Computationally efficient aerodynamic modeling of curved wind turbine blades and non-planar rotors using coupled near wake and vortex cylinder models
Abstract. Accurate aerodynamic modeling is essential for load calculation and optimization of modern wind turbine blades, which are increasingly flexible and may exhibit substantial sweep, prebend, coning, and deformation. Existing engineering models remain largely specialized to either sweep effects or prebend and non-planar effects, and therefore lack the ability to represent their combined influence within a single engineering formulation. This study develops a unified and computationally efficient framework for general curved and deformed blades by combining the coupled near and far wake model for swept blades with the vortex cylinder model for non-planar rotors. An idealized coupled formulation is first introduced as the highest-fidelity realization of the proposed framework before practical simplifications are introduced. Motivated by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) results showing that sweep and prebend effects can be modeled separately and then superimposed with good accuracy, simplified coupled models are then developed for practical applications. Comparisons with higher-fidelity free-wake lifting line (LL) and blade-resolved Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations show that the proposed models capture the aerodynamic load redistribution effects of curved blades with good accuracy across different blade configurations. In particular, for blades combining sweep and prebend, they close the gap between the previously separate sweep-only and prebend-only engineering approaches and provide clear improvements over existing specialized engineering models. The computational cost is higher than BEM but remains orders of magnitude lower than that of LL and CFD, making the simplified models attractive for time-domain aero-servo-elastic simulations and design optimization.
Competing interests: DTU Wind and Energy Systems develops and distributes the Navier-Stokes solver EllipSys3D on commercial and academic terms. DTU Wind and Energy Systems also develops, supports and distributes HAWC2 on commercial terms, and HAWC2 is available free of charge for educational and academic research purposes.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
I do not find the motivation for the proposed modeling strategy convincing. The paper devotes substantial effort to constructing a complex semi-analytical correction framework around vortex-cylinder and BEM-type assumptions. This includes near-wake corrections, far-wake approximations, empirical coupling factors, Prandtl-type tip-loss treatment, superposition of sweep and prebend effects, and separate treatment of axial, tangential, and radial induction. The resulting model may improve on standard BEM and on earlier sweep-only or prebend-only engineering models, but it remains a heavily corrected low-order framework. Many of the physical effects approximated here, including finite-blade trailed-vortex geometry, radial induction, wake skewing, sweep-induced spanwise coupling, and non-planar rotor geometry, are more naturally represented in modern free-wake lifting-line methods.
This raises a more fundamental question that the manuscript does not adequately answer: why is the wind energy field continuing to invest in increasingly elaborate vortex-cylinder/BEM-style corrections when free-wake lifting-line solvers are now computationally practical for many design, analysis, and research applications? The paper repeatedly appeals to computational efficiency, but the cost argument is not demonstrated with enough specificity for realistic aero-servo-elastic design workflows. A convincing case would require a clear cost-accuracy-robustness comparison against contemporary free-wake lifting-line methods across representative load cases, including curved blades, large deflections, off-design operation, and unsteady conditions. Without such a comparison, the proposed model appears as an incremental extension of an increasingly dated engineering-model architecture rather than a necessary advance.