Measurements of Flow Distortion within the CSAT3 Sonic Anemometer T.W. Horst and S.R. Semmer National Center for Atmospheric Research Technical University.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airfoils and wings

Advertisements

23/06/2009 – CLRC 2009 Pulsed Doppler Lidar wind profile measurement process in complex terrain Matthieu Boquet, Bruno Ribstein, Rémy Parmentier, Jean-Pierre.

CFD Simulation: MEXICO Rotor Wake

Vibrationdata 1 Unit 22 Integration and Differentiation of Time Histories & Spectral Functions.

WINDSCANNER.DK: LIDAR WIND SPEED MEASUREMENTS FROM A ROTATING SPINNER

Wind Tunnel Testing of a Generic Telescope Enclosure

ANALYSIS OF TRACER DATA FROM URBAN DISPERSION EXPERIMENTS Akula Venkatram and Vlad Isakov  Motivation for Field Experiments  Field Studies Conducted.

Performance of Air Quality Models in Urban Areas  Objectives and Motivation  St. Louis study and ISC urban  Model Improvements  Performance of Improved.

CEREA – Group « Meteorological Measurements » 15 September METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS IN THE ATMOSPHERIC BOUNDARY LAYER E. Dupont – D. Demengel.

Chapter 9 Vertical Motion. (1) Divergence in two and three dimensions. The del “or gradient” operator is a mathematical operation performed on something.

Chapter 7: Anemometry II. The WMO has a set of gust definitions: Gust peak speed, p = wind speed associated with a positive gust amplitude. Gust duration,

The impact of boundary layer dynamics on mixing of pollutants Janet F.Barlow 1, Tyrone Dunbar 1, Eiko Nemitz 2, Curtis Wood 1, Martin Gallagher 3, Fay.

Atmospheric structure from lidar and radar Jens Bösenberg 1.Motivation 2.Layer structure 3.Water vapour profiling 4.Turbulence structure 5.Cloud profiling.

Boundary Layer Notes 5 Observational Techniques. Sources: Kaimal & Finnegan, Atmospheric Boundary Layer Flows: their structure and measurement, Oxford.

PCWG meeting Louisville CO USA October 2014 Maintenance team MT12-1 Revision of IEC : Wind Turbines – Part 12-1: Power performance measurements.

A Basic Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology Luke Simmons.

Validated adjustment of remote sensing bias in complex terrain using CFD Michael Harris, Ian Locker, Neil Douglas, Romain Girault, Claude Abiven, Oisin.

Can wind lidars measure turbulence? A. Sathe J. Mann J. Gottschall M. Courtney Acknowledgements – 1.EU FP6 Upwind Project 2.EU FP7 SafeWind Project.

Flow Distortion in Non-orthogonal 3- D Sonic Anemometers T.W. Horst, S.P. Oncley, and S.R. Semmer National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, CO.

The Remote Sensing of Winds Student: Paul Behrens Placement and monitoring of wind turbines Supervisor: Stuart Bradley.

SODAR: Uses and Acceptance Laura Tabor Wind Engineering Intern EAPC Wind Energy Services August 7, 2009.

Observations and simulations of the wind structure in the boundary layer around an isolated mountain during the MATERHORN field experiment Stephan F.J.

MAPR Multiple Antenna Profiler Radar

Delft University of Technology 1 Do eddy dissipation rate retrievals work for precipitation profiling Doppler radar?, CESAR Science Day, June 18th, 2014.

Optical Measurements of Aerosols for MIRAGE-MEX University of Iowa Bill Eichinger John Prueger Piotr Lewandowski Heidi Holder.

Kenneth H. Underwood Atmospheric Systems Corporation Santa Clarita, CA NAQC 2011 San Diego1.

Observations and Models of Boundary-Layer Processes Over Complex Terrain What is the planetary boundary layer (PBL)? What are the effects of irregular.

© 2015 Lockheed Martin Corporation. All Rights Reserved. WindTracer ® BAO Tower Experiment Results Keith Barr & Phil Gatt April 28, 2015 Working Group.

Shapiro, M. A., 1984: Meteorological tower measurements of a surface cold front. Mon. Wea. Rev., 112, Shapiro (1984)

Revision of IEC PT Power performance measurements on electricity producing wind turbines TC88 meeting March 2010 Troels Friis Pedersen.

Météo-France / CNRM – T. Bergot 1) Introduction 2) The methodology of the inter-comparison 3) Phase 1 : cases study Inter-comparison of numerical models.

Observational and theoretical investigations of turbulent structures generated by low-Intensity prescribed fires in forested environments X. Bian, W. Heilman,

1 LASER MEASUREMENTS OF WAKE DYNAMICS RISØ National Laboratory / DTU Roskilde DENMARK 9th May 2007 Ferhat BingölJakob MannGunner C. Larsen.

Introduction Acknowledgements Funding for the CSU-MAPS is provided through a joint NSF-MRI R 2 grant (AGS# , ) awarded to San Francisco and.

A canopy model of mean winds through urban areas O. COCEAL and S. E. BELCHER University of Reading, UK.

Meteor Crater Experiment (METCRAX II) Observing and modeling downslope-windstorm-type flow in a small-scale crater induced by larger-scale katabatic winds.

References Conclusions Approach NORSEWIND – ARRAY OF WIND LIDARS AND METEOROLOGICAL MASTS OFFSHORE Charlotte Hasager (1) F P Detlef Stein (2) Saskia Hagemann.

Part II: Turbulence Signature and Platform Limitations Dan Weber, Frank W. Gallagher, Ken Howard ©2000 Frank W. Gallagher III.

UPWIND, Aerodynamics and aero-elasticity

More on Wind Shear Statistics: Intercomparison of Measurements from Airborne DWL and Ground-based Sensors S. Greco and G.D. Emmitt Simpson Weather Associates.

Lagrangian particle models are three-dimensional models for the simulation of airborne pollutant dispersion, able to account for flow and turbulence space-time.

Yu.G. Shafer Institute of Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy of SB RAS Transparency of a magnetic cloud boundary for cosmic rays I.S. Petukhov, S.I. Petukhov.

Institute for Atmospheric Science SCHOOL OF EARTH AND ENVIRONMENT UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS Tethered Soundings & Profiling Cathryn Birch Ian Brooks.

IN Measurements 10 Hz data of 3D wind speed T sonic H 2 O CO 2 Pressure OUT Fluxes Hz data of Fc (carbon flux) LE (water flux) Hs (sensible heat.

GWOLF and VALIDAR Comparisons M. Kavaya & G. Koch NASA/LaRC D. Emmitt & S. Wood SWA Lidar Working Group Meeting Sedona, AZ January 2004.

Lenschow - ATD retreat - 23 Jan 04 GEOPHYSICAL TURBULENCE Scientific and observational needs Geophysics − The physics of the earth and its environment,

MSFC/GHCC 1 2 micron pulsed ground based lidar Non-Contact Velocity Measurements on Simulated River Surfaces Using Coherent Doppler Lidar Preliminary Results.

Shear statistics in the lower troposphere and impacts on DWL data interpretation G. D. Emmitt and S. Greco Simpson Weather Associates WG on Space-Based.

Boundary Layer Correction Air enters a two-dimensional wind tunnel as shown. Because of the presence of the boundary layer, fluid will be displaced away.

Applied Measurement Technologies State-of-the-art case studies Mike Courtney, Kurt Hansen, Rozenn Wagner, Guillaume Léa DTU Wind Energy Carsten Thomsen,

Department of Earth Sciences, M.Sc. Wind Power Project Management

Measuring meteorology in urban areas – some progress and many problems Ekaterina Batchvarova 1, Sven-Erik Gryning 2 National Institute of Meteorology and.

An Inexpensive, Rapid Response System for Wind Profile Assessment, particularly for Shear Layer Determination and Wind Turbine Location Tom Wilkerson,

Observations of cold air pooling in a narrow mountain valley Allison Charland, Craig Clements, Daisuke Seto Department of Meteorology and Climate Science.

During the Tjæreborg SpinnerEx2009 experiment, three different optical wedge prisms with an angle of 2 o, 15 o and 30 o, respectively, were constructed.

Evaluating a three-beam lidar wind-profiling method in urban areas

Talents of tomorrow: Wind meteorology

Propagation of Sound and Vibration

Date of download: 10/25/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved.

Integration and Differentiation of Time Histories & Spectral Functions

Experimental study of the wake regions in wind farms

Fluid Dynamic Analysis of Wind Turbine Wakes

Reducing Uncertainty of Near-shore wind resource Estimates (RUNE) using wind lidars and mesoscale models EMS 2015, Sofia, Bulgaria, Coastal meteorology.

Summary of Gemini Technical Report No. 1

Initial results from the Single Tree Experiment

E. Dellwik, A. Papettaa, J. Arnqvist, M. Nielsena and T. J. Larsena

Overview of upcoming lidar wake experiments at DTU

Comparison of Seismic and Well Data

J.-P. Cariou, R. Parmentier, L. Sauvage, LEOSPHERE, France

Boundary Layer Correction

Presentation transcript:

Measurements of Flow Distortion within the CSAT3 Sonic Anemometer T.W. Horst and S.R. Semmer National Center for Atmospheric Research Technical University of Denmark E. Dellwik, J. Mann, N.Angelou

Measurements of Flow Distortion within the CSAT3 Sonic Anemometer History of Sonic Development History of Sonic Development

Measurements of Flow Distortion within the CSAT3 Sonic Anemometer History of Sonic Development History of Sonic Development CSAT 3 Transducer Shadowing CSAT 3 Transducer Shadowing

Measurements of Flow Distortion within the CSAT3 Sonic Anemometer History of Sonic Development History of Sonic Development CSAT 3 Transducer Shadowing CSAT 3 Transducer Shadowing Field Tests of Transducer Shadowing Field Tests of Transducer Shadowing NCAR Comparison to ATI-K sonics NCAR Comparison to ATI-K sonics

Measurements of Flow Distortion within the CSAT3 Sonic Anemometer History of Sonic Development History of Sonic Development CSAT 3 Transducer Shadowing CSAT 3 Transducer Shadowing Field Tests of Transducer Shadowing Field Tests of Transducer Shadowing NCAR Comparison to ATI-K sonics NCAR Comparison to ATI-K sonics DTU Comparison to Doppler LiDAR DTU Comparison to Doppler LiDAR

Chandran Kaimal

Kaimal-designed sonic anemometers with dedicated vertical paths U. of Washington, 1960

Kaimal-designed sonic anemometers with dedicated vertical paths U. of Washington, 1960 AFCRL/EG&G, 1973 BAO/ATI, 1990

Kaimal-designed sonic anemometers with dedicated vertical paths U. of Washington, 1960 AFCRL/EG&G, 1973 BAO/ATI, 1990 Kaimal (1979): Horizontal paths require correction for transducer wakes Impinging on the acoustic paths

Transducer shadowing depends on wind direction w.r.t. path and d/L (Kaimal, 1979)

University of Washington non-orthogonal sonic anemometer, Businger and Oncley (1984)

CSAT3 Geometry and Coordinates

CSAT3 Transducer Shadowing, L/d = 18, d/L =

Vertical velocity statistics, such as and, are measured to be greater with a vertical-path sonic than with a non-orthogonal sonic.

Vertical velocity statistics, such as and, are measured to be greater with a vertical-path sonic than with a non-orthogonal sonic. CSAT3 transducer shadowing?

CSAT3 Transducer Shadowing, L/d = 18, d/L =

CSAT3 transducer shadowing measured in the NCAR wind tunnel

Marshall-2012 sonic anemometer field test CSAT.x (test sonic) CSAT.va (vertical a-path) ATI-K.e (reference) CSAT.w (test sonic) 5 sonics at 3m height, 0.5 m spacing ATI-K.w (reference)

CSAT3 intercomparison with 3-component DOPPLER LiDAR E. Dellwik, J. Mann, N. Angelou, E. Simley, M. Sjoholm & T. Mikkelsen, Technical University of Denmark

αα Inside Outside Technical University of Denmark Risø Wind Scanner Experiment November, 2013 o o

LiDARs focused 80 cm Outside of sonic LiDARs focused Inside sonic measurement volume Thin lines: Sonic; Thick lines, LiDAR (60 Hz data) u, v, w

Two possible causes for sonic flow distortion 1.Transducer shadowing: Wakes behind transducers. Strong dependence on wind direction. 2.Blocking of flow: Flow speeds up within sonic. Weak dependence on wind direction.

Two possible causes for sonic flow distortion 1.Transducer shadowing: Wakes behind transducers. Strong dependence on wind direction. Maximum effect near transducers. 2.Blocking of flow: Flow speeds up within sonic. Weak dependence on wind direction. Maximum effect near center of sonic array.

Two possible causes for sonic flow distortion 1.Transducer shadowing: Wakes behind transducers. Strong dependence on wind direction. Maximum effect near transducers. LiDAR and sonic data differ for the Inside case. 2.Blocking of flow: Flow speeds up within sonic. Weak dependence on wind direction. Maximum effect near center of sonic array. LiDAR and sonic data agree for Inside case.

Two possible causes for sonic flow distortion 1.Transducer shadowing: Wakes behind transducers. Strong dependence on wind direction. Maximum effect near transducers. LiDAR and sonic data differ for the Inside case. U Sonic /U LiDAR are the same for Inside and Outside cases. 2.Blocking of flow: Flow speeds up within sonic. Weak dependence on wind direction. Maximum effect near center of sonic array. LiDAR and sonic data agree for Inside case. U Sonic /U LiDAR are different for Inside and Outside cases.

Outside case: k = U Sonic /U LiDAR, U = U Z

Outside case: k = U Sonic /U LiDar, U = U X,Y

Two possible causes for sonic flow distortion 1.Transducer shadowing: Wakes behind transducers. Strong dependence on wind direction. LiDAR and sonic data differ for the Inside case. Maximum effect near transducers. U Sonic /U LiDAR are the same for Inside and Outside cases. 2.Blocking of flow: Flow speeds up within sonic. Weak dependence on wind direction. LiDAR and sonic data agree for Inside case. Maximum effect near center of sonic array. U Sonic /U LiDAR are different for Inside and Outside cases.

Comparison between Inside and Outside cases, U = U Z

Comparison between Inside and Outside cases, U = U X,Y

Two possible causes for sonic flow distortion 1.Transducer shadowing: Wakes behind transducers. Strong dependence on wind direction. LiDAR and sonic data differ for the Inside case. Maximum effect near transducers. U Sonic /U LiDAR are the same for Inside and Outside cases. 2.Blocking of flow: Flow speeds up within sonic. Weak dependence on wind direction. LiDAR and sonic data agree for Inside case. Maximum effect near center of sonic array. U Sonic /U LiDAR are different for Inside and Outside cases.

Two possible causes for sonic flow distortion 1.Transducer shadowing: Wakes behind transducers. Strong dependence on wind direction. LiDAR and sonic data differ for the Inside case. Maximum effect near transducers. U Sonic /U LiDAR are the same for Inside and Outside cases. 2.Blocking of flow: Flow speeds up within sonic. Weak dependence on wind direction. LiDAR and sonic data agree for Inside case. Maximum effect near center of sonic array. U Sonic /U LiDAR are different for Inside and Outside cases.

Two possible causes for sonic flow distortion 1.Transducer shadowing: Wakes behind transducers. Strong dependence on wind direction. LiDAR and sonic data differ for the Inside case. Maximum effect near transducers. U Sonic /U LiDAR are the same for Inside and Outside cases. 2.Blocking of flow: Flow speeds up within sonic. Weak dependence on wind direction. LiDAR and sonic data agree for Inside case. Maximum effect near center of sonic array. U Sonic /U LiDAR are different for Inside and Outside cases.

Two possible causes for sonic flow distortion Transducer shadowing: Wakes behind transducers. Strong dependence on wind direction. LiDAR and sonic data differ for the Inside case. Maximum effect near transducers. U Sonic /U LiDAR are the same for Inside and Outside cases. 2.Blocking of flow: Flow speeds up within sonic. Weak dependence on wind direction. LiDAR and sonic data agree for Inside case. Maximum effect near center of sonic array. U Sonic /U LiDAR are different for Inside and Outside cases.

Analysis is continuing of the DTU Wind Scanner/CSAT3 data, with the goal of directly measuring the sonic anemometer flow distortion/transducer shadowing.

Analysis is continuing of the DTU Wind Scanner/CSAT3 data, with the goal of directly measuring the sonic anemometer flow distortion/transducer shadowing. Results of the NCAR data analysis will be published in an upcoming issue of Boundary Layer Meteorology: Horst, T.W., S.R. Semmer and G. Maclean, Correction of a Non-Orthogonal, Three-Component Sonic Anemometer for Flow Distortion by Transducer Shadowing, Accepted, with minor revision, for publication in Boundary Layer Meteorology.