Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorNybø, Astrid
dc.contributor.authorNielsen, Finn Gunnar
dc.contributor.authorGodvik, Marte
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-22T07:12:54Z
dc.date.available2022-03-22T07:12:54Z
dc.date.created2021-11-12T12:19:54Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn1742-6588
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2986674
dc.description.abstractThis study compares a wind field recommended by the wind turbine design standards to more realistic wind fields based on measurements. The widely used Mann spectral tensor model with inputs recommended by the standard, is compared to FitMann, the Mann model with inputs fitted to measurements and TIMESR; using measured time series combined with the Davenport coherence model. The Mann model produces too low energy levels at the lowest frequencies of the wind spectra, while the wind spectra generated by FitMann approaches the measured values. TIMESR reproduces the measured spectral values at all frequencies. The different models give similar vertical coherence, while the Mann and FitMann models give lower horizontal coherence than TIMESR. Investigating the wind loads on a bottom-fixed 10-MW wind turbine, the spectra for the tower bottom fore-aft and blade root flapwise bending moment follow the shape of the wind spectra closely at low frequencies. The low-frequency range is important for the blade root and in particular the tower bottom bending moment. Thus, the TIMESR model, followed by FitMann, is assumed to give the most accurate fatigue estimates. For the specific situation analysed in this study, the FitMann model gives only 18 and 5 % lower estimates than TIMESR of the tower bottom and blade root damage equivalent bending moments, while the Mann model gives 27 % and 12 % lower estimates. The tower top yaw and fore-aft bending moments depend on the wind coherence. For the specific situation analysed in this study, the FitMann model gives 9 and 5 % higher estimates of the tower top yaw and tower top damage equivalent (bending) moments compared to TIMESR, while the Mann model gives 23 % and 18 % higher estimates. Since only measurements of the vertical coherence are available, it is not clear which model is superior for the tower top moments. However, the importance of a proper coherence model is documented.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherIOP Publishingen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleAnalysis of turbulence models fitted to site, and their impact on the response of a bottom-fixed wind turbineen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.articlenumber012028en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1088/1742-6596/2018/1/012028
dc.identifier.cristin1954059
dc.source.journalJournal of Physics: Conference Series (JPCS)en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Physics: Conference Series. 2021, 2018, 012028.en_US
dc.source.volume2018en_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal