4.7 Article

In-depth three-component assessment of wind turbine wake using stereo PIV under low tip speed ratio conditions

期刊

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0169891

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The behavior of wind turbine wake is unique and carries crucial information on the nature of wake propagation. In this study, a stereo particle image velocimetry (SPIV) technique is used to map and assess the flow field behind a model horizontal-axis wind turbine under low tip speed ratio conditions. The results provide a better understanding of the helical behavior of the wake and its relationship with the velocity deficit.
The behavior of wind turbine wake is unique and has a distinct pattern that often carries crucial information on the nature of wake propagation. This information plays a vital role in dictating the wind turbine wake model and subsequently in the design and placement of multirotor system. In most cases, either analytical or numerical, the representation of wind turbine wake is expressed as a streamwise flow deficit at different downstream locations. Though the result provides valuable information, the representation often lacks three-dimensional characterization, thus ignoring several influential factors that could potentially define the extent of propagation. In this aspect, an in-depth flow field mapping and assessment have been carried out behind a model horizontal-axis wind turbine using stereo particle image velocimetry (SPIV) under low tip speed ratio conditions. The three-component mapping using the time-resolved SPIV data helped to understand the notion of the wake's helical behavior and its relationship with the velocity deficit. Apart from the Gaussian-like (skew) distribution of the streamwise velocity component, the stereo assessment reveals the formation of two opposite crests supporting the helical analogy. Toward the end, a comparative assessment with the existing analytical models have been carried out.

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