See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318674022

Wind Turbine Load Simulations Using Two Different Servo-Hydro-Aeroelastic

Software Codes

Conference Paper · May 2017

CITATION READS

1 300

3 authors:

Mohammad Reza Shah Mohammadi Paul Thomassen

University of Coimbra Simis AS
17 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   161 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carlos Rebelo
University of Coimbra
208 PUBLICATIONS   1,574 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International Symposium on Risk analysis and Safety of Large Structures and Components (ISRAS2017) View project

FREEDAM (2015-2018): FREE from DAMage Steel Connections. Fund for Coal and Steel Grant Agreement No. RFSR-CT-2015-00022 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Reza Shah Mohammadi on 25 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WIND TURBINE LOAD SIMULATIONS USING TWO DIFFERENT SERVO-HYDRO-AEROELASTIC
SOFTWARE CODES

1 2 3
Mohammad Reza Shah Mohammadi , Paul Thomassen and Carlos Rebelo
1
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering
University of Coimbra
Coimbra, P-3004516, Portugal
E-mail: mrsm@uc.pt
2
Simis AS
, Leonardvegen 3
Malm, 7790, Norway

3
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering
University of Coimbra
Coimbra, P-3004516, Portugal
E-mail: crebelo@dec.uc.pt

Keywords: Wind Turbine, Aeroelastic Simulation, Code Assessment.

Abstract. In this paper, the results of the comparison between FAST and ASHES software used to perform servo-
hydro-aeroelastic simulations are presented. The focus of this paper has been the assessment of wind turbine modeling
codes through code-to-code comparisons. The lack of similarities between the results will be shown and the sources
of the differences will be discussed. The aerodynamic load calculation in the form of internal cross-section forces
along the blades and the tower will be investigated. Moreover, the dynamic response of the structure is obtained in
the simulation result. Furthermore, attention is given to the generator model, outputs and the pitch control system.
The comparison will be done based on IEC 61400-1 design load cases for operation and idling conditions. Finally,
recommendations concerning the modeling of the wind turbine with the servo-hydro-aeroelastic simulation tools will
be given.

1 INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the analysis of different types of wind turbines, including onshore, offshore, and floating with different
supporting structures relies on aero-hydro-servo-elastic simulation codes. These coupled simulation tools are based
on time-domain analysis and take into account different environmental forces and conditions. Furthermore, the entire
structural assembly of the turbine, including its control system are coupled with the loads to bring the real time solution
for wind turbine simulations. To make sure that the simulations results from different tools are accurate and precise
enough, verification and validation of the codes are required which complexity of the models make it more difficult.
Due to high cost of measurement data and also lack of open source data the validation of all these simulation tools are
not possible. Therefore, there is the need to perform code- to-code comparisons (verification) instead. There are few
international code comparison projects for offshore wind turbine, namely OC3[1] and OC4[2] which focused on
different offshore supporting structures and semisubmersible floating structures. Different academic and industrial
research centers participated in OC3 and OC4 code comparison including FAST [3] and ASHES [4].
State of the art of the most common aero-hydro-servo-elastic simulation codes are summarized in Table 1.
 Code Aerodynamics Hydrodynamics Control Structural
str Internal Control
ASHES BEM + DS Airy + ME FEM
System
Support structure:
FEM, Airystr or
BEM or GDW +
FAST Airystr or UD + ME DLL or UD or SM UD + ME
DS
Turbine: FEMp +
Modal/MBS
BEM or GDW + Airystr or Stream or UD +
HAWC2 DLL or UD or SM MBS/FEM
DS ME
Table 1: The most common simulation tools state of the art

Airystr – Airy yheory with streaming method MBS – Multibody dynamics formulation
BEM – Blade Element Momentum Theory ME – Morrison Formulation
DLL – External dynaic link library Modal – Modal reduced system
DS – Dynamic Stall Implementation SM – Interface to Simulink with Matlab
FEM – Finite element method Stream – Dean’s system function
FEMp – Finite element method for pre-processing only UD – User defined subroutine
GDW – Generalized Dynamic Wake Theory

In this paper, a set of design load cases is investigated and compared between two software codes, ASHES and FAST.
ASHES software is a new developed tool and FAST is an open source and more advanced software validated with
several measurement data.

2 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
2.1 Wind Turbine Properties
In this study, the NREL 5 MW wind turbine is modeled in both software. The power electronics, generator, blades
and other parts properties are NREL baseline turbine default [5] and only the controller are different in each software.
The NREL 5MW wind turbine gross properties is mentioned in Table 2.

Properties Value
Rating 5MW
Rotor Orientation,
Upwind, 3 Blades
Configuration
Control Variable Speed, Collective Pitch
High Speed, Multiple-stage
Drive Train
Gearbox
Rotor, Hub Diameter 126m, 3m
Cut-In, Rated, Cut-Out Wind
3 m/s, 11.4m/s, 25m/s
Speed
Cut-In, Rated Rotor Speed 6.9 rpm, 12.1rpm
Rated Tip Speed 80m/s
Overhang, Shaft Tilt, Pre-cone 5m, 5˚, 2.5˚
Rotor Mass, Nacelle Mass 110,000 Kg, 240,000 Kg
Table 2: NREL 5MW Gross Properties
 Error! Reference source not found. shows the coordinate system and the loads definition. The x axis pointing in
the nominal (0˚) wind flow direction, y axis pointing to the left perpendicular to x axis and z axis pointing up from the
center which means the compression is consider as a negative force.

Figure 1: Tower-base coordinate system [3]

The tubular tower for the NREL 5 MW turbine has the base diameter of 6 m, the base thickness of 0.027 m, top
diameter of 3.87 m and the top thickness of 0.019 m. The mechanical properties of the tower are defined as the young’s
modulus equals to 210 GPa, the shear modulus of 80.8 GPa, and the effective density of 8500 kg/m 3 which is
considered including are added mass such as welding.

2.2 Design Load Cases

The load cases for the design and certification of the onshore wind turbine structure were discussed completely
in IEC 61400-1 standard[6]. The approach in this research is based on the IEC 61400 recommendations, as will be
described in detail in the following sections. As the wind turbine is onshore wind turbine and it is a tall structure, the
A (II) class is considered in this study. The turbulence intensity is 0.16 and the reference wind speed (Vref) is equal to
42.5 m/s. The most crucial load cases for normal operational condition and parked were selected and listed in Table
3.
Design Situation DLC Wind Condition

Power production 1.1 NTM Vin<Vhub<Vout

Parked (Standing
6.1 EWM 50-year recurrence period
or Idling)

Table 3 : The load case definition

However, the 11 m/s constant wind speed was also modeled beside the main design load cases in order to compare
the rotor and the generator responses in both software.
In power production the pitch controller is on and the pitch angle is controlled if the wind speed exceeds from the
rated wind speed. In DLC 6.1, the pitch controller is off and the pitch angle is assumed to 90° to simulate the parked
wind turbine. To model the wind models for both software, the TurbSim [7] code is used and the same input file is
used for the verification.
3 RESULTS
In this section, the wind turbine rotor and generator response is presented for constant wind speed and the main
force and moments at the hub height of the turbine and the pitch controller performance are investigated for two
standard design load cases.

3.1 Rotor and Generator Response

Figure 2 shows the rotor and the generator speed. As it can be seen, great agreement can be observed between both
codes with less 1% of the error. Same interpretation can be given for the for the power and torque in both codes

Figure 2 : The rotor and the generator speed

Figure 3 : The torque and power output

A window of the rotor power signal is shown in Figure 5 when the tower shadow effect is taken into account. The
peak which is illustrated with a red sign is due to tower shadow effect and it is clearly captured. The difference between
the fluctuations comes from different controller for the generator, the boundary condition assumptions, and the
different integration methods.

Figure 4 : The generator power fluctuation

3.2 DLC 1.1

The DLC 1.1 uses normal turbulent wind model. Two, 12 m/s and 25 m/s, wind speeds are crucial to be investigated
as they are respectively the highest wind speed before the pitch controller starts and the highest operational wind
speed. Figure 5 shows the force and moment comparison for 12 m/s for the tower top section.
As it can be seen, the force on x-axis in ASHES has great precision on the top and the base of the tubular tower
according to FAST. It is interesting to see that the moment about the strong axis in the fast has very big fluctuation
while the ASHES has almost constant deviation around a mean value. However, the moment at the base of the tubular
tower which is created by nonlinear force integration along the tower, are in great agreement in both software. In
Figure 5(e) the axial force can be great example for the difference of the boundary conditions assumptions. ASHES
considers the initial condition of zero and FAST considers the mass of rotor nacelle assembly as the initial condition
for solving the finite element model.

(a) (b)
 (c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 5 : DLC 1.1 comparison (a) Fx force on top,(b)base of tower, (c) My moment on top and (d) base of
tower, (e) axial force on top of tower, (f) the torque on the yaw bearing of tower

3.3 DLC 6.1

The DLC 6.1 is the parked or idling wind turbine in extreme wind condition. It uses extreme wind model regarding
the reference wind speed of 42.5 for the A (II) wind turbine class. The controller set the pitch angle to 90˚ which cause
the deceleration of the rotor speed. Moreover, the generator reduces the rotor speed to zero by applying external
hydraulic brakes or generator self-brake. Figure 6 shows the force and moment comparison for 12 m/s for the tower
top section.
As it can be seen, all the forces and moments are in strong agreement. The point which is obvious in the figures is
that a peak happens around 450 second and both codes reacts to the peaks, however, due to time scale difference there
is a lag between the ASHES and FAST. In DLC 6.1 as the rotor blade speed is zero and there is no pitch angle variation,
the nonlinearities are much less and thereby, the results are more stable and comparable.
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 6 : DLC 6.1 comparison (a) Fx force on top and (b) base of tower, (c) My moment on top and (d) base of
tower, (e) axial force on top of tower, (f) the torque on the yaw bearing of tower
 4 CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the results of the comparison between two different aero-servo-hydro-elastic codes. The
analysis is focused on the simulation of the NREL 5 MW onshore wind turbine. A detailed description of the turbine
model is provided. A set of deterministic and turbulent load cases of increasing complexity is discussed and simulated.
The load cases with deterministic inputs are compared in terms of time-series output, and the stochastic cases are
compared in terms of probability density functions, power spectral densities. The exemplary discrepancies between
the codes are shown and sources of differences are discussed.
The setup of the wind turbine simulations is a detailed and difficult process, involving multidisciplinary
engineering knowledge within the fields of meteorology, structural engineering, statistics, data pre- and post-
processing etc. Furthermore, differences in the implemented theories and diverse modeling strategies contributed to
the discrepancies in the presented results. In the light of these facts, a very good agreement in the obtained results has
been achieved and it can been said that the ASHES as new developing code is very promising and the great advantage
is the real-time simulation and the great graphic user interface.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors acknowledge with thanks the support of the European Commission’s Framework Programs “Horizon
2020” program through the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks (ITN) “AEOLUS4FUTURE –
Efficient harvesting of the wind energy” (H2020-MSCA-ITN-2014: Grant agreement no. 643167) and RFCS –
Research Fund for Coal and Steel program through the Grant Agreement RFSR-CT-2015-00021.

REFERENCES
[1] J. Jonkman and W. Musial, “Offshore code comparison collaboration (OC3) for IEA task 23 offshore wind
technology and deployment,” Contract, vol. 303, no. December, pp. 275–3000, 2010.
[2] W. Popko, F. Vorpahl, A. Zuga, M. Kohlmeier, J. Jonkman, A. Robertson, T. J. Larsen, A. Yde, K. Saetertrø,
K. M. Okstad, J. Nichols, T. A. Nygaard, Z. Gao, D. Manolas, K. Kim, Q. Yu, W. Shi, H. Park, A. Vásquez-
Rojas, J. Dubois, D. Kaufer, P. Thomassen, M. J. De Ruiter, T. Van Der Zee, J. M. Peeringa, H. Zhiwen, and
H. Von Waaden, “Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration Continuation (OC4), Phase I—Results of
Coupled Simulations of an Offshore Wind Turbine with Jacket Support Structure,” J. Ocean Wind Energy,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2310.
[3] T. Van Zandt, “FAST User’s Guide,” Acta Psychiatr. Scand., vol. 123, no. 6, pp. 407–8, 2007.
[4] P. E. Thomassen, P. I. Bruheim, L. Suja, and L. Frøyd, “A Novel Tool for FEM Analysis of Offshore Wind
Turbines With Innovative Visualization Techniques,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-second (2012)
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, 2012, vol. 4, pp. 374–379.
[5] J. Jonkman, S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and G. Scott, “Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for
Offshore System Development,” 2009.
[6] International Electrotechnical Committee, “International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) 61400-1,” 2006.
[7] N. D. Kelley and B. Jonkman, “Overview of the TurbSim Stochastic Inflow Turbulence Simulator -
NREL/TP-500-41137,” no. April, pp. 1–13, 2007.

View publication stats