No Access Submitted: 03 August 2020 Accepted: 30 October 2020 Published Online: 30 November 2020
Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 12, 063503 (2020);
more...View Affiliations
View Contributors
  • Ethan Young
  • Xin He
  • Ryan King
  • David Corbus
Solar-tracking photovoltaic arrays are susceptible to aeroelastic fluttering during high-wind events. This dynamic fluttering behavior can grow in amplitude until the panels enter an unstable mode known as torsional galloping which can lead to panel failure or total array destruction. To better understand the physics of the torsional galloping phenomenon and to inform the discussion around panel design and recommended panel stow positions during high wind events, a fluid-structure interaction solver composed of a simulated atmospheric boundary layer with simplified panel structural responses was designed. The simulation choices and features of this solver were informed by the geometry and physical properties of an experimental panel array known to exhibit torsional galloping behavior during hind-wind events. These simulations revealed that the torsional galloping instability is driven by a combination of cyclic vortex shedding from the sun-facing side of the panel and the elastic properties of the torque tube linking the panel assemblies. Testing different stow angles across a range of wind speeds indicates that panels are generally more stable when stowed at negative angles where the leading edge is closer to the ground, hypothesized to be due to ground-blocking effects. These results are supplemented by a discussion of stability trends noted during testing and possible implications when considering multi-row array interactions.
This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36–08GO28308. Funding provided as part of DuraMAT funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Solar Energy Technologies Office, Agreement No. 32509. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. The research was performed using computational resources sponsored by the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and located at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
  1. 1. H. Mousazadeh, A. Keyhani, A. Javadi, H. Mobli, K. Abrinia, and A. Sharifi, “ A review of principle and sun-tracking methods for maximizing solar systems output,” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 13, 1800–1818 (2009)., Google ScholarCrossref
  2. 2. L. Creasy, J. Sharp, M. Brown, M. Willuh, and T. Sylvia, “High or low tilt angles for single-axis trackers in extreme winds—A different approach,” in PV Magazine Webinar (2019). Google Scholar
  3. 3. S. Dana and E. Young, “ Aeroelastic modeling and full-scale loads measurements for investigation of single-axis PV tracker wind-driven dynamic instabilities,” in NREL PV Reliability Workshop (2020). Google Scholar
  4. 4. A. Roedel, G. Bitsuamlak, D. Banks, and M. Cox, “Driving the standard: Wind testing, solar trackers, and peer review,” in GTM and NEXTracker Webinar (2019). Google Scholar
  5. 5. E. H. Dowell, “ Panel flutter—A review of the aeroelastic stability of plates and shells,” AIAA J. 8, 385–399 (1970)., Google ScholarCrossref
  6. 6. A. Iannelli, A. Marcos, and M. Lowenberg, “ Aeroelastic modeling and stability analysis: A robust approach to the flutter problem,” Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control 28, 342–364 (2018)., Google ScholarCrossref
  7. 7. C. Zapfe, G. Dechant, H. Ruscheweyh, and M. Willuhn, “ Can a tracker be as stable as a fixed tilt?,” in PV Magazine Webinar (2019). Google Scholar
  8. 8. C. R. von Rohr, P. Bourke, and D. L. Banks, “ Torsional instability of single-axis solar tracking systems,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 21–26 June 2015. Google Scholar
  9. 9. A. Logg, K. A. Mardal, G. N. Wells et al., Automated Solution of Differential Equations by the Finite Element Method ( Springer, 2012). Google ScholarCrossref
  10. 10. J. Donea, A. Huerta, J. P. Ponthot, and A. Rodríguez-Ferran, “ Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian methods,” in Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics ( American Cancer Society, 2004), Chap. 14. Google ScholarCrossref
  11. 11. A. J. Chorin, “ On the convergence of discrete approximations to the Navier-Stokes equations,” Math. Comput. 23, 341–353 (1969)., Google ScholarCrossref
  12. 12. J. Kim and P. Moin, “ Application of a fractional-step method to incompressible Navier-Stokes equations,” J. Comput. Phys. 59, 308–323 (1985)., Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  13. 13. Y. He and W. Sun, “ Stability and convergence of the Crank-Nicolson/Adams-Bashforth scheme for the time-dependent Navier-Stokes equations,” SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 45, 837–869 (2007)., Google ScholarCrossref
  14. 14. S. B. Pope, Turbulent Flows ( Cambridge University Press, 2000). Google ScholarCrossref
  15. 15. E. Hairer, C. Lubich, and G. Wanner, Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations ( Springer Science & Business Media, 2006). Google ScholarCrossref
  16. 16. C. Geuzaine and J. F. Remacle, “ Gmsh: A three-dimensional finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 79, 1309–1331 (2009)., Google ScholarCrossref
  17. 17. L. Kilcher and J. Rinker, for pyTurbSim, 2020. Google Scholar
  1. © 2020 Author(s). Published under license by AIP Publishing.