Wind Turbine Dynamics

Sandy Butterfield

Workshop on Research Needs

For
Wind Resource Characterization

January 14, 2008

 Outline of Presentation
Design process overview
What have we learned (so far)
What’s working
What’s not
What will it take to meet COE goals

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 2

 First a Little History
Late 70s – early 80s
research prototypes
MOD-1
Demonstrated large 2 MW

turbines could be
MOD-2 (2.5 MW)
made MOD-5 (3.2 MW)

Not economical MOD-0A

200 kW

WTS-4
4.2 MW
SNL
34m
VAWT

Westinghouse
600 kW

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 3

 Small Companies Chose Small Turbines

Early 80s wind

farms in California
Economics were
better
Reliability was
poor

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 4

 Evolution of Commercial U.S. Wind
Technology (and Design Process)

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 5

 Design Process Evolution
80s:
– Extreme load design
– Minimal testing
– No standards
90s:
– Extensive structural dynamic load testing
– New structural dynamic design tools
– Turbulence models ( 1D homogeneous)
– Fatigue load dominated design
– Standards document design process
– Predict, test, tune, evolve design
2008:
– Greater investment in:
• Design load accuracy
• Turbulence models (Homogeneous, 3D
correlated)
• Dynamic coupling
• Component development
• Controls for load mitigation
• Hydrodynamic loading
• Environmental characterization
• 1000s of Design Load Cases
– Site specific design
•Rotor diameter matching to site conditions
(wind)
• Site assessment
2006 Wind Program Peer Review 6
 Importance of Accurate Loads
This is usually a matter of repeated loads or environmental effects (Load,
temperature, moisture, etc.)
Material resistance to repeated loads is both sensitive and variable.
A small load uncertainty results in an enormous lifetime uncertainty.
A large margin on the mean life is required to avoid early failures
Intensity of the load

Uncertainty in Load

Uncertainty in Lifetime

Number of cycles survived Logarithmic plot

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 7
 Inflow Characterization is Critical for
High-Reliability Systems
Reduced
Improved O&M
Failure Rates

Accurate Loads - High-Reliability

Design Requirements Systems

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 8

 Design Approach
Optimize Performance
– Aerodynamic efficiency
– Maximize swept area
• Site specific

Estimate Loads
– Turbulent inflow
– Aerodynamics (steady &
unsteady)
– Structural dynamics

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 9

 Aerodynamics
Must reconcile wake and local
aerodynamics Wake Aero
– Blade element/momentum
– Dynamic inflow
– Lifting line theory
Airfoil/blade geometry
characteristics
Time variant applied forces
Integrate forces to power curve
Power/Rayleigh probability wind
distribution
Energy estimates
Local Blade Aero
2006 Wind Program Peer Review 10
 First Maximize Rotor Efficiency

Increasing noise

High tip speed ratio rotors = high efficiency & low solidity (blade area/swept area)
2006 Wind Program Peer Review 11
 Performance: Maximize Area
For Maximum Power:
1
Vi = Vw
3
16 ⎛ 1 3⎞
P= ⎜ ρ AVw ⎟
27 ⎝ 2 ⎠

The Betz Limit

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 12

 Typical 5 MW Power and Thrust

Power Curve
from a Specific Site Specific
Turbine Energy
Estimates
Site Wind
Probability
Density

Site Specific
Thrust Curve Life Time
from Turbine Load Matrices

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 13

Measured Electrical Output of a Wind Turbine

Power

Power Standard Deviation

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 14

 Dynamic Loads
Mean tower base
bending loads
decrease in high winds
Fatigue equivalent
loads increase
Energy available
decreases in higher
winds

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 15

 Estimating Loads (over 20 year life)

Turbulence Drives Turbine Dynamics

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 16

 Turbulence models
3 components
Based on von Karmon isotropic spectrum
Ten minute simulations
Spatial coherence models
Turbulence intensity set by IEC Design Class
Tuned to site specific turbulence intensity data for site suitability
assessment
Eddy Vorticity Field Associated with a Fully Turbulent Inflow
Looking down from above

turbine
rotor

flow
2006 Wind Program
NeilPeer Review
Kelley 2005 17
 Design Wind Modeling

Forecasting Models Turbulence Model

Wind
Waves

Swell
Waves

Energy Spectrum of Wind Speed Fluctuation in the Atmosphere

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 18
 Deterministic Wind Models
IEC 61400-1 ed3 (ECD)
Simple models of extreme
events
Alternative to extreme
turbulence model
Specifies gust characteristics
Combined gusts with direction

EDC Wind direction change, θ (t )

40
changes
30
Facilitates analysis of

(deg)
20
unfavorable phasing between
10
control system events and
gusts 0
-5 0 5 10

Time, t (s)
2006 Wind Program Peer Review 19
IEC 61400-1 Onshore Turbine Design Classes

Table 1 - Basic parameters for wind turbine classes[1]

I II III S
Wind Turbine Class

Vref (m/s) 50 42,5 37.5 Values

A Iref (-) 0,16 Specified

B Iref (-) 0,14 by the

C Iref (-) 0,12 Designer

In Table 1, the parameter values apply at hub height and

Vref is the reference wind speed average over 10 minutes,
•A designates the category for higher turbulence characteristics,
B designates the category for medium turbulence characteristics,
C designates the category for lower turbulence characteristics and
Iref is the expected value of the turbulence intensity[2] at 15 m/s.

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 20

 Coupled Aero-elastic/Hydro-elastic
Design Codes

External Applied Wind Turbine

Conditions Loads
Control System

Aero- Rotor Drivetrain Power

Wind-Inflow
dynamics Dynamics Dynamics Generation

Nacelle Dynamics

Tower Dynamics
TurbSim AeroDyn
HydroDyn
Waves & Hydro-
Substructure Dynamics
Currents dynamics

Soil-Struct.
Soil Foundation Dynamics FAST &
Interaction
ADAMS

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 21

 What's Working Why
98% reported availability Design process, improved design
tools, Standards
Rotor performance excellent Steady aero codes, airfoils, testing
(80% of theoretical limit)
CapEx drastically reduced Accurate design tools, load control,
quality control
Blade Development Standards (design, test, certify)
Product evolution strategy Stretch rotor, control loads
Power quality control Power electronics

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 22

 What's Not
Working Why
Gearboxes bearing failures, inaccurate internal
loads?
OpEx too high "unscheduled maintenance", low
reliability, lack O&M automation
CapEx still too high to lack of fatigue load and deflection
DOE goals control
Rotor stretching strategy tower clearance limit, materials,
hitting limits aeroacoustics limiting tip speed, dynamic

To meet DOE cost goals

Stop gearbox failures
Need new design strategy
Better site specific
characteristics
Evolve design tools
Evolve design process

Ludeca, Inc.
2006 Wind Program Peer Review 23
 Rotor Innovations key to Scaling Strategy

25 Finite Element
Commercial Blade Data Computer Model
20 Modeling Results
Weight (10 kg)

2.9
Modeling Results - R
15
3

10 Scaling of Rotors
2.35
Commercial Blades - R
5

0
20 30 40 50 60
Rotor Radius (m)

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 24

 How well has the strategy worked?
Can we meet the COE goals?
WindPact Baselines
RNA Mass / Swept Area WindPact Task#5 Final
NREL Baseline 5MW
40.0
GPRA 2005 - 2025 Estimates

35.0 RePower 5MW

Offshore Turbines Enercon 6MW

30.0 Vestas 4.5MW
Mass/swept area (kg/m^2)

MultiBrid 5MW
25.0
GE 3.6MW
Clipper
20.0
V80
15.0 V90
Siemens
10.0 4.4 3.9 3.4
5.0
DOE COE pathway (cents/kwh)

0.0
40 60 80 100 120 140
Diameter (m)

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 25

 What will it take?
Design code enhancements
– Dynamic coupling of major components
– Steady & unsteady aerodynamics
– Aeroacoustics (higher tip speeds, reduced tower shadow signature)
Advanced controls (load reduction, deflection control)
System and subsystem innovation (lower cost, greater reliability)
– Rotor (reduced dynamic loads)
– Blades (increased flexibility, longer fatigue life)
– Drivetrain (greater reliability, lower cost)
Site specific turbulence characterization and linkage between:
– Local atmospheric physics
– 50m – 200m Inflow turbulence (3D coherent structures?)
– Unsteady aerodynamic response
– Wake to rotor interactions

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 26

 Carpe Ventem

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 27

 Gaps
(according to Sandy)
Aerodynamics - More accurate steady & unsteady aero models
Aeroacoustics (limits high speed flexible rotors & downwind option)
Increasing flexibility w/o complexity, cost & failure rates
Accurate prediction of coupled dynamic rotor loads
Greater fidelity between loads codes and component design codes
Greater drive-train reliability while reducing cost and weight.
MIMO Control of turbulence & extreme loads without firm measure of
inputs (need robust sensor technology)
More accurate inflow characterization, especially greater than 100m.
Linkage between local atmospheric/turbulence/aerodynamic/wakes

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 28

 Trends
Lifelong O&M (“unscheduled Onshore COE Cost Breakdown
maintenance” becoming critical) LRC & Lease O&M (After Tax)
Cost 9%
Lighter rotors, higher tip speeds, 10%
Electrical
more flexible blades (lower Infrastructure
7%
loads) Foundation
Turbine
60%
3% Misc BOS

Twist/flap coupling 11%

Drivetrain innovation Offshore COE Cost Breakdown

O&M (After
Tax)
Controls for load reduction 13%
LRC & Lease
Cost Turbine
Offshore design concepts 6% 32%

incorporated into onshore Electrical

Infrastructure

turbines (load control, component 12% Offshore

Warranty
Eng/Permits 4%
placement, design for reliability, Misc BOS
13%
6%
Support Structure
condition monitoring) 14%

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 29

 Can rotor improvements help the rest of
the system?
WindPact Rotor study shows benefits of:
– Controlling tower dynamics
– Passive blade load relief through twist/flap coupling
– High tip speed/low solidity blades

Need follow up
system study
– SeaCon Turbine
study
– Perform system
optimization
– Apply practical
implementation
experience

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 30

 Advanced Drivetrain R&D

Today

NPS

Tomorrow

GEC

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 31

 45-Meter Fatigue Test
Nov.24.2004

Larger blades becoming more

flexible
Design innovations require design
verification
Aerodynamic advancements
improve performance.
Structural improvements increase
fatigue tolerance and reduce
dynamic loads.

Single-axis Flap Fatigue Test Using B-REX Test System.

45-meter Blade Root Mount

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 32

 Horns Rev, Denmark 80 Turbines, 160 MW

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 33

 Aeroelastic Simulators

Codes integrate :
– Turbulent inflow
– Aerodynamic forces
– Coupled structural dynamics
– Controls
– Wave loading
– Other environmental effects

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 34

 Structural Dynamics

Non-stationary
Oblique Aerodynamic Loads
Inflow
Gyroscopic Tower Torsion
Forces Yawing Blade Flatwise
Wind Deflection
Boundary Mass Rolling
Layer Loads

Pitching
Gust Tower Deflection
Tower Blade Edgewise
Shadow Deflection

Centrifugal Blade Torsion

Forces

Blade vibrations interact with aerodynamic forces = aeroelasticity

Mode shapes and natural frequencies critical

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 35

 Floating Offshore Turbine Research
Interface of SML to FAST and ADAMS
Wind Field
Wave Env. (TurbSim, field
(Motion, field exp., etc.)
exp., etc.)
Wind-Inflow
Wave Spectrum
Aerodynamics
Freq. To Time (AeroDyn)
(Motion) Aerodynamic Loads Blade Motions
Wave History (lift, drag, pitch mom.) (blade pitch, element pos. & vel.)

Platform Motions Time Series Motions

Time-Domain (defl., vel., accel.) Structural (defl., vel., accel.)
Hydrodynamics Dynamics Output
Hydrodynamic Loads Time Series Loads
(Motion) (FAST, ADAMS)
(added mass, damping) (forces, moments)
Added Mass &
Damping Matrices Platform Pos.
Mooring Loads
Freq.-Domain (restoring)
Hydrodynamics Measurements Actuator Inputs
(Swim) Moorings (power, loads, etc.) (blade pitch, gen. torque, yaw)
(Lines) Controls
2006 Wind Program Peer Review
(user-defined)
36
 Time series simulations

Nonlinearities require time marching solution approach

– Control system
– Aerodynamics
– Large rotations

Load combinations

Limit ability to simulate life time.

requires extrapolation to life time load spectrum

Extreme conditions simulated and added into the load matrix

1.35 load factor applied to all unfavorable loads estimates.

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 37

 Turbine Design Evolution
80s: (US dominated market)
– US = Light weight/flexible
– Euro = Heavy/stiff
90s: (Euro dominated market)
– Low speed = low tip noise^5
– Heavy/stiff evolved
– Lighter/larger rotors
– Variable speed
– Custom airfoils/tips
2008: (World market)
– Dynamically active
– Flexible for load shedding
– Power quality improvements

2006 Wind Program Peer Review 38