4.7 Review

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

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2011.02.002

Keywords

Low speed wind tunnel; Wind tunnel blockage corrections; Vertical-axis wind turbine; Aerodynamics; Bluff-body aerodynamics; Savonius

Funding

  1. Twenty First Century Energy (TFCE)
  2. Innovative Scientific Solutions, Incorporated (ISSI)
  3. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Dayton

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available