Comparisons of A Tall Lattice Wind Tower Response With and Without A TMD

COMPEDYN 2013
4TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTACIONAL METHOS

IN STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
COMPARISONS OF A TALL LATTICE WIND TOWER

RESPONSE WITH AND WITHOUT A TMD
Jorge M. Henriques1, Rui C. Barros2

1Graduate PhD student, FEUP - Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto,
Portugal
2Prof., FEUP - Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Portugal
Kos Island, Greece – 12 June 2012

COMPARISONS OF A TALL LATTICE WIND TOWER RESPONSE WITH AND WITHOUT A TMD
Organization
 1. Objectives
 2. Introduction
 3. Modeling a Lattice Wind Tower
 4. Modeling Wind Dynamic Action
 5. Modeling a TMD
 6. Analysis of Results
 7. Conclusions
 8. Acknowledgements
2
1. Objectives OBJECTIVES
2. Introduction
3. Modeling a Lattice  This paper addresses basic concepts regarding the wind
Wind Tower
effects on a Lattice Wind Tower with 150 m of height and
4. Modeling Wind
Dynamic Action the subsequent wind responses
5. Modeling a TMD
6. Analysis of Results  Simplified method for quantifying the dynamic action on

7. Conclusions these structures
8. Acknowledgements
 Comparative study of response of Lattice Wind Tower

when subjected to natural winds without and with a TMD
3
1. Objectives INTRODUCTION
2. Introduction
3. Modeling a Lattice With fossil fuels becoming increasingly scarce and expensive, the
Wind Tower
world seeks solutions to serve the interest of economic development
4. Modeling Wind and the preservation of nature. Wind energy plays a very important
Dynamic Action
role in the global panorama of energy, as it is a source of renewable
5. Modeling a TMD
energy that has the least impact on nature. Therefore the rising
6. Analysis of Results
demand on wind energy caused the development of related
7. Conclusions
technologies, for example on the type of tower.
8. Acknowledgements
4
1. Objectives
2. Introduction
This new idea of developing Lattice Towers of great height, since they
3. Modeling a Lattice
Wind Tower have significantly lower construction costs, poses new challenges for
the structural engineers with regard to dynamic effects.
4. Modeling Wind
Dynamic Action
5. Modeling a TMD
Lattice Towers are sensitive to the dynamic environments generated
by wind, ice, earthquakes, impact, blast, explosions and mechanical
7. Conclusions
failures of some of their components. The vibrations induced in the
8. Acknowledgements
tall lattice tower structures by these environmental and mechanical
causes cover an ample spectrum of frequencies, which affect the
towers in different ways ranging from serviceability problems to
fatigue and collapse
5
1. Objectives
2. Introduction
To mitigate the dynamic effects can be installed several types of
Wind Tower damping devices, one of which is a Tuned Mass Damper (TMD)
4. Modeling Wind
Dynamic Action
5. Modeling a TMD
7. Conclusions
8. Acknowledgements
6
Theoretical scheme of a TMD
1. Objectives MODELING A LATTICE WIND TOWER

2. Introduction
Structural Description
3. Modeling a Lattice  The structure chosen was a tall lattice wind
Wind Tower
tower, whose design resulted from academic
4. Modeling Wind studies of the 1st author of this paper.
Dynamic Action
 150 m of height.
5. Modeling a TMD  The turbine used is FL2500 of 2,5 MW with
rotor diameter of 100m.
 The elements of the structure were disposed
7. Conclusions
based on rules of triangles so as to shorten the
8. Acknowledgements lengths of buckling of the structural system.
 The sections of the bars used in the tower are
angles and association of angles.
 The steel used in the design is S235 and S355.
 The design follows the rules disposed in the
EN1991-1-4, EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1993-3-1
7
1. Objectives Numerical Modeling

 The model of the tower was introduced in Autodesk Robot
2. Introduction
Structural Analysis Professional 2012, using model bars linked
3. Modeling a Lattice through rigid connections; the foundations were modeled with
Wind Tower
supports that restrict all displacements and rotations.
4. Modeling Wind  The modeling of the wind turbine (by itself) was not performed. The
Dynamic Action
weight of the wind turbine was considered at the top the tower by
5. Modeling a TMD adding four vertical forces in the top of the tower with weight of
362.60 kN each.
 In this work it was considered that during the dynamic action the
7. Conclusions
rotor is stopped in its most unfavorable position.
8. Acknowledgements  The mass of the structure is lumped at the structure nodal points;
the masses are assumed to have only one degree of freedom
(translation in X-direction).
 Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis includes damping in its dynamic
time history analysis application, through the classic formulation of
Rayleigh damping with user defined quantities. A target damping
8
ratio equal to ξ=5 % was used for every mode of vibration.
1. Objectives Modal Analysis

2. Introduction
 In the modal analysis only the response from the first three modes
were considered (modal % below are effective modal masses)
Wind Tower
4. Modeling Wind
Dynamic Action
5. Modeling a TMD
7. Conclusions
8. Acknowledgements
Mode f (Hz) Mx=450161,80 kg
1 0,47 53,57 %
2 2,25 25,44 %
3 3,95 14,62 %
9
1. Objectives MODELING WIND DYNAMIC ACTION

2. Introduction
 Firstly it is addressed the methodology for generating time series of
Wind Tower
wind to be used latter in the calculation of the instantaneous
dynamic pressures and therefore in the quantification of the
4. Modeling Wind generalized wind forces acting at every floor level of the tower
Dynamic Action
(diaphragms of the tower).
5. Modeling a TMD
 The methodology used to generate synthetic time series is usually
referred as the Method of Shinozuka, which bases the generation of
7. Conclusions time series in calculating the inverse function of the Fourier
Transform of the amplitude of the random process (given by a
8. Acknowledgements
spectral density function of the energy of a process).
10
1. Objectives
2. Introduction
 Such generation of synthetic series of wind occurs in the range of
wavelengths corresponding to fluctuations of wind velocity with an
3. Modeling a Lattice approximate Gaussian distribution of the atmospheric wind flow.
Wind Tower
The purpose of such method is to obtain a realization of a
4. Modeling Wind stochastic process (for example: a time series of the fluctuations of
Dynamic Action
the longitudinal component of wind velocity) from the spectral
5. Modeling a TMD density function of the random process.
7. Conclusions  The method uses this function to perform a weighted sum of

sinusoidal functions. The contribution of each of the N waves is
8. Acknowledgements
given by the amplitude of the spectrum SL (z,n) (real function) for
each corresponding natural frequency (n). The phases are obtained
by a pseudo-random number generation in the interval [0, 2π] .
11
1. Objectives
 According to the Method of Shinozuka, in the simplest case of one-
2. Introduction dimensional univariate stochastic processes, a realization of the
random process may be obtained by the equations:
Wind Tower
𝑁
4. Modeling Wind 𝑢 𝑡 = 2 ෍ 𝐴𝑘 . cos(2𝜋𝑛𝑘 𝑡 + 𝜙𝑘 )
Dynamic Action
𝑘=1
5. Modeling a TMD
𝐴𝑘 = 𝑆𝑣 𝑧, 𝑛𝑘 Δ𝑛
7. Conclusions 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑛

Δ𝑛 =
𝑁
8. Acknowledgements
 In the previous expression N is the number of frequencies of the

discretization of the spectrum, and n is frequency.
12
1. Objectives
 To generate the synthetic time series of wind velocity it is necessary
2. Introduction to define a spectral density function of the fluctuations of longitudinal
velocity of the wind; the wind spectral density function SL given in
Wind Tower EN1991-1-4 is used herein in the general dimensionless form of
equation:
4. Modeling Wind
Dynamic Action 𝑛𝑘 𝑆𝑣 𝑧, 𝑛𝑘 6,8𝑓𝐿 𝑧, 𝑛𝑘
𝑆𝐿 𝑧, 𝑛𝑘 = =
5. Modeling a TMD
𝜎𝑣2 (1 + 10,2𝑓𝐿 𝑧, 𝑛𝑘 )5/3
6. Analysis of Results where:

𝛼
7. Conclusions
𝑛𝑘 𝐿(𝑧) 𝑧
𝑓𝐿 𝑧, 𝑛𝑘 = 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐿 𝑧 = 𝐿𝑡
𝑣𝑚 (𝑧) 𝑧𝑡
8. Acknowledgements
is turbulent length scale represents the average gust size for
L(z)
natural winds.
Sv(z,nk) is the one-sided variance spectrum.
fL(z,nk) is a non-dimensional frequency.
σv is standard deviation of the turbulence.
13
1. Objectives The Number N of Frequencies for Discretization

For the generation of the synthetic series to be considered an
2. Introduction ergodic process, the number N of frequencies for discretization of the
spectrum should be sufficiently high.
3. Modeling a Lattice 20 20
Wind Tower 15
N=100 15
N=500
10 10
5 5
4. Modeling Wind
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-5 T (s) -5 T (s)
Dynamic Action -10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
5. Modeling a TMD N=1000 N=5000

20 20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
-5 T (s) 0 100 200 300 400 500 T600
(s)
-5
-10
7. Conclusions -15
-10
-20 -15
8. Acknowledgements Thus, from the analysis of the previous figures, it is noted that when
choosing a lower number of frequencies of discretization (lower N)
for generation of the synthetic time series of wind, these are clearly
more affected by the low frequency components (where the
spectrum has more energy) resulting in a value numerically higher.
The series chosen for resolving the problem was the one of N=1000,
for which it is no longer noticeable the influence of low frequency
components
14
1. Objectives
2. Introduction For the instantaneous wind velocity U(t) at any height given as the
sum of a constant mean component Ū with a dynamic fluctuation
Wind Tower component u(t), the instantaneous wind force F(t) on any surface A is
given by equations:
4. Modeling Wind
Dynamic Action
5. Modeling a TMD
1 2
6. Analysis of Results 𝐹 𝑡 = . 𝜌. 𝑐𝑓 . 𝐴. (𝑈 + 𝑢(𝑡)
2
7. Conclusions
8. Acknowledgements
1 2 2 1 2
𝐹 𝑡 = . 𝜌. 𝑐𝑓 . 𝐴. 𝑈 + 𝜌. 𝑐𝑓 . 𝐴. 𝑈 . 𝑢 𝑡 + . 𝜌. 𝑐𝑓 . 𝐴. 𝑢 𝑡
2 2
15
1. Objectives Aerodynamic Admittance

The fluctuations of wind velocity along time also have a spatial
2. Introduction variability, which for a first approximation is herein neglected. For
the case tall slender tower under study, whereas the response is
Wind Tower
majorly due to the contribution of the first mode of vibration (which
is also a condition imposed by EC 1 for the calculation of the
4. Modeling Wind structural factor), modeled as a structural system with one degree of
Dynamic Action freedom, the passage or conversion of the power spectrum of the
wind velocity fluctuations into structural response spectrum is given
5. Modeling a TMD by:
4𝑋 2. 𝜒2
7. Conclusions
𝑆𝑋 𝑛 = 2 . 𝐻 𝑛 𝑛 . 𝑆𝑢 𝑛
𝑈
8. Acknowledgements
 Where [H(n)]2 represents the mechanical admittance and χ2 (n)
represents an aerodynamic admittance function [15] given
approximately by equation:
1
𝜒 𝑛 = 4Τ3
2. 𝑛. 𝐴
1+
16
𝑈

2. Introduction  According to Holmes “For larger structures, the velocity fluctuations
do not occur simultaneously over the windward face and their
Wind Tower correlation over the whole area must be considered. To allow for this
effect, an aerodynamic admittance χ2 (n) is introduced”
4. Modeling Wind
Dynamic Action  According to EC 1 for tall tower structures with the shape and
conditions equivalent to the case study under consideration, the
5. Modeling a TMD
parameters of the spectral density function for calculating the
6. Analysis of Results structural factor should be determined for a reference height of
approximately 0.6 of the height of the structure. Given this
7. Conclusions indication, for generating different sets of time series the height
chosen was 90 meters that is about 60% of the height of lattice wind
8. Acknowledgements tower.
The applied wind generated forces taking into account the acting
dynamic pressures and the influence area for each floor, considering
the mean wind velocity depending on the height and the fluctuation
velocities given by the random series generated.
17

2. Introduction  Supporting the procedure used in Ferreira et al. [7], appropriate
simplifications were performed so that the wind power spectrum was
Wind Tower multiplied by the aerodynamic admittance; it was with this new
spectrum that the turbulent velocities were calculated.
4. Modeling Wind
Dynamic Action
5. Modeling a TMD
7. Conclusions Wind power spectrum not multiplied by the aerodynamic admittance function
8. Acknowledgements
18 Wind power spectrum multiplied by the aerodynamic admittance function

1. Objectives MODELING A TMD

2. Introduction
 The Tuned Mass Dampers (TMD) can be used to control one or
3. Modeling a Lattice more vibration modes of structures excited by external actions.
Wind Tower However, in many cases, control of the first mode is sufficient to
reduce significantly the level of vibrations recorded. Except for cases
4. Modeling Wind in which it is intended to simultaneously monitor the contribution of
Dynamic Action
more than one mode of vibration, the use of a single TMD may be
5. Modeling a TMD satisfactory.
The design of a TMD for application to structures without damping is
universally based on two parameters – mass ratio μ and frequency
7. Conclusions ratio q.
8. Acknowledgements For the design of a TMD tuned for the application to structures
with damping lower than 1% :
1 𝑋1 2+𝜇 3𝜇
𝑞𝑜𝑝𝑡 = , = , and 𝜉2,𝑜𝑝𝑡 =
1+𝜇 𝑋1,𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝜇 8(1 + 𝜇)3
19
1. Objectives  For higher damping of the primary system, the use of such
equations will lead to a non-optimized tuning of the TMD. For such
2. Introduction
cases, the design of the TMD can be done with design graphs
3. Modeling a Lattice associated with the numerical solution of the expression giving the
Wind Tower
maximum amplitude of the controlled principal system.
4. Modeling Wind
Dynamic Action
5. Modeling a TMD
7. Conclusions
8. Acknowledgements
20
1. Objectives
Since the fundamental frequency of the tall wind tower under study
2. Introduction is very low (0.47 Hz) and because the wind action has a spectral
density function with strong content for low frequencies, it is possible
3. Modeling a Lattice that the response is conditioned by the harmonic of the
Wind Tower
fundamental frequency. For control of vibrations purposes it is
4. Modeling Wind assumed herein that the response is only dependent on the first
Dynamic Action vibration mode, with which the TMD solutions were designed with
the expressions available for harmonic vibration with the frequency
5. Modeling a TMD equal to the first vibration frequency of the overall structure.
7. Conclusions Accordingly, the value of the modal mass corresponding to the first
mode of vibration was determined as 126,25 ton. For the case study
8. Acknowledgements wind tower structure with the deployment of a TMD, only one mass
ratio is herein considered μ=0.01, for which with the design charts it
was possible to determine the optimal parameters to be adopted for
each TMD situation.
21
1. Objectives
 Since the structural software used does not have an intrinsic
2. Introduction function that allows the direct introduction of dampers, herein for the
simulation of a TMD were determined the dimensions of a square
3. Modeling a Lattice section bar with a lateral stiffness equivalent to that required for the
Wind Tower
damper placed on top. Acting as a vibrating bar (built in end – free
4. Modeling Wind end) with a concentrated mass that would give the frequency
Dynamic Action obtained for the sizing of the TMD with the damping introduced in
the material parameters constitutive of the bar.
5. Modeling a TMD
Assuming a bar length L=2 m, made of steel with elasticity module
6. Analysis of Results E=210 GPa, from the bar stiffness 3EI/L3 is obtained the equivalent
inertia I of the square section bar.
7. Conclusions
8. Acknowledgements
Size (cm)
TMD of square
m TMD ω TMD k TMD
mass ratio qopt ξTMD,opt section
(ton) (rad/s) (kN/m)
μ steel bar,
L=2 m
0.01 0,987 0,046 1,7626 2,915 14,974 3,89
22
1. Objectives
 The next table shows the first four natural frequencies of the
2. Introduction
vibration modes of the case-study wind tower structure incorporating
Wind Tower the TMD solution.
4. Modeling Wind
Dynamic Action
5. Modeling a TMD Mode 1 2 3 4
6. Analysis of Results f (Hz) 0,45 0,49 2,25 3,95
7. Conclusions
8. Acknowledgements
23
1. Objectives ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

2. Introduction
 Based on the methodology adopted for consideration of the
Wind Tower dynamic wind action (using a set of 4 time series and for frequencies
in the wind spectral density function evaluated with 1000 frequency
4. Modeling Wind intervals), the results in terms of top displacements and accelerations
Dynamic Action were evaluated and compared for the computational structural
model, without and with an installed TMD vibrating bar.
5. Modeling a TMD
6. Analysis of Results  Using the mentioned structural software with modal superposition,
a damping ratio of 5 % and an integration time step of Δt = 0.2
7. Conclusions seconds, the four series of wind dynamic loads were applied and their
average results obtained in terms of top displacements and
8. Acknowledgements
accelerations.
24
1. Objectives Without a TMD

2. Introduction Series 1 2 3 4 Average
Maximum displacement (cm) 70,39 66,07 68,99 65,77 67,80
Wind Tower Maximum acceleration (cm/s2) 184,15 179,49 179,89 222,36 191,47
4. Modeling Wind
Dynamic Action Accelerations
on top of
5. Modeling a TMD tower, for wind
loads
corresponding
to wind series 1
7. Conclusions
8. Acknowledgements
Displacements
on top of
tower, for wind
loads
corresponding
to wind series 1
25
1. Objectives With a TMD

2. Introduction Series 1 2 3 4 Average
Maximum displacement (cm) 70,30 63,42 70,62 63,96 67,07
Wind Tower Maximum acceleration (cm/s2) 139,35 151,72 156,57 180,69 157,08
4. Modeling Wind Accelerations

Dynamic Action
on top of
tower, for wind
5. Modeling a TMD
loads
corresponding
to wind series 1
7. Conclusions (without and
with TMD)
8. Acknowledgements
Displacements
on top of
tower, for wind
loads
corresponding
to wind series 1
(without and
26 with TMD)
1. Objectives Comparisons
2. Introduction
 The efficiency on the use of the modeled TMD in the tower
Wind Tower structure can be interpreted by the results of the Table, here
4. Modeling Wind associated with a mass ratio of 1% : reduction of top maximum

Dynamic Action
displacements and accelerations on the order of 1% and 18%,
5. Modeling a TMD respectively.
Structure Structure with Reduction (%) in
7. Conclusions without TMD TMD (u=0.01) relation to
the structure
8. Acknowledgements without TMD
Maximum displacement (cm) 67,80 67,07 1%
Maximum acceleration (cm/s2) 191,47 157,08 18 %
27
1. Objectives Comparisons
2. Introduction
 As regards to the use of a TMD on the top of the wind tower an
3. Modeling a Lattice earlier comparison associated with a tall structure subjected to
Wind Tower harmonic excitation in resonance with the fundamental frequency.
4. Modeling Wind Top
Dynamic Action displacements,
under a harmonic
5. Modeling a TMD fundamental
resonant
6. Analysis of Results excitation,
without and with
7. Conclusions TMD
8. Acknowledgements
Top accelerations,
under a harmonic
fundamental
resonant
excitation,
without and with
TMD
28
1. Objectives CONCLUSIONS
2. Introduction
 For modeling the dynamic wind action reference is made to a
Wind Tower method of generating sets of synthetic wind – called the method of
Shinozuka – and for which the number of discretization intervals to
4. Modeling Wind adopt is discussed; the greater the number of frequency intervals to
Dynamic Action adopt, the better the process, but with divisions over 1000 intervals
results are already quite acceptable.
5. Modeling a TMD
 The simplified methodology adopted for the evaluation of the
7. Conclusions effects of the dynamic wind action, consisted of varying forces over
time at each stiffening floor, following the same law of variation.
8. Acknowledgements
This law is obtained, for each generated time series, from the
Eurocode 1 wind power spectrum multiplied by the aerodynamic
admittance function.
29
1. Objectives CONCLUSIONS
2. Introduction
 As regards to the implementation of the TMD in the tall wind tower
Wind Tower structure under study, it was concluded that it proved to be very
effective in terms of both top displacements and top accelerations,
4. Modeling Wind when the tower is subject to a harmonic action in resonance with
Dynamic Action fundamental frequency of vibration of the tower.
5. Modeling a TMD
 The application of this TMD passive device on top of the tower for
vibration control of the designed wind tower, subjected to natural
7. Conclusions wind actions based on the generated wind series, is not as effective
as for controlling harmonic resonant phenomena. With the
8. Acknowledgements implementation of the TMD it was concluded that this device is
considerably more effective in controlling top accelerations (rather
than top displacements), when the structure is subjected to the
artificially generated natural wind series. For the TMD modeled with
the parameters calculated, were observed maximum accelerations
reductions of the order of 18%, while the achieved reduction of
maximum displacements was only of the order of 1%.
30
1. Objectives ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2. Introduction
This work was co-participated by funds from the project “VHSSPOLES-
3. Modeling a Lattice Very High Strength Steel Poles” (Faculty of Engineering of the
Wind Tower University of Porto, reference 21518) sponsored by the European
Fund for Regional Development (FEDER) through COMPETE
4. Modeling Wind (Operational Program Competitiveness Factors - POFC). The Authors
Dynamic Action
acknowledge herein the financial support and the opportunity to
5. Modeling a TMD contribute to the development of the transmission towers testing site
of Metalogalva (Trofa, Portugal).
7. Conclusions
8. Acknowledgements
31

Comparisons of A Tall Lattice Wind Tower Response With and Without A TMD

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

Comparisons of A Tall Lattice Wind Tower Response With and Without A TMD

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

COMPEDYN 2013

4TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTACIONAL METHOS

COMPARISONS OF A TALL LATTICE WIND TOWER

Jorge M. Henriques1, Rui C. Barros2

Kos Island, Greece – 12 June 2012

6. Analysis of Results  Simplified method for quantifying the dynamic action on

 Comparative study of response of Lattice Wind Tower

1. Objectives MODELING A LATTICE WIND TOWER

1. Objectives Numerical Modeling

1. Objectives Modal Analysis

Mode f (Hz) Mx=450161,80 kg

1. Objectives MODELING WIND DYNAMIC ACTION

7. Conclusions  The method uses this function to perform a weighted sum of

7. Conclusions 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑛

 In the previous expression N is the number of frequencies of the

6. Analysis of Results where:

1. Objectives The Number N of Frequencies for Discretization

Dynamic Action -10 -10

5. Modeling a TMD N=1000 N=5000

1. Objectives Aerodynamic Admittance

1. Objectives Aerodynamic Admittance

1. Objectives Aerodynamic Admittance

18 Wind power spectrum multiplied by the aerodynamic admittance function

1. Objectives MODELING A TMD

5. Modeling a TMD Mode 1 2 3 4

6. Analysis of Results f (Hz) 0,45 0,49 2,25 3,95

1. Objectives ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

1. Objectives Without a TMD

1. Objectives With a TMD

4. Modeling Wind Accelerations

4. Modeling Wind associated with a mass ratio of 1% : reduction of top maximum

Вам также может понравиться