4.6 Article

The simulation error caused by input loading variability in offshore wind turbine structural analysis

期刊

WIND ENERGY
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 1421-1432

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/we.1767

关键词

offshore wind turbines; simulation error; wind and wave variability; fatigue loads

资金

  1. NOWITECH, the Norwegian Research Centre for Offshore Wind Technology
  2. Research Council of Norway [193823]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stochastic representations of turbulent wind and irregular waves are used in time domain simulations of offshore wind turbines. The variability due to finite sampling of this input loading is an important source of simulation error. For the OC4 reference jacket structure with a 5MW wind turbine, an error of 12-34% for ultimate loads and 6-12% for fatigue loads can occur with a probability of 1%, for simulations with a total simulation length of 60min and various load cases. In terms of fatigue life, in the worst case, the lifetime of a joint was thereby overestimated by 29%. The size of this error can be critical, i.e., ultimate or fatigue limits can be exceeded, with probability depending on the choice of number of random seeds and simulation length. The analysis is based on a large simulation study with about 30,000 time domain simulations. Probability density functions of response variables are estimated and analyzed in terms of confidence intervals; i.e., how probable it is to obtain results significantly different from the expected value when using a finite number of simulations. This simulation error can be reduced to the same extent, either using several short simulations with different stochastic representations of the wind field or one long simulation with corresponding total length of the wind field. When using several short-term simulations, it is important that ultimate and fatigue loads are calculated based on the complete, properly combined set of results, in order to prevent a systematic bias in the estimated loads. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据