1 / 16

IEA Wind Task 23 OC3: Phase IV Results Regarding Floating Wind Turbine Modeling

IEA Wind Task 23 OC3: Phase IV Results Regarding Floating Wind Turbine Modeling. NREL – Jason Jonkman Risø -DTU – Torben Larsen Anders Hansen IFE – Tor Anders Nygaard UMB – Karl Jacob Maus NTNU – Madjid Karimirad Zhen Gao Torgeir Moan MARINTEK – Ivar Fylling

toya
Download Presentation

IEA Wind Task 23 OC3: Phase IV Results Regarding Floating Wind Turbine Modeling

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. IEA Wind Task 23 OC3:Phase IV Results Regarding Floating Wind Turbine Modeling NREL– Jason Jonkman Risø-DTU–Torben Larsen Anders Hansen IFE–Tor Anders Nygaard UMB–Karl Jacob Maus NTNU–Madjid Karimirad Zhen Gao Torgeir Moan MARINTEK– Ivar Fylling GH– James Nichols LUH– Martin Kohlmeier Acciona– Javier Pascual Vergara Daniel Merino POSTECH– Wei Shi Hyunchul Park Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle

  2. Background • OWTs are designed using aero-hydro-servo-elastic codes • The codes must be verified to assess their accuracy

  3. OC3 Activities & Objectives The IEA Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration (OC3) is an international forum for OWT dynamics code verification • Discuss modeling strategies • Develop suite of benchmark models & simulations • Run simulations & process results • Compare & discuss results • Assess simulation accuracy & reliability • Train new analysts how to run codes correctly • Investigate capabilities of implemented theories • Refine applied analysis methods • Identify further R&D needs Activities Objectives

  4. OC3 Approach & Phases Approach • All inputs are predefined: • NREL 5-MW wind turbine, including control system • Variety of support structures • Wind & wave datasets • A stepwise procedure is applied: • Load cases selected to test different model features • OC3 ran from 2005 to 2009: • Phase I – Monopile + Rigid Foundation • Phase II – Monopile + Flexible Found’tn • Phase III – Tripod • Phase IV – Floating Spar Buoy • 3-year follow-on project recently initiated: • Phase V – Jacket • Phase VI – Floating semisubmersible Phases

  5. Floating Challenges & Phase IV Model • Low frequency modes: • Influence aerodynamic damping & stability • Large platform motions: • Coupling with turbine • Complicated shape: • Radiation & diffraction • Moorings • Statoil supplied data for 5-MWHywind conceptual design • OC3 adapted spar to support the NREL 5-MW turbine: • Rotor-nacelle assembly unchanged • Tower & control system modified Challenges OC3-Hywind OC3-Hywind Model

  6. Aero-Hydro-Servo-Elastic Capabilities

  7. Phase IV Load Cases

  8. Output Parameters & Results Legend Drivetrain & Generator Loads & Operation 7 Outputs Rotor Blade Loads & Deflections 13 Outputs Tower Loads & Deflections 15 Outputs Environment Wind & Waves 4 Outputs Mooring System Fairlead & AnchorTensions & Angles 12 Outputs Platform Displacements 6 Outputs Output Parameters (57 Total) Results Legend

  9. Full-System Eigenanalysis

  10. Free Decay Free Decay in Platform Surge Free Decay in Platform Pitch

  11. Hydro-Elastic Responsewith Regular Waves

  12. Hydro-Elastic Responsewith Irregular Waves

  13. Aero-Hydro-Servo-Elastic Responsewith Regular Waves

  14. Aero-Hydro-Servo-Elastic Responsewith Irregular Waves

  15. Summary • OC3 aims to verify OWT dynamics codes • Simulations tested a variety of OWT types & model features • Code-to-code comparisons have agreed well • Differences caused by variations in: • Model fidelity • Aero- & hydrodynamic theory • Model discretization • Numerical problems • User error • Future work will consider offshore jacket & semisubmersible • Verification is critical to advance offshore wind Spar Concept by SWAY Semisubmersible Concept

  16. 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

More Related