Rooftop-Mounted Wind Turbine: Final Design Report

Client: Professor Upmanu Lall, EEE

Team Members: Rachel Harris: Primary Facilitator Jared Lippell: Secondary Facilitator/Conflict Manager Palak Patel: Process Observer Jenny Yu: Timekeeper Email: windymudd@gmail.com Advisors: Jack McGourty, Associate Dean of Engineering and Applied Science Dave Vallancourt, Professor EE Dana Vlcek, Director of Corporate and Community Relations Jose Sanchez, Lecturer in Computer Graphics and Animation Connie Shi Eton Kwok Pamela Bays Date: July 26, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS B. Executive Summary..3 C. Report Narrative...4 Background Research.....4 Formal Problem Statement4 Design Specifications & Constraints......5 Final Design Concepts......7 Alternative Solutions..8 Transition Plans and User Documentation...8 D. Appendices....9 Gantt Chart....10 Product Design Specifications...11 Budget Estimates and Material Lists12 List of Resources...14 Additional Items....15 Power Point..........16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Rooftop-Mounted Wind Turbine design team recommends the following design implementations based on the research conducted over the past four weeks. Columbia University is an institute of higher education that has already made an effort to become more environmentally friendly. However, due to the increasing number of greenhouse gases as well as other environmental concerns, additional actions must be taken. Therefore, a rooftop-mounted wind turbine designed to generate enough electricity to power 50-100% of a residential buildings energy needs will set an example for others seeking renewable energy resources. This wind turbine would have numerous design constraints, mainly involving the location and design of the turbine so that it would produce the most energy and the effects the turbine would have on the community. While the idea in itself has potential to greatly impact the community, it has been proven after much research that building a wind turbine on Columbia Universitys Mudd building is not entirely feasible. However, alternative solutions were researched. These include mounting the turbine about 50 meters above Mudd, employing a single larger, yet much more costly, wind turbine, and finally, moving the location of the wind turbine to JFK Airport, where itll be much more windier. These solutions are all viable and with additional research, a more feasible solution can be reached.

REPORT NARRATIVE: BACKGROUND RESEARCH The project was to research and design a rooftop-mounted wind turbine that would excel in an urban environment such as that on campus. Columbia University is currently taking huge strides to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions at the University, significantly contributing to New Yorks aim to become more environmentally friendly. As an institute of higher education, Columbia must set an example as to how even urban buildings can be environmentally friendly. By building and implementing green technologies, such as a wind turbine to generate electricity, Columbia can lessen its environmental footprint and pave the way for similar technologies in years to come. The customers to this project not only included the client, Professor Lall, but also the entire student body and faculty of Columbia University, as well as the numerous inhabitants of the surrounding areas. The customer requirements demanded for an urban rooftop-mounted turbine that would be quiet, efficient, and environmentally friendly. It needed to provide enough power to support 50-100% of the energy needs of a nearby residential building. In addition, it should be easy to install and maintain. The turbine also had to be stable enough as to be unaffected by turbulence, especially because of its unusual location on top of an urban building. As most turbines are used for industrial purposes, finding a suitable residential turbine on a large enough scale for a university was a difficult task. However, the proposed design is both practical and able to fulfill the needs of the client. With this turbine, Columbia University can simultaneously enjoy an efficient power supply and pave the way to a greener future. FORMAL PROBLEM STATEMENT Columbia University is currently transitioning into an environmentally friendly institution. In addition to many efforts such as energy conservation and research in alternative energy sources, Columbia University needs to assess the feasibility of wind turbines within the campus, by considering several factors. One of these factors is the wind speed in the surrounding area, which determines the amount of power generated by the turbines. This amount of power is one of the determining factors for whether it is worth the investment. The goal for this project in the given time is to make use of previous designs and research potential sites for the purpose of creating feasible designs for the rooftop installation of wind turbine electric generators. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS & CONSTRAINTS The client outlined numerous requirements thus reflected in the design specifications. These specifications will ensure that the wind turbine works well in an urban rooftop environment, such as Mudd. For these specifications, the following chart is provided: Customer Requirements Design will be the most effective. Engineering Requirements Design will involve a single, large wind turbine supported 50 feet on top of the building. Justification/Rationale Based on pros/cons matrix done comparing three separate designs.

Needs to be able to sit on the building.

Needs to fit on the Mudd building.

Building infrastructure needs to support and hold a large wind turbine made out of light/durable carbon fiber structure. Meet FAR regulations on building heights; must not exceed 6.5 times of the original Mudd height. Should produce anywhere from 50-100% of energy used by nearby residential buildings. Expected output of 761 kWh per year. Will save around 4200 kg of carbon dioxide emissions every year.

Based on safety standards to prevent damage to the building and people in it.

Based on restrictions preset by the New York government.

Must conserve an ample amount of energy.

Design needs to be profitable both to the University and the community.

Needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Design must solve the problem.

Placed in the most optimal part of Mudds rooftop.

Based on research done by comparing figures in Central Park and by constructing and testing models. A helical blade design made of epoxy resin blades will minimize vibrations on the building. Decibel levels of 15 or lower.

The most optimal location will produce the most energy and therefore be the most useful.

Must not cause too much vibration on Mudd building.

Vibrations will cause damage to Mudd buildings infrastructure, in addition to bothering people inside. Community has the right to go against a point if it bothers them.

Must be noiseless or close to noiseless, and must not obstruct the view of others.

Must be unaffected or affected very little by turbulence.

Blades should be tapered and angled precisely.

Prevent turbulence from taking away wind efficiency.

Price must be reasonable.

Must be safe for birds.

Preliminary costs amount to around $39,000-44,000 per turbine. The additional costs amount to inverter, charge controller, battery bank, possibly a lightning rod, installation costs. Because the turbine is seen as a solid object, it will be visible to birds.

Should be something the University can afford and ultimately earn back because of saved energy.

Should be safe for the environment.

Must not be a short-term project.

Design life includes 10 year warranty, will last about 2 years.

Must be worth the money, time, effort.

Rooftop Wind Turbine Mapping/Customer Requirements Many of the constraints dealt with were constraints caused by the people living around campus and the surrounding city. For one thing, the design needed to minimize noise that traditional wind turbines normally create; such a loud, humming, buzzing, noise would be disruptive to the daily lives of others in the areas surrounding campus. The turbine also needed to be large enough to power 50-100% of energy requirements for a single residential building, yet be small enough so that it would abide by all zoning laws in the city of New York, such as the zoning law that prohibits rooftop-mounted wind turbines in Columbias zoning district. For aesthetic reasons, it also could not obstruct the view. The turbine needed to be tall to avoid low-to-ground turbulence, but not be so tall that it could not be mounted on the roof of an already tall building such as Mudd, presenting numerous design challenges. Stability was another major concern; although the wind speeds in New York City during the year is quite low, only averaging around five miles per hour, the winter brings strong gusts as well as noreasters that can cause serious damage. Thus, it needed to be strong enough to resist high wind speeds but still turn on calmer days. In addition, because Mudd exists in a very urban environment, this reduces the average wind speed, as skyscrapers act like windbreakers. Thus, the turbine needed to be able to turn even in relatively low wind speeds. A large constraint was the lack of anemometers and roof access to go up to the building site and measure wind speed as well as survey potential sites. The lack of this important data was a major setback until it was found from another source, www.wunderground.com. The building site was still limited to the roof of Mudd, primarily because of time constraints, but also because there was no access to an anemometer for use in measuring wind speeds in different locations around campus. Finally, the turbine should be costeffective, have a relatively short payback period, and be easy to install and maintain for further generations of Columbia students and staff.

FINAL DESIGN CONCEPTS Because this turbine was to be as efficient as possible while fulfilling all of the clients requirements (as discussed earlier), many early design concepts were conceived. A Vertical Axis Wind Turbine was the basic design for a number of reasons. Horizontal axis turbines, primarily used in industrial power, depend on consistent, strong winds to come from the same direction in a continuous manner. Thus, a HAWT would be poorly suited to an urban environment, where buildings and other structures cause a lot of turbulence and also act as windbreakers, making consistent strong winds next to impossible. VAWTs, by contrast, will turn no matter where the wind is coming from, and they require smaller wind speeds in order to turn. Another concept was that the diameter of the central turning axis should be as large as possible to increase efficiency, but not be so large as to compromise stability. Grounding the base of the turbine in concrete was an option, as was setting the turbine into the roof so that it would have some of the stability of Mudd itself to support it. Supporting the turbine with two cross-sections in the open space on the roof was another possibility. Larger turbines generate more electricity and are much more costefficient than several smaller turbines; therefore, one single turbine large enough to meet the power needs of the university seemed like the ideal design. Even though the rotor would be wide, the base of the tower had to be wider than the axis so that the turbine would be stable against high winds, gusts, and noreasters. In addition, the turbine would be put on a tower rather than kept low to the roof, so that it would hopefully be above the worst of lower-to-the-ground wind turbulence and therefore turn more easily. In addition, it could catch much of the more stable and stronger winds at higher altitudes. Due to the tendency of wind turbines to be loud and disruptive, the blades had to be designed to minimize noise. Three blades optimize stability, and blades at an angle, rather than facing directly into the wind, would slice through it quietly rather than being loudly buffeted as they rotate. In addition to the structure of the turbine itself, designs were also considered for different locations. One concept was to put the turbine between two tall buildings in order to achieve a wind tunnel effect, where the wind would be funneled between the two buildings, causing the turbine to turn more easily than it would on a normal rooftop. While this design would be the most feasible in terms of wind energy, this design was not practically feasible because it was too difficult to mount and the site provided very few viable areas to place the turbine, as Mudds roof was the location for the turbine. Overall, this design reflects the efficiency, stability, and aesthetics needed to make this project a success. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Our alternative solution is to build a large, 50-m tall turbine tower on the 14th floor roof area. There are concrete rafters that can be modified to make a suitable foundation for the turbine. Cross-rafters in the shape of an X can be used on both the top and bottom rafters to form a suitable foundation for the turbine (see Maya drawing figure 1 and figure 2 for visual). The tower, grounded in concrete and supported by the cross-rafters, could then be tall enough to catch a stable wind that would provide more energy, without compromising stability.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Because HAWTs are so efficient, this one large tower could provide for the University's energy needs, with a reasonable payback period despite a large initial cost. The drawbacks of this design are that it is loud and extremely large, enough to cause aesthetic problems with others' views. In addition, it is a potential danger to birds. An alternative involves a much larger and more expensive turbine. Although it will cost significantly more than the proposed solutions, it also will generate much more power than the smaller, less efficient turbines do. Other alternative solutions would be to move the turbine to a different location with higher wind speeds, such as in the JFK International Airport, where wind speeds are 2-3 times the wind speeds on top of Mudd. Higher wind speeds would generate much more power and would thus make the turbine more cost-efficient. Previous alternative solutions that we explored included suspending a turbine in between two tall buildings to harness the "wind tunnel" effect that would occur, providing a more traditional windmill-like look. However, it is neither efficient nor well suited to a rooftop mounting. Also considered was employing a row of smaller turbines along the roof of Mudd. While this solution would give the area a more green look and therefore be more aesthetically pleasing, it would also be much less efficient and less cost-effective. If possible, the turbine could also be built ten 8

blocks north of the campus to circumvent the citys zoning laws by building it in a manufacturing zone. Otherwise, a variant, or an exception, would have to be applied for with the Department of City Planning so the plan for renewable energy can become a reality. TRANSITION PLANS AND USER DOCUMENTATION Previously, the designing and building of a VAWT was a final senior design project for students at Columbia University. They made very specific designs, created detailed graphs, and eventually built their own functional wind turbine. Although a turbine was not built in this project, the problem was very similar to theirs in the research, planning, and design process. The most important expansion that could be made in the future is the possibility of building the turbine on a site other than the roof of Mudd; not only could the turbine be built elsewhere on campus, but it could also be built off-campus entirely, perhaps near JFK airport, where winds are stronger, or at a site 10 blocks north of campus in a manufacturing zone to circumvent the zoning laws. A future team could also explore new turbine designs, especially more modern HAWT designs. They might even push the boundaries of the field and experiment with oblique-axis wind turbine designs. The future team could delve a lot more into different types and ways of mounting the turbine in its location. In addition, many features can be added to the turbine, such as a lightning rod to prevent electrical damage, numerous inverters, charge controllers, and battery banks options. The possibilities for different electrical accessories and equipment are extensive, and a future group could easily spend time going over the pros and cons of these options to determine the most feasible ideas. A major problem was getting actual data with an anemometer from the roofs of Mudd. A future team could take these measurements themselves for use in a wind tunnel simulation. The site for the turbine would be modeled, placed in the wind tunnel under the observed conditions, and observed to see the effect of the wind patterns on the site. This would provide more accurate information to base the project on. Our design does not warrant application for a patent because it is not a unique design. Pacwind currently holds the patents for the two turbines specified. The decision to build a turbine at all is not recommended. Based on the high cost of installation, the low wind speeds in the area, and the consequently low amount of power generated, there is no feasible way of building a wind turbine on the roof of Mudd. As the conservative estimate for the payback period is about 250 years, the construction of a wind turbine in the intended location is, at present, unfeasible.

Average wind speed: 5.1 mph

Estimated kwH generated: 3.4 kwH Based on the integration of this graph (taking into account the variance in gusts, etc.) the actual kwH generated is 3.1 kwH. Thus, gust variants have little effect on the power generated. Based on year-long data from www.wunderground.com, the wind speeds over 6 mph were used to find the kwH that the proposed turbine could produce in one year: 761 kwH.

10

APPENDICES: APPENDIX 1: GANTT CHART

11

APPENDIX 2: PRODUCT DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Product/Process Title Rooftop-Mounted Wind Turbine Purpose To help further green the Columbia University campuses by reducing CO2 emissions and decreasing Columbias current dependence on nonrenewable resources. Special Features VAWT (Vertical Axis Wind Turbine) Low Wind Speed Generator Easily Installable Visible to birds. 10 Year Warranty Competition Will compete against standard wind turbines out in the market Intended Market Columbia University and the community Also those of other areas and universities may be influenced by Columbia Universitys step towards becoming more environmentally friendly Need for Product Greenhouse gas emissions are high. This product will take a step to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Lots of people/companies are recognizing the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as their dependence on the dwindling supply of petroleum and other expensive, nonrenewable resources. Preliminary Budget Preliminary costs amount to approximately $20,000 per wind turbine at least for a turbine with excellent specifications. A cheaper model with sufficient specifications is available for $4,000. Market Demand Demand for renewable resources is increasing as petroleum availability decreases. Demand for renewable resources increases when carbon dioxide emissions also increase. This turbine would be a feasible approach because of low maintenance, low environmental impact, and renewability. Functional Performance Requirements Efficiency, electrical, load direction. Light weight; less inertia causes blades to turn more easily. No vibration.

12

Close to noiseless; decibel levels of 15 or lower. Physical Requirements Must be supported very high off the ground for more stable wind and therefore energy. Mounted on two cross-sections. Service Environment Built both on roofs and ground. Requires a foundation. The higher the wind turbine, the more stable wind there is and therefore the more energy produced. Life-Cycling Issues 10-year limited warranty. Human Factors Quietness Stability Visual, aesthetic, impact Vibrations minimized due to blade design Corporate Constraints NYC Zoning Laws NYC Building Codes Legal Requirements Must be compatible to legal Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The Floor Area Ratio is the total building square footage (building area) divided by the site size square footage (site area). Height limitations: Must not exceed 6.5 times of the original building (Mudd Engineering Building). Cannot legally be built in this zone must be 10 blocks north in a manufacturing zone in order to be legal. Variant can be applied for.

13

APPENDIX 3: BUDGET ESTIMATES AND MATERIAL LISTS NEEDS: OPTION 1: Design Technology: Pacwind Delta II: $19,995

Installation: $15, 000 Support: Single Base Support with strut: $60

14

OPTION 2: Design Technology: Pacwind Delta I: $3,995 ea. (5)

Installation: $10, 000- $12, 000 Support: Double Base Support with roller hanger (3): $484

Inverter: $800-$1000 2 kW Dump Load: $112.50 Charge Controller: $235 Battery Bank: $7000 WANTS: Lightning Rod: $200 TOTAL: $39, 000 - $44, 000

15

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF RESOURCES 1. Delta 1: Product Information. 23 July 2007. PacWind. 25 July 2007. <http://www.pacwind.net/download-pdf/Delta_I7-23-07.pdf> 2. Delta 2: Brochure and Data Sheet. 23 July 2007. PacWind. 25 July 2007. <http://www.pacwind.net/download-pdf/Delta_II7-23-07.pdf> 3. Energy Technology Center. 2007. AV: Aerovironment. 25 July 2007. <http://www.aerovironment.com/Energy_Lab.asp> 4. OSU Develops Micro Wind Turbine for Green Buildings. 22 December 2006. Bend Weekly. 25 July 2007. <http://www.bendweekly.com/Schools/1491.html> 5. Personal Wind Turbine Design is 3x More Efficient. 3 July 2007. SciFi.com. 25 July 2007. <http://blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/2007/07/03/personal_wind_t.html> 6. Rooftop and Backyard Windpower Page. 4 December 2006. Scoraig Wind Electric. 25 July 2007. <http://www.scoraigwind.com/rooftop.html> 7. Rooftop Turbines: Rooftop Mounting and Building Integration of Wind Turbines. 12 December 2005. Wind-Works.org. 25 July 2007. <http://www.windworks.org/articles/RoofTopMounting.html> 8. Search: Wind Generators. The Alternative Energy Store. 25 July 2007. SLI Systems. 25 July 2007. <http://search.altenergystore.com/energy/wind%20generators> 9. Spera, David A. Wind Turbine Technology: Fundamental Concepts of Wind Turbine Engineering. New York 1998. 10. The Case (Or Not) for Roof Mounted Wind Turbines. January 2006. Hockerton. 25 July 2007. <http://www.hockerton.demon.co.uk/news/jan06.html#> 11. The First World Dynamic Architecture. 2007. Dynamic Architecture. 25 July 2007. <http://www.dynamicarchitecture.net> 12. Waugh Thistleton in Dalston, London. 24 May 2007. Dezeen. 25 July 2007. <http://www.dezeen.com/2007/05/24/waugh-thistleton-in-dalston-london> 13. Weather: New York. 2007. Weather Undergound. 25 July 2007. <http://www.wunderground.com/US/NY/New_York.html> 14. Wind-Powered Building Design Revealed. 14 September 2001. New Scientist. 25 July 2007. <http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1292>

16

APPENDIX 5: ADDITIONAL ITEMS

17

18

19

The photos above are the proposed site of our alternate solution: a large, HAWT tower. Crossbeams would be placed in an x on both the top and bottom squares. This would act as a foundation for the tower. Approximately 50 m in height, this turbine tower would be much more efficient than a VAWT, although louder and more dangerous. If wind speeds are sufficient, it is possible that a large, tower-like turbine could fulfill some of the University's energy needs.

20