## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**3, SEPTEMBER 2006 717
**

Simulation Model of Wind Turbine 3p Torque

Oscillations due to Wind Shear and Tower Shadow

Dale S. L. Dolan, Student Member, IEEE, and Peter W. Lehn, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—To determine the control structures and possible

power quality issues, the dynamic torque generated by the blades

of a wind turbine must be represented. This paper presents an

analytical formulation of the generated aerodynamic torque of a

three-bladed wind turbine including the effects of wind shear and

tower shadow. The comprehensive model includes turbine-speciﬁc

parameters such as radius, height, and tower dimensions, as well

as the site-speciﬁc parameter, the wind shear exponent. The model

proves the existence of a 3p pulsation due to wind shear and ex-

plains why it cannot be easily identiﬁed in ﬁeld measurements. The

proportionality constant between the torque and the wind speed is

determined allowing direct aerodynamic torque calculation from

an equivalent wind speed. It is shown that the tower shadow effect

is more dominant than the wind shear effect in determining the dy-

namic torque, although there is a small dc reduction in the torque

oscillation due to wind shear. The model is suitable for real-time

wind turbine simulation or other time domain simulation of wind

turbines in power systems.

Index Terms—Real-time digital simulation, simulation model,

torque oscillations, tower shadow, wind shear, wind turbine.

I. INTRODUCTION

T

ORQUE and power generated by a wind turbine is much

more variable than that produced by more conventional

generators. The sources of these power ﬂuctuations are due

both to stochastic processes that determine the wind speeds at

different times and heights, and to periodic processes. These

periodic processes are largely due to two effects termed wind

shear and tower shadow. The term wind shear is used to de-

scribe the variation of wind speed with height while the term

tower shadow describes the redirection of wind due to the tower

structure. In three-bladed turbines, the most common [1] and

largest [2] periodic power pulsations occur at what is known as

a 3p frequency. This is three times the rotor frequency, or the

same frequency at which the blades pass by the tower. Thus,

even for a constant wind speed at a particular height, a tur-

bine blade would encounter variable wind as it rotates. Torque

pulsations and, therefore power pulsations, are observed due to

the periodic variations of wind speed experienced at different

locations.

Torque oscillations have been noted in several studies. It has

been stated that maximum torque and power were noted when

any individual blade was positioned directly downwards [3],

although Thiringer [1] was unable to certify the dependence of

Manuscript received March 31, 2005. Paper no. TEC-00137-2005.

The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer En-

gineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G4, Canada (e-mail:

dale.dolan@utoronto.ca; lehn@ecf.utoronto.ca).

Digital Object Identiﬁer 10.1109/TEC.2006.874211

the oscillation on wind shear. It is believed that tower shadow

is also a source of the 3p oscillations observed in wind turbines

although studies [1], [2] are unable to conﬁrm this.

The 3p oscillations are important to model since they could

have wide ranging effects on control systems and power quality.

In systems connected directly to the grid, these torque oscil-

lations would be important to model in terms of grid power

quality. For systems interfaced to the grid through converters,

these torque oscillations would be more important in terms of

converter control. The torque oscillation model would be useful

in studying these effects via a wind turbine simulator or other

dynamic wind turbine modeling tools. Dynamic wind turbine

models are needed to interface with current power system simu-

lation tools like EMTP or PSCAD/EMTDC[4]. Existing models

use either a simple aerodynamic torque representation, or are

excessively complicated and not viable for incorporation into

EMTP-type simulation tools [5].

Several turbine simulators have been created to model the

wind turbine shaft in laboratory studies. Some simulators are

capable of dynamic simulations [6]–[8] while others are only

capable of performing steady-state simulations [9]. The sim-

ulator may only emulate the elements incorporated into the

model. The simplest and most common approach is to use a ba-

sic steady-state torque equation to calculate wind power and use

this to determine the acceleration on the turbine inertia [9]–[11].

Many of the lab simulators reviewed [8]–[13] did not include

the effects of wind shear or tower shadow, making these simu-

lators unsuitable for studying issues that may arise due to these

effects.

In recent literature, dynamic models of wind turbines have

been used where aerodynamic torque was either represented by

steady-state torque curves [14], [15] or by simple sinusoidal os-

cillations [16]. This paper develops a more complete model of

the wind turbine. The formulation involves a torque model for

the three-bladed turbine that includes the effects of wind shear,

and tower shadow. A pragmatic model appropriate for dynamic

wind turbine modeling tools is not available elsewhere that in-

corporates these effects. The formulation will combine and build

upon previous work to develop such a model. Suitable models

for wind shear and tower shadow will be presented that will be

put into a form from which a total wind ﬁeld over the entire

rotor area may be determined. A method [17] for converting a

wind ﬁeld into one equivalent wind speed will then be brieﬂy re-

viewed. An equivalent wind speed including contributions from

the hub height wind speed, wind shear and tower shadowwill be

calculated. Finally, a completed normalized torque model will

be presented that is suitable for implementation in a real-time

wind turbine simulator or other time domain simulation.

0885-8969/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE

718 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 21, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2006

Fig. 1. Comparison of torque oscillation due to wind shear alone depending

on form of wind shear approximation.

II. WIND SHEAR

Wind speed generally increases with height and this variation

is termed wind shear. Torque pulsations, and therefore power

pulsations, are observed due to the periodic variations of wind

speed seen at different heights. Power and torque oscillate due

to the different wind conditions encountered by each blade as

it rotates through a complete cycle [3]. For instance, a blade

pointing upwards would encounter wind speeds greater than

a blade pointing downwards. During each rotation, the torque

oscillates three times because of each blade passing through

minimum and maximum wind.

It is therefore important to model these wind-shear-induced

3p torque pulsations when studying a wind turbine system. A

common wind shear model, shown as (1), is taken directly from

the literature on wind turbine dynamics [1], [18], [19].

V (z) = V

H

_

z

H

_

α

(1)

For the purpose of this analysis, (1) is converted to a function

of r (radial distance from rotor axis) and θ (azimuthal angle)

giving the following:

V (r, θ) = V

H

_

r cos θ + H

H

_

α

= V

H

[1 + W

s

(r, θ)] (2)

where V

H

is the wind speed at hub height, r is the radial distance

from rotor axis, W

s

is the wind-shear-shape function [18], α is

the empirical wind shear exponent, H is the elevation of rotor

hub, and z is the elevation above ground. The term W

s

(r, θ) is

the disturbance seen in wind speed due to wind shear that is

added to hub height wind speed.

Both Spera [18] and Thresher [19] approximated W

s

(r, θ)

by the second-order-truncated Taylor series expansion shown

as follows:

W

s

(r, θ) ≈ α

_

r

H

_

cos θ +

α(α −1)

2

_

r

H

_

2

cos

2

θ (3)

However, as shown in Fig. 1, the truncated expansion of (3)

eliminates, in three-bladed turbines, the torque oscillations due

to the wind shear when the contributions fromeach of the blades

are summed. This is because when the three blade contributions

are summed, the cos θ term yields a zero contribution while the

cos

2

θ termcontributes only a dc component that adjusts average

wind speed from hub height wind speed to spatial mean wind

speed. This can be seen in Fig. 1, where the resulting torque from

the second order approximation becomes constant, completely

losing the properties of the nonlinear wind shear expression. To

effectively model the 3p effect of wind shear, a cos

3

θ term is

necessary, requiring a third-order-truncated Taylor expansion.

Therefore, to model torque oscillations from wind shear, the

approximation used for W

s

(r, θ) should be as follows.

W

s

(r, θ) ≈ α

_

r

H

_

cos θ +

α(α −1)

2

_

r

H

_

2

cos

2

θ

+

α(α −1)(α −2)

6

_

r

H

_

3

cos

3

θ (4)

III. TOWER SHADOW

The distribution of wind is altered by the presence of the

tower. For upwind rotors, the wind directly in front of the tower

is redirected and thereby reduces the torque at each blade when

in front of the tower. This effect is called tower shadow. The

torque pulsations due to tower shadoware most signiﬁcant when

a turbine has blades downwind of the tower and wind is blocked

as opposed to redirected [20]. For this reason, the majority

of modern wind turbines have upwind rotors. This paper will

therefore only deal with the tower shadow torque oscillations

in horizontal axis three-bladed upwind rotors. This section will

show theoretically the 3p oscillations caused by tower shadow.

The wind ﬁeld, only considering tower shadow, is deﬁned as

in (5), where V

H

= hub height wind speed. The termυ

tower

(y, x)

is the disturbance observed in the wind speed due to the tower

shadow that is added to hub height wind speed. Sorensen [17]

modeled tower disturbance using potential ﬂow theory for wind

movement around the tower. Using the reference frames shown

in Fig. 2 yields (6).

V (y, x) = V

H

+ υ

tower

(y, x) (5)

υ

tower

(y, x) = V

0

a

2

y

2

−x

2

(x

2

+ y

2

)

2

(6)

In (6), V

0

is the spatial mean wind speed, a is the tower radius,

y is the lateral distance from the blade to the tower midline, and

x is the distance from the blade origin to the tower midline.

Results for tower radius of 2 mand four different longitudinal

distances between the tower and the blades are shown in Fig. 3.

It can be seen that as expected, the tower shadow effect is

more pronounced when the blades are closer (x smaller) to the

tower.

An alternate tower-shadow-deﬁcit model (7) is developed

in [21] and shown as follows:

υ

tower

(y, x) = −V

0

D

2π

x

(x

2

+ y

2

)

(7)

where D is the tower diameter, y is the lateral distance from

the blade to the tower midline, x is the distance from the blade

DOLAN AND LEHN: SIMULATION MODEL OF WIND TURBINE 3P TORQUE OSCILLATIONS DUE TO WIND SHEAR AND TOWER SHADOW 719

Fig. 2. Dimensions used in tower shadow formula.

Fig. 3. Comparison of tower shadow model (6) with different distances be-

tween the tower and the blades.

origin to the tower midline, and V

0

is the spatial mean wind

speed. Results for this alternate model with a tower radius of

2 m and four different longitudinal distances between the tower

and the blades are shown in Fig. 4.

Comparison of the two models graphically shows that a more

reasonable model is represented by (6), as it models both the

deceleration of the wind ﬂow in front of the tower and the ac-

celeration of the wind ﬂow on each side of the tower. Therefore,

for modeling torque oscillations due to tower shadow, (6) is

preferable and will be used in subsequent model development.

Different reference wind speeds are used in models for the

disturbance due to wind shear and tower shadow. The wind shear

model uses hub height wind speed (V

H

) while the tower shadow

model uses spatial mean wind speed (V

0

). The relationship

between these two wind speeds is formulated in Appendix and

Fig. 4. Comparison of tower shadow model (7) with different distances be-

tween the tower and the blades.

Fig. 5. Variation of m = V

0

/V

H

with α for different R/H ratios.

is summarized in Fig. 5. Most often for time-domain simulation,

only a single wind speed value, V

H

, is available. V

0

would

require calculation from an entire spatial wind ﬁeld that would

normally be unavailable. Therefore, for all practical purposes, in

the torque oscillation model, tower disturbance will be expressed

in terms of V

H

. Converting (6) from a function of y (lateral

distance) to a function of r (radial distance) and θ (azimuthal

angle) normalized to V

H

yields as follows:

˜ υ

tower

(r, θ, x) = ma

2

r

2

sin

2

(θ) −x

2

(r

2

sin

2

(θ) + x

2

)

2

(8)

where a is the tower radius, r is the radial distance from the

blade to the hub center, θ is the azimuthal angle of the blade,

x is the distance from the blade origin to the tower midline,

and m = [1 +

α(α−1)(R

2

)

8H

2

] as developed in Appendix. It should

be noted that (8) is only valid for 90

◦

≤ θ ≤ 270

◦

as above the

horizontal, tower shadow effects should obviously be absent.

720 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 21, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2006

Fig. 6. Comparison of tower shadow at different radii based on a tower with

1.7-m diameter and blades 2.9 m from tower midline.

Fig. 6 shows the variation in the effective tower shadow angle

experienced by different blade elements at varying radial dis-

tances. It is observed that the blade elements closer to the hub

experience tower shadow for a longer period, although the same

wind deﬁcit is seen for all blade elements at an angle of 180

◦

.

IV. DETERMINATION OF TOTAL WIND FIELD—v(t, r, θ)

To determine the total wind ﬁeld, the results of (4) and (8)

from Sections II and III are combined. The total wind ﬁeld due

to both tower shadow and wind shear is given as follows.

v(t, r, θ) = V

H

(t)[1 + W

s

(r, θ)][1 + ˜ υ

tower

(r, θ, x)] (9)

v(t, r, θ) = V

H

(t)[1 + W

s

(r, θ) + ˜ υ

tower

(r, θ, x)

+ W

s

(r, θ)˜ υ

tower

(r, θ, x)]. (10)

As W

s

(r, θ)˜ υ

tower

(r, θ, x) would be small compared to other

terms, (11) is a valid approximation of (9). This approach is also

supported in the literature [19].

v(t, r, θ) ≈ V

H

(t)[1 + W

s

(r, θ) + ˜ υ

tower

(r, θ, x)] (11)

The spatially varying wind speed can be calculated using the

total wind ﬁeld model of (11) or its expanded version as follows.

v(t, r, θ) ≈V

H

(t)

_

1 +α

_

r

H

_

cos θ +

α(α −1)

2

_

r

H

_

2

cos

2

θ

+

α(α−1)(α−2)

6

_

r

H

_

3

cos

3

θ

+

ma

2

(r

2

sin

2

θ −x

2

)

(r

2

sin

2

θ +x

2

)

2

_

. (12)

This total wind ﬁeld model allows one to determine the wind

speed observed at any particular location in the rotor disk area,

knowing only the turbine parameters, wind shear coefﬁcient and

a single hub height wind speed.

V. EQUIVALENT WIND SPEED FORMULATION BASED ON

EQUIVALENT TORQUE

An effective method for formulating an “equivalent wind

speed” has been developed by Sorensen [17]. The equivalent

wind speed is a representation of the actual spatially varying

wind speed that is deﬁned such that it will give the same aerody-

namic torque. The advantage of this method is that a wind speed

without radial dependence may be used. For clarity and com-

pleteness, Sorensen’s approach is brieﬂy outlined in this section.

The aerodynamic torque produced by a three-bladed wind

turbine immersed in a wind ﬁeld v(t, r, θ) is given as follows:

T

ae

(t, θ) = 3M(V

0

) +

3

b=1

_

R

r

0

ψ(r)[v(t, r, θ

b

) −V

0

] dr (13)

where T

ae

(t, θ) is the aerodynamic torque, M(V

0

) is the steady-

state blade root moment resulting from spatial mean wind speed

V

0

, R is the radius of the rotor disk, r

0

is the radius at which

blade proﬁle begins, and ψ(r) is the inﬂuence coefﬁcient of

the aerodynamic load on the blade root moment. This equation

has been determined through linearization of individual blade

torque dependence on wind speed [17].

An equivalent wind speed v

eq

(t, θ) that does not vary with

the radius is deﬁned which would give the same aerodynamic

torque as the actual spatially varying wind speed. This v

eq

must

be such that

T

ae

(t, θ) = 3M(V

0

) +

3

b=1

_

R

r

0

ψ(r)[v

eq

(t, θ) −V

0

] dr. (14)

Sorensen determined (15) to be the expression for equivalent

wind speed by equating (13) and (14)

v

eq

(t, θ) =

1

3

3

b=1

_

R

r

0

ψ(r)v(t, r, θ

b

)dr

_

R

r

0

ψ(r) dr

(15)

VI. DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENT WIND SPEED

The total wind ﬁeld including tower shadow and wind shear

effects will now be converted into one equivalent wind speed.

Three components of this equivalent wind speed will be sep-

arated and solved individually such that the effects from the

hub height wind speed, wind shear, and tower shadow may be

observed separately.

Assuming ψ(r) = kr, and deﬁning n =

r

0

R

and s = 1 −n

2

,

the total wind ﬁeld (11) may be inserted into (15) to yield (16)

after some initial simpliﬁcation.

v

eq

(t, θ) =

2V

H

3sR

2

3

b=1

_

R

r

0

_

r +

r

2

α

H

cos θ

b

+

r

3

α(α −1)

2H

2

cos

2

θ

b

+

r

4

α(α−1)(α−2)

6H

3

cos

3

θ

b

+

ma

2

(r

3

sin

2

θ

b

−rx

2

)

(r

2

sin

2

θ

b

+x

2

)

2

_

dr. (16)

This equivalent wind speed will have three components. The

ﬁrst (v

eq

0

) is due to the hub height wind speed, the second

(v

eq

ws

) is due to the wind shear, and the third (v

eq

ts

) is due to

DOLAN AND LEHN: SIMULATION MODEL OF WIND TURBINE 3P TORQUE OSCILLATIONS DUE TO WIND SHEAR AND TOWER SHADOW 721

Fig. 7. Normalized equivalent wind speed due to tower shadow (v

eq

ts

+

v

eq

0

), wind shear (v

eq

ws

+ v

eq

0

), and combination of wind shear and tower

shadow (v

eq

0

+ v

eq

ts

+ v

eq

ws

).

the tower shadow. Therefore, (16) can be decomposed as (17)

whose components are shown as (18)–(20).

v

eq

(t, θ) = v

eq

0

+ v

eq

ws

+ v

eq

ts

(17)

v

eq

0

=

2V

H

3sR

2

3

b=1

_

R

r

0

[r] dr (18)

v

eq

ws

=

2V

H

3sR

2

3

b=1

_

R

r

0

_

r

2

α

H

cos θ

b

+

r

3

α(α −1)

2H

2

cos

2

θ

b

+

r

4

α(α −1)(α −2)

6H

3

cos

3

θ

b

_

dr (19)

v

eq

ts

=

2V

H

3sR

2

3

b=1

_

R

r

0

_

ma

2

(r

3

sin

2

θ

b

−rx

2

)

(r

2

sin

2

θ

b

+ x

2

)

2

_

dr. (20)

Using the results derived in this section, the normalized

equivalent wind speeds were determined for a turbine with

the following representative speciﬁcations: R = 20, H = 40,

α = 0.3, a = 0.85, and x = 2.9. The normalized equivalent

wind speed, caused by the tower shadow and the wind shear

both together and individually, of this conﬁguration are shown

in Fig. 7. It is seen that the effect of the tower shadow is more

dominant than the effect of the wind shear.

A. Solving for v

eq

0

This brief section will calculate the component of the equiv-

alent wind speed that is due to the steady-state hub height wind

speed. As expected and shown by (22), this component is simply

equal to the hub height wind speed, V

H

. It can be seen that this

result is independent of the values of r

0

, n, and s.

v

eq

0

=

2V

H

3sR

2

3

b=1

_

sR

2

2

_

dr (21)

v

eq

0

= V

H

. (22)

B. Solving for v

eq

ws

The component of the equivalent wind speed that is due to

the wind shear is calculated in this section and is given as (28).

Through numerical analysis, it was found that for a conservative

estimate of r

0

= 0.1R, that v

eq

ws

was comparable to the case

where r

0

= 0. Therefore, for the development, r

0

will be taken

as equal to 0 to simplify equations allowing n = 0 and s = 1.

If desired, a true value of r

0

may be used without much more

computational effort.

v

eq

ws

=

2V

H

3R

2

3

b=1

_

R

3

3

α

H

cos θ

b

+

R

4

4

α(α −1)

2H

2

cos

2

θ

b

+

R

5

5

α(α −1)(α −2)

6H

3

cos

3

θ

b

_

. (23)

To further simplify (23), expressions for the sums must be

developed. Using trigonometric identities and the angle deﬁni-

tions shown in (24), these sums are determined and shown in

the form of (25)–(27) as follows.

θ = θ

1

, θ

2

= θ

1

+

2π

3

and θ

3

= θ

1

+

4π

3

(24)

3

b=1

[cos θ

b

] = 0 (25)

3

b=1

[cos

2

θ

b

] =

3

2

(26)

3

b=1

[cos

3

θ

b

] =

3

4

cos 3θ. (27)

We can now substitute (25)–(27) into (23) to yield the ﬁ-

nal expression for equivalent wind speed due to wind shear as

follows:

v

eq

ws

= V

H

_

α(α −1)

8

_

R

H

_

2

+

α(α −1)(α −2)

60

_

R

H

_

3

cos 3θ

_

. (28)

The normalized equivalent wind speed caused by the wind

shear added to equivalent wind speed due to hub height wind

speed (v

eq

ws

+ v

eq

0

) is shown in Fig. 7. It can be observed

that this has a minimum when one blade is pointed directly

downwards but is a relatively small effect (1%). It is also

seen that there is a reduction in the equivalent wind speed due to

wind shear when normalized to V

H

. In this case this depression

is ≈0.5%.

C. Solving for v

eq

ts

The component of the equivalent wind speed that is due to

the tower shadow is calculated and is given in its ﬁnal form

as (30). The formulation begins by performing the integration

722 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 21, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2006

within (20) to yield (29).

v

eq

ts

=

2mV

H

3sR

2

3

b=1

_

a

2

ln (R

2

sin

2

θ

b

+ x

2

)

2 sin

2

θ

b

−

a

2

ln

_

r

2

0

sin

2

θ

b

+ x

2

_

2 sin

2

θ

b

+

a

2

x

2

sin

2

θ

b

(R

2

sin

2

θ

b

+x

2

)

−

a

2

x

2

sin

2

θ

b

_

r

2

0

sin

2

θ

b

+x

2

_

_

.

(29)

Numerical evaluation shows that (29) gives nearly identical

results with r

0

= 0.1R and r

0

= 0. Therefore, to further sim-

plify (29), it will be assumed that r

0

= 0 and therefore s = 1.

This allows for the simpliﬁcation of (29) to (30).

v

eq

ts

=

mV

H

3R

2

3

b=1

_

a

2

sin

2

θ

b

ln

_

R

2

sin

2

θ

b

x

2

+ 1

_

−

2a

2

R

2

R

2

sin

2

θ

b

+ x

2

_

. (30)

The normalized equivalent wind speed caused by the tower

shadowadded to the equivalent wind speed due to the hub height

wind speed (v

eq

ts

+ v

eq

0

) is shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that

this has a minimum when a blade is directly downwards and at

≈3%, is much larger than the effect from the wind shear.

VII. EXTRACTION OF FUNCTION ψ(r)

A typical distribution of aerodynamic load can assume that

ψ(r) is proportional to r [17]. However, to use the equivalent

wind speed to calculate torque oscillations the proportionality

constant must be known. This value is not speciﬁed in the litera-

ture and thus must be determined. To extract the proportionality

constant we must linearize the classic torque equation’s (31)

dependence on wind speed. Since (13) is itself derived through

linearization, this may be done without additional loss of gener-

ality. We use an operating point around V

0

, since the steady-state

torque depends on the spatial mean wind speed.

T

ae

(t, θ) =

1

2

ρAV

2

R

C

p

(λ)

λ

. (31)

Linearizing (31), we get (32), where V

0

is the spatial mean

wind speed and λ

0

is the tip speed ratio at V

0

.

T

ae

(t, θ) = T

ae

(t, θ)

¸

¸

¸

¸

V =V

0

λ=λ

0

+

∂T

ae

(t, θ)

∂V

¸

¸

¸

¸

V =V

0

λ=λ

0

∆V

=

1

2

ρAV

0

2

R

C

p

(λ

0

)

λ

0

+ ρAV

0

R

C

p

(λ

0

)

λ

0

∆V. (32)

Deﬁning n =

r

0

R

and s = 1 −n

2

, and with ∆V =

v

eq

(t, θ) −V

0

, (14) may now be transformed to (34).

T

ae

(t, θ) = 3M(V

0

) +

3

b=1

_

R

r

0

kr∆V dr (33)

T

ae

(t) = 3M(V

0

) + 3k

sR

2

2

∆V. (34)

Equating (32) and (34) yields two new important results,

shown as follows.

3M(V

0

) =

1

2

ρAV

2

0

R

C

p

(λ

0

)

λ

0

(35)

k =

2ρAV

0

3sR

C

p

(λ

0

)

λ

0

. (36)

The ﬁrst result (35) shows that the addition of the steady-state

blade root moments over the three blades [3M(V

0

)] is equivalent

to the classic torque equation (31) at a particular wind speed. The

second result (36) gives the proportionality constant between

the torque deviation from the steady-state torque and the wind

speed deviation from the average wind speed. This new result

is important since it allows direct calculation of aerodynamic

torque from equivalent wind speed.

VIII. TORQUE OSCILLATIONS

With the three formulations of equivalent wind speed com-

ponents, the overall torque oscillations can now be modeled.

Using the linearized aerodynamic torque relation (34) and

allowing ∆V = v

eq

(t, θ) −V

0

and V

0

= mV

H

, we get the

following results:

T

ae

(t, θ) = 3M(V

0

) +

3ksR

2

2

[v

eq

(t, θ) −V

0

] (37)

T

ae

(t, θ) = 3M(V

0

) +

3ksR

2

2

×[v

eq

ws

+ v

eq

ts

+ V

H

−mV

H

]. (38)

Normalizing (38) to torque at wind speed V

0

, we get the

expression

T

ae

(t, θ) = 1 +

2

mV

H

[v

eq

ws

+ v

eq

ts

+ (1 −m)V

H

]. (39)

Using the end result of the formulation (39), the torque os-

cillations were determined for a turbine with the following rep-

resentative speciﬁcations: R = 20, H = 40, α = 0.3, a = 0.85,

and x = 2.9. As an illustration of possible results of the mod-

eling, the normalized torque oscillations due to wind shear and

tower shadow alone, as well as the total torque oscillations of

this conﬁguration are shown in Fig. 8. Again it is observed that

the effects of wind shear on the total aerodynamic torque are

much smaller than those due to tower shadow, although they do

reshape the curve in regions. It is observed that both the oscil-

lations due to wind shear and tower shadow have a minimum

when one blade is pointed directly downwards and a maximum

when one blade is pointing directly upwards. The wind shear

effect is relatively small (1%), while the effect of the tower

shadow is much larger, in this case approximately 6% of the

total aerodynamic torque. It is also seen that there is a small

(≈1%) negative dc offset in the torque oscillation due to wind

shear. This offset seems to disappear in the total torque. This is

due to the normalization by a steady-state torque that occurs at

V

0

. As this dc offset is already contained in the 3M(V

0

) term of

(38), its duplication in the wind shear term is corrected for by

the (1 −m)V

H

term.

Dependence of the total 3p pulsation on wind shear exponent

(α) and dependence of wind-shear-induced 3p pulsation on

DOLAN AND LEHN: SIMULATION MODEL OF WIND TURBINE 3P TORQUE OSCILLATIONS DUE TO WIND SHEAR AND TOWER SHADOW 723

Fig. 8. Resulting normalized aerodynamic torque due to wind shear (1 +

2

mV

H

v

eq

ws

), tower shadow (1 +

2

mV

H

v

eq

ts

), and combination of wind shear

and tower shadow (1 +

2

mV

H

v

eq

ts

+

2

mV

H

v

eq

ws

+

2(1−m)

m

).

Fig. 9 Relative magnitude (per unit mean torque) of 3p pulsation as a function

of wind shear exponent (α).

α is shown in Fig. 9. As observed in the graph, although a

correlation is seen between α and the wind-shear-induced 3p

pulsation, no signiﬁcant correlation is observed between α and

the total 3p pulsation.

IX. DISCUSSION

The torque model gives two particularly interesting results.

The ﬁrst is that the tower shadow effects are much more dom-

inant than are the wind shear effects. The second is that the

maximum torque is observed when a blade is pointing directly

upwards. The modeled torque oscillations clearly depend on

turbine parameters R, H, a, and x and site parameter α. The

wind shear component of the oscillations depends on R, H, and

α and the tower shadow component of the oscillations depends

mainly on R, a, and x.

The wind shear exponent obviously has an effect on the torque

oscillations due to wind shear. However, as seen in Fig. 9, there

is not a signiﬁcant correlation between α and the total 3p pul-

sation. This is due to the wind-shear-induced component being

approximately only 5% of the tower-shadow-induced compo-

nent. This explains why Thiringer was unable to ﬁnd a good

correlation between α and measured 3p pulsation [1].

In Fig. 9, maximal oscillations occur at a value of α = 0.423,

where the oscillations are approximately 50% larger than those

observed for a typical value of α, such as that used to generate

Fig. 8. As seen in the ﬁgure, this would still result in a very small

oscillation. For wind shear, the actual magnitude of Rand H are

not critical as it is only their ratio that has an effect. Typically,

2

5

≤

R

H

≤

2

3

. The higher the ratio, the greater the effect the wind

shear would have as there is a wider range of wind speeds that

the blade experiences in a rotation. For a ratio of

2

3

, the torque

oscillation is ﬁve times larger than that observed for a ratio of

2

5

. However, combining the effects of these two parameters to

yield maximal torque oscillations still only amounts to a peak

value of approximately 0.4% of steady-state torque. Although

this torque oscillation is a relatively small one compared to

the tower-shadow-induced oscillations, it is still included in the

pragmatic model. This is done for three reasons. First, the effect

is quite easy to include as it can be represented in a closed form

expression. Second the model also contributes a dc component

that modiﬁes the average torque, and lastly the torque oscillation

reshapes the curve at the peak torque.

For tower shadow, the actual radius of the turbine, indepen-

dent of height, is important. A larger turbine radius results

in both a narrower angle where a torque reduction is seen as

well as a slightly smaller reduction in overall torque. As can

be easily observed by the formula for equivalent wind speed

due to the tower shadow (30), the radius of the tower has a

squared relationship with total torque disturbance. Doubling of

the tower radius will give a fourfold increase in torque distur-

bance. The distance from the tower (x) is also an important fac-

tor. The closer the blades are to the tower, the larger the effect of

the tower shadow.

X. CONCLUSION

Acomprehensive yet pragmatic torque model has been devel-

oped for the three-bladed wind turbine. The model proves the ex-

istence of wind-shear-induced 3p oscillations and demonstrates

that in practice, their presence is masked by the much larger

tower-shadow-induced oscillations. It is determined that max-

imum torque is seen when a blade is pointing directly upwards

for both wind shear and tower shadow effects. The modeled

torque oscillations depend mostly on R, a, and x, as these are

related to tower shadow. Although wind shear causes small 3p

oscillations, it also contributes approximately a 1%dc reduction

in average torque. The proportionality constant between wind

speed variations and torque oscillations is determined, allowing

direct aerodynamic torque calculation from an equivalent wind

speed. This model is a useful representation of the aerodynamic

torque of a wind turbine for use in real-time wind turbine simu-

lators and other dynamic-model-simulation-based applications.

724 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 21, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2006

APPENDIX

Arelationship between spatial average wind speed V

0

and hub

height wind speed V

H

is required such that tower shadow and

wind shear formulas can be combined with only one wind speed

term. To calculate spatial average wind speed V

0

, the varying

wind speed from wind shear is integrated over rotor area and

divided by the total rotor area.

V

0

=

1

πR

2

_

2π

0

_

R

0

V

H

[1 + W

s

(r, θ)]r dr dθ (40)

V

0

=

1

πR

2

_

2π

0

_

R

0

V

H

_

1 + α(

r

H

) cos θ

+

α(α −1)

2

_

r

H

_

2

cos

2

θ

+

α(α −1)(α −2)

6

_

r

H

_

3

cos

3

θ

_

r dr dθ (41)

V

0

=

V

H

πR

2

_

R

0

_

2πr +

πα(α −1)r

3

2H

2

_

dr (42)

V

0

=

V

H

πR

2

_

2π

R

2

2

+

πα(α −1)R

4

8H

2

_

(43)

V

0

= V

H

_

1 +

α(α −1)(R

2

)

8H

2

_

= mV

H

. (44)

In (40)–(44), V

H

is the wind speed at hub height, R is the

blade radius, α is the empirical wind shear exponent, and H is

the elevation of rotor hub.

It is shown in Fig. 5 that 0.986 <

V

0

V

H

≤ 1, for

R

H

< 0.67 and

0.1 < α ≤ 1. Therefore, for most cases a simpliﬁcation that

V

0

= V

H

is justiﬁed. For more accuracy (44) can be used.

REFERENCES

[1] T. Thiringer and J.-A. Dahlberg, “Periodic pulsations from a three-bladed

wind turbine,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 16, pp. 128–133, Jun.

2001.

[2] T. Thiringer, “Power quality measurements performed on a low-voltage

grid equipped with two wind turbines,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,

vol. 11, pp. 601–606, Sep. 1996.

[3] S. B. Bayne and M. G. Giesselmann, “Effect of blade passing on a wind

turbine output,” in Proc. Energy Conversion Engineering Conf. Exhib.,

(IECEC) 35th Intersociety, Jul. 2000, vol. 2, pp. 775–781.

[4] J. G. Slootweg, S. W. H. de Haan, H. Polinder, and W. L. Kling, “General

model for representing variable speed wind turbines in power system

dynamics simulations,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 144–

151, Feb. 2003.

[5] T. Petru and T. Thiringer, “Modeling of wind turbines for power system

studies,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1132–1139, Nov.

2002.

[6] D. S. L. Dolan, “Real-time wind turbine emulator suitable for power

quality and dynamic control studies” MASc. thesis, Dept. Electr. Comput.

Eng., Univ. Toronto, Toronto, 2005.

[7] D. S. L. Dolan and P. W. Lehn, “Real-time wind turbine emulator suit-

able for power quality and dynamic control studies,” presented at the Int.

Conf. Power Systems Transients, IPST05, Montreal, Canada, Jun. 19–23

2005.

[8] R. Cardenas, R. Pena, G. M. Asher, and J. C. Clare, “Experimental em-

ulation of wind turbines and ﬂywheels for wind energy applications,”

presented at the EPE Conf., Graz, Austria, Aug. 2001.

[9] L. Chang, R. Doraiswami, T. Boutot, and H. Kojabadi, “Development of

a wind turbine simulator for wind energy conversion systems,” in Proc.

Canadian IEEECCECE2000, vol. 1, Halifax, Canada, 2000, pp. 550–554.

[10] F. A. Farret, R. Gules, and J. Marian, “Micro-turbine simulator based on

speed and torque of a dc motor to drive actually loaded generators,” in

Proc. 1995 First IEEE Int. Caracas Conf. Devices, Circuits Syst., 1995,

pp. 89–93.

[11] P. E. Battaiotto, R. J. Mantz, and P. F. Puleston, “A wind turbine emulator

based on a dual DSP processor system,” Contr. Eng. Pract., vol. 4,

pp. 1261–1266, 1996.

[12] D. Parker, “Computer based real-time simulator for renewable energy

converters,” in Proc. First IEEE International Workshop on Electronic

Design, Test and Applications, Jan. 2002, pp. 280–284.

[13] Y. Matsumoto, H. Umida, and S. Ozaki, “Dynamic simulator of the

mechanical system,” in Proc. IECON, Oct. 1991, vol. 1, pp. 527–

532.

[14] J. B. Ekanayake, L. Holdsworth, W. XueGuang, and N. Jenkins, “Dynamic

modeling of doubly fed induction generator wind turbines,” IEEE Trans.

Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 803–809, May 2003.

[15] D. J. Trudnowski, A. Gentile, J. M. Khan, and E. M. Petritz, “Fixed-

speed wind-generator and wind-park modeling for transient stability stud-

ies,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1911–1917, Nov.

2003.

[16] J. Cidras and A. E. Feijoo, “A linear dynamic model for asynchronous

wind turbines with mechanical ﬂuctuations,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,

vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 681–687, Aug. 2002.

[17] P. Sorensen, A. D. Hansen, and P. A. C. Rosas, “Wind models for simula-

tion of power ﬂuctuations from wind farms,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerody-

nam., vol. 90, pp. 1381–1402, Dec. 2002.

[18] D. A. Spera, Wind Turbine Technology. New York: ASME Press, 1994.

[19] R. W. Thresher, A. D. Wright, and E. L. Hershberg, “A computer analysis

of wind turbine blade dynamic loads,” ASME J. Solar Energy Eng.,

vol. 108, pp. 17–25, 1986.

[20] E. N. Hinrichsen and P. J. Nolan, “Dynamics and stability of wind turbine

generators,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. 101, pp. 2640–2648,

Aug. 1982.

[21] O. Garcia. (1998). Wind Turbine Dynamic Modelling, [Online]. Available:

www.iit.upco.es/oscar/download/model.ps

Dale S. L. Dolan (S’05) received the B.Sc. (Honors)

degree in biology and B.Ed. degree from the Uni-

versity of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada, in

1995 and 1997, respectively. He received the BASc.

and MASc. degrees fromthe Department of Electrical

and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto,

Toronto, in 2003 and 2005, respectively, both in elec-

trical engineering. He is currently working toward

the Ph.D. degree at the Department of Electrical and

Computer Engineering, University of Toronto.

His research interests include wind turbine emu-

lation, alternative energy conversion systems, power electronics, and electro-

magnetics.

Peter W. Lehn (S’95–M’99–SM’05) received the

B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the University of Man-

itoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, in 1990 and 1992, re-

spectively, both in electrical engineering. He received

the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the

University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, in 1999.

From 1992 to 1994, he was with the Network

Planning Group of Siemens AG, Erlangen, Germany.

Currently, he is working as an Associate Professor at

the University of Toronto.

as shown in Fig. Torque pulsations. For upwind rotors. H is the elevation of rotor hub. Power and torque oscillate due to the different wind conditions encountered by each blade as it rotates through a complete cycle [3]. θ) ≈ α α(α − 1) r 2 r cos θ + cos2 θ H 2 H α(α − 1)(α − 2) r 3 + cos3 θ (4) 6 H III. is deﬁned as in (5). x) = −V0 x D 2π (x2 + y 2 ) (7) where D is the tower diameter. θ)] (2) where VH is the wind speed at hub height. For instance. 1.718 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION. For this reason. VOL. Comparison of torque oscillation due to wind shear alone depending on form of wind shear approximation. x) = VH + υtower (y. where the resulting torque from the second order approximation becomes constant. This effect is called tower shadow. θ) should be as follows. Sorensen [17] modeled tower disturbance using potential ﬂow theory for wind movement around the tower. [19]. the approximation used for Ws (r. 1. x) is the disturbance observed in the wind speed due to the tower shadow that is added to hub height wind speed. shown as (1). To effectively model the 3p effect of wind shear. 3. in three-bladed turbines. the tower shadow effect is more pronounced when the blades are closer (x smaller) to the tower. It can be seen that as expected. a blade pointing upwards would encounter wind speeds greater than a blade pointing downwards. θ) ≈ α cos θ + H 2 H However. y is the lateral distance from the blade to the tower midline. the truncated expansion of (3) eliminates. During each rotation. This section will show theoretically the 3p oscillations caused by tower shadow. requiring a third-order-truncated Taylor expansion. This paper will therefore only deal with the tower shadow torque oscillations in horizontal axis three-bladed upwind rotors. Ws (r. θ) by the second-order-truncated Taylor series expansion shown as follows: r α(α − 1) r 2 cos2 θ (3) Ws (r. only considering tower shadow. α is the empirical wind shear exponent. Both Spera [18] and Thresher [19] approximated Ws (r. y is the lateral distance from the blade to the tower midline. Using the reference frames shown in Fig. The term υtower (y. x is the distance from the blade . V0 is the spatial mean wind speed. the torque oscillates three times because of each blade passing through minimum and maximum wind. It is therefore important to model these wind-shear-induced 3p torque pulsations when studying a wind turbine system. The term Ws (r. This can be seen in Fig. and therefore power pulsations. z α (1) V (z) = VH H For the purpose of this analysis. where VH = hub height wind speed. V (y. the wind directly in front of the tower is redirected and thereby reduces the torque at each blade when in front of the tower. completely losing the properties of the nonlinear wind shear expression. [18]. 2 yields (6). The torque pulsations due to tower shadow are most signiﬁcant when a turbine has blades downwind of the tower and wind is blocked as opposed to redirected [20]. 1. are observed due to the periodic variations of wind speed seen at different heights. (1) is converted to a function of r (radial distance from rotor axis) and θ (azimuthal angle) giving the following: V (r. WIND SHEAR Wind speed generally increases with height and this variation is termed wind shear. a is the tower radius. A common wind shear model. θ) = VH r cos θ + H H α = VH [1 + Ws (r. is taken directly from the literature on wind turbine dynamics [1]. the torque oscillations due In (6). x) υtower (y. and z is the elevation above ground. NO. 3. θ) is the disturbance seen in wind speed due to wind shear that is added to hub height wind speed. 21. the majority of modern wind turbines have upwind rotors. the cos θ term yields a zero contribution while the cos2 θ term contributes only a dc component that adjusts average wind speed from hub height wind speed to spatial mean wind speed. a cos3 θ term is necessary. SEPTEMBER 2006 to the wind shear when the contributions from each of the blades are summed. and x is the distance from the blade origin to the tower midline. to model torque oscillations from wind shear. This is because when the three blade contributions are summed. Results for tower radius of 2 m and four different longitudinal distances between the tower and the blades are shown in Fig. An alternate tower-shadow-deﬁcit model (7) is developed in [21] and shown as follows: υtower (y. r is the radial distance from rotor axis. II. Ws is the wind-shear-shape function [18]. Therefore. TOWER SHADOW The distribution of wind is altered by the presence of the tower. The wind ﬁeld. x) = V0 a2 y 2 − x2 (x2 + y 2 )2 (5) (6) Fig.

Comparison of tower shadow model (6) with different distances between the tower and the blades. 5. Therefore.DOLAN AND LEHN: SIMULATION MODEL OF WIND TURBINE 3P TORQUE OSCILLATIONS DUE TO WIND SHEAR AND TOWER SHADOW 719 Fig. θ. (6) is preferable and will be used in subsequent model development. 2. Fig. 4. Results for this alternate model with a tower radius of 2 m and four different longitudinal distances between the tower and the blades are shown in Fig. and V0 is the spatial mean wind speed. . 2 and m = [1 + α (α −1)(R ) ] as developed in Appendix. in the torque oscillation model. Comparison of tower shadow model (7) with different distances between the tower and the blades. VH . θ is the azimuthal angle of the blade. x is the distance from the blade origin to the tower midline. tower shadow effects should obviously be absent. Most often for time-domain simulation. Converting (6) from a function of y (lateral distance) to a function of r (radial distance) and θ (azimuthal angle) normalized to VH yields as follows: υtower (r. The wind shear model uses hub height wind speed (VH ) while the tower shadow model uses spatial mean wind speed (V0 ). The relationship between these two wind speeds is formulated in Appendix and is summarized in Fig. Comparison of the two models graphically shows that a more reasonable model is represented by (6). V0 would require calculation from an entire spatial wind ﬁeld that would normally be unavailable. Different reference wind speeds are used in models for the disturbance due to wind shear and tower shadow. only a single wind speed value. as it models both the deceleration of the wind ﬂow in front of the tower and the acceleration of the wind ﬂow on each side of the tower. 5. Fig. for all practical purposes. for modeling torque oscillations due to tower shadow. x) = ma2 ˜ r2 sin2 (θ) − x2 (r2 sin2 (θ) + x2 )2 (8) where a is the tower radius. origin to the tower midline. 4. Dimensions used in tower shadow formula. Fig. r is the radial distance from the blade to the hub center. Variation of m = V 0 /V H with α for different R/H ratios. is available. Therefore. It should 8H 2 be noted that (8) is only valid for 90◦ ≤ θ ≤ 270◦ as above the horizontal. 3. tower disturbance will be expressed in terms of VH .

θ) = 2VH 3sR2 + 3 R υ As Ws (r. although the same wind deﬁcit is seen for all blade elements at an angle of 180◦ . DETERMINATION OF TOTAL WIND FIELD—v(t. θ) = VH (t)[1 + Ws (r. knowing only the turbine parameters. r0 is the radius at which blade proﬁle begins. θ)˜tower (r. the results of (4) and (8) from Sections II and III are combined. (14) Sorensen determined (15) to be the expression for equivalent wind speed by equating (13) and (14) 1 veq (t. R the total wind ﬁeld (11) may be inserted into (15) to yield (16) after some initial simpliﬁcation. 6. Assuming ψ(r) = kr. r. NO. r. θ) + υtower (r. θ)˜tower (r. 21. (r2 sin2 θb + x2 )2 (16) + This total wind ﬁeld model allows one to determine the wind speed observed at any particular location in the rotor disk area.9 m from tower midline. θ) that does not vary with the radius is deﬁned which would give the same aerodynamic torque as the actual spatially varying wind speed. and tower shadow may be observed separately. υ (10) where Tae (t. θb ) − V0 ] dr (13) Fig. and deﬁning n = r 0 and s = 1 − n2 . x)] (11) The spatially varying wind speed can be calculated using the total wind ﬁeld model of (11) or its expanded version as follows. This equivalent wind speed will have three components. 3. veq (t. θ) = 3M (V0 ) + b=1 ψ(r)[veq (t. θ) = 3M (V0 ) + b=1 ψ(r)[v(t. r. This veq must be such that 3 R r0 Tae (t. This equation has been determined through linearization of individual blade torque dependence on wind speed [17]. r. θ. θ) = 3 3 R r0 ψ(r)v(t. The total wind ﬁeld due to both tower shadow and wind shear is given as follows. x)]. x)] (9) v(t. r. θ) To determine the total wind ﬁeld. (11) is a valid approximation of (9). θ) = VH (t)[1 + Ws (r. r. This approach is also supported in the literature [19]. Sorensen’s approach is brieﬂy outlined in this section. θ. (r2 sin2 θ + x2 )2 r4 α(α − 1)(α − 2) 3 cos θb 6H 3 ma2 (r3 sin2 θb − rx2 ) dr. θ. The advantage of this method is that a wind speed without radial dependence may be used. It is observed that the blade elements closer to the hub experience tower shadow for a longer period. the second (veqws ) is due to the wind shear. θ) is the aerodynamic torque. θ) is given as follows: 3 R r0 Tae (t. r. The aerodynamic torque produced by a three-bladed wind turbine immersed in a wind ﬁeld v(t. SEPTEMBER 2006 V. R is the radius of the rotor disk. The ﬁrst (veq0 ) is due to the hub height wind speed. v(t. θ) − V0 ] dr. M (V0 ) is the steadystate blade root moment resulting from spatial mean wind speed V0 . An equivalent wind speed veq (t. VOL.7-m diameter and blades 2. Fig.720 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION. Comparison of tower shadow at different radii based on a tower with 1. θ)][1 + υtower (r. Three components of this equivalent wind speed will be separated and solved individually such that the effects from the hub height wind speed. 6 shows the variation in the effective tower shadow angle experienced by different blade elements at varying radial distances. θ) + υtower (r. IV. ˜ v(t. θ. r. wind shear. ˜ v(t. x) ˜ + Ws (r. θ) ≈ VH (t)[1 + Ws (r. θb )dr R r0 b=1 ψ(r) dr (15) VI. DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENT WIND SPEED The total wind ﬁeld including tower shadow and wind shear effects will now be converted into one equivalent wind speed. and ψ(r) is the inﬂuence coefﬁcient of the aerodynamic load on the blade root moment. x) would be small compared to other terms. θ) ≈ VH (t) 1 + α α(α − 1) r cos θ + H 2 r H 3 r H 2 cos2 θ r+ b=1 r 0 r3 α(α − 1) r2 α cos θb + cos2 θb H 2H 2 α(α − 1)(α − 2) + 6 + cos θ (12) 3 ma2 (r2 sin2 θ − x2 ) . EQUIVALENT WIND SPEED FORMULATION BASED ON EQUIVALENT TORQUE An effective method for formulating an “equivalent wind speed” has been developed by Sorensen [17]. wind shear coefﬁcient and a single hub height wind speed. and the third (veqts ) is due to . The equivalent wind speed is a representation of the actual spatially varying wind speed that is deﬁned such that it will give the same aerodynamic torque. For clarity and completeness. θ.

caused by the tower shadow and the wind shear both together and individually. 4 (26) r4 α(α − 1)(α − 2) + cos3 θb dr 6H 3 veqts = 2VH 3sR2 3 R r0 (19) [cos3 θb ] = b=1 (27) b=1 ma2 (r3 sin2 θb − rx2 ) dr. It is seen that the effect of the tower shadow is more dominant than the effect of the wind shear. and combination of wind shear and tower shadow (v eq0 + v eqts + v eqws ).85. Therefore. C. (r2 sin2 θb + x2 )2 (20) We can now substitute (25)–(27) into (23) to yield the ﬁnal expression for equivalent wind speed due to wind shear as follows: veqws = VH α(α − 1) 8 + R H 2 Using the results derived in this section. The formulation begins by performing the integration . Therefore. it was found that for a conservative estimate of r0 = 0. It can be seen that this result is independent of the values of r0 . α = 0. The component of the equivalent wind speed that is due to the tower shadow is calculated and is given in its ﬁnal form as (30).5%. 7. H = 40. Normalized equivalent wind speed due to tower shadow (v eqts + v eq0 ). 7. and x = 2. Solving for veqts b=1 sR2 dr 2 (21) (22) veq0 = VH . n. VH .3. expressions for the sums must be developed. veq (t. The normalized equivalent wind speed. a true value of r0 may be used without much more computational effort. 5 6H 3 (23) Fig. A. (16) can be decomposed as (17) whose components are shown as (18)–(20). (28) The normalized equivalent wind speed caused by the wind shear added to equivalent wind speed due to hub height wind speed (veqws + veq0 ) is shown in Fig. a = 0. veqws = 2VH 3R2 3 b=1 R3 α R4 α(α − 1) cos θb + cos2 θb 3 H 4 2H 2 + R5 α(α − 1)(α − 2) cos3 θb . θ2 = θ 1 + 3 the tower shadow. this component is simply equal to the hub height wind speed. In this case this depression is ≈0.9. Using trigonometric identities and the angle deﬁnitions shown in (24). of this conﬁguration are shown in Fig. To further simplify (23). the normalized equivalent wind speeds were determined for a turbine with the following representative speciﬁcations: R = 20. Through numerical analysis. and s. It can be observed that this has a minimum when one blade is pointed directly downwards but is a relatively small effect ( 1%). r0 will be taken as equal to 0 to simplify equations allowing n = 0 and s = 1. wind shear (v eqws + v eq0 ). that veqws was comparable to the case where r0 = 0. If desired.1R. veq0 2VH = 3sR2 3 α(α − 1)(α − 2) 60 R H 3 cos 3θ . θ) = veq0 + veqws + veqts veq0 = 2VH 3sR2 3 R (17) (18) 3 2π 3 and θ3 = θ1 + 4π 3 (24) (25) [cos θb ] = 0 [r] dr b=1 3 b=1 3 r0 R r0 veqws 2VH = 3sR2 b=1 r α r α(α − 1) cos θb + cos2 θb H 2H 2 2 [cos2 θb ] = b=1 3 3 2 3 cos 3θ. It is also seen that there is a reduction in the equivalent wind speed due to wind shear when normalized to VH . 7. for the development. these sums are determined and shown in the form of (25)–(27) as follows. Solving for veqws The component of the equivalent wind speed that is due to the wind shear is calculated in this section and is given as (28). θ = θ1 . As expected and shown by (22).DOLAN AND LEHN: SIMULATION MODEL OF WIND TURBINE 3P TORQUE OSCILLATIONS DUE TO WIND SHEAR AND TOWER SHADOW 721 B. Solving for veq0 This brief section will calculate the component of the equivalent wind speed that is due to the steady-state hub height wind speed.

VII. this may be done without additional loss of generality. we get (32). It is observed that both the oscillations due to wind shear and tower shadow have a minimum when one blade is pointed directly downwards and a maximum when one blade is pointing directly upwards. k= VIII. where V0 is the spatial mean wind speed and λ0 is the tip speed ratio at V0 . EXTRACTION OF FUNCTION ψ(r) A typical distribution of aerodynamic load can assume that ψ(r) is proportional to r [17]. 1 Cp (λ) . as well as the total torque oscillations of this conﬁguration are shown in Fig. (36) 3sR λ0 The ﬁrst result (35) shows that the addition of the steady-state blade root moments over the three blades [3M (V0 )] is equivalent to the classic torque equation (31) at a particular wind speed. θ) = 3M (V0 ) + b=1 r0 kr∆V dr sR2 ∆V. (39) mVH Using the end result of the formulation (39). 3. θ) − V0 ] Tae (t. since the steady-state torque depends on the spatial mean wind speed. This allows for the simpliﬁcation of (29) to (30). Dependence of the total 3p pulsation on wind shear exponent (α) and dependence of wind-shear-induced 3p pulsation on . veqts = − + 2mVH 3sR2 a ln 2 3 b=1 a ln (R sin θb + x ) 2 sin2 θb 2 2 2 2 Equating (32) and (34) yields two new important results. This is due to the normalization by a steady-state torque that occurs at V0 . This value is not speciﬁed in the literature and thus must be determined. This offset seems to disappear in the total torque. θ) − V0 and V0 = mVH . As this dc offset is already contained in the 3M (V0 ) term of (38). It is also seen that there is a small (≈1%) negative dc offset in the torque oscillation due to wind shear. and with ∆V = R veq (t. 7. θ) = Tae (t. 2 λ0 λ0 (32) Deﬁning n = r 0 and s = 1 − n2 . H = 40.3. θ) = 1 + [veqws + veqts + (1 − m)VH ]. θ) = 3M (V0 ) + × [veqws 3ksR2 2 + veqts + VH − mVH ]. θ) − V0 . To extract the proportionality constant we must linearize the classic torque equation’s (31) dependence on wind speed. θ) ∂V V =V 0 λ=λ 0 ∆V Cp (λ0 ) Cp (λ0 ) 1 ρAV0 2 R + ρAV0 R ∆V. (30) R2 sin2 θb + x2 2 The normalized equivalent wind speed caused by the tower shadow added to the equivalent wind speed due to the hub height wind speed (veqts + veq0 ) is shown in Fig. veqts = mVH 3R2 3 b=1 R2 sin2 θb a2 ln +1 x2 sin2 θb − 2a R . NO. The wind shear effect is relatively small ( 1%). Using the linearized aerodynamic torque relation (34) and allowing ∆V = veq (t. 8. We use an operating point around V0 . to use the equivalent wind speed to calculate torque oscillations the proportionality constant must be known. θ) = ρAV 2 R 2 λ Linearizing (31). although they do reshape the curve in regions. (31) Tae (t.1R and r0 = 0. the normalized torque oscillations due to wind shear and tower shadow alone. (14) may now be transformed to (34). However. we get the expression 2 Tae (t. its duplication in the wind shear term is corrected for by the (1 − m)VH term. 1 Cp (λ0 ) (35) 3M (V0 ) = ρAV02 R 2 λ0 2ρAV0 Cp (λ0 ) . to further simplify (29).9. Again it is observed that the effects of wind shear on the total aerodynamic torque are much smaller than those due to tower shadow. θ) = V =V 0 λ=λ 0 With the three formulations of equivalent wind speed components. It can be seen that this has a minimum when a blade is directly downwards and at ≈3%. (38) + ∂Tae (t. The second result (36) gives the proportionality constant between the torque deviation from the steady-state torque and the wind speed deviation from the average wind speed. Tae (t. Therefore. a = 0. VOL. we get the following results: 3ksR2 [veq (t. in this case approximately 6% of the total aerodynamic torque. Since (13) is itself derived through linearization. while the effect of the tower shadow is much larger. 21. θ) = 3M (V0 ) + (37) 2 Tae (t. As an illustration of possible results of the modeling. the overall torque oscillations can now be modeled. is much larger than the effect from the wind shear. 3 R Tae (t. α = 0. the torque oscillations were determined for a turbine with the following representative speciﬁcations: R = 20.85. TORQUE OSCILLATIONS 2 2 r0 sin2 θb + x2 2 sin2 θb . and x = 2. it will be assumed that r0 = 0 and therefore s = 1. This new result is important since it allows direct calculation of aerodynamic torque from equivalent wind speed. 2 (33) Tae (t) = 3M (V0 ) + 3k (34) Normalizing (38) to torque at wind speed V0 . a2 x2 a2 x2 − 2 2 sin2 θ + x2 2 sin2 θ + x2 ) sin θb (R sin θb r0 b b 2 (29) Numerical evaluation shows that (29) gives nearly identical results with r0 = 0. SEPTEMBER 2006 within (20) to yield (29).722 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION. shown as follows.

the actual magnitude of R and H are not critical as it is only their ratio that has an effect. However. The closer the blades are to the tower. It is determined that maximum torque is seen when a blade is pointing directly upwards for both wind shear and tower shadow effects. the torque 3 oscillation is ﬁve times larger than that observed for a ratio of 2 5 . 8. For wind shear. Resulting normalized aerodynamic torque due to wind shear (1 + 2 2 m V v eqws ). This model is a useful representation of the aerodynamic torque of a wind turbine for use in real-time wind turbine simulators and other dynamic-model-simulation-based applications. the actual radius of the turbine. The wind shear component of the oscillations depends on R. tower shadow (1 + m V v eqts ). and x. The second is that the maximum torque is observed when a blade is pointing directly upwards. a. A comprehensive yet pragmatic torque model has been developed for the three-bladed wind turbine. as seen in Fig. H. it is still included in the pragmatic model. the effect is quite easy to include as it can be represented in a closed form expression. a. 9. As seen in the ﬁgure. no signiﬁcant correlation is observed between α and the total 3p pulsation. where the oscillations are approximately 50% larger than those observed for a typical value of α. and α and the tower shadow component of the oscillations depends mainly on R. First. Typically. For tower shadow. Second the model also contributes a dc component that modiﬁes the average torque. DISCUSSION The torque model gives two particularly interesting results. it also contributes approximately a 1% dc reduction in average torque. This is done for three reasons. 9. This explains why Thiringer was unable to ﬁnd a good correlation between α and measured 3p pulsation [1]. The wind shear exponent obviously has an effect on the torque oscillations due to wind shear. 2 R 2 5 ≤ H ≤ 3 . and lastly the torque oscillation reshapes the curve at the peak torque. The distance from the tower (x) is also an important factor. the larger the effect of the tower shadow. this would still result in a very small oscillation. the greater the effect the wind shear would have as there is a wider range of wind speeds that the blade experiences in a rotation. 8. This is due to the wind-shear-induced component being approximately only 5% of the tower-shadow-induced component.4% of steady-state torque. m Fig. In Fig. However. The modeled torque oscillations depend mostly on R. For a ratio of 2 . The model proves the existence of wind-shear-induced 3p oscillations and demonstrates that in practice.423. such as that used to generate Fig. X. and x and site parameter α. 9. Although this torque oscillation is a relatively small one compared to the tower-shadow-induced oscillations. The ﬁrst is that the tower shadow effects are much more dominant than are the wind shear effects. 9 Relative magnitude (per unit mean torque) of 3p pulsation as a function of wind shear exponent (α). although a correlation is seen between α and the wind-shear-induced 3p pulsation. independent of height. the radius of the tower has a squared relationship with total torque disturbance. Doubling of the tower radius will give a fourfold increase in torque disturbance. as these are related to tower shadow. A larger turbine radius results in both a narrower angle where a torque reduction is seen as well as a slightly smaller reduction in overall torque. H. a. there is not a signiﬁcant correlation between α and the total 3p pulsation.DOLAN AND LEHN: SIMULATION MODEL OF WIND TURBINE 3P TORQUE OSCILLATIONS DUE TO WIND SHEAR AND TOWER SHADOW 723 Fig. their presence is masked by the much larger tower-shadow-induced oscillations. The proportionality constant between wind speed variations and torque oscillations is determined. Although wind shear causes small 3p oscillations. As can be easily observed by the formula for equivalent wind speed due to the tower shadow (30). The modeled torque oscillations clearly depend on turbine parameters R. combining the effects of these two parameters to yield maximal torque oscillations still only amounts to a peak value of approximately 0. is important. and combination of wind shear H H and tower shadow (1 + 2 m V H v eqts + 2 m V H v eqws + 2(1−m ) ). maximal oscillations occur at a value of α = 0. The higher the ratio. allowing direct aerodynamic torque calculation from an equivalent wind speed. As observed in the graph. . IX. CONCLUSION α is shown in Fig. and x.

[19] R. 2003. A.. he is working as an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto. Lehn. in 1990 and 1992. α is the empirical wind shear exponent. “Modeling of wind turbines for power system studies.. pp. pp. R. pp. C. “Periodic pulsations from a three-bladed wind turbine. and E. J. Farret.” IEEE Trans. 1995. M. no. Dahlberg. Energy Convers. 527– 532. Currently.. and H is the elevation of rotor hub. Cardenas. Dolan (S’05) received the B. Toronto. Canada. “A computer analysis of wind turbine blade dynamic loads. W. Feb. 1132–1139.” presented at the Int. and P. ON. Available: www. Asher. Jul. Rosas. pp. 1996. V0 R It is shown in Fig. Parker. Test and Applications.” IEEE Trans. 1911–1917.. 3. H. Giesselmann.. 1 πR2 1 πR2 + 2π 0 2π 0 0 0 R R V0 = V0 = VH [1 + Ws (r. 4. [14] J. Pena. vol. 1381–1402. respectively. vol. Toronto. pp. Ozaki. Germany. 4. Power App. N. vol. alternative energy conversion systems. and N.Sc. University of Toronto. “Dynamics and stability of wind turbine generators.724 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION. Energy Conversion Engineering Conf. “General model for representing variable speed wind turbines in power system dynamics simulations. Matsumoto. vol. His research interests include wind turbine emulation.” in Proc. “Power quality measurements performed on a low-voltage grid equipped with two wind turbines. Doraiswami. Electr. 89–93. 90. degrees from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. no. pp. 1.986 < V H ≤ 1.” IEEE Trans. pp.” ASME J. [15] D. Erlangen. 775–781. vol. and M. Solar Energy Eng. Power Syst. 1261–1266. 681–687.iit.ps Dale S. 1994. respectively. vol. Ind. Power Syst. He received the Ph. Wright. A. “Wind models for simulation of power ﬂuctuations from wind farms. [5] T. Dolan and P. [7] D. [21] O. Trudnowski. Canada. “Real-time wind turbine emulator suitable for power quality and dynamic control studies. 2002. both in electrical engineering. 11. [2] T. Canadian IEEE CCECE 2000. “Real-time wind turbine emulator suitable for power quality and dynamic control studies” MASc. Holdsworth. Austria. pp. Ekanayake.Ed. no. 2000. Eng. vol. SEPTEMBER 2006 APPENDIX A relationship between spatial average wind speed V0 and hub height wind speed VH is required such that tower shadow and wind shear formulas can be combined with only one wind speed term. Energy Convers. no. vol. J.. 5 that 0. 17.. in 2003 and 2005. C. Mantz. Gentile. A. (1998). R. Therefore. pp. 18. Feijoo. “Micro-turbine simulator based on speed and torque of a dc motor to drive actually loaded generators. 2001. Exhib. Umida. pp. 601–606. 550–554. London. Clare. (Honors) degree in biology and B.D. 8H 2 V0 = VH 1 + In (40)–(44).” IEEE Trans. in 1999. L. Power Syst. 803–809. L. XueGuang.” J. From 1992 to 1994. “Dynamic modeling of doubly fed induction generator wind turbines.” in Proc.. 2001. Conf. and MASc. Power Syst. Wind Eng. Dec. H. [6] D. and P. D. Syst. B. 128–133. Pract. Toronto. and S. Dept. S. and J. J. NO. ON. M. IECON. A. To calculate spatial average wind speed V0 . 2000. 2640–2648. G. [10] F. 21. for most cases a simpliﬁcation that V0 = VH is justiﬁed. Chang. L.” IEEE Trans. Winnipeg. 18. Bayne and M. Oct.” IEEE Trans. Lehn (S’95–M’99–SM’05) received the B. Power Syst.D.. Aug. Caracas Conf. 1982.” presented at the EPE Conf. L.. [13] Y. Dolan. [3] S. pp. [11] P. [12] D. REFERENCES [1] T. 2. pp.” IEEE Trans. 1991. thesis. F. 3. vol. Petru and T. 2003. 2002. and J. Petritz. respectively.Sc. Power Systems Transients. 16. Thresher. pp. Hershberg. pp. Garcia. degree at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Aerodynam. A. (IECEC) 35th Intersociety. R. 101. D. He is currently working toward the Ph. [8] R. Aug. [9] L.. 19–23 2005. E. 108. May 2003. Toronto. power electronics. “Effect of blade passing on a wind turbine output. degree from the University of Western Ontario. VH is the wind speed at hub height. both in electrical engineering.. Canada. Spera. Puleston. 1996. Graz. G. Wind Turbine Technology. S. “Experimental emulation of wind turbines and ﬂywheels for wind energy applications. degrees from the University of Manitoba. Sorensen. pp. W. For more accuracy (44) can be used. [Online].Sc. Thiringer. [16] J. “A wind turbine emulator based on a dual DSP processor system.67 and 0. Thiringer and J. 17.-A. and H.” in Proc.upco.. Comput. 2002. and electromagnetics. Sep. Jun. Wind Turbine Dynamic Modelling. no. First IEEE International Workshop on Electronic Design.” Contr. T. “Development of a wind turbine simulator for wind energy conversion systems. Hansen. R is the blade radius. W. Jenkins. vol. “Dynamic simulator of the mechanical system. vol. and E. the varying wind speed from wind shear is integrated over rotor area and divided by the total rotor area. Circuits Syst. θ)]r dr dθ VH 1 + α( r ) cos θ H (40) α(α − 1) r 2 cos2 θ 2 H α(α − 1)(α − 2) r 3 + cos3 θ r dr dθ 6 H V0 = V0 = VH πR2 R (41) (42) (43) (44) 2πr + 0 πα(α − 1)r3 dr 2H 2 πα(α − 1)R4 VH R2 + 2π 2 πR 2 8H 2 α(α − 1)(R2 ) = mVH . 1. MB. VOL. S. L. Thiringer. 1995 First IEEE Int.es/oscar/download/model. H. Hinrichsen and P. Cidras and A. Battaiotto. University of Toronto. Jan. Khan. G.1 < α ≤ 1. 17–25. Polinder. 19. Nov. Halifax.” in Proc. E. 2. . Peter W.. vol. W. “Fixedspeed wind-generator and wind-park modeling for transient stability studies. Canada. Aug. [17] P. [20] E. 4. he was with the Network Planning Group of Siemens AG. Univ. Nov. Nolan. 144– 151. A. Eng. vol. and W. Jun. [4] J. 2002.” in Proc. M. 1. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Toronto. New York: ASME Press. He received the BASc. “A linear dynamic model for asynchronous wind turbines with mechanical ﬂuctuations. J. Montreal. [18] D. vol. IPST05. Devices. pp.. Kling. “Computer based real-time simulator for renewable energy converters. 280–284. L. B.” IEEE Trans. R. 1986. 2005. Kojabadi. for H < 0. Marian. Gules. Slootweg. de Haan. Boutot. in 1995 and 1997.

- 828739.v1uploaded bySukhoiLover
- v80_18uploaded byLila Rami
- 2251-4407-1-PBuploaded byKlaus Mausz
- 10 wind energy.pdfuploaded byermautino8658
- Basic Principles of WEC.pptuploaded bySurya Narayanan
- Winduploaded byVenkat Lord
- Effect of Coefficient of Performance for Estimation of Optimum Wind Turbine Generator Parametersuploaded bySEP-Publisher
- Review - Wind Energy Techuploaded byDeborah Crominski
- Wind Power Tower and Foundation by Bhagatuploaded byAustin Rodrigues
- ARE110-48V Owners Manual Mechanical Ver5.0uploaded byKarthik Palaniswamy
- Invelox Reference Thesisuploaded byhashimhasnainhadi
- Detailed Technology Descriptions and Cost Assumptions of Power Plantsuploaded byNikolay Korneev
- Alternatives Case Studyuploaded bylyn
- Wind_Power_S13.pptuploaded byanushya ramesh
- Recalibrating WT Wake Model for Offshore WFuploaded byargaegargvagr
- winds_jgruploaded byRajasekaran Vt
- 2014-Wind-Technologies-Market-Report-8.7.pdfuploaded bySyakbani
- Combining Solar PV Wind Farms.pdfuploaded byDavid Budi Saputra
- Turbine and Solar Exemptionsuploaded byfacecrap
- Scim 1 Reportuploaded byNitin Jadav
- Analyze about the Wind Turbineuploaded bydoanminhduy
- Structural Analyses of Wind Turbine Tower for 3 KW Horizontal Axiuploaded byHARIPRASAD67
- Picoturbine Windmill Kit for School Childrenuploaded byFrantzisChatzichrist
- Wind Basicpvcwindturbineuploaded bysathish
- Renewable Energy: Options, capacity and interventionsuploaded byMuhammad Salman Arshid
- Wind Turbine Efficiency Demonstrationuploaded byMihai Apostoliu
- Presentation by Shri Sunil Jain, President, WIPPAuploaded byBala Subramanian
- ICEE2015 paper ID226.pdfuploaded byZellagui Energy
- Modification of DFIG’s Active Power Control Loopuploaded byاحمد صالح
- Advisors Report 2010uploaded bybluesbanky

- Morninguploaded byRajnish Patidar
- Heart's Desireuploaded byRajnish Patidar
- Morning's Loveuploaded byRajnish Patidar
- fragrance of the souluploaded byRajnish Patidar
- Before I Make You Mineuploaded byRajnish Patidar
- A Geetanjaliuploaded byRajnish Patidar
- The Good and Eviluploaded byRajnish Patidar
- Parched Heartuploaded byRajnish Patidar
- Hindi Poemuploaded byRajnish Patidar
- Love is Deathuploaded byRajnish Patidar
- e-data (04.Jun 13)uploaded byRajnish Patidar
- What is the Meaning of Lifeuploaded byRajnish Patidar
- e-data (02.Jan 12)uploaded byRajnish Patidar
- A Journey to the Selfuploaded byRajnish Patidar
- I Was Thereuploaded byRajnish Patidar
- data (02.Dec 12)uploaded byRajnish Patidar
- The Desires of Manuploaded byRajnish Patidar
- e-data (04.Jun 13)uploaded byRajnish Patidar
- A Concise Case for Modern Indiauploaded byRajnish Patidar

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading