4.7 Article

Energy harvesting from iced-conductor inspired wake galloping

期刊

EXTREME MECHANICS LETTERS
卷 35, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eml.2020.100633

关键词

Piezoelectric energy harvester; Wake galloping; Iced conductors; Large Eddy simulation

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [11902193, 11802071, 51778097]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai, China [19ZR1424300]
  3. Shanghai Research Project, China [19JC1412900]
  4. Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Area Chongqing University, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Energy harvesting from wake galloping of crescent-shape and D-shape cross-section bluff bodies inspired by galloping of iced conductors is investigated. Analytical models are derived in the framework of electromechanical extension of the Hamilton's principle, Euler-Bernoulli beam assumption and quasi-steady hypothesis. Experiments are performed in an open-circuit boundary layer wind tunnel to investigate the wake effects of the upstream fixed interference cylinder on the performance of the downstream energy harvester and validate the analytical model. The observations are explained with the wake characteristics and lift force as determined from Large Eddy Simulation. The results show that the wake effects of the upstream fixed interference cylinders can positively enhance the performance of the downstream energy harvester. The wake galloping energy harvesters with the iced D-shape and crescent-shape bluff bodies display remarkable enhancement in terms of the harvested power density for wide interference spacing range when compared to energy harvesters placed in the wake of a non-iced circular bluff body. The power density of the wake galloping energy harvester with the iced-conductor inspired bluff bodies at the optimal interference spacing is about 63 times that of the power density of the wake galloping energy harvester with the classic circular bluff body. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据