3D CFD rotor computations of a Multi-megawatt HAWT rotor

Jesper Laursen, Peder Enevoldsen and Søren Hjort

Siemens Wind Power A/S, Borupvej 16, DK-7330 Brande
Email: laursen.jesper@siemens.com, Telephone: (00 45) 99422839

Abstract. This paper presents the results of 3D CFD rotor computations of a Siemens SWT-2.3-93 variable speed
wind turbine with 45m blades.
The complex flow associated with the roll up of tip vortexes and 3D flow at the root sections can be effectively
visualized with the application of CFD. The results are compared with both an in-house BEM code and CFD
computations performed by a third party. The results of the CFD analysis agree well with the results of a well-tuned
BEM code on the main part of the wing where the assumption of two-dimensional flow is true, whereas the tip loss
seems higher in CFD and the positive effects from the three-dimensional effects are absent in the BEM predictions
without further corrections. The results of the two different CFD codes, ANSYS-CFX and Ellipsys compare well,
indicating the universality of a Navier-Stokes solver.
From the present investigations, it is clear that commercial CFD codes have a practical use for even large Multi-
megawatt wind turbine blade simulations. Due to its general applicability and the universality of a Navier-Stokes
solver, CFD has a large potential for modelling off-design cases, where traditional design tools looses their
applicability. In addition to the rotor computations, airfoil computations are discussed, with the focus on how to
obtain better model predictions during stall.

1. Introduction
Due to several complex flow phenomena, the aerodynamics of a horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT) is difficult to
predict in details. The rotor aerodynamics of a wind turbine is influenced by effects of wind blockage upstream of the
rotor and rotational wake effects downstream the rotor.

With regards to the flow in the immediate vicinity of the rotor, three-dimensional effects originating from a
combination of radial flow and coriolis forces are occurring on the inner part, where the momentum in the boundary
layer is relatively weak (Figure 1, right). This phenomenon of stall-delay due to derived 3D effects of rotation was
first reported by [1], and is further elaborated in several later publications, e.g. [2-4]. Furthermore, the flow at the
wing tip is highly three-dimensional due to the strong influence of tip vortices (Figure 1, left). Several variable
external factors such as blade surface roughness, atmospheric background turbulence and turbulence generated from
nearby located wind turbines adds further to the complexity. Finally, a HAWT is a dynamic structure that constantly
undergoes structural deformations that continuously interacts with the aerodynamics.

Figure 1: Visualization of tip vortex (left) and 3D flow at inboard section (right).

Classical HAWT blade design relies to a large extent on blade element momentum (BEM) theory where airfoil data
delivers the fuel to the model. Airfoil data are mainly delivered in the form of lift and drag coefficients obtained from
wind tunnel experiments or dedicated codes like the XFOIL code [5]. One main assumption of the BEM
computations is the two-dimensionality, where the flows at adjacent span wise wing sections are unaffected by each
other. This assumption holds for the main part of the wing, but in the above described areas where three-dimensional
flow is occurring, the BEM method is not applicable without the introduction of empirical tip loss corrections and
corrections accounting for the three-dimensionality at the root sections. Despite these deficiencies, following fine
tuning on the basis of results of experiments and design experiences BEM codes have proven their applicability in a
long line of blade designs.

Within the last decade, CFD modeling of wind turbines have evolved from activities occurring at scientific
institutions towards simulations performed at wind turbine developers with the application of commercial codes. In
several benchmark studies, like e.g. the modeling of the NREL phase VI rotor experiments in the NASA Ames 80 x
120 ft. wind tunnel, CFD has proven its ability to reproduce the experimental results [6-11]. Of the above listed
investigations, [7] seemed to reproduce the experiments best. [8] applied the more advanced DES approach for a
parked blade, but the results did not seem to justify the choice of DES over RANS turbulence modeling.

More recently, as the experience with the application of CFD to wind turbines has evolved and the available
computing power has increased, a number of CFD investigations have been performed on larger wind turbine blades.
Often these investigations have been focused on quantifying some of the complex flow phenomenon that have not
been quantifiable by other methods. In [12] a tip study was performed on a smaller wind turbine blade where the
performance of a swept tip versus a standard tip was investigated and compared to existing tip loss models. In [13]
winglets on a 50m blade were investigated, and the potential for extra power production with 5 different
configurations estimated using rotor CFD. A new blade design with increased chord and twist at the inboard sections
combined with an egg-shaped nacelle was analyzed in [14]. The investigated design was claiming a considerable
higher yield, but the CFD investigations did only show a slight increase in Cp.

The above-mentioned investigations are examples that CFD is already a tool available for detailed studies on large
scale wind turbines.

The main problem associated with CFD modeling of wind turbine blades originates from the well-known issue with
the RANS turbulence models' tendency to over predict blade performances during stall. Today most of the wind
turbines existing on the commercial markets are however pitch regulated, where the blades are operated well below
stall, except for the innermost part near the root section. Consequently, CFD offers the opportunity to achieve
accurate information about the aerodynamic performance of a pitch operated HAWT blade, including three-
dimensional effects. In the present paper, a multi-megawatt HAWT rotor is modeled with the commercial ANSYS-
CFX code, and mechanical effects and force distributions of axial and tangential forces are extracted from the model
and compared with related BEM code results. Results from parallel CFD computations performed by Risø National
Laboratory, Denmark are also compared with [15]. Finally, the modeled mechanical effects of the rotor are compared
to measurements from a test turbine.

As stated above, the innermost part of the blades on modern wind turbines is often subject to stalled conditions, even
on pitch regulated turbines. In addition, there is a need for CFD models to perform accurate in stalled conditions if
one considers using CFD computed airfoil data in aeroelastic computations based on BEM codes. The final part of
the paper deals with the issue of obtaining accurate results from CFD airfoil computations on stalled airfoils with
different setups of the CFD model.

2. Method
All computations have been performed with the commercial general purpose CFD codes, CFX-10.0 and 11.0.
ANSYS-CFX utilizes a finite-volume based unstructured parallelized coupled algebraic multigrid solver with a
second order advection scheme [16]. Both airfoil and rotor computations have been performed with the
incompressible version of the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations and either the SST [17] or SST-
SAS [18] turbulence models. All computations have been run in parallel on the in-house computing cluster at
Siemens Wind Power.

2.1 Rotor computations

In case of the rotor computations, 120 degree periodicity is applied, and only one wing is modelled. The use of
periodicity neglects the possibility to include wind shear or yaw errors in the model. Furthermore, the tower is not
modelled. In the case of an upwind turbine it is a fair approximation to neglect the effect of the tower on the rotor
aerodynamics. All rotor computations are stationary, performed at constant speeds and constant pitch and RPM, i.e.
any unsteady features in the incoming flow and variation in turbine operation is neglected. The computations are
performed without a transition model, i.e. the boundary layer is modelled as fully turbulent.

A block-structured hexahedral mesh is applied for the main part of the mesh and a y+ smaller than approximately 2 is
utilized for most of the blade in order to assure a well resolved boundary layer and fulfillment of the SST turbulence
model (Figure 2). A C-mesh is applied, since this fits well for the outermost part of the blade. At the rotational center
of the domain, an unstructured domain is used. The computational mesh extends ten rotor radius' up and downstream
of the turbine, in order to insure that the flow at the turbine is unaffected by the presence of the outer boundaries.
Likewise, the domain extends ten rotor radiuses in the spanwise direction.

Figure 2: Computational mesh. Complete domain (left) and zoom in on blade and nacelle (right).

Due to the long computational times and hardware restrictions a grid resolution dependency study has not been
performed. Experience from own 2D computations, 3D computations reported by other authors and comparisons with
field measurements do however both substantiate that the present grid size is sufficient for obtaining accurate results
on the mean torque and force distributions.

On the up- and downstream boundaries in the circumferential direction, periodic boundaries are applied. A steady
inlet velocity boundary with low turbulence intensity is applied at the upstream axial boundary, and opening
boundaries with atmospheric pressure are applied to the appropriate outlet boundaries. On the blade and nacelle, no
slip wall boundaries with a smooth surface are applied.

2.2 Airfoil computations

Several setups ranging from 2D steady fully turbulent RANS computations with the SST turbulence model to 3D
unsteady computations with either the SST or SAS-SST turbulence model and both fully turbulent or transition
modeling have been performed. A hexahedral H-grid mesh has been applied with a well resolved boundary layer by
keeping y+ values well below 1 and ensuring a good resolution of elements in chord-wise direction as well as keeping
the size increment low in directions away from the airfoil (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Extract from 3D mesh (left) and zoom in at the details at the leading edge.

Additional relevant details about the setup of the airfoil computations will be described in details in the results section
below.
3. Results

By monitoring the torque about the axis going through the centreline of the nacelle and multiplying this value with
the applied rotor RPM, the mechanical power of the wind turbine was calculated. Table 1 shows comparisons
between computed and measured mechanical power output.

Wind speed RPM Measured ANSYS-CFX Ellipsys Xblade

6 m/s 10.0 400 395 392 408
8 m/s 13.5 1007 950 945 967
10 m/s 16.0 1931 1851 1850 1850
11 m/s 16.0 2274 2383 - -
Table 1: Mechanical power output [kW]. Ellipsys is the CFD code of Risø, and the computations are taken from a
consultancy job performed by Risø for Siemens Wind Power [15]. Xblade is an in-house BEM code.

As indicated in table 1, good agreement between measurements and modeling results are obtained with the three
models. This is further substantiated with the two force plots in figure 4:

Driving force, W = 6.0m/s Normal force, W = 6.0m/s

200 1400
ANSYS-CFX
1200
150 Ellipsys
1000 Xblade
100
Fx [N/m]

Fy [N/m]
800

50 600

ANSYS-CFX 400
0
Ellipsys 200
Xblade
-50 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
R [m] R [m]

Driving force, W = 8.0m/s Normal force, W = 8.0m/s

300 3000
ANSYS-CFX
250 2500 Ellipsys
200 Xblade
2000
Fx [N/m]

Fy [N/m]

150
1500
100
1000
50 ANSYS-CFX
0 Ellipsys 500
Xblade
-50 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
R [m] R [m]

Driving force, W = 10.0m/s Normal force, W = 10.0m/s

500 4000
ANSYS-CFX
400 Ellipsys
3000 Xblade
300
Fx [N/m]

Fy [N/m]

200 2000

100
ANSYS-CFX 1000
0 Ellipsys
Xblade
-100 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
R [m] R [m]

Figure 4: Modelled force distributions along the B45 blade at different wind speeds.

From figure 4 it is evident that the two CFD models predict quite similar force distributions along the blade. The
predictions by the BEM code show somewhat different distributions with more power from the outer part of the wing
and less on the inner part. This trend has also been reported by [19], and is believed to be a slight mistune of the BEM
code, where 3D effects at the inner part of the rotor is underestimated, whereas the results indicate that the tip loss
might also be underestimated in the shown BEM version. From table 1 it is however seen that the total integrated
mechanical power fits well between the models, which indicates that the underestimation at the inboard part of the
rotor is counter balanced by the overestimation at the tip. Both tip loss and 3D effects at the inner part of the blade are
features that are inherently included in a CFD rotor computation (Figure 1). Besides delivering quantitative results
like in table 1 and figure 2, CFD gives the possibility to deliver a lot of other qualitative information about the rotor
flow and the general mode of operation of the rotor. Examples of such information are visualizations of the induced
velocities in the vicinity of the turbine or 3D streamline plots like in figure 5:

Figure 5: Vizualization of induced axial velocities (left) and 3D streamline plot at 8m/s

Figure 5 (left) show a contour plot of the induced velocities up- and downstream of the B45 rotor at 8m/s, where the
breaking of the wind in front of the rotor and the complex flow in the wake is visualized. The right-hand side of
figure 5 shows a matching streamline plot where flow attachment is visualized on the main part of the blade and a
small pocket of separation can be seen on the inboard section.

4. Discussion
The present calculations have been performed without the application of a transition model, i.e. with a fully turbulent
boundary layer. Initial rotor computations have shown relatively little sensitivity towards using a transition model
with respect to the modeled torque and force distributions, but further investigations should be performed before final
conclusions can be drawn. It is however clear that the application of a transition model would be important in order to
get better predictions of the rotor performance. Such computations should be compared with field measurements,
since it is still relatively unclear to what extent wind turbines are subject to laminar flow.

As input to BEM codes, and for a general evaluation of airfoils, a large amount of 2D CFD calculations have been
performed. Here, the general experience with the application of the correlation based transition model in CFX, is that
better predictions of especially the drag can be obtained at lower to intermediate angles of attack, whereas some cases
of worsened over prediction of CL has been observed at higher angles of attack. It is unclear whether this discrepancy
originates from the unphysical 2D setup, or a discrepancy in the transition model. ANSYS-CFX’s own calculations
have proven that the model fits well with measurements on a S809 airfoil [20].

In general, the 2D RANS computations over predict the lifting performance during stall, which might be a
consequence of both the lack of traditional RANS models to predict flow separation and the 2D setup itself. This is
further investigated by closely modeling a NACA63618 at about the angle of attack of measured maximum lift,
where the CFD model over predicts performance in the standard 2D setup. Several 3Dsetups with different turbulence
models were tested and compared (Figure 7).
 NACA63618, Modelled CL NACA63618, Modelled CD
2 0.14
Abbott and Doenhoff
1.8
0.12 CFX 2D SST fully turb
1.6 CFX SST-SAS fully turb
CFX 3D SST fully turb
1.4 0.1
CFX SAS transition
1.2
0.08

CD [-]
CL [-]

1 Model comparison
0.06
0.8

0.6 Abbott and Doenhoff

0.04
CFX 2D SST fully turb
0.4 CFX SST-SAS fully turb
CFX 3D SST fully turb 0.02
0.2
CFX SAS transition Model comparison
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
AoA [-] AoA [-]

Figure 7: CL and CD polars of the NACA63618 airfoil.

From figure 7 it appears that the combination of the SAS-SST turbulence model [18] and a 3D setup catches the
separation better than the remainder of the setups around the area of max. lift. This trend has also been observed in
other computations (not shown here) at very high angles of attack, where a 2D SST setup was far off realistic values.
As can be seen in figure 7 (right), the predicted stall results in a considerably higher drag as compared to the other
setups, where separation is only vaguely present.

Below a snapshot from the unsteady SAS-SST computations are shown.

Figure 8: Snapshot from SAS-SST unsteady computation on a NACA63618 at AoA = 12.

The snapshot in figure 8 indicates a series of stall cells along the 3m airfoil section. During the transient run, the
number of stall cells and their location varies with a corresponding low frequency variation in lift and drag. The low
frequency variation is accompanied by an underlying high frequency variation. The frequency variations in profile
coefficients have not been compared to measurements.

From the experience so far, it is believed that SAS-SST models might be an alternative to DES computations in the
future. More computations are however needed to draw final conclusions.

5. Conclusion and suggestions for future work

The present investigations show the potential for using CFD for evaluation of blade performances within the wind
turbine industry. Some of the investigations are rather preliminary, and more work needs to be done in order to
establish the most favorable setups for obtaining optimal results. In order to increase the accuracy of the simulations
further, several of the investigations already initiated in this work should be continued.
More experience with the use of the built-in Langtry and Menter [20] transition model should be obtained with focus
on better predictions during stall.

The Langtry and Menter transition model should be tested on a 3D rotor computation setup and compared with field
measurements of the pressure distributions and the location of transition points along different airfoil sections on the
blades. Since the correlation based transition model is sensitive to the free stream turbulence, a tuning of this
parameter should be included in the testing of the model.

More 3D airfoil computations with the SAS-SST or DES turbulence models combined with transition modeling
should be performed in order to quantify to what extent predictions of airfoil performance during especially stall can
be enhanced.

References
1. Himmelskamp H. Profile investigations on a rotating airscrew. MAP Volkenrode, Reports and Translation 1947;
No. 832.
2. Wood DH. A three-dimensional analysis of stall-delay on a horizontal-axis wind turbine. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 1991;37:1-14.
3. Hu D, Hua O, Du Z. A study on stall-delay for horizontal axis wind turbine. Renewable Energy 2006; 31:821-
836.
4. Schreck SJ, Sørensen NN, Robinson MC. Aerodynamic structures and proceses in rotationally augmented flow
fields. Wind Energy 2007;10:159-178.
5. Drela, M. 1989, XFOIL: An analysis and Design System for Low Reynolds Number Airfoils. Conference on Low
Reynolds Number Aerodynamics. University Notre Dame.
6. Simms D, Schreck S, Hand M, Fingersh LJ. NREL unsteady aerodynamics experiment in the NASA Ames wind
tunnel: A comparison of predictions to measurements. NREL/TP-500-29494. NREL, Golden, CO, 2001.
7. Sørensen NN, Michelsen JA, Schreck S. Navier-Stokes predictions of the NREL Phase VI Rotor in the NASA
Ames 80 ft x 120 ft Wind Tunnel. Wind Energy 2002; 5(2-3):151-169.
8. Sørensen NN, Johansen J. Detached-eddy simulation of flow around the NREL phase VI blade. Wind Energy
2002; 5(2-3):185-197.
9. Xu G, Sankar LN. Development of engineering aerodynamics models using a viscous flow methodology on the
NREL phase VI rotor. Wind Energy 2002;5(2-3):171-183.
10. Duque EPN, Burklund MD, Johnson W. Navier-Stokes and comprehensive analysis performance predictions of
the NREL phase VI experiment. J. Solar Energy Engineering 2003; 125(4);457-467.
11. Schmitz S, Chattot J-J. A parallelized coupled Naier-Stokes/vortex-panel solver. J. Solar Energy Engineering
2005;127(4):475-487.
12. Hansen MOL, Johansen J. Tip studies using CFD and comparison with tip loss models. Wind Energy 2004;7:343-
356.
13. Johansen J, Sørensen NN. Aerodynamic investigation of winglets on wind turbine blades using CFD. Risø-R-
1543(EN) 2006.
14. Johansen J, Madsen HA, Sørensen NN, Bak C. Numerical investigation of a wind turbine rotor with an
aerodynamically redesigned hub-region. 2006 European Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition, Athens (GR)
2006.
15. Johansen J, Bertagnolio F, Sørensen NN. Internal report involving consultancy work between Risø National Lab
and Siemens Wind Power, 2005.
16. Technical information regarding the ANSYS-CFX solver: http://www.ansys.com/products/cfx-advanced-
solver.asp.
17. Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity model for engineering applications. AIAA-Journal 1994;32(8):1598–
1605.
18. Menter, FR, Egorov, Y. A scale adaptive simulation model using two-equation models. AIAA-2005-1095, 43rd
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, Jan. 10-13, 2005.
19. Madsen HA, Mikkelsen R, Johansen J, Bak C, Øye S, Sørensen NN. Inboard rotor/blade aerodynamics and its
influence on blade design. Research in aeroelasticity EFP 2005. Risø-R-1559(EN) 2005.
20. Langtry RB, Menter FR. Overview of Industrial Transition Modelling in CFX. Technical Report, ANSYS 2006.