0
Research Papers

A Comprehensive Aero-Hydro-Structural Analysis of a 5 MW Offshore Wind Turbine System

[+] Author and Article Information
Scott Smith

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
1000 Hilltop Circle,
Baltimore, MD 21250
e-mail: ssmith11@umbc.edu

Abdul-Bari Syed

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
1000 Hilltop Circle,
Baltimore, MD 21250
e-mail: syed9@umbc.edu

Kan Liu

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
1000 Hilltop Circle,
Baltimore, MD 21250
e-mail: kan7@umbc.edu

Meilin Yu

Assistant Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
1000 Hilltop Circle,
Baltimore, MD 21250
e-mail: mlyu@umbc.edu

Weidong Zhu

Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
1000 Hilltop Circle,
Baltimore, MD 21250
e-mail: wzhu@umbc.edu

Guanxin Huang

Visiting Scholar
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
1000 Hilltop Circle,
Baltimore, MD 21250
e-mail: guanxinhuang@hnu.edu.cn

Daming Chen

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
1000 Hilltop Circle,
Baltimore, MD 21250
e-mail: damingc1@umbc.edu

Mohamed Sherif Aggour

Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742
e-mail: msaggour@umd.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Solar Energy Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Solar Energy Engineering: Including Wind Energy and Building Energy Conservation. Manuscript received March 14, 2018; final manuscript received April 11, 2019; published online May 20, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Douglas Cairns.

J. Sol. Energy Eng 141(6), 061005 (May 20, 2019) (17 pages) Paper No: SOL-18-1118; doi: 10.1115/1.4043514 History: Received March 14, 2018; Accepted April 11, 2019

A comprehensive aero-hydro-structural analysis is conducted for a 5 MW offshore wind turbine system in this study. Soil–structure interaction under complex aero-hydro loading is analyzed to provide a suitable foundation design with high safety. With consideration of the wind turbine size and water depth, the monopile foundation design by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is selected in the current study. Both aerodynamic loading for the 5 MW wind turbine rotor defined by NREL and hydrodynamic loading on the foundation are simulated under different flow conditions using high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics methods. Structural dynamic analysis is then carried out to estimate the stress field in the foundation and soil. Results from the comprehensive analysis indicate that the Morison equation is conservative when looking at the stress field in the monopile foundation and underestimates the stress field in soil. A similar analysis strategy can be applied to other types of foundations such as jacket foundations and lead to more economical and reliable designs of foundations.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Musial, W., and Butterfield, S., 2004, “Future for Offshore Wind Energy in the United States: Preprint,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/CP-500-36313.
Musial, W., and Ram, B., 2010, “Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States: Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/TP-500-40745.
Musial, W., Butterfield, S., and Ram, B., 2006, “Energy From Offshore Wind,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/CP-500-39450.
2011, “A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States,” U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement.
Sheng, S., 2013, “Report on Wind Turbine Subsystem Reliability—A Survey of Various Databases,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/PR-5000-59111.
Malhotra, S., 2011, “Selection, Design and Construction of Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations,” Wind Turbines, I. Al-Bahadly, ed., InTech, London, pp. 231–264.
Leishman, J. G., 2000, Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Peters, D. A., and He, C. J., 1991, “Correlation of Measured Induced Velocities With a Finite-State Wake Model,” J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 36(3), pp. 59–70. [CrossRef]
Quarton, D. C., 1998, “The Evolution of Wind Turbine Design Analysis—A Twenty Year Progress Review,” Wind Energy, 1(S1), pp. 5–24. [CrossRef]
Passon, P., 2005, “State-of-the-Art and Development Needs of Simulation Codes for Offshore Wind,” Copenhagen Offshore Wind Energy Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Butterfield, C., Musial, W., and Jonkman, J., 2007, “Overview of Offshore Wind Technology: Preprint,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/CP-500-42252.
Damiani, R., Jonkman, J., Robertson, A., and Song, H., 2013, “Assessing the Importance of Nonlinearities in the Development of a Substructure Model for the Wind Turbine CAE Tool FAST,” The 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Nantes, France, June 9–14.
Leishman, J. G., 2002, “Challenges in Modeling the Unsteady Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines,” Wind Energy, 5(2–3), pp. 85–132. [CrossRef]
Vermeer, L. J., Sørensen, J., and Crespo, A., 2003, “Wind Turbine Wake Aerodynamics,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 39(6), pp. 467–510. [CrossRef]
Hansen, M. O. L., Sørensen, J. N., Voutsinas, S., Sørensen, N., and Madsen, H. A., 2006, “State of the Art in Wind Turbine Aerodynamics and Aeroelasticity,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 42(6), pp. 285–330. [CrossRef]
Smith, S., Syed, A.-B., Liu, K., Chen, D., Yu, M. L., Zhu, W., Liu, R., and Aggour, M. S., 2016, “A Comprehensive Aero-Hydro-Structural Analysis of a 5-MW Offshore Wind Turbine System: Towards Cost-Effective Deployment of Offshore Wind Turbines in Maryland,” The AIAA Science and Technology Forum and Exposition 2016, Paper No. AIAA-2016-1993, San Diego, CA.
Jonkman, J. M., and Buhl, M. L. J., 2005, “FAST User’s Guide,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/EL-500-38230.
Henderson, A. R., Zaaijer, M. B., and Camp, T. R., 2003, “Hydrodynamic Loading on Offshore Wind Turbines,” Offshore Wind Energy in Mediterranean and Other European Seas (OWEMES Conference), Naples, Italy.
Chella, M. A., Tørum, A., and Myrhaug, D., 2012, “An Overview of Wave Impact Forces on Offshore Wind Turbine Substructures,” Energy Procedia, 20, pp. 217–226. [CrossRef]
Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H., 1980, Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, Wiley, New York.
Cuéllar, P., 2011, Pile Foundations for Offshore Wind Turbines: Numerical and Experimental Investigations on the Behavior Under Short-Term and Long-Term Cyclic Loading, Berlin Institute of Technology, Berlin, Germany.
Broms, B., 1964, “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils,” ASCE J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 90(3), pp. 123–156.
Novak, M., 1974, “Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of Piles,” Can. Geotech. J., 11(4), pp. 574–598. [CrossRef]
Gazetas, G., and Makris, N., 1991, “Dynamic Pile–Soil–Pile Interaction. Part I: Analysis of Axial Vibration,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 20(2), pp. 115–132. [CrossRef]
Makris, N., and Gazetas, G., 1992, “Dynamic Pile–Soil–Pile Interaction. Part II: Lateral and Seismic Response,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 21(2), pp. 145–162. [CrossRef]
Yuan, M., Ding, J. H., and Zhang, Q., 2011, “Analysis of Spatial Effects of Two-Row Pile Structure of Foundation Pit Based on Elastic Resistance Method,” Int. J. Civil Environ. Eng., 11, p. 134.
Chowdhury, I., and Dasgupta, S. P., 2009, Dynamics of Structure and Foundation—A Unified Approach, CRC Press, New York.
Jonkman, J., and Musial, W., 2010, “Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration (OC3) for IEA Teask 23 Offshore Wind Technology and Deployment,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/TP-5000-48191.
Jonkman, J., Butterfield, S., Musial, W., and Scott, G., 2009, “Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System Development,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/TP-500-38060.
Patel, M. H., and Witz, J. A., 1991, Compliant Offshore Structures, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Rahman, M. M., Karim, M. M., and Alim, M. A., 2007, “Numerical Investigation of Unsteady Flow Past a Circular Cylinder Using 2-D Finite Volumn Method,” J. Naval Arch. Mar. Eng., 4(1), pp. 27–42. [CrossRef]
Stokes, G. G., 1847, “On the Theory of Oscillatory Waves,” Trans. Camb. Philos. Soc., 8(1), pp. 441–455.
Hedges, T., 1995, “Regions of Validity of Analytical Wave Theories,” ICE Proceedings Water Maritime and Energy, 112(2), pp. 111–114. [CrossRef]
Prowell, I., Elgamal, A., and Lu, J., 2010, “Modeling the Influence of Soil Structure Interaction on the Seismic Response of a 5MW Wind Turbine,” Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, CA, May 24–25.
Dai, K. S., Chen, S. E., Qi, W. Y., Conner, E., Erdle, J., and Galloway, C., 2011, “Field Testing of Directly Embedded Poles,” Exp. Tech., 35(2), pp. 14–23. [CrossRef]
Králik, J., and Králik, J. J., 2013, “Sensitivity Analysis of Soil-Foundation-Machine Interaction on Layered Soil,” 11th International Conference on Vibration Problem, Lisbon, Portugal, Sept. 9–12.
Paullo, M. L., Goncalves, P. B., Silveira, R. A., and Silva, A. R., 2013, “Nonlinear Dynamics Analysis of Frame Structures Under Seismic Excitation Considering Soil-Structure Interaction and Elasto-Plastic Soil Behavior,” 11th International Conference on Vibration Problem, Lisbon, Portugal, Sept. 9–12.
Anandarajah, A., 2011, Computational Methods in Elasticity and Plasticity: Solids and Porous Media, Springer, New York.
Ahmed, O. S. A., 2015, “Vertical Dynamic Soil-Pile Interaction for Machine Foundations,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland.
Wilson, E. L., 2002, Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures: A Physical Approach With Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering, Computers and Structures, Berkeley.
Blasio, F. V. D., 2011, Introduction to the Physics of Landslides: Lecture Notes on the Dynamics of Mass Wasting, Springer Science, Berlin.
Journee, J. M. J., and Massie, W. W., 2001, Offshore Hydromechanics, Delft University of Technology.
Bazilevs, Y., Hsu, M.-C., Akkerman, I., Wright, S., Takizawa, K., Henicke, B., Spielman, T., and Tezduyar, T. E., 2011, “3D Simulation of Wind Turbine Rotors at Full Scale. Part I: Geometry Modeling and Aerodynamics,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 65, pp. 207–235. [CrossRef]
Sheppard, D. M., “Regular Ocean Waves,” http://www.essie.ufl.edu/∼sheppard/OCE3016/Ocean%20Waves.pdf. Accessed Dec. 2, 2015.
Prasad, S. K., 2013, Bearing Capacity of Soil, S.J. College of Engineering, Mysore.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

3D geometry of the 5 MW wind turbine and its tower and foundation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Surface mesh and (b) the volume mesh of the computational domain for aerodynamic simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Detailed view of the mesh around a blade cross section and (b) a detailed view of the mesh near the leading edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Boundary condition definitions for the computational domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic of loads on the OWT system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Pressure distribution on (a) pressure and (b) suction surfaces of the rotating blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Aerodynamic moment histories about three coordinate axes for one blade and (b) an enlarged view of the aerodynamic moment about the y-axis. The average moment about the y-axis is also shown in (b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Four different meshes in the hydrodynamic simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Model for the hydrodynamic simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Gauge pressure on the monopile foundation during a wave period, with increasing time of 0.44125 s (i.e., 1/8 period) from left to right

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Static gauge pressure distribution on the monopile foundation at the same time instant when the wave height is, from left to right, 1 m, 4 m, and 7 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Drag coefficient history during a wave period

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

(a) Wave surface velocity field in the x direction and (b) pressure distributions on upstream and downstream faces of the monopile foundation at P1 in Fig. 12

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

(a) Wave surface velocity field in the x direction and (b) pressure distributions on upstream and downstream faces of the monopile foundation at P2 in Fig. 12

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

(a) Wave surface velocity field in the x direction and (b) pressure distributions on upstream and downstream faces of the monopile foundation at P3 in Fig. 12

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

(a) Wave surface velocity field in the x direction and (b) pressure distributions on upstream and downstream faces of the monopile foundation at P4 in Fig. 12

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Meshes used in the mesh refinement study of structural dynamic simulation: (a) coarse, (b) medium, and (c) refined meshes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Locations in the monopile foundation and soil where time histories of principal and von Mises stresses are extracted in the wind direction and the perpendicular flow direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Application of the hydrodynamic load from the Morison equation on the monopile foundation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Time histories of principal and von Mises stresses of the monopile foundation under the aerodynamic loading and the hydrodynamic load from the Morison equation in (a) the wind direction and (b) the perpendicular flow direction; S11, S22, and S33 are principal stresses in x, y, and z directions, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Time histories of principal and von Mises stresses of soil under the aerodynamic loading and the hydrodynamic load from the Morison equation in (a) the wind direction and (b) the perpendicular flow direction; S11, S22, and S33 are principal stresses in x, y, and z directions, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

von Mises stress field of the OWT system under the aerodynamic loading and the hydrodynamic load from the Morison equation over 5 s starting at t = 10 s for every 0.5 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Application of the hydrodynamic loading from CFD simulation on the monopile foundation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Time histories of principal and von Mises stresses of the monopile foundation under aero-hydro loading in (a) the wind direction and (b) the perpendicular flow direction; S11, S22, and S33 are principal stresses in x, y, and z directions, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Time histories of principal and von Mises stresses of soil under aero-hydro loading in (a) the wind direction and (b) the perpendicular flow direction; S11, S22, and S33 are principal stresses in x, y, and z directions, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

von Mises stress field of the OWT system under aero-hydro loading over 5 s starting at t = 10 s for every 0.5 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Comparison of von Mises stresses of the monopile foundation under the hydrodynamic load from the Morison equation and hydrodynamic loading from CFD simulation at (a) the upwind location, (b) the downwind location, (c) the right side, and (d) the left side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Comparison of von Mises stresses of soil under the hydrodynamic load from the Morison equation and hydrodynamic loading from CFD simulation at (a) the upwind location, (b) the downwind location, (c) the right side, and (d) the left side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Simulation to show that both aerodynamic and hydrodynamic loadings (Both) are needed: von Mises stresses at (a) the upwind location, (b) the downwind location, (c) the right side, and (d) the left side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Comparison of von Mises stresses under the hydrodynamic loading with different wave phases at (a) the upwind location, (b) the downwind location, (c) the right side, and (d) the left side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Comparison of von Mises stresses under the hydrodynamic loading with different wave periods at (a) the upwind location, (b) the downwind location, (c) the right side, and (d) the left side

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In