Dynamic Analysis of An Offshore Wind Turbine: Wind-Waves Nonlinear Interactions

Earth and Space 2010: Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments 2010 ASCE
2014
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 01/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Dynamic Analysis of an Offshore Wind Turbine: Wind-Waves Nonlinear Interaction Manenti S., Petrini F. University of Rome Sapienza, via Eudossiana, 18 00184 Rome (Italy) Phone: +39 06 44 585 265 Fax: +39 06 48 848 52 e-mail: sauro.manenti@uniroma1.it - francesco.petrini@uniroma1.it ABSTRACT An offshore wind turbine can be considered as a relatively complex structural system since several environmental factors (e.g. wind and waves) affect its dynamic behavior by generating both an active load and a resistant force to the structures deformation induced by simultaneous actions. Besides the stochastic nature, also their mutual interaction should be considered as nonlinear phenomena could be crucial for optimal and cost-effective design. Another element of complexity lies in the presence of different parts, each one with its peculiar features, whose mutual interaction determines the overall dynamic response to non-stationary environmental and service loads. These are the reasons why a proper and safe approach to the analysis and design of offshore wind turbines requires a suitable technique for carrying out a structural and performances decomposition along with the adoption of advanced computation tools. In this work a finite element model for coupled windwaves analysis is presented and the results of the dynamic behavior of a monopiletype support structure for offshore wind turbine are shown. INTRODUCTION Owing to the major regularity and power of the wind forcing, open-sea turbines could be an advantageous alternative with respect to analogous inland plants; furthermore they could become competitive with respect to other conventional, exhaustible and high environmental impact sources of energy if a proper design approach is established assuring a good compromise between safety and costs related aspects. Anyway boundary conditions (i.e. loads and constraints) are highly time- and space-dependent, along with mechanical properties of the materials that are subject to significant variation over the structural life owing to fatigue, marine growth, corrosion etc. Furthermore different configurations must be handled, passing from complete functionality to rotor stop.
Earth and Space 2010
2015
As a consequence these structures can be defined complex and this requires a critical revision of the design procedure according to a systemic approach (Bontempi, 2008b), i.e. a systemic decomposition of the relevant elements both physical (e.g. the constituting parts) and environmental related (i.e. identification of the structural loads and constraints). Different aspects and various performances under several load conditions have to be investigated for this type of structures. Referring to all possible system configurations that can be assumed by the blades and then by the rotor, one need explicitly: 1. to ensure that the components are designed for the extreme loads allowing a fair survivability; 2. to assure that the fatigue life of the components is guaranteed for the service life; 3. to define component stiffness with respect to vibrations and critical deflections in a way that the behavior of the turbine can keep under control by a careful matching of stiffness. In this context an important task concerns the proper definition of nonlinear interaction between the forcings (e.g. wind and wave) that can influence significantly the numerical prediction of the dynamic response and, consequently, the durability and the cost-effectiveness of the turbine (OWTES, 2003). Since an offshore wind turbine is generally planned for installation in intermediate depth water (with respect to a representative design wave length), its dynamic characteristics are fairly different from an offshore platform for oil industry: the latter usually has a design natural frequency higher than the wave excitation, while the former is wedged between the wind and wave frequency; so in the last case nonlinear interaction between the environmental forcings should be properly considered during the design phase as it can led to a beneficial aerodynamic damping by lowering the structural stiffness of the turbines support: this would lead to both an increase fatigue life and reduce the cost of the support. Relevant codes and standards (BSH, DNV, GL, IEC) provides an accurate description of the analytical methods for estimating the random action by wind and waves separately; anyway nonlinear interaction phenomena still requires an in depth and careful investigation with the aim to give reliable estimate of the loads: such an aspect could play a crucial role in the calculation procedure of economical and safe offshore wind turbines. This work is part and continues an early study on the modeling and design of offshore wind turbines (Bontempi, 2009); its approach follows structural and performances decomposition in order to organize the qualitative and quantitative assessment in various sub-problems, which can be faced by sub-models of different complexity both for structural behavior and load scenarios. In the present work the dynamic analysis of a turbine and its monopile support structure in the frequency domain is carried out by means of the ANSYS finite element model. Initially the loading induced by wind and random waves acting separately is considered; subsequently the nonlinear effects by their mutual
2016
interaction are accounted with the aim of pointing out the implication on the design procedure. The outline of the paper is as follow:
the main features of both the ANSYS finite element and the analytical models for the wind and wave random forcing are illustrated; the results of the analyses carried out are discussed by pointing out the nonlinear effect induced by wind-waves interaction; final conclusions concerning the study are then illustrated at the end of the paper.
MODEL DESCRIPTION In the present work a 5MW 3-bladed offshore wind turbine with monopile-type support is considered for carrying out the coupled wind-wave spectral analysis: it represents a structure of interest for possible planning of an offshore wind farm in the Mediterranean Sea near the south-eastern cost of Italy. Tab. 1. Main geometrical characteristics of the structure. Monopile type support
H Emergent d mud line Y lfound
Aerodynamic Z X Submerged Fluiddynamic
H = 100m d=35m lfound=40m D =5m tw=0.05m Dfound=6m D = diameter of the tubular tower; tw = thickness of the tower tubular member;
Foundation
Geotechnical
The main geometrical characteristics are summarized in Tab. 1: a Vestas-V90 turbine with rotor diameter of 100m; the hub height is positioned 100m above mean sea level (m.s.l.); the tower, with a steel tubular section, has a diameter of 5m with a
2017
thickness of 50mm; water depth is 35m. At this stage of investigation the effect of foundation medium has been neglected and the lower node of the pile is assumed fixed at the sea bottom. Even if such an hypothesis looks like far from the actual behavior of the structure, it has been possible, during an early phase, to check the numerical model by comparing the numerical results with the analytical solution for an equivalent one-degree of freedom body. Additional investigations have to be carried out for introducing the effect of marine soil on the dynamic response of the wind turbine and the support (here after the structure). The monopile support has been selected as it appear economically convenient for intermediate water depth purposes: according to the DNV (2004) classification its range of application is around 25m water depth and it would be a possible design solution for planning an offshore wind farm in the southern Adriatic Sea. Moreover it is a relatively simple support structure and this allow to reduce the uncertainties related to the wave-induced loads estimation on submerged sloping members (Chakrabarti et al., 1975). In this work the analysis is performed by considering typical wind and waves forcing with relatively small recurrence period (i.e. exercise load condition) that could be crucial for fatigue-induced long term damage; an early investigation based on extreme events for monopile-type and other support structure has been yet carried out in Bontempi (2008a). In the following subsections a description of the main features relevant to the finite element model is provided; then the analytical models for the estimate of wind and waves random loads are shown separately.
P u P (t) Turbulent wind
W ate r lev el
w P (t)
v P (t)
P Vm(zP) Medium wind
(m ed
R
le Hub vel
ium )
Waves
Mu dl ine
vw(z)
y x,x z
H Current
r leve Wate ) dium l (me
Vcur(z)
line Mud
Fig. 1 Problem sketch and actions configuration.
2018
Model Features. The finite element model is realized with the ANSYS finite element code by adopting beam elements (BEAM4) for simulating the tower, while the blades and nacelle have been represented by a concentrated mass Mtop on the tower top by means of MASS21 element on which is applied the random horizontal force caused by the wind trust. The tower base is assumed to be fixed for the reasons explained above. A suitable discretization of the exposed structure is carried out for load application; at each node a spectral force is specified which corresponds to the effect of random waves (for nodes below the mean sea level) or wind excitation acting on the corresponding area of pertinence. Calculation of the force spectrum for both environmental factors has been carried out by applying the analytical models described in the following. Tab. 2 summarizes the principal mechanical parameters for calculation of the random loads: E is the elastic modulus, is the density, cD is the drag coefficient, cM is the hydrodynamic added mass coefficient and cL is the lift coefficient. Tab. 2. Summary of the most relevant model parameters. Vm10 [m/s] Esteel [kg/m2] Eblade [kg/m2] steel [kg/m3] water [kg/m3] cD hydr cM hydr cD tow cD blade cL blade Mtop [kg] 14.5 2.059E+11 3.100E+20 7.980E+3 1.024E+3 1.05 1.00 0.50 0.15 1.00 1.1E+5
Wave Forcing. In the present work a Pierson-Moskowitz wave spectrum (for fully developed sea condition) is adopted for dynamic analysis of the support structure for the offshore wind turbine (Kamphuis, 2000):
S ( ) = 2 p PM g 2 exp PM 5 5 4
4
(1)
4 PM = 0.0081, PM = , p =
0.74 g PM V
with =2/T=2 f angular frequency, p spectral peak angular frequency, (t) local free surface elevation with respect to the mean sea level (m.s.l.), V intensity of characteristic wind speed at the reference height of 19.5m above m.s.l. (see Eq. (12) for variation of the mean wind sped over the height).
2019
According to the linear wave theory and making use of complex algebra the time evolution of the free surface elevation and of the horizontal components of & and acceleration & & for each spectral wave component the water particles velocity x x of angular frequency are respectively:
(t ) = a0 exp(i t )
& ( z, t ) = x
cosh kz (t ) sinh kd
(2)
& &( z , t ) = i x & ( z, t ) x
& , the By applying the Fourier transform and its conjugate to the variable x spectrum of the horizontal velocity component of the water particles can be obtained:
cosh kz Sx S ( ) ; &x & ( , z ) = sinh kd
2
(3)
where from S is defined by Eq. (1); the standard deviation of the water particles velocity component is then given by:
x&2 ( z ) = S x &x & ( , z ) d =
0
cosh kz S ( ) d . sinh kd
(4)
In this work the Morison et al. (1950) empirical formula for evaluating the force induced by a regular surface non-breaking wave on a slender and partially submerged vertical cylinder is adopted.
zz
x |z|
dz
d d
dz
dF(z,t) dF(z,t) A A
D D Sect.AA A-A Sect
AA
d+z
ttw w
Fig. 2 Specific force induced by regular wave on a partially submerged cylinder.
2020
According to the scheme in Fig. 2 the force per unit length on the column is:
&( z, t ) + C D x & ( z, t ) x & ( z, t ) dF ( z, t ) = C I & x
(5)
which is the sum of two distinct contributions: i) inertial force, also called virtual mass force, that is proportional to the horizontal component of the water particle acceleration; ii) drag force, proportional to the square of the water particle horizontal velocity. The expression (5) implies that the axis of the cylinder is orthogonal to the direction of wave advance; the horizontal components of both water particle velocity and acceleration are evaluated at the column axis as if it was absent by adopting the linear wave theory (Dean & Dalrymple, 1991). The inertia and drag coefficients in Eq. (5) has the following expression for a cylinder having circular section of diameter D:
C I = c M W
D2
4
+ W A = C M + C A
1 C D = c D W D . 2
(6)
The inertia coefficient is made up of two contribution: the former is due to hydrodynamic mass and the latter pertains the variation of the pressure gradient within the accelerating fluid. The added mass coefficient cM is tabulated for the geometries of technical interest (Hooft, 1978); the drag coefficient cD is a function of the Reynolds number. Moreover both coefficients depends also on the Keulegan-Carpenter number defined as:
& max T D , KC = x
(7)
with x & max the maximum horizontal component of the water-particle velocity, T is the wave period and D is the cylinder diameter (Chakrabarti et al., 1976). Assuming that the velocity of the fluid particles is a Gaussian process with zero mean it is possible to eliminate nonlinearity from the drag term in Eq. (11)5 and write the linearized Morison force per unit length as follows:
&( z , t ) + C D dF ( z , t ) = C I & x 8
& ( z, t ) , x& ( z , t ) x
(8)
being x& the standard deviation of the water-particle velocity component in x direction given by Eq. (4). The Eq. (5) holds for a vertical cylinder (not necessary circular); when dealing with certain structures containing some members forming an angle with the vertical direction, such as steel lattice type, there is no general agreement on how the Morison Eq. should be extended to deal with. A method has been proposed in Chakrabarti et al. (1975) that generalize the formulation given in (5) for a vertical cylinder.
2021
The force dF acting per unit length on the wet part of the support structure associated to a random sea state with spectral energy density S as defined by Eq. & and & & in (8) and substituting (1) can be obtained by considering the expression of , x x into Eq. (5):
F ( z, t ) =
8 , cosh(kz ) x C I i cosh(kz ) + C D & ( z ) (t ) sinh kd
(9)
being k=2/L the wave number and L the wave length; note that the complex response method is adopted for representation of the harmonic variables (i denotes the imaginary unit). By making the Fourier transform of such an expression the force spectrum is obtained as a function of the wave energy spectral density:
S FF ( , z ) = sinh( kd )
2 2 8 2 , cosh( kz ) x [C I cosh( kz )] + C D & ( z ) S ( )
(10)
where the expression between braces in Eq. (10) is the force transfer function. Wind Forcing. Concerning the wind modeling for computing the aerodynamic actions, a Cartesian three-dimensional coordinate system (x,y,z), with origin at water level and the z-axis oriented upward is adopted as shown in Fig. 1. Focusing on a short time period analysis the three components of the wind velocity field Vx(j), Vy(j), Vz(j) at each spatial point j (the variation with time is omitted for simplicity) can be expressed as the sum of an averaged (time-invariant) value Vm and the turbulent components u(j), v(j), w(j) with zero mean. Assuming that Vm is non zero only in x direction, the three components of the total velocity are given by:
V x ( j ) = Vm ( j ) + u ( j ); V y ( j ) = v( j ); V z ( j ) = w( j ) .
(11)
The mean velocity Vm(j) can be determined by a database of values recorded at or near the site, and evaluated as the record average over a proper time interval (e.g. 10 minutes). The variation of the mean velocity Vm with z over an horizontal surface of homogeneous roughness can be described, as usual, by an exponential law:
z . Vm ( z ) = Vhub z hub
(12)
In this expressions, Vhub is the reference wind velocity at the rotor elevation zhub, =0.14 for extreme wind conditions; Vhub it is usually obtained as the mean of the wind velocity on a 10 minutes time period V10.
2022
The turbulent components of the wind velocity are modeled as zero-mean Gaussian ergodic independent processes; by adopting an Eulerian description and a discretization of the spatial domain in N points representing the locations where the wind acts on the structure, each Gaussian process is completely characterized by the power spectral density matrix [S]i, (i = u, v, w). The diagonal terms Sijij(n, z) (i = u, v, w and j = 1,2,,N) of [S]i are given by the normalized half-side von Karmans power spectral density (Solari and Piccardo, 2001):
nS ijij(n,z)
2 i
[1 + 70.8n (z)]
2
i
4ni
5/ 6
(13)
where n is the current frequency (in Hz), z is the height (in m), i2 is the variance of the velocity fluctuations, given by (Solari and Piccardo, 2001):
i2 = [6-1.1 arctan g (log (z0 ) + 1.75)]u*2 ,
(14)
with z0 is the roughness length, u* is the friction or shear velocity (in m/s), given by: (0.006)1/2 Vm(z=10), while ni(z) is a non-dimensional height dependent frequency given by:
ni ( z ) = nLi ( z ) . Vm ( z )
(15)
The integral scale Li(z) of the turbulent component can be derived respectively for i = u, v, w according to the procedure given in ESDU (2001). The out of diagonal terms Sijik(n, z) (k = 1,2,,N) of [S]i are given by:
Sijik (n) = Sijij (n) Sikik (n) exp( f jk (n)) ,
(15)
being:
f jk (n) = 2 (Vm ( z j ) + Vm ( z k ) ) n C z2 ( z j z k ) 2
(16)
where Cz represents the decay coefficient, that is inversely proportional to the spatial correlation of the process. By considering a drag and lift force produced by undisturbed wind velocity acting on exposed turbine parts, the proposed model allows to estimate the force spectrum at the j-point of the structure. When considering mobile structural parts such as the rotor blades, relative wind speed (in a frame of reference moving with the blade) should be assumed for drag and lift force computation. For more details about such topics refers to Bontempi et al. (2008a).
2023
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS In the following results for the analyses carried out are discussed: first wave and wind forcing are treated separately and then their mutual interaction is investigated; the values adopted for the most relevant model parameters are summarized in Tab. 2. Fig. 3 shows the input spectra to the finite element model: both have been plotted for a mean wind speed of 14.5m/s at 10m elevation above m.s.l. directed in xdirection and correspond to the parametric formulation given in previous Sections.
1.0E+11 1.0E+09 Force spectra [N /Hz] 1.0E+07 1.0E+05 1.0E+03 1.0E+01 1.0E-01 1.E-04 Wind Wave
1.E-02
1.E+00 freq [Hz]
1.E+02
1.E+04
Fig. 3 Wind and wave force energy density spectra. Wave Forcing. Fig. 4 shows the results for the case of wave forcing acting alone on the structure.
1.0E+01
Response spectra [m /Hz]
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
X direction
1.0E-03 1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
freq [Hz]
1.E-01
1.E+00
Fig. 4 Response spectra for wave forcing only.
2024
The frequency of the first relative peak corresponds to the peak frequency of the wave force spectrum (about 0.1Hz); the maximum of the structural response occurs however at about 0.2Hz which is very close to the first vibration mode of the structure.
Wind Forcing. Fig. 5 shows the results for the case of wind forcing acting alone on the structure.
1.0E+01
Response spectra [m /Hz]
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
X direction Y direction
1.0E-03 1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
freq [Hz]
1.E-01
1.E+00
Fig. 5 Response spectra for wind forcing only. In this case the structural response in y-direction (i.e. orthogonal with respect to the mean wind direction) is non-zero since the two speed turbulent components are correlated as explained above. The spectral response is however higher along the x-direction as expected since the wind energy distribution is greater. In both cases a maximum peak appear for the peak frequency of the wind spectrum and close to the first mode frequency of the structure. Combined Wind-Wave. When considering the effects of both wind and wave on the structure, the increasing roughness length of the sea surface owing to the presence of propagating waves has been modeled according to an iterative process following Holmes 2001. Fig. 6 shows calculated response spectra in each coordinate horizontal direction. While along the y-axis the results are not affected by the presence of waves propagating in the orthogonal direction, when considering the x-oriented response spectrum it shows, in addition to the case of wind only (Fig. 5), the characteristic relative maximum at the wave peak frequency (about 1Hz); furthermore, at the structures natural frequency (i.e. 0.2Hz) the curve is above the value of 1.0m2/Hz but it is not exactly the summation of those related to the wind and the wave alone (Fig. 4 and 5).
2025
1.0E+01
Response spectra [m2/Hz]
1.0E+00 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 1.E-04
X direction Y direction 1.E-03 1.E-02

freq [Hz]
1.E-01
1.E+00
Fig. 6 Response spectra for combined wind-wave forcing. The phenomenon described above is the result of a destructive interference between wind and wave forcings: the resultant energy density of the response spectra at the structures natural frequency is less than the sum of the corresponding values related to the wind and wave acting separately. CONCLUSIONS In this work a finite element model for the dynamic analysis of a monopile-type support structure for offshore wind turbine has been presented. The structural response in the frequency domain has been analyzed for both wind and wave spectral forcings obtained starting from a characteristic wind velocity which is representative of the exercise condition to be adopted for fatigue-damage analysis. These forcings have been considering as acting separately in the first phase, and then their mutual interaction has been simulated. Obtained results have shown that the response spectrum at the natural frequency of the structure exhibit a destructive interference between wind and wave forcings acting simultaneously. As a consequence, nonlinear interaction should be considered in the design phase of a safe and cost-effective offshore wind turbine as the actual load on the structure could be lower than that extrapolated from the linear superposition of the effects produced by the single forcings acting separately. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The present work has been developed within the research project SICUREZZA ED AFFIDABILITA' DEI SISTEMI DELL'INGEGNERIA CIVILE: IL CASO DELLE TURBINE EOLICHE OFFSHORE", C26A08EFYR, financed by University of Rome La Sapienza Fruitful discussions with Prof. Franco Bontempi are also acknowledged
2026
REFERENCES APAT. 2006 Italian wave atlas. Bontempi F., Manenti S., Gkoumas K.. 2009. Basis of design for offshore wind turbines. Proc. Of Seminar OWEMES May 21-23 2009, Brindisi (Italy). Bontempi F., Li H., Petrini F., Manenti S.. (a) 2008. Numerical modelling for the analysis and design of offshore wind turbines, ASEM08 Int. Conf. 26-28 May 2008, Jeju (Korea). Bontempi, F., Gkoumas, K. and Arangio, S.. (b) 2008. Systemic approach for the maintenance of complex structural systems. Structure and infrastructure engineering, vol. 4; pp. 77-94. BSH. (2007) Design of Offshore Wind Turbines, 20 December 2007. Chakrabarti S.K., Wolbert A.L., Tam W.A.. 1976. Wave forces on vertical circular cylinder. Proc. ASCE (waterways, Harbours and Coastal Eng. Div.) 102. Chakrabarti S.K., Tam W.A., Wolbert A.L.. 1975. Wave forces on a randomly oriented tube. OTC 2190 Proc. Offshore Technology Conf. Huston. Davenport, A.G.. 1998. Probabilistic methods in wind engineering for long span bridges, Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Advances in Bridge Aerodynamics, May 1998, Copenhagen, Denmark. Dean R.G., Dalrymple R.A.. 1991. Water wave mechanics for engineers and scientists. The Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering. World scientific, Vol. 2. ESDU. 2001. Report N. 86010: Characteristic of atmospheric turbulence near the ground. Part III: variations in space and time for strong winds (neutral atmosphere). Available at www.esdu.com. DNV-OS-J101. (2004) Offshore standards-Design of offshore wind turbine structures. GL. 2005 Guidelines for certification of offshore wind turbines. Holmes, J.D., 2001. Wind loading of structures, Spoon Press. Hooft J.C.. 1978. Advanced dynamics of marine structures. New York: John Wiley & Sons. IEC 61400-3. (2005) Wind Turbines - Part 3: Design Requirements for Offshore Wind Turbines, Committee Draft, December 2005. Kamphuis J.W.. 2000. Introduction to coastal engineering and management. The Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering. World scientific, Vol. 16. Morison J.R., OBrien M.P., Johnson J.W., Schaaf S.A.. 1950. The force exerted by surface waves on piles. Petrol. Trans. AIME 189. OWTES-Design Methods for Offshore Wind Turbines at Exposed Sites. 2003. Hydrodynamic loading on offshore wind turbines. TUDelft Editor. Solari G. and Piccardo G.. 2001. Probabilistic 3-D turbulence modelling for gust buffeting of structures, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, (16), 7386. Zienkiewicz O.C., Lewis R.W., Stagg K.G. et al.. 1978. Numerical methods in offshore engineering. J. Wiley & Sons- Interscience Publication.

Dynamic Analysis of An Offshore Wind Turbine: Wind-Waves Nonlinear Interactions

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dynamic Analysis of An Offshore Wind Turbine: Wind-Waves Nonlinear Interactions

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Earth and Space 2010: Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments 2010 ASCE

Earth and Space 2010

Earth and Space 2010

H Emergent d mud line Y lfound

Aerodynamic Z X Submerged Fluiddynamic

Earth and Space 2010

Fig. 1 Problem sketch and actions configuration.

Earth and Space 2010

Earth and Space 2010

& &( z , t ) = i x & ( z, t ) x

Fig. 2 Specific force induced by regular wave on a partially submerged cylinder.

Earth and Space 2010

Earth and Space 2010

8 , cosh(kz ) x C I i cosh(kz ) + C D & ( z ) (t ) sinh kd

Earth and Space 2010

Earth and Space 2010

1.E+00 freq [Hz]

Fig. 4 Response spectra for wave forcing only.

Earth and Space 2010

Earth and Space 2010

1.0E+00 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 1.E-04

X direction Y direction 1.E-03 1.E-02

Earth and Space 2010

Earth and Space 2010

Вам также может понравиться