OC6 Project Phase III: Validation of the Aerodynamic Loading on a Wind Turbine Rotor Undergoing Large Motion Caused by a Floating Support Structure

Roger Bergua, Amy Robertson, Jason Jonkman, Emmanuel Branlard, Alessandro Fontanella, Marco Belloli, Paolo Schito, Alberto Zasso, Giacomo Persico, Andrea Sanvito, Ervin Amet, Cedric Brun, Guillen Campana-Alonso, Raquel Martin-San-Roman, Ruolin Cai, Jifeng Cai, Quan Qian, Wen Maoshi, Alec Beardsell, Georg PirrungNestor Ramos-Garcia, Wei Shi, Jie Fu, Remi Corniglion, Anais Lovera, Josean Galvan, Tor Nygaard, Carlos dos Santos, Philippe Gilbert, Pierre-Antoine Joulin, Frederic Blondel, Eelco Frickel, Peng Chen, Zhiqiang Hu, Ronan Boisard, Kutay Yilmazlar, Alessandro Croce, Violette Harnois, Lijun Zhang, Ye Li, Ander Aristondo, Inigo Alonso, Simone Mancini, Koen Boorsma, Feike Savenije, David Marten, Rodrigo Soto-Valle, Christian Schulz, Stefan Netzband, Alessandro Bianchini, Francesco Papi, Stefano Cioni, Pau Trubat, Daniel Alarcon, Climent Molins, Marion Cormier, Konstantin Bruker, Thorsten Lutz, Qing Xiao, Zhongsheng Deng, Florence Haudin, Akhilesh Goveas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

15 Scopus Citations

Abstract

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 actuations in response to surge and pitch motion. Numerical models not accounting for dynamic inflow effects predicted rotor loads that were 9% lower in amplitude during rotor speed variations and 18% higher in amplitude during blade pitch actuations.

Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)465-485
Number of pages21
JournalWind Energy Science
Volume8
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2023

Bibliographical note

See NREL/JA-5000-83941 for article as published in Wind Energy Science Discussions

NREL Publication Number

  • NREL/JA-5000-86250

Keywords

  • aerodynamics
  • dynamic inflow
  • floating wind turbines
  • IEA Wind Task 30
  • OC6
  • UNAFLOW

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'OC6 Project Phase III: Validation of the Aerodynamic Loading on a Wind Turbine Rotor Undergoing Large Motion Caused by a Floating Support Structure'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this