the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modelling vortex generators effects on turbulent boundary layers with integral boundary layer equations
Abstract. Vortex generators (VGs) are known to delay separation and stall, allowing the design of airfoils with larger stall margins, particularly for thick airfoil sections in the in-board and mid-board regions of modern slender wind turbine blades. Including VG effects in blade design studies requires accurate VG models for fast lower-order techniques, like Integral Boundary Layer (IBL) methods. Previous VG models for IBL methods use engineering approaches tuned on airfoil aerodynamic data. The accuracy of these models depends on the availability of wind tunnel aerodynamic polar datasets for tuning, which are limited and time-consuming to expand for the relevant wind conditions, airfoil sections, and VG configurations being used in continuously growing wind turbine blades. This work proposes a VG model derived from flat plate boundary layers under the influence of VGs. The new VG model empirically models the shape factor of the boundary layer and the viscous dissipation coefficient in the IBL framework to account for the additional momentum and dissipation in the boundary layer mean flow due to VGs. The model is developed from a wide range of flat plate boundary layers and VGs to account for variations in VG vane size and placement on the turbulent boundary layer development influencing the airfoil aerodynamic characteristics. The new VG model is implemented in an in-house code RFOIL, an improvement over XFOIL, validated with CFD data and wind tunnel measurements of flat plates and airfoil sections equipped with VGs. The new VG model RFOILVogue better captures the positive stall characteristics than the existing VG models for IBL equations. Cases with severe adverse pressure gradients are identified as areas of improvement for the developed VG model, and a methodology is proposed for future work.
- Preprint
(2820 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 09 Jul 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-69', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 May 2025
reply
I think the work has significance for the scientific community. As described by the authors, similar development has been done in the past, but the present work removes some of the assumptions behind those, to get higher accuracy/realism in the simulations. This is well explained in the text, which is also a summary of the VG modelling by meaning of panel code and highlights the next steps to further improve
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-69-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-69', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Jun 2025
reply
The paper is nicely written and easy to read. First, a CFD RANS simulation is made over a flat plate with VGs to investigate the boundary layer parameters for zero pressure gradient. Based on this some functions are made that can with some success model the spanwise variation of the shape factor, H, see Figure 6a and an excellent agreement of the spanwise averaged value, Figure 6b. This is only shown at a distance of 10 heights from the VGs and it could be nice to also see if this iis equally valid at some other distances. It is a bit strange to apply a compressible solver even though this is capable with a preconditioner to model an incompressible flow. And, also a grid of 6 million cells is not impressive and maybe just at the limit even for RANS.
There is something wrong with the units in the extra terms in Eqs. 6 and 7, e.g. the extra term including the induced pressure from the VGs has dimension N/m^2 and the other terms are dimensionless in the equation. The last term in Eq 7 is dimensionless, but not the second last.
It is written that pi,VG is the induced pressure from the presence of the VGs, but it is not clear how this is computed. A lot more details on the coupling and the closure terms are needed. And an important reference to Ramos-Garcia et al is missing, that also made some improvements to XFOIL and where results are quite good for clean airfoils, “A strong viscous-inviscid interaction model for rotating airfoils, Wind Energy 2014 (17)”
The first test case of a thin airfoil with a very low angle of attach gives reasonable results for the BL parameters, but the skin friction Cf I Figure 11c is quite off, also without VGs, but that is not contributed to the extra VG terms but the general IBL.
Then it was chosen to compare results against two old measurements, one made in the Velux tunnel and another using the TUDelft WT. The Velux tunnel data are old and of not so high quality and made at very high inflow turbulence and the TUDelft WT much better. None of the results are very good and overshoots Cl,max, but it is known that computing thick airfoils is difficult and wind tunnel measurements are also not easy since the flow is 3-D. But it is not so convincing that RFOILVG is much better than the older versions.
The authors mention that there still is work to do with respect to include higher pressure gradients and I recommend that the work is not yet ready for publication in WindEnergyScience.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-69-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
132 | 41 | 12 | 185 | 14 | 11 |
- HTML: 132
- PDF: 41
- XML: 12
- Total: 185
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1