Aerodynamic Optimization of Horizontal Axis Wind

Turbine (HAWT) Blades using Fluid-Structure Interaction

with Taguchi Method

Malik Abdurrahman1, b), Retno Wulandari2, a), Suprayitno3, c)

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Malang, Jl. Semarang No. 5
Malang 65145, Indonesia
a)
Corresponding author: retno.wulandari.ft@um.ac.id
b)
malik.1605146@students.um.ac.id
c)
suprayitno@um.ac.id

Abstract. A HAWT blade is a part of the wind turbine that converts the kinetic energy of the fluid into mechanical
energy. This study optimizes and investigates the effect of parameters alpha (α), twist (β), Chord (Cr), and airfoil on the
root, middle, and tip blade on the aerodynamic performance of the HAWT blade using the Taguchi and ANOVA
methods. This HAWT blade is designed and analyzed with the Fluids Structure Interaction approach. This study uses a
quasi-experimental method. Based on the graphical analysis of the Taguchi method, a main effect plot for the S/N ratio is
obtained which can be used to predict the combination of each parameter to produce optimal performance. ANOVA
analysis shows that aerodynamic performance is influenced by parameters α 7.98%, β 1.87%, Cr 72.44%, airfoil at the
root 0.4%, airfoil in the middle 15.86%, and airfoil at the tip 0, 22%. Based on the results of the study, it can be
concluded that pine wood can be used in every HAWT blade design tested. The best blade performance is obtained from
the combination of NACA airfoil 65(3)-618 at the root, S1210 airfoil in the middle, S801 airfoil at the tip, alpha 4' value,
twist using the Schmitz equation with 80% linearization, and chord using the Betz equation.

Keyword: blade, HAWT, FSI, Taguchi method

INTRODUCTION

The availability of the world's dwindling fossil energy reserves and its use that is not environmentally friendly
have made various countries, including Indonesia, to shift and develop new and renewable energy (NRE) [1].
Indonesia has various sources of NRE. One of the most potential to be utilized is wind energy [2]. Wind energy is
plausible because the investment cost to harvest energy is much cheaper than other alternative energy. Indonesia has
wind speed range of 3-6 m/s [3, 4] and sometimes it can reach 12 m/s when the weather is extreme [5]. The HAWT
blade is the most efficient wind energy harvester. With this wind speed range, an ideal HAWT blade is required to
be able to accumulate wind energy optimally and not break during harsh weather.
 TABLE 1. New renewable energy potency
Energy Source Potency

Hydropower 94.3 GW
Geothermal 28.5 GW
Bioenergy 32.6 GW
Solar 207.8 GW
Wind 60.8 GW
Ocean energy 17.9 GW
The ideal HAWT blade can be obtained by combining the airfoil parameters in each section, angle of attack (α),
twist (β), chord width (Cr), blade length, and the type of material used. Each of these parameters is able to affect one
another and have different effects on blade performance, so it is necessary to find the best variation or combination
of these parameters. Several previous studies have investigated the influence of aerodynamics and structures with
variations of winglet [4], airfoil [5], Tip speed Ratio [6], [7], [8], width Cr [9], pitch angle [10], and blade length
[11]. However, those studies only accommodated one or several variables in simple manner. Therefore, the
influence of each parameter on the aerodynamic performance and structure of the HAWT blade has not been studied
scientifically, while it has a significant effect on the aerodynamic performance and blade structure of the HAWT
[12].
Based on this background, this study aims to determine the effect of parameters of α, β, Cr width, airfoil at the
root, middle, and tip of the blade on the performance of the HAWT blade. Each sample with a combination of
parameters that have been designed in the design of experiment (DOE) orthogonal array L27 will be checked for
performance using FSI simulation. FSI was chosen because it can integrate the finite element method equation to
analyze the structure. Additionally, the Navier-Stokes equation can accommodate various fluid flow characters so
that it has trends and blade performance results in the form of aerodynamic performance and structural performance,
from simulations that are close to the results of direct testing [13]. The results of all samples will be processed and
then optimized by the Taguchi method. The Taguchi method was selected because it can predict the combination of
the levels of each parameter on the aerodynamic performance and structure of the HAWT blade with a small sample
and is efficient in terms of time-consuming and resources management, and able to identify the combination of
parameters that can produce HAWT blades with ideal performance. All data that has been generated will be
analyzed using the ANOVA method to determine the effect of each variable on blade performance.

LITERATURE AND RESEARCH METHODS

1. Theory and Equations

Wind turbine is a device that converts wind energy into mechanical energy [12]. Wind turbines have several
types of classification, one of which is HAWT blade. The geometry of the HAWT blade depends on several
parameters as shown in Figure 1. The performance of the HAWT blade in general can be seen in terms of
aerodynamics and structure. In this study, the aerodynamic performance was evaluated using the Navier-Stokes
equation and the blade structure performance was analyzed using the von Mises equation. The following equation is
used to calculate the efficiency of the HAWT blade.

Blade length

FIGURE 1. Geometry of HAWT blade

 2 1
Flow angle φ= tan−1 (1)
3 λr

16
Cr Betz Cr=π . R
B .9 . Cl . λ √ λ 2 ¿ ¿ ¿
(2)

16. π . r 2
Cr Schmitz Cr= sin ¿ (3)
B . Cl

Twist Betz β=arctan ( 3.2.rR. λ )−α (4)

2 R
Twist Schmitz β= arctan
3 r .λ ( )
−α (5)

Px V 3 xA
Wind force P wind= (Watt)
2
(6)

Blade force P mechanic=ω x τ ¿) (7)

P mechanic
Coefisien of Performance Cp =
P wind
(8)

Von Mises σ υ= √ ¿ ¿ ¿ (9)

2. Design

Velocity
Pressure inlet
outlet
Periodic
Wall boundary
(blade)inlet
Velocity
 FIGURE 2. Computational domain and boundary condition for CFD

This study used 6 independent variables in the form of airfoil section root, airfoil middle, airfoil tip, α, β, and Cr
with the level of each parameter as shown in table 2. Each blade geometry design will be simulated with wind
speeds of 4.5 m/s, 5 m/s, 5.5 m/s, and 12 m/s where the wind speed calculations are achieved from observations of
wind speeds that often occur in Jeneponto at an altitude of 10 m in 2018 to 2020 [2]. The aerodynamic performance
of the blade is attained from the simulation results with wind speeds of 4.5 m/s, 5 m/s, 5.5 m/s. Wind speed of 12
m/s is used as a justification for the performance of the structure, that the blades with pine wood material and
geometry that have been tested will not break or fail. This research uses quasi-experimental method with DoE
Orthogonal Array. The next stage is to perform a one-way steady-state FSI analysis to obtain aeroelastic response
due to aerodynamic loading on the HAWT blade with Ansys20 R2 Software. Blade with 1 m in length rotates at 500
RPM. One-way FSI analysis essentially integrates Ansys Fluent to calculate the value of torque and pressure on the
blade surface with Ansys Mechanical to calculate the deformation and deflection of the blades.

3. Design of Experiment (DoE)

TABLE 2. Independent variable parameters

Independent variable Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Airfoil root NACA 4418 NACA 4415 NACA 65(3)-618

Airfoil middle S826 S1210 SD7034
Airfoil tip S801 NACA 4412 S2091
Chord (Cr) Cr PINTO SCHMITZ Cr BETZ
Twist (β) BETZ 80% SCHMITZ 85% SCHMITZ 80%
Angle of Attack (α) 4 4.5 5

The experimental design in this study using the Taguchi method begins with the design of the Orthogonal Array
factorial design parameters. DoE Taguchi in this study showed the optimization of the number of simulation tests to
be 27 times, from a total of 729 full factorial simulation experiments consisting of 6 design factors and 3 design
levels. So the shape of the Orthogonal Array is shown as in Fig.2 below.

FIGURE 3. Level of parameter variable with taguchi design

4. Simulation Process

Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) is a multi-physical phenomenon that occurs in a system where the flow of a
fluid causes a solid structure to deform. Briefly, there are 3 stages in the FSI simulation, namely:
• Preprocessing
 At this stage, the material to be used is determined, and the geometry of the HAWT blade is formed using the
Ansys Design Modeler. After each blade geometry is created, a mesh with skewness method is used with an average
value below 0.3 for aerodynamic analysis and a quadratic mesh method with an average value above 0.7 for
aeroelastic analysis [14].

FIGURE 4. Meshing process

 Solving
Solving is the main stage of the FSI simulation, namely by iterating or calculating the
boundary conditions that have been determined during the pre-processing stage. At this stage, the
K-Omega SST turbulent model is used to analyze aerodynamic performance and von Mises
theory is used to analyze aeroelastics. The data generated on ANSYS FLUENT will be verified
with mass imbalance which value must be below 1x10-6 or until 1500 iteration. Data in the form
of torque will be used to find power and data in the form of pressure on the blade will be
forwarded to ANSYS MECHANICAL for deflection and deformation analysis. The material
properties used refer to the ANSYS GENTA database as shown in table 3.

Table 3. Properties of Pine Wood

N Properties Value
o
1 Density 0.2563 kg.m^3
2 Young's Modulus 9652.7 MPa
3 Shear Modulus 3.5229 GPa
4 Bulk Modulus 12.375 GPa
5 Poisson's Ratio 0.37
6 Tensile Yield
Strength 43.437 MPa
7 Compressive
Yield Strength 42.058 MPa
FIGURE 5. HAWT simulation iteration
  Post processing
Post processing is the final step in FSI analysis. What is done in this step is setting and
reading streamlined results and others in the function calculator.

FIGURE 5. Deflection of blade HAWT

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

TABLE 4. HAWT performance parameters

DOE L27 Torque (Nm) Coefisien of Performance Aeroelastic

Wind Wind Wind Mean St. Dev SN Stress Deflection
No x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 4.5m/s 5m/s 5.5m/s (MPa) (mm)
1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 29.23 22.80 18.23 23.42 4.51 26.93 2.089 4.9425
2 -1 0 0 0 0 0 49.16 38.56 30.21 39.31 7.75 31.41 4.0075 6.3337
3 -1 1 1 1 1 1 35.58 28.13 23.15 28.95 5.11 28.85 5.7381 7.8345
4 0 -1 0 1 1 1 39.54 32.93 27.50 33.33 4.92 30.18 7.6222 8.4268
5 0 0 1 -1 -1 -1 31.70 23.49 18.44 24.54 5.46 27.20 2.4849 7.2693
6 0 1 -1 0 0 0 34.69 27.07 22.02 27.93 5.21 28.49 6.9872 12.219
7 1 -1 1 0 0 0 36.06 29.49 24.51 30.02 4.73 29.24 3.9475 4.5556
8 1 0 -1 1 1 1 60.40 44.38 35.79 46.86 10.20 32.84 6.1391 9.7182
9 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 27.67 21.56 17.10 22.11 4.33 26.42 2.1337 6.3874
10 -1 -1 1 -1 0 1 19.26 15.10 12.14 15.50 2.92 23.37 1.4784 3.9298
11 -1 0 -1 0 1 -1 61.11 46.51 36.48 48.04 10.11 33.09 4.9363 7.6629
12 -1 1 0 1 -1 0 38.92 32.68 26.33 32.64 5.14 29.96 3.1413 4.246
13 0 -1 -1 1 -1 0 46.06 39.21 32.57 39.28 5.51 31.63 8.6257 10.031
14 0 0 0 -1 0 1 25.39 19.31 15.20 19.97 4.18 25.47 2.8856 .6.8543
15 0 1 1 0 1 -1 42.50 33.30 26.97 34.26 6.38 30.27 6.0114 4.2754
16 1 -1 0 0 1 -1 44.30 35.89 29.23 36.47 6.17 30.88 4.1343 4.9238
17 1 0 1 1 -1 0 63.65 48.36 38.88 50.29 10.21 33.52 5.4922 6.8931
18 1 1 -1 -1 0 1 18.77 14.58 11.62 14.99 2.93 23.05 2.006 6.7179
19 -1 -1 0 -1 1 0 24.36 19.14 15.38 19.63 3.68 25.42 1.7972 4.2379
20 -1 0 1 0 -1 1 48.88 37.38 29.76 38.67 7.86 31.24 3.8585 5.8609
21 -1 1 -1 1 0 -1 43.83 34.48 28.31 35.54 6.38 30.61 7.9056 10.617
 22 0 -1 1 1 0 -1 46.15 37.35 32.04 38.52 5.82 31.43 7.6362 7.4698
23 0 0 -1 -1 1 0 26.95 20.75 25.71 24.47 2.68 27.62 2.5272 8.3443
24 0 1 0 0 -1 1 33.56 26.40 21.38 27.11 5.00 28.24 5.8307 10.06
25 1 -1 -1 0 -1 1 36.24 29.44 24.10 29.93 4.97 29.18 4.2214 5.9666
26 1 0 0 1 0 -1 64.75 49.98 39.66 51.46 10.30 33.74 6.0598 7.6119
27 1 1 1 -1 1 0 24.55 19.09 15.11 19.59 3.87 25.36 1.9823 6.0089

Nilai torsi dihitung menggunakan function calculator pada ansys fluent dan digunakan untuk menghitung nilai
coefisien of performance. Setiap variable dianalisa nilai SN rasionya terhadap dan pengaruhnya terhadap nilai
coefisien of performance menggunakan anova. Gambar 6 menunjukkan main effect plot sn rasio untuk parameter
airfoil root, airfoil midle, airfoil tip, chord, twist, dan angle of attack. Grafik tersebut menunjukkan bahwa The best
blade performance was obtained from a combination of NACA 65(3)-618 airfoil root, S1210 airfoil middle, S801
airfoil tip, 4' alpha values, twist using the Schmitz equation with 80% linearization, and chords using the Betz
equation. Kombinasi tersebut disimulasikan untuk memverivikasi apakah akan menghasilkan perfoma optimum atau
tidak dan hasilnya akan dibandingkan dengan geometry bilah yang sudah dipakai dengan kombinasi parameter
airfoil naca 4415 untuk semua section, 6.5 alpha value, twist using the Schmitz equation with 75% linearization, and
chords using the Betz equation.

FIGURE 2. Correlation between each parameter to Cp.

tebel nn menunjukan perfoma bilah hawt sebelum dan sesudah dioptimasi. Dengan hasil optimasi yang memiliki
nilai paling baik diantara semua data yang telah degenerate, maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa kombinasi tersebut
menghasilkan perfoma yang paling optimum.

TABLE 3. Response table for means (Taguchi)

Parameters Optimum Base
Torque (Nm) Wind 4.5m/s 72.32
Wind 5m/s 54.32
Wind 5.5m/s 42.11
Coefisien of Mean 56.25
Performance St. Dev 12.40
SN 34.41
Aeroelastic Stress (MPa) 6.4141 8.0797
Deflection (mm) 9.2516 42.084
 Anova digunakan untuk memprediksi presentasi besaran kontribusi pengaruh setiap variable input terhadap
performance aerodinamik. Table nn menunjukkan variable chord memiliki pengaruh paling besar dan variable
airfoil tip memiliki pengaruh pang sedikit terhadap performa aerodinamik bilah hawt.

CONCLUSION

The result of efficiency value before optimization is 43% and after optimization, it increases to 56%. ANOVA
analysis shows that aerodynamic performance is influenced by the parameters α 7.98%, β 1.87%, Cr 72.44%, airfoil
root 0.4%, airfoil middle 15.86%, and airfoil tip 0, 22%. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that
pine wood can be used in every HAWT blade design tested. The best blade performance was obtained from a
combination of NACA 65(3)-618 airfoil root, S1210 airfoil middle, S801 airfoil tip, 4' alpha values, twist using the
Schmitz equation with 80% linearization, and chords using the Betz equation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universitas Negeri Malang, especially the Simulation and
Design Laboratory, which helped carrying out this research and facilitated hardware and Ansys software as a
research tool. This research was funded by DRPM Grants 2021, Directorate of Research and Community Service at
The Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education Indonesia.

REFERENCES

1. Y. Nishi, Y. Yahagi, T. Okazaki, and T. Inagaki, “Effect of flow rate on performance and flow field of an
undershot cross-flow water turbine,” Renew. Energy, vol. 149, pp. 409–423, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.023.
2. A. Pérez-Sánchez, C. Hernández-Cortés, and J. L. Carmona, “Estrategias de abasto de maíz de los hogares
campesinos en el municipio de Atlangatepec, Tlaxcala.,” Agric. Soc. y Desarro., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 1, 2017, doi:
10.22231/asyd.v14i1.520.
3. A. A. Larasakti, S. Himran, and A. Syamsul, “Pembuatan dan Pengujian Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga
Mikrohidro Turbin Banki Daya 200 Watt,” Pembuatan dan Penguji. Pembangkit List. Tenaga Mikrohidro
Turbin Banki Daya 200 Watt, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 245–253, 2012.
4. BPPT, “Energi Terbarukan Solusi Krisis Energi Masa Depan,” 2020.
https://www.bppt.go.id/profil/organisasi/sekretaris-utama/40-berita-bppt-3/berita-teknologi-informasi-energi-
material/433-energi-terbarukan-solusi-krisis-energi-masa-depan (accessed Feb. 25, 2020).
5. Z. Saleh, Y. Apriani, F. Ardianto, and R. Purwanto, “ANALISIS KARAKTERISTIK TURBIN CROSSFLOW
KAPASITAS 5 kW,” J. Surya Energy, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 255, 2019, doi: 10.32502/jse.v3i2.1484.
6. Kementrian Pertanian Republik Indonesia, “Potensi Sungai,” 2020. https://www.pertanian.go.id/home/?
show=news&act=view&id=2473 (accessed Feb. 25, 2020).
7. Djajusman and Hadi, “Kincir Air Kaki Angsa,” Progr. Kreat. Mhs., pp. 1–48, 2011, [Online]. Available:
http://pkm.openthinklabs.com/home/topik/energi/energi-terbarukan-renewable-energy/mikrohidro-
microhydro/tenaga-ahli-di-indonesia/0001-djajusman-hadi-s-sos-m-ab/03-djajusman-hadi-dari-kaki-angsa-
bisa-jadi-pembangkit-listrik-luar-biasa.
8. M. Hidayat and R. Wulandari, “Unjuk Kerja Turbin Air Kaki Angsa Next-G dengan Variasi Lebar Sudu dan
Jumlah Kaki Sudu Menggunakan Pendekatan Komputasional,” J. Rekayasa Mesin, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 99–102,
2018, doi: 10.21776/ub.jrm.2018.009.02.5.
9. R. Wulandari, M. A. Mizar, Andoko, and P. Avita Ayu, “Optimization design of Goose-Leg waterwheel next-
G to extract energy of free water flow,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 1778, no. October 2016, 2016, doi:
10.1063/1.4965802.
10. G. Setyono and M. Ulum, “Variasi Putaran Turbin terhadap Performa Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Gelombang
Air Menggunakan Oscillating Water Column ( Variation of Turbine Rotation on the Performance of a Water
Wave Power Plant Using an Oscillating Water Column ),” J. Saintek, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 58–60, 2018, [Online].
Available: kopertis7.go.id/uploadjurnal/5_SaintekV15No2Des2018.pdf.
11. R. Ullah, T. A. Cheema, A. S. Saleem, S. M. Ahmad, J. A. Chattha, and C. W. Park, “Performance analysis of
multi-stage gravitational water vortex turbine,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 198, no. May, p. 111788, 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111788.
12. J. C. C. Henriques, J. C. C. Portillo, W. Sheng, L. M. C. Gato, and A. F. O. Falcão, “Dynamics and control of
air turbines in oscillating-water-column wave energy converters: Analyses and case study,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 112, no. June, pp. 571–589, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.010.
13. D. Birchall, “Computational fluid dynamics,” Br. J. Radiol., vol. 82, no. SPEC. ISSUE 1, 2009, doi:
10.1259/bjr/26554028.
14. S. Thabet and T. H. Thabit, “Computational Fluid Dynamics: Science of the Future,” Int. J. Res. Eng., vol. 5,
no. 6, pp. 430–433, 2018, doi: 10.21276/ijre.2018.5.6.2.