the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Dec 2023
Validation of a traceable efficiency determination method for wind turbines with a focus on measurement uncertainty
Abstract. All around the world, new plans and strategies are being implemented for installing energy-efficient wind turbines in order to increase renewable energy capacities and meet the demand for clean energy. Advances in wind turbine technologies and their extremely sophisticated systems have led to an increasing need for proper efficiency determination methods, both in the field and on test benches, to keep up with the accelerated deployment of wind turbines around the globe. This paper examines the feasibility and practicability of new wind turbine efficiency determination methods on test benches that are based on international standards for electrical machines. Test methods and the static calibration certificates of the employed specialised instruments and sensors were used to evaluate the efficiency and associated measurement uncertainties in ambient conditions. Furthermore, the results were compared with those obtained through the innovative iso-efficiency method, which comprehensively maps the wide operating range of wind turbines.
- Preprint
(2463 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2023-165', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jan 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nijan Yogal, 03 Apr 2024
Dear RC1,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all of your comments and have made revisions accordingly.
We have included the revised version of the paper along with our responses to the referee's comments. We have addressed the concerns raised, particularly those regarding the figures. In this revised version, we have utilized high-resolution figures to ensure clarity and detail. Additionally, we would like to mention that once published online, the figures will be easily zoomable for better viewing.
We appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback.
Best regards,
Yogal et al.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nijan Yogal, 03 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2023-165', Jonathan Keller, 26 Jan 2024
The authors present a detailed methodology for determining the efficiency of drive systems, focusing on the generator (or motor) and power converter. In general, the paper is well structured and written; however, I have made several recommendations regarding the look of the Equations and Figures which are currently substandard for a journal article and detract from the quality of the paper.
The paper title could be more specific, for example, I recommend “Validation of a traceable efficiency determination method for wind turbine drivetrains with a focus on measurement uncertainty”.
In line 28, I believe what is being described is “…the most accurate measurement of efficiency with the lowest possible…” I also recommend reviewing the remainder of the paper for the same issue.
Equation (1) and throughout. The equations themselves should be larger. Most of the symbols are quite small. The symbology in the text and figures could be improved to look nicer (without “_”, for example) with MathType (in Word) or relatively easily in Latex.
I believe there may be a small typo in either Equation (8) of the following text, where there appears MU_{n,inst) and MU_{eta,inst}. I am not sure though, I just recommend the authors check.
The majority of the paper focuses on the efficiency of the electrical systems (generator and/or converter) and the SSTB. However, the NTB and nacelle shown in Figure 6 includes a gearbox and main bearing with mechanical power measured between the prime mover and the nacelle. Therefore, I assume that the resulting efficiencies include losses in the gearbox. Is this correct? I don’t believe though that any of this was discussed or referenced when it came to the short results in Section 6. I recommend some additional text be added on this subject, possibly with a reference or two to papers discussing the efficiency of gearboxes. This could be done within Section 6, which is very short right now. It might also be of interest to the reader to understand the relative contributions to efficiency of the gearbox versus the generator/converter.
Many Figures, such as 3, 8, 10-11, 13-17, and 19, could themselves be larger, and the text within the plots themselves should be larger. Some of them are the most interesting plots in the paper, but they are quite hard to read currently. It would also be preferable in Figure 18 to use the same symbology as the text, specifically the subscripts. This should be achievable with most plotting packages (Excel, Matlab, etc). Figure 19a should label the color scale with the efficiency variable. In general, the figures could be of better quality – in terms of size, labels, symbology and the image quality itself. Most are somewhat blurry. The paper is quite well written, but the figures could be improved, as right now they do detract from the paper’s quality.
The lengthy variable names in lines 298 and 299, are a bit hard to decipher. I recommend describing in text what the various subscripts mean, such as “the efficiency of X as determined by the IEC method with Y”.
A minor note in lines 421 and 423, I do not believe the degree symbol is needed when using Kelvin.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-165-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nijan Yogal, 03 Apr 2024
Dear Jonathan Keller,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all of your comments and have made revisions accordingly.
We have included the revised version of the paper along with our responses to comments.
We appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback.
Best regards,
Yogal et al.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nijan Yogal, 03 Apr 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2023-165', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jan 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nijan Yogal, 03 Apr 2024
Dear RC1,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all of your comments and have made revisions accordingly.
We have included the revised version of the paper along with our responses to the referee's comments. We have addressed the concerns raised, particularly those regarding the figures. In this revised version, we have utilized high-resolution figures to ensure clarity and detail. Additionally, we would like to mention that once published online, the figures will be easily zoomable for better viewing.
We appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback.
Best regards,
Yogal et al.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nijan Yogal, 03 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2023-165', Jonathan Keller, 26 Jan 2024
The authors present a detailed methodology for determining the efficiency of drive systems, focusing on the generator (or motor) and power converter. In general, the paper is well structured and written; however, I have made several recommendations regarding the look of the Equations and Figures which are currently substandard for a journal article and detract from the quality of the paper.
The paper title could be more specific, for example, I recommend “Validation of a traceable efficiency determination method for wind turbine drivetrains with a focus on measurement uncertainty”.
In line 28, I believe what is being described is “…the most accurate measurement of efficiency with the lowest possible…” I also recommend reviewing the remainder of the paper for the same issue.
Equation (1) and throughout. The equations themselves should be larger. Most of the symbols are quite small. The symbology in the text and figures could be improved to look nicer (without “_”, for example) with MathType (in Word) or relatively easily in Latex.
I believe there may be a small typo in either Equation (8) of the following text, where there appears MU_{n,inst) and MU_{eta,inst}. I am not sure though, I just recommend the authors check.
The majority of the paper focuses on the efficiency of the electrical systems (generator and/or converter) and the SSTB. However, the NTB and nacelle shown in Figure 6 includes a gearbox and main bearing with mechanical power measured between the prime mover and the nacelle. Therefore, I assume that the resulting efficiencies include losses in the gearbox. Is this correct? I don’t believe though that any of this was discussed or referenced when it came to the short results in Section 6. I recommend some additional text be added on this subject, possibly with a reference or two to papers discussing the efficiency of gearboxes. This could be done within Section 6, which is very short right now. It might also be of interest to the reader to understand the relative contributions to efficiency of the gearbox versus the generator/converter.
Many Figures, such as 3, 8, 10-11, 13-17, and 19, could themselves be larger, and the text within the plots themselves should be larger. Some of them are the most interesting plots in the paper, but they are quite hard to read currently. It would also be preferable in Figure 18 to use the same symbology as the text, specifically the subscripts. This should be achievable with most plotting packages (Excel, Matlab, etc). Figure 19a should label the color scale with the efficiency variable. In general, the figures could be of better quality – in terms of size, labels, symbology and the image quality itself. Most are somewhat blurry. The paper is quite well written, but the figures could be improved, as right now they do detract from the paper’s quality.
The lengthy variable names in lines 298 and 299, are a bit hard to decipher. I recommend describing in text what the various subscripts mean, such as “the efficiency of X as determined by the IEC method with Y”.
A minor note in lines 421 and 423, I do not believe the degree symbol is needed when using Kelvin.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-165-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nijan Yogal, 03 Apr 2024
Dear Jonathan Keller,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all of your comments and have made revisions accordingly.
We have included the revised version of the paper along with our responses to comments.
We appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback.
Best regards,
Yogal et al.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nijan Yogal, 03 Apr 2024
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 367 | 89 | 25 | 481 | 22 | 20 |
- HTML: 367
- PDF: 89
- XML: 25
- Total: 481
- BibTeX: 22
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1