the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A scaling methodology for the Hybrid-Lambda Rotor – Characterization and validation in wind tunnel experiments
Abstract. The Hybrid-Lambda Rotor is an aerodynamic rotor concept that enables very low-specific-rating offshore wind turbines in order to increase the power output in light winds and to limit the loads on the very long and slender rotor blades in strong winds. In this paper, the rotor concept is scaled to wind tunnel size and validated under reproducible inflow conditions. The objectives are to derive a scaling methodology, to investigate the influence of the steep gradients of axial induction along the blade span and to characterize the wake of the Hybrid-Lambda Rotor in wind tunnel experiments. The scaling objectives are to match the axial induction distribution and to incorporate the change in the angle of attack distribution when switching between the light-wind and strong-wind operating mode. The derived model rotor with a diameter of 1.8 m is experimentally investigated and compared to a conventional model wind turbine in the large turbulent wind tunnel in Oldenburg under tailored inflow conditions produced with an active grid. A two-dimensional Laser-Doppler-Anemometer is used to measure the axial induction in the rotor plane and the wake is characterised by means of a hot-wire rig. The measurement data is supplemented with free-vortex-wake simulations on both rotors. The results demonstrate that switching the operating modes with the characteristic change in the angle of attack distribution, works similar for the model and the full-scale turbine. The strong gradients of axial induction along the blade span lead to complex three-dimensional flow structures such as an increased radial flow component in the rotor plane. The low-induction design of the outer part of the rotor reduces the load overshoots in gust events compared to the conventional model turbine. The wake characterization reveals an outer annulus with reduced wake deficits, an additional shear layer and vortex system and overall reduced wake deficits over a wide range of wind speeds below rated power. The derived results help to understand the unique flow patterns that are introduced by the Hybrid-Lambda Rotor and provide a valuable complementary data set to the simulations on the full-scale rotor.
- Preprint
(13373 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-168', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Dec 2024
reply
Dear Authors, I have reviewed your article and provided my comments below.
General comments
The topic of the article, which focuses on the design and experimental characterization of a scale model of a low specific-rating rotor, is significant for the research community and aligns with the scope of WES. The methodologies outlined in the article are valuable for the design of scale model wind turbines, and the results obtained from the testing campaign enhance the understanding of the operational characteristics of low specific-rating rotors. This study can contribute to their further development and commercial viability.
The research objectives and hypotheses are clearly defined. The discussion of the methodology and results is supported by sufficient detail. The article is generally well-structured.
For these reasons, I believe the article merits publication in the WES journal. Prior to publication, I request the authors address the comments below. Specific suggestions to enhance the effectiveness of the article are included in the "specific comments" section. Technical corrections, including typos and improvement suggestions for presentation quality, are provided in the attached PDF.
Specific comments
Introduction. I recommend that the authors include a discussion on the potential impact of the article, particularly in relation to the development of low-specific-rating rotors and the scale model testing of wind turbines in general.
Scaling methodology of the Hybrid-Lambda rotor. This section is hard to follow as scaling requirements are introduced gradually. I recommend restructuring it into: 1) Scaling constraints, 2) Scale factors, 3) Blade design algorithm, 4) Results of the blade design. Essentially, divide it into inputs, methodology, and outputs.
Figure 1. The diagram is hard to follow due to undefined variables. It should be simplified and the comparison with MoWiTO1.8 might be removed.
11: “both rotors”. It's not clear if the two rotors mentioned here are the two scale models (Hybrid-Lambda and conventional) or the scale model of the Hybrid-Lambda and its full scale version.
62: “the large geometric scaling factor”. Can you recall its value here?
71-76: this paragraph is a bit disconnected from the rest of the introduction. Consider to remove it and merge its content to the rest of the text.
140-141: This sentence should clearly connect with Eq. 1-4, as it forms the basis of the methodology described in the article.
161: “fulfil the constraints … number”. Can you recall the constrains, i.e. the minimum allowed chord and Re?
169-171: “Second, … in the wind tunnel”. Please clarify with examples or explain in more detail.
192: “first tower eigenfrequency”. Report the value.
210-211. Can you briefly explain how the control strategy works?
215-216. This statement is unclear. There is only one time scale. It can be stated that the maximum rotor speed is not scaled in relation to the maximum rotor speed of the full-scale turbine.
226-228. To provide clear guidance, it is recommended to avoid asking open-ended questions and instead offer definitive answers.
Figure 6. Can you add the constrains to the plots with horizontal lines?
288: “Here”. In this study or a cited one?
394-395: “as we aimed … blade design”. How does this goal influence the tuning of viscous diffusion in OLAF? Please explain.
409: “only a small portion of the results”. How did you choose which results to plot and which to discard?
415: “with a considerable offset”. Could this offset be due to thrust being estimated from the tower base bending moment and requiring corrections for nacelle and tower drag, making it less certain than the torque (power) measurement?
Eq 14: “My”. Could you please clarify what "My" refers to? Is it the bending moment of individual blades that have been measured using strain gauges?
420: “the measured flapwise RBM are in good agreement with the simulations”. Have you estimated rotor thrust from blade-root bending moment? It might compare better with simulations than the tower base moment estimate.
436-465. This discussion should precede the LDA measurement results. Condense the FVW simulation results (e.g., using Fig. 11) to show that the BEM model's 2D flow assumption is invalid in the blending region, explaining the poor agreement between BEM and measurements there.
485. You should clarify that the shear layer is between the wind tunnel jet and the still air around the nozzle.
489-490: “A major advantage … operating modes”. Can you relate this discussion to the control schedule shown in Fig. 4?
496: “leads to an outer annulus with reduced wake deficits”. Could you please highlight it in the figure by delineating the edges of the annulus?
504-505: “to a second shear layer at the boarder to the inner wake core with lower wind speeds” Can you highlight it in the figure?
504-517. Are two shear layers expected in the Hybrid-Lambda rotor based on prior numerical studies? If so, how do the measurements align with the numerical results?
Figure 13. The text in this figure is very small. Please, increase it.
542. Please add a sentence explaining how the assumptions of the FVW model relate to the experimental conditions. If I understood the text properly, clarify that the results from the FVW model are useful for indicating the location of vorticity but that the strength estimated by the FVW model should not be directly compared to the strength observed in the experiment.
Figure 15. Please add titles to the subplots to indicate if they refer to Convention or Hybrid Lambda rotors.
589: “must be considered critically”. Not clear what you mean.
598: “are very similar”. Could you please clarify the parameters? Are we discussing velocity, radial extension, or another aspect?
624-629: I think this paragraph belongs to the conclusions.
Data availability. Can you provide any measurements or numerical models? This is encouraged by the journal.
Technical corrections
See attached pdf file.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
99 | 20 | 6 | 125 | 1 | 1 |
- HTML: 99
- PDF: 20
- XML: 6
- Total: 125
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1