Author:
Odhiambo Peter, ,Odhiambo Ernest,
Abstract
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation of Magnus Lift -Driven wind turbines provide different results depending on the method of wind power capture and the nature of the turbine. The Magnus Lift -driven wind turbines, which would normally have cylindrical blades rotating either about a vertical or horizontal axis, reveals interesting CFD results. For instance, the blade aspect ratio is critical in determining the performance of the Magnus WT. The power coefficient generated by Magnus WT at low tip-speed ratio clearly justifies that the turbine would perform optimally in urban environment. This review paper focuses on these Magnus Lift -driven wind turbines, by analyzing the research results in the literature review section. The results section contains the simulation outcome based on various CFD approaches. The conclusion cites the gaps in research. More importantly, the paper reviews the factors affecting the efficiency of the Magnus wind turbine such as drag coefficient, surface roughness effect, and wind velocity.
Publisher
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Engineering and Sciences Publication - BEIESP
Subject
Computer Science Applications,General Engineering,Environmental Engineering
Reference84 articles.
1. WWEA Half-year Report: Worldwind wind capacity reached 456 GW [Internet]. Wwindea.org. 2016 [cited 20 November 2020]. Available from: http://www.wwindea.org/download/market_reports/
2. Daut I, Razliana R N, Irwan Y M, Farhana Z. A study on the wind as renewable energy in Perlis, northern Malaysia. Energy Procedia 2012; 18: 1428-33[CrossRef]
3. Haidar A M, John P N, Shawal M. Optimal configuration assessment of renewable energy in Malaysia. Renew. Energy 2011; 36: 881-8[CrossRef]
4. Qian X, He Y. Wind power turbine and its aerodynamic characteristics. Int. J. Educ. Manag. Eng. 2012; 2: 80-7[CrossRef]
5. Goh H H, Lee S W, Chua Q S, Goh K C, Teo K T K. Wind energy assessment considering wind speed correlation in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016; 54: 1389-400[CrossRef]