This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

99 (2011) 523–538

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

**Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics
**

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia

**Wind tunnel blockage corrections: Review and application to Savonius vertical-axis wind turbines
**

Ian Ross n, Aaron Altman

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-0238, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 28 July 2010 Received in revised form 31 December 2010 Accepted 26 February 2011 Available online 1 April 2011 Keywords: Low speed wind tunnel Wind tunnel blockage corrections Vertical-axis wind turbine Aerodynamics Bluff-body aerodynamics Savonius

abstract

An investigation into wake and solid blockage effects of vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) in closed test-section wind tunnel testing is described. Static wall pressures have been used to derive velocity increments along wind tunnel test section which in turn are applied to provide evidence of wake interference characteristics of rotating bodies interacting within this spatially restricted domain. Vertical-axis wind turbines present a unique aerodynamic obstruction in wind tunnel testing, whose blockage effects have not yet extensively investigated. The ﬂowﬁeld surrounding these wind turbines is asymmetric, periodic, unsteady, separated and highly turbulent. Static pressure measurements are taken along a test-section sidewall to provide a pressure signature of the test models under varying rotor tip-speed ratios (freestream conditions and model RPMs). Wake characteristics and VAWT performance produced by the same vertical-axis wind turbine concept tested at different physical scales and in two different wind tunnels are investigated in an attempt to provide some guidance on the scaling of the combined effects on blockage. This investigation provides evidence of the effects of large wall interactions and wake propagation caused by these models at well below generally accepted standard blockage ﬁgures. & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Aerodynamics is an active and inﬂuential science, contributing to major aspects of wind turbine design. For an aerodynamicist the art of manipulating and adapting a moving ﬂuid to optimize energy extraction can be challenging to achieve. Wind turbines have been researched since the earliest known ancient humans attempted to harness wind energy through diversiﬁed means. One of the manners to achieve this goal was through vertical-axis wind turbines (VAWT). The present research details the evolutionary steps in improving the efﬁciency of wind tunnel testing vertical-axis wind turbines. Fig. 1 (CAD models based on the designs of TFC energy), displays two such VAWT models similar in concept to designs devised by the Finnish engineer Sigurd J. Savonius (Savonius, 1931). Recently there has been a resurgence of interest regarding sources of renewable energy, with numerous universities, companies and research institutions carrying out extensive research activities. These activities have led to a plethora of designs of

Abbreviations: HAWT, Horizontal-axis wind turbine; TSR, Tip speed ratio; LSWT, Low-speed wind tunnel; TFCE, Twenty ﬁrst century energy; RPM, Revolutions per minute; VAWT, Vertical-axis wind turbine n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 734 478 1734. E-mail addresses: ianross121@hotmail.com (I. Ross), aaron.altman@notes.udayton.edu (A. Altman). 0167-6105/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2011.02.002

wind turbines based mostly on computational aerodynamic models. Still largely restricted to an experimental subject, vertical-axis wind turbines are appearing more frequently in the civilian and military market as research into their cost-effectiveness and simplicity progresses. At present, there are two primary categories of modern wind turbines, namely horizontal-axis (HAWT’s) and vertical-axis (VAWT’s) wind turbines. The main advantages of the VAWT is its single moving part (rotor), where no yaw mechanisms are required, its low-wind speed operation and the elimination of the need for extensive supporting tower structures, thus signiﬁcantly simplifying the design and installation. Blades of straight-bladed VAWTs can be of uniform airfoil section and untwisted, making them relatively easy to fabricate or extrude, unlike the blades of HAWTs, which are commonly twisted and tapered airfoils for optimum performance. The motivation for the current research stems from an investigation into the ﬂow blockage inﬂuence on performance of relatively inefﬁcient VAWTs. In order to improve the conceptual approach, previous knowledge of bluff body aerodynamics has been applied to a rotational frame-of-reference for VAWT concepts. Savonius stated in his 1931 paper published by the Journal of Mechanical Engineering, ‘‘The S-Rotor and its application’’, that the maximum efﬁciency possible was only 31%. Following Savonius, numerous others investigated the effect of geometric parameters such as blade numbers, blade gap-size and overlap ratio upon ﬂow

Altman / J. especially of VAWT types. 1. 2. The question remains: ‘‘Do the wind tunnel wall surfaces interact with the model ﬂow to the extent of impacting the efﬁciency of the rotor. 1980). Severe effects will be documented when models occupy a percentage of the tunnel cross-sectional area signiﬁcantly less than the presently accepted heuristics. 1992). There are several developed theories to analyze the Darrieus and propeller type turbines. a sample batch of wind turbines/bluff body geometrical shapes have been constructed in the present study for wind tunnel testing. wind tunnel velocity. 3 (upper) (ﬂow sketches based on the observations of Fujisawa and Gotoh (1992) and descriptions detailed in ESDU 80024. Fig. therefore calling into question accurate comparison to real-scale prototypes?’’ Solid blockage is created by a reduction in the test-section area for ﬂow to pass compared to an undisturbed freestream. Fig. The possibility of previously undocumented variable deleterious effects of wind tunnel blockage in VAWT testing is observed in tests performed for this paper and are subsequently presented and discussed.. A. By continuity. velocity increases in the vicinity of a model. Bernoulli’s equation and all of the associated assumptions. . VAWT inﬂuence upon streamlines (top) solid blockage. A solid blockage effect is commonly observed in wind tunnel testing that in turn produces an increase in the local wind velocity in the working section. Savonius rotor conﬁguration and geometrical parameters (Fujisawa and Gotoh. 1992). In order to perform an aerodynamic analysis of ﬂowﬁelds around VAWTs and their interaction with closed test-section wind tunnels. theoretical work in modeling the aerodynamics around these wind turbines is indeed quite scarce. Aerodyn. Ind. This increase is ideally accounted for by a theoretical wind tunnel blockage factor or ratio of which several developed techniques will be discussed later. 1998). Wind Eng. where lift is the dominant force. following the ‘‘Wind Energy Handbook’’ (Burton et al. 99 (2011) 523–538 Nomenclature a AR Aswept C Cp Dr blade overlap aspect ratio swept area of a turbine rotor blade chord pressure coefﬁcient turbine (rotor) diameter D0 H r Re T UN qN l end plate diameter height of turbine turbine radius reynolds number torque freestream velocity freestream dynamic pressure tip speed ratio behavior. Ideology has been studied from the ‘Wall pressure signature method’ originally proposed by Hackett et al. Due to the complex nature of ﬂowﬁeld around Savonius turbine produced by its geometrical shape. The goal is to advance existing solid/wake blockage correction methodologies in order to appropriately or knowledgeably apply them to rotating test models and VAWT concepts. involving: (1) a qualitative comparison of tip-speed ratio as a function of Reynolds number using ﬂow visualization of the wake and ﬂow regions around VAWTs and (2) an investigation into the relationships that exist between tipspeed ratio. Ross. which exhibit unique viscous and unsteady turbulent ﬂow conditions. (1979). 2 (Fujisawa and Gotoh. Savonius vertical-axis wind turbine concepts TFC energy: (left) 3-bladed and (right) 2-bladed conventional Savonius—(CAD models based on the designs of TFC energy). (bottom) wake blockage (ﬂow sketches based on the observations of Fujisawa and Gotoh. 3. 2001). the coefﬁcient of power. the coefﬁcient of torque and static pressures inside a wind tunnel test-section with the inﬂuence of blockage ratio. Numerous accounts of questionable accuracy have been debated throughout the literature concerning low-speed wind tunnel testing of rotating bluff bodies. Fig. 1992 and descriptions detailed in ESDU 80024. The blade element momentum theory (BEM) predicts the performance of a Darrieus turbine well.524 I. Fig. Fig. The present research details evolutionary steps in improving the practicality in testing sub-scale VAWTs as well as an investigation into the methodology behind correcting for the ﬂow constraining effect.

. In addition. Aerodyn. Wind Eng. 3 (lower) The following is a summation of formulae adopted by numerous authors in their wind tunnel experimental campaigns of VAWTs. (c) ﬂow model and (d) Cp distribution (coefﬁcient of pressure—ﬂow visualization used to compare wake as a function of rotor angle and wind speed. The formulae given below were adapted from those originally given by Blackwell et al. The static and rotating observations were concentrated on l¼ RO ðrad=sÞ O Á ¼À U1 60pDR =U1 ð2Þ T power extracted power available Pextracted ¼ OT ¼ O 60ð2pÞrad=s ð3Þ ð4Þ Pextracted Pavailable Pavailable ¼ q1 U1 Aswept power coefficient ðmeasure of efficiencyÞ CP ðefficiencyÞ ¼ ¼ À O=60 ð2pÞ rad=s T q1 U1 Aswept Á ¼ l CT ð5Þ (Blackwell et al. velocity outside this wake has a higher speed than the ﬂow inside the wake region for a constant mass ﬂow and higher velocity in the freestream yields lower pressure assuming conditions that satisfy Bernoulli’s equation. By continuity. Fujisawa and Gotoh explain how ﬂow separation regions contribute to torque production of the rotating rotor and weakened ﬂow through the overlap acts as a resistance. contributing to improved torque performance at low TSR.. deterioration of the torque performance at large tip-speed ratios is caused by the decrease in stagnation torque and in the pressure recovery effect by ﬂow through the overlap. The main ﬂow was visualized by smoke-wire and the wake ﬂow by injecting smoke just upstream of the rotor. (1997) and modiﬁed for unit conversions from RPM to radians per second: freestream dynamic pressure tip-speed ratio q1 ¼ 1 r U2 2 air 1 ð1Þ where Aswept ¼ DR HR and epsilon (blockage correction factor) shall be discussed in a later section. 99 (2011) 523–538 525 Wake blockage is difﬁcult to model blockage for a stationary body. Altman / J. 4. which appears to be the de facto standard in wind turbine data reduction. It was suggested that the ﬂow separation region observed on the blade surface was reduced due to rotation and ﬂow through the overlap. but when the test concerns a dynamic rotating bluff body producing large wake disturbances the modeling becomes increasingly more difﬁcult to predict the degradable effect on the ﬂow. Fujisawa and Gotoh (1992) experimented with ﬂow visualization for static and rotating Savonius two bladed rotors. A representative selection relevant to the present research will be ﬁrst reviewed. 1992). Finally it was shown that the attached ﬂow region on the convex side of the rotor grows with TSR. Progress has also been curved towards VAWT applications concerning aerodynamic efﬁciency and performance regarding ﬂow separation and alleviating adverse effects on energy production. which together with the stagnation effect on the front side contributes to the rotor’s power production capability. Savonius ﬂow patterns: (a) free stream ﬂow. but rather there is literature concerning the generalities of the Savonius rotor concept. Fig. The rotation effect is discussed in comparison with the measured pressure distribution on the blade surfaces. The wake generated has a lower mean velocity than the freestream. A. 1997) Modiﬁcation of a blockage corrected freestream velocity and dynamic pressure V1 ¼ V1 q1 ¼ q1 uncorrected ð1 þ eÞ ð7Þ 2 uncorrected ð1 þ eÞ Fig. (left) static rotor and (right) rotating) (Fujisawa and Gotoh. 2. Ross. Review of literature Previous means have been proposed to analyze performance optimization of HAWTs. There remains no extensive readily available literature concerning speciﬁc Savonius aerodynamic model applications to wind tunnel blockage corrections. (b) internal ﬂow.I. Ind.

4 (Fujisawa and Gotoh. whose effect is much more severe in low-speed wind tunnel applications. Here. it was concluded that increasing Reynolds number and/or aspect ratio improves the performance. (2007) proposed an in-depth review of wind tunnel testing on three bladed Savonius designs. which is cited from Blackwell’s earlier efforts. unsteady and turbulent. Ross. This study provided results on the performance of rotor evaluated from variation of Cp with TSR at various overlaps. It was proposed that increasing the test Re number generally improved aerodynamic performance across the range of Re being tested. both provided various solid/wake blockage correction techniques. with experiments conducted on blade overlap conditions in the range 16–35%. Blackwell presents the data in the form of power and torque coefﬁcients and as a function of speed ratio (or angular position for static starting torques). and are used as a baseline for comparison to the ﬂow visualization efforts in the present study. It has been stated that tunnel blockage effect is an important parameter for wind tunnel performance analysis of VAWTs.and High-Speed Wind Tunnels’’. Hackett assumes the pressure p is at the wall using Prandtl’s classical assumption for boundary layers and u and v are velocities in the x and y directions. Maskell correction Maskell (1965) was the ﬁrst to address the problems with nonstreamline ﬂow bodies. Wind Eng. Power coefﬁcients have been calculated with and without a wind tunnel blockage correction factor for tunnel interference. Allowing for the blockage correction. by relating effective increase in the dynamic pressure q of the stream due to a solid blockage constraint. highly separated. marked differences were observed at the onset of stall beginning at the wing tips and spreading inboard with increasing incidence. (199)7 carried out an in depth investigation of low-speed wind tunnel testing of Savonius type rotors of two/three stages and two/three blades at different Reynolds numbers whilst measuring variables: torque. which is equivalent to the increase in velocity of an undisturbed stream much larger than previous standard estimations. Rotary positioning of the turbine to obtain the static or nonrotating torque as a function of blade position relative to the freestream ﬂow was also performed. RPM and tunnel conditions.526 I. The work of Biswas et al. Pope and Harper blockage correction factor Correcting velocity readings Pope and Harper (1966) and subsequent data modiﬁcations to allow for these changes are shown: velocity correction V ¼ Vu ð1þ et Þ dynamic pressure correction q ¼ qu ð1 þ 2et Þ reynolds number correction R ¼ Ru ð1þ et Þ ð8Þ ð9Þ ð10Þ Drag coefﬁcient correction: (From the dynamic pressure effect plus the wake gradient term): CD0 ¼ CD0u ð1À3esb À 2ewb Þ ð11Þ ð12Þ et ¼ solid blockage þ wake blockage ¼ esb þ ewb 3. Aerodyn. however these are incredibly difﬁcult factors to assess for unusual geometries such as the Savonius rotor and the associated ﬂowﬁelds around them. They also set the standard for blockage corrections for VAWTs.2. It has long been a standard for low-speed wind tunnel testing to operate within an area-ratio of (tunnel cross-section to swept area of a model) 1–10%. Two types of test-section commonly used when testing in wind tunnels. which is a signiﬁcant reduction when dealing with initial Cp values no larger than 30%. whereby for the ﬁrst time a wind tunnel blockage correction factor has been employed in VAWT testing. At the time there was no universally accepted length scale to Blackwell’s knowledge with which to calculate a Re for a Savonius rotor and suggests that the angular position at which stall occurs is a function of Reynolds number. 1992). Ind. measured pressure coefﬁcients on blade surfaces and points of separation and stagnation can be seen in Fig. 99 (2011) 523–538 smoke patterns inside the rotor. Because of the ability to allow the ﬂow to expand. Altman / J. models can generally be Pope explains: ‘‘for ﬁnding the blockage corrections for wind tunnel models of unusual shapes the following is suggested:’’ et ¼ 1 model frontal area 4 test section area ð13Þ 3. Maskell’s theory holds true for nearly all two-dimensional bluff-body ﬂows and for situations of close axis symmetric wake downstream for three-dimensional ﬂows . z replaces y and w replaces v). Blackwell et al. 3. A. The open test-section or open jet type of wind tunnel has the capability to allow the conditions inside the test section to be largely unaffected by larger blockage percentage static models because of the ability to leak ﬂow and expand the ﬂow around objects within the testsection as opposed to a ﬂow constriction problem occurring with the closed test-section type as shown in this study.1. where it is shown by assuming x be the distance in the streamwise direction and y the distance along the wall in the direction normal to x (For vertical surfaces. The following section discusses this original blockage method and focuses on the wall pressure method (Hackett and Wilsden. respectively. A review of recent developments in the calculation of lowspeed solid-wall wind tunnel interference conducted by Hackett (2003) detailed an extensive interpretation of wall pressures by Ashill and Weeks (1982). (1966) in their text ‘‘Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing’’ and earlier by Pankhurst and Holder (1952) in their text ‘‘Wind-Tunnel Technique: An Account of Experimental Methods in Low. this being a blockage correction factor stated by Pope and Harper as a generic correction for the testing of any unusual shape. When the high-lift characteristics of particular delta wing aircraft models of small aspect ratio were tested in different wind tunnels at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). Maskell’s research goal was to establish a more convincing existence of this interference factor and the need for corrections. allowed to exhibit higher blockage percentage in open type testing. The different results could be reconciled only through a wall interference factor. Undertaking a United States Energy Research and Development Contract. namely the closed test-section and the open testsection (or blockage tolerant test-section) provide large variations when referring to blockage allowances. 1975) modiﬁed for this study with the aim of providing a more detailed assessment of partitioning solid and wake blockage when the ﬂow behavior increasingly becomes more three-dimensional. Review of existing wind tunnel blockage methodologies It is deﬁned that the total blockage correction factor is the sum of the velocity increment (blockage factor) caused by wake blockage and solid blockage. Sandia laboratories initiated the resurgence of vertical-axis wind turbines in the United States. proposed by Pope and Harper. maximum coefﬁcient of power was reduced on average by 5% from its initial value. such as bluff-body testing in closed wind tunnel sections and that of partially stalled shapes such as wings.

reaching a value close to 2. C the wind tunnel working section cross sectional area. 3. For small values of blockage ratio. V the undisturbed wind velocity. 1979). Flat plates and rotors relationship of m vs. Wind Eng. Ind. Hackett. 1975). ðS=C r 0:045Þ Maskell gives m ¼3. Ross. 6. by adopting sources and sinks to represent an equivalent body surface in a stream. S the ﬂat plate or wind tunnel maximum frontal area. 99 (2011) 523–538 527 with the equation for corrected wind velocity given below. Through a wind tunnel testing campaign involving models of varying size and blockages up to 10%. giving the axial distributions of both solid and wake blockages with a velocity peak just aft the model. Aerodyn. Alexander suggests that due to restriction on the wake by the tunnel walls at high S/C values the value of m falls. . sink and strengths with wind tunnel span and locations. 5. Alexander (1978) provided an adaption to Maskell’s method by comparing the drag of ﬂat plates normal to the freestream and that of the drag of Savonius rotors normal to the freestream. A. 5. 2 Vc 1 À Á ¼ V2 1Àm S=C ð14Þ where: Vc is the corrected wind velocity. 1951). and static pressures measured at the sidewalls are used to construct a relatively simple singularity set to represent the test article and then calculate the wall effects based on that singularity set (Hackett et al.0 for S/C ¼0. Essentially the concept resolves pressure signatures into their solid and wake counterparts signifying the symmetric and Fig. m¼(B/S) the extrapolated value from Fig.I. wall pressure signatures were used to determine source. Effects at a wind tunnel wall of solid/bubble and viscous wake blockage (Hackett and Wilsden. 1978). V the undisturbed wind velocity. applying the term m.3. They showed that tunnel wall static pressures may be used to infer wake geometry and hence wake blockage using a row of pressures along the center of the tunnel sidewall. Lilley and Wilsden produced an updated blockage correction methodology (Hensel. S/C (Alexander.3 (30% blockage). Altman / J. 5 and B the wake area normal to wind. Fig. an extrapolated value from Fig.15 (constant value).. Lilley and Wilsden method Lockheed scientists Hackett.

8. 6) involving lifting and non-lifting. 3. the University of Dayton facility (producing a blockage of 3. housing an Eiffel-type tunnel with a contraction ratio of 16:1 and a working section 76 cm (30 in. Four VAWT models have been considered in this study. 7.2 cm (6 in.) Â 244 cm (96 in.3 cm (8 in. respectively.2 cm (6 in.01 V increments.15 Nm (450 oz-in) loading capability.6 cm (3 in.) Â 15. A. 7.) Â 76 cm (30 in.6 cm (3 in. The larger 2-bladed Savonius model has been compared for extreme blockage testing conditions. Turbine torque and RPM wind tunnel testing facility. Fig. continues into an Interface T11 bearingless rotary torque transducer with a 2 Nm torque capacity and a magtrol hysteresis braking system with a 3.5 cm (12 in. Wind Eng. The inlet freestream turbulence intensity is less than 0. In order to calculate corrected pressure coefﬁcients Cpc ðxÞ ¼ " Cpu ðxÞÀ1 1 þ ðDuðxÞ=U1 Þ2 # þ 1 rearranged for velocity increment : Du U qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ¼ 1ÀðCPempty ÀCPmodel ÞÀ1 ð15Þ 4. a spindle driven by the turbine passes through an air bearing producing a theoretically non-friction system. 15. Rotors are tested at constant RPM conditions with varying freestream velocities and are tested under dynamic Fig. The 1/40th scale model.1% and tunnel maximum velocity is 40 m/s. situated below the wind tunnel test-section.) Â 20.7 cm (18 in.) height Â 45. Hackett and Wilsden. closed-test section wind tunnel having a working section 45. 1/20th.) and 7.) length. Altman / J.) width and tunnel maximum velocity of 45 m/s. (1975) provide a theoretical method in determining wind tunnel solid/bubble and viscous blockage from wall and roof pressure measurements (Fig. Ross.2 cm (6 in. blade height 3 m (100 ) Â rotor diameter 6 m (200 ) providing swept areas. 1 represents a rapid-prototype model created for TFCE’s prototype being tested for area-ratio effects on wind tunnel experiments. The test system can be seen in Fig. . Load is electronically applied upon the hysteresis brake by the use of a function generator.528 I.) Â 30. Fig. applying negative torque on the turbine accurate to 0. producing a blockage of 5. 1/30th and 1/40th to a full-scale prototype.2 cm (4 in.5% and 8%.). occupying 10% of the wind tunnel cross-sectional area. 10. Experimental set-up A high precision VAWT test bed facility has been installed at the University of Dayton low-speed wind tunnel laboratory. 99 (2011) 523–538 anti-symmetric regions with the parameters formulated from these parts a velocity increment expression is obtained. This produces solid blockage values in the University of Dayton wind tunnel ranging from 2%.5%. 7. powered and non-powered models. Aerodyn.) has been tested in two wind tunnels. Ind.) Â 15.). whereby three identical models of varying size.7 cm (18 in. Static pressure wall tap locations. with the aim to obtain a data base of pressure signatures at varying ﬁxed and dynamic RPM operating conditions.5%) and in a smaller tunnel at TFCE laboratories an open circuit.

Aerodyn.1. 99 (2011) 523–538 529 loading and unloading conditions using a dataq acquisition system interfaced with a PC for real-time analysis of the system. Eighteen static pressure taps run along the center-line of the test-section sidewall. 9. reducing the rotational speeds of the turbines through increased loading translates to a torque loading capability 5. the reader is referred to the web version of this article. analysis and discussion The formulae presented in this paper have been applied to the measured torque and RPM data from preliminary testing of four concept models. exhibiting a shift in efﬁciency peak as wind speed increases and displays curves collapsing only at the lower tip-speed ratio region. As expected with normalizing data the curves coalesce for the 2% blockage test. 10 displays raw torque loading data as a function of turbine RPM. Fig. Testing of a 1/40th scale model in both TFCE and the UD LSWT has provided marked differences in efﬁciency characteristics and torque readings. At this low test Reynolds number. The same Fig. Wind Eng. Power and torque coefﬁcient Fig. A. such numbers are typical. Fig. Fig. These have been compared to an installed pitotstatic tube output display on a U-tube manometer reading of the undisturbed freestream conditions forward of the model. Power curves are plotted for comparison.5% blockage produces marked differences both in trend and absolute values. running tests on the same model in a smaller wind tunnel with a reduction of tunnel crosssectional area by almost half and operating at 5. model is also used to determine the inﬂuence of blockage ratio on the power curves. It can be argued that this is beyond the critical blockage size. in order to assess VAWT efﬁciencies and power production capability. Differential pressure readings are digitally displayed accurate to 0. 8.I. As expected. Variation of torque and free-spin with turbine RPM—details torque trends at varying wind speeds and resonance regions. The traditional deﬁnitions of differential pressure and pressure coefﬁcient were used following Anderson (2007)for the wall pressure measurement analysis. Comparison of two wind tunnel results for 1/40th scale model—details power coefﬁcients increasing as function of blockage ratio increase 2–5. with increased spatial frequency in close proximity to the model. Power coefﬁcient increases if the true velocity experienced by the model surface is above what is expected or programmed by the wind tunnel operator. There is a clear jump in turbine efﬁciency when the blockage ratio is increased. This is the ﬁrst instance of a possible inﬂuence of blockage factor on the efﬁciency of a VAWT model.) . 10.5%. Ross. 5. 9 displays normalized coefﬁcient of power and velocity ratio (TSR). (For interpretation of the references to color in this ﬁgure legend. Altman / J. Results. giving a peak performance value as 4. However. Ind.1 N/m2 using an AEROLAB pressure transducer array system with 300 kN/m2 (3 bar) rated transducers.5% efﬁcient at extracting energy from the freestream and curves for freestreams from 22 to 40 m/s (50–90 mph) lie closely together with ﬁxed RPM testing.

08) used extensively in this research compared to the 2 bladed rotor (0. Power coefﬁcient varied dramatically between the 2 and 3 bladed designs in this study. A. Comparison of wall static pressures for a 10% 2-bladed Savonius model at 30 mph freestream. Altman / J. Again. That is. tip-speed ratio—increasing power curves at 80 mph freestream with varying blockage ratios. Aerodyn.02–0. with an actual ﬂow speed higher than what is used in calculation produces higher Cp values. This is a positive step in comparing the inﬂuence of blockage on artiﬁcially increasing efﬁciency of VAWTs due to increased velocity and pressure differences as a function of an equivalent body within the tunnel represented by a pressure signature. A logical reason for the 2 bladed concept achieving higher tipspeed ratio and higher power coefﬁcients is due to its more successful design. Comparison of power coefﬁcient vs. The disadvantage of this design is most likely a major factor in the poor torque production and subsequent poor power coefﬁcient achieved during testing. Blockage area-ratio Assessing solid and/or wake effect on induced velocity distributions Fig.2 and 1. Ross. The next stage in assessing a realistically accurate blockage correction Fig. operating at tip-speed ratios between 0.1 and 0. 5. 11. The 3 bladed rotors in this study have a blade design with little of the classical ‘scoop’ shape as seen in the literature. 99 (2011) 523–538 detailing the peak positive torque producing region increasing as a function of increasing freestream speeds. in this study the blades have been fabricated as pure semi-circular shapes. It is common in the literature to ﬁnd that testing has been completed using the ‘classical’ 2 bladed rotors.6.2) is primarily an inﬂuence of the design of the Savonius rotor itself. The variation in power coefﬁcient between 3 bladed rotor (0. The 2 bladed classical ‘two-bucket’ or ‘scoop’ design commonly observed as the popular Savonius design in the literature produces power coefﬁcients in the range 0–0. 12. the freestream velocity increases due to higher levels of ﬂow constriction because of a larger body in the ﬂow. The 3 bladed rotor in this study produced power coefﬁcients in the range 0.1.2. 11. Wind Eng.17. producing much higher torque values and subsequently much higher power coefﬁcients.15–0. Wall pressure signature The shift of VAWT efﬁciencies in wind tunnel testing indicated by changes in pressure signature is also investigated. provides evidence of a rightward shift in the efﬁciency peak when a body surface-area normal to the free stream is placed in the tunnel is increased. operating at tip-speed ratios between 0.08. Fig. Resonance frequencies exist between the wind tunnel fan and the turbine models (highlighted by the red shaded region in the ﬁgure). Ind.02–0. 5.3. . with relation to power coefﬁcient and tip-speed ratio.530 I.

however with increasing freestream velocity there is a functional relationship with a larger pressure decrease and increased RPM. pressure readings from both wind tunnel sidewalls were incorporated into the study. The plots describe ﬂow behavior as a function of wind tunnel velocity (70 mph freestream velocity). Static pressure readings reveal a large pressure decrease just aft of the models. Because of the gross asymmetry of the ﬂow created from this unique type of model. 13. 13–22 m/s (30–50 mph) the normalized curves of pressure coefﬁcient do not coalesce neatly.I. Ind. which could be a factor of instrument range. which is a product of both ﬂow constriction due to solid body interaction and the propagating wake from a rapidly spinning model inﬂuencing the freestream. closely resembling the work of Hackett and Wilsden (1975). 14. Aerodyn. This relates to an increased local freestream velocity. Wind Eng. 12–14. Comparison of wall static pressures for a 10% 2-bladed Savonius model at 50 mph freestream. Comparing static pressure readings upstream of the model reveals that the values are lower than those of an empty test section. Nondimensionalized pressure coefﬁcient as a function of location Fig. Fig. Ross. 99 (2011) 523–538 531 factor is to record wall pressures along the center-line of a wind tunnel closed test-section wall. . 15 shows a sample analysis of one model. 5. Comparing static pressure readings upstream of the model reveals that the values are lower than those of an empty test section. A.4. Figs. model RPMs (2000–2530 rpm) and wind tunnel test-section sidewall location (X/B). At slow speeds. Fig. which provides possible evidence of upstream wake propagation far upstream of the model reaching the tunnel contraction. This provides evidence for the possibility of wake propagation far upstream of the model reaching into the wind tunnel contraction. The goal is to represent the coefﬁcient of differential pressures and relate these to a velocity increment. the 10% [largest solid blockage] geometry model. Comparison of wall static pressures for a 10% 2-bladed Savonius model at 40 mph freestream. Altman / J.

These plots reveal large pressure decreases just aft the models. which shows that an artiﬁcially higher freestream velocity is present at higher TSR. Analysis of this pressure distribution reveals that the 10% and 8% solid blockage models have a profound inﬂuence on the freestream pressure. 16 details high negative pressure coefﬁcients displaying increased freestream velocity in the tunnel. Fig. providing the conclusion that the model would have no aerodynamic inﬂuence at all on the freestream velocity.5% and 2% have a lesser inﬂuence.6. Comparison of wall pressure coefﬁcients at 60 mph freestream velocity and 1000 rpm—four models. A pressure coefﬁcient of zero would indicate that the pressures along the tunnel sidewall are equivalent to those of the empty test section. therefore providing the conclusion that faster spinning models have a reduced inﬂuence upon the freestream (at least on the side of the pressure taps). TSR as a function of longitudinal location Plotting Cp with TSR shows the inﬂuence of rate of rotation upon the ﬂow conditions within the wind tunnel test-section. 5. 16. Wind Eng. Negative pressure coefﬁcient is likely due to higher freestream velocities with a model present. Results show lower Cp values obtained at higher TSR. Aerodyn. 5.3–1. the close trend between 8% and 10% blockage is shown in Fig. This is the evidence that the wake propagation from the turbine is better contained at higher RPMs. 16 compares pressure differential when a model is spinning at 1000 rpm in the test section with a 27 m/s (60 mph) freestream. Using this evidence and normalizing the values with a dynamic pressure lead to a formulation of a pressure coefﬁcient signature inside the tunnel for each model at the 27 m/s freestream condition. 17 shows the relationship for a 10% area blockage model at a freestream of 22 m/s (50 mph). displaying similar trends. This aerodynamic characteristic has been observed with all the models. The static tap position just aft of the model center-line was eliminated with some degree of conﬁdence from the analysis being a spurious data point due to the transducers’ limited transient capability demanded by the high RPM turbine.5% and 2% model show that the pressure readings approach sensor sensitivity. Altman / J. Comparison of Cp as a function of blockage area-ratio Fig. Pressure coefﬁcient vs.532 I. Comparison of wall static pressures—shows possible contributions to reduced pressures from solid/bubble and by wake blockage for a 10% 2-bladed Savonius model at 70 mph freestream. this would relate to increased local freestream velocity. 99 (2011) 523–538 Fig. as logically expected. Following incompressible ﬂow assumptions. It can be shown that as TSR increases over the range 0. The results recorded for the 3. Fig. A wide range of freestream wind . and that the smaller models 3. Fig. 15. however the overall trend should still be identiﬁable as considerably less than those for the larger model.5.1 the pressure coefﬁcient reduces in absolute value. 15. Ross. A. Ind. which is a product of both constriction of the ﬂow due to solid body interaction and the wake propagating from a rapidly spinning model. Results from the remaining wind tunnel models support this theory. This inﬂuence has been shown as a function of increased TSR and compared along the longitudinal static pressure port positions upstream and downstream of the model center-line. Thus absolute values are likely questionable.

20 and 21 display the overall results covering all correction methods and details their effectiveness at coalescing the maximum power coefﬁcient regions across percentage blockage values. Application of velocity corrections To assess the effectiveness of the correction methods selected in this paper. 21 displays similar plots for the 3.55 than it is from 0. the tip-speed ratio. 19).9. TSR vs. Slopes were created from the previous plots of Cp vs. Ross. lower and mid-range data for the 3 bladed 8% model across x-location along wind tunnel. comparing at x-location along wind tunnel at freestream 50 mph. Thus the inﬂuence of model rotation is consistent over a wide range of wind speeds. Ind. model RPM has been studied for its effects on the freestream pressure distributions. Correlated TSR vs. lower and mid-range data using the slope equations as a function of TSR for the 8% area blockage model from 27 to 36 m/s (60–80 mph). correlations were created from a linear regression as a function of longitudinal location. Similar results were obtained for the 3.8. 5. 18 shows the upper. torque coefﬁcient and power coefﬁcient have been modiﬁed to accept updated wind tunnel freestream conditions based on each method. 5. Fig. Using the results from the previous phase of the data analysis.5 and 2% rotor models (upper and lower). Wind Eng. Fig. the formulae for velocity corrections for each method have been applied to the wind tunnel test data. Cp decreases and as wind speed increases. the absolute wall pressure method reduces the power coefﬁcient with more severity at lower wind speeds and this trend is also observed with . The data provides similarity between the slope equations obtained by the linear regression. the absolute value of the Cp–TSR slope has been analyzed as a function of wind speed for 8% area blockage model.7. slope angle decreases. Clear trends can be observed with the data in this form. 20 provides a comparison of the decrease in peak power coefﬁcient from applying a correction method for the 10 and 8% rotor model. Cp relations compared at x-location along wind tunnel at freestream 60. Cp–TSR slope as a function of wind speed Using the individual slope equations obtained at each longitudinal location and across wind speeds. 70 and 80 mph—compares upper. it is also important to observe that the rate of change of pressure coefﬁcient is much faster down to a TSR of 0. showing one relationship that with increasing TSR. From the extrapolation of the functional relationship between pressure coefﬁcient and tip-speed-ratio from 8% blockage model a relationship independent of wind tunnel wind speed conditions indicated by horizontal lines is clear. Altman / J. Aerodyn. A.5% and 10% blockage models (Fig. 5.55 upwards. Linear regression model As a step towards quantifying the effects of blockage ratio upon the efﬁciency of VAWT models. however. 18. 10% blockage model. 17.I. speeds has been studied and reveals strong homogeneity in the ﬂow irrespective of the freestream conditions. Fig. respectively. Cp—shown is a selection of wind tunnel locations that display the overall trend well. 99 (2011) 523–538 533 Fig. Fig. Figs. In order to fully integrate the velocity increments into the data reduction process. TSR. upper and lower plots.

19.534 I. 20. Fig. Fig. ﬁrstly by showing uncorrected power curves on the left . 22 displays the effectiveness of two methods. Fig.5% and 2% rotors. Altman / J. A. The Pope method produced no correlating trend with wind speed and presumably provided inadequately small corrections. Plots of Cp vs. Ind. TSR slopes—comparison of Cp vs. Pope and Maskell. 8%.5% and 2%.5% rotor model across wind speeds 60–90 mph and (lower) a similar comparison for the 2% rotor model. The Maskell method similarly shows no variation with wind speed but provided larger reductions in power coefﬁcient. Aerodyn. Ross. the delta wall pressure method. 21. although the reductions are much smaller in the range 0–10% with no reduction needed for the 3. 99 (2011) 523–538 Fig. Comparison of percentage decrease in coefﬁcient of power from applying correction methods—(upper) comparing the methods for correcting the 3. 3. TSR slopes across freestream at 10%. Wind Eng. Comparison of percentage decrease in coefﬁcient of power on applying correction methods—(upper) comparing the methods for correcting the 10% rotor model across wind speeds 30–70 mph and (lower) a similar comparison for the 8% rotor model.

The 2-bladed model (Fig.37 À 41.26 44.298 0.251 0. This scales well with the smaller rotor models. The results in the ﬁgure conﬁrm that the initial choice of wind tunnel sidewall used for pressure tapping was perhaps in error (Fig.311 0. however Fujisawa’s published images have a restricted FOV.1588 0.0449 0.10.305 0.30 (70) (60) (50) (40) (30) (80) (70) (60) (50) (90) (80) (70) (60) (90) (80) (70) (60) (50) 0.0524 0.0445 0.5 3. Fig.0532 0. Power curves for 3-blade Savonius rotors at 60 mph freestream—(left) uncorrected data.33 74.0399 0. In most instances this ﬂow is turned fully into the opposing freestream direction.0624 0.67 0.00 117.67 0. when RPMs are decreased the rotor acts increasingly like a static bluff body in the ﬂow. 23.0439 0.0726 0.25 Maskell updated peak power coefﬁcient 0. 99 (2011) 523–538 535 Fig.25 À 10. 5. 22 (right) is produced by applying Alexander’s adaption of Maskell’s method.88 À 41.5 2 2 2 2 2 103.0431 Maskell D power (%) À 59.0606 0.50 À 19. in which they have shown a close analogy between corrections for a ﬂat plate normal to the freestream can be applied to correcting Savonius rotors that have an equivalent frontal area as the ﬂatplate. the ﬂow visualizations reveal similarities to the results of .273 0.0448 0. Fig.313 0.30 132. Table 1 displays the Maskell results covering all the rotor cases. Interestingly.58 59.37 À 59. 6.295 0.269 0. This provides a very effective end result.1316 0.0903 0.15 89. Flow visualization A laser sheet was produced using a New Wave Solo-PIV Nd:YAG laser with an energy output 15–200 mJ and a single cylindrical concave optic. Smoke was seeded at 34 kN/m2 (5 psi) using an oil-based ﬂuid vi-count smoke generator charged with a nitrogen supply. it details the effectiveness and inﬂuence of blockage percentage as the major inﬂuencing factor for Maskell corrections.318 0.0424 0. indicating the right sidewall pressures need to be obtained before reaching any conclusions.1657 0.30 103.56 0. Wind Eng. In Fig.88 À 19. 23) exhibited high degrees of streamline bending around the reverse of the blades.0512 0.50 À 19.21 117.0826 0.88 À 41.0507 0.25 À 10. Figs. For the current study.50 À 10. producing a Von ´ ´ Karman type bluff body alternating vortex street downstream. 24.37 À 59.263 0. 23–25 provide a selection of images. 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 3.0396 0. 25).25 À 10.0983 0.00 117. middle and right.287 alongside corrected power curves.301 0.0674 0.15 89. Altman / J.33 73.30 103.0391 5.15 89.319 0.1356 0.0851 0.5 3. Aerodyn. (middle) Pope correction and (right) Maskell method correction.0446 0.74 0.15 89. 22.37 À 59.044 0. Conclusions and recommendations A good foundation to base further testing and implementation of modiﬁed and improved existing blockage methodologies for static . there is a common occurrence of strong asymmetry of the wake. The coalescing trend shown in Fig.25 À 10. reducing the performance of the 8% blockage model successfully into the region of a much smaller blockage-ratio model.33 132. The power curves are calculated for the three-bladed rotor results for a wind tunnel velocity ﬁxed at 60 mph and loading the rotors to achieve the range of tip-speed ratios plotted. Images were captured to compare model RPM at ﬁxed freestream conditions and observations made about the ﬂow region between the rotor and the wind tunnel sidewalls. At high model RPM this ﬂow phenomenon produces an adverse pressure gradient that could explain a smaller wake inﬂuence when compared to the low RPM conditions.I.0427 0. A.63 0.0943 0. Blockage (S/B (%)) Wind speed (ft/s (mph)) TSR Initial peak power coefﬁcient 0.5 3. so it is unclear if the results supported a sidewall interaction and subsequently does not provide an analysis of rotation as an inﬂuence on wake propagation.0533 0.0406 0.0437 0.33 73.30 103. 22 (right) displays correction results using m values extrapolated from Fig. Ind. Ross. The images show a much wider wake on the opposing (right) side.044 0. The laser sheet was pulsed at 10 Hz using a DG535 four channel digital delay/pulse generator coupled with a 1600 PCO charge-coupled device (CCD) camera ﬁtted with a 25 mm wide angle lens at a distance of approximately 142 cm vertically from the test-section ﬂoor.88 À 41.0475 0.50 À 19.1521 0. Table 1 Results of correcting performance of Savonius rotors operating in a restricted ﬂow closed-test-section wind tunnel using the Maskell method.0407 0.37 À 59.

(c) 29% rotor at 80 mph: (left) free spin 2150 RPM. (right) 100 RPM. (right) 100 RPM. low-speed wind tunnel testing. testing has been provided for application to dynamic wind tunnel models with a possible further application to dynamic ﬂapping wing and rotating bluff-bodies being tested in restricted ﬂow domains in closed test sections. A. Ind. Altman / J. middle: 500 rpm and right: 100 rpm.5% rotor at 60 mph: (left) free spin 1400 RPM. (For interpretation of the references to color in this ﬁgure legend.536 I. CCD camera images across laser sheet.) Fig. Wind Eng. 99 (2011) 523–538 Fig. . (b) 3. 24. 23. the reader is referred to the web version of this article. left: free-spinning model at 800 rpm. Aerodyn. (right) 100 RPM. Ross. The ever-present research goal remains in quantifying a blockage correction to apply to rotating bluff-body models in closed test-section. CCD camera images across laser sheet (a)–(c) compares free spinning rotors at high RPMs to relatively static/very low RPM loaded rotor: (a) 8% rotor at 50 mph: (left) free spin 880 RPM. 10% model at 20 mph with yellow dotted line denoting boundaries of the wake—Inﬂuence of RPM.

Endorsed by the Royal Aeronautical Society.. March 1998. Wiley Blackwell. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill. that for closed test-section wind tunnels one should be aware of the deleterious effect caused by wake interaction and model rotation effects. Blockage corrections for bluff bodies in conﬁned ﬂows. B. 99 (2011) 523–538 537 Fig. For future testing of the VAWT concept it would be logical. Wind Eng. For operating models of 2% and 3.. A. Jenkins. Sheldahl.J. July 1977. It is shown that corrections based on the correlated pressure coefﬁcient techniques detailed in this paper show that correction severity decreases with increasing wind speeds and . a result that begins to show characteristics of plotted normalized coefﬁcients. Assessment of a wall pressure signature method (WPM) adapted from theory provided by Hackett and Wilsden (1975). Special attention has been focused on the analogy supplied by Alexander (1978)of comparing the correction of a ﬂat-plate normal to the freestream to that of a Savonius rotor occupying an equivalent frontal area.. 1997. K. ESDU Data Memorandum 80024. Aerodyn.E. Corrections have been assessed based on an adapted Maskell (1966) method for correcting large bluff-body shapes. A method of determining wall interference corrections in solid-wall tunnels from measurements of static pressure at the walls. Wind tunnel performance data for two.J. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Wind Energy Systems. Anderson. United States Energy Research and Development Administration under Contract AT (29-1)—789. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the developmental funding and equipment support from Twenty First Century Energy (TFCE) and Innovative Scientiﬁc Solutions.. and below a certain wind speed the curves would no longer coalesce.53). Correlations of pressure coefﬁcient as a function of tip-speed ratio have been provided and their susceptibility to wind speed and longitudinal location along the wind tunnel has been observed forward and aft the rotor models.and three-bucket Savonius rotors. Gupta. P. References Ashill. Incorporated (ISSI). A. the following conclusions can be made: increasing RPM.. R. D. J.V. October 3rd–6th. Altman / J. Wind tunnel corrections for Savonius rotors.F. 1998. This supports the earlier pressure signature results. Results from this investigation give evidence that at 8% and 10% the blockage area-ratio would cause some difference in results due to large pressure drops and increases in freestream velocity which is not observed at smaller area-ratio testing. Journal of Wind Engineering 31 (5). however the method reduces peak power coefﬁcients somewhat effectively. A. 1978. Wind Energy Handbook. E6-69–E6-80. New York. the performance characteristics of the sample VAWT concepts were obtained through a campaign of dynamic and static loadings of the rotors under varying wind tunnel freestream conditions. D. Ind.I. The results suggest that the precise critical point at which blockage causes a departure from the expected results has not been absolutely identiﬁed. This has not been validated with ﬂow visualization due to restricted FOV downstream. Feltz.. E. Initial assessment of the Pope and Harper (1966) correction method led to the conclusion that the derived formula for velocity increments does not effectively account for wake blockage inﬂuences. 2007. Issued November (1980) with Amendments A. provides a logical trend in severity of corrections. The next phase involved static wall pressure measurements taken along the test-section sidewalls to provide a comprehensive pressure signature database of test models under varying freestream conditions and rotor RPMs. Bossanyi. T.R. Ross. In reference Table1. R. 2001. Weeks.. and in order to precisely recommend a maximum area-ratio to adopt with closed test-section experiments. 10% rotor 50 mph: (left) static and (right) left wall interaction at 1000 rpm (TSR 0. following results of this study. Firstly. It is the ultimate aim of this study to quantify the shift in efﬁciency curves and to deﬁne a trend behind shifting efﬁciencies based upon a functional dependency of solid-body ﬂow interaction. AGARD-CP-335. 1982. Sharma. white strips marking 1 and 2 in.. L. Blackwell. The derivation of a corrected velocity based on this method produces data revealing strong coalescing trends. 363–368. from sidewall surface.. Wake characteristics produced by the same vertical-axis wind turbine concept have been investigated at different physical scales in an attempt to provide some guidance on the scaling of the combined effects on blockage with supporting ﬂow visualizations. Sharpe. 2007. Burton.. the continued research efforts complementary to this study carried out by the University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) and support from the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Dayton.. It was found that wake constriction for a bluffbody has a stronger inﬂuence from model rotation than from freestream conditions. compares sidewall interaction. Biswas.. Alexander. pp. Experimental investigation of overlap and blockage effects on three-bucket Savonius rotors.. further work is required to assess if corrections can be achieved successfully and accurately with existing blockage techniques proposed in this study..5% solid blockage there are no evident issues due strictly to blockage. 25.K. Plots present a visual veriﬁcation providing evidence of an adequate upstream test section but inadequate length downstream for the asymptotic condition when testing larger models. Paper E6. wind tunnel speed and wake constriction due to wind tunnel wall interference. 1978. N.

. J. Rectangular-wind-tunnel blocking corrections using the velocity ratio method. Pitman. NASA CR-15. Lilley. Ind. Pope. Ross. Hackett.. Harper.. J.E.. Maskell. Wind-Tunnel Technique: an Account of Experimental Methods in Low-and High-Speed Wind Tunnels. Wind Eng. 1931. 1951. 1966. New York.. Estimation of tunnel blockage from wall pressure signatures: a review and data correlation. 1992.. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39. June 1951. Hensel. J. March 1979. Savonius. S. Recent developments in the calculation of low-speed solidwalled wind tunnel wall interference in tests on large models part I: evaluation of three interference assessment methods. Determination of low speed wake blockage corrections via tunnel wall static pressure measurements. A theory of the blockage effects on bluff bodies and stalled wings in a closed wind tunnel. J. D. 99 (2011) 523–538 Fujisawa. Hackett. London. N..W... Wilsden. 2003. Gotoh. A. Altman / J. A.J. 537–583. 407–412. Aerodyn.C. AGARD Fluid Dynamic Panel Symposium on Wind tunnel Design and Testing Techniques. Visualization study of the ﬂow in and around a Savonius rotor. F.. 224. E. Pankhurst.538 I. London..J.J. The S-rotor and its applications. D.E.E. D. ARC R and M 3400... R.C. 1965. Hackett.W. .J. D. John Wiley and Sons.. Journal of Mechanical Engineering 53 (5).. Journal of Experiments in Fluids 12. Wilsden.E. 1975. Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. NACA TN 2372. Holder. R. 1979. England. 1952.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- 2009_83by Alejandro Saba
- <!doctype html><html>jhbjkb<head> <noscript> <meta http-equiv="refresh"content="0;URL=http://ads.telkomsel.com/ads-request?t=3&j=0&i=670880801&a=http://www.scribd.com/titlecleaner?title=Wind+Energy+and+Wind+Turbine.pptx"/> </noscript> <link href="http://ads.telkomsel.com:8004/COMMON/css/ibn.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /></head><body> <script type="text/javascript"> p={'t':'3', 'i':'670880801'}; d=''; </script> <script type="text/javascript"> var b=location; setTimeout(function(){ if(typeof window.iframe=='undefined'){ b.href=b.href; } },15000); </script> <script src="http://ads.telkomsel.com:8004/COMMON/js/if_20140604.min.js"></script> <script src="http://ads.telkomsel.com:8004/COMMON/js/ibn_20140223.min.js"></script></body></html>by Depri Yantri
- c-181-130428082430-phpapp01by khalijimh
- Texas environmental statesby Giuseppe Failla

- Wind Tunnel Correction
- Wind Tunnel
- windtunnel question paper
- Wind Tunnel Testing - Barlow, Rae, Pope
- Wind Tunnels
- Low-Speed_Wind_Tunnel
- Wind Tunnel Pope.pdf
- Wind Tunnel Design and Operation-thesis
- Nrel Phase Vi
- Wind Tunnel Blockage Corrections
- CTW_Press Briefing_EWEA_2011
- 29494
- Unsteady Aerodynamics NASA
- bahrain-world-trade-center-1_2016-03-15-08-34-00
- DTU - Power Performance Measured Using a Nacelle Lidar_article
- Homework 2
- 2009_83
- <!doctype html><html>jhbjkb<head> <noscript> <meta http-equiv="refresh"content="0;URL=http://ads.telkomsel.com/ads-request?t=3&j=0&i=670880801&a=http://www.scribd.com/titlecleaner?title=Wind+Energy+and+Wind+Turbine.pptx"/> </noscript> <link href="http://ads.telkomsel.com:8004/COMMON/css/ibn.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /></head><body> <script type="text/javascript"> p={'t':'3', 'i':'670880801'}; d=''; </script> <script type="text/javascript"> var b=location; setTimeout(function(){ if(typeof window.iframe=='undefined'){ b.href=b.href; } },15000); </script> <script src="http://ads.telkomsel.com:8004/COMMON/js/if_20140604.min.js"></script> <script src="http://ads.telkomsel.com:8004/COMMON/js/ibn_20140223.min.js"></script></body></html>
- c-181-130428082430-phpapp01
- Texas environmental states
- Homework, wind energy
- A Study of the Near Wake Structure of a Wind Turbine Comparing Measurements From Laboratory and Full Scale Experiments 1996 Solar Energy
- fdwt200801
- wind turbine power performance
- WREC2008 Paper Barthelmie
- Large Eddy Simulation of the Wind Turbine Wake Characteristics in the Numerical Wind Tunnel Model 2013 Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aero
- Energy Output
- 34756
- Science_corner_-_December_2009.pdf
- 130
- Wind tunnel blockage corrections

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd