| Literature DB >> 25421739 |
Komal Saifullah Khan1, Muhammad Tariq2.
Abstract
Many wind energy projects report poor performance as low as 60% of the predicted performance. The reason for this is poor resource assessment and the use of new untested technologies and systems in remote locations. Predictions about the potential of an area for wind energy projects (through simulated models) may vary from the actual potential of the area. Hence, introducing accurate site assessment techniques will lead to accurate predictions of energy production from a particular area. We solve this problem by installing a Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) to periodically analyze the data from anemometers installed in that area. After comparative analysis of the acquired data, the anemometers transmit their readings through a WSN to the sink node for analysis. The sink node uses an iterative algorithm which sequentially detects any faulty anemometer and passes the details of the fault to the central system or main station. We apply the proposed technique in simulation as well as in practical implementation and study its accuracy by comparing the simulation results with experimental results to analyze the variation in the results obtained from both simulation model and implemented model. Simulation results show that the algorithm indicates faulty anemometers with high accuracy and low false alarm rate when as many as 25% of the anemometers become faulty. Experimental analysis shows that anemometers incorporating this solution are better assessed and performance level of implemented projects is increased above 86% of the simulated models.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25421739 PMCID: PMC4279582 DOI: 10.3390/s141122140
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Comparison of site assessment technologies.
Figure 2.A general overview of node placement.
Simulation parameters and their values.
| Field size | 10 km × 10 km |
| Number of nodes deployed | 50 |
| Topology | Star topology with sink node and base station at the center |
| Radio range | 1.6 km |
| Packet size | 40 Bytes (Data = 32 Bytes + Control 8 Bytes) |
| Simulation time | 400 s |
Figure 3.Probability of faulty node vs. accuracy.
Figure 4.Probability of fault vs. false alarm rate.
Figure 5.Experimental setup.
Figure 6.Experimental setup.
Figure 7.Mean wind speed vs. turbulence intensity.
Figure 8.Turbulence intensity vs. overspeeding.
Figure 9.Mean wind speed vs. torque.