Search

This paper provides a summary of the work done within Phase IV of the Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) project, under International Energy Agency Wind Technology Collaboration Programme Task 30. This phase focused on validating the loading on and motion of a novel floating offshore wind system. Numerical models of a 3.6¿MW horizontal-axis wind turbine atop the TetraSpar floating support structure were compared using measurement data from a 1:43-Froude-scale test performed in the University of Maine's Alfond Wind–Wave (W2) Ocean Engineering Laboratory. Participants in the project ran a series of simulations, including system equilibrium, surge offsets, free-decay tests, wind-only conditions, wave-only conditions, and a combination of wind and wave conditions. Validation of the models was performed by comparing the aerodynamic loading, floating support structure motion, tower base loading, mooring line tensions, and keel line tensions. The results show a relatively good estimation of the aerodynamic loading and a reasonable estimation of the platform motion and tower base fore–aft bending moment. However, there is a significant dispersion in the dynamic loading for the upwind mooring line. Very good agreement was observed between most of the numerical models and the experiment for the keel line tensions., Peer Reviewed, Authored by: Roger Bergua1, WillWiley1, Amy Robertson1, Jason Jonkman1, Cédric Brun2, Jean-Philippe Pineau2, Quan Qian3, Wen Maoshi3, Alec Beardsell4, Joshua Cutler4, Fabio Pierella5, Christian Anker Hansen5, Wei Shi6, Jie Fu6, Lehan Hu6, Prokopios Vlachogiannis7, Christophe Peyrard7, Christopher Simon Wright8, Dallán Friel8, ØyvindWaage Hanssen-Bauer9, Carlos Renan dos Santos9, Eelco Frickel10, Hafizul Islam10, Arjen Koop10, Zhiqiang Hu11, Jihuai Yang11, Tristan Quideau12, Violette Harnois12, Kelsey Shaler13, Stefan Netzband14, Daniel Alarcón15, Pau Trubat15, Aengus Connolly16, Seán B. Leen17, and Oisín Conway17 1National Wind Technology Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA 2Research&Development Department, Bureau Veritas – Marine Division, 44818 Saint-Herblain, France 3Research Institute, CSSC Haizhuang Windpower Co. Ltd, Chongqing, 401122, China 4Turbine Engineering, DNV, Bristol, BS2 0PS, UK 5Department of Wind and Energy Systems, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark 6State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China 7National Hydraulics and Environment Laboratory (LNHE), EDF R&D, 78400 Chatou, France 8Gavin&Doherty Geosolutions Ltd., Dublin, D14 X627, Ireland 9Institute for Energy Technology, 2007 Kjeller, Norway 10Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN), 6708 PM Wageningen, the Netherlands 11School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK 12Floating Offshore Group, PRINCIPIA, 13600 La Ciotat, France 13Power and Technology Department, Shell International Exploration and Production, Houston, TX 77079, USA 14Fluid Dynamics and Ship Theory, Hamburg University of Technology, 21073 Hamburg, Germany 15Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 08034 Barcelona, Spain 16Department of Offshore Wind, Wood Group Kenny, Galway, H91 R9YR, Ireland 17Department of Mechanical Engineeri, Postprint (published version)

This paper provides a summary of the work done within Phase IV of the Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) project, under International Energy Agency Wind Technology Collaboration Programme Task 30. This phase focused on validating the loading on and motion of a novel floating offshore wind system. Numerical models of a 3.6MW horizontal-axis wind turbine atop the TetraSpar floating support structure were compared using measurement data from a 1 V 43-Froude-scale test performed in the University of Maine’s AlfondWind–Wave (W2) Ocean Engineering Laboratory. Participants in the project ran a series of simulations, including system equilibrium, surge offsets, free-decay tests, wind-only conditions, wave-only conditions, and a combination of wind and wave conditions. Validation of the models was performed by comparing the aerodynamic loading, floating support structure motion, tower base loading,mooring line tensions, and keel line tensions. The results show a relatively good estimation of the aerodynamic loading and a reasonable estimation of the platform motion and tower base fore–aft bending moment. However, there is a significant dispersion in the dynamic loading for the upwind mooring line. Very good agreement was observed between most of the numerical models and the experiment for the keel line tensions.

Wind turbines are growing in size and increasingly suffer from aeroelastic instabilities. Unfortunately, numerical models often show inconsistent results during verification studies. We address this gap by first introducing novel linearization capabilities within the open-source aero-hydro-servo-elastic framework OpenFAST. Next, a code-to-code benchmark study is presented that compares modal parameters between OpenFAST and HAWCStab2 for a land-based version of the International Energy Agency 15-MW reference wind turbine modeled with quasi-steady aerodynamics. The two solvers are in strong agreement except for discrepancies in the second rotor flapwise modes. The differences are attributed to the torsional flexibility of the tower, which is assumed torsionally stiff in the OpenFAST model. Work is ongoing to close this modeling gap. The aeroelastic stability of a low-specific-power land-based wind turbine is also investigated. The impact of design choices is discussed, high-lighting how narrow the margins are between a stable design and an unstable design.

This study reports the results of the second round of analyses of the Offshore Code Comparison, Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) project Phase III. While the first round investigated rotor aerodynamic loading, here, focus is given to the wake behavior of a floating wind turbine under large motion. Wind tunnel experimental data from the UNsteady Aerodynamics for FLOating Wind (UNAFLOW) project are compared with the results of simulations provided by participants with methods and codes of different levels of fidelity. The effect of platform motion on both the near and the far wake is investigated. More specifically, the behavior of tip vortices in the near wake is evaluated through multiple metrics, such as streamwise position, core radius, convection velocity, and circulation. Additionally, the onset of velocity oscillations in the far wake is analyzed because this can have a negative effect on stability and loading of downstream rotors. Results in the near wake for unsteady cases confirm that simulations and experiments tend to diverge from the expected linearized quasi-steady behavior when the rotor reduced frequency increases over 0.5. Additionally, differences across the simulations become significant, suggesting that further efforts are required to tune the currently available methodologies in order to correctly evaluate the aerodynamic response of a floating wind turbine in unsteady conditions. Regarding the far wake, it is seen that, in some conditions, numerical methods overpredict the impact of platform motion on the velocity fluctuations. Moreover, results suggest that the effect of platform motion on the far wake, differently from original expectations about a faster wake recovery in a floating wind turbine, seems to be limited or even oriented to the generation of a wake less prone to dissipation., Postprint (published version)

This paper provides a summary of the work done within Phase III of the Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) project, under the International Energy Agency Wind Technology Collaboration Programme Task 30. This phase focused on validating the aerodynamic loading on a wind turbine rotor undergoing large motion caused by a floating support structure. Numerical models of the Technical University of Denmark 10¿MW reference wind turbine were validated using measurement data from a 1:75 scale test performed during the UNsteady Aerodynamics for FLOating Wind (UNAFLOW) project and a follow-on experimental campaign, both performed at the Politecnico di Milano wind tunnel. Validation of the models was performed by comparing the loads for steady (fixed platform) and unsteady (harmonic motion of the platform) wind conditions. For the unsteady wind conditions, the platform was forced to oscillate in the surge and pitch directions under several frequencies and amplitudes. These oscillations result in a wind variation that impacts the rotor loads (e.g., thrust and torque). For the conditions studied in these tests, the system aerodynamic response was almost steady. Only a small hysteresis in airfoil performance undergoing angle of attack variations in attached flow was observed. During the experiments, the rotor speed and blade pitch angle were held constant. However, in real wind turbine operating conditions, the surge and pitch variations would result in rotor speed variations and/or blade pitch actuations, depending on the wind turbine controller region that the system is operating. Additional simulations with these control parameters were conducted to verify the fidelity of different models. Participant results showed, in general, a good agreement with the experimental measurements and the need to account for dynamic inflow when there are changes in the flow conditions due to the rotor speed variations or blade pitch actuation, This research has been supported by the office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (grant no. DE-AC36-08GO28308)., Peer Reviewed, Roger Bergua1, Amy Robertson1, Jason Jonkman1, Emmanuel Branlard1, Alessandro Fontanella2, Marco Belloli2, Paolo Schito2, Alberto Zasso2, Giacomo Persico3, Andrea Sanvito3, Ervin Amet4, Cédric Brun5, Guillén Campaña-Alonso6, Raquel Martín-San-Román6, Ruolin Cai7, Jifeng Cai7, Quan Qian8, Wen Maoshi8, Alec Beardsell9, Georg Pirrung10, Néstor Ramos-García10, Wei Shi11, Jie Fu11, Rémi Corniglion12, Anaïs Lovera12, Josean Galván13, Tor Anders Nygaard14, Carlos Renan dos Santos14, Philippe Gilbert15, Pierre-Antoine Joulin15, Frédéric Blondel15, Eelco Frickel16, Peng Chen17, Zhiqiang Hu17, Ronan Boisard18, Kutay Yilmazlar19, Alessandro Croce19, Violette Harnois20, Lijun Zhang21, Ye Li21, Ander Aristondo22, Iñigo Mendikoa Alonso22, Simone Mancini23, Koen Boorsma23, Feike Savenije23, David Marten24, Rodrigo Soto-Valle24, Christian W. Schulz25, Stefan Netzband25, Alessandro Bianchini26, Francesco Papi26, Stefano Cioni26, Pau Trubat27, Daniel Alarcon27, Climent Molins27, Marion Cormier28, Konstantin Brüker28, Thorsten Lutz28, Qing Xiao29, Zhongsheng Deng29, Florence Haudin30, and Akhilesh Goveas31 1National Wind Technology Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA 2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan 20156, Italy 3Laboratory of Fluid-Machines, Dipartimento di Energia, Politecnico di Milano, Milan 20156, Italy 4Wind Department, Bureau Veritas, Paris 92937, France 5Marine Division, Research Department, Bureau Veritas, Saint-Herblain 44818, France 6Wind Turbine Technologies, Centro Nacional de Energías Renovables, Sarriguren 31621, Spain 7Integrated Simulation Department, China General Certification Center, Beijing 100013, China 8Research Institute, China State Shipbuilding Corporation, Chongqing 401122, China 9Offshore Technology Department, DNV, Bristol BS2 0PS, UK 10Department of Wind Energy, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby 2800, Denmark 11State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian Universi, Postprint (published version)

This study reports the results of the second round of analyses of the Offshore Code Comparison, Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) project Phase III. While the first round investigated rotor aerodynamic loading, here, focus is given to the wake behavior of a floating wind turbine under large motion. Wind tunnel experimental data from the UNsteady Aerodynamics for FLOating Wind (UNAFLOW) project are compared with the results of simulations provided by participants with methods and codes of different levels of fidelity. The effect of platform motion on both the near and the far wake is investigated. More specifically, the behavior of tip vortices in the near wake is evaluated through multiple metrics, such as streamwise position, core radius, convection velocity, and circulation. Additionally, the onset of velocity oscillations in the far wake is analyzed because this can have a negative effect on stability and loading of downstream rotors. Results in the near wake for unsteady cases confirm that simulations and experiments tend to diverge from the expected linearized quasi-steady behavior when the rotor reduced frequency increases over 0.5. Additionally, differences across the simulations become significant, suggesting that further efforts are required to tune the currently available methodologies in order to correctly evaluate the aerodynamic response of a floating wind turbine in unsteady conditions. Regarding the far wake, it is seen that, in some conditions, numerical methods overpredict the impact of platform motion on the velocity fluctuations. Moreover, results suggest that the effect of platform motion on the far wake, differently from original expectations about a faster wake recovery in a floating wind turbine, seems to be limited or even oriented to the generation of a wake less prone to dissipation.

This paper provides a summary of the work done within Phase III of the Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) project, under the International Energy Agency Wind Technology Collaboration Programme Task 30. This phase focused on validating the aerodynamic loading on a wind turbine rotor undergoing large motion caused by a floating support structure. Numerical models of the Technical University of Denmark 10 MW reference wind turbine were validated using measurement data from a 1:75 scale test performed during the UNsteady Aerodynamics for FLOating Wind (UNAFLOW) project and a follow-on experimental campaign, both performed at the Politecnico di Milano wind tunnel. Validation of the models was performed by comparing the loads for steady (fixed platform) and unsteady (harmonic motion of the platform) wind conditions. For the unsteady wind conditions, the platform was forced to oscillate in the surge and pitch directions under several frequencies and amplitudes. These oscillations result in a wind variation that impacts the rotor loads (e.g., thrust and torque). For the conditions studied in these tests, the system aerodynamic response was almost steady. Only a small hysteresis in airfoil performance undergoing angle of attack variations in attached flow was observed. During the experiments, the rotor speed and blade pitch angle were held constant. However, in real wind turbine operating conditions, the surge and pitch variations would result in rotor speed variations and/or blade pitch actuations, depending on the wind turbine controller region that the system is operating. Additional simulations with these control parameters were conducted to verify the fidelity of different models. Participant results showed, in general, a good agreement with the experimental measurements and the need to account for dynamic inflow when there are changes in the flow conditions due to the rotor speed variations or blade pitch actuation

Within the framework of the fourth phase of the International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Task 29, a large comparison exercise between measurements and aeroelastic simulations has been carried out featuring three simulation cases in axial, sheared and yawed inflow conditions. Results were obtained from more than 19 simulation tools originating from 12 institutes, ranging in fidelity from blade element momentum (BEM) to computational fluid dynamics (CFDs) and compared to state-of-the-art field measurements from the 2 MW DanAero turbine. More than 15 different variable types ranging from lifting-line variables to blade surface pressures, loads and velocities have been compared for the different conditions, resulting in over 250 comparison plots. The result is a unique insight into the current status and accuracy of rotor aerodynamic modeling. For axial flow conditions, a good agreement was found between the various code types, where a dedicated grid sensitivity study was necessary for the CFD simulations. However, compared to wind tunnel experiments on rotors featuring controlled conditions, it remains a challenge to achieve good agreement of absolute levels between simulations and measurements in the field. For sheared inflow conditions, uncertainties due to rotational and unsteady effects on airfoil data result in the CFD predictions standing out above the codes that need input of sectional airfoil data. However, it was demonstrated that using CFD-synthesized airfoil data is an effective means to bypass this shortcoming. For yawed flow conditions, it was observed that modeling of the skewed wake effect is still problematic for BEM codes where CFD and free vortex wake codes inherently model the underlying physics correctly. The next step is a comparison in turbulent inflow conditions, which is featured in IEA Wind Task 47. Doing this analysis in cooperation under the auspices of the IEA Wind Technology Collaboration Program (TCP) has led to many mutual benefits for the