Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Wind tower design

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Oops!   :)

I meant extensive but perhaps the "keyboard slip" was meaningful.

It will probably seem a little expensive but still cheaper than a
problematic design.

Sounds to me like you're venturing out near (beyond?) the limits of
code driven design.




cheers
Bob

On Nov 25, 2007 7:36 PM, Conrad Harrison <sch.tectonic(--nospam--at)bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> Bob
> Robert Kazanjy wrote:
>
> I would depend on a wind tunnel modeling expert and someone with
> expensive cfd experience and aerodynamic flutter experience.
>
> Was that meant to be extensive experience?
> Or intentional that it's expensive?
>
>
> Regards
> Conrad Harrison
> B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
> mailto:sch.tectonic(--nospam--at)bigpond.com
> Adelaide
> South Australia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Kazanjy [mailto:rkazanjy(--nospam--at)gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2007 11:38
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Wind tower design
>
>
> CFD has been around since at least the mid 70's.
>
> My first exposure to is was during a tour (Spring '75) of NASA Ames
> Research Center at Moffett Field, CA
>
> They were (at the time) doing some pretty advanced stuff, flow over
> the space shuttle during re-entry.
>  At the time the computational demands were at the very limits of
> super-computing capability (think Cray).
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/home/index.html
>
> http://search.nasa.gov/search/search?q=cfd&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=dateADALAd
> 1&site=nasa_collection&ie=UTF-8&client=nasa_production&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesh
> eet=nasa_production
>
>
> cfd has come a long way in the last 30 years, don't need super
> computers to do the more "mainstream" stuff.
>
> but like with any sophisticated analytical tool (like FEM), in the
> hands of the inexperienced, the results could be questionable.
>
>
> I would depend on a wind tunnel modeling expert and someone with
> expensive cfd experience and aerodynamic flutter experience.
>
>
> cheers
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2007 11:51 AM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope(--nospam--at)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Computational Fluid Dynamics.  There are several programs that can do
> this
> > kind of work.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Harold Sprague
> >
> >
> >  ________________________________
> >  Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:03:07 -0500
> >
> >
> > From: kbofoz(--nospam--at)gmail.com
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: Wind tower design
> >
> > Harold, what is CFD ?
> >
> >
> > On Nov 21, 2007 12:01 PM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope(--nospam--at)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Don't write off circular shapes.  The circular shape may be the most
> > structurally efficient and most effective for construction.  It generally
> is
> > when it comes to stacks in spite of the vortex shedding problem.
> >
> > Stacks have the same tendency of vortex shedding.  It is mitigated by
> > strakes or active damping.  The blades themselves of a wind power
> generator
> > may mitigate the forming of the vortices.
> >
> > Regardless, my limited experience with high end computer modeling is that
> a
> > lot of the CFD codes will give you any answer you want.  What you need are
> > data points that verify the CFD model.  I would suggest you speak with Jon
> > Peterka at CPP in Ft. Collins.  He knows modeling and he knows the
> > limitations of CFD modeling.  He may have already modeled this.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Harold Sprague
> >
> >
> >
> >  ________________________________
> >  Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:53:55 -0500
> >
> > From: kbofoz(--nospam--at)gmail.com
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> >
> > Subject: Re: Wind tower design
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback Harold,
> > I am looking at the probability of wind tunnel testing, as well as
> > theoretical studies to determine the dynamic properties.
> > I will be asking the wind experts about vortex shedding.  I will probably
> be
> > using a non-circular cross-section to reduce the vortex shedding, but I
> > don't yet know if a hexagonal or pentagonal shape is better than circular.
> > I believe the best would be pentagonal, but that will be a discussion with
> > the wind tunnel people.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 19, 2007 12:17 PM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope(--nospam--at)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I doubt that you will find any sort of code or design guide on this topic.
> > I would suggest that a wind tunnel study be conducted especially if this
> is
> > for operational wind load characteristics.  If this is for extreme wind
> > effects, I would think that the dominate issue will be the vortex shedding
> > on the mast.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Harold Sprague
> >
> >
> >  ________________________________
> >  Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:02:19 -0500
> > From: kbofoz(--nospam--at)gmail.com
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Wind tower design
> >
> >
> > Has anybody done any wind tower design work ?  I am doing some preliminary
> > work on a concrete tower design, and I am thinking about the dynamic
> > behaviour
> > and the effect of the passage of the blade when it passes in front of the
> > tower.  Does anyone have any information or ideas on this ?
> >
> > The Germans and the Japanese have actually built some concrete towers
> > already.  Apparently steel towers are at about their height limit now, and
> > the way to greater efficiency and bigger turbines leads to higher towers,
> > which will probably be in concrete.
> >
> >
> >
> >  ________________________________
> >  Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. Share now!
> >
> >
> >  ________________________________
> >  Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. Share now!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Your smile counts. The more smiles you share, the more we donate. Join in!
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********