A computational investigation of New MEXICO test cases operating under axial flow conditions is reported. Three wind speed cases (10, 15, 24 m/s) corresponding to three different tip speed ratios (10, 6.67, 4.17) when the turbine operates at 425.1 rpm were considered. ANSYS CFX 2021R1 was employed to perform simulations using Single Reference Frame (SRF) and Multiple Reference Frame (MRF) approaches. The flow field is computed by solving unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (uRANS) equations coupled with SST k-ω turbulence model and Gamma-Theta transition model. Validation involved comparing CFD-predicted integral quantities, static pressure distributions, and loads with corresponding experimental values demonstrating reasonably good agreement at all three wind speeds. Overall, SRF exhibited slightly better wake predictions (hypothetical), while MRF predictions were closer to measurements for integral quantities, static pressure and loads. This study demonstrates the utility of uRANS-based 3D CFD computations in wind turbine aerodynamics studies.
BurtonTJenkinsNSharpeD, et al. (2011) Wind Energy Handbook. John Wiley & Sons. DOI:10.1002/9781119992714
12.
CaoH (2011) Aerodynamics analysis of small horizontal axis wind turbine blades by using 2D and 3D CFD modelling. Diss. University of central Lancashire.
13.
CaoN (2010) Effects of turbulence intensity and integral length scale on an asymmetric airfoil at low Reynolds numbers. Master’s Thesis, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, USA.
14.
DavidS, et al. (2001) NREL unsteady aerodynamics experiment in the NASA-Ames wind tunnel: a comparison of predictions to measurements. No. NREL/TP-500-29494. National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
15.
EleniD (2012) Evaluation of the turbulence models for the simulation of the flow over a national advisory committee for aeronautics (NACA) 0012 airfoil. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research4(3): 100–111. DOI: 10.5897/jmer11.074
16.
FerrerEMunduateX (2007) Wind turbine blade tip comparison using CFD. Journal of Physics Conference Series75(1): 012005.1–11.
17.
FlorianrM (1993) Zonal two equation kw turbulence models for aerodynamic flows. In: 23rd fluid dynamics, plasmadynamics, and lasers conference, p.2906. DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-2906.
18.
GajendranMKKabirIFSAVadiveluS, et al. (2023) Machine learning-based approach to wind turbine wake prediction under yawed conditions. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering11(11): 2111.
19.
GençMS (2010) Numerical simulation of flow over a thin aerofoil at a high Reynolds number using a transition model. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science224(10): 2155–2164.
20.
GielenDGoriniRWagnerN, et al. (2019) Global energy transformation: A roadmap to 2050. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
21.
GunturSSørensenNN (2015) A study on rotational augmentation using CFD analysis of flow in the inboard region of the MEXICO rotor blades. Wind Energy18(4): 745–756.
22.
HandMMSimmsDAFingershLJ, et al. (2001) Unsteady aerodynamics experiment phase VI: wind tunnel test configurations and available data campaigns. No. NREL/TP-500-29955. National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA.
23.
HansenACButterfieldCP (1993) Aerodynamics of horizontal-axis wind turbines. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics25(1): 115–149.
24.
HeisterCC (2018) RANS simulation of the New MEXICO rotor experiment including laminar-turbulent transition. In: New results in numerical and experimental fluid mechanics XI: Contributions to the 20th STAB/DGLR symposium, Braunschweig, Germany, 2016, pp.729–739. New York city: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-64519-3_65.
25.
HimmelskampH (1947) Profile investigations on a rotating airscrew. Dissertation, Göttingen, 1945 (Reports and Translations No. 832)
IEC 61400-1 (2019) Wind Turbine Generator Systems – Part 1: Safety Requirements, 4th edn.Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.
30.
LanzafameRMauroSMessinaM (2013) Wind turbine CFD modeling using a correlation-based transitional model. Renewable Energy52: 31–39.
31.
LeishmanJG (2002) Challenges in modelling the unsteady aerodynamics of wind turbines. Wind Energy5(2–3): 85–132.
32.
LinMSarlakH (2016) A comparative study on the flow over an airfoil using transitional turbulence models. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol. 1738(1), pp. 030050. 1–4. Rhodes, Greece: AIP Publishing.
33.
MenterFR (1997) Eddy viscosity transport equations and their relation to the K-ε model. Journal of Fluids Engineering119(4): 876–884.
34.
MichnaJRogowskiKBanggaG, et al. (2021) Accuracy of the gamma re-theta transition model for simulating the DU-91-W2-250 airfoil at high Reynolds numbers. Energies14(24): 8224.
35.
OhyaYKarasudaniT (2010) A shrouded wind turbine generating high output power with wind-lens technology. Energies3(4): 634–649.
36.
OhyaYKarasudaniTNagaiT, et al. (2017) Wind lens technology and its application to wind and water turbine and beyond. Renewable Energy and Environmental Sustainability2: 2.
37.
ParraEABoorsmaKSchepersJG, et al. (2016) Momentum considerations on the New MEXICO experiment. Journal of Physics Conference Series753: 1–13.
38.
PlazaBBarderaRVisiedoS (2015) Comparison of BEM and CFD results for MEXICO rotor aerodynamics. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics145: 115–122.
39.
PurohitSKabirIFSANgEYK (2021) On the accuracy of urans and LES-based CFD modeling approaches for rotor and wake aerodynamics of the (New) MEXICO wind turbine rotor phase-iii. Energies14(16): 5198.
40.
PurohitSNgEYKSyed Ahmed KabirIF (2022) Evaluation of three potential machine learning algorithms for predicting the velocity and turbulence intensity of a wind turbine wake. Renewable Energy184: 405–420.
41.
QianYZhangZWangT (2018) Comparative study of the aerodynamic performance of the new MEXICO rotor under yaw conditions. Energies11(4): 833.
42.
RegodesevesPGMorrosCS (2020) Unsteady numerical investigation of the full geometry of a horizontal axis wind turbine: Flow through the rotor and wake. Energy202: 1–16.
43.
SchepersJGBoorsmaKChoT, et al. (2012) Final report of IEA Task 29, Mexnet (Phase 1): Analysis of Mexico wind tunnel measurements. IEA.
44.
SchepersJGBoorsmaKGomez-IradiS, et al. (2014) Final report of IEA task 29, Mexnext (Phase 2). Energy Research Center of the Netherlands. Petten, The Netherlands: ECN-E-14-060.
45.
SchepersJGSnelH (2007) Model experiments in controlled conditions. ECN Report: ECN-E-07-042484.
46.
ShaikMSubramanianB (2023) Computational investigation of NREL Phase-VI rotor: Validation of test sequence-S measurements. Wind Engineering47(5): 973–994.
47.
SpyropoulosNPapadakisGProspathopoulosJM, et al. (2022) Assessment of a hybrid Eulerian–Lagrangian CFD solver for wind turbine applications and comparison with the new MEXICO experiment. Fluids7(9): 296.
48.
SubramanianBChokaniNAbhariRS (2015) Drone-based experimental investigation of three-dimensional flow structure of a multi-megawatt wind turbine in complex terrain. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering137(5): 051007-1-051007-10. DOI: 10.1115/1.4031038
49.
Syed Ahmed KabirIFGajendranMKNgEYK, et al. (2022) Novel machine-learning-based stall delay correction model for improving blade element momentum analysis in wind turbine performance prediction. Wind2(4): 636–658.
50.
Syed Ahmed KabirIFNgEYK (2017) Insight into stall delay and computation of 3D sectional aerofoil characteristics of NREL phase VI wind turbine using inverse BEM and improvement in BEM analysis accounting for stall delay effect. Energy120: 518–536.
51.
Syed Ahmed KabirIFNgEYK (2019) Effect of different atmospheric boundary layers on the wake characteristics of NREL phase VI wind turbine. Renewable Energy130: 1185–1197.
52.
Syed Ahmed KabirIFSafiyullahFNgEYK, et al. (2020) New analytical wake models based on artificial intelligence and rivalling the benchmark full-rotor CFD predictions under both uniform and ABL inflows. Energy193: 1–63.
53.
SørensenNNMichelsenJASchreckS (2002) Navier–Stokes predictions of the NREL Phase VI rotor in the NASA Ames 80 ft × 120 ft wind tunnel. Wind Energy5(2–3): 151–169.
54.
SørensenNNZahleFBoorsmaK, et al. (2016) CFD computations of the second round of MEXICO rotor measurements. Journal of Physics Conference Series753: 1–10.
55.
TossasLMartinezSLeonardi (2013) Wind turbine modeling for computational fluid dynamics. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Technical Report No. NREL/SR-5000-55054.
56.
VorpahlFStrobelMJonkmanJM, et al. (2014) Verification of aero-elastic offshore wind turbine design codes under IEA wind task XXIII. Wind Energy17(4): 519–547.
57.
WangLLiuXKoliosA (2016) State of the art in the aeroelasticity of wind turbine blades: Aeroelastic modelling. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews64: 195–210.
58.
WilcoxD (1991) A half century historical review of the k-omega model. In:29th aerospace Sciences meeting, p. 615. DOI: 10.2514/6.1991-615.
59.
YelmuleMMVsjEA (2013) CFD predictions of NREL phase VI rotor experiments in NASA/AMES wind tunnel. International journal of renewable energy research3(2): 261–269.
60.
ZhangYvan ZuijlenAvan BusselG (2017a) The MEXICO rotor aerodynamic loads prediction: ZigZag tape effects and laminar-turbulent transition modeling in CFD. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics168: 152–163.
61.
ZhangYSunZvan ZuijlenA, et al. (2017b) Numerical simulation of transitional flow on a wind turbine airfoil with RANS-based transition model. Journal of Turbulence18(9): 879–898.
62.
ZhuCChenJQiuY, et al. (2021) Numerical investigation into rotational augmentation with passive vortex generators on the NREL phase VI blade. Energy223: 120089. 1–14.
