0
Research Papers: Ocean Renewable Energy

A Comparative Study of Shutdown Procedures on the Dynamic Responses of Wind Turbines

[+] Author and Article Information
Zhiyu Jiang

Centre for Autonomous Marine
Operations and Systems (AMOS),
Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures (CeSOS),
Department of Marine Technology,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU),
Trondheim NO-7491, Norway
e-mail: zhiyu.jiang@ntnu.no

Torgeir Moan

Centre for Autonomous Marine
Operations and Systems (AMOS),
Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures (CeSOS),
Department of Marine Technology,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU),
Trondheim NO-7491, Norway
e-mail: torgeir.moan@ntnu.no

Zhen Gao

Centre for Autonomous Marine
Operations and Systems (AMOS),
Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures (CeSOS),
Department of Marine Technology,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU),
Trondheim NO-7491, Norway
e-mail: zhen.gao@ntnu.no

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received January 21, 2014; final manuscript received September 26, 2014; published online November 17, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Yin Lu (Julie) Young.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 137(1), 011904 (Feb 01, 2015) (16 pages) Paper No: OMAE-14-1003; doi: 10.1115/1.4028909 History: Received January 21, 2014; Revised September 26, 2014; Online November 17, 2014

The shutdown of wind turbines may induce excessive loads on the structures and is an important factor to consider in their design. For pitch-regulated turbines, shutdown calls for blade pitching, and one- or two-blade shutdown may occur during pitch actuator failure. Through coupled analysis, this study investigated the dynamic responses of land-based and spar-type floating wind turbines (FWTs) during shutdown. We simulated the shutdown procedures by pitching one, two, or three blades, and by varying the pitch rate. The nonpitching blades have a fixed pitch angle during the process. Three generator torque conditions were considered: (1) grid loss, (2) mechanical braking, and (3) grid connection. The extreme response values and short-term and annual fatigue damages to the structural components were compared against these values under normal operation and parked conditions. Three-blade shutdown is recommended for both turbines. One- or two-blade shutdown with grid loss may result in a significant rotor overspeed and imbalanced loads acting on the rotor plane. Therefore, unfavorable structural responses are observed. Grid connection or mechanical braking alleviates the situation. The land-based turbine is more sensitive to the pitch rate when considering the tower bottom bending moment, but the blade moments and mooring line loads of the spar-type turbine are affected more.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Germanischer Lloyd Industrial Services GmBH, 2010, Guideline for the Certification of Wind Turbines, Hamberg, Germany.
Burton, T., Jenkins, N., Sharpe, D., and Bossanyi, E., 2011, Wind Energy Handbook, Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, UK. [CrossRef]
Boston Herald, 2012, (Accessed Nov. 17, 2013), “Reality sinks in for Wind Project,” http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2012/02/reality_sinks_wind_project
Anlas, S., 2005 (Accessed Nov. 17, 2013), “Enercon E-82 Technical Description,” Technical Report VI-Technical Description E-82-Rev002ger-eng, http://www.enercon.de/
General Electric Company, 2011 (Accessed Nov. 17, 2013), “Commercial Documentaion Wind Turbine Generator Systems 2.5-2.75 Systems Technical Description and Data,” Technical Report, http://www.gewindenergy.com
Esbensen, T., and Sloth, C., 2009, “Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Control of Wind Turbines,” Master thesis, Department of Electronic Systems, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Siemens Energy, 2012 (Accessed Nov. 17, 2013), “Siemens 6.0 MW Offshore Wind Turbine,” Technical Report, http://www.siemens.com/wind
Vestas Wind Systems A/S, 2012, “General Specification,” Report No. V100-1.8 MW VCUS (unpublished).
International Electrotechnical Commission, 2007, IEC 61400-1 Wind Turbine Part 1: Design Requirements, 3rd ed., Geneva, Switzerland.
International Electrotechnical Commission, 2009, IEC 61400-3 Wind Turbines Part3: Design Requirements for Offshore Wind Turbines, 3rd ed., Geneva, Switzerland.
Jonkman, J., and Matha, D., 2011, “Dynamics of Offshore Floating Wind Turbines—Analysis of Three Concepts,” Wind Energy, 14(4), pp. 557–569. [CrossRef]
Karimirad, M., and Moan, T., 2011, “Extreme Dynamic Structural Response Analysis of Catenary Moored Spar Wind Turbine in Harsh Environmental Conditions,” ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng., 133(4), p. 0411031. [CrossRef]
Jiang, Z., Karimirad, M., and Moan, T., 2014, “Dynamic Response Analysis of Wind Turbines Under Blade Pitch System Fault, Grid Loss, and Shutdown Events,” Wind Energy, 17(9), pp. 1385–1409. [CrossRef]
Bachynski, E. E., Etemaddar, M., Kvittem, M. I., Luan, C., and Moan, T., 2013, “Dynamic Analysis of Floating Wind Turbines During Pitch Actuator Fault, Grid Loss, and Shutdown,” Energy Procedia, 35, pp. 210–222. [CrossRef]
Ormberg, H., and Bachynski, E. E., 2012, “Global Analysis of Floating Wind Turbines: Code Development, Model Sensitivity and Benchmark Study,” Proceedings of the 22nd International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Rhodes Island, Greece, June 17–22, pp. 366–373.
Gros, S., and Chachuat, B., 2013, “Optimization-Based Load Reduction During Rapid Shutdown of Multi-Megawatt Wind Turbine Generators,” Wind Energy, 17(7), pp. 1055–1075. [CrossRef]
Jonkman, J., 2009, “Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Trubine for Offshore System Development,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Technical Report No. NREL/TP-500-38060.
Jonkman, J., 2010, “Definition of the Floating System for Phase IV of OC3,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Technical Report No. NREL/TP-500-47535.
Robertson, A., Jonkman, J., Musial, W., Vorpahl, F., and Popko, W., 2013, “Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continuation: Phase II Results of a Floating Semisubmersible Wind System,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Technical Report No. NREL/CP-5000-60600.
Robertson, A., Jonkman, J., Vorpahl, F., Popko, W., Qvist, J., Frøyd, L., Chen, X., Azcona, J., Uzungoglu, E., Guedes Soares, C., Luan, C., Yutong, H., Pengcheng, F., Yde, A., Larsen, T., Nichols, J., Buils, R., Lei, L., Nygard, T. A., Manolas, D., Heege, A., Vatne, S. R., Ormberg, H., Duarte, T., Godreau, C., Hansen, F. H., Nielsen, A. W., Riber, H., LeCunff, C., Abele, R., Beyer, F., Yamaguchi, A., JinJung, K., Shin, H., Shi, W., Park, H., Alves, M., and Guerinel, M., 2014, “Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration Continuation Within IEA Wind Task 30: Phase II Results Regarding a Floating SemisubmersibleWind System,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Technical Report No. NREL/CP-5000-61154.
https://www.ieawind.org (Last Accessed Aug. 21)
Det Norske Veritas, 2013, SESAM User Manual HydroD—Program Version 4.6, Høvik, Norway.
Moriarty, P., and Hansen, A., 2005, “Aerodyn Theory Manual,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Technical Report No. NREL/TP-500-36881.
Li, L., Gao, Z., and Moan, T., 2013, “Joint Environmental Data at Five European Offshore Sites for Design of Combined Wind and Wave Energy Concepts,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2013-10156. [CrossRef]
Fleming, P., 2013, personal communication.
Jiang, Z., Moan, T., Gao, Z., and Karimirad, M., 2013, “Effect of Shut-Down Procedures on Dynamic Responses of a Spar-Type Floating Wind Turbine,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2013-10214. [CrossRef]
Frøyd, L., 2012, “Effect of Pitch and Safety System Design on Dimensioning Loads for Onshore Wind Turbines During Grid Fault,” Energy Procedia, 24, pp. 36–43. [CrossRef]
Det Norske Veritas, 2010, Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures, Technical Report No. DNV-RP-C203, Høvik, Norway.
Det Norske Veritas, 2010, Position Mooring, Technical Report No. DNV-OS-E301, Høvik, Norway.
Gao, Z., and Moan, T., 2008, “Frequency-Domain Fatigue Analysis of Wide-Band Stationary Gaussian Processes Using a Trimodal Spectral Formulation,” Int. J. Fatigue, 30(10), pp. 1944–1955. [CrossRef]
Tavner, P., 2012, Offshore Wind Turbines: Reliability, Availability and Maintenance, The Institution of Engineering and Technology, London, UK. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the wind turbines and mooring system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of the variation of pitch angle and generator torque in LCs 1–3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Response time series for the FWT, LC1, Pr = 5 deg/s, Type1, GS1, Ts = 300 s, and EC2 (constant wind, Uhub = 11.4 m/s, Hs = 2.6 m, and Tp = 11.1 s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Time series of the rotor speed for the LWT, Type1, EC2 (Uhub = 11.4 m/s), and Ts = 300 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Variation of the shutdown duration with pitch rate for the LWT, Type1, EC2(Uhub = 11.4 m/s) (a) LC1 and (b) LC2 and LC3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Variation of the maximum rotor speed with pitch rate for the LWT, Type1, EC2(Uhub = 11.4 m/s) (a) LC1 and (b) LC2 and LC3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Shutdown duration and maximum rotor speed for LWT, Type1 (a) EC2 (Uhub = 11.4 m/s) and (b) Pr = 8 deg/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Tower bottom bending moment, LWT (a) time series, EC5 (Uhub = 20 m/s), Ts = 300 s; (b) extreme response, EC5 (Uhub = 20 m/s); (c) time series, EC2 (Uhub = 11.4 m/s), Ts = 300 s; (d) extreme response, EC2 (Uhub = 11.4 m/s). The extreme responses are the averaged extremes of 30 600 s simulations in LCs 1–3, and those of 20 600 s simulations in LCs 4–5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Tower bottom bending moment, FWT, EC2 (Uhub = 11.4 m/s, Hs = 2.6 m, Tp = 11.1 s): (a) time series, Ts = 300 s and (b) extreme response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Tower bottom torsion (a) time series, EC2 (Uhub = 11.4 m/s), Ts = 300 s, LWT; (b) extreme response, EC2, LWT; (c) time series, EC2 (Uhub = 11.4 m/s, Hs = 2.6 m, Tp = 11.1 s) Ts = 300 s, FWT; and (d) extreme response, EC2, Ts = 300 s, FWT

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Blade flapwise bending moment of the FWT, EC2 (Uhub = 11.4 m/s, Hs = 2.6 m, Tp = 11.1 s): (a) time series, Ts = 300 s and (b) extreme response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Mooring line tension of the FWT, Uhub = 11.4 m/s: (a) time series of the lower line tension, Ts = 300 s; (b) time series of the delta line tension (segment 2 b), Ts = 300 s; (c) variation of the lower line tension extremes with wind speed; and (d) variation of the delta line tension extremes with wind speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Sketch of a cross section in the tower structure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Normalized fatigue damage calculated by Eq. (5)) and caused by: (a) tower bottom bending moment, LWT; (b) tower bottom bending moment, FWT; (c) tower bottom torsion, LWT; and (d) tower bottom torsion, FWT (EC2, Uhub = 11.4 m/s, logarithmic scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Normalized fatigue damage calculated by Eq. (5)) and caused by the edgewise bending moment of blade 2, using GS0 and Type1 (logarithmic scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Fatigue damage caused by tension in delta line 2b at tp3, FWT: (a) contour line, (b) comparison of GSs, LC2, (c) comparison of one- and two-stage pitching procedures, Pr = 8 deg/s, and (d) comparison of GSs, LC3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Distribution of the hub-height wind speed

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In