15 views

Original Title: Loads Offshore GL Wind Guideline

Uploaded by ffjob

- Problem Sheet No 3
- Working Offshore Wind - REPORT
- King pin Education
- Seidel Offshore Wind 2005
- Environment International Volume 29 Issue 1 2003 [Doi 10.1016%2Fs0160-4120%2802%2900130-7] Robert Gross; Matthew Leach; Ausilio Bauen -- Progress in Renewable Energy
- Engineering Insurance of Offshore Wind Turbines_2006
- On Fatigue Damage Assessment for Offshore Support Structures
- Venezuelan Wind Code
- Santa Clara Students Cantabria Wind Energy Pros and Cons
- AWEA Annual Wind Report 2009
- Large Offshore Wind Farm-ikni-greah
- Dakota_Turbines.pdf
- wind
- Cable Tray Load_Calculation
- 6.2. Session - Turbine and Grid Technology
- Essay Energy Crisis
- Singapore
- Bridge Type Fault Current Limiter is Used for Fault Ride Through in Fixed Speed Wind Turbine
- LaWhite Shear Veer Paper WDShear
- Adaptive-pitch-control-of-wind-turbine-for-load-mitigation-u_2017_Renewable-.pdf

You are on page 1of 8

*Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie GmbH, Steinhft 9, D-20459 Hamburg, GERMANY

Email: as@gl-group.com; Tel.: +49 40 31 106-138, Fax: +49 40 31 106-1720

**Cardiff University, Div. of Mechanical Engineering, Cardiff, UNITED KINGDOM

Email: lindsay_gill@virginstudent.com

ABSTRACT

Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie composed a completely revised guideline for offshore wind turbines. The new edition

builds on experience from application on several projects or type approvals for offshore wind farms or turbines. Emphasis

was put on giving more detailed description of the load case definitions and guidance in application of the combination of

the loads resulting from wind and waves. Often the design driver for the support structure is the Extreme Storm Load case. In

the paper the different possibilities to analyse this load cases are shown. Example calculations are performed for 3 different

turbine sizes. The results are discussed, advantages and drawbacks of the methods used are shown.

Keywords: guideline, offshore, loads, dynamic amplification, external conditions, certification

1 INTRODUCTION

The Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie (GL Wind)

Guideline for the Certification of Offshore Wind Turbine

[1] was revised on base of the experience of the

certification of several offshore projects and the knowledge

gained from the work in research projects. The 2

nd

Edition

of the GL Wind Guideline for Offshore Wind Turbines was

developed under the premise that:

Most possible similarity to the onshore GL-Guidelines

is achieved.

Type certification of the biggest part of the turbine is

possible.

The experience from numerous offshore wind park

certifications done so far is included.

The new edition is based on the proven GL-Regulations

for the Certification of Offshore Wind Energy Converters

issued 1995 [3] for the first time and harmonized with the

GL Wind Guideline for the Certification of Onshore Wind

Turbines [2] and the 2

nd

edition of the IEC 61400-1 [4].

In the following the improvements and the philosophy

behind the assumptions for external condition, the methods

for the loads calculations with emphasis on the

combination of wind and wave loading and the philosophy

behind the safety factor strategy for the loads which find

application in the 2

nd

edition of the Guideline for

Certification of Offshore Wind Turbines will be drawn up.

2 GENERAL

For the loading on offshore wind turbines the

oceanographic, the meteorological, geological and

electrical conditions at the site have to be considered to

calculate the loading for the turbine. As for an onshore

wind turbine a type class for generic wind condition is

appropriate and therefore a Type Certification is adequate

for an onshore wind turbine; for offshore wind turbines

external condition varies significantly depending on water

depth, soil conditions and possible wave heights. For

offshore wind turbines the definition of wind turbine

classes in terms of wind speed and turbulence intensity

parameters are only applicable for the topsides structure

(machinery and rotor blades) under the condition that no

resonance effects due to wave loading occur. For the

support structure (tower, transition piece and foundation)

the environmental conditions which are representative at

the specific site have to be considered. Therefore the design

of an offshore wind turbine support structure has to be site

specific.

The 2

nd

Edition of the Guidelines for the Certification of

Offshore Wind Turbines [1] is structured for the load

assumptions in a way that as more knowledge of the

external conditions at the site are available the most

optimize design for site conditions can be achieved. If

information is missing, the Guideline provides guidance for

conservative assumptions to fill the gaps. Also it is still

possible to apply the type classes for the wind conditions.

Here in a second step it has to be shown, that the conditions

at the erection site are less serve than the generic

assumption considered and that the turbines are suitable for

the site.

3 EXTERNAL CONDITONS

The main environmental conditions for offshore wind

turbines which may contribute to structural damages,

operation disturbances or other failures are mainly

Wind

Waves

Current

Sea ice

Other phenomena which may be important are:

Ice

Earthquake

Soil conditions

Temperature

Marin Growth

Tides

Wind conditions

Offshore wind turbines are designed to withstand safely the

wind conditions defined according to the site specific

values or by a wind class when it can be shown that it is

more benign than the conditions at the erection site.

The assumptions for the wind conditions in comparison to

the Guideline for the Certification of Wind Turbines [2] are

adjusted to reflect the conditions offshore. Offshore the

mean wind speeds found often considerably higher than

those on land, in contrast the gustiness or the turbulence

intensity offshore is lower than onshore. This fact was

taken into account thereby that a turbulence categorie C for

lower turbulence intensity is defined.

In figure 1 a comparison between available measurements

and the turbulence intensity for the different categories are

shown.

Figure 1: Comparison of proposed turbulence intensity with

North Sea measurements

For all wind conditions the power law exponent for the

wind profile is assumed to be =0.14. A constant exponent

of the wind profile neglect the fact that at high wind speeds

high waves occur and that high waves mean a higher

surface roughness influencing the wind profile. To analysis

this phenomenon for full developed seas the Charnock

equation can be used. In figure 2 and 3 the comparison of

the different wind profiles according to onshore

Regulations and the wind profile using the Charnock

equation in the ESDU [5] wind model for low and high

wind speeds are shown.

Figure 2: Wind profile at low wind speeds

Figure 3: Wind profile at high wind speeds

In both cases it can be seen, that the exponential profile

proposed is between this used in onshore cases, where

roughness may be considerably higher, and the profile

calculated using the Charnock equation for open sea. This

is a compromise, due to the fact that offshore wind turbines

will often be near shore structures, partly influenced by

open sea conditions and partly influenced by wind coming

from the land side.

The gust values for the 3 sec gust reflect the assumptions

made for turbulence intensity and wind profile. As a result

the gust factor for the extreme wind speed model used in

the Guideline for Certification of Offshore Wind

Turbines [1] is 1.25.

Marine Conditions

In practice the wave spectrum function may be given as a

measured spectrum for the site of the wind farm, or by

measured or estimated significant wave heights and periods

applying a standard formulation. In the Edition 1995 of the

Offshore Guideline [3] the Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum

for sea state was referred. Due to the fact, that offshore

wind farm may also be erected near shore or in relative

shallow water, this approach was found to be too

conservative. In the offshore industry often the Pierson-

Moskowitz-spectrum was used for fatigue loading and the

JONSWAP-spectrum for extreme loading. An investigation

showed that for offshore turbines, with a monopile

structure, the two spectra show minimal difference in

fatigue loading. In some cases (tripods) the resonance

frequency of the structure may result in significant

amplification in higher frequency regions, where the two

spectral formulations show significant difference. In these

cases site specific analysis shall be performed. For these

reasons mentioned for a general approach in the 2

nd

Edition

of the Guideline the JONSWAP-spectrum found

application. For a JONSWAP-spectrum the correction of

limited water depth is possible as well as the formulation of

an not fully developed sea state (time or fetch limed).

The formulations of the spectrum can be found in [1]. In

figure 4 a comparison of wind generated sea state for

different water depths and measurements are shown.

Further guidance for consideration of breaking waves

loads, sea ice loads, boat impact, assumptions for scour,

corrosion and marine growth, icing, currents, etc. can also

be found in [1].

Mean wind speed

GL A

GL B

GL-Offshore C

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0

v [m/s]

H

s

[

m

]

deep water shallow water OWTES Measurement

Figure 4: Comparison of significant wave height from fetch

and water depth limed spectral formulations with OWTES

measurements.

3 CALCULATION OF COMBINED WIND AND

WAVE LOADS FOR THE EXTREME STORM CASE

In the following the theoretical assumptions which are

stipulated in the new guideline with respect to the external

conditions and the combination of external conditions or

loading are investigated exemplary for the extreme storm

event which is in the most cases the design driver for the

support structure of an offshore wind turbine and the

methods applicable are drawn up.

The main challenge to establish the design environmental

conditions for offshore wind turbines to derive the design

loads is the combination of the external conditions.

Long term analysis

Basis of the analysis is the combination of the long term

external phenomena according to the desired probability

level (50 year recurrence period). The long-term variability

of multiple actions is described by a scatter diagram or joint

density function. Conditional distribution functions can be

established for the different climatic conditions, resulting in

the determination of correlated values at the chosen

probability level for wind speed, wind direction, wave

height, water level, current conditions and ice. Normally,

one decisive external factor is chosen (e.g. wind speed for a

particular direction or ice condition and corresponding

wind load). As long as an overall description of statistics is

not available, several probable determining combined load

cases for the same external factor may appear.

Alternatively, the exceedance probabilities can be referred

to the action effects. Conditional distributions of the

corresponding loads may be build and the loads added

according to the desired probability level. It has to be

stated, that this method is not appropriate for types of

structure with significant dynamic response and significant

interaction of wind and wave loading.

Very often it is difficult to get information on the combined

probability of wind speed, sea state and direction. In this

case it may be assumed that wind speed and waves have a

common cause and interfere. Their properties are not

independent of each other. The short term wind climate and

the wave climate show a strong dependency. In this case it

can be assumed that the extreme mean wind speed is

associated with the extreme significant wave height but that

the individual gusts and waves are statistically independent.

Simplified it can be assumed that the 50 year extreme sea

state would occur at the same time as the storm with a mean

wind speed equal to the 50 year return mean wind speed.

In some cases it may be useful to use the formulations of

wind generated waves and adjust them in such a way that

the error in the probability distribution of wind speed, wave

height and period is minimized [6].

Short term analysis

In a short-term period with a combination of waves and

fluctuating wind, the individual variations of the two action

processes can be taken to be uncorrelated. It can be

assumed that the extreme values of the wind speed and the

wave height do not occur simultaneously.

For linear combination of loads it can be assumed that the

extreme combined load occurs when one of the sources

reaches its maximum value. For offshore wind turbines this

is usually not the case since aerodynamic loads are non-

linear and aero- and hydroelastic effects have to be

considered. In practice it has been shown, that this

assumption is a valuable approach for offshore wind

turbines too, due to the fact that one source of load usually

dominates.

Two methods may be used for the calculations of combined

wind and wave loading. The first is based on the

combination of the external conditions based on their joint

probability of occurrence. The second is based in the

combination of the response load.

Both methods have found application in offshore industry

and have been examined with success in the Offshore

study [7]. Additional analysis has been performed using

the extreme storm event on 3 different wind turbine

designs.

Since offshore wind turbines are highly elastic structures,

with non linear response to wind loading the recommended

method of analysis is in the time domain analysis using

stochastic wind and wave description. One drawback of

this method is that there is no widely used engineering

method to account for wave kinematics non linearity.

Contrary a deterministic approach would include non linear

wave kinematics in the analysis but could not correctly

represent the dynamic behaviour of the offshore wind

turbine.

As a solution both approaches are considered in the

analysis of extreme storm event (load case DLC 6.1

according to the Guideline [1]).

4 TURBULENT WIND AND STOCHASTIC WAVE

SIMULATIONS

This is a rather straight forward case where the statistical

properties of the wind and the waves are taken directly by

the long term distribution.

The loads can be calculated directly by simulation using

stochastic wind and waves in the same series. Alternatively,

for structures without significant interaction of wind and

wave loading, separate analysis may be performed for wind

and wave loading. The total force/moment at the mudline is

then:

( )

2

max ,

2

, max ,

, max ,

wave mean wind wind

mean wind total

F F F

F F

+ +

=

Comparison of superposition of wind and wave loads

A parametric analysis was performed to examine

differences in the superposition of the extreme load from

wind and waves. The analysis included 3 generic wind

turbines and 10 simulations of 600s were performed. The

resulting overturning moment (OTM) and base shear force

(BSF) at the mudline were considered. The data of the

analysis were:

Turbine 2MW 3MW 5MW

Diameter m 78 100 130

Hub height (WL) m 65 70 95

Water depth m 15 12 35

1

st

natural frequency Hz 0.35 0.33 0.26

wind speed (10-min) m/s 50 50 50

Turbulence intensity 0.11 0.11 0.11

Significant wave height m 7.2 6.2 10.3

Peak spectral frequency s 18.9 18.9 18.5

Zero Crossing frequency s 14.68 14.68 18.5

Table 1: Main data of analysis

The sea state was produced using standard JONSWAP

spectrum with a peak factor of 3.3. For the analysis the

mean of the maxima of the load was used. For the

combination of the separate wind and wave load

simulations the same seeds as for the combine simulations

were used. The combination was performed in two ways:

Calculate the mean of the maxima and the mean of all

simulations, then combine

Combine mean and maxima of each simulation and

use the mean of the results.

The results are shown in the following table 2 and table 3:

Turbine

Wind and

wave

Combination

of means

Difference

OTM

2MW 43756 45753 1,05

3MW 69788 70640 1,01

5MW 197530 227811 1,15

BSF

2MW 1352 1393 1,03

3MW 1493 1635 1,10

5MW 5294 5782 1,09

Table 2: Overturning moment (OWT) and base shear force

(BSF) comparison for simultaneous simulation and a

combined mean of all simulations

Required simulation time for the analysis

One problem is that in wind industry the wind speed is

referred to a 10-minute averaging time while in offshore

industry the significant wave height is considered to be

stable during a 3 hour period. The statistics and the analysis

has to be adjusted to the different situation.

Turbine

Wind and

wave

Combination

of series

Difference

OTM

2MW 43756 46072 1,05

3MW 69788 70734 1,01

5MW 197530 229376 1,16

BSF

2MW 1352 1407 1,04

3MW 1493 1645 1,10

5MW 5294 5790 1,09

Table 3: Overturning moment (OWT) and base shear force

(BSF) comparison for simultaneous simulation and the

mean of the combined simulations

In offshore industry a conservative assumption is made that

the wave height distribution is a Rayleigh one [8]. The

maximum wave height is then:

=

z

s

T

t

H H ln

2

1

max

Assuming a wave zero crossing period of about 10s (usual

for North Sea conditions) than the number of waves during

a 3hour storm is about 1000 while during the 10 minute

period used for wind turbine analysis only 60 waves may

occur.

Simulation time 10 30 1 h 3 h

Number of waves 60 180 360 1080

H

max

/H

s

1.43 1.61 1.71 1.87

Table 4: Peak wave height as a function of the number of

waves, Rayleigh distribution.

This means that if the correct maximum wave height and

thus probability level shall be reached, the simulation time

or the sea state statistical parameters have to be adjusted

accordingly.

The influence of the simulation time on the overturning

moment was investigated, applying only wave load on the

turbines considered. The wave heights from 10 seeds of

600s were compared to 3hour simulations. The significant

wave heights used to produce the time history are given in

table 1.

The influence of simulation time on the wave statistics is

shown in the following tables:

H

s

[m] of 3 hour

simulation

Mean H

s

of

2x

3 hours

Mean H

s

of 10x

10 min

Max H

s

of 10x

10min

Seed 0 Seed 4

2MW 6.9 7.24 7.1 7.1 8.96

3MW 6.0 6.22 6.1 6.0 7.08

5MW 10.51 9.97 10.2 9.9 12.09

Table 5: Statistic of significant wave height for different

simulation length

The significant wave height is reached in the mean of the

different simulation time series, although large scatter

exists. This may lead to the conclusion that it is sufficient

to perform several 10-minute simulations instead of one 3

hour simulation.

For the maximum wave elevation the same investigation

was carried out. The theoretical value using the zero

crossing period of the wave given in table 1 is shown in

following table:

H

max

[m]

3 h

max

[m]

3 h

H

max

[m]

10 min

max

[m]

10 min

2MW 13.10 6.55 9.84 4.92

3MW 11.38 5.69 8.56 4.28

5MW 18.74 9.37 14.1 7.05

Table 6: Theoretical maximum wave height, wave elevation

The maximum values in the simulation are shown in the

following:

max

of 3 hour

simulation [m]

Mean

max

[m]

of 2x

3 hours

Mean

max

[m]

of 10x

10 min

Max

max

[m]

of 10x

10 min

Seed 0 Seed 4

2MW 6.21 6.19 6.2 4.9 6.19

3MW 5.12 6.00 5.6 4.1 5.49

5MW 8.59 9.16 8.9 7.5 10.50

Table 7: Maximum wave elevations

It is clear that the 10 minute simulations are not large

enough to reach the target value for the extreme wave

height as required by the theory for the 3hour peak. They

are consistent with the theory for the peak during 10

minutes. The mean of the 3 hour simulation is in the

acceptable level, although the results for the 3MW turbine

show considerable scatter. The maximum wave elevation of

10 simulations is in the required level, but this may be

coincidence.

For the load cases shown the overturning moment (OTM)

was analysed. The statistics are shown in the following

table:

OTM Max [kNm]

3 hour simulation Mean of 3

hr

Mean of

10 min

Max of 10

x 10 min

Seed 0 Seed 4

2MW 19270 29060 24165 11088 20591

3MW 12970 17960 15465 9219 16317

5MW 141700 142500 142100 120778 184462

Table 8: Maximum Overturning Moment

OTM - Standard Deviation [kNm]

3 hour simulation Mean of 3

hourr

Mean of

10 min

Max of 10

min

Seed 0 Seed 4

2MW 1407 2053 1730 1426.6 2045

3MW 1485 1488 1487 1453.1 1775

5MW 19730 18690 19210 18636.1 22318

Table 9: Standard Deviation of the Overturning Moment

The loads show the same discrepancy as do the wave height

statistics. But, except for the 2MW case where seed 4

shows very high values in standard deviation and absolute

maximum, the maximum from the 10 simulations is

conservative and the mean standard deviation is in the

range of the individual 3 hour simulations. This gives some

confidence, that the analysis may be performed by using

several short (10 minute) simulations.

The analysis with 18 10 minute simulations = 3 hours gives

similar results. The maximum of all 18 simulations is in the

level of 3 simulations of 3 hours duration.

5MW Turbine 3 x3 hour

simulation

18 x10 min

simulation

Mean of Max 156400 117372

Max of Max 185000 184462

Standard deviation 24772 28196

Table 10: Overturning moment for different numbers of

realisations and lengths of simulations

From the graph it is clear that at least 18 seeds, resulting in

3 hours of simulation are needed for the analysis of the

extreme wave loads.

Figure 5: Comparison of simulations lengths and number of

realisations.

5 DETERMINISTIC APPROACH

In the deterministic approach the non linear kinematics of

the periodic waves are considered. A major problem is the

consideration of the system elasticity and the description of

the wind. A traditional approach is to use constant wind

speed and apply a dynamic amplification factor on the load

or the wind speed.

In the offshore industry two methods are used. One is based

on the simultaneous analysis of the 1-minute averaged wind

speed combined with the extreme wave height. This

method was extended to include the case with the extreme

wind speed with a reduced wave height. The second

method is based on a separate analysis of wind and wave

loads and a composition as it is performed for the

stochastic wave train.

The method is presented in the Offshore Study [7] and is

based on the UK DoE guidelines, which advise that the 50

year return extreme wave load is applied in conjunction

with the 50 year return 1 minute mean wind load. The

method was extended to consider the 50 year return

extreme wind load combined with the wave load that is

selected such that the probability of the combined event is

the same. In this analysis some simplifications are made:

Structural dynamics are ignored

50000

100000

150000

200000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

seed

m

a

x

O

T

M

10min simulation

3hr sim. #1

3hr sim. #2

3hr sim. #3

Wind speed has a Gaussian probability distribution,

while wave heights follow a Rayleigh distribution.

For the turbines considered (2MW, 3MW, 5MW) both

cases were analysed. The calculations were performed for

the combined case and for the cases with only wind or

waves. The conditions are shown in the following table:

V

ref

[m/s]

V

max

[m/s]

V

red

[m/s]

H

max

[m]

H

red

[m]

T

wave

[s]

DAF

2MW 50 66.4 59.5 10 8.8 9.7 1.88

3MW 50 66.4 59.5 7.75 7.5 9 2.05

5MW 50 66.4 59.5 18.2 12.5 11.5 1.97

Table 11: Calculation conditions

The DAF was analyses using the DS472 [9] method. An

analysis of the methods showed that the deviations are not

so high and differences are based on the selection of the

aerodynamic admittance function.

The results of the two methods for the maximum

overturning moment are shown in the following table:

OTM

[kNm]

wind &

wave

wind &

wave

stochastic

Turbine H

max

/V

red

H

red

/V

max

2MW 48100 43400 24200

3MW 161400 160400 16300

5MW 453000 242200 184500

Table 12: Overturning moment deterministic approach

compared to stochastic approach

OTM

[kNm]

wind wave combination stochasti

c

Turbine V

ref

H

max

2MW 28000 30200 59100 24200

3MW 38200 120600 165000 16300

5MW 112500 582300 705000 184500

Table 13: Overturning moment for separately calculated

loads

The analysis shows some problems in the combination of

the separately calculated loads. For the 2MW turbine the

results are very conservative. This can be due to vibrations

in the wind only case and the application of a gust factor. A

second point is that wind load and wave load are not in the

same direction.

In the case of the 3MW turbine the combination of the

separated analysis shows a good agreement with the

combined deterministic analysis. Contrary the discrepancy

between stochastic linear wave and non-linear extreme

wave analysis is huge. This can be explained by shallow

water breaking wave dynamics, considered only in the

deterministic case.

Additionally the 5MW turbine shows a large excitation to

the wave forces. This may be due to numerical reasons and

has to be considered with care.

6 ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC RESPONSE USING

DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (DAF)

Eight methods to calculate DAFs on wind loading have

been developed for three sizes of offshore turbines. All

methods were adjusted to comply with the EWM model as

given in the GL-Guidelines. The one exception is DIBt

(1993) which does not contain a term for turbulence

intensity, and so this value was not included.

The methods considered were:

- DIBt (1993)

- DIBt (2003)

- DIN 1055 (2003)

- DS 472 (1992)

- Dyrbye & Hansen (1997) [11]

- Holmes (2001) [12]

- ISO 4354 (1997)

- Combined method

A summary of the basic theory behind the methods is given

below.

The dynamic amplification factor is defined [11] as the

ratio between the characteristic wind load and the mean

wind load. The characteristic wind load is the 10 minute

mean wind load, plus a peak factor. The other methods

describe DAFs in slightly different ways, but the general

concept is the same:

DAF 1

. . .

2 g

Iu

100

B

2

R( ) No

2

As can be seen, the DAF is dependant on the peak factor, g,

the turbulence intensity, I

u

(in %), and the background and

resonant responses of the structure, B and R respectively.

The peak factor is similarly defined in all methods used as:

g

.

2 ln( )

.

T

0.577

.

2 ln( )

.

T

0 2 4 6

0

2

4

6

g ( ) f

f

Figure 6: Peak factor g over frequency f

The peak factor is dependant on the time interval (T) used

to determine the mean wind velocity, usually 600 seconds,

and on the zero-upcrossing frequency (), which is defined

in as the weighted average of the background (B) and

resonant (R) responses. The equations for the zero-

upcrossing frequency vary between the methods, however

most are a variation of that shown below:

.

No

2

R( ) No

2

B

2

R( ) No

2

Where No is the eigenfrequency of the structure.

The background response factor (B) accounts for the

contribution from low frequency turbulence and the

resonant response factor (R) accounts for contributions

from turbulence at the natural frequency of the structure.

Although these definitions are consistent throughout the

methods, the equations used for the background and

resonant response vary considerably. In some cases

corrections and alternations had to be made to consider the

wind turbines behaviour. The equations and the

corresponding figures 7 and 8 are taken from DIBt (2003)

and are the background and resonant response functions

respectively.

B

1

1

.

0.9

.

1.1 h

Li

0.63

In the equation (h) is the height of the structure and (Li) the

length scale of the wind speed, representing the mean size

of the gusts. In some methods the mechanic admittance

factor is used to analyse the background response. The

mechanical admittance factor as a transfer function relating

the spectral density of aerodynamic forces to the spectral

density of structural response. Only the Holmes[12] and DS

472 [9] methods contain separate mechanical admittance

functions, as in the other methods it is included in the

resonant response factor.

0 2 4 6

0.96

0.98

1

B ( ) f

f

Figure 7: Background response factor over frequency

R( ) n

. .

2

K01( ) n X( ) n

.

2

With () the total damping of the structure, (KO1) the

spectral density function of the wind speed and (X) the

aerodynamic admittance factor.

0 2 4 6

0

1

2

3

R ( ) f

f

Figure 8: Resonant response factor over frequency

It is important when considering large structures to include

an aerodynamic admittance factor to correlate the velocity

fluctuations over the whole windward face. Holmes defines

the aerodynamic admittance factor as a transfer function

relating the gust spectral density to the spectral density of

an aerodynamic force. This factor is included in all

methods with a different degree of complexity. In general it

can be calculated from the size of the structure and the

coherence function of the turbulent wind field [11]:

X( ) n

.

1

lcoh

d

0

lcoh

r

. .

2 1

r

( ) lcoh

Coh( ) , r n

with (lcoh) being the length of the structure the wind is

acting on.

A number of the methods either lacked certain terms, or

although a particular term was used, no value or equation

was given for it. In order to be able to use the methods

effectively, a number of alterations were made. Where it

was possible the values for the wind speed description

(Spectral density function, integral length scale, coherence

function, roughness length and profile exponent) were

changed to be in line with the recommendations of the GL

Wind Guideline.

Additionally the equations for the response factors had to

be adjusted to the wind turbine geometry having a large

rotor on the top of the tower, rather then being a building.

Values for wind were averaged at the hub height and the

rotor radius was taken to calculate admittance functions.

The Combined method is a combination of the equations

from the different methods. The equations selected were

felt to be the most precise equations which would fit

together to produce an effective method. This is a

combination mainly of the DS 472 and the modified DIBt

(2003) method extended with equations given by Holmes

and Dyrbye & Hansen.

For comparison with the analytical methods, simulations

were run. The simulations were run for the same three

turbines as used previously, and the resultant overturning

moment and base shear force was used for the comparisons.

A summary of the results is given below in Table 14 and

Figure 9.

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

1,1

0,52 0,57 0,62 0,67 0,72

f * D/u

D

A

F

/

D

A

F

(

s

i

m

u

l

a

t

i

o

n

)

DS472 Holmes Dyrbye

Eurocode DIBt(1993) DIBt(2003)

Figure 9: Comparison of analytic DAF methods and

simulation data DAF over a non-dimensional parameter

DAF

Method

2

MW

3

MW

5

MW

Simulation 1.8 2.3 2.2

DIBt (1993) 1.8 1.9 1.8

DIBt (2003) 1.9 2.1 2.0

DIN 1055 (2003) 1.7 1.7 1.7

DS 472 (1992) 2.0 2.2 2.1

Dyrbye & Hansen 2.0 2.1 2.1

Holmes (2001) 2.0 2.0 2.0

ISO 4354 (1997) 2.2 2.5 2.1

Combined Method 2.0 2.1 2.1

Table 14: Comparison of modified DAF methods

It can be seen that the results from the various methods and

from the simulation data follow roughly the same trend,

despite differences in the values produced. It is felt that in

general the analytical methods predict amplification within

10% of the simulation results if some care is taken in their

application. In terms of the trend of the results and the

individual DAFs produced, it is felt that modified DIBt

(2003) and DS 472 (1992) are the most accurate. These

methods can be applied for load analysis.

7 CONCLUSIONS

The long term statistics should be based on the joint

probability distribution of the external conditions. If this is

not possible it can be assumed that wind speed and waves

have a common cause and interfere. In this case it can be

assumed that the extreme mean wind speed is associated

with the extreme significant wave height but that the

individual gusts and waves are statistically independent.

Two possibilities exist for the analysis of the combined

load The first is based on the combination of the external

conditions based on their joint probability of occurrence.

The second is based in the combination of the response

load. Both are acceptable if not significant interaction of

wind wave load occur.

To take account both of the elastic behaviour and the non

linearity of wave kinematics a load case using stochastic

wind and wave description and one using deterministic

(periodic wave) description should be considered.

The simulation time to be used for the stochastic

simulations should be at least 10 minutes. Several seeds

should be analysed in the way that the sum of the

simulation time of all seeds exceeds 3 hours.

A deterministic approach shall be performed, for the

consideration of the non-linear wave kinematics. This

analysis has to be adjusted for the reduced wave height

according to the probability distribution of the wave

heights.

The separate analysis of the load with subsequent

combination using a DAF shows very large deviations to

the combined deterministic approach.

The present work was partly performed with the support of

the EU, and included in the RECOFF and OWTES research

projects.

REFERENCES

[1] Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie, Guidelines for the

Certification of Offshore Wind Turbines, Final Draft,

Edition 2004.

[2] Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie, Guidelines for the

Certification of Wind Turbines, Edition 2003 with

Supplement 2004.

[3] Germanischer Lloyd, Regulation for the Certification

of Offshore Wind Energy Converter Systems,

Hamburg 1995.

[4] IEC 61400-1, ed. 2, Wind Turbine Generator

Systems, Part1 Safety Requirements

[5] ESDU 85020, Characteristics of atmospheric

turbulence near the ground, Part II: single point data

for strong winds (neutral atmosphere), April 1993

[6] Matthies H.G., Meyer M., Nath C., Offshore-

Windkraftanlagen: Kombination der Lasten von Wind

und Wellen, Proceedings of the DEWEK 2000.

[7] Matthies et al, Study of Offshore Wind Energy in the

EC JOULE I (JOUR 0072), Verlag Natrliche

Energie 1995.

[8] K. Kokkinowrachos, Offshore-Bauwerke in

Handbuch der Werften XV. Band, 1980.

[9] DS 472, Loads and Safety of Wind Turbine

Construction, 1st edition May 1992 and amendment

September 2000.

[10] Eurocode 1, DIN V ENV 1991-2-4

[11] C. Dyrbye, S.O. Hansen, Wind loads on structures,

John Wiley & Sons, 1996

[12] J.D. Holmes, Wind loading of structures, Spon

Press, 2001

- Problem Sheet No 3Uploaded byWaqas Ud-din
- Working Offshore Wind - REPORTUploaded byMaurizio Bernasconi
- King pin EducationUploaded bylithiumabc
- Seidel Offshore Wind 2005Uploaded byDonald.K
- Environment International Volume 29 Issue 1 2003 [Doi 10.1016%2Fs0160-4120%2802%2900130-7] Robert Gross; Matthew Leach; Ausilio Bauen -- Progress in Renewable EnergyUploaded bySammy Ombiro
- Engineering Insurance of Offshore Wind Turbines_2006Uploaded byKyoungmin Kim
- On Fatigue Damage Assessment for Offshore Support StructuresUploaded byraghu_thinks
- Venezuelan Wind CodeUploaded bycre1974in2003
- Santa Clara Students Cantabria Wind Energy Pros and ConsUploaded byarsfilosofo
- AWEA Annual Wind Report 2009Uploaded byVadim Kaplun
- Large Offshore Wind Farm-ikni-greahUploaded byAhmed Bagre
- Dakota_Turbines.pdfUploaded byEndalew kassahun
- windUploaded byBob Austin
- Cable Tray Load_CalculationUploaded byAnonymous GRXy0T
- 6.2. Session - Turbine and Grid TechnologyUploaded byquantum_leap_wind
- Essay Energy CrisisUploaded bySheRaz Tarar
- SingaporeUploaded byLê Ngọc-Hà
- Bridge Type Fault Current Limiter is Used for Fault Ride Through in Fixed Speed Wind TurbineUploaded byIJSTR Research Publication
- LaWhite Shear Veer Paper WDShearUploaded bySNADA
- Adaptive-pitch-control-of-wind-turbine-for-load-mitigation-u_2017_Renewable-.pdfUploaded byclaralisie
- Cape Vincent Wind Farm Revised Public Involvement Program Document set #1Uploaded bypandorasboxofrocks
- Dynamics and Control of Vibrations in Wind Turbines With Variable RotorUploaded byC V CHANDRASHEKARA
- 01.2Uploaded byDante Filho
- 4.Engineering-correction of the Mechanical Speed for the Dfig Wind TurbineUploaded byImpact Journals
- Roland_Berger_Wind_energy_20090904Uploaded bylentzius
- Whisper 100 ManualUploaded bysher12345us
- 100W Wind Turbine ManualUploaded byClct English
- Document.docxUploaded byPavan kumar BELLALA
- la atmosferaUploaded byJhonny Sam Vivas
- Production of Electrical Energy by Vertical Axis Maglev WindmillUploaded byPremier Publishers

- 中国古地图精选Uploaded byinside fang
- os-j201_2009-10Uploaded byffjob
- Pcr 02010 风力发电机组偏航系统专用规则 2.0Uploaded byffjob
- GB 50007-2002 建筑地基基础设计规范Uploaded byffjob
- CN30-4Uploaded byfrvdabee
- DNV cn30-1Uploaded byffjob
- GB6728-2002结构用冷弯空心型钢尺寸、外形、重量及允许偏差Uploaded byffjob
- GB 12326 电能质量 电压波动和闪变(报批稿）Uploaded byffjob
- 国家能源局文件Uploaded byffjob
- 10Uploaded byffjob
- Dnv Os b101 Metalic MaterialUploaded byTran Nguyen
- os-j101Uploaded byffjob
- 6.FatigueUploaded byNarendra Singh
- DNV RP C202(Buckling Strength)2002Uploaded byuktaindra
- Off Shore Helideck GuideUploaded byAri Supramono

- Asce 7-10 and Asce 7-05Uploaded byhsn_syd
- Analysis of Haul Road Emission Test DataUploaded byHazem Salah Aly
- 305r_99.pdfUploaded byAntu Isabel
- lifting calculation.xlsxUploaded byAnonymous LKi1w1u
- Selection of Line Rating Weather ParametersUploaded byVictor Jimenez
- sdarticleUploaded byNamanu Panaymthatta
- Ip15037 Al Tayer Poc With Ramp Rev01(27!06!16)Uploaded byShaikh Muhammad Ateeq
- ushada2014Uploaded byMiguelSalamanca
- Fundamentals of S-lay and Engineering Analysis Using OFFPIPE- GEPUploaded bybee4manu
- thar desert.pdfUploaded byMariem Rizvi
- WMO306_Vol-I-1-PartA 1995 12.2.2.2..pdfUploaded byankaradan
- Spreadsheet for Calculating WindUploaded byselina
- 1805LivingRules2-20-13Uploaded bytech1322
- AAR83-02.pdfUploaded bydagger21
- Wave StudyUploaded byvanjadamjanovic
- monsoonUploaded bysree220
- Bio ClimaticUploaded byDeepak Govind
- Technical Guidance NPPF UK.pdfUploaded bySyed Raziuddin
- Easton Kelsey Pioneer CompanyUploaded byLisa Ferraro
- Science _ Technology Part IIIUploaded byGrayHawk
- A Seminar on rotating buildingUploaded byManoj Terekar
- R&AC Lecture 40Uploaded byapi-3734466
- Across-Wind Response of High-Rise BuildingsUploaded byZaheer Ahmed
- 155186 November 2012 Mark Scheme 13(Geography)Uploaded byMcCalla
- 2010 Florida Building Code Wind StandardUploaded byTuroy
- Typhoon MangkhutUploaded bytestop
- IEC 61400-1_1999-02Uploaded byClaudio Sampaio
- UntitledUploaded byapi-163943532
- 434-7.pdfUploaded byVidaflor Cabada Lara
- 42327Uploaded byboroumand