the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Segmented Gurney Flaps for Enhanced Wind Turbine Wake Recovery
Abstract. The wind turbine wake is a downstream region of velocity deficit, featuring higher turbulence and a complex helical vortex structure. In low ambient turbulence and low tip speed ratio conditions, the wind turbine wake is extremely stable. The impact of the velocity deficit is a power loss for the downstream wind turbine, which scales with the velocity cube. This study uses field tests and simulations to evaluate segmented Gurney flaps for enhanced wind turbine wake recovery and power output in a wind farm setting; where the power and loads of the retrofitted wind turbine were assessed. Four Gurney flaps were attached to each blade tip of a 3.8 MW research wind turbine. This configuration is hypothesised (in line with an ECN (now TNO Wind Energy) patent) to cause a spatial variation to the stable tip vortex and induce turbulence in the wake for faster wake mixing. Field tests using a scanning LiDAR were conducted to quantify the wind turbine wake recovery between the baseline and the retrofitted configuration in various atmospheric conditions. The results show a consistent increase in wake recovery for the Gurney flap configuration, generally at all downstream distances (span wise averaged deficits reduced by roughly 10 % at hub height, at a downstream distance of 5D), pronounced at low tip speed ratio conditions. Using crude assumptions, this implies a 4 % relative increase in wind farm efficiency for a typical wind farm with outer rows of wind turbines with segmented Gurney flaps. The impact of retrofitting on turbine power and loads remained within the measurement uncertainty band, and this limited effect is confirmed by design load simulations. In this work, a very successful field test campaign was executed which demonstrated the use of segmented Gurney Flaps as a promising add-on to promote enhanced wind turbine wake recovery for improved overall wind farm farm performance.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(6063 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2023-90', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Sep 2023
The authors present field data from a wind turbine with and without retrofitted Gurney flaps near the blade tips. The experimental data is velocity data obtained through LIDAR. One section that deals with a power and load analysis based on blade element momentum simulations is added at the end.I find the paper overall difficult to follow and not well written. The paper is full of grammatical and spelling errors. Figures are not cited in order of appearance. Variables in equations are not introduced. References are cited as a list without summarizing their main contributions and relevance to the current manuscript. Figures lack axis tick labels. The term 'segmented Gurney flaps' is used before explaining what it means, and then on page 3, the authors suddenly start to talk about miniature trailing edge effectors instead.The results themselves are not convincing. The authors themselves seem to be torn. They go from admitting that the impact of Gurney flaps remains within the measurement uncertainty band in the abstract to claiming that great insights into the wind turbine wake were obtained in various conditions. In my opinion, the data shown does not allow any conclusion to be drawn. Too much information is missing. The authors refer to the standard deviation of the data as the standard error. A distinction between data fluctuations and measurement errors is not made. The wake deficit is presented in the form of a spanwise average. I do not understand why the authors do this, as the average value depends strongly on the spatial sampling distribution and the area over which they average. There is too much bias.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/wes-2023-90-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koen Boorsma, 02 Oct 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2023-90', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Nov 2023
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Koen Boorsma, 05 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2023-90', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Sep 2023
The authors present field data from a wind turbine with and without retrofitted Gurney flaps near the blade tips. The experimental data is velocity data obtained through LIDAR. One section that deals with a power and load analysis based on blade element momentum simulations is added at the end.I find the paper overall difficult to follow and not well written. The paper is full of grammatical and spelling errors. Figures are not cited in order of appearance. Variables in equations are not introduced. References are cited as a list without summarizing their main contributions and relevance to the current manuscript. Figures lack axis tick labels. The term 'segmented Gurney flaps' is used before explaining what it means, and then on page 3, the authors suddenly start to talk about miniature trailing edge effectors instead.The results themselves are not convincing. The authors themselves seem to be torn. They go from admitting that the impact of Gurney flaps remains within the measurement uncertainty band in the abstract to claiming that great insights into the wind turbine wake were obtained in various conditions. In my opinion, the data shown does not allow any conclusion to be drawn. Too much information is missing. The authors refer to the standard deviation of the data as the standard error. A distinction between data fluctuations and measurement errors is not made. The wake deficit is presented in the form of a spanwise average. I do not understand why the authors do this, as the average value depends strongly on the spatial sampling distribution and the area over which they average. There is too much bias.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/wes-2023-90-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koen Boorsma, 02 Oct 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2023-90', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Nov 2023
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Koen Boorsma, 05 Dec 2023
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
767 | 156 | 45 | 968 | 53 | 32 |
- HTML: 767
- PDF: 156
- XML: 45
- Total: 968
- BibTeX: 53
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1