Aagaard Madsen , Helge

Larsen, Gunner Chr.

Larsen, Torben J.

Markkilde Petersen, S.

Thomsen, Kenneth

Online Research Database In Technology

                       General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.  • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal   If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.     Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Nov 08, 2017Comparison of measured and simulated loads for the Siemens SWT 2.3 operating inwake conditions at the Lillgrund Wind Farm using HAWC2 and the dynamic wakemeander modelLarsen, Torben J.; Larsen, Gunner Chr.; Aagaard Madsen , Helge; Thomsen, Kenneth; MarkkildePetersen, S.Publication date:2015Document VersionPeer reviewed versionLink back to DTU OrbitCitation (APA):Larsen, T. J., Larsen, G. C., Aagaard Madsen , H., Thomsen, K., & Markkilde Petersen, S. (2015). Comparisonof measured and simulated loads for the Siemens SWT 2.3 operating in wake conditions at the Lillgrund WindFarm using HAWC2 and the dynamic wake meander model. Poster session presented at EWEA AnnualConference and Exhibition 2015 , Paris, France.References Conclusions Approach  89  Fatigue blade flap loads was selected for the present validation. The Palmgren-Miner approach was used to quantify the fatigue loading in terms of fatigue equivalent moments, and a Wöhler exponent of 10 was assumed for the blade composite structure.  The validation scenario includes load cases associated with normal turbine operation with mean wind speeds ranging from 6m/s to 25m/s. Six mean wind speed bin regimes were defined and considered: 6m/s-8m/s; 8m/s-10m/s; 10m/s-12m/s; 12m/s-14m/s; 14m/s-16m/s; and 16m/s-25m/s. A measured wind speed dependent turbulence intensity (TI) was used, reflecting the offshore wind speed dependent “surface” roughness. However, no attempt was done to resolve TI as function of upstream fetch (i.e. direction). In the mean wind speed regime 6m/s-14m/s a TI of 5.8% was used - gradually increasing to 9.5% at 25m/s. Simulated and measured blade root fatigue equivalent moments have been compared bin wise for a complete direction rose, which includes a multitude of load cases ranging from ambient inflow conditions over single wake cases to various types of multiple wake inflow cases. The DWM model1,2, which is about to be included in the new edition of the IEC61400-1 ed. 4 standard,  is validated by comparing simulated and measured fatigue loads for the Swedish Lillgrund off-shore wind farm. This farm consists of 48 Siemens SWT-2.3-93 turbines, and one of these (C-8) is intensively instrumented with strain gauges resolving blade, main shaft and tower loads. Using recordings from this turbine, the model validation is performed for a variety of wind directions and mean wind speeds.  The DWM model basically simulates the non-stationary wind farm flow field by treating wind turbine wakes as passive tracers transported downstream by the mean flow field superimposed by a meandering process driven by the large scale cross wind turbulence components. For the ambient mean wind speed regime between 3m/s and 14m/s this approach was previously successfully validated against full-scale measurements from a Vestas V90 turbine located in the Dutch Egmond aan Zee Wind farm3 for a specific wind direction, where the turbine in focus was located as 6’th turbine in a row spaced with 7 rotor diameters(D). Whereas the Egmond ann Zee wind farm is characterized by a “conventional” turbine inter spacing, the layout of the Lillgrund wind farm is characterized by very small turbine inter spacing's; i.e. down to 3D. This makes the present Lillgrund load validation case a unique supplement to the previous conducted validations. Validation of the DWM model using full-scale load data from Lillgrund, which is characterized by low inter spacing between turbines, has shown that the DWM model predicts the flapwise fatigue loads quite satisfactorily for single turbine wake situations as well as for deep array operation. Up to about 12m/s the single wake operation gives the highest loading as seen both in measurements and in the simulated results. At higher wind speeds the measurements show the highest loading in the deep array operation, which is not captured by the model. The main cause of this deviation is thought to be that the simple method used in the DWM model to determine the aggregated deficit from the upstream turbines is less accurate at high wind speeds. A first investigation of this conjecture is confirmed by a simple ad hock model change using an dual-wake scenario. However, the predicted load levels are still below the measured values and further work on this complex situation therefore needed.    Abstract  Results         EWEA Offshore 2015 – Copenhagen – 10-12 March 2015 1. Larsen, G.C., Madsen, H.Aa., Thomsen, K., and Larsen, T.J. (2008). Wake meandering - a pragmatic approach. Wind Energy, 11, pp. 377–395. 2. Madsen, H. Aa., Larsen, G.C., Larsen, T.J., and Troldborg, N. (2010). Calibration and Validation of the Dynamic Wake Meandering Model for Implementation in an Aeroelastic Code. J. Sol. Energy Eng., 132(4).  3. Larsen, T.J., Madsen, H. A., Larsen, G.C. and Hansen, K.S. (2013). Validation of the Dynamic Wake Meander Model for Loads and Power Production in the Egmond  aan Zee Wind Farm. Wind Energy, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp. 605–624. QR Code COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND SIMULATED LOADS FOR THE SIEMENS SWT 2.3 OPERATING IN WAKE CONDITIONS AT THE LILLGRUND WIND FARM USING HAWC2 AND THE DYNAMIC WAKE MEANDER MODEL.  Torben J. Larsen1), Gunner Larsen1), Helge A. Madsen1, Kenneth Thomsen1), Søren M. Pedersen2)   1) Technical University of Denmark 2) Siemens Wind Power A/S  For the wind speeds below rated there is an excellent agreement between measured and simulated loads truly confirming the DWM approach. This is seen both for the 3.3D single wake situation as for the multiple wake situation in the North-Eastern sector. Blade fatigue load levels are increased with a factor 2.1 in the 3.3D single (half) wake, whereas the load level in the multiple wake sector is approximately 1.8. The instrumented turbine is C-8, see figure above. Loads are non-dimensioned with the load level at 9m/s at 180˚. For wind speeds above rated there is also excellent agreement for the 3.3D single wake situation. The measured load level are however significantly higher than the simulated for the multiple wake sector. An explanation of this is expected to be addressed to the DWM implemented handling of multiple wake, where each deficit is calculated without influence of previous upstream turbines. Using an increased deficit depth for the nearest turbine increased the load level at 15m/s at 42˚ from 2.2 to 2.6. Acknowledgements Siemens Wind Power has provided the unique measurement, which is gratefully acknowledged. The EUDP project “Impact of atmospheric stability conditions on wind farm loading and production” under contract 64010-0462 and the Danish PSO project ‘Wake affected offshore tower and foundation loads’ under contract 2010-1-10546  are acknowledged for financial support and thus for making this study possible. 

Comparison of measured and simulated loads for the Siemens SWT 2.3 operating in wake conditions at the Lillgrund Wind Farm using HAWC2 and the dynamic wake meander model

Markilde Pedersen, Søren

                       General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.  • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal   If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.     Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Dec 21, 2017Comparison of measured and simulated loads for the Siemens swt2.3 operating inwake conditions at the Lillgrund Wind Farm using HAWC2 and the dynamic wakemeander modelLarsen, Torben J.; Larsen, Gunner Chr.; Aagaard Madsen , Helge; Thomsen, Kenneth; MarkildePedersen, SørenPublication date:2015Link back to DTU OrbitCitation (APA):Larsen, T. J., Larsen, G. C., Aagaard Madsen , H., Thomsen, K., & Markilde Pedersen, S. (2015). Comparisonof measured and simulated loads for the Siemens swt2.3 operating in wake conditions at the Lillgrund WindFarm using HAWC2 and the dynamic wake meander model. Poster session presented at EWEA Offshore 2015Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.ReferencesConclusionsApproachPO.ID089Fatigue blade flap loads was selected for the present validation. The Palmgren-Miner approach was used to quantify the fatigue loading in terms of fatigue equivalent moments,and a Wöhler exponent of 10 was assumed for the blade composite structure.The validation scenario includes load cases associated with normal turbine operation with mean wind speeds ranging from 6m/s to 25m/s. Six mean wind speed bin regimeswere defined and considered: 6m/s-8m/s; 8m/s-10m/s; 10m/s-12m/s; 12m/s-14m/s; 14m/s-16m/s; and 16m/s-25m/s. A measured wind speed dependent turbulence intensity(TI) was used, reflecting the offshore wind speed dependent “surface” roughness. However, no attempt was done to resolve TI as function of upstream fetch (i.e. direction). Inthe mean wind speed regime 6m/s-14m/s a TI of 5.8% was used - gradually increasing to 9.5% at 25m/s.Simulated and measured blade root fatigue equivalent moments have been compared bin wise for a complete direction rose, which includes a multitude of load cases rangingfrom ambient inflow conditions over single wake cases to various types of multiple wake inflow cases.The DWM model1,2, which is about to be included in the new edition of the IEC61400-1 ed. 4 standard, is validated by comparing simulated and measured fatigue loads for theSwedish Lillgrund off-shore wind farm. This farm consists of 48 Siemens SWT-2.3-93 turbines, and one of these (C-8) is intensively instrumented with strain gauges resolvingblade, main shaft and tower loads. Using recordings from this turbine, the model validation is performed for a variety of wind directions and mean wind speeds.The DWM model basically simulates the non-stationary wind farm flow field by treating wind turbine wakes as passive tracers transported downstream by the mean flow fieldsuperimposed by a meandering process driven by the large scale cross wind turbulence components. For the ambient mean wind speed regime between 3m/s and 14m/s thisapproach was previously successfully validated against full-scale measurements from a Vestas V90 turbine located in the Dutch Egmond aan Zee Wind farm3 for a specificwind direction, where the turbine in focus was located as 6’th turbine in a row spaced with 7 rotor diameters(D).Whereas the Egmond ann Zee wind farm is characterized by a “conventional” turbine inter spacing, the layout of the Lillgrund wind farm is characterized by very small turbineinter spacing's; i.e. down to 3D. This makes the present Lillgrund load validation case a unique supplement to the previous conducted validations.Validation of the DWM model using full-scale load data from Lillgrund, which is characterized by low inter spacing between turbines, has shown that the DWM model predicts theflapwise fatigue loads quite satisfactorily for single turbine wake situations as well as for deep array operation. Up to about 12m/s the single wake operation gives the highestloading as seen both in measurements and in the simulated results. At higher wind speeds the measurements show the highest loading in the deep array operation, which is notcaptured by the model. The main cause of this deviation is thought to be that the simple method used in the DWM model to determine the aggregated deficit from the upstreamturbines is less accurate at high wind speeds. A first investigation of this conjecture is confirmed by a simple ad hock model change using an dual-wake scenario. However, thepredicted load levels are still below the measured values and further work on this complex situation therefore needed.Abstract Results EWEA Offshore 2015 – Copenhagen – 10-12 March 20151. Larsen, G.C., Madsen, H.Aa., Thomsen, K., and Larsen, T.J. (2008). Wake meandering - a pragmatic approach. Wind Energy, 11, pp. 377–395.2. Madsen, H. Aa., Larsen, G.C., Larsen, T.J., and Troldborg, N. (2010). Calibration and Validation of the Dynamic Wake Meandering Model for Implementation in an Aeroelastic Code. J. Sol. Energy Eng., 132(4). 3. Larsen, T.J., Madsen, H. A., Larsen, G.C. and Hansen, K.S. (2013). Validation of the Dynamic Wake Meander Model for Loads and Power Production in the Egmond aan Zee Wind Farm. Wind Energy, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp. 605–624.COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND SIMULATED LOADS FOR THE SIEMENS SWT 2.3 OPERATING IN WAKE CONDITIONS AT THE LILLGRUND WIND FARM USING HAWC2 AND THE DYNAMIC WAKE MEANDER MODEL.Torben J. Larsen1), Gunner Larsen1), Helge A. Madsen1, Kenneth Thomsen1), Søren M. Pedersen2)1) Technical University of Denmark2) Siemens Wind Power A/SFor the wind speeds below rated there is an excellent agreement between measured and simulated loads truly confirming the DWM approach. This is seen both for the 3.3Dsingle wake situation as for the multiple wake situation in the North-Eastern sector. Blade fatigue load levels are increased with a factor 2.1 in the 3.3D single (half) wake,whereas the load level in the multiple wake sector is approximately 1.8. The instrumented turbine is C-8, see figure above. Loads are non-dimensioned with the load level at9m/s at 180˚.For wind speeds above rated there is also excellent agreement for the 3.3D single wake situation. The measured load level are however significantly higher than thesimulated for the multiple wake sector. An explanation of this is expected to be addressed to the DWM implemented handling of multiple wake, where each deficit iscalculated without influence of previous upstream turbines. Using an increased deficit depth for the nearest turbine increased the load level at 15m/s at 42˚ from 2.2 to 2.6.AcknowledgementsSiemens Wind Power has provided the unique measurement, which is gratefully acknowledged. The EUDP project “Impact of atmospheric stability conditions on wind farm loading and production” under contract 64010-0462 and the Danish PSO project ‘Wake affected offshore tower and foundation loads’ under contract 2010-1-10546 are acknowledged for financial support and thus for making this study possible.

Comparison of measured and simulated loads for the Siemens swt2.3 operating in wake conditions at the Lillgrund Wind Farm using HAWC2 and the dynamic wake meander model

http://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/107150221/Comparison_of_measured_and_simulated_loads.pdf

Comparison of measured and simulated loads for the Siemens SWT 2.3 operating in wake conditions at the Lillgrund Wind Farm using HAWC2 and the dynamic wake meander model

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Online Research Database In Technology

Online Research Database In Technology