TY - JOUR
T1 - Aerodynamic model comparison for an X-shaped vertical-axis wind turbine
AU - Giri Ajay, A.
AU - Morgan, Laurence
AU - Wu, Y.
AU - Bretos, David
AU - Cascales, Aurelio
AU - Pires, Oscar
AU - Ferreira, Carlos
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - This article presents a comparison study of different aerodynamic models for an X-shaped vertical-axis wind turbine and offers insight into the 3D aerodynamics of this rotor at fixed pitch offsets. The study compares six different numerical models: a double-multiple streamtube (DMS) model, a 2D actuator cylinder (2DAC) model, an inviscid free vortex wake model (from CACTUS), a free vortex wake model with turbulent vorticity (from QBlade), a blade-resolved unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS) model, and a lattice Boltzmann method (from PowerFLOW). All models, except URANS and PowerFLOW use the same blade element characteristics other than the number of blade elements. This comparison covers the present rotor configuration for several tip-speed ratios and fixed blade pitch offsets without unsteady corrections, except for the URANS and PowerFLOW which cover a single case. The results show that DMS and 2DAC models are inaccurate – especially at highly loaded conditions, are unable to predict the downwind blade vortex interaction, and do not capture the vertical/axial induction this rotor exhibits. The vortex models are consistent with each other, and the differences when compared against the URANS and PowerFLOW mostly arise due to the unsteady and flow curvature effects. Furthermore, the influence of vertical induction is very prominent for this rotor, and this effect becomes more significant with fixed pitch offsets where the flow at the blade root is considerably altered.
AB - This article presents a comparison study of different aerodynamic models for an X-shaped vertical-axis wind turbine and offers insight into the 3D aerodynamics of this rotor at fixed pitch offsets. The study compares six different numerical models: a double-multiple streamtube (DMS) model, a 2D actuator cylinder (2DAC) model, an inviscid free vortex wake model (from CACTUS), a free vortex wake model with turbulent vorticity (from QBlade), a blade-resolved unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS) model, and a lattice Boltzmann method (from PowerFLOW). All models, except URANS and PowerFLOW use the same blade element characteristics other than the number of blade elements. This comparison covers the present rotor configuration for several tip-speed ratios and fixed blade pitch offsets without unsteady corrections, except for the URANS and PowerFLOW which cover a single case. The results show that DMS and 2DAC models are inaccurate – especially at highly loaded conditions, are unable to predict the downwind blade vortex interaction, and do not capture the vertical/axial induction this rotor exhibits. The vortex models are consistent with each other, and the differences when compared against the URANS and PowerFLOW mostly arise due to the unsteady and flow curvature effects. Furthermore, the influence of vertical induction is very prominent for this rotor, and this effect becomes more significant with fixed pitch offsets where the flow at the blade root is considerably altered.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85186268216&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5194/wes-9-453-2024
DO - 10.5194/wes-9-453-2024
M3 - Article
SN - 2366-7443
VL - 9
SP - 453
EP - 470
JO - Wind Energy Science
JF - Wind Energy Science
IS - 2
ER -