Load Equivalent Tower Shadow Modeling for Downwind Turbines

Shigeo YOSHIDA, Soichiro KIYOKI

Fuji Heady Industries Ltd, Wind Turbine Project
1-1-11, Yonan Utsunomiya, 320-8564, Japan
yoshidas@utu.subaru-fhi.co.jp
tel/fax: +81-28-684-7874/7878

ABSTRACT
Present study proposes a load equivalent tower shadow modeling method for downwind turbines. It is expressed by
bell shaped tower wake profile of BEM (Blade Element and Momentum Theory) on the bases of load equivalence
with rotor-tower CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics). It provides practical and useful models considering
rotor-tower interaction and transient process while blades passing through the tower wake, which has been ignored in
former models. The model was verified through field test of SUBARU80/2.0, 2MW downwind turbine. Furthermore,
case studies of the turbine show the former modeling overestimates tower shadow effect.

1. BACKGROUND
Design load cases, defined by design requirements as
IEC61400-1[1 ] or guidelines as Germanischer Lloyd
(GL) [2], compose in the combination of wind models,
grid conditions, and wind turbine conditions. Design
loads are dependent not only on aerodynamics but also
aero-elastics and wind turbine controllers. As, hundreds
of cases are needed to be calculated, BEM[3] has been
used for load calculation.
Aerodynamic interaction between rotor and tower is
significant for downwind turbines as blades passing
through the low wind speed region behind the tower.
Therefore, modeling of the phenomena is essential for
design of downwind turbines. Former tower shadow
models in BEM have been defined on the basis of wake
wind speed profile provided by CFD or wind tunnel
tests on an isolated column (3D) or cylinder (2D) [4][5].
Whereas those approaches ignore interactions between
rotor and tower, rotor-tower CFD is expected to express
the phenomena well. But, it is impossible to calculate
the full set of load cases by rotor-tower CFD, because
huge numbers of simulations for aero-elastic models are
necessary as mentioned above.
Considering these circumstances, a practical Figure 1 SUBARU80/2.0
modeling method, which considers rotor-tower
interaction appropriately, was investigated and 3. Former Modeling
proposed in the present study. 3.1 Modeling Outline
The former tower shadow models were defined by
Table 1 SUBARU80/2.0 General Specification wake profiles of isolated tower models. Hereinafter, it
Rotor Position Downwind is called as “Isolated Tower Shadow Modeling”. The
Rotor Diameter 80m wake profile is determined by any of CFD, wind tunnel
Rated Power 2MW test, or field test. CFD around an isolated column was
Tilt Angle -8deg conducted here.
Coning Angle +5deg
Rotor Speed 12-19.5r/min 3.2 Isolated Column CFD
Hub Height 62m Three dimensional CFD was carried out for an
Tower Diameter 2.5-4.0m isolated column. ANSYS CFX[ 6 ] with k-omega
Power Control Pitch turbulence model was used here. Calculation domain is
13D x 3D x 3D in longitudinal, lateral and vertical
2. Wind Turbine Outline directions. Here, “D” indicates the tower diameter.
The wind turbine investigated here is Fuji Heavy Wind vector and pressure distribution of the column is
Industries SUBARU80/2.0, 2MW downwind turbine. shown in Figure 2. Reynolds number and drag
Its and general specifications and outline are shown in coefficient are 2.6e+6 and 0.36 respectively.
Table 1 and Figure 1.
 4.2 Rotor-Tower CFD
The phenomena were analyzed using ANSYS CFX
with SST turbulence model. Both rated and cut out
wind speed conditions, shown in Table 2, were
calculated. CFD results of 0deg and 180deg of azimuth
angles in 13m/s wind speed are shown in Figure 4 and 5.
The pressure distributions of tower surfaces show
pressure rise, while one of three blades is just behind
the tower. Drag coefficients of representative tower
sections, shown in Figure 6, also imply it.

Table 2 Rotor-Tower CFD Conditions

Rated Cut Out
Wind Speed[m/s] 13 25
Figure 2 CFD around an Isolated Column (3D) Rotor Speed[r/min] 17.5 17.5
Pitch Angle[deg] 6 26
3.2 Isolated Tower Shadow Modeling
A bell shape tower shadow model is defined as
equation (1). Here, x and y are longitudinal and lateral
positions leeward of center of the cylinder. V0, xref, and
D are reference wind speed, reference position, and
tower diameter. W and e are width of the tower shadow
and maximum velocity deficit at xref, expressed by
equations (2) and (3) as empirical mode of BLADED[7].

V ( x, y )  πy 
= 1 − e ⋅ cos 2   (1)
V0  WD 
e( x )
= (x x ref )
−1 2
(2)
e(x ref )
W (x )
= (x x ref )
12
(3)
W (x ref ) Figure 4 Rotor-Tower CFD (13m/s, Azimuth 0deg)

Figure 3 shows the bell shape tower shadow model

(line), which agrees best to the CFD result (circles).
Here, (e, W, xref/D) were determined as (0.4, 1.3, 5.0).

1.1
Bell Shape Wake Model
Tower CFD

1
Normalized Wind Speed[-]

0.9

0.8

0.7

Figure 5 Rotor-Tower CFD (13m/s, Azimuth 180deg)

0.6

4.3 Load Equivalent Modeling

0.5
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Aerodynamic rotor torque MXMA and thrust FXNA in
y/DT[-]
13 and 25m/s are shown in Figure 7 and 8. The lateral
Figure 3 Isolated Tower Shadow Model coordinates indicate azimuth angles around the tower
shadow. Marks “o” and “+” indicate outputs by rotor
4. Load Equivalent Modeling tower CFD and BEM with load equivalent model
4.1 Modeling Outline respectively. A bell shape tower shadow model
The proposal here is to define tower wake profile in parameters (e, W, xref/D) were determined as (0.08, 5.0,
BEM so as to expresses the load history by CFD of a 3.0), on the bases of load equivalence. It expresses the
rotor-tower model. Hereinafter, this is called as “Load transitions of loads in both wind speeds well, as shown
Equivalent Modeling”. It considers rotor-tower in the figures.
interaction and the transient process of blades passing BEM results with the former model, defined in the
through the tower wake. previous chapter, are also shown in the figures as mark
“x”. It is remarkable that it provides significantly 5. Field Test
steeper and narrower load transients. In other words, the 5.1 Test Outline
former model was shown to overestimate the tower The load equivalent model was verified through a
shadow effect, providing larger fatigue loads, and make field test. The turbine used here was SUBARU80/2.0,
higher harmonics of vibrations stronger. 2MW downwind turbine, explained in Chapter 2. The
However, these BEM calculations were carried out tests site is Wind Power Hasaki, locates near the
with rigid models so as to coincident with the CFD seashore in Kamisu, Japan. The terrain around the
model, the load equivalent model is applicable to turbine is categorized as flat terrain.
aero-elastic calculation also.
5.2 Measurement Outline
Main shaft strains were measured by optical strain
0.5
sensors[8] at L=1.67m from the hub center in 10Hz.
0.45
Another operational condition data, such as rotor
Tower Local Drag Coefficient Cd[-]

0.4 azimuth angle, wind speed, and pith angle, were also
0.35
measured in 2Hz. Bending moment MYR and share force
FZR at hub center was converted to the main shaft
0.3
bending by Equation (4).
0.25

0.2 M YMS = M YR − FZR ⋅ L (4)

0.15

6
0.1
25% Rotor Radimus x 10
1.5
50% Rotor Radimus
0.05 75% Rotor Radimus BEM(Load Equivalent)
Blade Tip BEM(Isolated Tower)
1
0 Field Test
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Azimuth Angle[deg]
0.5
Figure 6 Tower Cd of Representative Sections (13m/s)
MYMS[Nm]

-0.5
Load Equivalent Model Load Equivalent Model
Isolated Cylinder Model Isolated Cylinder Model
1.2 Rotor-Tower CFD 1.2 Rotor-Tower CFD -1

1 1 -1.5
MXNA/MXNA [-]

FXNA/FXNA [-]
AV

AV

0.8 0.8 -2
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

0.6 0.6
Azimuth[deg]
Figure 9 Main Shaft Bending (13m/s, TI=0.10, a=0.20)
0.4 0.4
6
x 10
1.5
0.2 0.2
BEM(Load Equivalent)
BEM(Isolated Tower)
1
0 0 Field Test
160 170 180 190 200 160 170 180 190 200
Aximuth Angle[deg] Aximuth Angle[deg] 0.5
Figure 7 Aerodynamic Torque and Thrust (13m/sec)
MYMS[Nm]

-0.5
Load Equivalent Model Load Equivalent Model
Isolated Cylinder Model Isolated Cylinder Model
1.2 Rotor-Tower CFD 1.2 Rotor-Tower CFD -1

1 1 -1.5
MXNA/MXNA [-]

FXNA/FXNA [-]
AV

AV

0.8 0.8 -2
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Azimuth[deg]
0.6 0.6
Figure 10 Main Shaft Bending
0.4 0.4
(25m/s, TI=0.10, a=0.17)

0.2 0.2 5.3 Data

The main shaft bending moment of measurement
0
160 170 180 190 200
0
160 170 180 190 200
data at 13m/s and 25m/s are shown in Figure 11 and 12
Aximuth Angle[deg] Aximuth Angle[deg] as well as the simulation data with the present and the
Figure 8 Aerodynamic Torque and Thrust (25m/sec) former tower shadow models. Amplitudes of the loads
are affected by wind conditions. The turbine has a three
dimensional ultrasonic anemometer[9] in the windward
of the nacelle and the rotor. Turbulent intensity, average
yaw angle and inclinations were assumed as 10%, 0deg,
and 10deg each, in the simulation, from the measured
data. By these assumptions, the main shaft bending is
thought to be dependent on wind shear. Here, wind
shear exponent “a” was selected out of 0.11, 0.14, 0.17,
0.20, 0.23, 0.27, and 0.30, which expressed the load
transition most. Here, z and U indicate height above
ground and wind speed. And subscription “0” indicates
reference height.
The load equivalent model seems to be similar to the
measurement data. On the other hand, the isolated
3) Case study for the turbine shows the former isolated
tower shadow model provides too pessimistic fatigue
loads and design lives.
0
-1-Blade Root Flap Bending(m=10, n=2e+8)
-2-Blade Root Edge Bending(m=10, n=2e+8)
-1
-3-Rotor Torque(m=4, n=1e+8)
-4-Rotor Nodding Moment(m=4, n=1e+8)
-2 -5-Rotor Thrust(m=4, n=1e+8)
-6-Yaw Nodding Moment(m=4, n=1e+8)
-7-Yaw Shear Force(m=4, n=1e+8)
-3
-8-Tower Base Bending(m=4, n=1e+8)

tower wake model tends to overestimate tower shadow -4

effects around 180deg of azimuth angle.

-5

U (z )  z
a -6
 (5)
= 
U ( z 0 )  z 0
-7

-8

5. Case Study -9
0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4
5.1 Simulation Conditions DEL(Isolated Tower/Load Equivalent)[-]
Case study was carrion out for SUBARU80/2.0, Figure 11 Damage Equivalent Loads by Two Models
2MW downwind turbine. The two types of tower
shadow models, defined in the previous chapters, were
0
assumed here. Other conditions including controllers -1-Blade Root Flap Bending(m=10, n=2e+8)
are exactly same with each other. IEC class A normal -1
-2-Blade Root Edge Bending(m=10, n=2e+8)
-3-Rotor Torque(m=4, n=1e+8)
turbulence model with +8deg average yaw angle were -4-Rotor Nodding Moment(m=4, n=1e+8)
-2 -5-Rotor Thrust(m=4, n=1e+8)
assumed. BLADED were used for the aero-elastic -6-Yaw Nodding Moment(m=4, n=1e+8)
-7-Yaw Shear Force(m=4, n=1e+8)
simulations. -3
-8-Tower Base Bending(m=4, n=1e+8)

-4
5.2 Fatigue Loads
-5
Some representative damage equivalent loads (DEL)
of the isolated tower model, normalized by those of the -6

load equivalent model, are shown in Figure 11. IEC1A -7

wind speed distribution with 20 years of design life was
assumed here. And assumed numbers of cycle “n” and -8

inverse slope “m” are shown in the legends. Many of -9

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
them, such as rotor nodding and thrust, yaw nodding, Design Life(Isolated Tower/Load Equivalent)[-]
and tower base bending, show the isolated tower
Figure 12 Calculated Design Lives
shadow model provides about 10% more pessimistic
DEL than the load equivalent model. And, the effect for
7. References
yaw shear force is huge as much as 30%. But, effects to
blade root bending and rotor torque are small, and no 1
IEC61400-1, ed.3, Wind Turbines – Part 1: Design
evident differences appear in blade root edgewise
Requirements, 2005.
bending as mass term is dominant for the load. 2
Germanischer Lloyd, Rules and Guidelines,
Calculated design lives of the isolated tower shadow
Guidelines for Certification of Wind Turbines, 2003.
model, normalized by load equivalent model, are shown 3
Adkins, C., N., Liebeck, R., H., Design of Optimum
in Figure 12. Many of the former ones are 60-70% of
Propellers, AIAA83-190, 1983.
the latter ones. And as the worst one, yaw shear force, 4
Wang T, etal, An Examination of Two Tower-Shadow
is less than 40%.
Modeling Strategies for Downwind Turbines,
As shown above, the isolated tower shadow model
AIAA98-0022, 1998.
provided too pessimistic loads than the load equivalent 5
Barman K, et al., Measurement of the Tower Wake of
model, which was shown to express the rotor-tower
the Swedish Prototype WECS Maglarp and
CFD well.
Calculations of It’s Effect on Noise and Blade
Loading, EWEC1984, pp.56-63, 1984.
6. Conclusion 6
ANSYS, CFX, 2006.
1) Present study proposes a load equivalent tower 7
Garrad Hassan, BLADED for Windows, 2006.
shadow modeling in BEM aero-elastic simulation 8
Rhead, P., Fiber Optic Based Sensing Systems for
code. It defines a bell shape tower wake profile on
Multi-Variable Turbine Control and Structural
the bases of load equivalence to rotor-tower CFD. It
Condition Monitoring Applications, 2006 European
considers rotor-tower interaction and the transition
Wind Energy Conference, 2006.
phenomena passing through the tower wake, which 9
Kaijo Sonic, SAT-500 Series, 3-D Ultrasonic
has been ignored in former models.
Anemometer Thermometer Catalogue, 2007.
2) Load equivalent tower shadow model was defined
for SUBARU80/2.0, 2MW downwind turbine. It was
verified through the field test.