TY - JOUR
T1 - Rotary-wing drone-induced flow - comparison of simulations with lidar measurements
AU - Jin, Liqin
AU - Ghirardelli, Mauro
AU - Mann, Jakob
AU - Sjöholm, Mikael
AU - Kral, Stephan Thomas
AU - Reuder, Joachim
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Ultrasonic anemometers mounted on rotary-wing drones have the potential to provide a cost-efficient alternative to the classical meteorological mast-mounted counterpart for atmospheric boundary layer research. However, the propeller-induced flow may degrade the accuracy of free-stream wind velocity measurements by wind sensors mounted on drones – a fact that needs to be investigated for optimal sensor placement. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are an alternative to experiments for studying characteristics of the propeller-induced flow but require validation. Therefore, we performed an experiment using three short-range continuous-wave Doppler lidars (light detection and ranging; DTU WindScanners) to measure the complex and turbulent three-dimensional wind field around a hovering drone at low ambient wind speeds. Good agreement is found between experimental results and those obtained using CFD simulations under similar conditions. Both methods conclude that the disturbance zone (defined as a relative deviation from the mean free-stream velocity by more than 1 %) on a horizontal plane located at 1 D (rotor diameter D of 0.71 m) below the drone extends about 2.8 D upstream from the drone center for the horizontal wind velocity and more than 7 D for the vertical wind velocity. By comparing wind velocities along horizontal lines in the upstream direction, we find that the velocity difference between the two methods is ≤ 0.1 m s−1 (less than a 4 % difference relative to the free-stream velocity) in most cases. Both the plane and line scan results validate the reliability of the simulations. Furthermore, simulations of flow patterns in a vertical plane at the ambient speed of 1.3 m s−1 indicate that it is difficult to accurately measure the vertical wind component with less than a 1 % distortion using drone-mounted sonic anemometers.
AB - Ultrasonic anemometers mounted on rotary-wing drones have the potential to provide a cost-efficient alternative to the classical meteorological mast-mounted counterpart for atmospheric boundary layer research. However, the propeller-induced flow may degrade the accuracy of free-stream wind velocity measurements by wind sensors mounted on drones – a fact that needs to be investigated for optimal sensor placement. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are an alternative to experiments for studying characteristics of the propeller-induced flow but require validation. Therefore, we performed an experiment using three short-range continuous-wave Doppler lidars (light detection and ranging; DTU WindScanners) to measure the complex and turbulent three-dimensional wind field around a hovering drone at low ambient wind speeds. Good agreement is found between experimental results and those obtained using CFD simulations under similar conditions. Both methods conclude that the disturbance zone (defined as a relative deviation from the mean free-stream velocity by more than 1 %) on a horizontal plane located at 1 D (rotor diameter D of 0.71 m) below the drone extends about 2.8 D upstream from the drone center for the horizontal wind velocity and more than 7 D for the vertical wind velocity. By comparing wind velocities along horizontal lines in the upstream direction, we find that the velocity difference between the two methods is ≤ 0.1 m s−1 (less than a 4 % difference relative to the free-stream velocity) in most cases. Both the plane and line scan results validate the reliability of the simulations. Furthermore, simulations of flow patterns in a vertical plane at the ambient speed of 1.3 m s−1 indicate that it is difficult to accurately measure the vertical wind component with less than a 1 % distortion using drone-mounted sonic anemometers.
U2 - 10.5194/amt-17-2721-2024
DO - 10.5194/amt-17-2721-2024
M3 - Journal article
SN - 1867-1381
VL - 17
SP - 2721
EP - 2737
JO - Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
JF - Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
IS - 9
ER -