Better understanding of TipClrnc and non-interference validation

Provide feedback, request enhancements, and get help with wind-turbine computer-aided engineering tools.

Moderators: Bonnie.Jonkman, Jason.Jonkman

Alvaro.Olcoz
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:46 pm
Organization: Universidad Pública de Navarra
Location: Navarra

Better understanding of TipClrnc and non-interference validation

Postby Alvaro.Olcoz » Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:10 pm

Dear Jason,
After understanding the physical significance of the channel Tip-tower clearance (TipClrnc) over the 360º azimuth angle, it is clear that the only interesting region for no interference validation is when the blade points down. My question is, does FAST v8 take into account the thickness of the last airfoil section to calculate this variable? (i.e. if it does not, for an hipothetic 0 pitch, 0 twist, symmetric airfoil the real tip to tower clearance would be approximately: TipClrnc - TowerRadius (at tip height) - (max. thickness last foil)/2, correct me if I am wrong). I know that ElastoDyn does not have any information about the airfoil coordinates at each section but I think that AeroDyn 15 does (but probably is not used with this aim).
Secondly, regarding the critical deflection analysis discussed in IEC 61400-1:3 (2005), it is stated that the deflection in the unfavourable deflection (which will be out of plane) shall be multiplied by three safety factors (material, load and failure consequence) and then the non interference shall be checked. I suppose that FAST does not account for this augmentation of the real out of plane deflection, so, I have written an (in)equation using the FAST output TipClrnc to prove the non-interference condition (considering the above discussed):
min(TipClrnc)-TowerRadius(at tip height)- (distance from tip node to innermost airfoil surface point)-(FS-1)*OoPDefl > 0
where FS is the overall safety factor (material*load*consequence). Do you think that it is right ?

OFFTOPIC: I am using the SWRT turbine setting and geometry (unless blade) to test an own blade design. From CertTest files I have discovered that the tower (h=34 m aprox )diameter is 1.44 m on the base and 0.355 m on the top. Do you think that doing a linear interpolation to find the tower diameter at the height of the tip (blade pointing down) would be reasonable?

Thank you very much for your attention and time
Very best regards,
Alvaro Olcoz Alonso

Jason.Jonkman
Posts: 3999
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: Boulder, CO
Contact:

Re: Better understanding of TipClrnc and non-interference validation

Postby Jason.Jonkman » Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:14 pm

Dear Alvaro,

Regarding your first question, ElastoDyn assumes that the blade is a line with no volume in the calculation of TipClrncα (for blade α). Please note the AeroDyn v15 tower clearance output BαNβClrnc (for blade α and node β) is calculated more accurately and also considers the local tower radius, but still treats the blade as a line.

Regarding your second question, your equation seems OK, but will still be a bit off for a rotor with precone or shaft tilt. I'm not sure how users of the IEC 61400-1 Ed. 3 compute this in practice.

Regarding your third question, I don't know anything about the tower are considering, but towers are often tapered quite linearly.

Best regards,
Jason Jonkman, Ph.D.
Senior Engineer | National Wind Technology Center (NWTC)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
15013 Denver West Parkway | Golden, CO 80401
+1 (303) 384 – 7026 | Fax: +1 (303) 384 – 6901
nwtc.nrel.gov

Alvaro.Olcoz
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:46 pm
Organization: Universidad Pública de Navarra
Location: Navarra

Re: Better understanding of TipClrnc and non-interference validation

Postby Alvaro.Olcoz » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:15 pm

Thank you, as always, for your answer and help Jason.
Best regards


Return to “Computer-Aided Engineering Software Tools”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest