Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Performance validation data.

Selected measured performance data and its usage for numerical model validation. Note that individual blade forces were measured in the Strickland et al. and Laneville and Vitecoq experiments.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Turbine geometric parameters for both the full-scale and 1:6 scale model RM2 (tested here), along with the UNH-RVAT for comparison.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 1.

Turbine Model.

A drawing of the RM2 turbine model. All dimensions are in meters.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Strut Covers.

A drawing of the high drag strut cover configuration with and without blades.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Experimental setup.

Photo of the UNH tow tank and turbine test bed with RM2 installed.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Experimental setup.

Illustration of the experimental setup.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 3.

Test Reynolds numbers.

Turbine diameter and approximate average blade chord Reynolds numbers Rec ≡ λU c/ν at blade tip, root, and mid-span, corresponding to various tow speeds at λ = 3.1.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 5.

Coordinate system.

Wake measurement coordinate system and cross-stream/vertical coordinates. All dimensions are in meters.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Power Coefficient Curves.

Mean rotor power coefficient plotted versus mean tip speed ratio for multiple Reynolds numbers.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Drag Coefficient Curves.

Mean rotor drag coefficient plotted versus mean tip speed ratio for multiple Reynolds numbers.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

RM2 Reynolds Number effects on performance.

Power (left) and drag (right) coefficient at λ = 3.1 plotted versus turbine diameter and approximate average blade root chord Reynolds number.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

UNH-RVAT Reynolds Number effects on performance.

Power (left) and drag (right) coefficient at λ = 1.9 plotted versus turbine diameter and approximate average blade chord Reynolds number. Taken from [32].

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

High drag strut performance.

Turbine performance and rotor drag coefficient curves with both NACA 0021 and cylindrical struts.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Strut drag losses.

Measurements of the strut drag losses for (a) NACA 0021 and (b) cylindrical struts, both stationary and towed at 1 m/s. Note that stationary calculations for tip speed ratio and power coefficient also assumed U = 1 m/s.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

RM2 Near-Wake Mean Velocity.

RM2 near-wake mean velocity field (looking upstream) at 1 m downstream (x/D = 0.93), U = 1.0 m/s, and λ = 3.1. Refer to Fig 5 for turbine axis orientation. Solid dark gray lines indicate turbine frontal area.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

UNH-RVAT Near-Wake Mean Velocity.

UNH-RVAT near-wake mean velocity field (looking upstream) at 1 m downstream (x/D = 1.0), U = 1.0 m/s, and λ = 1.9, from [32]. Solid dark gray lines indicate turbine frontal area.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

RM2 Near-Wake Turbulence Kinetic Energy.

Turbulence kinetic energy in the RM2’s near-wake (looking upstream) at 1 m downstream (x/D = 0.93), U = 1.0 m/s, and λ = 3.1. Solid black lines indicate turbine frontal area.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

UNH-RVAT Near-Wake Turbulence Kinetic Energy.

Turbulence kinetic energy in the UNH-RVAT’s near-wake (looking upstream) at 1 m downstream (x/D = 1.0), U = 1.0 m/s, and λ = 1.9, from [32]. Solid black lines indicate turbine frontal area.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

Mean Kinetic Energy Transport.

Weighted average estimates for terms contributing to streamwise recovery of mean kinetic energy, multiplied by two due to implied symmetry.

More »

Fig 16 Expand