4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

URANS simulations of a horizontal axis wind turbine under stall condition using Reynolds stress turbulence models

期刊

ENERGY
卷 213, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118766

关键词

Wind turbine aerodynamics; URANS equations; Reynolds stress turbulence models; Modeling accuracy; NREL phase VI

资金

  1. Brazilian Research Council (CNPq)
  2. Instituto Nacional de Ciencia e Tecnologia - Energias Oceanicas e Fluviais (INEOF)
  3. Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP)
  4. Programa de Recursos Humanos da Agencia Nacional do Petraleo, Gas Natural e Biocombustiveis [ANP-PRH18]
  5. Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation - FAPERJ [E-26/202.600/2019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the last decade, a dramatic increase in the size of commercial wind turbines is noticeable. The optimal structural design and reliable fatigue-life prediction of these large-scale structures depend on the accurate modeling of the turbulent flow around the rotors. The present paper aims at extending the knowledge of the turbulent flow characteristics around horizontal axis wind turbines and assessing the performance of several URANS turbulence models, principally Reynolds stress turbulence (RST) models, in predicting the wind turbine aerodynamics under stall condition. The simulations are performed using the NREL phase VI wind turbine over a wide range of wind speeds. Three RST models and the linear and quadratic variants of the k - omega SST turbulence model are examined. The results demonstrate that the RST models generally provide more reliable predictions. An evaluation of the Boussinesq hypothesis questions the applicability of the turbulence models employing this hypothesis to the wind turbine aerodynamic problems. Finally, the elliptic blending RST model, which is one of the latest formulations of the RST models, appears to provide the best trade-off between accuracy and computational cost. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据