Advance Computational Fluid Dynamics

EML 6726, Dr. Ghenai

CFD Analysis of a Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine (HAWT) Blade

Matt M. Hejazi
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Florida Atlantic University
777 Glades Rd.
Boca Raton, FL, 33431

ABSTRACT The first step is to determine which model is appropriate in

The primary focus of this project was on CFD analysis
of a wind turbine blade, using k − ω SST model for turbulent
viscosity, for a horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT) airfoil, in
which, effect of dimensionless lift coefficient (CL), drag
coefficient (CD) and pitching moment coefficient (Cm) at
different angle of attack, was tested. Sample results are
presented for an airfoil from the 6th series of NACA laminar
wing section family, tested in low turbulence pressure tunnel at
NASA [1]. Comparisons with experimental data are provided
to establish the efficiency and accuracy of the present model.
This project presents an exposure on the set up and
solution of an external aerodynamics problem using the k − ω
approach turbulence model.
INTRODUCTION
Wind turbines interact with the wind, capturing part of
its kinetic energy and converting it into usable energy. This
energy conversion is the result of several phenomena. The wind
is characterized by its speed and direction, which are affected
by several factors, e.g. geographic location, climate
characteristics, height above ground, and surface topography.
Atmospheric turbulence causes important fluctuating
aerodynamic forces on wind turbines [2].
Turbulence is an important source of aerodynamic
forces on wind turbine rotors. Some commonly used turbulence
terms that refer to the physical descriptions of the wind are
defined below. Turbulence is an irregular motion of fluid that
appears when fluids flow past soil surfaces or when streams of
fluid flow past or over each other [2]. Many of the rotors found
on current available HAWT systems are designed using a
combination of 2-D airfoil tools, 3-D blade element and
momentum (BEM) theory, in which, the unsteady flow effects
are either ignored, or modeled using a synthesis of 2-D data;
hence, these methods are not capable of accurately modeling
three-dimensional dynamic stall processes, tower shadow
effects, tip relief effects, and sweep effects. These three-
dimensional effects can alter the air loads, influence the fatigue
life, and significantly influence the maintenance cost of HAWT
systems.
solving the problem. In this analysis the shear-stress transport
(SST) k − ω model was utilized which incorporates a damped
cross-diffusion derivative term in the ω equation. The SST
k − ω model is similar to standard k − ω model but the
definition of the turbulent viscosity is modified to account for
the transport of the turbulent shear stress.
The flow on wind turbine blade being often separated
due to the angle of attack encountered which depends on
turbulence level, tower shadow or yaw misalignment. The
present report is focused on the influence of turbulence on the
wind turbine blade airfoil. After presenting the experimental
data, the turbulence effects on the blade is studied.
The boundary layer flow passing through a wind
turbine is inherently inhomogeneous, unsteady and turbulent,
consisting of rapid velocity and pressure fluctuations.
Turbulence occurs since inertial effects increasingly
overwhelm viscous stresses inherent in the flow stream as
the flow speed increases (even at very small wind speeds
for air), resulting in intrinsically unstable flow that can
become turbulent with even the slightest flow
perturbation [3].
GOVERNING EQUATION
For the 2-D, steady and incompressible flow the
continuity equation is :
Momentum equation for viscous flow in x direction is:
Du ∂ρ ∂τ xx ∂τ yx ∂τ zx
ρ =− + + + + ρ fx
Dt ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂z
Where due to characteristics of the 2-D flow in continuity
equation the term ∂( ρ w) and in momentum equation, ∂ τ zx
∂z ∂z
drop out. In all the simulations a standard k − ω SST model
has been used for turbulence viscosity.
For flow, continuity and momentum equations please
refer to Fluent user guide hand book.

1 Copyright © 2008 by M. Hejazi

NUMERICAL METHOD
The numerical method utilized for the simulation had
a density based solver with implicit formulation, 2-D domain
geometry, absolute velocity formulation, and superficial
velocity for porous formulation. For this test, a coupled implicit
solver and an external compressible flow model for the
turbulence was utilized. The green-gauss cell based was used
for the gradient option. There are different equations used for
flow, turbulence, species, and energy. A simple method was
used for the pressure-velocity coupling. For the discretization, a
standard pressure was used, and density, momentum and
turbulent kinetic energy were set to second order upwind.

GOMETRY AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Figure 2-a Full view Boundary Conditions
An airfoil from the 6th series of NACA laminar wing Next the created geometry was meshed. The
section family is utilized. The airfoil maximum relative
resolution of the mesh is greater in regions where greater
thickness is 15%, which is located at 35% of the chord length.
Reynolds number for the experiments and simulations is
computational accuracy was needed, such as the region of
Re=3x106, and turbulence intensity is 0.07%. A fully turbulent the leading edge and the trailing edge wake. The mesh
flow solution was used in Fluent, where k-w SST model was consists of 15851 quadrilateral/triangular cells, of which
used for turbulent viscosity [4]. Since a coupled solver was 146 is on the airfoil (figure 3-a).
utilized and Mach number for the flow is greater than 0.1
(~.132), the operating pressure was set to zero. Calculations
were done for the “linear” region, i.e. for angles of attack
ranging from -2 to 6 degrees, due to greater reliability of both
experimental and computed values in this region.
The airfoil profile and boundary conditions were all
created in Gambit. The airfoil consists of 50 vertices and two
edges (upper and lower edge) as shown in figure 1-a:

Figure 1-a NACA 632(2)15 Airfoil Profile

Once the Airfoil edges were created, a face was

created from the two edges and in order to create boundary
layers for the airfoil, another face was created from 3 vertices
to include the airfoil from which, the airfoil face was
subtracted. The geometry and boundary conditions are
presented in figure 2-a shown below:
Figure 3-a Mesh around NACA 63(2)215 airfoil

2 Copyright © 2008 by M. Hejazi

RESULTS Below is the XY plot of the pressure distribution on
top and bottom surfaces of the airfoil. Since the Mach number
Below are the simulation outcomes of static pressure and
is not that high in this case, the shock wave created is not that
Mach number distribution at 4.0o angle of attack ,α, which are
strong; however, the impact of this week shock wave is still
shown in figures 2-a and 2-b respectively.
reflected on the pressure distribution of the upper airfoil
surface as shown in figure 2-c presented below:

Figure 2-a Contours of Static Pressure (pascal)

As shown above, figure2-a demonstrates the pressure
distribution over the airfoil. The pressure on the lower surface
of the airfoil is greater than that of the incoming flow stream
and as a result of that it effectively “pushes” the airfoil upward,
normal to the incoming flow stream. On the other hand, the
components of the pressure distribution parallel to the
incoming flow stream tend to slow the velocity of the incoming
flow relative to the airfoil, as do the viscous stresses.
Figure 2-c XY Plot of Pressure
Figure 2-d demonstrates the x component of the shock
wave on the upper surface of the airfoil. By observing velocity
or Mach number distribution over the airfoil surface, the
variation of the x component of the shock wave along the upper
and lower surface of the airfoil could be justified.

Figure 2-d XY Plot of x Wall Shear Stress

Figure2-b Contour Plot of Much Number
The velocity vectors are also shown in figure 2-e, in which
colored by the magnitude and the direction of the velocity
It could be observed that the upper surface on the
magnitude. The position shown is near the upper wall, behind
airfoil experiences a higher velocity compared to the lower
the shock.
surface. By increasing the velocity at higher Mach numbers
there would be a shock wave on the upper surface that could
cause discontinuity. On the upper surface in some regions the
Mach number on the upper surface close to the shock wave
reaches to its maximum value (.174), which is colored by red
color, and behind the trailing edge it drops.
3 Copyright © 2008 by M. Hejazi

Figure 2-e Velocity Vectors Near Upper Wall
VALIDATION OF THE MODEL
After solving the simulations for the case above with
angle of attack of at 4.0o now a parametric study of angle of
attack is done in order to be able to compare the results with
the experimental data; to do so, the model should be solved
with a range of different angles of attack from -20 to 60.
On an airfoil, the resultants of these forces are usually
resolved into two forces and one moment. The component of
the net force acting normal to the incoming flow stream is
known as the lift force and the component of the net force
acting parallel to the incoming flow stream is known as the
drag force.
Figure 3-a Lift and Pitching Moment coefficient Curves
It could be observed that at low angles of attack, the
dimensionless lift coefficient (CL), increases linearly with angle
of attack. The pitching moment is usually defined about an axis
normal to the airfoil cross-section, located a quarter of the
distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the airfoil
and as shown in figure 3-a, Cm increases linearly with angle of
attack.
4 Copyright © 2008 by M. Hejazi
In fact, the pressure distribution on both sides of the
airfoil contributes to the lift. The part of the drag force related
to the pressure distribution around the airfoil is known as the
pressure drag. The part of the drag force related to the viscous
stresses is known as the skin-friction drag. Their sum, the total
drag force, is commonly referred to as form drag. The viscous
stresses generally make a negligible contribution to the lift
force, as well.
Figure 3-b Drag Coefficient Curve
Flow is attached to the airfoil throughout this regime. At an
angle of attack of roughly 6° or 7°, the flow on the upper
surface of the airfoil begins to separate and a condition known
as stall begins to develop. The lift coefficient peaks and the
drag coefficient increases as stall increases. It could be seen
that the drag is reasonably small (figure 3-b).
CONCLUSION AND DISSCUSION
The primary focus of this project was on CFD analysis
of a wind turbine blade, using k − ω SST model for turbulent
viscosity, in which, effect of dimensionless lift coefficient (CL),
drag coefficient (CD) and pitching moment coefficient (Cm) at
different angle of attack, was tested. For this test, a coupled
solver and a turbulent viscosity model was utilized.
The Sutherland law for viscosity was utilized in the
model, since it is well suited for high-speed compressible
flows. While Density and Viscosity were made temperature-
dependent, Cp and Thermal Conductivity were left constant.
Since for high-speed compressible flows, thermal dependency
of the physical properties is generally recommended.
REFERENCES

1. I.H. Abbott, A.E. von Doenhoff, L. Stivers, NACA

Report No. 824 – Summary of Airfoil Data, National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.

2. J. R. Connell and R. L. George. Accurate correlation

of wind turbine response with wind speed using a new
characterization of turbulent wind. Solar Energy
Engineering. Pg. 109, 281, 321-329 (1987).

3. J.M. Jonkman. Modeling of the UAE Wind Turbine

for Refinement of FAST_AD. Pg. 11. (2003)

4. FLUENT 6.1 User’s Guide, Fluent Inc., Feb. 2003

5 Copyright © 2008 by M. Hejazi