An experimental study on the effects of relative rotation direction on the wake interferences among tandem wind turbines



An experimental study was conducted to investigate the effects of relative rotation direction on the wake interferences among two tandemwind turbines models. While the oncoming flow conditions were kept in constant during the experiments, turbine power outputs, wind loads acting on the turbines, and wake characteristics behind the turbines were compared quantitatively with turbine models in either co-rotating or counter-rotating configuration. The measurement results reveal that the turbines in counter-rotating would harvest more wind energy from the same oncoming wind, compared with the co-rotating case. While the recovery of the streamwise velocity deficits in the wake flows was found to be almost identical with the turbines operated in either co-rotating or counter-rotating, the significant azimuthal velocity generated in the wake flow behind the upstream turbine is believed to be the reason why the counter-rotating turbines would have a better power production performance. Since the azimuthal flow velocity in the wake flow was found to decrease monotonically with the increasing downstream distance, the benefits of the counter-rotating configuration were found to decrease gradually as the spacing between the tandem turbines increases. While the counter-rotating downstream turbine was found to produce up to 20% more power compared with that of co-rotating configuration with the turbine spacing being about 0.7D, the advantage was found to become almost negligible when the turbine spacing becomes greater than 6.5D. It suggests that the counter-rotating configuration design would be more beneficial to turbines in onshore wind farms due to the smaller turbine spacing (i.e., ∼3 rotor diameters for onshore wind farms vs. ∼7 rotor diameters for offshore wind farms in the prevailing wind direction), especially for those turbines sited over complex terrains with the turbine spacing only about 1–2 rotor diameters.


wind energy wind turbine aerodynamics wind turbine wake interference complex vortex flows 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Schreck S, Lundquist J, Shaw W. U.S. Department of Energy Workshop Report: Research Needs for Wind Resource Characterization. Technical Report, 2008, NREL/TP-500-43521Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barthelmie R J, Jensen L E. Evaluation of power losses due to wind turbine wakes at the Nysted offshore wind farm. Wind Energy, 2010, 13: 573–586ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vermeer L J, Sørensen J N, Crespo A. Wind turbine wake aerodynamics. Prog Aerospace Sci, 2003, 39: 467–510ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sørensen B. Renewable Energy: Its Physics, Engineering, Use, Environmental Impacts, Economy, and Planning Aspects. London: Elsevier, 2004Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hau E. Wind Turbines: Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics. Berlin: Springer, 2005Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Medici D, Alfredsson P. Measurement on a wind turbine wake: 3D effects and bluff body vortex shedding. Wind Energy, 2006, 9: 219–236ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hu H, Yang Z, Sarkar P. Dynamic wind loads and wake characteristics of a wind turbine model in an atmospheric boundary layer wind. Exp Fluids, 2012, 52(5): 1277–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang W, Markfort C D, Porté-Agel F. Near-wake flow structure downwind of a wind turbine in a turbulent boundary layer. Exp Fluids, 2012, 52: 1219–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Porté-Agel F, Wu Y T, Lu H, et al. Large eddy simulation of atmospheric boundary layer flow through wind turbines and wind farms. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn, 2011, 99: 154–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wu Y T, Porté-Agel F. Large-eddy simulation of wind-turbine wakes: Evaluation of turbine parameterizations. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 2011, 138(3): 345–366ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ross J N, Ainslie J F. Wake measurements in clusters of model wind turbines using laser Doppler anemometry. In: Proceedings of the Third BWEA Wind Energy Conference, Cranfield, 1981. 172–184Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barthelmie R J, Folkerts L, Ormel F T, et al. Offshore wind turbine wakes measured by sodar. J Atmospheric Oceanic Tech, 2003, 20(4): 466–477ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hu H, Tian W, Ozbay A. Wind turbine aeromechanics and interferences among multiple turbines in onshore and offshore wind farms. In: 2013 NAWEA Symposium on Wind Energy, the University of Colorado, Boulder, USA, Aug. 06–08, 2013Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barthelmie R J, Larsen G C, Pryor S C, et al. Efficient development of offshore wind farms (ENDOW): Modeling wake and boundary layer interactions. Wind Energy, 2004, 7: 225–245ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manwell J F, McGowan J G, Rogers A L. Wind Energy Explained, Theory, Design and Application. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyers J, Meneveau C. Optimal turbine spacing in fully developed wind farm boundary layers. Wind Energy, 2012, 15: 305–317ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Calaf M, Meneveau C, Meyers J. Large eddy simulation study of fully developed wind-turbine array boundary layers. Phys Fluids, 2010, 22: 015110ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Markfort C D, Zhang W, Porté-Agel F. Turbulent flow and scalar flux through and over aligned and staggered wind farms. J Turbulence, 2012, 13(1): 1–36Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu Y T, Porté-Agel F. Simulation of turbulent flow inside and above wind farms: Model validation and layout effects. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 2013, 146(2): 181–205ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chamorro L P, Arndt R E A, Sotiropoulos F. Turbulent flow properties around a staggered wind farm. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 2011, 141(3): 349–367ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tian W, Ozbay A, Yang Z, et al. An experimental investigation on the wake interference of multiple wind turbines in atmospheric boundary layer winds. AIAA Paper, 2012, AIAA-2012-2784Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adaramola M S, Krogstad P A. Experimental investigation of wake effects on wind turbine performance. Renewable Energy, 2011, 36: 2078–2086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ozbay A, Tian W, Yang Z, et al. Interference of wind turbines with different yaw angles of the upstream wind turbine. AIAA Paper, 2012, AIAA-2012-2719Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seungmin L, Hogeon K, Eunkuk S, et al. Effects of design parameters on aerodynamic performance of a counter-rotating wind turbine. Renewable Energy, 2012, 42: 140–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Conzemius R J. Wind turbine and sodar observations of wakes in a large wind farm. In: 19th Symposium on Boundary Layers and Turbulence, Keystone, CO, U.S., Aug., 2010Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Appa K. Counter Rotating Wind Turbine System. Energy Innovations Small Grant (EISG) Program Technical Report, California, USA, 2002Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shen W Z, Zakkam V A K, Sørensen J N, et al. Analysis of counter-rotating wind turbines. J Phys-Conf Ser, 2007, 75: 012003ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jung S N, No T S, Ryu K W. Aerodynamic performance prediction of a 30 kW counter-rotating wind turbine system. Renewable Energy, 2005, 30: 631–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Habash R W Y, Groza V, Yang Y, et al. Performance of a Contra rotating Small Wind Energy Converter. In: DELTA 2011, IEEE 6th International Workshop on Electronic Design, Test and Application, Queenstown, New Zealand, 17–19 Jan, 2011. 263–268. Doi: 10.1109/DELTA.2011.55Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    An Y, Han F, Kubota T, et al. Effect of unsteady wake from counter rotating wind rotor on downstream environment. Water Resources Power, 2010, 28(10): 158–160Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Farahani E M, Hosseinzadeh N, Ektesabi M M. Comparison of dynamic responses of dual and single rotor wind turbines under transient conditions. In: Sustainable Energy Technologies (ICSET), 2010 IEEE International Conference, Kandy, Sri Lanka, Dec., 2010Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yuan W, Ozbay A, Tian W, et al. An experimental investigation on the effects of turbine rotation directions on the wake interference of wind turbines. AIAA Paper, 2013, AIAA-2013-0607Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Burton T, Sharpe D, Jenkins N, et al. Wind Energy Handbook. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhou Y, Kareem A. Definition of wind profiles in ASCE 7. J Struct Eng, 2002, 128: 1082–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Locke J, Valecia U, Ishikawa K. Design studies for twist-coupled wind turbine blades. In: ASME 2003 Wind Energy Symposium (WIND2003), Reno, Nevada, USA, January 6–9, 2003Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alfredsson P H, Dahlberg J A, Vermeulen P E J. A comparison between predicted and measured data from wind turbine wakes. Wind Energy, 1982, 6(3): 149–155Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Medici D, Alfredsson P H. Measurements on a wind turbine wake: 3D effects and bluff body vortex shedding. Wing Energy, 2006, 9: 219–236ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kang H S, Meneveau C. Direct mechanical torque sensor for model wind turbines. Meas Sci Tech, 2010, 21(10): 105206ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aerospace EngineeringIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations