Advertisement

Development of performance specifications for hybrid modeling of floating wind turbines in wave basin tests

  • Matthew Hall
  • Andrew Goupee
  • Jason Jonkman
Research Article

Abstract

Hybrid modeling—combining physical testing and numerical simulation in real time—opens new opportunities in floating wind turbine research. Wave basin testing is an important validation step for floating support structure design, but the conventional approaches that use physical wind above the basin are limited by scaling problems in the aerodynamics. Applying wind turbine loads with an actuation system that is controlled by a simulation responding to the basin test in real time offers a way to avoid scaling problems and reduce cost barriers for floating wind turbine design validation in realistic coupled wind and wave conditions. This paper demonstrates the development of performance specifications for a system that couples a wave basin experiment with a wind turbine simulation. Two different points for the hybrid coupling are considered: the tower-base interface and the aero-rotor interface (the boundary between aerodynamics and the rotor structure). Analyzing simulations of three floating wind turbine designs across seven load cases reveals the motion and force requirements of the coupling system. By simulating errors in the hybrid coupling system, the sensitivity of the floating wind turbine response to coupling quality can be quantified. The sensitivity results can then be used to determine tolerances for motion tracking errors, force actuation errors, bandwidth limitations, and latency in the hybrid coupling system. These tolerances can guide the design of hybrid coupling systems to achieve desired levels of accuracy. An example demonstrates how the developed methods can be used to generate performance specifications for a system at 1:50 scale. Results show that sensitivities vary significantly between support structure designs and that coupling at the aero-rotor interface has less stringent requirements than those for coupling at the tower base. The methods and results presented here can inform design of future hybrid coupling systems and enhance understanding of how test results are affected by hybrid coupling quality.

Keywords

Floating Wind turbine Real time Hybrid Model testing Wave basin 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Sebastien Gueydon and Line Roald for providing the second-order wave excitation input files, and Tiago Duarte for the previous assistance with the second-order wave excitation algorithms. Scholarship support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. American Bureau of Shipping (2013) ABS guide for building and classifying floating offshore wind turbine installations. Tech. rep, American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TexasGoogle Scholar
  2. Azcona J, Bouchotrouch F, González M, Garciandía J, Munduate X, Kelberlau F, Nygaard TA (2014) Aerodynamic thrust modelling in wave tank tests of offshore floating wind turbines using a ducted fan. J Phys Conf Ser. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/524/1/012089 Google Scholar
  3. Bachynski EE, Chabaud V, Sauder T (2015) Real-time hybrid model testing of floating wind turbines: sensitivity to limited actuation. In: 12th Deep Sea Offshore Wind R&D Conference, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  4. Bachynski E, Thys M, Sauder T, Chabaud V, Saether L (2016) Real-time hybrid model testing of a braceless semi-submersible wind turbine: Part II: experimental results. In: Proceedings of the 35th international conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Busan, South KoreaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayati I, Belloli M, Ferrari D, Fossati F, Giberti H (2014) Design of a 6-DoF robotic platform for wind tunnel tests of floating wind turbines. Energy Proc 53:313–323. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chabaud V, Steen S, Skjetne R (2013) Real time hybrid testing of marine structures: Challenges and strategies. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32nd international conference on ocean, offshore, and arctic engineering, Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  7. Coulling AJ, Goupee AJ, Robertson AN, Jonkman JM, Dagher HJ (2013) Validation of a FAST semi-submersible floating wind turbine numerical model with DeepCwind test data. J Renew Sustain Energy 5(2):023116. doi: 10.1063/1.4796197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Ridder E, Otto W, Zondervan G, Huijs F, Vaz G (2014) Development of a scaled down wind turbine for model testing floating wind turbines. In: Proceedings of the 33rd international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, San Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  9. Fowler M, Kimball RW, Thomas DA, Goupee AJ (2013) Design and testing of scale model wind turbines for use in wind/wave basin model tests of floating offshore wind turbines. In: Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  10. Goupee AJ, Koo B, Kimball RW, Lambrakos KF, Dagher HJ (2014) Experimental comparison of three floating wind turbine concepts. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng 136(2):020906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gueydon S, Duarte T, Jonkman J (2014) Comparison of second-order loads on a semisubmersible floating wind turbine. In: Proceedings of the 33rd international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, ASME, San Francisco, California, USA. doi: 10.1115/OMAE2014-23398
  12. Gueydon S, Wuillaume P, Jonkman J, Robertson A, Platt A (2015) Comparison of second-order loads on a tension-leg platform for wind turbines. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth international offshore and polar engineering conference, Kona, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall M (2017) MoorDyn user’s guide. University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall M, Goupee A (2015) Validation of a lumped-mass mooring line model with DeepCwind semisubmersible model test data. Ocean Eng 104:590–603. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.05.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall M, Moreno J, Thiagarajan K (2014) Performance specifications for real-time hybrid testing of 1:50 scale floating wind turbine models. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, San Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  16. International Electrotechnical Commission (2005) Wind turbines - part 1: design requirements. International Standard IEC 61400-1:2005(E), International Electrotechnical CommissionGoogle Scholar
  17. Jonkman JM, Buhl Jr ML (2005) FAST user’s guide. Tech. Rep. NREL/EL-500-29798, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  18. Jonkman JM, Butterfield S, Musial W, Scott G (2009) Definition of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore system development. Tech. Rep. 38060, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  19. Jonkman JM (2010) Definition of the floating system for phase IV of OC3. Technical Report 47535, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  20. Jonkman BJ, Kilcher L (2012) TurbSim user’s guide: Version 1.06.00. Tech. rep., National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  21. Koo B, Goupee AJ, Kimball RW, Lambrakos KF (2014) Model tests for a floating wind turbine on three different floaters. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng 136(2):020907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin H (2011) Development of a scale model wind turbine for testing of offshore floating wind turbine systems. MS thesis, University of Maine, Orono, MaineGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin HR, Viselli AM, Kimball RW, Goupee AJ (2012) Methodology for Wind/Wave basin testing of floating offshore wind turbines. In: Proceedings of the 31st international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  24. Moon III WL, Nordstrom CJ (2010) Tension leg platform turbine: a unique integration of mature technologies. In: Proceedings of the 16th offshore symposium, Houston, Texas Section of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine EngineersGoogle Scholar
  25. Müller K, Sandner F, Bredmose H, Azcona J, Manjock A, Pereira R (2014) Improved tank test procedures for scaled floating offshore wind turbines. In: Proceedings of international wind engineering conference—support structures & electrical systems, Hannover, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  26. Prowell I, Robertson A, Jonkman J, Stewart GM, Goupee AJ (2013) Numerical prediction of experimentally observed behavior of a scale model of an offshore wind turbine supported by a Tension-Leg platform. In: Offshore technology conference, Houston, TexasGoogle Scholar
  27. Roald L, Jonkman J, Robertson A, Chokani N (2013) The effect of second-order hydrodynamics on floating offshore wind turbines. Energy Proc 35:253–264. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.07.178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robertson A, Jonkman J, Musial W, Vorpahl F, Popko W (2013) Offshore code comparison collaboration, continuation: phase II results of a floating semisubmersible wind system. In: Proceedings of EWEA offshore 2013, Frankfurt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  29. Sauder T, Chabaud V, Thys M, Bachynski E, Saether L (2016) Real-time hybrid model testing of a braceless semi-submersible wind turbine: Part I: The hybrid approach. In: Proceedings of the 35th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, Busan, South KoreaGoogle Scholar
  30. Stewart G, Lackner M, Robertson A, Jonkman J, Goupee AJ (2012) Calibration and validation of a FAST floating wind turbine model of the DeepCwind scaled tension-leg platform. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international offshore and polar engineering conference, Rhodes, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  31. Tidwell T, Gao X, Huang H, Lu C, Dyke S, Gill C (2009) Towards configurable real-time hybrid structural testing: a cyber-physical system approach. In: IEEE international symposium on object/component/service-oriented real-time distributed computing. Tokyo, Japan, pp 37–44Google Scholar
  32. Viselli AM, Forristall GZ, Pearce BR, Dagher HJ (2015) Estimation of extreme wave and wind design parameters for offshore wind turbines in the gulf of maine using a POT method. Ocean Eng 104:649–658. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.04.086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Viselli AM, Goupee AJ, Dagher HJ (2015b) Model test of a 1:8 scale floating wind turbine offshore in the Gulf of Maine. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng 137:041901CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government (outside the USA)  2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Sustainable Design EngineeringUniversity of Prince Edward IslandCharlottetownCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  3. 3.National Renewable Energy LaboratoryGoldenUSA

Personalised recommendations