Abstract
The aim of the project was to identify possible potentials for the stall regulated two bladed teetering rotor turbine in comparison to the three bladed Danish standard design. An aeroelastic prediction code, Mr. Swing, has been developed. A verification of this code is made by measurements on a research turbine equipped with a two bladed teetering rotor in a variety of configurations. The rotor used is from a former commercial turbine, the Windane 12, which is 12 m in diameter. The hub has been modified in order to allow for a variation of the teeter stiffness and damping characteristics. The effort is mainly on a verification of the aeroelastic code`s ability to describe the dynamics of the turbine, and especially the rotor, which depends strongly on teeter stiffness and damping: The rotor is stable in yaw with free teeter or low stiffness or damping but unstable with the rigid hub configuration. The yaw error is as high as -30 degrees in this case, and with an exceptionally high standard deviation. This is also predicted by the aeroelastic code. The cyclic blade loads are minimal with low teeter stiffness and approximately five times higher with the rigid hub. However, this is
More>>
Citation Formats
Rasmussen, F, and Kretz, A.
Dynamics of a two-bladed teetering rotor.
Denmark: N. p.,
1992.
Web.
Rasmussen, F, & Kretz, A.
Dynamics of a two-bladed teetering rotor.
Denmark.
Rasmussen, F, and Kretz, A.
1992.
"Dynamics of a two-bladed teetering rotor."
Denmark.
@misc{etde_10110703,
title = {Dynamics of a two-bladed teetering rotor}
author = {Rasmussen, F, and Kretz, A}
abstractNote = {The aim of the project was to identify possible potentials for the stall regulated two bladed teetering rotor turbine in comparison to the three bladed Danish standard design. An aeroelastic prediction code, Mr. Swing, has been developed. A verification of this code is made by measurements on a research turbine equipped with a two bladed teetering rotor in a variety of configurations. The rotor used is from a former commercial turbine, the Windane 12, which is 12 m in diameter. The hub has been modified in order to allow for a variation of the teeter stiffness and damping characteristics. The effort is mainly on a verification of the aeroelastic code`s ability to describe the dynamics of the turbine, and especially the rotor, which depends strongly on teeter stiffness and damping: The rotor is stable in yaw with free teeter or low stiffness or damping but unstable with the rigid hub configuration. The yaw error is as high as -30 degrees in this case, and with an exceptionally high standard deviation. This is also predicted by the aeroelastic code. The cyclic blade loads are minimal with low teeter stiffness and approximately five times higher with the rigid hub. However, this is to some extent caused by the high yaw error due to the unstable yaw. The main advantage with the teetering rotor compared to the rigid hub concerning blade loads is that it eliminates the 1p cyclic variation from wind shear, both mean wind shear from vertical wind gradient and turbulent shear. It also eliminates the 1p content from yawed flow, however, in partly stalled operation, a similar variation is created at 2p, which means that with respect to this situation, it represents no advantage. The report further describes a theoretical comparison between two- and three-bladed wind turbines. (au) (12 tabs., 66 ills., 9 refs.).}
place = {Denmark}
year = {1992}
month = {Jun}
}
title = {Dynamics of a two-bladed teetering rotor}
author = {Rasmussen, F, and Kretz, A}
abstractNote = {The aim of the project was to identify possible potentials for the stall regulated two bladed teetering rotor turbine in comparison to the three bladed Danish standard design. An aeroelastic prediction code, Mr. Swing, has been developed. A verification of this code is made by measurements on a research turbine equipped with a two bladed teetering rotor in a variety of configurations. The rotor used is from a former commercial turbine, the Windane 12, which is 12 m in diameter. The hub has been modified in order to allow for a variation of the teeter stiffness and damping characteristics. The effort is mainly on a verification of the aeroelastic code`s ability to describe the dynamics of the turbine, and especially the rotor, which depends strongly on teeter stiffness and damping: The rotor is stable in yaw with free teeter or low stiffness or damping but unstable with the rigid hub configuration. The yaw error is as high as -30 degrees in this case, and with an exceptionally high standard deviation. This is also predicted by the aeroelastic code. The cyclic blade loads are minimal with low teeter stiffness and approximately five times higher with the rigid hub. However, this is to some extent caused by the high yaw error due to the unstable yaw. The main advantage with the teetering rotor compared to the rigid hub concerning blade loads is that it eliminates the 1p cyclic variation from wind shear, both mean wind shear from vertical wind gradient and turbulent shear. It also eliminates the 1p content from yawed flow, however, in partly stalled operation, a similar variation is created at 2p, which means that with respect to this situation, it represents no advantage. The report further describes a theoretical comparison between two- and three-bladed wind turbines. (au) (12 tabs., 66 ills., 9 refs.).}
place = {Denmark}
year = {1992}
month = {Jun}
}