Why Does the Free Decay in X-Direction Differ Between SIMPACK and OPENFAST?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mjmadraswala
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis Decay
AI Thread Summary
The free decay analysis of the NREL 5-MW wind turbine model using SIMPACK shows a discrepancy in X-direction decay compared to OPENFAST, with SIMPACK exhibiting a higher magnitude. This difference may be attributed to the center of mass (C.M) offset of the nacelle or hub, as well as variations in overhang length between the two models. While decay results in the Y direction align closely, the X-direction decay suggests numerical factors may play a significant role. The initial displacement applied in the Y direction does not effectively inform about the decay characteristics in the X direction. Clarification is sought on the values represented in the subvar RotOvrHang within SIMPACK.
mjmadraswala
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I have been conducting free decay analysis on the 5-MW-wind turbine model provided by SIMPACK . I wanted to compare the free decay results with OPENFAST simulation. Hence, I applied a initial displacement of 1m on the tower top in the Y direction. While comparing the results with OPENFAST the decay seems to match in the Y direction but the decay along X-direction seems to vary in magnitude(see snapshot below). SIMPACK has a higher magnitude of decay which could be due to the offset in C.M of the
I have been conducting free decay analysis on the NREL 5-MW-wind turbine model provided by SIMPACK . I wanted to compare the free decay results with OPENFAST simulation. Hence, I applied a initial displacement of 1m on the tower top in the Y direction. While comparing the results with OPENFAST the decay seems to match in the Y direction but the decay along X-direction seems to vary in magnitude(see snapshot below). SIMPACK has a higher magnitude of decay which could be due to the offset in C.M of the nacelle or the Hub. I also found out that there is an offset in the overhang length between SIMPACK and OPENFAST, but as per the structural parameters of the NREL 5 MW the C.M of the nacelle and the hub seems to be at the correct co-ordinates on SIMPACK. I checked manually the distance of the center of hub to the tower axis, which is different from the OvrHang length defined in the model(check snapshot)

If anyone has worked with the same model on SIMPACK explain what do the values represent in the subvar RotOvrHang on SIMPACK?

Appreciate your help on this matter.

1661783483958.png


1661783508328.png

1661783531088.png
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Look at the scale of the comparison at X, the values are much much lower, suggesting this might be more due to numerics than anything else. It seems to me that an initial displacement in Y direction is not going to tell you anything about the decay in X direction.
 
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...
Back
Top