Articles | Volume 8, issue 2
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Progress in the validation of rotor aerodynamic codes using field data
- Final revised paper (published on 20 Feb 2023)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 28 Jun 2022)
- Supplement to the preprint
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2022-51', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Aug 2022
- RC2: 'Comment on wes-2022-51', Spyros Voutsinas, 14 Aug 2022
- AC1: 'Comment on wes-2022-51', Koen Boorsma, 10 Oct 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Koen Boorsma on behalf of the Authors (10 Oct 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Oct 2022) by Johan Meyers
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (17 Oct 2022)
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (17 Nov 2022) by Johan Meyers
AR by Koen Boorsma on behalf of the Authors (23 Dec 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Jan 2023) by Johan Meyers
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (10 Jan 2023)
ED: Publish as is (22 Jan 2023) by Johan Meyers
ED: Publish as is (22 Jan 2023) by Sandrine Aubrun(Chief editor)
The chosen validation data were at a relatively high induction larger than 1/3. For induction factors lower than 0.3 the results when using uncorrected 2-D airfoil data normally give very good results compared to measurements. It would be nice if at least one case with a lower induction was included. The not perfect match for the loads shown in Figure 3 could be due to the 3-D correction of the airfoil data or for the BEM codes and the empirical Glauert correction. In Figure 11 some synthesized airfoil data are shown that indicate a quite different stall behavior than the prescribed ones used in the airfoil data dependent codes. Since the inflow angle and chordwise pressure distributions were measured at a few spanwise sections in the Danaero experiment it could be nice to see how this fit with the prescribed airfoil data.
What is exactly meant on page 13 with the sentence, “these compressible solvers reveal a different suction level causing the integral loads to improve for the fine mesh”
It is nice to see how the fully blade resolved codes give quite similar results ð
In Figure 6 it would be nice to know what tip loss model was used for the BEM and perhaps also a discussion on how the decambering effect can affect the way that loads decrease when approaching the blade tip.
The paper use the Danaero data, but suddenly in the conclusion the New Mexico data are mentioned and the challenges to reproduce those. A more elaborate discussion of this is missing.
The paper is well written, but the quality of the Figures should be improved, since it is not always so easy to see the details. Also are the airfoil sections in Figure 4 a and b upside down, meaning that the suction side is the lower one ? If, yes, then it is inconsistent with the pressure plots.