Title Page URBAN WIND TURBINE SENIOR DESIGN PROJECT ...

Title Page 

URBAN WIND TURBINE SENIOR DESIGN PROJECT 

FINAL REPORT 

By: 

Michael Austin 

Cody Bateman 

Torrey Roberts 

Mirai Takayama 

Prepared For 

ME 480 Senior Design 

Boise State University Mechanical Engineering Department 

May 5, 2005

Executive Summary 

The goal of this senior design project was to determine the optimal location for an urban 

wind turbine system on top of one of the Boise State University (BSU) College of 

Engineering Buildings (COEN). We selected a turbine system from potential vendors 

that would perform efficiently at the location. We have determined that the center of the 

Micron Engineering Center (MEC) building at a height of 20-30 ft above the rooftop is 

the optimal location for a wind turbine. The Bergey XL1 is a 1kW turbine that could be 

purchased and installed at this location. This turbine has an 8.2 foot diameter and would 

produce approximately 370 kW-hr/year at this location. Our decisions were based upon 

months of wind flow analysis, wind data analysis, and turbine performance analysis 

which is explained in the pursuing sections. From an economic stand point, a turbine 

installation on the MEC building would be a very poor choice. A break-even point would 

never be reached for the 20 to 30 year life span because of the low average wind speeds. 

However, the wind turbine could be used for research and observation by BSU faculty 

and students. 

ii

Table of Contents 

Title Page ............................................................................................................................. i 

Executive Summary............................................................................................................ ii 

Table of Contents...............................................................................................................iii 

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 

Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 1 

Background......................................................................................................................... 2 

Design Solution................................................................................................................... 4 

Location ...................................................................................................................... 4 

Turbine System Selection ......................................................................................... 11 

Analysis............................................................................................................................. 12 

Location .................................................................................................................... 12 

Fluent Background.................................................................................................... 12 

FloWorks Background .............................................................................................. 13 

CFD Analysis............................................................................................................ 13 

March Case Study..................................................................................................... 19 

Turbine System ......................................................................................................... 23 

Safety Analysis ......................................................................................................... 26 

Discussion......................................................................................................................... 27 

Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 27 

Recommendations............................................................................................................. 28 

References......................................................................................................................... 29 

Appendix........................................................................................................................... 30 

Turbine Power Curves .............................................................................................. 30 

Turbine Cost Tables.................................................................................................. 32 

FloWorks Wind Maps............................................................................................... 36 

Fluent Wind Maps..................................................................................................... 38 

Monthly Boise Airport Wind Rose........................................................................... 40 

iii

Introduction 

Demand for power in urban areas is constantly increasing. Innovative ideas for 

generating power are needed. Wind turbines placed on top of existing or new structures 

present a possible solution. Past experience gained in installation of small wind turbines 

is now being used to create systems with better performance, lower costs, and higher 

reliability. Due to increased energy demand, urban wind turbines systems are under 

examination. 

The purpose of this senior design project was to determine the optimal location for a 

wind turbine on top of one of the College of Engineering (COEN) buildings and to select 

an appropriate turbine system that will operate efficiently and safely in an urban 

environment. The turbine would be used primarily for educational and observational 

purposes if installed. According to wind data from the Boise Airport, the average wind 

speeds from 1997 to 2003 were 7.6mph. Since, most wind turbines require minimum 

wind speeds of 8-10 mph to begin operating, turbines at this location will not generate 

significant amounts of power. However, average wind speeds for Boise in March are 8.8 

mph. 

Installing a wind turbine on one of the COEN buildings is not a good economical choice; 

however it will enable the university to perform research regarding urban wind turbines. 

Information gathered from this research can be applied to other more economical turbine 

locations. 

The turbine needs to be installed in the optimal location to harvest the maximum amount 

of wind power available. In addition the turbine needs to fulfill the following user needs: 

• Operate in low wind speeds. 

• Monitored easily by faculty and students. 

• Accessed easily by faculty and students. 

• Include power storage and delivery system. 

• Safe to operate in an urban environment. 

Objectives 

Initially our objective was to install an operational wind turbine to power the Segway and 

COEN Electric Vehicle by the end of May 2005. Shortly after investigating the project 

scope, we concluded the task was far too vast for a single semester project and we needed 

to narrow our focus. 

The new scope consisted of determining the best wind turbine location at the COEN 

based on wind speed and selection a suitable wind turbine system by May 2005. A 

budget for this project was not provided by BSU. Therefore our only cost objective was 

to keep capital costs low. 

1

Background 

Several factors have influenced a renewed and increased interest in wind energy. People 

want alternative forms of energy to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels. 

Additionally, wind turbines have continued to become more efficient, while at the same 

time becoming more cost effective. In Idaho, power is provided at one of the lowest rates 

in the country. However, with increasing pressure to sustain migratory fish restrictions 

and recent low water flows, power rates are sure to rise. This is driving consumers and 

the power industry to look for alternative form of energy. 

Ranked 13 th out of 50 states for wind energy potential, Idaho has 7,370 km 2 of class 3 or 

greater wind area (Figure 1). Over 8,000 mega watts of wind energy potential is 

available; unfortunately most of the high wind regions are not located near current 

transmission lines. The state provides a personal tax deduction of 40% of the cost of 

installing a solar, wind, or geothermal electric or heating system for the year of 

installation, and 20% for each year thereafter. Net metering is available for wind turbine 

systems less than 100kW. The Energy Division of the Idaho Department of Water 

Resources (IDWR) provides five year loans at 4% interest for wind and other renewable 

energy projects 1 . 

Figure 1 – Idaho Wind Classification Map 

http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap3/3-03m/html 

According to the Department of Energy (DOE), small privately owned wind turbines 

require wind speeds greater than 10 mph and the utility supplied electricity cost greater 

than 10 cents per kilowatt hour for economic viability 2 . According to Idaho Power’s 

website, the current small commercial rates are about 7.6 cents per kW-hr. 

2

Other universities are also investigating the possibility of wind energy. The University of 

Massachusetts has installed an alternative energy system on the top of their engineering 

building; consisting of 3 different types of wind turbines and a set of solar panels. They 

connected the system to a 24V battery bank and to the grid with a 4kW trace inverter. 

The types of wind turbines installed included: a Bergey 1500W at 80’ (above ground), a 

World Power Technologies Mariner H500 at 45’, and a Southwest Windpower Air 

Marine 300 at 45’. Overall, the turbines produced 20% less power than expected, due to 

the underestimated turbulence of the environment. They installed the entire system for 

$52,000 in 1998; adjusted for inflation this would approximate $64,000 today. The most 

expensive part of the project was the engineering required to safely install the equipment 

on the roof of a public building 3 . 

The power that can be generated from wind is linearly dependant on the swept area of the 

turbine blades, but a function of the velocity cubed 4 . 

P = 0. 5( 

Cp)( 

ρ)( 

A)( 

V ) 

This means wind speeds of 12.6 mph have twice the energy of wind speeds at 10 mph 

(only 2.6 mph less). Therefore, small differences in wind speed can have a significant 

impact on the power generated by a wind turbine. Based on conservation of energy, the 

Betz limit states that the turbine blades cannot extract more than 59% of the total energy 

available in the wind. In other words, assuming the rest of the system operates at 100% 

efficiency, the maximum efficiency achievable is 59%. Most wind turbine systems 

operate within the range of 10% to 30% combined efficiency. Also, most wind turbines 

do not start to generate power until the wind reaches at least 7 to 8 mph. 

Urban wind turbine installations present certain concerns not found in rural wind farms. 

Traditionally noise produced by turbine blades has been bothersome to those living near 

wind turbines. Wind turbines typically produce some broadband noise as their revolving 

rotor blades encounter turbulence in passing air. This type of noise is described as a 

“whooshing” sound. However, most modern wind turbines are typically not any louder 

than passing traffic. Figure 2 shows wind turbine noise compared with noise from other 

activities. The noise level of smaller wind turbines can sometimes be higher because of 

the higher rotational speed. In addition, less money and research has been invested in 

reducing noise on smaller turbines than larger turbines 5 . 

Figure 2 – Typical Noise Levels 

www.gov.on.ca/.../ engineer/facts/03-047.htm 

3 

3

Safety is another concern when considering the installation of a wind turbine in an urban 

area. This is especially true when people are present near the base of the building. 

Turbulent locations also increase the chance of failure due to the increased load variation 

imposed on the system. Any failures resulting in falling objects would have catastrophic 

results and a negative impact on public confidence of urban wind energy systems. When 

placing an urban wind turbine, it is important to install and design for failure prevention 

and provide failsafe features to prevent injury. 

The turbine owner must follow a strict maintenance program. Tips of wind turbine rotor 

blades can reach speeds up to 300 mph 4 . Hail, dirt, and insects contacting the blades at 

theses speeds can cause premature wear to the blade edges causing extreme physical 

forces. Thrust and vibration loads also subject the bearings and tower to loads. The 

lifespan of these bearings depends on the wind conditions and level of maintenance. 

Turbine manufactures will usually specify activates and intervals required for 

maintenance. The entire wind system, including the tower, storage devices, and wiring 

should be inspected on a regular basis. If maintained properly a wind turbine system can 

last up to 20 to 30 years. 

Several different types of wind turbines have been proposed that can be categorized as 

being either vertical axis or horizontal axis. Vertical axis turbine designs eliminate the 

need to align the turbine with wind direction and reduce issues related to turbulence. 

Unfortunately the companies previously producing these turbines have all gone out of 

business. Vertical axis turbines were eliminated early on in our analysis, and several 

different brands of horizontal turbine manufactures were evaluated. 

Design Solution 

Location 

We determined the center of the MEC building as the optimal location for a wind turbine 

at the COEN. This location had the highest wind speeds according to our models and had 

adequate mounting characteristics. The location is also safer than placing a turbine near 

the edge of the building. It allows some protection for pedestrians below if a blade fails 

and allows safe access for a person observing or maintaining the turbine, not near any 

building edges. 

We created detailed and simplified solid model for analysis using SolidWorks, a 

computer aided drafting program (Figure 3). This model was used to determine wind 

flow patterns over the COEN Buildings in two separate Computational Fluid Dynamics 

(CFD) programs. Precise dimensions for the COEN buildings were obtained from the 

building architectural drawings and field measurements. The dimensions for overall 

locations and sizes of surrounding buildings were approximated from the Ada County 

Assessor’s aerial maps. 

4

Figure 3 - COEN & Surrounding Area 

We applied Fluent and FloWorks, two CFD Modeling packages, to map the bipolar wind 

patterns over the BSU COEN buildings (major wind flow patterns vary from the 

Northwest and Southeast directions). Both programs indicated that the best location for 

the wind turbine was in the center of the Micron Engineering Center’s penthouse roof; 

where the maximum wind speed occurs at approximately 20 to 30 feet above the roof. 

Wind speed data generated from Fluent and FloWorks for both major wind patterns are 

indicated in Figure 4 through Figure 7. 

Velocity Magnitude, (in/s) 

170 

165 

160 

155 

150 

145 

140 

135 

130 

125 

120 

115 

110 

105 

100 

-200 

0 

-150 

0 

-100 

0 

8.0 MPH SE WIND ANALYSIS WITH FLUENT 

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 

Location, (in) 

Figure 4 - SE Fluent Wind Analysis 

Maximum Wind Speed =170 in/s 

at 10ft and 15 ft above MEC Rooftop 

3500 inches from origin. 

82 ft (0ft above MEC Roof) 











5

Velocity (in/s) 

Velocity Magnitude, (in/s) 

170 

165 

160 

155 

150 

145 

140 

135 

130 

8.0 MPH SE WIND ANALYSIS WITH FLOWORKS 

125 

82 ft (0ft above MEC Roof)4@Line1_1 

120 

87 ft (5 ft above MEC Roof)4@Line1_1 



115 



110 



105 



100 


-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 

170 

160 

150 

140 

130 

Location (in) 

Figure 5 - SE FloWorks Analysis 

8.0 MPH NW WIND ANALYSIS WITH FLUENT 


at 15ft and 20 ft above MEC Rooftop 


120 

82ft (0ft above MEC Roof) 






110 112ft (30ft above MEC Roof) 




100 


-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 

Location, (in) 


at 15ft above MEC rooftop 


Figure 6 – NW Fluent Wind Analysis 

6

Velocity (in/s) 

170 

160 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 












8.0 MPH NW WIND ANALYSIS FROM FLOWORKS 

100 

-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 

Curve Length (in) 

Figure 7 - NW FloWorks Wind Analysis 


at 25ft above MEC rooftop approximately 


For each of these graphs, 0 inches represents the origin of the solid model generated with 

SolidWorks. The origin is located at the NW corner of the Engineering Technology (ET) 

building (reference Figure 8). The lines in the graph represent flow trajectories in a 

vertical plane 2100 inches (175 ft) southwest from the origin parallel to the Northwest- 

Southeast directions. This is indicated in the top view of the model used in Figure 8 

below. The solid red line represents the plane used in creating graphs above. The grid is 

in squares of 500 x 500 inches with coordinates at the corners of the map. 

Figure 8 – NW Wind Flow Plane Top View 

7

There are some slight differences between both CFD Models. The Southeast wind graph 

generated using Fluent indicates a maximum wind speed of approximately 170 in/s (9.7 

mph) 10 to 15 feet above the MEC penthouse rooftop 3400 inches from the origin. 

FloWorks indicates a maximum wind speed of 167 in/s (9.49 mph) 15 feet above the 

MEC penthouse rooftop at 3300 inches from the origin. Comparisons between the two 

models are shown in Table 1 through Table 4. The values in these tables represent the 

best wind power elevations. 

Table 1 – FloWorks vs. Fluent Velocity Profile Comparison 3300” From Origin SE Wind 

Elevation 

Above 

Rooftop 

FloWorks 

Velocity 

(in/s) 

Fluent 

Velocity 

(in/s) 

% 

Difference 

10ft 163 160 -1.88% 

15ft 167 166 -0.60% 

20ft 166 166 0.00% 

25ft 165 167 1.20% 

30ft 161 166 3.01% 

35ft 158 164 3.66% 

Table 2 – FloWorks vs. Fluent Velocity Profile Comparison 3400” from Origin SE Wind 

Elevation 

Above 

Rooftop 

FloWorks 

Velocity 

(in/s) 

Fluent 

Velocity 

(in/s) 

% 

Difference 

10ft 165 170 2.94% 

15ft 167 169 1.18% 

20ft 165 168 1.79% 

25ft 163 166 1.81% 

30ft 160 165 3.03% 

35ft 157 163 3.68% 

Table 3 – FloWorks vs. Fluent Velocity Profile Comparison 2700” from Origin NW Wind 

Elevation 

Above 

Rooftop 

FloWorks 

Velocity 

(in/s) 

Fluent 

Velocity 

(in/s) 

% 

Difference 

10ft 147 161 8.46% 

15ft 153 166 7.58% 

20ft 160 165 3.27% 

25ft 161 164 1.78% 

30ft 159 163 2.08% 

35ft 158 162 2.38% 

8

Table 4 – FloWorks vs. Fluent Velocity Profile Comparison 3000”from Origin NW Wind 

Elevation 

Above 

Rooftop 

FloWorks 

Velocity 

(in/s) 

Fluent 

Velocity 

(in/s) 

% 

Difference 

10ft 138 141 2.57% 

15ft 149 152 2.38% 

20ft 158 159 0.79% 

25ft 162 161 -0.13% 

30ft 161 162 0.87% 

35ft 160 163 1.42% 

Wind isoline maps were generated using FloWorks and are shown in Figure 9 and Figure 

10. The closely spaced orange isolines indicate that the location with the best wind speed 

is the center of the MEC building at this elevation. 

Figure 9 – FloWorks Wind Isolines 20 feet Above Top of MEC Building SE Wind 

9

Figure 10 – FloWorks Wind Isolines 20 feet Above Top of MEC Building NW Wind 

Isolines were also generated using Fluent, and are as shown below. For Fluent, the 

velocity isolines are in m/s. Fluent and FloWorks gave similar solutions; the middle of 

the MEC is the best place to locate the turbine. 

Figure 11 – Fluent Wind Isolines 20 feet Above Top of MEC Building SE Wind 

10

Figure 12 – Fluent Wind Isolines 20 feet Above MEC Building NW Wind 

Turbine System Selection 

According to our analysis, the Bergey XL1 1kW turbine system ranked 3 rd in power 

output and was the least expensive. We recommend this system for the MEC building 

because of its low initial capital cost. The turbine has a rotor diameter of 8.2 feet. Bergey 

also provides a matching tower, generator, and power conversion system. Table 5 

summarizes the parts and prices for the expandable system. 

` 

Table 5 – Bergey Turbine System Price List 

Power Output : 1 kW Company : Bergey 

Type : Battery Charging Model : BWC XL 1-24 

Product Price 

Turbine 

Turbine and PowerCenter multi-function controller $ 2,450 

Tower 

Tower (30 ft tilt-up) $ 950 

Tower wiring kit, 7 Circuit $ 600 

Batteries 

5.3kWh Battery Bank $ 450 

Inverter 

1,500 W Inverter System $ 1,044 

Installation $ 10,000 

Total : $ 15,494 

Annual Profit & Loss 

Energy Generation $ 29 

O&M $ (75) 

Payback Period NA 

11

Several types of turbines were analyzed to determine how they would perform in this 

area. We utilized the decision matrix in Table 6 to help select the best turbine. 

Criteria 

Importance 

Weight (%) Rating 

Table 6 – Turbine Decision Matrix 

Weighted 

Rating Rating 

Weighted 

Rating Rating 

Weighted 

Rating Rating 

Weighted 

Rating Rating 

Weighted 

Rating Rating 

Weighted 

Rating Rating 

Number of School Days Operating 32 3 0.96 4 1.28 2 0.64 2 0.64 4 1.28 4 1.28 4 1.28 

Cost 20 4 0.8 4 0.8 1 0.2 2 0.4 4 0.8 3 0.6 3 0.6 

Safety 15 2 0.3 4 0.6 4 0.6 4 0.6 3 0.45 3 0.45 3 0.45 

kW-hrs per Year 12 0 0 2 0.24 4 0.48 0 0 0 0 3 0.36 3 0.36 

Reliability & Maintenance 10 2 0.2 4 0.4 4 0.4 4 0.4 2 0.2 2 0.2 2 0.2 

Aesthetics & Noise 7 3 0.21 3 0.21 3 0.21 3 0.21 3 0.21 3 0.21 3 0.21 

Availability 4 3 0.12 4 0.16 4 0.16 4 0.16 2 0.08 2 0.08 2 0.08 

Total 100 NA 2.59 NA 3.69 NA 2.69 NA 2.41 NA 3.02 NA 3.18 NA 3.18 

Analysis 

Location 

SW Windpower Air X 

400 W 

Rating Value 

Unsatisfactory 0 

Just Tolerable 1 

Adequate 2 

Good 3 

Very Good 4 

Bergey 1 kW Bergey 7.5 kW 

Concept Alternatives 

Bergey 10 kW Proven Energy 600 W 

Proven Energy 2.5 kW 

Battery 

Proven Energy 2.5 kW 

Grid 

Fluent and FloWorks were the two CFD modeling packages used to model the wind 

patterns over the BSU COEN Buildings. Using both modeling packages allowed us to 

verify our results. To ensure accuracy of the results, we used architectural drawings and 

Ada County Assessor maps to define elevations and locations of the COEN and 

surroundings to accurately define the solid model. After the solid model was defined, we 

imported it into both CFD packages for analysis. 

Fluent Background 

Fluent is the industry CFD software leader. It is a very robust and accurate software 

package. Fluent uses GAMBIT as its modeling and meshing program that enables the 

user to model complex geometry where the fluid flow analysis takes place. In our case 

we imported the model defined in SolidWorks as an IGES file into GAMBIT. The model 

was then broken up into an unstructured grid, called a mesh that consists of user defined 

shape elements. Smaller element shapes and sizes provide more accurate result. 

However, decreasing an elements size greatly increases the computation time. So, the 

solid model was simplified to allow a timely analysis of the wind flow patterns. The 

simplification of the solid model is shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14. 

Figure 14 – Initial Model COEN & 

Surrounding Buildings 

Figure 13 – Simplified Model COEN & 

Surrounding Buildings 

Weighted 

Rating 

12

This simplified model was analyzed in both FloWorks and Fluent to check precision 

between the two modeling packages. The result precision is tabulated in the “% 

Difference” column in Table 1 thru Table 4. The more complex initial model was used in 

SolidWorks for a March wind study when the average wind speeds increase to around 8.8 

mph. 

FloWorks Background 

Fluent’s user interface requires extensive knowledge and experience to produce accurate 

results. For this reason, user friendly CFD packages like FloWorks are available to the 

average user. FloWorks is the CFD modeling package fully embedded within the 

SolidWorks Computer Aided Drafting Program. Its user interface is designed for the 

average design engineer who may not have the expertise required to operate Fluent. One 

of the drawbacks to its user friendliness involves lack of functionality. For example 

FloWorks does not have the ability to model two phase flows nor will it allow you to 

change the mesh elements shape like Fluent. However, you can control mesh element 

gap size represents, so more accurate results may be obtained. 

CFD Analysis 

The initial analysis of the wind flow patterns over the COEN Buildings involved both 

Fluent and FloWorks. Analyzing the same model with the same inputs allowed us to 

verify the accuracy of the results with respect to each CFD system. In this case, we 

imported the simplified model shown in Figure 13 into both Fluent and FloWorks. The 

input velocity for this analysis was 8.0 mph which is close to the spring time wind speed 

average. We did multiple studies in which we altered the wind direction between 

Northwest and Southeast. The parameters associated with the modeling can be found 

below in Table 7. 

Table 7 – CFD Modeling Parameters 

Modeling Parameters Fluent Floworks (Using Floworks Wizard) 

Time step size Every 0.2 seconds Steady State 

Time Frame Analyzed 0 - 40 seconds Steady State 

Unsteady Formulation 2 nd order implicit NA 

Velocity Formulation Absolute NA 

Energy Equation OFF Adiabatic (OFF) 

Viscous Model K-epsilon Default 

Boundary condition of the No slip shear .06 in Surface Roughness 

building surface 

condition 

Fluid Type Air Air 

Physical Features Turbulent Turbulent 

Analysis Type NA External (excluded internal spaces and excluded 

cavities without flow conditions) 

Velocity Parameters 8.0 mph (SE and 

NW directions) 

8.0 mph (SE and NW directions) 

Pressure 101.3kPa (Default) 101.3 kPa (Default) 

Temperature 291K (Default) 291K (Default) 

Result Resolution NA 3 

Gap Size 3”-600” (at each Default at 1088” (edges of parallelogram) Mesh 

edge of 

Elements are approximately twice the size of 

Tetrahedral) Fluent 

13

The difference in mesh sizes can be seen in the Figure 15 and Figure 16. Where Figure 

15 represents the tetrahedral meshes made by Fluent and Figure 16 represents the 

rectangular prism meshes generated by FloWorks. Figure 17 and Figure 18 represent the 

NW velocity contour maps of the plane passing directly through the center of the MEC 

building. The location of the plane is 2100 inches from the origin and the plane is 

parallel to the SE direction. 

Figure 15 – Fluent Mesh 

Figure 16 – FloWorks Mesh 

14

Figure 17 – NW Wind FloWorks Contour Map at 2100” from Origin 

Figure 18 – NW Wind Fluent Contour Map at 2100” from Origin 

The FloWorks output velocity is in inches/second whereas the Fluent output velocity is in 

m/s. Both of the color scale maximums are equal (i.e. 177 in/s = 4.5 m/s) so there is a 

direct correlation between the two color schemes. If both contour maps show the same 

color in the same area the wind speeds experienced in that area are similar. This is 

evident in the region directly above the center of the roof of the MEC building. Both 

contour maps show a trend of increased velocity over the top edge at about the same 

elevation. This is evident in Table 1 through Table 4. 

Alternatively, if the contour maps do not show the same color in the same area the 

conclusion could be made that the wind speeds are different for that area between the 

models. This phenomenon is evident in the tail section of the flow indicated in dark blue 

by the FloWorks model. There is a slight difference in the wind tail colors where the 

recirculation occurs. This is more than likely due to the different mesh sizes. The 

FloWorks mesh is approximately twice the size of the Fluent mesh. The mesh size 

difference was an oversight in the initial stages of the modeling project. However, the 

maximum wind speed results due not seem to differ by more than 3.2% in the attractive 

wind turbine placement elevations between 10-35 ft above the roof. This is apparent in 

the highlighted regions of the following tables. 

15

Further analysis shows that there is a slight vertical component to the wind vectors in 

these areas. The following figures show that this vertical component is nearly the same 

between both modeling packages. 

Figure 19 – SE Wind Vector Gradient Map 

Figure 20 – SW Wind Vector Gradient Map 

16

When looking at the graphs of the y-velocity vector vs. location, the magnitude of the yvelocity 

is negligible at the center of the MEC building (2800 to 3300 in). 

Y-velocity (in/s) 

Y-velocity (in) 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

-5 

-10 

-15 

8.0 mph NW Analysis with Floworks 

-20 

-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

-10 

-20 


Figure 21 – NW Vertical Velocity Analysis 

8.0 mph NW Analysis with Fluent 












-30 

-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 

Location (in) 

Figure 22 – NW Vertical Velocity Analysis 

82 ft (0ft above MEC Roof ) 











17

Y-velocity (in/s) 

Y-velocity (in) 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

8.0 mph SE Analysis with Floworks 

-10 







-20 





-30 


-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

-10 

-20 

-30 


Figure 23 – SE Vertical Velocity Analysis 

8.0 mph SE Analysis with Fluent 

-40 

-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 

Location (in) 

Figure 24 – SE Vertical Velocity Analysis 












The following table analyzes the vertical vector magnitude at the center of the MEC 

building 3000 inches from the origin. The location can be seen in Figure 8. 

18

Table 8 – Vertical Vector Magnitudes NW at 3000” from Origin 

Elevation 

Above 

MEC 

FloWorks 

(in/s) 

Fluent 

(in/s) 

Difference 

(in/s) 

Rooftop 

5ft 5.73 0.15 5.59 

10ft 8.39 1.94 6.45 

15ft 10.78 5.89 4.89 

20ft 13.32 8.00 5.32 

25ft 10.31 9.07 1.24 

30ft 11.97 8.17 3.80 

35ft 9.44 7.86 1.58 

40ft 13.51 10.87 2.63 

45ft 13.94 8.47 5.48 

50ft 13.66 11.12 2.54 

Table 9 – Vertical Vector Magnitudes SE at 3000” from Origin 

Elevation 

Above 

MEC 

FloWorks 

(in/s) 

Fluent 

(in/s) 

Difference 

(in/s) 

Rooftop 

5ft -4.64 -5.12 0.48 

10ft -3.20 -3.75 0.55 

15ft -2.11 -2.33 0.22 

20ft 1.40 -0.74 2.14 

25ft 2.94 0.80 2.14 

30ft 2.59 0.01 2.57 

35ft 4.21 0.53 3.68 

40ft 5.51 3.77 1.73 

45ft 6.48 2.52 3.96 

50ft 7.46 5.55 1.91 

The data in the above tables shows that the maximum difference in vertical velocity 

magnitude in the NW direction is 5.59 in/s (.32 mph) and 3.96 in/s (.23 mph) in the SE 

direction. This is a small variation in the velocity in the y-direction so we can be assured 

that wind velocities experienced by turbine blades between the elevations of 20-35 ft will 

be mostly normal to the blades ensuring the optimum performance of the turbine. 

March Case Study 

We used the initial model shown in Figure 14 to run a March case study of wind speeds 

from the Northwest and Southeast at an average of 8.8 mph. Due to the complexity of 

the solid model, we chose to analyze the wind flow using FloWorks only. Time was not 

available to run the analysis with Fluent. 

19

The FloWorks results indicated that the best location for the wind turbine is the center of 

the MEC building between 20ft and 30 ft above the penthouse rooftop. Figure 25 and 

Figure 26 shows vector gradient maps of these results. The vertical components of the 

velocity vectors are still approximately 10% of the vector magnitudes. So the results 

were very similar to that of the studies done with the simplified model discussed in the 

previous section. However, due to the increase in the initial wind speed the vertical 

components are slightly larger. 

Figure 25 – SE Wind Vector Gradient Map March Case Study 

Figure 26 – NW Wind Vector Gradient Map March Case Study 

20

Evident from the above figures, the maximum wind speeds for the model are 180 in/sec. 

The figures above show the turbine blade axis 25 ft above the rooftop. The surrounding 

red color indicates this is a very suitable location for the turbine. 

Boise airport wind data from 1997 to 2003 was utilized to get a general idea of the wind 

characteristics in this area. This data indicated that, for an entire year, we could expect 

an average wind speed of 7.6 mph. Average wind speed for each month ranges from 6.7 

mph low in January to an 8.8 mph high in March as shown in Figure 27. 

Monthly Average Wind Speed (mph) 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Month 

Figure 27-Monthly Avg. Wind Data Boise Airport 1997-2003 

The Boise airport wind data also indicated that the wind direction in our area is generally 

bi-polar; the wind typically blows from either the NW or the SE. A wind rose for the 

month of March is illustrated in Figure 28. 

Figure 28-Wind Rose Data March Boise Airport 

21

Data from the wind anemometer and the Boise airport was compared in an attempt to 

determine the wind correlation factor. Figure 29 shows a correlation equation between 

wind speeds at the airport to wind speeds at the MEC roof top. According to our 

correlation, the MEC roof tops will have higher wind speeds than the Boise Airport for 

wind speeds greater than 6mph. Wind speeds below 6mph are in the non-operational 

range for our turbine. 

MEC Roof-Top Wind Speed (mph) 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

y = 1.8601x - 6.0624 

R 2 = 0.8029 

0 

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 

Airport Wind Speed (mph) 

Figure 29 – MEC and Boise Airport Wind Speed Correlation 

However, the wind direction between the MEC and Boise airport is similar about 23% of 

the time within a 22.5 degree range. The variation is greater from 12:00pm to 7:00pm 

than other times of the day. Wind speeds measured at the same time for the Boise airport 

and the MEC are shown in Figure 30. 

Wind Speed, (mph) 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

12:50 

AM 

2:50 

AM 

3:50 

AM 

4:40 

AM 

5:50 

AM 

6:50 

AM 

8:50 

AM 

9:50 

AM 

10:50 

AM 

11:50 12:50 2:50 3:50 4:50 5:50 6:50 7:50 8:50 

AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM 

Time 

Airport Wind speed MEC roof top Wind speed (mph) 

9:50 

PM 

10:50 11:50 

PM PM 

Figure 30 - Boise Airport/COEN Wind Speed Correlation Avg. 4/18/05 to 4/25/05 

22

The entire COEN complex was measured in order to generate models of the buildings. 

This was done with a combination of field measurements and Architectural drawings. 

Wind measurements were taken with a hand held anemometer during the month of March 

to get a general feel for the wind characteristics on top of the building. Other wind 

measurements were collected from the airport and the tower mounted anemometer on the 

MEC east side. Table 10 shows some of the wind measurements recorded in March with 

a hand held anemometer at about 14.5 feet. 

Table 10 - MEC Wind Measurements 3/8/05 (left) & 3/10/05 (right) 

NW corner (10 feet from west side edge and 10 feet from north side edge) SW corner (10 feet from west side edge and 10 feet from south side edge) 

Max, (mph) Min, (mph) Average, (mph) Time Direction, (degree) Max, (mph) Min, (mph) Average, (mph) Time Direction, (degree) 

13.7 5.5 9.3 4:18 315 15.9 0.0 11.7 3:48 320 

12.4 6.0 7.1 4:24 315 23.1 0.0 14.2 3:50 300 

7.2 1.4 1.9 4:26 315 18.7 4.5 11.7 3:52 290 

13.5 0.0 6.4 4:29 295 18.8 4.5 12.3 3:54 290 

10.3 4.5 5.7 4:33 280 16.7 2.2 7.0 3:56 285 

9.1 4.6 5.1 4:35 310 18.2 0.0 15.1 3:58 300 

10.3 5.2 7.0 4:37 300 18.0 9.7 11.3 3:59 290 

14.6 5.1 11.2 4:39 300 24.9 4.7 20.4 4:01 270 

15.0 7.2 11.7 4:41 310 24.9 4.7 14.8 4:03 270 

15.9 8.4 10.9 4:43 310 

Average of this period 4:18pm - 4:43pm 7.6 305 Average of this period 3:48pm - 4:03pm 13.2 291 

North End (21feet from west side edge and 10 feet from north side edge) South End (23feet from west side edge and 10 feet from south side edge) 


15.9 4.9 11.1 4:46 310 15.4 4.0 9.2 4:10 280 

11.8 5.4 9.3 4:48 285 17.9 7.4 11.4 4:12 280 

17.1 4.1 5.6 4:50 280 21.2 8.5 11.6 4:13 290 

14.2 0.0 8.0 4:52 295 20.1 7.6 11.4 4:15 285 

11.4 6.7 7.4 4:54 295 21.3 11.3 14.4 4:17 280 

13.6 8.2 12.9 4:55 290 16.6 8.2 14.0 4:18 285 

14.2 6.4 8.4 4:57 310 20.6 7.1 15.2 4:20 280 

16.9 9.3 11.2 5:00 300 13.3 1.1 12.1 4:22 270 

16.2 5.3 15.1 5:02 310 17.0 4.0 6.4 4:24 270 

12.8 7.4 9.5 5:03 320 15.0 2.4 9.3 4:26 270 


NE corner (35 feet from west side edge and 10 feet from north side edge) SE corner (38 feet from west side edge and 10 feet from south side edge) 


13.0 6.8 9.6 5:09 290 15.0 6.9 8.4 4:29 290 

12.3 4.3 4.9 5:11 290 16.7 3.7 13.5 4:31 290 

6.5 0.0 4.7 5:13 290 8.5 7.0 8.0 4:33 280 

10.3 5.0 6.3 5:16 300 19.2 4.9 14.1 4:35 275 

12.2 2.6 7.7 5:18 290 17.5 8.0 10.9 4:36 270 

14.1 8.0 9.3 5:19 300 17.8 5.2 11.9 4:39 270 

14.1 4.5 10.8 5:22 310 19.0 1.4 16.1 4:40 280 

12.6 6.5 9.9 5:24 300 17.1 8.4 14.7 4:43 280 

14.3 6.9 10.4 5:25 300 21.6 5.7 11.3 4:45 285 

13.9 5.0 8.5 5:26 300 18.2 1.5 14.5 4:47 280 


Turbine System 

When analyzed at the MEC location, none of the turbines will produce enough energy to 

overcome annual overhead and maintenance costs. The greatest producing turbine will 

generate a mere $68 of energy per year, at an installation cost of approximately $50,000. 

A wind turbine installation on the BSU campus, and at nearly any location in the Boise 

metro area, does not meet economic justification. However, setting aside return on 

investment or other like investment comparators, we can use the initial cost estimates to 

aid in selecting a turbine. Educational purposes are the primary reason for this turbine 

installation, therefore we continued with our selection greatly based on the number of 

operating days per year, and the least costly method to achieve a working unit. 

23

Manufactures data was used to create a performance curve for each horizontal axis 

turbine analyzed. With Microsoft Excel’s© curve fit function we were able to generate a 

polynomial function of power vs. wind speed for each turbine. The R-squared values for 

the curve fit were greater than 0.99 for all of the turbines. The average wind speed from 

each day for the past 7 years was then plugged into the polynomial functions to determine 

how the turbine would perform in this area. The graph in Figure 31 shows performance 

for several different brands of turbines through one year based on average wind speeds 

from 1997 to 2003. 

Kilowatt Hours Per Day 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

J 

F 

M 

A 

M 

J 

J 

Bergey Excel R 7.5kW Bergey XL1 1kW Proven Energy WT2500 2.5kW 

Proven Energy WT600 0.6kW Bergey Excel 10kW Southwest WP Air X 0.9kW 

Figure 31 – Predicted Turbine Power Output 15 Day Moving Average 

The 7.5 kW turbine manufactured by Bergey would produce the most power. At around 

$50,000 to install, the Bergey Excel 7.5 kW has a rotor diameter of 22 feet. Installing a 

turbine this expensive may not be a feasible solution. Table 11 summarizes the turbine 

types and cost. The 2 nd and 3 rd best power producers included a 2.5 kW turbine 

manufactured by Proven Energy and a 1 kW turbine manufactured by Bergey, 

respectively. Both of these turbines were much more cost effective and would operate 

for many more school days per year than the larger turbine. An example power curve 

that we used in the analysis is illustrated in Figure 32 for the Bergey XL1. 

A 

S 

O 

N 

D 

J 

24

Power (W) 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 

Wind Speed (mph) 

Figure 32 – Bergey XL1 Theoretical Power Curve 

To facilitate observation by facility and students, the turbine should operate on school 

days, even if the power produced is minimal. Table 11 summarizes turbine size, yearly 

estimated power produced, and number of school days the turbines operates. If the 

average wind speed for the day exceeded the minimum start up speed for the turbine, the 

turbine was considered to operate on that day. 

Table 11 – Turbine Performance Summary 

Power Produced Number School Days 

Total 

System 

Turbine Type Rating Blade Diameter (m) Yearly (kW*hr) in Operation Cost 

Bergey Excel-R 7.5kW 6.7 882 122 $50,590 

Proven WT2500 2.5kW 3.5 580 247 $22,141 

Bergey XL1 1kW 2.5 373 247 $15,594 

Proven WT600 0.6kW 2.55 124 247 $17,172 

Bergey Excel 10kW 6.7 106 122 $37,000 

Southwest WP Air X 0.6kW 1.14 27 187 $12,191 

Power produced by the turbine and generator must be conditioned into an acceptable 

format. The system could delivery power to a battery bank, to the municipal grid, or 

directly to the load (appliances, lighting, etc.). 

Lower voltage (12 to 48 V), direct current power is a good choice for battery charging 

and some low load residential requirements. Battery charging is more expensive, due to 

the high cost of the special batteries required. However, if the goals are to net meter and 

connect the power with the grid, a certified signal conditioner will be required. Net 

metering will require working with Idaho Power to complete the install. 

25

Most turbine applications significantly benefit from towers, where the turbine is 

positioned into faster wind speed above the ground surface. Our turbine will be located 

on the roof top of the MEC building, already 80 ft above street level; a tower is mostly 

needed to overcome any turbulence effects of the roof structure. The MEC building’s 

height already helps position the turbine above the transition region of ground and 

surface objects. 

Existing towers and wiring packages from turbine manufactures can be purchased in sizes 

ranging from 20 to 100 ft. Our wind modeling analysis determined that using a tower 20 

ft high on the MEC building would place the turbine above any ill effects of the 

building’s own turbulence. Any tower taller than 20 ft would not significantly improve 

wind harvesting capability over the cost incurred in the tower. 

Monitoring systems purchased from the turbine manufacturer are designed with the 

specific turbine performance and output in mind. We were able to locate the different 

types and costs for monitoring systems available; however, a more detailed user 

requirement study is needed to finalize a monitoring decision. 

Safety Analysis 

We considered the failure modes of turbines and possible design accommodations to 

identify and reduce the risk of injury from the wind turbine. A competent individual 

must inspect the turbine system on a regular basis to check for fatigue wear. In addition, 

most turbines will require yearly maintenance and upkeep to reduce the possibility of 

failure and extend the lifespan. Placing the turbine near the center of the building would 

increase the probability of a failed blade landing on the building structure and not striking 

a pedestrian. 

A structural and vibration analysis of the building at the install location should be 

performed. Local building codes will need to be meet in the installation and the turbine 

will probably have to be inspected by building code officials after installation. A permit 

may be required to erect the turbine. 

Wind Speed, (mph) 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 

Week 1 thru 52 

Figure 33 - Maximum Avg. 2 min. Wind Gust 1997-2003 

26

Figure 33 shows the maximum average 2 minute wind gust from 1997 to 2003. The 

highest wind speed for a 2 minute gust is around 21 mph. However, instantaneous gust 

were up to twice as high at the Boise airport (a few measurements on the MEC roof 

exceeded 100 mph, however these velocity measurements occurred during steady wind 

speeds of approximately 6mph so they were negated for this study). The turbine selected 

must have safety features to stop operation when the force from the wind speed will 

exceed design stresses. Most turbines stop operation via a brake or unfurling mechanism 

at about 40 mph. 

Discussion 

This project only encompassed a portion of the work that would need to be performed to 

complete a turbine installation on top of the MEC building. Safety and structural 

mounting conditions will have to be addressed as mentioned in the previous section. A 

joint effort between the mechanical and electrical engineering departments at BSU is 

imperative to the completion of a functioning wind turbine. 

Foot traffic, even in small amounts, on top of the MEC building will degrade the life of 

the roof and cause premature wear and failure. Precautions should be taken to minimize 

damage to the membrane roof, as it is not designed to handle foot traffic. Incorporating 

required structural features and safety features will encompass the majority of the 

installation cost. This design work could be used for another senior design project that 

builds on this one. 

Due to the poor economics of the project and the safety issues, we speculate that the 

turbine system will probably never reach installation. Installing urban wind turbines on 

existing building presents several problems, and the benefit achieved at this location 

simply is not very significant. 

Conclusions 

We have concluded that the best location for a wind turbine at the COEN is at the center 

of the MEC building 20-30 feet above the penthouse roof. This structure is 

approximately 80 feet high and appears to have the best wind characteristics of the three 

COEN buildings. The highest magnitude of wind velocity was also at the center of this 

building. Installing the turbine in the center enables easy access and the ability to tie off 

the turbine tower at more locations. The Bergey XL1 1 kW turbine appears to be the best 

turbine package that could be purchased and installed on the MEC roof. This turbine was 

the 3 rd best performer and was by far the most cost effective. 

27

Recommendations 

To complete the installation several important items will have to be performed, some of 

which are included below: 

• Structural analysis of roof structure where turbine is to be installed. 

• Contact the roofing contractor who performed the installation for the MEC 

roof to certify the warranty will not be in-validated and to have additional 

mounts installed as needed. 

• Safety needs to be further considered before installation. 

• Building permits may have to be obtained. 

• A vibration analysis of the structure and turbine should be performed to 

ensure that the turbine is not going to produce any undesirable vibrations that 

could create failure of the turbine or the structure. 

• Involving the electrical engineering department in the power connection 

would be beneficial. 

• Install a maintenance path to the turbine to avoid premature wear of the 

membrane roof. 

• If the wind tunnel in the HML high bay become operational in the near future. 

It could be used to perform scaled testing and verify the results of our models. 

This was part of our original plan; however the wind tunnel was not operation 

through out the semester. 

28

References 

1 Idaho Department of Water Resources. 15 February 2005. http://www.idwr.state.id.us/energy/Energy/ 

altenergy.htm 

2 Small Wind Energy Systems for the Homeowner. U.S. Department of Energy. GO-10098-374. FS 135. 

January 1997. 

3 Case Study of a Residential-Scale Hybrid Renewable Energy Power System in an Urban Setting. Z.M. 

Salameh and A.J. Davis. University of Massachusetts. 2003 

4 Wind Energy Manual. 1 February 2005. http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/wind/wem/wem- 

01_print.html 

5 Facts About Wind Energy and Noise. American Wind Energy Association. Washington, D.C. 2001 

6 Engineering Design. Eggert, R. J., Prentice Hall, Inc., 2004, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 

7 Specifications for Small Wind Turbines for Autonomous Energy Systems. C.G. Condaxakis. et.al. Wind 

Energy and Power Plant Synthesis Lab. Crete, Greece 

29

Appendix 

Turbine Power Curves 

Power (W) 

Power (W) 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

Bergey Excel-R 7.5kW 

y = 0.0029x 6 - 0.0976x 5 + 0.2003x 4 + 13.382x 3 - 41.402x 2 + 15.171x + 2.5 

R 2 = 0.9988 

0 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

y = -0.1275x 3 + 7.0907x 2 - 60.187x + 136.88 

R 2 = 0.9953 

Wind Speed (m/s) 

Bergey XL1 1kW 

0 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 

Wind Speed (mph) 

30

Power (W) 

Power (W) 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

y = -2.77x 3 + 74.138x 2 - 321.27x + 392.01 

R 2 = 0.9998 

Proven WT2500-2.5kW 

0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

y = -0.5848x 3 + 17.073x 2 - 95.006x + 149.44 

R 2 = 0.9986 


Southwest WP Air X 

0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 


31

Power (W) 

14000 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

y = -5.3868x 3 + 196.9x 2 - 1304.4x + 2419.8 

R 2 = 0.9976 

Bergey BWC Excel-10kW 

0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

Turbine Cost Tables 

` 



Type : Battery Charging Model : BWC XL 1-24 

Product Price 

Turbine 


Tower 

Tower (30 ft tilt-up) $ 950 

Tower wiring kit, 7 Circuit $ 600 

Batteries 

5.3kWh Battery Bank $ 450 

Inverter 

1,500 W Inverter System $ 1,044 


Total : $ 15,494 



O&M $ (75) 


32

Power Output : 7.5 kW Company : Bergey 

Type : Battery Charging Model : BWC Excel-R/120 

Product Price 

Turbine 


Tower 

Tower (64 ft tilt-up) $ 1,250 

Tower wiring kit $ 1,000 

Batteries 

84 kWh Battery Bank (5 string at $1,944 each) $ 9,720 

Inverter 

11 kW Inverter System $ 8,030 

Power Center 

DC Power Center Option, 7 circuit $ 690 


Total : $ 50,590 



O&M $ (75) 



Type : Grid Connect Model : BWC Excel-S/60 

Product Price 

Turbine 

Turbine and PowerCenter multi-function controller w/ GridTek 10 Inverter $ 24,750 

Tower 

Tower (64 ft tilt-up) $ 1,250 

Tower wiring kit $ 1,000 

Batteries 

NA $ - 

Inverter 

NA $ - 

Power Center 

NA $ - 


Total : $ 37,000 



O&M $ (100) 


33

Power Output : 600 W Company : Proven Energy 

Type : Battery Charging Model : WT600/048 

Product Price 

Turbine 

600 Watt 48V wind turbine/generator $ 3,610 

Tower 

100 ft. guyed-lattice tower kit $ 2,163 

$ - 

Batteries 

5.3kWh Battery Bank (from Bergey) $ 410 

Inverter 

NA $ - 

Power Center 

charge controller with HV control. Included MCB Isolator (No Meters). $ 665 

48V Analogue Volt and Ammeters for use with ECM600 Controllers $ 323 


Total : $ 17,172 



O&M $ (75) 


Power Output : 2.5 kW Company : Proven Energy 

Type : Battery Charging Model : WT2500/048 

Product Price 

Turbine 

2.5 kWatt wind turbine/generator $ 7,152 

Tower 

Tilt-up self supporting wind turbine mast (6.5m). $ 2,163 

Batteries 

10kWh Battery Bank (from Bergey) $ 820 

Inverter 

NA $ - 

Power Center 

2.5kW, 24 or 38V DC battery charging controller. Includes 2 DC and $ 2,005 

3 AC divert load connections, V&I meters plus 8 system status indicators. 

Suitable for use with a DC system or DC/AC using an inverter. 


Total : $ 22,141 



O&M $ (75) 


34

Power Output : 2.5 kW Company : Proven Energy 

Type : Grid Connect Model : WT2500/300 

Product Price 

Turbine 

600 Watt wind turbine/generator $ 7,152 

Tower 

Tilt-up self supporting wind turbine mast (6.5m). $ 2,163 

Batteries 

NA $ - 

Inverter 

NA $ - 

Power Center 

Isolation and rectification controller for use with grid connect inverter. $ 1,018 

Included V&I meters for perfomance monitoring. 


Total : $ 20,333 



O&M $ (100) 


Power Output : 400 W Company : Southwest Windpower 

Type : Battery Charging Model : Air X 24V 

Product Price 

Turbine 

900 Watt wind turbine/generator $ 538 

Tower 

45 ft. tower kit $ 199 

Batteries 

5.3kWh Battery Bank (from Bergey) $ 410 

Inverter 

1,500 W Inverter System (from Bergey) $ 1,044 

Power Center 

NA $ - 


Total : $ 12,191 



O&M $ (75) 


35

FloWorks Wind Maps 

FloWorks Wind Map 1 – NW Wind Velocity Path Lines Colored by Magnitude 

FloWorks Wind Map 2 – South Face MEC Building NW Wind Velocity Path Lines 

36

FloWorks Wind Map 3 – SE Wind Velocity Path Lines Colored by Magnitude 

FloWorks Wind Map 4 - South Face MEC Building SE Wind Velocity Path Lines 

37

Fluent Wind Maps 

Fluent Wind Maps 1 – NW Wind Velocity Path Lines Colored by Magnitude 

Fluent Wind Maps 2 – SE Wind Velocity Path Lines Colored by Magnitude 

38

Fluent Wind Maps 3 – South Face MEC Building SE Wind Velocity Path Lines 

Fluent Wind Maps 4 – South Face MEC Building NW Wind Velocity Path Lines 

39

Monthly Boise Airport Wind Rose 

January 

March 

May 

February 

April 

June 

40

July 

September 

November 

August 

October 

December 

41

Title Page URBAN WIND TURBINE SENIOR DESIGN PROJECT ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?