the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Numerical Investigation of Aerodynamic Performance of Wind Turbine Airfoils with Ice Accretion
Abstract. One of the emerging problems in modern computational fluid dynamics is the simulation of flow over rough surfaces, wind turbine blades with ice on its surface for instance. An alternative method to numerically simulate rough surfaces instead of using a grid with y+ < 1 criterion is to use rough wall functions (RWFs) that models the flow behavior in case of the presence of roughness. This work aims to investigate different rough wall function models to find out the model that can provide the most accurate results with the lowest computational resources possible. This aim was achieved by comparing coefficients of lift and pressure resulting from CFD simulations with wind tunnel results of an airfoil with actual ice profiles collected from the site. After implementing new RWFs in OpenFOAM framework and validating the results with published experimental results, the comparison showed that momentum RWF provided the best agreement between simulation and experimental results while using only 25 % of the number of cells used with smooth RWF. The conclusions of this work will be applied in a simulation code within OpenFOAM framework to simulate airflow fields of wind turbines with ice accretion.
- Preprint
(2698 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Aerodynamic performance of Iced airfoils', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Mar 2021
Dear Editor, dear Authors,
I believe this paper is interesting and attempts to adress a knowledge gap, i.e. the performance of rough wall models in case on iced wind turbine airfoils. However I believe the methods section needs to be improved for the work to be accepted. It would be very hard for others to reproduce this work reading the paper in it's current state. Also some of the assumptions in the paper appear questionable to me and I believe need further motivation/clarification. For this reason I advise the paper to be reconsidered after major revisions. You can find some more detailed comments in the file attached.- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Khaled Yassin, 12 Apr 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2021-3', Joseph Saverin, 14 Mar 2021
There are numerous grammatical / spelling errors in the text which must be corrected in addition to inconsistent notation. The validation study applied was not necessarily particularly convincing, if possible it would be desired to see application to a more complicated geometry. The error metric chosen is in the view of the reviewer not particularly representative, as the relative error across the airfoil surface is not weighted based on location, which may lead to incorrectly displayed results and or results which are difficult to interpret.
In general to topic is relevant and the choice of modelling is challenging and the contribution should be considered an interesting addition to the literature.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Khaled Yassin, 12 Apr 2021
-
EC1: 'Comment on wes-2021-3', Alessandro Bianchini, 13 Apr 2021
Dear authors,
please upload a revised version of your study at your earliest convenience
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-3-EC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Khaled Yassin, 15 Apr 2021
Dear Prof. Bianchini,
Attached the latest revision of the manuscript as per your request. However, the marked version of the manuscript using latexdiff and the final combined responses are still in progress. These final documents will be uploaded before the deadline (10.05.2021)
Best Regards,
Khaled Yassin
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Khaled Yassin, 15 Apr 2021
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Aerodynamic performance of Iced airfoils', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Mar 2021
Dear Editor, dear Authors,
I believe this paper is interesting and attempts to adress a knowledge gap, i.e. the performance of rough wall models in case on iced wind turbine airfoils. However I believe the methods section needs to be improved for the work to be accepted. It would be very hard for others to reproduce this work reading the paper in it's current state. Also some of the assumptions in the paper appear questionable to me and I believe need further motivation/clarification. For this reason I advise the paper to be reconsidered after major revisions. You can find some more detailed comments in the file attached.- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Khaled Yassin, 12 Apr 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2021-3', Joseph Saverin, 14 Mar 2021
There are numerous grammatical / spelling errors in the text which must be corrected in addition to inconsistent notation. The validation study applied was not necessarily particularly convincing, if possible it would be desired to see application to a more complicated geometry. The error metric chosen is in the view of the reviewer not particularly representative, as the relative error across the airfoil surface is not weighted based on location, which may lead to incorrectly displayed results and or results which are difficult to interpret.
In general to topic is relevant and the choice of modelling is challenging and the contribution should be considered an interesting addition to the literature.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Khaled Yassin, 12 Apr 2021
-
EC1: 'Comment on wes-2021-3', Alessandro Bianchini, 13 Apr 2021
Dear authors,
please upload a revised version of your study at your earliest convenience
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-3-EC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Khaled Yassin, 15 Apr 2021
Dear Prof. Bianchini,
Attached the latest revision of the manuscript as per your request. However, the marked version of the manuscript using latexdiff and the final combined responses are still in progress. These final documents will be uploaded before the deadline (10.05.2021)
Best Regards,
Khaled Yassin
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Khaled Yassin, 15 Apr 2021
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
939 | 645 | 50 | 1,634 | 42 | 33 |
- HTML: 939
- PDF: 645
- XML: 50
- Total: 1,634
- BibTeX: 42
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1