Wake Loads and Fatigue Load Certification in Offshore Wind Farms

Bjrn Schmidt
GL Renewables Certification
Bjoern.Schmidt@gl-group.com

John King
GL Garrad Hassan
John.King@gl-garradhassan.com

Simplified DWM approach

Abstract

The results of the parameterisation study were used to create a simplified approach that
approximates the total wake affected fatigue damage from a reduced number of aeroelastic simulations. This approach has four steps:

A Dynamic Wake Meandering (DWM) model [1] parameter study was performed to
derive the main relationships in respect of fatigue loads in wake conditions. These
relationships were used to develop a method which reduced the computational effort of
the wake load analysis by estimating the wake load peaks.

1.For each wake affected turbine, calculate HUB-TIP (angle between the hub of the wake
creating turbine to the rotor tip of wake affected turbine).
2.Lookup AMBIENT from Figure 2 depending on the load component and turbine spacing.
3.Calculate PEAK according to the empirical relationship in Figure 3
4.Run five simulations with four seeds each: one with positive and negative ambient
turbulence wind direction, one with the mean wind direction at 0deg, one at the
positive peak load wind direction and one at the negative peak load wind direction.

Furthermore, a fatigue load study was performed for an offshore wind farm. The study
compared the wake loading of the Bladed DWM model against the IEC 61400-1
Standard recommendation [2].

Objectives
Wind turbine wakes affect the downstream wind field and increase dynamic loads for
downstream turbines. The growing scale of wind farms, particularly in combination with
low ambient turbulence intensity offshore, significantly increases the wake affected
turbine loading.

Blade root flapwise bending

moment

AMBIENT/HUB-TIP

One main question governing the analysis of offshore wind farms is whether the existing
methods are conservative and how much room for optimization exists.

The DWM Model

Condensing the DWM model to its three essential corner stones [3], it can be pictured as
being composed of:

8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00

0.08
0.16

0.10

Increasing Iamb

10

The study found that at close spacing two distinct load peaks were present at a given
mean wind direction (figure 1). The peak load wind direction was shown to be relatively
independent of wind speed and turbulence intensity within the ranges considered.
Furthermore, even at very low ambient turbulence levels, the loading due to wake effects
can be significant.

1.20
1.15

1.05

30

20

10

-10

-20

1.00

Mean wind direction [deg]

Left: Blade root flapwise bending moment

~1.5 x HUB-TIP

Figure 3: Peak load wind direction normalised using the

hub-tip angle.

DWM
ed2
ed3
ed4

Horns Rev Fatigue

DEL m=4
130%
120%
110% 102% 105% 103%
100%

112% 111%

90%
Towerbase My

80%

Figure 4: DEL load components for the Horns Rev wind farm study.
All loads are normalized to the I90 characteristic ambient loading.

Conclusions
A simplified approach uses parameter relationships to approximate the total damage
equivalent wake loading. Three test cases and a 20 year wind farm wake load analysis
showed that the simplified approach worked well and conservative across a range of
wind speeds, ambient turbulence intensities and spacings.

References

1.10

Mean wind direction [deg]

Figure 1:

Yaw bearing M_tors

The studied wind farm considered a layout with relatively wide spacings. Wind farms
with relatively small spacings are recommended for further studies.

1.25

-30

26

18

10

-6

-14

-22

1.00

-30

Loading normalised to
Ambient load

2.00

Loading normalised to
Ambient load

Blade flapwise bending moment,

11D spacing

3.00

~1 x HUB-TIP

Towerbase Mx

The IEC approaches are

conservative with respect to the
DWM results for the Horns Rev
offshore wind farm. Room for
wake load optimization seems to
exist considering the common
practice recommended in the
IEC 61400-1 Standard.

DWM Parameter Study

4.00

Tower base M_bend

Offshore Wind Farm - Fatigue Load

Results

5.00

~1.5 x HUB-TIP

12

Figure 2:
Ambient loading wind direction normalised
with hub-tip angle, for 10m/s mean wind speed.

N. Troldborg, TOPFARM, 2009

10ms_4%
10ms_10%
10ms_16%
20ms_8%

Blade root M_flap

Yaw torsion

Added Turbulence

A turbine in the Horns Rev wind

farm with induced wakes from 7
to 10.4 D spacing was studied in
a site specific 20 year wake
loading (DEL) analysis.

6ms_8%
10ms_8%
10ms_12%
14ms_12%

PEAK (deg)

Turbine spacing [Diameters]

1. Velocity deficit: Extraction of kinetic energy reduces wind speed

2. Meandering: Wind speed deficit moves in space
3. Added turbulence: Blades and hub create vortices that add turbulence

Yaw bearing torsional moment, 3D

spacing

Load component

Bladeroot Mflap,
m=10

Meandering

0.04
0.12

Bladeroot Mflap

Velocity deficit

Graeme Mc Cann
GL Garrad Hassan
Graeme.McCann@gl-garradhassan.com

Kimon Argyriadis
GL Renewables Certification
Kimon.Argyriadis@gl-group.com

Wake load / free load

PO. ID
33

[1] G.C. Larsen, H.Aa. Madsen, T.J. Larsen, and N. Trolborg, "Wake modeling and simulation".
Ris-R-1653(EN), 2008.
[2] S.T. Frandsen, "Turbulence and turbulence-generated structural loading in wind turbine clusters".
Ris-R-1188(EN), 2007.
[3] H.Aa. Madsen, G.C. Larsen, T.J. Larsen, R. Mikkelsen and N. Troldborg, "Calibration and validation of
the dynamic wake meandering model implemented in the aeroelastic code HAWC2". Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering, 2009.

Right: Yaw bearing torsion wake loading distribution

EWEA OFFSHORE 2011, 29 November 1 December 2011 , Amsterdam, The Netherlands