WIND TURBINE FINAL PROJECT

CALEB KREEGER

CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK

ME 59104
ABSTRACT

The airfoil I performed my analysis on was a Delft DU84-123V3. This airfoil belongs to the DU airfoil family, which
consists of a group of thick airfoils with a maximum relative thickness of 15 % to 40 % chord. These airfoils are
utilized worldwide by turbine manufacturers with rotor diameters ranging from 29 to 100 m. Research with thick
airfoils has been attempted before, by linearly scaling the coordinates from a NACA airfoil with a smaller thickness.
However, the NACA airfoil family suffers from a severe environmental degradation due to “premature transition”.
Therefore, researchers at Delft University set out to investigate the improved aerodynamic performance when
incorporating use of a think airfoil in a wind turbine.

2D AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS

My first steps involved performing a 2d aerodynamic analysis in ANSYS fluent to estimate the aerodynamic
coefficients. These would be needed later to carry out calculations using the Blade Element method. As well as
calculating Cl,Cd, and Cm I was interested in observing the behavior of the pressure velocity, and vorticity around
the airfoil and used contours for visualization. First, I saved the airfoil coordinates as a text file using Excel, then
uploaded the coordinates to Ansys Design Modeler. After uploading and generating the airfoil, I began to sketch
my C-shaped control volume. A series of sketches were then made on the control volume with which face splits
were used. These face splits allow for volume separation, specifically around the stagnation point, which ensured
good results for my CFD analysis and made mesh sizing possible. The control volume is shown below in Figure 1,
but the airfoil is hard to see so it is circled in red. On the next page in Figure 2 is a zoomed in screenshot of the face
split surrounding the stagnation point of the airfoil.

Figure 1- Control Volume

2D MESHING

The face splits made earlier allowed for the creation of a structured mesh, using a series of different mesh sizing
techniques in the mesh editor. To create my mesh, I used one simple face meshing with which I selected all 11
bodies in the workspace. I then used five sets of edge sizing with divisions to account for smooth mesh transition. I
believed that by using mesh sizing techniques, my results will come closer to convergence.

EDGE SIZING 1

Figure 2- edge sizing on c- shape

# of Divisions 25

Bias None

Growth Rate 1.2

 EDGE SIZING 2

Figure 3- edge sizing 2

# of Divisions 40

Bias None

Growth Rate 1.2

 EDGE SIZING 3

Figure 4- edge sizing for far field boundary condition

The third edge sizing had 200 divisions, a bias factor of 35, and a default growth rate of 1.2

# of Divisions 200

Bias Factor 35

Growth Rate 1.2

 EDGE SIZING 4

Figure 5- edge sizing 4

# of Divisions 25

Bias Factor 20

Growth Rate 1.2

 EDGE SIZING 5

Figure 6- edge sizing 5

# of Divisions 40

Bias 50

Growth Rate 1.2

 RESULTING STRUCTURED MESH

Figure 7- Structured mesh

Now that my mesh was created, I opened up Fluent and began my cfd analysis. For general options, I selected a
Density- Based type and Transient time simulation. The turbulence model I used was the k-epsilon model, which is
the most common turbulence model used and is good for modeling the atmospheric boundary layer. For materials,
I specified my fluid as air and gave it a constant density to make the simulation have incompressible flow. For
boundary conditions I first selected the velocity inlet and input a velocity magnitude and direction. The first
simulation done was at an angle of attack of 2 degrees. To account for the 2 degrees, I input sin(2) into the x-
component of flow direction, and cos(2) into the y-component of flow direction. To simulate the other 12 angles of
attack I would follow the same format and rotate the incoming flow rather than rotate the airfoil itself. After that, I
set up my pressure outlet boundary condition. The outlet flow should have the same conditions as the velocity
inlet, so I input the same x and y components of the flow direction. The next step in the solution method consisted
of setting up my reference values. I input the dimensions of the airfoil and set the velocity in the reference value
list. After that, I set up my report definitions to ensure I get my Cl, Cd and CM values at the conclusion of the
simulation. I then initialized the parameters using standard initialization, then ran my simulation. The results for 4
different angle of attacks are shown below, included are pressure, velocity and vorticity contours. Also shown are
the resulting lift, drag and moment coefficients.
 RESULTS

VELOCITY CONTOURS

2 DEGREES 6 DEGREES

10 DEGREES 14 DEGREES

Figure 8- Fluid is decelerating on lower airfoil surface with increase in angle of attack

From the velocity contours we can see that the fluid is decelerating on the lower surface of the airfoil as the angle
of attack increases. At the same time, the fluid is traveling at a higher velocity on the upper portion of the airfoil
surface. From Bernoulli’s equation we can predict that the upper surface of the airfoil will endure a lower pressure
than the bottom surface of the airfoil. As a result, the bottom surface should push up on the upper surface
generating a lift force. This means, as the angle of attack increases, we should see an increase of the lift coefficient
in our results.
 RESULTS

PRESSURE CONTOURS

2 DEGREES 6 DEGREES

10 DEGREES 14 DEGREES

Figure 9- As angle of attack increases, the pressure increases on airfoil lower surface

From the pressure contours, we can see that the pressure is increasing on the lower surface of the airfoil as the
angle of attack is increased. This behavior is what Bernoulli equation predicted, as the fluid velocity decelerates on
the lower surface, the pressure should increase. Due to the increase in pressure, we should see an increase in the.
lift coefficient as the angle of attack is increased.
 STREAMLINES

2 DEGREES 6 DEGREES

10 DEGREES 14 DEGREES

Figure 10- Streamlines for 2,4,10, and 14 degrees, respectively

 VORTICITY CONTOURS

2 DEGREES 4 DEGREES

8 DEGREES 10 DEGREES

Figure 11- Vorticity Contours

As the angle of attack is increased there is a slight change in the vorticity contours. It seems as if the circulation in
the far field boundary conditions changes in shape. The vortex ring in the upper right of the fair field boundary
condition is reduced to nearly half of its diameter, as the angle of attack is changed from 8 to 10 degrees,
 COEFFICIENT OF LIFT VS. ANGLE OF ATTACK

CL vs. AOA
1.5

0.5

0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-0.5

-1

Figure 12- Coefficient of Lift vs. Angle of Attack

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift

-14 .412

-12 .465

-10 .504

-8 .497

-6 .478

-4 .341

-2 .20

2 .142

4 .345

6 .654

8 .756

10 1.13

12 1.23

14 1.33

Table 1- Coefficient of Lift vs. Angle of Attack

 COEFFICIENT OF DRAG VS. ANGLE OF ATTACK

CD vs. AOA
1.5

0.5

0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-0.5

-1

Figure 13- Coefficient of Drag vs. Angle of Attack

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Drag

-14 .119

-12 .105

-10 .095

-8 .09

-6 .085

-4 .067

-2 .034

2 .038

4 .045

6 .057

8 .061

10 .081

12 .111

14 .124

Table 2- Coefficient of Drag vs. Angle of Attack

 COEFFICIENT OF MOMENT VS. ANGLE OF ATTACK

CM vs. Angle of Attack

0
-20 -15 -10 -5 -0.01 0 5 10 15 20

-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
-0.09
-0.1

Figure 14- Coefficient of Moment vs. Angle of Attack

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Moment

-14 -.065

-12 -.06

-10 -.077

-8 -.089

-6 -.091

-4 -.067

-2 -.075

2 -.087

4 -.077

6 -.068

8 -.052

10 -.048

12 -.055

14 -.034

Table 3- Coefficient of Moment vs. Angle of Attack

 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Shown below is data taken from the airfoil tools database, which shows the value of 𝐶𝐿 , 𝐶𝐷 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶𝑀 as the angle of
attack is varied. My 2d CFD results from ANSYS Fluent are pretty close in comparison for all three aerodynamic
coefficients.

Figure 15- Aerodynamic coefficients from database

 BLADE ELEMENT METHOD

Now that I performed my 2d aerodynamic analysis and obtained the essential aerodynamic coefficients necessary
for blade element analysis, I began to size and dimension the wind turbine blade. Our goal of using the blade
element method is to discretize our blade into 20-30 elements and use fluid mechanics to determine the power
output and thrust on each part of the blade. In theory, the flow is divided into independent stream tubes of width
dr. Aerodynamic analysis is then performed on each blade element is then found which helps determine the axial
and angular momentum changes of the air in the annular strip. Before calculating the lift and drag forces on each
blade element, the local angle of attack, flow velocity, twist angle and chord length all need to be determined. A
MATLAB code was written by the Professor which requires an input of angle of attack, turbine diameter,
aerodynamic coefficients, and tip speed ratio. The blade was broken up into twenty elements along 0 to R. The
value for Cl was 1.33, for CD 1.24, and for Cm -.034. The tip speed ratio used was 4 after finding maximum Cp.

Input- AOA-14°, diameter-15 m, aerodynamic coefficients, and tip

speed ratio

Output- Pitch angle, Cp, flow angle

I first varied the tip speed ratio and produce a 𝜆 vs. 𝐶𝑃 plot to decide which tip speed ratio will optimize the power
production out of our turbine blade. From the plot below we can see the maximum Cp occurs at a Tip speed ratio
of 4.

TSR vs. Cp
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 14- Tip Speed Ratio vs. Cp

With the tip speed ratio set, I began to think about which values I should use for the coefficient of lift and drag.
From my 2D cfd analysis done earlier in Ansys I found the maximum coefficient of lift occurred at an angle of attack
of 14 degrees. Keep in mind, this is only a maximum relative to the 14 possible orientations I selected. Although
the coefficient of drag is also at a maximum, which is not desirable, I believed this still to be the optimum
orientation in which we should simulate our turbine blade. The number of elements chosen was 21. The resulting
axial induction factor, angular induction, and pitch angle at each element is show below. Also, shown are the
convergence plots pitch angle vs. R/r, induction convergence, and induction factors along R/r.

OUTPUT

Element # Axial Ind. Angular Ind. Pitch Angle (Degrees)

1 .9174 .9104 26.75

2 .7887 .6413 33.12

3 .6902 .4290 35.35

4 .6272 .2929 35.31

5 .5875 .2076 34.27

6 .5619 .1527 32.88

7 .5447 .1160 31.46

8 .5327 .0906 30.11

9 .5241 .0724 28.89

10 .5177 .0589 27.79

11 .5128 .0488 26.82

12 .5090 .0409 25.95

13 .5060 .0347 25.19

14 .5036 .0298 24.51

15 .5000 .0225 23.90

16 .4986 .0198 23.35

17 .4975 .0175 22.86

18 .4965 .0156 22.41

19 .4957 .0139 22.00

20 .4954 .0128 21.63

21 .4950 .0125 21.29

Table 4- Induction factors and pitch angle at each blade element

 PITCH ANGLE

Figure 16- Pitch angle vs. R/r

INDUCTION CONVERGENCE

Figure 17- Induction Convergence vs. R/r

PITCH ANGLE DOWN LENGTH OF BLADE

Figure 18- Pitch angle vs. R/r

INDUCTION FACTORS

Figure 19- Induction factors vs. R/r

 SOLIDWORKS MODELING

When performing the blade element analysis in MATLAB, the blade was broken into 21 elements. In Solidworks, I
then set up 21 reference places spaced out along the chord length of the blade. From the MATLAB code, I was able
to calculate the pitch angle for every element (r/R). Each plane represents a single element (r/R) in which our
airfoil coordinate is to be imported and rotated to the corresponding pitch angle. For example, the 21 st element is
on the 21st reference plane, which contains the airfoil imported and rotated to an orientation 21.29 degrees. Once
the model is lofted the blade has a twisted shape and then the hub is drawn.

Figure 20- Loft shown w/ 21 planes and uploaded airfoils with corresponding pitch angle

Figure 21- Completed loft and resulting blade Figure 22- Completed Assembly
3D CFD ANALYSIS

The next step in my analysis involved importing my 3D model into Ansys and creating the control volume for my
cfd simulation. I sketched a small cylinder surrounding the three blades, which will allow me later to perform mesh
sizing functions in the region of interest, which is around the blades. Following that, I sketched the second
enclosure which was a large rectangle and accounts for the far field boundary condition. After setting up my
control volume I performed two sets of Boolean subtraction to ensure accurate results.

Figure 23- Interior enclosure Figure 24- exterior enclosure control volume

MESHING

When attempting to upload my model into the mesh editor an error occurred. Due to the limited capacity of my
computer, I could only perform mesh operations on a model of 512,00 cells or less. To resolve this issue, I went
back into Design Modeler and suppressed two of the blades. I then went back into the mesh editor and continued
with creating the mesh. My mesh consisted of three sets of body sizing. One sizing was for the outer enclosure and
contained medium size 10 m elements. The second body sizing was for the inner enclosure and was to have
smaller sized elements at .5 m due to its close proximity to the area of interest, the stagnation point around the
blades. The third set of body sizing was for the blade itself and contains fine sized .15 m elements. Shown below is
the wireframe view of the resulting mesh.
 BODY SIZING 1

Figure 25- Wireframe view of exterior control volume mesh

BODY SIZING 2 AND 3

Figure 26- Wire frame view of interior enclosure mesh

 SOLUTION METHOD

In the general setup tab, I selected a density-based solver, Transient analysis, and Absolute velocity form. The
Turbulence Model used was a 2-equation k-epsilon RNG model. RNG is the renormalization group theory which
contains an additional term that enhances accuracy for swirling flows. The next step was to set up the cell zone
conditions for the blade and ambient incoming air. The fluid domain was set to rotate and translate rather than
blade, due to simplicity. The angular velocity used was 4.8 rad/s and the translation velocity used was 18 m/s, the
same speed as the incoming wind. The wind turbine blade was then set to stay still as the incoming air flow was
already set to rotate. After that, I set my boundary conditions for the velocity inlet and outlet using a wind speed
of 18 m/s. I then set the outside rectangular domain as wall-non slip to minimize its contribution to the boundary
layer.

RESULTS

Figure 27- Velocity streamlines of rotating flow

Figure 28- Static Pressure Contours of Blade

Figure 29- Velocity Magnitude of Blade

 Figure 30- Vorticity Magnitude of Blade

Figure 31- Force and Moment x,y and z components

POWER CALCULATION

𝑃 = 𝑇𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 ∗ 𝜔

Torque is in (N-m) and is extracted from Ansys Fluent Results 𝑇𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 = √𝑀𝑥2 + 𝑀𝑦2 + 𝑀𝑧2 =

√13.132 + 59.632 + 101.622 = 117.69 N-m

Rotational Velocity is calculated from our known design values for Tip Speed ratio, Blade radius and wind speed.

𝜆
𝜔= 𝑈𝑤 ×
𝑅

4
=18×
15

𝑟𝑎𝑑
𝜔 = 4.8
𝑠

S 𝜆 is design tip speed ratio, at which maximum 𝐶𝑝 occurs. 𝑈𝑤 is incoming design wind speed and R is the radius.

Power= 117.69× 4.8= 564.9

Comparative Analysis

The Power initially assigned to me was 590 and my calculated power was 564.9 . My calculations are somewhat
close to the assigned Power but still off by a significant bit which warrants further revision to my modeling,
meshing, and solution method implemented during my CFD analysis. There are many ways to improve my
implementation of the cfd tools to increase the accuracy of my analysis. My control volume can be further
manipulated in Design Modeler to make different surfaces of the blade applicable for a various range of mesh
sizing techniques. Although due to the limited capacity of my computer and its inability to process meshes with
more than 512,000 elements, such mesh sizing techniques may only be useful to an extent. Although my results
could have been more accurate, I am satisfied with my results due to this being my first time using ANSYS. I am
grateful for being assigned this project as it has forced me to familiarize my self with this important software.
 APPENDIX

Matlab Code used:

clear all
close all
clc
clear all
close all
clc
%chord=0.20;%chord length of blade
alpha=14;;% Angle of attack
CL=1.5;
CD=0.04;
dia=4.;%diameter of the Wind Turbine
R=dia/2.0;
Lamda=4;

nel=20;% Number of Blade Elements along 0 to R

xs=0.05;% Starting location r/R of BE (starting at 5.0% R (hub) to R)
xt=1;
rstep=(xt-xs)/nel;
r1=[xs:rstep:xt];
Lamdar=r1*Lamda;

V=10.0; %velocity. Value not needed

a=0.1;% induced velocity factors
b=0.1;
J1=0;

V0=(1-a);
V2=Lamdar*(1+b);%disk plane velocity
phi=180/pi*atan2(V0,V2);%flow angle
pitchangle=alpha+phi;

Cn=CD*sin(phi*pi/180)+CL*cos(phi*pi/180);
Ct=CL*sin(phi*pi/180)-CD*cos(phi*pi/180);
N=3;% # of blades, N=3

C=8*pi*r1.*R.*sin(phi*pi/180)./(3*N*Lamdar); %Chord along 0 to R

sigma=N*C./(2*pi*r1*R);% Solidity N
an=1./(1+4*sin(phi*pi/180).*sin(phi*pi/180)./(sigma.*Cn));
bn=(an.*Ct)./(Lamdar.*Cn);

Ncon=3;% NUmber of iterations to converge

for j=1:1:Ncon
J1=J1+1;
V0=(1-an);
V2=Lamdar.*(1+bn);%disk plane velocity
phi=180/pi*atan2(V0,V2);%flow angle
pitchangle=alpha+phi;

Cn=CD*sin(phi*pi/180)+CL*cos(phi*pi/180);
Ct=CL*sin(phi*pi/180)-CD*cos(phi*pi/180);
N=3;% # of blades, N=3

C=8*pi*r1.*R.*sin(phi*pi/180)./(3*N*Lamdar); %Chord along 0 to R

sigma=N*C./(2*pi*r1*R);% Solidity N
an=1./(1+4*sin(phi*pi/180).*sin(phi*pi/180)./(sigma.*Cn));
bn=(an.*Ct)./(Lamdar.*Cn);
An(:,:,J1)=an;
Bn(:,:,J1)=bn;
Phi(:,:,J1)=phi;

end

%Monitor convergence
for k=1:1:Ncon
figure (1)
 plot(r1, Phi(:,:,k),'-*b','LineWidth',2.0,'MarkerSize',12)
hold on
plot(r1, 90-Phi(:,:,k),'-*r','LineWidth',2.0,'MarkerSize',12)
grid on
title(['Pitch angle vs r/R'],'FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
ylabel('pitch angle, ^o','FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
xlabel('radial blade location, r/R','FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
legend('pitch angle relative to rotation plane','pitch angle relative to incoming velocity
Uz','location','east')
end

for k=1:1:Ncon
figure (2)
plot(r1, An(:,:,k),'-*b','LineWidth',2.0,'MarkerSize',12)
hold on
plot(r1, Bn(:,:,k),'-*r','LineWidth',2.0,'MarkerSize',12)
grid on
title(['Induction Convergence vs r/R'],'FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
ylabel('pitch angle, ^o','FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
xlabel('radial blade location, r/R','FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
legend('Induction upstream','Induction downstream','location','east')
end

%Power Coeff Cp
deltaLamdar=gradient(Lamdar)
Cpp=(8/Lamda^2)*bn.*(1-an).*Lamdar.^3.*deltaLamdar
Cp=sum(Cpp)

%Final output
out1=[r1' pitchangle' 90-pitchangle'];
figure (11)
plot(r1, pitchangle,'-*b','LineWidth',2.0,'MarkerSize',12)
hold on
plot(r1, 90-pitchangle,'-*r','LineWidth',2.0,'MarkerSize',12)
grid on
title(['Pitch angle vs r/R'],'FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
ylabel('pitch angle, ^o','FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
xlabel('radial blade location, r/R','FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
legend('pitch angle relative to rotation plane','pitch angle relative to incoming velocity
Uz','location','east')

ax = gca;
set(ax,'FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')

figure (12)
plot(r1, an,'-*b','LineWidth',2.0,'MarkerSize',12)
hold on
plot(r1, bn,'-*r','LineWidth',2.0,'MarkerSize',12)
grid on
title(['Induction factors vs r/R'],'FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
ylabel('Induction factors, ^o','FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
xlabel('radial blade location, r/R','FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
legend('induction factor upstream','induction factor downstream','location','east')

ax = gca;
set(ax,'FontSize',30,'FontWeight','bold')
 REFERENCES

[1] Rooij, van Ruud. “Design of Airfoils for Wind Turbine Blades”. Delft University of Technology. 03 May, 2004

[2]