Flex5 based Time Domain Seismic Analysis

Turbine Controls, Towers & Foundation team

17.09.2019
 Generation of acceleration time history and verification
Response Spectrum using IS1983-Part 4

deltaT : 0.02s
Soil Type 2
Z (zone) 0.36
I (Importance Factor) 1.5
R (Response Reduction Factor) 1.5
Generation of Acceleration Time History

Commercial codes ETABS/STAAD

Generation of Response Spectrum from Acceleration Time History

SDOF model Newmark-

Beta Time history
Analysis

• Generated response spectrum for 5% & 1% damped SDOF matches well with response spectrum based on IS 1893 Part 4
2
• For tower 1st mode i.e. 0.15Hz the response for 5% & 1% damping is comparable with IS 1893 Response Spectrum
 Flex5 model assumptions

 Flex5 model same as used for loads simulation for certification

 2nd order p-delta impact considered in Flex5 calculations
 Flex5 uses first 4 four modes of tower i.e. first and second longitudinal and lateral modes
 Operational load cases are assumed to have high damping. Assumption of 5% damping during operation is therefore ok. (Ref. 2)
 Standstill load cases are assumed to have low damping. Assumption of 1% damping during standstill is therefore ok. (Ref. 2)

Flex5 Model

Rated Power 2.5MW

Rotor Diameter 130 m
Rated Wind Speed 9.5m/s
Hub Height 130 m
Tower 1st mode, 2nd mode 0.153 Hz, 1.124 Hz
Nominal Generator Speed 1760 rpm
Gear Ratio 154
Operational Wind Speed Range 3-20m/s

References
1. IEC 61400-1 Ed.4
2. D. Witcher, Seismic analysis of wind turbines in the time domain, Wind Energy, No. 8, p. 81-91, 2005

Presentation Title · Author · Company · Date (select "Insert > Header and Footer" to edit this line) 3
 Design load Cases as per IEC 16400-1 ed.4

 Operational DLC :
 DLC 1.1 at rated wind speed
 DLC 5.1 at rated wind speed
 Standstill DLC
 DLC 6.4 at zero and cutout wind speeds
 Seismic acceleration input
 Concurrent acceleration input in Flex5 aero-elastic simulation
 Each acceleration input consist of acceleration in 3 directions e.g. one dominant and two less dominant in orthogonal directions
 Flex5 Analysis done for each dominant acceleration input i.e. X, Y & Z direction; positive combination of less dominant directions considered;

 Definition of acceleration

ELx – acceleration in longitudinal direction As per IS 1893 Part4

ELy – acceleration in lateral direction ELx = Ely
ELz – acceleration in vertical direction ELz = 2/3 ELx

EL in first case has dominant acceleration in X direction

EL in second case has dominant acceleration in Y direction
EL in third case has dominant acceleration in Z direction

 Load factors as per IS1893 Part 4

 1.3 for operational DLC
 1.7 for standstill DLC
 Modification of factor for special cases e.g. DLC 5.1

4
Presentation Title · Author · Company · Date (select "Insert > Header and Footer" to edit this line)
Design load cases : DLC 1.1

 3 dominant acceleration directions considered

 For each dominant acceleration combination, 12 simulations performed; Same turbulent seed used;
 For each of the 12 simulations, acceleration is introduced in 50s time intervals i.e. 1st simulation acceleration is between 0 to 50s, 2nd simulation acceleration is between
50s to 100s etc.
 For each of the 12 simulations, acceleration is introduced after 5s of its 50s time interval
 For each dominant acceleration case, maximum load for each of the 12 simulation is calculated.
 Defining load for each dominant acceleration case is calculated by averaging of the max loads from respective12 simulations
 The highest load across the three dominant directions is defined as a dimensioning load
 Application of load factor of 1.3 as per IS 1893 Part 4

Tower base moment results

Resultant Tower Base Bending Dominant
Moment (MrTB) [kNm] Acceleration
Direction
73178 Longitudinal • Loads arising due to dominant acceleration in longitudinal direction are design driving
• Loads due to dominant acceleration in vertical direction are lower across all combinations
71853 Lateral

67302 Vertical

Presentation Title · Author · Company · Date (select "Insert > Header and Footer" to edit this line) 5
Design load cases : DLC 5.1

 3 dominant acceleration directions considered

 For each dominant acceleration, 12 simulations performed; Same turbulent seed used
 For each of the 12 simulations, acceleration is introduced in 50s time intervals with e-stop event i.e. 1st simulation acceleration & e-stop is between 0 to 50s, 2nd
simulation acceleration & e-stop is between 50s to 100s etc.
 For each of the 12 simulations, acceleration is introduced at have peak acceleration at 17s of its 50s time interval; E-stop is introduced to have peak acceleration at 5
time intervals i.e. -4, -2, 0, 2, 4s of e-stop event.
 Defining load for each dominant acceleration is calculated by
 Taking average of the max load of the each of the 5 time intervals simulations (first averaging) for each of 12 simulations
 Taking average of max values of 12 respective simulations from first averaging
 The highest load across the three dominant directions is defined as a dimensioning load
 Application of load factor of 1.3 as per IS 1893 Part 4

Tower base moment results

Resultant Tower Base Dominant Acceleration
Bending Moment (MrTB) Direction • Loads arising due to dominant acceleration in longitudinal direction are design driving
[kNm] • Loads due to dominant acceleration in vertical direction are lower across all combinations
77579 Longitudinal

72353 Lateral

70387 Vertical

Presentation Title · Author · Company · Date (select "Insert > Header and Footer" to edit this line) 6
Design load cases : DLC 6.4

 3 dominant acceleration directions considered

 For each dominant acceleration, 12 simulations performed; Same turbulent seed used
 For each of the 12 simulations, acceleration is introduced in 50s time intervals i.e. 1st simulation acceleration is between 0 to 50s, 2nd simulation acceleration is between
50s to 100s etc.
 For each of the 12 simulations, acceleration is introduced after 5s of its 50s time interval
 For each dominant acceleration case, maximum load for each of the 12 simulation is calculated.
 Defining load for each dominant acceleration case is calculated by averaging of the max loads from respective12 simulations
 The highest load across the three dominant directions is defined as a dimensioning load
 Application of load factor of 1.7 as per IS 1893 Part 4

Tower base moment results

Resultant Tower Base Bending Dominant Acceleration Wind Speed

Moment (MrTB) [kNm] Direction [m/s]

57321 Longitudinal 0 • Loads arising due to dominant acceleration in longitudinal direction are design driving
• Loads due to dominant acceleration in vertical direction are lower across all combinations
• Loads at 0m/s wind speed are higher due to lower damping in the system
48494 Lateral 0

27903 Vertical 20

Presentation Title · Author · Company · Date (select "Insert > Header and Footer" to edit this line) 7
Design load cases : DLC 5.1 Special case

 3 dominant acceleration directions considered

 For each dominant acceleration, 12 simulations performed
 Same turbulent seed used
 For each of the 12 simulations, acceleration is introduced in 50s time intervals with e-stop event i.e. 1st simulation acceleration & e-stop is between 0 to 50s, 2nd
simulation acceleration & e-stop is between 50s to 100s etc.
 For each of the 12 simulations, e-stop is introduced at X s of its 50s time interval; acceleration is introduced to have peak acceleration at 2s after e-stop event; Peak
acceleration at 2s after e-stop is supposed to give max loads at the tower base;
 Defining load for each dominant acceleration case is calculated by averaging of the max loads from respective12 simulations
 The highest load across the three dominant directions is defined as a dimensioning load
 Application of load factor
 Occurrence of peak acceleration and peak tower bottom loads is an extremely rare event
 Application of 1.3 load factor is therefore over-conservative
 Applied safety factor is defined as follows
DLC 5.1 op. load = standard loads without seismic input
1.1 ∗ 𝐷𝐿𝐶 5.1 𝑜𝑝. 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 + 1.3 ∗ (𝐷𝐿𝐶 5.1 𝑒𝑞. 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 − 𝐷𝐿𝐶 5.1 𝑜𝑝. 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑)
𝑆𝐹 = DLC 5.1 eq. load = loads with seismic input
𝐷𝐿𝐶 5.1 𝑒𝑞. 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑

Safety Factor calculated from the above equation: 1.13

Resultant Tower Base Bending Dominant

Moment (MrTB) [kNm] Acceleration
Direction
73270.06 Longitudinal

Presentation Title · Author · Company · Date (select "Insert > Header and Footer" to edit this line) 8
Other salient assumptions

 Conservative approach to use load factor

 For operational and standstill loads i.e. 1.3 & 1.7 respectively
 IEC edition 4 recommends LF 1 for operational and standstill loads.
 Only positive contribution of lesser dominant accelerations considered
 Positive or negative accelerations in orthogonal directions may have similar impact

Presentation Title · Author · Company · Date (select "Insert > Header and Footer" to edit this line) 9
Back Up

 Tower modes
 Blade modes
 Component loads

Presentation Title · Author · Company · Date (select "Insert > Header and Footer" to edit this line) 10
 Effect of Tower modes in Seismic Analysis

Background

• Flex5, cannot use the higher tower modes

for the load calculation.

• IEC ed-4 suggest to use tower modes up

to 85% of modal contribution

• SIMAPCK is used to check effect of tower

modes in Seismic excitation.

Simulation model Variation in MrTb with Tower modes +Seismic excitation

Conclusion

• During idling with increase in the tower modes from 1.7Hz to 25Hz the change in the tower bottom loads only 3%.

• In case of operating turbine with the wind the damping is expected to be higher than a standstill case resulting in further lower increase in loads.

• From the above results it can be conclude that tower modes has low effect on turbine loads with seismic excitation.

Presentation Title · Author · Company · Date (select "Insert > Header and Footer" to edit this line) 11
Effect of blade modes

 SIMPACK analysis was done at 9m/s NTM simulation

 Analysis done for modes up-to 36Hz
 Inclusion of higher modes shows increase in loads (see table below)
 The absolute loads were lower than design loads

Table: % moment change comparison at blade root

% change in loads from 4 modes to 20 modes
Sensor X direction Y direction Z direction
MfB +tive 7.1 9 9.5
MfB -tive -0.5 -1.1 0
MeB +tive 0.5 16.9 19.3
MeB -tive -0.7 10.2 16

Presentation Title · Author · Company · Date (select "Insert > Header and Footer" to edit this line) 12
Component Loads check

Component Load Increase Factor

w.r.t Design Loads
Rotor Torque 0.95 • Load safety factor considered i.e. 1.3 for operational & 1.7 for standstill
• All component loads show LIF lesser than 1 with a margin up to 13% in blades & 40% in hub.
• Loads without safety factor should have even higher margins
Hub Flange: Fixed, Rotating 0.61, 0.55

Rotor Bearing: Fixed, Rotating
Tower Top Bending, Torsional:
Rotating,
Blade Root Edge: Fixed, Rotating
0.66, 0.61 Note on Impact due to higher modes in blades
• With higher modes blade loads show approx. 10% increase in flap moments; 19% &
0.71, 0.30 16% in positive and negative flap moments respectively. See table in previous slide.
• This increase in loads is offset by load safety factor i.e. 30% & reserve margins shown
in adjacent table.
0.72, 0.85

Blade Root Flap: Fixed, Rotating 0.86, 0.87

Presentation Title · Author · Company · Date (select "Insert > Header and Footer" to edit this line) 13