0
Research Papers: Alternative Energy Sources

Performance Effects of Leading Edge Tubercles on the NREL Phase VI Wind Turbine Blade

[+] Author and Article Information
Giada Abate

School of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30318
e-mail: gabate3@gatech.edu

Dimitri N. Mavris, Lakshmi N. Sankar

Regents Professor
School of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30318

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received May 28, 2018; final manuscript received January 10, 2019; published online February 18, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Christopher Niezrecki.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 141(5), 051206 (Feb 18, 2019) (9 pages) Paper No: JERT-18-1385; doi: 10.1115/1.4042529 History: Received May 28, 2018; Revised January 10, 2019

Several studies on wind energy have been conducted to find possible solutions to power issues related to the variable nature of the wind. One of the most promising seems to be the application of sinusoidal modifications (tubercles) on the leading edge of wind turbine blades. In the present work, a systematic study on the effects of different tubercle configurations on NREL phase VI wind turbine performance is conducted. A design of experiments is used to generate blades with different tubercle amplitude and wavelength that are then simulated by a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis. The resulting power and annual energy production (AEP) are compared with the baseline values noticing a positive effect of tubercles on the power at high wind speeds.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Fish, F. E. , and Battle, J. M. , 1995, “ Hydrodynamic Design of the Humpback Whale Flipper,” J. Morphol., 225(1), pp. 51–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fish, F. , and Lauder, G. , 2006, “ Passive and Active Flow Control by Swimming Fishes and Mammals,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 38(1), pp. 193–224. [CrossRef]
Miklosovic, D. , Murray, M. , Howle, L. , and Fish, F. , 2004, “ Leading-Edge Tubercles Delay Stall on Humpback Whale (Megaptera Novaeangliae) Flippers,” Phys. Fluids, 16(5), pp. L39–L42. [CrossRef]
Hansen, K. L. , Kelso, R. M. , and Dally, B. B. , 2011, “ Performance Variations of Leading-Edge Tubercles for Distinct Airfoil Profiles,” AIAA J., 49(1), pp. 185–194. [CrossRef]
Hansen, K. L. , 2012, “ Effect of Leading Edge Tubercles on Airfoil Performance,” Ph.D. thesis, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Hansen, K. L. , Rostamzadeh, N. , Kelso, R. M. , and Dally, B. B. , 2016, “ Evolution of the Streamwise Vortices Generated Between Leading Edge Tubercles,” J. Fluid Mech., 788, pp. 730–766. [CrossRef]
Zhang, R.-K. , and Wu, V. D. J.-Z. , 2012, “ Aerodynamic Characteristics of Wind Turbine Blades With a Sinusoidal Leading Edge,” Wind Energy, 15(3), pp. 407–424. [CrossRef]
Abate, G. , and Mavris, D. N. , 2017, “ CFD Analysis of Leading Edge Tubercle Effects on Wind Turbine Performance,” AIAA Paper No. 2017-4626. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2017-4626
Abate, G. , and Mavris, D. N. , 2018, “ Performance Analysis of Different Positions of Leading Edge Tubercles on a Wind Turbine Blade,” AIAA Paper No. 2018-1494.
Skillen, A. , Revell, A. , Pinelli, A. , Piomelli, U. , and Favier, J. , 2014, “ Flow Over a Wing With Leading-Edge Undulations,” AIAA J., 53(2), pp. 464–472. [CrossRef]
Johari, H. , Henoch, C. W. , Custodio, D. , and Levshin, A. , 2007, “ Effects of Leading-Edge Protuberances on Airfoil Performance,” AIAA J., 45(11), pp. 2634–2642. [CrossRef]
Kumar, S. , and Amano, R. , 2012, “ Wind Turbine Blade Design and Analysis With Tubercle Technology,” ASME Paper No. DETC2012-70688.
Huang, G.-Y. , Shiah, Y. , Bai, C.-J. , and Chong, W. , 2015, “ Experimental Study of the Protuberance Effect on the Blade Performance of a Small Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 147, pp. 202–211. [CrossRef]
Bellequant, L. , and Howle, L. E. , 2009, “ WhalePower Wenvor Blade: A Report in the Efficiency of a WalePower Corp. 5 Meter Prototype Wind Turbine Blade,” BelleQuant Engineering, PLLC, Mebane, NC.
Ibrahim, M. , Alsultan, A. , Shen, S. , and Amano, R. S. , 2015, “ Advances in Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Blade Designs: Introduction of Slots and Tubercle,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 137(5), p. 051205. [CrossRef]
Amano, R. S. , 2017, “ Review of Wind Turbine Research in 21st Century,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 139(5), p. 050801. [CrossRef]
Hand, M. , Simms, D. , Fingersh, L. , Jager, D. , Cotrell, J. , Schreck, S. , and Larwood, S. , 2001, “ Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment Phase—VI: Wind Tunnel Test Configurations and Available Data Campaigns,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/TP-500-29955. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/29955.pdf
Johnson, M. E. , Moore, L. M. , and Ylvisaker, D. , 1990, “ Minimax and Maximin Distance Designs,” J. Stat. Plann. Inference, 26(2), pp. 131–148. [CrossRef]
Loeppky, J. L. , Sacks, J. , and Welch, W. J. , 2009, “ Choosing the Sample Size of a Computer Experiment: A Practical Guide,” Technometrics, 51(4), pp. 366–376. [CrossRef]
Aranake, A. C. , Lakshminarayan, V. K. , and Duraisamy, K. , 2012, “ Assessment of Transition Model and CFD Methodology for Wind Turbine Flows,” AIAA Paper No. 2012-2720.
Sørensen, N. N. , Michelsen, J. , and Schreck, S. , 2002, “ Navier–Stokes Predictions of the NREL Phase VI Rotor in the NASA AMES 80 ft × 120 ft Wind Tunnel,” Wind Energy, 5(2–3), pp. 151–169. [CrossRef]
Yelmule, M. M. , and Vsj, E. A. , 2013, “ CFD Predictions of NREL Phase VI Rotor Experiments in NASA/AMES Wind Tunnel,” Int. J. Renewable Energy Res., 3(2), pp. 261–269. https://www.ijrer.com/index.php/ijrer/article/view/570
Johansen, J. , Sorensen, N. , Michelsen, J. , and Schreck, S. , 2002, “ Detached-Eddy Simulation of Flow Around the NREL Phase-VI Blade,” ASME Paper No. WIND2002-32.
Mo, J.-O. , and Lee, Y.-H. , 2012, “ CFD Investigation on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Small-Sized Wind Turbine of NREL Phase VI Operating With a Stall-Regulated Method,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 26(1), pp. 81–92. [CrossRef]
Burton, T. , Sharpe, D. , Jenkins, N. , and Bossanyi, E. , 2001, Wind Energy Handbook, Wiley, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Pressure coefficient at five different span locations of the blade with 5 m/s of wind speed: (a) 30% span, (b) 47% span, (c) 63% span, (d) 80% span, and (e) 95% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Pressure coefficient at five different span locations of the blade with 10 m/s of wind speed: (a) 30% span, (b) 47% span, (c) 63% span, (d) 80% span, and (e) 95% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Pressure coefficient at five different span locations of the blade with 15 m/s of wind speed: (a) 30% span, (b) 47% span, (c) 63% span, (d) 80% span, and (e) 95% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Pressure coefficient at five different span locations of the blade with 20 m/s of wind speed: (a) 30% span, (b) 47% span, (c) 63% span, (d) 80% span, and (e) 95% span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Sample points generated by the DoE

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Example of the NREL phase VI wind turbine blade with tubercles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Three-dimensional view (a) and plan view (b) of a wing with tubercles [5]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Tubercle representation [5]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

NREL Phase VI wind turbine blade: (a) blade drawing [17] and (b) CAD model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Tubercles on a humpback whale flipper

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Shaft torque result comparison: (a) experimental data and CFD results and (b) experimental data, CFD results and previous research results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Boundary conditions of the fluid domain: (a) inlet, (b) outlet and blade, and (c) symmetry plane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Surface mesh on the NREL blade with tubercles: (a) mesh at the leading edge and (b) mesh at the trailing edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Reynolds number along the NREL phase VI blade span for 10 and 20 m/s of wind speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Power comparison between the 20 CFD cases and the baseline blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

ΔP¯ contour plots at different wind speeds: (a) 10 m/s, (b) 15 m/s, and (c) 20 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Limiting streamlines on the suction side at 10 m/s of wind speed: (a) NREL phase VI and (b) case 7

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Limiting streamlines on the suction side at 20 m/s of wind speed: (a) NREL phase VI and (b) case 7

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Spanwise relative velocity on a cross section at 20 m/s of wind speed: (a) NREL phase VI and (b) case 7

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Tip vortex on the regular and modified blades: (a) NREL phase VI at 10 m/s, (b) case 7 at 10 m/s, (c) NREL phase VI at 20 m/s, and (d) case 7 at 20 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Vorticity behind the blade tip at 20 m/s of wind speed: (a) NREL phase VI, (b) case 7, and (c) case 15

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

ΔAEP¯ improvement: (a) U¯=6 m/s, (b) U¯=10 m/s, (c) U¯=16 m/s, and (d) U¯=20 m/s

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In