4.7 Review

Status and problems of wind turbine structural health monitoring techniques in China

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 35, 期 7, 页码 1414-1418

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.01.006

关键词

Wind turbine; Structural health monitoring (SHM); Renewable energy; Status; Problem

资金

  1. National high-tech research and development projects of China (863) [2009AA04Z411]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50875272, 50735008]
  3. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [0763]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wind energy is an important renewable energy source because of its reliability due to the maturity of the technology, good infrastructure and relative cost competitiveness. Rich wind resources and strong support in regulations by the Chinese government have enabled the wind power industry to grow at a fast speed and the primary market scale has been achieved, making it the second largest wind power market in the world. There has also been an increase in wind energy research in various regions in China during the last few years. As utility-size wind turbines increase in size, and correspondingly their initial capital investment cost, there is an increasing need to monitor the health of these structures. However, most of the research papers in China are about the manufacture and production, such as the simulation of the wind turbine generator system model, the systematic resonance and stability for the world turbine, the wind speed, wind power and pitch adjustment simulation model, and so on. Few papers focus on the structural health monitoring (SHM) techniques of the wind turbine. In this paper, we review the status of the current SHM techniques in wind turbine and analyze the problems of them in China. The aims of this paper are to let more scholars and experts know the status of the current SHM techniques and to do something for building a successful industry in China. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据