4.7 Article

Aerodynamic modeling of wind turbine loads exposed to turbulent inflow and validation with experimental data

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 223, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120076

Keywords

Aerodynamics; BEM; CFD; Loads; Momentum; Turbulence

Funding

  1. Danish Energy Authorities [33033-0074, 64009-0258]
  2. Vestas
  3. Siemens
  4. LM
  5. Dong Energy
  6. DTU

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study assesses the ability of CFD and BEM methods for accurate load predictions on a wind turbine rotor, finding good agreement between both methods and experimental data on mean load levels and load fluctuations with differences of less than 10% for most radial stations.
The present paper is intended to assess the ability of the state-of-the-art computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and blade element momentum (BEM) approaches for accurate load predictions on a 2.3 MW wind turbine rotor. Three different cases are considered, a steady uniform inflow condition, a turbulent uniform inflow condition and a turbulent inflow case in combination with shear and yaw. The CFD computations employ a delayed-detached eddy simulation (DDES) approach in combination with a high order (5th) WENO method for flux discretization. The BEM calculations apply several correction factors including recently developed dynamic stall and yaw models. Furthermore, a well established procedure at IAG to set-up BEM calculations consistent to CFD will be presented and verified. The results are compared with the field experimental data of the turbine for these three different flow conditions. The studies show that both CFD and BEM results are in a very good agreement with the experimental data not only on the mean load levels but also with regards to the load fluctuations. The differences between BEM, CFD and experimental data for most radial stations are less than 10%. ? 2021 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