Global surface pressure measurements of static and dynamic stall on a wind turbine airfoil at low Reynolds number

  • Kevin J. Disotell
  • Pourya Nikoueeyan
  • Jonathan W. Naughton
  • James W. Gregory
Research Article

Abstract

Recognizing the need for global surface measurement techniques to characterize the time-varying, three-dimensional loading encountered on rotating wind turbine blades, fast-responding pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) has been evaluated for resolving unsteady aerodynamic effects in incompressible flow. Results of a study aimed at demonstrating the laser-based, single-shot PSP technique on a low Reynolds number wind turbine airfoil in static and dynamic stall are reported. PSP was applied to the suction side of a Delft DU97-W-300 airfoil (maximum thickness-to-chord ratio of 30 %) at a chord Reynolds number of 225,000 in the University of Wyoming open-return wind tunnel. Static and dynamic stall behaviors are presented using instantaneous and phase-averaged global pressure maps. In particular, a three-dimensional pressure topology driven by a stall cell pattern is detected near the maximum lift condition on the steady airfoil. Trends in the PSP-measured pressure topology on the steady airfoil were confirmed using surface oil visualization. The dynamic stall case was characterized by a sinusoidal pitching motion with mean angle of 15.7°, amplitude of 11.2°, and reduced frequency of 0.106 based on semichord. PSP images were acquired at selected phase positions, capturing the breakdown of nominally two-dimensional flow near lift stall, development of post-stall suction near the trailing edge, and a highly three-dimensional topology as the flow reattaches. Structural patterns in the surface pressure topologies are considered from the analysis of the individual PSP snapshots, enabled by a laser-based excitation system that achieves sufficient signal-to-noise ratio in the single-shot images. The PSP results are found to be in general agreement with observations about the steady and unsteady stall characteristics expected for the airfoil.

References

  1. Bell JH (2004) Applications of pressure-sensitive paint to testing at very low flow speeds. In: 42nd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, AIAA 2004-0878. doi:10.2514/6.2004-878
  2. Bergh H, Tijdeman H (1965) Theoretical and experimental results for the dynamic response of pressure measuring systems. National Aero- and Astronautical Research Institute, Amsterdam, NLR-TR F. 238Google Scholar
  3. Broeren AP, Bragg MB (2001) Spanwise variation in the unsteady stalling flowfields of two-dimensional airfoil models. AIAA J 39:1641–1651. doi:10.2514/2.1501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown OC (2000) Low-speed pressure measurements using a luminescent coating system. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen J, Schweizer T, Laxson A, Butterfield S, Schreck S, Fingersh L, Veers P, Ashwill T (2008) Technology improvement opportunities for low wind speed turbines and implications for cost of energy reduction, July 9, 2005–July 8, 2006. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL TP-500-41036Google Scholar
  6. Disotell KJ, Gregory JW (2011) Measurement of transient acoustic fields using a single-shot pressure-sensitive paint system. Rev Sci Instrum 82:075112. doi:10.1063/1.3609866 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Disotell KJ, Peng D, Juliano TJ, Gregory JW, Crafton JW, Komerath NM (2014) Single-shot temperature- and pressure-sensitive paint measurements on an unsteady helicopter blade. Exp Fluids 55:1671. doi:10.1007/s00348-014-1671-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Disotell KJ, Nikoueeyan P, Naughton JW, Gregory JW (2015) Single-shot pressure-sensitive paint measurements of static and dynamic stall on a wind turbine airfoil. In: AHS 71st annual forum and technology displayGoogle Scholar
  9. Durgesh V, Naughton JW, Whitmore SA (2004) Experimental investigation of base drag reduction on a two-dimensional body using boundary layer manipulation. In: 42nd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, AIAA 2004-0904. doi:10.2514/6.2004-904
  10. Gardner AD, Klein C, Sachs WE, Henne U, Mai H, Richter K (2014) Investigation of three-dimensional dynamic stall on an airfoil using fast-response pressure-sensitive paint. Exp Fluids 55:1807. doi:10.1007/s00348-014-1807-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goss L, Trump D, Sarka B, Lydick L, Baker W (2000) Multi-dimensional time-resolved pressure-sensitive paint techniques: a numerical and experimental comparison. In: 37th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, AIAA-2000-0832. doi:10.2514/6.2000-832
  12. Gregory JW, Sakaue H, Liu T, Sullivan JP (2014) Fast pressure-sensitive paint for flow and acoustic diagnostics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 56:303–330. doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-010313-141304 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Juliano TJ, Kumar P, Peng D, Gregory JW, Crafton J, Fonov S (2011a) Single-shot, lifetime-based pressure-sensitive paint for rotating blades. Meas Sci Technol 22:085403. doi:10.1088/0957-0233/22/8/085403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Juliano TJ, Peng D, Jensen CD, Gregory JW, Liu T, Montefort J, Palluconi S, Crafton J, Fonov S (2011b) PSP measurements on an oscillating NACA 0012 airfoil in compressible flow. In: 41st AIAA fluid dynamics conference and exhibit, AIAA 2011-3728. doi:10.2514/6.2011-3728
  15. Juliano TJ, Disotell KJ, Gregory JW, Crafton JW, Fonov SD (2012) Motion-deblurred, fast-response pressure-sensitive paint on a rotor in forward flight. Meas Sci Technol 23:045303. doi:10.1088/0957-0233/23/4/045303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu T (2003) Pressure-correction method for low-speed pressure-sensitive paint measurements. AIAA J 41:906–911. doi:10.2514/2.2026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu T (2004) Geometric and kinematic aspects of image-based measurements of deformable bodies. AIAA J 42:1910–1920. doi:10.2514/1.1960 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu T, Sullivan JP (2005) Pressure and temperature sensitive paints. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Manolesos M, Voutsinas SG (2014) Study of a stall cell using stereo particle image velocimetry. Phys Fluids 26:045101. doi:10.1063/1.4869726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCroskey WJ (1982) Unsteady airfoils. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 14:285–311. doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.14.010182.001441 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Mendoza DR (1997) Limiting Mach number for quantitative pressure-sensitive paint measurements. AIAA J 35:1240–1241. doi:10.2514/2.228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naughton JW, Liu T (2007) Photogrammetry in oil-film interferometry. AIAA J 45:1620–1629. doi:10.2514/1.24634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Naughton JW, Strike J, Hind M, Magstadt A, Babbitt A (2013) Measurements of dynamic stall on the DU wind turbine airfoil series. In: AHS 69th annual forum and technology displayGoogle Scholar
  24. Pandey A, Gregory JW (2015) Step response characteristics of polymer/ceramic pressure-sensitive paint. Sensors 15:22304–22324. doi:10.3390/s150922304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peng D, Jensen CD, Juliano TJ, Gregory JW, Crafton J, Palluconi S, Liu T (2013) Temperature-compensated fast pressure-sensitive paint. AIAA J 51:2420–2431. doi:10.2514/1.J052318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sakaue H, Miyamoto K, Miyazaki T (2013) A motion-capturing pressure-sensitive paint method. J Appl Phys 113:084901. doi:10.1063/1.4792761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strike JA, Hind MD, Saini MS, Naughton JW, Wilson MD, Whitmore SA (2010) Unsteady surface pressure reconstruction on an oscillating airfoil using the wiener deconvolution method. In: 27th AIAA aerodynamic measurement technology and ground testing conference, AIAA 2010-4799. doi:10.2514/6.2010-4799
  28. Timmer WA, van Rooij RPJOM (2003) Summary of the delft university wind turbine dedicated airfoils. J Sol Energy Eng 125:488–496. doi:10.1115/1.1626129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watkins AN, Leighty BD, Lipford WE, Wong OD, Goodman KZ, Crafton JW, Forlines A, Goss LP, Gregory JW, Juliano TJ (2012) Deployment of a pressure sensitive paint system for measuring global surface pressures on rotorcraft blades in simulated forward flight. In: 28th AIAA aerodynamics measurement technology and ground testing conference, AIAA 2012-2756. doi:10.2514/6.2012-2756
  30. Watkins AN, Leighty BD, Lipford WE, Goodman KZ, Crafton JW, Gregory JW (2014) Applying pressure sensitive paint technology to rotor blades. NASA TM-2014-218259Google Scholar
  31. Whitmore SA, Wilson MD (2011) Wiener deconvolution for reconstruction of pneumatically attenuated pressure signals. AIAA J 49:890–897. doi:10.2514/1.J050102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Winkelmann AE, Barlow JB (1980) Flow field model for a rectangular planform wing beyond stall. AIAA J 18:1006–1008. doi:10.2514/3.50846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wong OD, Watkins AN, Goodman KZ, Crafton JW, Forlines A, Goss L, Gregory JW, Juliano TJ (2012) Blade tip pressure measurements using pressure sensitive paint. In: AHS 68th annual forum and technology displayGoogle Scholar
  34. Yon SA, Katz J (1998) Study of the unsteady flow features on a stalled wing. AIAA J 36:305–312. doi:10.2514/2.372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin J. Disotell
    • 1
  • Pourya Nikoueeyan
    • 2
  • Jonathan W. Naughton
    • 2
  • James W. Gregory
    • 1
  1. 1.Aerospace Research Center, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations