28

CST-192 15-17 2557

Stall-Delay 3
3D Stall-Delay phenomenon at high angle of attack using
Computational fluid dynamics

1, 1* 1
1
. . 30000
**: chalothorn@sut.ac.th, 0-4422-4556, 0-4422-4613

Stall-Delay
(CFD) NREL Phase VI SST K-
Stall-Delay
Stall-Delay
50 2 80
: Stall-Delay, , ,

Abstract
This article presents Stall-Delay phenomenon with simulation results at high angle of attack, out
of experimental range with Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) of NREL Phase VI wind turbine. To finds
trend the end of Stall-Delay phenomenon at high angle of attack for more reasonable, with SST k-
turbulent model. The study found that the Stall-Delay behavior, increase lift and drag coefficients. At angle
of attack 50 degree, lift curves are trend linearly and converge to the experimental data in 2 dimensions
flow at 80 degree, angle of attack.
Keywords: Stall-Delay model, CFD, Wind turbine, Angle of attack

1.


Stall-Regulated
(Airfoil)
(3) Stall
0 90 Stall-Delay

(2) (suction side)
924
 28
CST-192 15-17 2557

[16] SST k-


2 [4] 1



[2,5]
Stall-Delay

NREL[8]
MEXICO rotor[17]

25 /
45

Stall-Delay 1
CFD NREL Phase IV
1

(Computational Fluid Dynamics : CFD) 2.
Phase VI
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
2
90 Ansys fluent 10.058 S809 [6]
Navier-Stokes

2 3
Spalart-Allmaras model, (Rotational Plane)
realizable k- model SST k- model CFD Ansys
Fluent 14.0

3 NREL Phase VI (Reynold-Averaged Navier-Stokes:RANS)

S809 [6] SIMPLE algorithm
Second Oder

(LSST) Upwind
NASA Ames Research Center (Hub)
6-25 /[8]
925
 28
CST-192 15-17 2557

SST K-
OUTLET
Menter[13,14] FARFIELD

[1]
BLADE

2 [4,10]
INLET PERIODIC FACE

O-grid
220 2 3
0.01
y+
1 1.2 25


2.5
(grid
independent)
10R
5R (R )

(Boundary Effect) 4
BEM

1 :
3 Wind RPM Density Viscosity
speed [kg/m3] X10-5
periodic [m/s] [kg/ms]
1 5.0 72 1.246 1.769
7.0 71.9 1.246 1.769
10.0 72.1 1246 1.769
13.0 72.1 1.227 1.781
15.1 72.1 1.224 1.784
18.0 72 1.221 1.786
20.1 72 1.221 1.786
2 23.0 72 1.22 1.785
80% span 25.1 72.1 1.22 1.785

926
 28
CST-192 15-17 2557

F Ftip Fhub (4)

25 m/s 2 N ( R 1)
Ftip cos 1 exp (5)
2r sin
72 RPM, Density
1.225 (kg/m3), Viscosity 1.785x10-5 (kg/ms) 2 N (r Rhub )
Fhub cos 1 exp (6)
2r sin

3. Blade Element Momentum (BEM)

Theory 5

BEM

(Annular stream tube) 4

(Uniform)
2 Momentum theory
Blade element theory

[9,12]
5
U (1 a) (1 a)
tan 0 (1)
r(1 a ) r (1 a )

1
a (2) (U0)
4 F sin 2
1 (N) (C)
c n
() (R)
1 (Cl,Cd)
a (3)
4 F sin cos
1
ct 3 , a a (
()+()) a
Nc / 2r (Local solidity), a
r r /U 0 (Tip speed ratio)
F 3

927
 28
CST-192 15-17 2557

inverse BEM
a
0.4

4. Inverse BEM
Inverse BEM Glauert[7]
[15,16] 3 (CT)
(1-3)

() 18F 20 3 CT (50 36 F ) 12 F (3F 4)
a
36 F 50
(10)
inverse BEM
5 30,
47, 63, 80 95


4.

1) a a 0 Ansys fluent 14.0
2)
U 0 (1 a ) inverse BEM ( 4)
tan 1
r(1 a ) BEM
3) Cn, Ct 2 ( )
CFD
4) a a
(2) (3)
5) a
a Stall-Delay
2)
6) Cl , Cd
CFD Stall-Delay
Cl C n cos Ct sin (7)
5 30, 47, 63, 80 95
C d C n sin Ct cos (8) 6
10 3
(9)
928
 28
CST-192 15-17 2557

Local flow angle 6 (Cl)

2 (Cd) 0.30R
30 47
( 6-7) 10 2

Lift coefficientl
CFD 1.5
1
2 3
0.5
3
2 0 AOA
10 0 20 40 60 80

(flow separation) 2 2

Drag coefficient
1.5
3 1
30-35 2D EXP
0.5
3Dk-Omega
SST SST k-Omega
7 Stream lines 0 3D EXP (Probe)
0 20 AOA 40 60 80
21
Stall-Delay
7 (Cl)
2 80 (Cd) 0.47R

3D SST k-Omega 21.3 deg.

3
Stall-Delay
Lift coefficient

2.5
2 Extrapolated
1.5
80 deg.
1
0.5
0 Stall 8 Stream lines
0 20 AOA 40 60 80 0.30R

63 80
Drag coefficient

2
( 9-10) 10
2D EXP 3
SST
3D K-Omega
SST k-Omega 2
0 3D EXP (Probe) fully stall
0 20 40 AOA 60 80 20
CFD
929
 28
CST-192 15-17 2557

2 80 10 (Cl)
(Cd) 0.80R
3
2
1.5
Lift coefficient

1.5

Lift coefficient
1
1
0.5

0.5
0 AOA
0 20 40 60 80 0 AOA
1.97 0 20 40 60 80
1.5
Drag coefficient

1.47

Drag coefficient
0.97 1
2D EXP
0.47 3D SST
SST k-Omega
k-Omega 2D EXP
0.5
-0.03 3D EXP (Probe) 3D SST
SST k-Omega
k-omega
0 20 AOA 40 60 80 3D EXP (Probe)
0
0 20 40 AOA 60 80

9 (Cl)
(Cd) 0.63R 11 (Cl)
(Cd) 0.95R
1.5
Lift coefficient

95 (
1
11) 3
0.5
2
0 AOA 2
0 20 40 60 80 3
1.98

1.48
Drag coefficient

0.98
5.
2D EXP
0.48
SST k-Omega
3D SST k-Omega Stall-Delay
-0.02 3D EXP (Probe)
0 20 AOA 40 60 80

Stall-Delay
930
 28
CST-192 15-17 2557

UnsteadyAerodynamics Experiment Phase VI:

Wind Tunnel Test Configurations and Available
Data Campaigns, NREL/TP500-29955; National
2 Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO.
80 [9] Hansen, O.L.,(2013). Aerodynamics of wind
CFD turbines, Routledge, ISBN-1136572252.
inverse BEM [10] Huang, P. G.,1999. Physics and Computation
of Flows with Adverse Pressure Gradients.
3 Modelling Complex Turbulent Flows, Kluwer,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 245-258.
7. [11] Jonkman, J.M., 2003. Modeling of the UAE
[1] , wind turbine for refinement of FAST_AD.
(2556). Technical Report NREL/TP-500-34755, National
Stall-Regulated. Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado.
[12] Manwell et al. (2010). Wind Energy
27 , 8 . Explained: Theory, Design and Application, John
[2] Burton et al., (2001). Wind Energy Handbook, Wiley & Sons, ISBN-9780470686287.
John Wiley & Son. [13] Menter, F. R., Kuntz, M., Langtry, R.,2003.
[3] Butterfield et al., (1992). NREL Combined Ten Years of Indrustrial Experience with the SST
experimental final report-phase II, NREL/TP-442- Turbulence Model.In: Hanjali_c, K., Nagano, Y.,
4807; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Tummers, M. (Eds), Turbulence, Heatand Mass
Golden,Co, pp.429. Transfer 4, Begell House, pp. 625-632.
[4] Catalano, P., Amato, M.,(2003). An evaluation [14] Menter, F. R.,1994. Two-Equation Eddy-
of RANS turbulence modeling for aerodynamics Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering
applications. Aerospace Science and Technology, Applications., AIAA Journal, vol.32, pp.1598-1605.
Vol.7, No. 7, pp. 493-509 [15] Ozlem C., 2008. Aerodynamic Design and
[5] Corten, G.P., 2001. Flow separation on Wind Optimization of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines by
TurbineBlades, PhD thesis, University of Utrecht. using BEM Theory and Genetic Algoritm, master
[6] Giguere, P., Selig, MS., 1999. Design of degree of science in aerospace engineering,
tapered and twisted blade for the NREL combined Middle East Technical University, 2008.
experiment rotor. NREL/SR-500-26173, Nrel, [16] Ronsten G., 1992. Static pressure
Golden, CO. measurements on a rotating and a non-rotating
[7] Glauert, H. The analysis of experimental 2.375 m wind turbineblade. Comparison with 2D
results in the windmill brake and vortex ring calculations. Journal of Wind Engineering and
states of an airscrew, ARCR R&M 1926(1026). Industrial Aerodynamics ; 39: 105-118.
[8] Hand M.M., Simms D.A, Fingersh LJ, Jager
DW, Cotrell JR, Schreck S, Larwood, SM., 2001.
931
 28
CST-192 15-17 2557

[17] Schepers et al., (2012). Analysis of Mexico

wind tunnel measurements. Energy research
centre of the Netherlands. ECN-E-12-004, pp.312.

932