m/s all models show a

significant drop in power.

NREL Ph. VI

NREL ph. VI

14

SNEL et al.

Lindenburg

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

Measurements

10

2500

Thrust force [N]

12

3000

8

6

Snel et al.

Lindenburg

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

measurements

2000

1500

1000

2

500

0

0

10

12

14

16

10

12

Wind speed [m/s]

14

16

18

Figure 8 Measured and computed mechanical power and thrust for the NREL rotor. Computations are shown for

the new proposed model, but also three other existing models are shown.

Tellus rotor

The Tellus rotor is situated at Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark. On this turbine there have been

several measurement campaigns, where e.g. the tip aerodynamics has been investigated [10]. The characteristics of

the rotor are shown in Table 2. As was the case for the NREL rotor, the Tellus rotor is uncommon compared to the

large modern rotors, which have a rotor diameter five times bigger and a tip-speed-ratio around 8.

Table 2 Data for Tellus rotor.

Number of blades

Rotor diameter [m]

Rotational speed [RPM]

Design tip speed ratio, [-]

Tip speed [m/s]

Airfoil series

Power control

3

19.0

47.5

6.8

47.3

NACA 63-2xx

Stall

In Figure 9 is seen the power and thrust curve computed with airfoil characteristics corrected using the same

models as described for the NREL rotor. Only the computed power is compared to measurements, because thrust

measurements were not available. As it was the case for the NREL rotor the power is over predicted by the model

by Chaviaropoulos and Hansen and under predicted by the model by Lindenburg. The model by Snel et al. and the

new model predict the power well.

Page 8 of 10

Tellus

120

100

Tellus

18

Snel et al.

Lindenburg

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

2D

Measurements

16

14

Thrust force [kN]

140

80

60

40

Snel et al.

Lindenburg

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

2D

12

10

8

6

20

2

4

10

12

14

Wind speed [m/s]

16

18

20

10

12

14

Wind speed [m/s]

16

18

20

Figure 9 Measured and computed mechanical power and thrust for the Tellus rotor. Computations are shown for

the new proposed model, but also three other existing models are shown.

The active stall regulated rotor is a modern megawatt turbine. It is a commercial turbine and therefore detailed

information is confidential. The characteristics for the rotor are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Data for the active stall regulated rotor

Number of blades

Design tip speed ratio, [-]

Tip speed [m/s]

Airfoil series

Power control

3

7.3

65.2

NACA 63-4xx/ FFA-W3-xxx

Active stall

Figure 10 shows the power and thrust curve computed with airfoil characteristics, which were 3D corrected the

same way as described for the NREL rotor. The models by Snel et al. and Lindenburg under predict both power

and thrust for this rotor, where the maximal thrust is under predicted with 15% with the model by Snel et al.

However, the model by Chaviaropoulos and Hansen and the new model predict the power fairly well up to wind

speeds around 14 to 15m/s. Above this wind speed the power is either over predicted (Chaviaropoulos and

Hansen) or under predicted (the new model). Concerning the thrust the new model predicts the thrust very well,

while the model by Chaviaropoulos and Hansen over predicts the thrust slightly.

Active stall turbine

Snel et al.

Lindenburg

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

2D

Measurements

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

10

12

Wind speed [m/s]

14

16

1.3

1.2

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

18

Snel et al.

Lindenburg

Chav. + Hansen

Bak

2D

Measurements

10

12

14

16

18

Figure 10 Power and thrust curve for the active stall regulated rotor. Measurements and predictions using

different 3D correction models are shown.

Conclusion

The NREL NASA Ames measurements were analyzed, where especially the pressure distributions on the blades

were compared to 2D wind tunnel tests. The difference between the 3D and 2D pressure distributions were

determined and this difference was analyzed and used as the basis for the proposal of a new 3D correction model

based on the pressure conditions on the blade.

Application of the new model on three different rotors showed, that the agreement between the new model and

measurements were good concerning the thrust and the agreement was fair concerning the power. Compared to

existing 3D correction models the correspondence between power and thrust was better predicted using the new

model. This indicates that using the new model results in a more correct load distribution on the rotor.

Page 9 of 10

Acknowledgements

The work is funded by the Danish Energy Authorities in the project Program for Research in Applied

Aeroelasticity, EFP2004. Also, Scott Schreck and NREL, Colorado, USA are acknowledged for kindly giving

access and helps using the NREL/NASA Ames wind tunnel measurements.

References

1. Snel, H.; Houwink, R.; van Bussel, G.J.W.; Bruining, A., Sectional Prediction of 3D Effects for Stalled Flow

on Rotating Blades and Comparison with Measurements, Proc. European Community Wind Energy

Conference, Lbeck-Travemnde, Germany, 8-12 March, 1993, pp. 395-399, H.S. Stephens & Associates

2. Du, Z.; Selig, M.S., A 3-D Stall-Delay Model for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Performance Prediction,

AIAA-98-0021, 36th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1998 ASME Wind Energy Symposium,

Reno, NV, USA, January 12-15, 1998

3. Chaviaropoulos, P.K.; Hansen, M.O.L., Investigating Three-Dimensional and Rotational Effects on Wind

Turbine Blades by Means of a Quasi-3D Navier Stokes Solver, J. Fluids Engineering, vol. 122, June 2000, pp.

330-336.

4. Lindenburg, C., Modelling of Rotational Augmentation Based on Engineering Considerations and

Measurements, European Wind Energy Conference, London, 22-25 November 2004

5. Hand, M.M.; Simms, D.A.; Fingersh, L.J.; Jager, D.W.; Cotrell, J.R.; Schreck, S.; Larwood, S.M., Unsteady

Aerodynamics Experiment Phase VI: Wind Tunnel Test Configurations and Available Data Campaigns,

NREL/TP-500-29955, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA, December 2001.

6. Reuss Ramsay, R., M. Hoffman, and G. Gregorek, (1995), Effects of Grit Roughness and Pitch Oscillations on

the S809 Airfoil, NREL/TP 442-7817, Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

7. E-mail communication with Nando Timmer, Technical University of Delft, Holland.

8. Madsen, H.A., Rasmussen, F., Derivation og Three-Dimensional Airfoil Data on the Basis of Experiment and

Theory, AWEA 1988

9. Bak, C., Udledning af profildata (in Danish), in Ris-R-1434(DA), Research in aeroelasticity, ed. C.Bak,

Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, 2004

10. Aagaard Madsen, H., Aerodynamics of a Horizonthal-Axis Wind Turbine in Natural Conditions, Ris-M2903, Ris National Laboratory, 1991

Page 10 of 10

- B767 ATA 70-80 Student BookUploaded byElijah Paul Merto
- R/C Soaring Digest - Feb 2006Uploaded byAviation/Space History Library
- Report on RC aeroplaneUploaded bySandeep Kr. Mishra
- (International Edition) John J. Bertin, Russell M. Cummings-Aerodynamics for Engineers,-Pearson (2013).pdfUploaded bySaravana Kumar Lakshmanan
- What is the Difference Between Low Speed Balancing and Dynamic Balancing in Turbine Rotor PerspectiveUploaded byabdulyunus_amir
- Gas Turbine Casing Response to Blade VibrationsUploaded byAmbrish Singh
- Turbocharger DamagesUploaded bytejashree2074
- Borescope Inspections Reveal 7EA IGV ProblemsUploaded byJJ
- conversionUploaded bykass00488_180852609
- FM Qpaper Nit Raipur Mech 5th SemUploaded byShashi Bhushan Patel
- Gully Imece2010-38395 FinalUploaded byBen Gully
- Tutorial 6Uploaded byAn Mohd
- Vehicle AerodynamicsUploaded byHarshdeepsinh Padhiyar
- Introduction to Aeronautics - A Design PerspectiveUploaded byh_mahdi
- 213829703Uploaded byJeet Mohapatra
- Compressor Presentation 1Uploaded byKumar
- Blower BalanceUploaded byGabriel Hubbard
- Report NACA 23012.pdfUploaded byHimanshu Modi
- A Resume of the Advances in Theoretical AeronauticsUploaded bydzik61
- AE324S11_HW2Uploaded byVinesh Mohun
- Icasert Paper Id 473Uploaded byMohammad Asif Kabir
- BTCH 9 SEM I AERODYNAMIC SEM QUESTION PAPER DEC 2016.docxUploaded byPravin Hande
- Renewable Energy Resources - Lecture 12Uploaded byKifayat Ullah
- Analysis_of_Hydro-Kinetic_Turbine_for_Sm.docxUploaded byBenjamín Andres Lagos Berrios
- DocumentUploaded byOmar H Darabseh
- Repowering Defin and InstructionsUploaded byTrầnQuang
- 1203_EWEA2012presentationUploaded byIon Vlad Ovedenie
- mel346-1.pptUploaded bySandeep Bhaskar
- TOMEJ-9-1067Uploaded bysppram
- Aviation PhysicsUploaded byJames Leonard Marquez Bautista

- Practice Test AUploaded bycthunder_1
- Product Ready InnovationUploaded bysork93
- Docs Slides Lecture18Uploaded byDibaMasoud
- SuggestionsUploaded bysork93
- lshortUploaded byeleni
- A DISCUSSION OF METHODS OF REAL-TIME AIRPLANE FLIGHT SIMULATIONUploaded bysork93
- Destination B2 Grammar and Vocabulary With Answer KeyUploaded byAlyna.EA
- sensors-12-09566-v2.pdfUploaded bysork93
- Plantilla CVUploaded byMiguelÁngelNúñez
- Design Engineer CV TemplateUploaded by5wolf7

- Removal of Air From Water Lines by Hydraulic Means [P.E. Wisner] (1975)Uploaded byAlex
- FFFL_13-18 Bearings PowerpointUploaded by1mmahoney
- Eurgan EquationUploaded byaakd_2014
- Grav Fields A2 M4Uploaded byaby251188
- CPL ATGUploaded byHari Halan
- DomUploaded byJani
- AER 134 UNIT-4Uploaded byAdrian Arasu
- 01 Kinematics Anil SirUploaded byOasisEducation Oes
- newtons water rocket challenge student packetUploaded byapi-293162935
- Derivation of Rayleigh and Plensset EquationUploaded byYao Zhou
- Turbulent FlamesUploaded bySreenath P
- CBE 2023 Fluid Mechanics Reassessment Solution.pdfUploaded byTerwabe Wapagovski
- R_C Car Handling_ Suspension ComponentsUploaded bySaikat Hasan
- Coriolis RioUploaded byDe Nicolas Jaidar
- Newton's CradleUploaded byGoldey Fetalvero Malabanan
- YOKOGAWA_Low Flow Transmitters With Integral Flow Orifice_TI01C20K00-01EUploaded byChoochart Thongnark
- Estudio de FlujoUploaded byRoberto Caceres
- Clutches, Brakes and FlywheelsUploaded byNauman Khan
- FieldsUploaded bylove
- Basic AerodynamicsUploaded byaerogem618
- Mastering Physics 2Uploaded byozilla_26_me
- Compressible FlowUploaded byAkshatRaizada
- 5 Circular MotionUploaded bySivakumar Sarma
- Inroduction to cavitationUploaded byrajkumar_gitam
- 2193-6637-1-PB.pdfUploaded byFindi Hidayat
- exam1a_Phys1110_fa11Uploaded byTOPKEK
- Copy of 52094255 Water HammerUploaded byAvinash Vasudeo
- AUTOMATED PRE-PROCESSING FOR HIGH QUALITY MULTIPLE VARIANT CFD MODELS OF A CITY-CLASS CARUploaded byirshad22
- eurovent-1.6.pdfUploaded byDhruvModi
- Physics Report - Simple PendulumUploaded byMartine Gjermundsen Ræstad