1 / 17

A Quantitative Comparison of Three Floating Wind Turbines

A Quantitative Comparison of Three Floating Wind Turbines. AWEA Offshore Wind Project Workshop December 2-3, 2009 Jason Jonkman, Ph.D. Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle. Offshore Wind Technology.

filia
Download Presentation

A Quantitative Comparison of Three Floating Wind Turbines

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Quantitative Comparisonof Three Floating Wind Turbines AWEA Offshore Wind Project Workshop December 2-3, 2009 Jason Jonkman, Ph.D. Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle

  2. Offshore Wind Technology Onshore ShallowWater 0m-30m Transitional Depth 30m-60m Deepwater60m+

  3. Floating Wind Turbine Pioneers

  4. Floating Wind Turbine Concepts • Design Challenges • Low frequency modes: • Influence on aerodynamic damping & stability • Large platform motions: • Coupling with turbine • Complicated shape: • Radiation & diffraction • Moorings, cables, & anchors • Construction, installation & O&M

  5. Modeling Requirements • Coupled aero-hydro-servo-elastic interaction • Wind-inflow: • Discrete events • Turbulence • Waves: • Regular • Irregular • Aerodynamics: • Induction • Rotational augmentation • Skewed wake • Dynamic stall • Hydrodynamics: • Diffraction • Radiation • Hydrostatics • Structural dynamics: • Gravity / inertia • Elasticity • Foundations / moorings • Control system: • Yaw, torque, pitch

  6. Coupled Aero-Hydro-Servo-Elastics

  7. Floating Concept Analysis Process • Run IEC-style load cases: • Identify ultimate loads • Identify fatigue loads • Identify instabilities • Compare concepts against each other & to onshore • Iterate on design: • Limit-state analysis • MIMO state-space control • Evaluate system economics • Identify hybrid features that will potentially provide the best overall characteristics • Use same NREL 5-MW turbine & environmental conditions for all • Design floater: • Platform • Mooring system • Modify tower (if needed) • Modify baseline controller(if needed) • Create FAST / AeroDyn / HydroDyn model • Check model by comparing frequency & time domain: • RAOs • PDFs

  8. Three Concepts Analyzed NREL 5-MW on OC3-Hywind Spar NREL 5-MW on ITI Energy Barge NREL 5-MW on MIT/NREL TLP

  9. Sample MIT/NREL TLP Response

  10. Normal Operation: DLC 1.1-1.5 Ultimate Loads Blade Root Bending Moment Low-Speed Shaft Bending Moment Yaw Bearing Bending Moment Tower Base Bending Moment

  11. Floating Platform Analysis Summary • MIT/NREL TLP • Behaves essentially like a land-based turbine • Only slight increase in ultimate & fatigue loads • Expensive anchor system • OC3-Hywind Spar Buoy • Only slight increase in blade loads • Moderate increase in tower loads; needs strengthening • Difficult manufacturing & installation at many sites • ITI Enery Barge • High increase in loads; needs strengthening • Likely applicable only at sheltered sites • Simple & inexpensive installation

  12. Ongoing Work & Future Plans • Assess roll of advanced control • Resolve system instabilities • Optimize system designs • Evaluate system economics • Analyze other floating concepts: • Platform configuration • Vary turbine size, weight, & configuration • Verify simulations further under IEA OC3 • Validate simulations with test data • Improve simulation capabilities • Develop design guidelines / standards Spar Concept by SWAY Semi-Submersible Concept

  13. Thank You for Your Attention Jason Jonkman, Ph.D. +1 (303) 384 – 7026 jason.jonkman@nrel.gov Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle

  14. Design Load Case Table Summary of Selected Design Load Cases from IEC61400-1 & -3

  15. Normal Operation: DLC 1.2 Fatigue Loads Side-to-Side Fore-Aft Side-to-Side Fore-Aft Out-of-Plane In-Plane 0° 90° Blade Root Bending Moments Yaw Bearing Bending Moments Tower Base Bending Moments Low-Speed Shaft Bending Moments

  16. Idling: DLC 6.2a Side-to-Side Instability • Aero-elastic interaction causes negative damping in a coupled blade-edge, tower-S-S, & platform-roll & -yaw mode • Conditions: • 50-yr wind event for TLP, spar, & land-based turbine • Idling + loss of grid; all blades = 90º; nacelle yaw error = ±(20º to 40º) • Instability diminished in barge by wave radiation • Possible solutions: • Modify airfoils to reduce energy absorption • Allow slip of yaw drive • Apply brake to keep rotor away from critical azimuths

  17. Idling: DLC 2.1 & 7.1a Yaw Instability • Aero-elastic interaction causes negative damping in a mode that couples rotor azimuth with platform yaw • Conditions: • Normal or 1-yr wind & wave events • Idling + fault; blade pitch = 0º (seized), 90º, 90º • Instability in TLP & barge, not in spar or land-based turbine • Possible solutions: • Reduce fully feathered pitch to allow slow roll while idling • Apply brake to stop rotor

More Related