Wind tunnel validation of AeroDyn within LIFES50+ project: imposed Surge and Pitch tests

Bayati, Ilmas; Belloli, Marco; Bernini, Luca; Zasso, Alberto

doi:10.1088/1742-6596/753/9/092001

Cited by 41 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relative velocity at the hub is then equal to U rel = U ∞ + U dyn . The thrust variation is plotted as a function of the dynamic velocity at the hub following the methodology used by Bayati et al In this representation of the oscillating thrust Δ Thrust = f ( U dyn ), the slope of the elliptic curve corresponds to the aerodynamic damping, in‐phase with the velocity, whereas the hysteresis area is correlated with quadrature‐phase phenomena, which are aerodynamic added mass and stiffness. However, the differences between mean loadings in the three different models cannot be represented following this methodology as only the dynamic loadings are plotted.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of aerodynamic modeling on seakeeping performance of a floating horizontal axis wind turbine

Leroy

Gilloteaux

Lynch³

et al. 2019

Wind Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decade, several coupled simulation tools have been developed in order to design and optimize floating wind turbines (FWTs). In most of these tools, the aerodynamic modeling is based on quasi‐steady aerodynamic models such as the blade element momentum (BEM). It may not be accurate enough for FWTs as the motion of the platform induces highly unsteady phenomena around the rotor. To address this issue, a new design tool has been developed coupling a seakeeping solver with an unsteady aerodynamic solver based on the free vortex wake (FVW) theory. This tool is here compared with the reference code FAST, which is based on the BEM theory in order to characterize the impact of the aerodynamic model on the seakeeping of a floating horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT). Aerodynamic solvers are compared for the case of the free floating NREL 5MW HAWT supported by the OC3Hywind SPAR. Differences obtained between the models have been analyzed through a study of the aerodynamic loads acting on the same turbine in imposed harmonic surge and pitch motions. This provides a better understanding of the intrinsic differences between the quasi‐steady and unsteady aerodynamic solvers. The study shows that differences can be observed between the three aerodynamic solvers, especially at high tip speed ratio (TSR) for which unsteady aerodynamic phenomena and complex wake dynamics occur. Observed discrepancies in the predictions of the FWT dynamic response can raise issues when designing such a system with a state‐of‐the‐art design tool.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of aerodynamic modeling on seakeeping performance of a floating horizontal axis wind turbine

Leroy

Gilloteaux

Lynch³

et al. 2019

Wind Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As presented previously, the thrust oscillation at the motion frequency is extracted through a Fourier analysis. This thrust variation is then plotted as a function of the dynamic velocity at the equator of the VAWT (mid‐height of the rotor) following the methodology presented in Bayati et al on an HAWT. In this representation of the oscillating thrust Δ Thrust = f( U dyn ), the slope of the elliptic curve corresponds to the aerodynamic damping, in‐phase with the velocity whereas the hysteresis area is correlated with quadrature‐phase phenomena, which are aerodynamic added mass and stiffness.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of aerodynamic modelling on seakeeping performance of a floating vertical axis wind turbine

Leroy

Gilloteaux

Lynch³

et al. 2019

Wind Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on the impact of the aerodynamic model on the dynamic response of a floating vertical axis wind turbine (VAWT). It compares a state‐of‐the‐art quasi‐steady double multiple streamtube (DMS) solver, a prescribed vortex wake (PVW), and a free vortex wake (FVW) solver. The aerodynamic loads acting on a bottom‐fixed VAWT and computed with the three aerodynamic solvers are compared, then the dynamic responses of the floating turbine in irregular waves and turbulent wind with the different aerodynamic solvers are compared. Differences are observed, particularly in the mean motions of the platform. Eventually, the aerodynamic damping computed by the solvers are estimated with aerodynamic simulations on the turbine with imposed surge and pitch motions. The estimated damping can then be correlated with the dynamic response amplitude of the VAWT. Substantial discrepancies are observed between the three solvers at high tip speed ratio, when the rotor is highly loaded. It is shown that the quasi‐steady DMS solver seems to give greater amplitude of motions for the floating VAWT because of strong rotor/wake interaction that are not correctly accounted for.

show abstract

“…This is done in order to ensure that the unsteady behaviour of the turbine is well reproduced by the model since the turbine is also going to be tested for unsteady condition (Bayati et al, 2016a). Moreover, it is reasonable to consider that, by first approximation, the unsteady behaviour of an aerodynamic body function of the first derivatives of the drag and lift curves calculated around the steady angle of attack (Cheli and Diana, 2015).…”

Section: Aerodynamic Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beside the steady aerodynamic curves, wind tunnel tests allowed for a first analysis of the unsteady scaled model response (Bayati et al, 2016a). As stated in Sec.4.1, the aerodynamic design of the scaled blade was done comparing the lift coefficient derivatives of the full scale and the model scale airfoil, this should ensure that the unsteady response of the scaled turbine due to dynamic variation of the operational parameters is similar to the DTU 10 MW one.…”

Section: Wind Tunnel Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aerodynamic design methodology for wind tunnel tests of wind turbine rotors

Bayati

Belloli

Bernini

et al. 2017

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wind tunnel validation of AeroDyn within LIFES50+ project: imposed Surge and Pitch tests

Cited by 41 publications

References 5 publications

Impact of aerodynamic modeling on seakeeping performance of a floating horizontal axis wind turbine

Impact of aerodynamic modeling on seakeeping performance of a floating horizontal axis wind turbine

Impact of aerodynamic modelling on seakeeping performance of a floating vertical axis wind turbine

Aerodynamic design methodology for wind tunnel tests of wind turbine rotors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About