ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
High-fidelity simulation comparison of wake mitigation controlstrategies for a two-turbine case
P. Fleming1, P. Gebraad2, S. Lee1, J.W. van Wingerden2, K. Johnson1,M. Churchfield1, J. Michalakes1, P. Spalart3, P. Moriarty1
1National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden CO, USA, [email protected] University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, [email protected]
3Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle WA
Abstract
Wind turbines arranged in a wind plant impact each other through their wakes. Wind plantcontrol is an active research field that attempts to improve wind plant performance by mod-ifying individual turbine controllers to take into account these turbine-wake interactions.In this paper, we use high-fidelity simulations of a two-turbine fully-waked scenario toinvestigate the potential of several wake mitigation strategies. The strategies, includingmodification of yaw and tilt angle, as well as repositioning of the downstream turbine, rep-resent a mix of known and novel approaches. The simulation results are compared throughchange relative to a baseline operation in terms of overall power capture and loading on theupstream and downstream turbine.
1 Introduction
Wind turbines influence nearby turbines aerodynamically as they extract energy from and en-hance turbulence in the wind. Recently, wind turbine control systems researchers examinedhow these influences can be accounted for and adjusted such that increased wind power plantefficiency and reduced turbine loads can be obtained. Often in the literature, this is done byadapting the axial induction of individual turbines through pitch and torque control, [1, 2, 3]. Inthese methods, an axial induction factor is found that results in lower individual turbine powerfor an upstream tower, but higher plant power due to increased power capture by downstreamturbines.
An alternative approach to wind plant control focuses instead on redirecting wakes around down-stream turbines. One method of achieving this redirection that has been published in the litera-ture is through intentional yaw misalignment in an upstream turbine. In [4] field-tests are carriedout in a scaled wind plant test field, whereas in [5], computational fluid-dynamics (CFD) simu-lations are performed using actuator disk models of a wind turbine.
1
194
ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
In this paper, we describe two-turbine simulation experiments of wake redirection based windplant control using a high-fidelity wind plant simulator, the NREL SOWFA (Simulator forOff/Onshore Wind Farm Applications) tool [6]. SOWFA, described in Section 2, couples a com-putational fluid dynamics (CFD) solver with the aero-elastic turbine simulator FAST [7]. UsingSOWFA, controllers can be compared in terms of their effects on power production and loadingof upstream and downstream turbines. This is an important capability since a controller’s effectson power production must be weighed against its effects on turbine loads.
In addition to evaluating the yaw misalignment method, we also introduce two additional con-cepts. First, we modify the tilt angle of an upstream turbine in order to redirect the wake ver-tically. The second method does not redirect the wake but instead repositions the downstreamturbine (in the case of floating turbines), as proposed in [8]. Additional analysis of the yaw andtilt methods can be found in [9], which analyzes the ability of a single turbine to redirect thewake.
The control methods are evaluated using a simulation of two 5MW turbines, 7 rotor diametersapart, aligned in a turbulent inflow. For each method, the setpoint (yaw misalignment angle, tiltangle or downstream turbine position) is varied, and a 1000 second simulation is run. Addi-tionally, because these techniques might move the downstream turbine from full wake to partialwake, which induces loading [10], we consider the cases where the downstream turbine is andisn’t using independent pitch control (IPC) to mitigate uneven distribution of wind speed acrossthe rotor plane. The results are compared in terms of total power output and key componentloads on both the upstream and downstream turbine across all cases.
The contributions of the paper are: (1) the addition of a new method for wake-redirection windplant control, using adaptation of the rotor tilt angle (with [9]), (2) an analysis and comparisonof three methods of wind-plant wake mitigation using a high-fidelity simulator in terms of powerand loading of an upstream and downstream turbine, and (3) an investigation into the use of IPCfor mitigating the effects of partial wake on turbine loads.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of thesimulation tool SOWFA used in this work. Section 3 provides a description of the simulationscenario in terms of dimension, inflow properties, turbine properties and individual control laws.Section 4 presents and analyzes the results of the study. Section 5 provides some discussionpoints and considerations for future work. Finally, the conclusions are given in section 6.
2 SOWFA
In this work, a parametric study of the proposed control actuation methods is performed usinga high-fidelity tool: Simulator for Off/Onshore Wind Farm Applications (SOWFA) [6] whichis a large-eddy simulation (LES) framework coupled with NRELs aero-elastic turbine code [7]for studying wind turbines embedded in the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). The kernel ofthe LES framework is based on open-source OpenFOAM libraries [11] which solves the in-
2
195
ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
compressible Navier-Stokes equations augmented with a buoyancy term (based on Boussinesqapproximation) and Coriolis acceleration to simulate atmospheric boundary layers under variousconditions. The transport of potential temperature is solved in parallel to account for buoyancy.This set of governing equations are discretized over an unstructured finite volume mesh with sec-ond order central differencing scheme. The collocated formulation of the velocity and pressurevariables is decoupled using the Rhie-Chow [12] interpolation method to avoid numerical insta-bility. The time advancement method follows the predictor-corrector pressure-implicit splittingoperation (PISO) of Issa [13] with three sub-step iteration to maintain second order accuracy.The Moeng model [14] is adapted to estimate the local time-varying shear stress. The sub-gridscale (SGS) turbulence closure employs the standard Smagorinsky [15] formulation with a con-stant of 0.135.
The turbine blades are represented by the actuator line (AL) method of Sørenesen and Shen [16],in which the blades are discritized along the radial line where the lift and drag forces are com-puted based on the incoming flow and the airfoil geometry at the actuator points. These forcevectors are projected on to the computational domain space using a three-dimensional Gaussianfilter which, as a collective whole, produce the wake structures similar to those from blade-geometry resolved simulations at significantly reduced computational cost. In SOWFA, theincoming flow velocity data at the actuator points from the flow solver are fed into FAST, fromwhich the computed aerodynamic lift and drag forces and the shifted actuator points (caused bythe blade deflections) are projected on to the momentum equation as a body force term complet-ing the two-way coupling cycle. The structural loading responses induced by the aerodynamicforces are collected as FAST outputs which are later presented in this study. Further details onSOWFA can be found in [17].
With SOWFA, simulations of proposed wind plant control schemes can be analyzed. Becausethe simulation includes high-fidelity modeling of the atmosphere, and the turbine structure, it ispossible to study simultaneously a controller’s impact on power and turbine loads.
3 Experimental setup
As described in the introduction, the objective of the paper is to compare three strategies of wakemitigation (yaw-misalignment based, tilt-misalignment based and repositioning of the down-stream turbine) using SOWFA. To this end, an “open-loop” two-turbine simulation study is per-formed in which the yaw, tilt, and position setpoints are swept and held fixed for separate 1000second simulations with constant wind direction. Later research will develop active closed-loopcontrol strategies for time-varying wind directions.
A scenario was developed to simulate two NREL 5-MW baseline turbines [18] in turbulent in-flow. The turbulent scenario is that of a neutral boundary layer, selected based on a previouslypublished study. [17] The inflow is generated in a precursor atmospheric LES on a domain thatis 3 km by 3 km in the horizontal and 1 km in height. The horizontally-averaged wind speed isdriven to 8 m/s at the turbine hub height and is controlled through a time-varying mean driving
3
196
ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
Figure 1: Overview of the experimental setup in the baseline case.
4
197
ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
Figure 2: Example velocity fields for different wake redirection methods, generated by SOWFA.
pressure gradient. The wind comes from the southwest (300◦) so that the elongated turbulentstructures in the surface layer are not ”trapped” by the periodic boundaries, continually cyclingthrough in the same location. In the baseline case, the turbine rotor axis is aligned with the winddirection. The surface temperature flux is set to zero, although a capping inversion initially at750 m above the surface is used both to slow boundary layer growth and because it is a realfeature of atmospheric boundary layers. The surface aerodynamic roughness is set to 0.001 m,which is typically of flow over water. Details on positioning of the turbines and meshing of thedomain are given in fig. 1.
Screenshots from time averaged slices of the flow for the different control strategies is providedin fig. 2. SOWFA requires significant computational power in order to run high-fidelity sim-ulations: using a sample time of 0.02s, the time steps take an average 2.5s to calculate on theSandia/NREL Red Mesa supercomputer [19] using distributed computation with 256 processors.This yields an execution time of 34.4h for each simulation.
In each case, the turbines use the baseline controller defined in [18]) independently. Becausewake redirection can move the downstream turbine from full wake to partial wake, inducingloads [10], we compare the use of IPC with the standard collective pitch control by switchingon load-reducing IPC on the downstream turbine for the last 400s of the simulation. The IPCimplementation is based on the design first presented in [20], using the parameters as specifiedin [21], with some adaptations to be able to use the load-reducing IPC in below-rated conditions.
5
198
ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
A supervisory wind plant controller [22] collects the data from the individual turbines.
4 Results and Analysis
Following completion of the runs, the data was collected from each case and post-processedas follows. First the 1000s of time domain data for each was broken into segments. The first200s of each run was discarded since the wake was not fully developed. The last 100s werealso discarded due to system problems on the cluster leaving some files incomplete. Finally, theremaining time histories were divided into 200s-600s, in which the downstream turbine is notrunning IPC, and 700s-900s, when it is and the IPC startup transients have vanished. Although itshould be possible to start IPC smoothly, since the transition was not our research focus we rampit on rather abuptly. In the baseline case, IPC is never enabled, to provide a basis for comparison.
From these two blocks of time (200-600s and 700-900s), several metrics are computed. First,the average power is computed for each turbine. Next, loads are computed for blade out-of-plane(OOP) bending, drivetrain torsion, tower bending and yaw bearing moment. In the case of thetower load, a combined load is computed from the separate fore-aft and side-side loads using aroot-sum-square combination. This is likewise done to combine the separate My and Mz loads onthe yaw bearing. Individual loads are provided in the appendix. For each of these load signals,a damage equivalent load (DEL) is computed. The DEL is a standard metric of fatigue damage(see [23]). These results are summarized in figs. 3 and 4.
Fig. 3 shows the comparison of methods in the case where the downstream turbine does not useIPC. For each method, there is a sweep across possibles setpoint (yaw angle, tilt angle or repo-sition of downstream turbine position). The top row shows the total power output of each case,with the horizontal line indicating the baseline level and the numbers above each bar denotingpercent change from the baseline case. The remaining rows of the figure indicate percent changein DEL for the components examined.
Starting with yaw-based control, in the best case the method shows an increase in power of4.6%. Additionally, the simulation shows that for the upstream turbine with misaligned yaw,significant load reduction is observed for blade OOP bending, tower bending and yaw bearingmoment. The downstream turbine however experiences a rise in blade OOP bending, drivetraintorsion and yaw bearing moment. This change is most likely due to the movement from full topartial wake overlap.
In the tilt case, a maximum power gain of 7.1% is observed. At this peak of power capture, itis seen that for the upstream turbine, the blade and yaw bearing loads have gone up while thedrivetrain and tower loads have declined a small amount. As in the yaw case, the downstreamturbine experiences an increase in blade loads, most likely due to partial-wake overlap. There isalso a decrease in tower loads and increase in yaw bearing loads.
Tilt misalignment shows larger potential power production improvements than yaw when con-
6
199
ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
Figure 3: Summary of results of two tubine simulation. The 3 columns are divided by controlaction. The top row shows the combined power output for each case, compared to the baselinecase on the far left. The remaining rows indicate the percent change in load compared to thebaseline.
7
200
ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
sidering large positive tilt angles. With a positive tilt angle, the rotor would face downwards, andfor conventional upstream turbine designs this would cause the blades to hit the tower. There-fore, a positive tilting mechanism is more suitable to downwind turbines [24]. Both negativeand positive tilt angles will redirect the wake away from the downstream turbine rotor, but thepositive tilting has the advantage that it will redirect the wake towards the ground, allowing highvelocity air from higher altitudes to flow towards the upper part of the downstream rotor, re-sulting in a higher power production of the downstream turbine. Additional details on the wakedisplacements that can be achieved using yawing or tilting can be found in [9].
Repositioning of (floating) turbines produces the most substantial gains in power if the rotorof the downstream turbine is moved more than 25 meters out of the rotor axis of the upstreamturbine (up to 41% improvement when the downstream turbine is moved a full rotor diameter).Observing the loads for the downstream turbine, there is little change for small changes in po-sition, significant change for the discplacements yielding partial overlap, and then no changeagain when the turbine is moved a full rotor diameter.
Looking at the loads across experiments, the upstream turbine either sees an increase or decreasein blade OOP bending, depending on the angle chosen. Also, for the upstream turbine, yaw andtilt angle adjustments either decrease or minimally increase the drivetrain, tower and yaw load.A possible explanation for this effect is that these methods generally reduce the power captureof the upstream turbine, and derating can be considered as a load mitigation strategy. For thedownstream turbine, all loads generally increase somewhat, and this is most likely due to mov-ing from full to partial wake overlap.
Fig. 4 performs the same analysis, but now for the case where the downstream turbine is usingIPC to mitigate the effect of partial wake overlap. Note that these results are based on 200s ofsimulation versus 400s in Fig. 3, and are from a different point in the simulation. The resultsare dramatic: the blade loads, tower loads and yaw bearing loads are consistently reduced whencompared to the baseline case (which does not use IPC). The drivetrain loads are the excep-tion, but the lack of a clear pattern indicates that perhaps this is a somewhat stochastic load.Missing from the current controller is a drivetrain damper, a very common element in industrialcontrollers that could be used to minimize the changes in drivetrain loads. Overall, the resultsindicates a very strong motivation for the use of IPC, in general, and as a way to eliminate thenegative impacts of using wake-mitigation strategies.
The appendix provides the full results listed in absolute values (not relative to baseline).
5 Discussion
It is important to acknowledge the shortcomings of this current work. First, due to computa-tional/time constraints, current results are based on simulations of only one inflow case. Futurework will combine results from simulations using multiple wind inputs and better establish therobustness of these results. Additionally, the experiments are not of a closed-loop control, but
8
201
ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
Figure 4: Comparison of data as in fig. 3, however with the downstream turbine operating withIPC in all cases except for the baseline. Note that due to system problems, one case is missingbut will be present in final version.
9
202
ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
of settings that take advantage of a stationary wind direction. This is a good first step, but inorder to be applicable to real wind plants, future work must establish control loops which canaccomplish similar results for changing wind direction conditions.
6 Conclusions
This report shows very good potential for all methods considered. For each case, operatingpoints exist which couple improved power capture with, mostly, reduced loading. It is importantto point out though that presently, the technology only exists to implement yaw misalignment.However, given that tilt and repositioning are capable of yielding more power capture, perhapsthe effects could be considered in the design of future turbines. A second result of the paperis the very good potential of employing IPC to mitigate partial wake effects. This improves thebenefit of the wake redirection or repositioning techniques by reducing the partial-wake-inducedloads on the downstream turbine.
Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to Wesley Jones and the NREL High Performance Computing teamfor their crucial help and support in completing this simulation study.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and by the NWO Veni Grant no.11930 Reconfigurable floating wind farm.
References
[1] P.M.O. Gebraad, F.C. van Dam, and J.W. van Wingerden. A maximum power point track-ing approach for wind farm control. In Proceedings of The Science of Making Torque fromWind, 2012.
[2] K.E. Johnson and G. Fritsch. Assessment of extremum seeking control for wind farmenergy production. Wind Engineering, 36(6):701–716, 2012.
[3] J.R. Marden, S.D. Ruben, and L.Y. Pao. Surveying game theoretic approaches for windfarm optimization. In Proceedings of the 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,volume 38, pages 584–596, 2012.
[4] J.W. Wagenaar, L.A.H. Machielse, and J.G. Schepers. Controlling wind in ECN’s scaledwind farm. In Proceedings of EWEA, 2012.
[5] A. Jimenez, A. Crespo, and E. Migoya. Application of a LES technique to characterize thewake deflection of a wind turbine in yaw. Wind energy, 13(6):559–572, 2010.
[6] M. Churchfield and S. Lee. NWTC design codes (SOWFA). http://wind.nrel.gov/designcodes/simulators/SOWFA, 2013.
10
203
ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
[7] J. Jonkman. NWTC Design Codes (FAST). http://wind.nrel.gov/designcodes/simulators/fast, 2012.
[8] J.W. van Wingerden. Reconfigurable floating wind turbines, VENI project no. 11930,2011.
[9] P. Fleming, P. Gebraad, S. Lee, J.W. van Wingerden, K. Johnson, M. Churchfield, J. Micha-lakes, P. Spalart, and P. Moriarty. Evaluating techniques for redirecting turbine wake usingSOWFA. In Proceedings of ICOWES, 2013.
[10] Z. Yang, Y. Li, and Y.E. Seem. Improved individual pitch control for wind farm turbineload reduction via wake modeling. In Proceedings of AIAA, 2011.
[11] OpenFOAM, the open source CFD toolbox. http://www.openfoam.com/, 2013.[12] C.M. Rhie and W.L. Chow. Numerical study of the turbulent flow past an airfoil with
trailing edge separation. AIAA Journal, 21:1525–1532, 2012.[13] R.I. Issa. Solution of the implicitly discretised fluid flow equations by operator-splitting.
Journal of computational physics, 62(1):40–65, 1986.[14] C.H. Moeng. A large-eddy simulation model for the study of planetary boundary layer
turbulence. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 41(13):2052–2062, 1984.[15] J. Smagorinsky. General circulation experiments with the primitive equations. Monthly
Weather Review, 91(3):99–164, 1963.[16] J.N. Sørensen and W.Z. Shen. Numerical modeling of wind turbine wakes. Journal of
Fluids Engineering, 124(2):393–399, 2002.[17] M.J. Churchfield, S. Lee, J. Michalakes, and P.J. Moriarty. A numerical study of the effects
of atmospheric and wake turbulence on wind turbine dynamics. Journal of Turbulence,13(14):1–32, 2012.
[18] J. Jonkman, S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and G. Scott. Definition of a 5-MW reference windturbine for offshore system development. Technical report, NREL/TP-500-38060, 2009.
[19] NREL’s high-performance computing capabilities. http://www.nrel.gov/energysciences/csc/high_performance_computing_capabilities,2009.
[20] E.A. Bossanyi. Controller for 5MW reference turbine. Technical report, Garrad Hassanand Partners Limited, 2009.
[21] I. Houtzager. Towards Data-Driven Control for Modern Wind Turbines. PhD thesis, DelftUniversity of Technology, 2009.
[22] P. Fleming, P. Gebraad, J.W. van Wingerden, S. Lee, M. Churchfield, A. Scholbrock,J. Michalakes, K. Johnson, and P. Moriarty. The SOWFA super-controller: A high-fidelitytool for evaluating wind plant control approaches. In Proceedings of EWEA, 2013.
[23] M. Buhl Jr. MCrunch theory manual for version 1.00.[24] Andrew Scholbrock. Private conversation.
Appendix
11
204
ICOWES2013 Conference 17-19 June 2013, Lyngby
T abl
e1:
Full
resu
ltsta
ble
Cas
ePo
wer
(MW
)O
OP
Ben
ding
(kN
m)
Driv
etra
in(k
Nm
)Fo
re-A
ft(k
Nm
)Si
de-S
ide
(kN
m)
Yaw
My
(kN
m)
Yaw
Mz
(kN
m)
T1
T2
Tota
lT
1T
2T
1T
2T
1T
2T
1T
2T
1T
2T
1T
2B
asel
ine
1.7
0.8
2.6
738.
898
2.5
183.
326
9.6
5382
.311
589.
425
29.5
5595
.110
83.6
1856
.911
21.6
1829
.2T
1ya
w=
-35◦
1.2
1.2
2.4
913.
311
33.9
159.
534
7.8
5247
.110
472.
919
64.4
4244
.091
5.0
1519
.291
3.8
1535
.1T
1ya
w=
-30◦
1.3
1.1
2.4
905.
811
52.5
164.
632
7.6
5412
.394
07.3
1347
.351
39.2
925.
214
84.6
949.
817
98.7
T1
yaw
=-2
5◦1.
41.
02.
588
6.7
1124
.818
1.0
309.
255
04.9
1180
3.0
1264
.355
29.3
988.
318
12.6
982.
317
00.9
T1
yaw
=-2
0◦1.
50.
92.
587
3.2
1081
.618
2.5
331.
354
46.8
1453
0.8
1465
.864
92.8
1021
.617
15.1
1005
.218
40.4
T1
yaw
=-2
0◦0.
92.
584
8.4
1026
.417
1.5
291.
953
23.0
1202
4.4
1411
.855
68.5
1036
.916
66.6
1041
.420
43.5
T1
yaw
=-1
0◦1.
70.
82.
579
8.9
981.
118
8.5
281.
652
21.8
1125
2.3
1758
.053
38.6
1062
.416
42.1
1079
.818
73.8
T1
yaw
=-5
◦1.
70.
82.
578
1.1
1018
.017
8.9
254.
851
92.6
1543
5.1
2145
.473
66.2
1072
.916
39.4
1107
.418
71.1
T1
yaw
=5◦
1.7
0.9
2.6
705.
810
42.1
181.
529
1.3
5425
.913
374.
929
27.8
7635
.210
50.7
1733
.711
34.4
1676
.2T
1ya
w=
10◦
1.7
1.0
2.6
678.
610
44.4
181.
630
1.9
5360
.111
023.
934
35.5
5038
.310
39.3
1503
.311
20.4
1698
.2T
1ya
w=
15◦
1.6
1.0
2.6
649.
311
05.9
180.
028
2.7
5146
.611
553.
136
79.8
4731
.910
13.6
1641
.811
21.8
1551
.5T
1ya
w=
20◦
1.5
1.1
2.7
642.
111
23.2
180.
930
2.3
4677
.111
762.
341
74.0
5284
.897
3.7
1533
.610
95.9
1675
.3T
1ya
w=
25◦
1.4
1.2
2.7
628.
811
36.9
177.
434
4.2
5020
.898
39.3
4720
.752
75.7
928.
815
09.7
1046
.017
71.4
T1
yaw
=30
◦1.
31.
32.
760
7.6
1104
.516
7.7
381.
243
27.6
1104
3.2
5120
.256
63.7
888.
716
08.3
980.
617
21.3
T1
yaw
=35
◦1.
21.
42.
660
9.6
1080
.716
0.7
355.
240
97.8
1052
5.8
5183
.952
93.0
858.
613
96.3
947.
217
56.4
T1
yaw
=40
◦1.
01.
52.
559
8.9
1059
.715
0.7
366.
149
65.4
1052
3.8
5989
.854
22.0
852.
214
70.8
899.
217
01.3
T1
tilt=
-15◦
1.6
0.9
2.5
620.
290
8.4
197.
324
4.5
5380
.796
32.7
2908
.445
57.4
1085
.815
48.4
1078
.618
29.6
T1
tilt=
-12◦
1.6
0.9
2.5
645.
591
6.5
195.
923
3.6
5404
.211
291.
227
02.8
4660
.610
63.0
1644
.410
89.3
1815
.6T
1til
t=-9
◦1.
70.
92.
565
7.5
967.
019
0.1
232.
956
49.4
1146
7.2
2523
.853
28.9
1076
.317
61.2
1108
.117
89.5
T1
tilt=
-6◦
1.7
0.9
2.5
695.
497
0.6
193.
925
1.5
5454
.010
910.
224
46.4
5733
.010
82.2
1944
.811
30.6
1845
.2T
1til
t=-3
◦1.
70.
82.
572
2.1
979.
918
6.4
252.
754
53.2
1310
0.4
2508
.461
15.3
1078
.118
04.4
1136
.417
01.6
T1
tilt=
3◦1.
70.
92.
676
0.9
1032
.617
8.1
286.
852
78.6
1202
1.9
2450
.758
34.5
1074
.417
66.1
1094
.618
14.5
T1
tilt=
6◦1.
70.
92.
678
3.4
1043
.417
4.1
294.
252
37.4
1249
2.4
2665
.462
88.1
1060
.815
71.3
1082
.516
67.6
T1
tilt=
9◦1.
70.
92.
680
3.6
1137
.317
5.7
328.
452
23.9
1235
0.6
2588
.960
18.5
1019
.617
04.2
1035
.516
55.4
T1
tilt=
12◦
1.6
1.0
2.6
806.
612
03.6
176.
033
9.3
5187
.512
808.
024
80.8
5902
.099
3.1
1540
.510
00.2
1695
.6T
1til
t=15
◦1.
61.
02.
781
7.8
1226
.318
0.0
332.
353
11.1
1281
9.7
2506
.950
02.5
975.
414
66.2
966.
016
30.0
T1
tilt=
18◦
1.6
1.1
2.7
827.
212
92.1
172.
727
9.6
5597
.011
633.
026
88.8
4992
.895
3.8
1489
.292
2.6
1841
.3T
1til
t=21
◦1.
51.
22.
782
2.3
1265
.118
8.1
292.
353
83.3
1321
8.3
3143
.548
37.8
931.
014
43.2
895.
018
29.0
T1
tilt=
24◦
1.5
1.2
2.7
838.
812
82.3
185.
426
7.1
5224
.510
089.
333
15.6
5340
.791
3.6
1466
.685
9.5
1731
.2T
1til
t=27
◦1.
41.
32.
783
1.3
1297
.218
1.0
287.
351
21.4
9331
.237
03.5
4665
.587
1.9
1533
.382
6.3
1847
.7T
1til
t=30
◦1.
31.
42.
781
2.2
1270
.217
0.0
303.
751
49.2
9415
.035
69.6
4779
.385
9.9
1443
.177
8.9
1840
.8T
1til
t=33
◦1.
31.
52.
781
1.3
1222
.615
7.7
269.
151
21.8
9900
.135
87.1
4478
.284
6.3
1485
.575
5.0
1928
.3T
1til
t=36
◦1.
21.
62.
778
5.1
1212
.314
5.9
255.
951
05.4
9205
.041
57.1
3859
.681
2.0
1519
.070
4.6
1782
.3T
1m
oved
-130
m1.
71.
73.
473
8.0
1001
.918
2.7
303.
654
06.1
8475
.225
11.4
3763
.810
82.3
1550
.111
14.0
1571
.5T
1m
oved
-100
m1.
71.
53.
273
9.5
1125
.118
0.0
425.
554
04.8
1055
5.4
2517
.250
37.3
1080
.815
61.8
1116
.014
96.6
T1
mov
ed-5
0m1.
71.
02.
773
9.1
1092
.418
1.4
397.
954
10.4
1136
8.8
2543
.753
08.0
1082
.916
73.3
1115
.821
95.6
T1
mov
ed-2
5m1.
70.
92.
674
0.6
1002
.018
3.0
306.
853
65.5
1203
1.7
2557
.762
62.6
1081
.316
58.9
1117
.719
58.4
T1
mov
ed-1
0m1.
70.
82.
573
8.2
994.
118
3.2
265.
354
15.7
1191
5.1
2497
.153
60.0
1080
.817
57.8
1122
.118
65.8
T1
mov
ed-5
m1.
70.
82.
573
7.8
991.
018
2.0
282.
953
91.1
1190
8.1
2510
.457
35.2
1081
.718
19.6
1123
.218
73.8
T1
mov
ed-2
m1.
70.
82.
673
8.2
982.
318
2.0
278.
853
85.8
1144
6.8
2507
.654
76.8
1081
.118
20.1
1122
.918
75.7
T1
mov
ed2m
1.7
0.9
2.6
738.
298
6.5
182.
727
7.1
5392
.911
507.
725
08.5
5971
.510
81.9
1695
.811
23.0
1926
.9T
1m
oved
5m1.
70.
92.
673
7.5
984.
818
1.8
294.
054
01.8
1135
4.7
2506
.453
87.4
1081
.116
49.8
1124
.318
93.5
T1
mov
ed10
m1.
70.
92.
673
7.4
994.
918
2.1
294.
053
81.3
1206
2.1
2522
.252
66.4
1079
.215
96.7
1122
.018
41.0
T1
mov
ed25
m1.
71.
02.
773
7.4
1052
.318
2.0
308.
853
92.2
1286
9.2
2460
.759
44.7
1081
.015
54.0
1110
.817
28.5
T1
mov
ed50
m1.
71.
22.
973
9.3
1178
.618
1.5
324.
953
67.7
1092
3.0
2540
.450
33.1
1081
.014
93.3
1117
.616
52.9
T1
mov
ed10
0m1.
71.
73.
474
0.1
1047
.618
1.2
328.
953
77.1
7353
.525
08.2
4404
.410
79.5
1399
.711
15.4
1515
.1T
1m
oved
130m
1.7
1.9
3.6
739.
686
8.8
182.
430
8.5
5409
.267
24.1
2523
.933
33.5
1080
.811
47.4
1117
.713
86.9
12
205