1 / 10

Comparing Sources of Damping of cross-wind Motion

Comparing Sources of Damping of cross-wind Motion. Niels Jacob Tarp-Johansen, DONG Energy Christian Mørch, DONG Energy Lars Andersen, AUU Erik D. Christensen, DHI Sten Frandsen, Risø/DTU Bjarne Kallesøe, Risø/DTU Danish R&D project: HAVDIM Coordinator Risø/DTU. Outline.

lesa
Download Presentation

Comparing Sources of Damping of cross-wind Motion

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. Comparing Sources of Damping of cross-wind Motion Niels Jacob Tarp-Johansen, DONG Energy Christian Mørch, DONG Energy Lars Andersen, AUU Erik D. Christensen, DHI Sten Frandsen, Risø/DTU Bjarne Kallesøe, Risø/DTU Danish R&D project: HAVDIM Coordinator Risø/DTU

  2. Outline • Background: the wind-wave misalignment problem • Measurements of over-all damping • Cautious theoretical reconstruction of damping contributions • Conclusions • (Approach to load calculations)

  3. The Wind-wave misalignment Problem • Random input • Resonant response is governed by damping • Current approach assumes e.g. log. decr.  modal = 6% (  2,  = damping ratio) • Assuming aligned loading is not necessarily conservative

  4. Measurements • Emergency stops, i.e. no aerodynamic damping • Horns Rev 1 • Burbo •  modal > 10%

  5. Aero-dynamic Damping cross-wind • Inherent in BEM-simulations • Works through coupling • The aerodynamic mode is slightly misaligned width the mean wind direction, i.e. cross-wind motion is damped via the along wind aerodynamics too. • With coupling •   0.50 % • With-out coupling •   0.25 % • NREL-turbine down-scaled to 3.5 MW

  6. Tower dampers • Various configurations exist, e.g. • Pendulum submerged in liquid • Liquid dampers • Key issues are • Requires tuning to 1st mode frequency • Efficiency dependents on damper mass vs. main (modal) mass • Consequently turbine design dependent. • Typically one sees  modal > 2%

  7. Structural •  modal  1.2% • For a monopile this does NOT regard the grout-connection • I.e. it is a conservative value

  8. Hydrodynamic • Wave radiation • Dissipation due to drag • Dissipation • Proportional to deflections squared • Introducing relative velocities in Morrison's eq. is NOT conservative • Wave radiation • Frequency domain (.e. linear) approach applying WAMIT • modal  1.5% 80 m 0.3 Hz 20 m D=4.7 m

  9. Soil damping • Geometrical (wave radiation) • Vanishing for frequencies < about 1 Hz • Material • Non-linear hysteresis • Linear-visco-elastic • Approach • Soil volume rather than soil-springs • Frequency independent loss factor of 5% • modal  3% 80 m 0.3 Hz D=4.7 m • Conservative because elasto-plastic behaviour at sea-bed and toe. • Investigations accounting for this indicates modal  5% 20 m

  10. Conclusions • Measurements show more damping than assumed in present design calculations • A cautious theoretical reconstruction has been made • Monopile in a sediment 80 m 0.3 Hz 20 m D=4.7 m 20 m

More Related