Advanced Wind Turbine Program Next Generation Turbine ... - NREL
Advanced Wind Turbine Program Next Generation Turbine ... - NREL
Advanced Wind Turbine Program Next Generation Turbine ... - NREL
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
posed in conjunction with the direct-drive generator concept, GE’s concept evolved to consider it<br />
as a possible replacement for the bedplate main frame regardless of the drive train arrangement.<br />
(a) Large Bearing Support (b) Tubular Nacelle<br />
Figure 4. Direct-Drive Support System<br />
The motivation for using welded steel sheet is that the latter could be cut, rolled, and welded<br />
quite inexpensively, either in a factory setting or even in a field assembly facility. Minimal finish<br />
machining would be required, and the entire structure should save substantial money. Significant<br />
main frame weight reductions were predicted.<br />
Extensive structural analysis of the tubular nacelle concept was conducted. This analysis was<br />
based around replacing the bedplate for the 1.5 MW POC turbine with the welded steel tubular<br />
nacelle. Internal structure was added in order to add rigidity to the cylindrical skin structure and<br />
to distribute the loads to the skin and the rest of the support structure in a reasonable fashion. An<br />
optimization of the tubular nacelle design was conducted in an attempt to minimize the amount<br />
of material used while maintaining structural integrity. Welded steel does not have particularly<br />
high fatigue strength, only 4.5 ksi, or 31 MPa. Figure 5 below illustrates the stress distribution<br />
for the final “optimized” design. Even this design, exhibiting areas of excessive fatigue (gray<br />
areas in Figure 5), weighs over twice what the existing bedplate weighs. As a result, this configuration<br />
is expected to cost more than the GE 1.5 MW bedplate and fiberglass nacelle. Further optimization<br />
of the design might be expected to shave more cost,, but not enough to provide a significant<br />
benefit. As shown in Figure 5, the distribution of material does not match the distribution<br />
of stress. A great amount of material above the centerline and behind the tower is very<br />
lightly stressed. This design was an inefficient structure for this application.<br />
17<br />
`