CFD Analysis of Rotating Two-Bladed Flatback Wind Turbine Rotor
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SANDIA REPORT SAND2008-1688 Unlimited Release Printed April 2008 CFD Analysis of Rotating Two-Bladed Flatback Wind Turbine Rotor David D. Chao and C.P. “Case” van Dam Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited. Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors. Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone: (865) 576-8401 Facsimile: (865) 576-5728 E-Mail: [email protected] Online ordering: http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available to the public from U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Rd. Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone: (800) 553-6847 Facsimile: (703) 605-6900 E-Mail: [email protected] Online order: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.asp?loc=7-4-0#online 2 SAND2008-1688 Unlimited Release Printed April 2008 CFD Analysis of Rotating Two-Bladed Flatback Wind Turbine Rotor David D. Chao and C. P. “Case” van Dam Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering University of California One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616-5294 Dale E. Berg, Sandia National Laboratories Technical Manager Sandia Contract No. 15890 Abstract The effects of modifying the inboard portion of the NREL Phase VI rotor using a thickened, flatback version of the S809 design airfoil are studied using a three- dimensional Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes method. A motivation for using such a thicker airfoil design coupled with a blunt trailing edge is to alleviate structural constraints while reducing blade weight and maintaining the power performance of the rotor. The calculated results for the baseline Phase VI rotor are benchmarked against wind tunnel results obtained at 10, 7, and 5 meters per second. The calculated results for the modified rotor are compared against those of the baseline rotor. The results of this study demonstrate that a thick, flatback blade profile is viable as a bridge to connect structural requirements with aerodynamic performance in designing future wind turbine rotors. 3 Acknowledgements This project was supported by TPI Composites of Warren, Rhode Island under Contract 15890 – Revision 4 with Sandia National Laboratories. The primary members of the TPI team were Derek Berry (Principal Investigator) and Steve Nolet of TPI, Kevin Jackson of Dynamic Design, Michael Zuteck of MDZ Consulting and C.P. (Case) van Dam and his graduate students (David Chao for this particular effort) at the University of California at Davis. The members of the Sandia team were Tom Ashwill, Dale Berg (Technical Manager), Daniel Laird, Mark Rumsey, Herbert Sutherland, Paul Veers and Jose Zayas. 4 Table of Contents Abstract.............................................................................................................................. 3 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 4 Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. 5 List of Figures.................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 9 Flow Solver and Grid Generation ................................................................................. 10 Rotor Configurations .................................................................................................... 11 Grid Generation ............................................................................................................ 12 Results and Discussion.................................................................................................... 12 10 meters per second..................................................................................................... 13 7 meters per second....................................................................................................... 15 5 meters per second....................................................................................................... 16 Flow visualization......................................................................................................... 17 Some further analysis.................................................................................................... 18 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 20 References........................................................................................................................ 77 5 List of Figures Figure 1. Comparison of S809 design airfoil and modified S809 with 40% maximum thickness-to-chord ratio and 10% flatback trailing edge................................ 23 Figure 2. Tunnel views of geometric schedules for (a) baseline rotor blade, and (b) flatback rotor blade. ....................................................................................... 24 Figure 3. Views of computational grid for (a) baseline rotor, (b) flatback rotor, and (c) overall grid field............................................................................................. 25 Figure 4, Torque convergence histories for 10 m/s cases: (a) normal dynamic simulations, (b) dynamic simulations with 250% scaled velocities, and (c) source term with low-Mach preconditioning simulations.............................. 27 Figure 5. Comparison of spanwise normal force coefficients for baseline rotor at 10 m/s. ................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 6. Pressure coefficient distributions for baseline rotor at 10 m/s: (a) 30% span station, (b) 47% span station, (c) 63% span station, (d) 80% span station, and (e) 95% span station....................................................................................... 30 Figure 7. Comparison of spanwise normal force coefficients for flatback rotor at 10 m/s. ................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 8. Pressure coefficient distributions for flatback rotor at 10 m/s: (a) 30% span station, (b) 47% span station, (c) 63% span station, (d) 80% span station, and (e) 95% span station....................................................................................... 34 Figure 9. Smooth plots of velocity magnitude on suction side surface of rotor configurations at 10 m/s for (a) baseline rotor, and (b) flatback rotor. Black lines refer to span stations where Cp distributions are compared. Red line refers to 45% span station where blade geometries for both configurations become the same. Solutions obtained from source term with low-Mach preconditioning simulation............................................................................. 37 Figure 10. Torque convergence histories for 7 m/s cases: (a) normal dynamic simulations, (b) dynamic simulations with 250% scaled velocities, and (c) source term with low-Mach preconditioning simulations.............................. 38 Figure 11. Comparison of spanwise normal force coefficients for baseline rotor at 7 m/s. ........................................................................................................................ 40 6 Figure 12. Pressure coefficient distributions for baseline rotor at 7 m/s: (a) 30% span station, (b) 47% span station, (c) 63% span station, (d) 80% span station, and (e) 95% span station....................................................................................... 41 Figure 13. Comparison of spanwise normal force coefficients for flatback rotor at 7 m/s. ........................................................................................................................ 44 Figure 14. Pressure coefficient distributions for flatback rotor at 7 m/s: (a) 30% span station, (b) 47% span station,