Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Paris, November 27, 2007 WEA_Rad_Paris_pr_271107.doc 11/07
Windkraftanlagen und Radar – Probleme, Maßnahmen und Koexistenz?
Wind Turbines and Radar – Problems, Measures and Coexistence?
Dr.-Ing. Gerhard Greving
Internationaler, unabhängiger Gutachter International independant expert
NAVCOM Consult
Ziegelstr. 43 D-71672 Marbach
http://www.navcom.de [email protected]
2
Internet-Addresses for Download of technical papers Radar-Systems and Wind Turbines WT (=WEA, =WKA)
WEA_Rad_Paris_pr_271107.doc 11/07
NAVCOM Consult : http://www.navcom.de
Presentation papers: http://www.navcom.de/WEA_rad_Paris_pr_271107_E.pdf http://www.navcom.de/iea_oxford_pr_300307.pdf more technical details Company Profile : http://www.navcom.de/comprof17.pdf IRS 2005 / Berlin : http://www.navcom.de/irs2005pt.pdf SSR, water layer ERAD2006 / Barcelona http://www.navcom.de/erad2006pt.pdf Weather radar, RCS SEATI 2006 / Hongkong : http://www.navcom.de/seati2006pt.pdf invited paper, also WT IRS 2006 / Krakau http://www.navcom.de/irs2006pt.pdf SSR, measures IFIS 2006 / Toulouse http://www.navcom.de/ifis2006ggpt.pdf also WT EURAD 2006 / Manchester: http://www.navcom.de/eurad2006pt.pdf SSR, RCS, WT IRS 2007 Cologne http://www.navcom.de/irs2007pt.pdf RCS and WT EUCAP 2007 Edinburgh http://www.navcom.de/eucap2007pt.pdf also WT, measures IEEE Radcon 2008 / Rome submitted; main Topic RCS and WT
More on Request
3
Content
WEA_Rad_Paris_pr_271107.doc 11/07
Introduction
Classification of systems and radar and its distortions
Examples of windfarms in a close distance to radar systems
Different topics Shadowing; „blind“ in the back of radar ? Identification of WT RCS / SER applicable ?
Specifications / requirements and evaluation: weather radar; measurements Identification of „micro bursts“ Blockage Interpretation and transfer of measurements
Mitigation measures and comments Height -, position optimization Stealth und radarabsorbant blades Dense windfarms and thinning Matrix of measures
Summary and Final Remarks - WT and Coexistence ?
4
Wind-Turbinesand Radar/ Systems
ProvidersANS(government)
ManufacturersWind-Turbines R&D, sales
Manufacturers Radar R&D, sales
InvestorsStakeholders
Government Public Energy
Private
military (government)
Meteo(goverment)
EUROCONTROL rules
NATO
rules
The balance between interests/requirements/capitaland the technical coexistence on limited space
rules
rules
rules
rules
courts
Experts studies(independent?) Interests
wea_rad_interests1.dsf 11/07
EU
rules = restrictions, safeguarding distances ; should be physically well founded
EUMETNET
5
Fundamentals - „Coexistence“
WEA_Rad_Paris_pr_271107.doc 11/07
Installed radar systems have to meet a „task“ e.g. air traffic control air defence Weather forecast
Can the „task“ be met in case of the installation of the WT ?
No dogmatic compliance with the specs or „wishes“ („nice to have“)
Application of the state of the art technology (Hardware, Software /
Algorithms)
Coexistence = Task can be met (objectively, sufficiently)
Balance of interests
6
Wind turbines in the radiation field of systems
windturb4.dsf 11/07
Radar-, Navigation-, Landing-systems, Communications
ASR/PSR SSR/MSSR
ILS VOR/DVOR
DME
NDB weather radar S/C
ADR HADR
ADF/UDF
effects / distortions / conditions ?
TACAN
PAR IFF
MLS
VHF/UHF com
RAT-31S
radio relay WAM
ADS-BGPS
MPR
7
Systems and General Classification
WEA_Rad_Paris_pr_271107.doc 11/07
Wind Turbines WKAs (“windturbines”, “éolienne“) and WEAs, WT
Navigation-Systems Landing-Systems Radar-Systems
(ATC civil/military, LV/AD, Meteo, coastal/Marine) Communication-Systems
International activities of NAVCOM Consult for WTs
A, B, CZ, D, DK, F, GB, H, HK, IE, K, L, N, NL, …
8
System
R1
R2
>R2 "green" = signals safely in spec objects safely tolerable no study necessary
>R1, <R2 "grey" = indifferent to be studied in more depth may be acceptable
<R1 "red" = unsafe generally out of spec objects not tolerable modifications necessary
systdist1.dsf 07/05 Classification of objects - Threat to systems
Basic generalized assumptions for objectsdimensions, forms/shapes, material
VOR/DVORILSDMENDBVDFRadarComm
9
Radar-Types and Classification
WEA_Rad_Paris_pr_271107.doc 11/07
ATC / "Flugsicherung" ASR + IFF/SSR/MSSR2D, 2.5D mostly collocated
civil: Priority (always) on SSR/MSSRmilitary: Priority very different USAF/FAA Priority on IFF/SSR ("parrot")
air defence AD / LV
AD-Prim-Radar + IFF/SSR/MSSRmostly 3D collocated
Weather-Radar
Coastal/Marine-Radar
PAR Precision Approach Radar
very different technologies; very different sensitivity for WTs
others
SSR/MSSR much less sensitive than primary radar for WTs
Primary-Radar Secondary-RadarIFF/SSR/MSSR
=
radar1.dsf 11/07
10
Distortions of (Radar-)Systems Electrical Performance
WEA_Rad_Paris_pr_271107.doc 11/07
What is a distortion ? “Violation of specifications” Does specs exist sufficiently ? Can the radar-task be met? To which degree /% ? >99%? Real risk, danger “comfort”
No distortions, 100% safety impossible, unrealistic
Do also “normal environmental, unavoidable ” distortions exist ? ground, terrain, mountains, buildings, rain, …. How large are these distortions in relation to the distortions by WT ?
Is the pure visibility of a WT by a primary radar a distortion ? No! A modern AD/LV-Radar can „see“ a WT still in a distance of >100km .
Realistic spezifications/expectations combined with modern radar- technology and modern signal processing coexistence
„Significant distortion“ ? „to operate with“ ?
11
WEA_Rad_Paris_pr_271107.doc 11/07
Examples of Wind farms (wind parks) in some close distance of Radar-systems • ATC - Radar • AD - Radar • Weather – Radar
12
13
Leipzig LEJ ATC-Radar Tower and WTs
RWY
view to the west from the tower cabine
RWY
ATC-Radar
Radar-Monitor for Radar-Controller in Tower
view from the tower cabine to the north via the radar
Radar-Controller in Tower LEJ of the DF
ATCRad_WEA_LEJ1.dsf 11/07
Radnet Phönix software data fusion
14
map_layout3a.dsf 11/07 Windpark - ATC-Radar, AD-Radar 40 WEAs V90
? ?
??
0
10
1 2
5
15
20
25
0
10
12
5
15
20
25
10.5km
22km
ATC Radar
h=491m H=524m
ca. 11.5km
ca. 13° AD-Radar RAT-31S
In some countries/organiations a "big problem" - in others not at all !
15
GK E
GK
N
10000 15000 20000 25000
5320000
5325000
5330000
VIE_WEApisch2
ATC-Radar
Dm
in=c
a. 5
km Dm
in=c
a. 9
km
Windpark 21 WEA V90
Windparks close to ATC-Radar and Weather Radar
25°15°
wind_pischels_rad_wea2.dsf 11/07
International Airport
30000
3dB angles (2.3° MSSR, 1° weather)
Weather Radar
16
TACANUDFASR
PAR
Gauss-Krüger Rechts (ref. 25) [m]
Gau
ss-K
rüge
rHoc
h(r
ef.5
9)[m
]
95000 100000 105000 110000 115000 120000
30000
35000
40000
45000
WindparkKönigsmoor
Flughafen Wittmundhafen
Witt_Eggelingen2
Windparks Dornum, Königsmoor, Eggelingen, ...Flughafen Wittmundhafen (ASR/IFF, PAR, UDF); TACAN, HADR
3.8km
18km
21km
Großheide
Georgshof
Nenndorf Eggelingen
Windpark Dornum
Holtriem
Holtriemer Hammerich IV
15km10km
6km
16km
UDF
9km
HADR
windp_HADR_witt1.dsf 11/07
17
WEA_Rad_Paris_pr_271107.doc 11/07
Miscelleaneous topics • ATC – Radar, AD – Radar, Weather – radar • Blockage (# Weather radar) • Identification of WTs • RCS (Radar cross section) / SER (surface equivalent radar)
RCS/SER not applicable due to basic fundamental theoretical reasons Error unpredictable; can be very large See all applicable textbooks and publications
• Analog / digital •
18
HR
360° mechanicallyrotating
D d
65 ... 114m
H > Hmax
Hmax ca. 150m
<0.3°
radwind1.dsf 06/04
ATC-Radar ASR/MSSR Windgenerators
ASR/MSSR
19
MSSR
ASR
Primary Radar - Range Reduction Attenuation by absorption (?) or scattering primrad_rangered.dsf 11/07
"attenuation" by scattering (no absorption!) (re-distribution)
Radar
Target/Object (cloud, rain)
Pt Gt Gr λ2 σ(4π)3 Smin
Rmax = 4
Radar Equation(maximum range)
Attenuation range lossδGt=δGr
1dB=0.79
2dB=0.63
3dB=0.50
6dB=0.25
10dB=0.1
/%
11
21
29
50
68
Rmax R
20
Shadowing by wind turbines WT (Primary)Radar „blind” behind the Windfarms ?
WEA_Rad_Paris_pr_271107.doc 11/07
No !
WT is not an absorber, but a scatterer
WT distributes the incoming radar signals newly by scattering
behind the WT a reduction in small distances to the radar and the WT in small volumes down at the ground
if at all, only a small „observation hole“ directly in the back of the WT down at the ground (should be not a problem in the very most cases)
basically in case only locally a reduction of the maximum range Other effects by ground etc. much higher
See above radar equation safe physical basics
