Skip to main content
zenodoopen

Wall Resolved Fluid-Structure Interaction Numerical Simulation of a Modern Wind Turbine Blade

<p>Wall-resolved fluid-structure interaction (FSI) numerical simulations of the NREL 5 MW wind turbine blade<br> are compared using two FSI approaches. The first method is based on high-fidelity Nektar++/SHARPy FSI framework,<br> where the fluid governing equations are solved using high-order spectral/hp element method and the turbulent flow is<br> resolved using Large Eddy Simulation (LES) on thick strips, while large-deformation dynamics of the structure are mod-<br> elled using a geometrically exact nonlinear composite beam finite-element model. Thick strip method for the fluid reduces<br> the computational cost by considering a series of smaller domains, each of which has a finite thickness in the spanwise<br> direction. Hence, the overall flow over the blade is treated with a sectional approach, where in each of these sections,<br> strips, the 3D flow is reconstructed locally. Tip-loss correction is used to compensate for the sectional approach over the<br> blade. The second FSI approach is based on OpenFoam/Calculix coupling, where the second-order unstructured finite<br> volume method approach is used for solving the three-dimensional flow equations and the flow turbulence is captured us-<br> ing the k-&omega; SST model. The structural dynamics are modeled via second-order finite element method using standard solid<br> elements. Effects of the solution fidelity on the prediction of aerodynamic forces as well as on the full three-dimensional<br> flow modelling over the blade versus sectional representation of flow over the blade while incorporating the local three-<br> dimensionality in each section and tip-correction are discussed. Further, significance of two approaches on modelling<br> the slender blade, one using the beam mode and the other utilizing the full 3D solution of structure is addressed. Finally,<br> assessment of computational cost and scalability of the two approaches are presented and discussed.</p>

ShareScore

40/100

Overall dataset sharing score

Score breakdown

These five areas show where the dataset supports — or may limit — practical reuse.

Stewardship
8
Harmonization
4
Access
16
Reuse readiness
8
Engagement
4

Topics