J.G. Schepers, K. Boorsma C. Kim, T. ChoIEA Task 29 ‘Mexnext’:

Analysis of Mexico measurements: Detailed aerodynamic measurements on a 4.5 m diameter rotor placed in the large German Dutch Wind Tunnel DNW

221-04-23

Content

Mexico experiment/MexnextRotor speed dependancy on aerodynamic coefficients

–Comparison Mexico results with KARI resultsFlow non-uniformities due to finite number of blades; Tip (and root) correction

Comparison between calculations and measurements

–Relation between rotor loads and flow field

321-04-23

2001-2006

Measurements in German Dutch Wind tunnel, DNW

North East Polder

in Netherlands

Open test section:

9.5 x 9.5 m2

Diameter of rotor:4.5 m

– Fast pressure measurements at 5

positions (25%, 35%, 60%, 82% and

92% span) along the blade and blade

root bending moment measurements

– Tower bottom load measurements

– Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV):

Quantitative flow visualisation

EU project Mexico Model rotor EXperiments In COntrolled conditions 1)

1) Participants: see http://www.ecn.nl/nl/units/wind/rd-programma/aerodynamica/projects/mexico/

421-04-23

MexNext: Goal and Results

Goal: A joint effort in which the Mexico measurements (together with the previously made NASA-Ames measurements) are evaluated.

Validated and improved aerodynamic models:• General BEM modelling• Free vortex wake models• CFD blade flow and near wake flow• Yawed flow models• Dynamic Inflow models• Instationary airfoil aerodynamics• General inflow modelling (non-uniformity between blades)• 3D models (including tip effects)

Results (i.e. the insights on accuracy of different models, and the recommendations/descriptions for model improvement) will be made public

521-04-23

MexNext: Participants

Participation from the following research institutes from 11 different countries:– Canada (École de technologie supérieur, Montreal (ETS), University of Victoria

(UVic))

– Denmark(DTU-RISO/DTU(Mek))– Germany(University of Stuttgart (IAG), University of Applied Sciences, Kiel, Forwind)

– Israel (Israel Institute of Technology (Technion))– Japan (Mie University/National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science) – Korea((Korea Institute of Energy Research (Kier) and Korea Aerospace Research

Institute (Kari))– Netherlands(Energy Research Center of the Netherlands (ECN), University of Delft

(TUDelft), Technical University of Twente)– Norway (Institute for Energy Technology/Norwegian University of Science and

Technology (IFE/NTNU) )

– Spain(Renewable Energy National Centre of Spain (CENER) and National Institute for Aerospace Technology, INTA)

– Sweden(Royal Institute of Technology/University of Gotland (KTH/HGO)) – USA (National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL))

Industrial participation from Suzlon Blade Technology (NL office of Suzlon) and Wind Guard (Germany)

621-04-23

Content

Mexico experiment/MexnextRotor speed dependancy on aerodynamic coefficients

–Comparison Mexico results with KARI resultsFlow non-uniformities due to finite number of blades; Tip (and root) correction

Comparison between calculations and measurements

–Relation between rotor loads and flow field

721-04-23

CDax() for two rotor speeds

•Good agreement between pressure and balance axial force Axial force reliable•No rotor speed dependancy on axial force coefficient

821-04-23

8

Korean daughter of the Mexico rotor

Mexico, D=4.5 m KARI D=2 m

Tunnel: 9.5x9.5m Tunnel: 5 x 3.75m

921-04-23

9

KARI: Torque coefficientsat 5 rotational speeds

Lambda

Cp

0 5 10 150

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6Vtip = 76m/s(MEXICO)Vtip = 100m/s(MEXICO)Vtip = 76m/s(KARI)Vtip = 90m/s(KARI)

1/Lambda

C_

tau

_tip

*10

00

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3 V_tip = 50m/sV_tip = 60m/sV_tip = 70m/sV_tip = 76m/sV_tip = 90m/s

KARI vs Mexico: CP at two tip speeds

stall

1021-04-23

Content

Mexico experiment/MexnextRotor speed dependancy on aerodynamic coefficients

–Comparison Mexico results with KARI resultsFlow non-uniformities due to finite number of blades; Tip (and root) correction

Comparison between calculations and measurements

–Relation between rotor loads and flow field

1121-04-23

Animation of Fluent calculated flow field: Uniform flow upstream and downstream of rotor, non-uniformities in rotor plane due to finite number of blades

Prandtl tip correction (F), correction for flow non-uniformities due to finite number of blades

Finite number of blades: Flow in rotor plane is not uniform due to discrete vortices (not a continuous distribution)

These effects are covered by the tip correction factor F, such that • a is induction factor at the position of the blade• aF is annulus averaged induction

Resulting BEM equation

Tip correction factorF according to Prandtl

tip

efflw

RrRB

F

Vcr

BcVFaFa

sin2exparccos

2

cos2

)1(4 22

use local a

Basic idea derivation Prandtl tip correction (1919)

• Simplified vortex wake model• Vortex planes moving downstream with Vd at mutual distance d=(2r/B)

sin tip

(i.e. the distance over which the vortex ‘travelled’ until next blade passes)• F = (2/arccos(e-(B (R-r)/2rsin))

Question: Is it possible to use nowadays a more physical (numerical) free vortex wake method to assess F

From wind energy handbook: Burton, Sharpe, Jenkins, Bossanyi

Azimuthal averaged and local velocities (Mexico vs AWSM)

1421-04-23

• Comparison between the azimuthallyaveraged velocities and local velocities at the blade

• Mexico vs AWSM (free wake lifting line code) • Very good agreement between

measured and AWSM azimuthally averaged values

• Tip vortex released inboard• Local velocity does not approach

the averaged velocity at inboard positions (slight off-set in bladeposition?)

Prandtl and AWSM tip loss correction

1521-04-23

•Deviation near very tip (cut-off radius for viscous core)•Tip speed ratio (inflow angle) dependancy might be improved?•‘Tip’ loss factor also often used as ‘root’ loss factor: What is the root radius?

•Location of maximum chord seems to be a good choice

10 m/s 15 m/s24 m/s

1621-04-23

Content

Mexico experiment/MexnextRotor speed dependancy on aerodynamic coefficients

–Comparison Mexico results with KARI resultsFlow non-uniformities due to finite number of blades; Tip (and root) correction

Comparison between calculations and measurements

–Relation between rotor loads and flow field

1721-04-23

PIV measured and calculated speed decay as function of x at 61% and 82% span for Vtunnel = 15 m/s and = -2.3 degrees (design conditions)

Calculations done with cylindrical vortex sheet model 1) based on given CDax

CDax = 4a(1-a)a∞arotor plane

CDax =0.89 (a=1/3)(as expected at design conditions)

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

x[m]

V[m

/s] theoretical, a =1/3

82%

61%

NOTE:fblade=0 degrees, but flow in the rotorplane is

non-uniform!

Generally speaking a good agreement is found IF CDax = 0.89

1) H. Snel and J.G. Schepers: Joint Investigation of Dynamic Inflow Effects and Implementation of an Engineering Method, ECN-C-94-107, 1994

1821-04-23

6,67

But Cdax is not 0.89!!

Cdax ~0.72 only!Possible explanations:

•Wrong axial force measurement? No, we find the same CDax (=6.67) from pressure and balance and for 324.5 and 424.5 rpm

•Tunnel effects: Very unlikely!Can it really be that the axial momentum relation (i.e. the foundation of every wind turbine design code) is wrong???????

1921-04-23

2021-04-23

Some conclusions from Mexnext

A large number of studies are carried in Mexnext, results can be found on www.mexnext.org

Rotor speed dependancy on aerodynamic coefficients is very small for the Mexico experiment but some dependancy is seen on the smaller KARI rotor at low rotational speeds near stall

Indications have been found that tip speed ratio dependancy in Prandtl tip loss factor might be improved.Position of maximum chord gives a good estimate for the root radius in the Prandtl root correction

In the Mexico project the flow details around the rotor have been measured. These are predicted very well under the assumption that the Cdax is the expected value (where the measurements at two rotational speeds and done with two independent measurement techniques, show it is not…)

MEXNEXT AWARD

We need a (convincing) explanation for the non-understood relation between loads and velocities!

Jury: Gerard Schepers and Koen Boorsma

Acknowledgements1.Co-Authors

(Koen Boorsma, Cheolwan Kim and Tae-Wan Cho)

2.Mexnext participants

3. IEA Executive Committee

2221-04-23