20
P.V. PANEL WIND LOAD EFFECTS FEBRUARY 2011 Arman Hemmati , Brady Zaiser, Chaneel Park, Jeff Symons, Katie Olver Design Review #3 TEAM 12
P.V. PANEL WIND LOAD EFFECTS
FEBRUARY 2011
Arman Hemmati , Brady Zaiser, Chaneel Park, Jeff Symons, Katie Olver
Design Review #3
TEAM 12
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
2
Overview
• Refresh• Wind-Tunnel• Experimental Progress• CFD Progress• What’s Next
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
3
Refresh – Where did we start?
• Ideal angle of inclination is 51°
• Too much weight for the roof?
• Wind-Tunnel testing – Experimental
• Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) - Computational
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
4
Refresh – Where were we?
• Best model for the wind tunnel testing• Screw-Bolt MDoF Model• Why?
- Intuitive Design- Robust & Simple
• Measurement Method• Drag Plate & Load Cells• Availability & Simplicity
• CFD convergence issues discussed
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
5
Refresh – Schedule and Budget
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
6
Wind Tunnel – Spec. & Set-backs
• Wind tunnel dimensions:
Target area = 20% (total area)
• Status:
• Functional – It is currently being used by Tail fin group.
• Wind Speed – Still unclear how to obtain the correct speed (May use a device!)
• Availability of the Tunnel – Time conflict with other groups
20%
137.2 cm
76.2
cm
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
7
Experimental Progress – Prev. Design• Feasibility issues related to the previous design
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
8
Experimental Progress – Current Design
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
9
Experimental Progress – Machining• Incremental Bar
• Slider
• Connection Plate
• 0.5” Threaded Support Nut
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
10
Experimental Progress – Machining• Main Connection Nut
• Upper Hinge
• PV Panel
• Lower Hinge
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
11
CFD Progress – Expectations1. Establish a functional and feasible model
a) Rooftop boundary layerb) Panel – Rooftop separation distancec) C.V. size (inlet and outlet buffer zones)
2. Confirm the credibility of the model
a) Pressure Coefficient (Cp)b) CD /CL ratio
3. Parameter variation study
a) Panel – Rooftop separation distanceb) Panel angle of attackc) Wind speed / Reynolds Number d) Number of panel in series
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
12
CFD Progress – Dummy Run
• Open Channel Flow:Geometry – Horizontal Open
ChannelSimple Physics – Laminar flow
Wall (No Slip)
Wall (No Slip)
Ou
tlet
Inle
t
Velocity (m/s)
Heig
ht
(m)
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
13
CFD Progress – First Trial
• 2D Flow around a Flat Plate: - Laminar Flow- Vin = 0.005 m/s
(1) In
let
(8)
Ou
tlet
(2) Wall (No Slip)
(3) Wall (No Slip) (4-7) Wall (No Slip)
Pre
ssu
re (
Pa)
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
14
CFD Progress – Rooftop Slip Condition• 2D Flow around a Flat Plate: - Turbulent Flow (k-
e)- Vin = 29.0 m/s
Wall (No Slip)Wall (Slip)
(3) Outlet
(8) O
utle
t
(1) O
utle
t
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
15
CFD Progress – Pressure Coefficient• 2D Flow around a Flat Plate:- Larger C.V. – Behind the
plate- Away from the roof (No
Slip)
Cp
(D
im.
Less
)
Cp pg0.5u
2
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
16
CFD Progress – Pressure Coefficient• 2D Flow around a Flat Plate:- Longer inlet in front of
the plate
10 m
Cp
(D
im.
Less
)C
p (
Dim
. L
ess
)
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
17
CFD Progress – Current Model
• 2D Flow around a Flat Plate:- No Roof (Open all sides)- Mesh Refinement (No Effect)
Outlet
Outlet
Ou
tletIn
let
Vin= 29 m/s
Vin= 29 m/s Cp
(D
im.
Less
)
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
18
CFD Progress – Current Model (CFX)
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
19
What’s Next – Where are we going?• Experimental:
• Complete the testing model
• Familiarization with the Wind Tunnel
• Computational:
• Fully fix the Pressure Coefficient (Cp) issue
• Confirm the relationship between CD & CL ( )
• Calculate the Forces
CDCL
tan
FEBRUARY - 2011Design Review #3: DeLoPREC
www.ucalgary.ca/deloprec
