Advanced Wind Turbine Program Next Generation Turbine ... - NREL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case b is about twice that of Case a. It may not be worth engineering a system to cope with the large motions of Case b when most of the benefit can be provided with the Case a system. This view is reinforced when the effect of nodding rotations on tower clearance is considered. The results show that the Case a configurations are marginal for tower clearance (probably inadequate for lifetime extreme tip deflections), and that the Case b hinge is unrealistic for an upwind machine configuration. Overall, there is some cumulative benefit in having a soft tower, soft blade, and soft tower top connection but it is much less than simply additive, and it seems necessary to have a soft blade to prevent increase of blade loading because of tower head flexibility. The benefits from reductions in tower top tilt and yaw fatigue are questionable, as the only wind system component driven by these components of fatigue is the bedplate-tower interface, which will increase in cost and complexity anyway, in order to introduce the compliance. A brief engineering analysis of the mechanical requirements for implementing the tower top compliance was conducted. The conclusions show the Case a system added to the baseline 750i turbine featuring a soft-soft tower and a softer rotor and would cost approximately the same as the yaw drive system, which is the only clear cost savings implemented from yaw or tilt compliance. There is no benefit to blades, and unless a substantial benefit to tower costs, nacelle structure, or drive train can be established, it will be hard to justify the costs. 27
Percent Reduction in Component of Fatigue Relative to Baseline Configuration -20 -10 0 10 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 Baseline Tower, Baseline Rotor, Nodding & Yawing Nacelle A Baseline Tower, Baseline Rotor, Nodding & Yawing Nacelle B Baseline Tower, Softer Rotor, Rigid Nacelle Baseline Tower, Softer Rotor, Nodding & Yawing Nacelle A Baseline Tower, Softer Rotor, Nodding & Yawing Nacelle B Soft-Soft Tower, Baseline Rotor, Rigid Nacelle Soft-Soft Tower, Baseline Rotor, Nodding & Yawing Nacelle A Soft-Soft Tower, Baseline Rotor, Nodding & Yawing Nacelle B Soft-Soft Tower, Softer Rotor, Rigid Nacelle Soft-Soft Tower, Softer Rotor, Nodding & Yawing Nacelle A Soft-Soft Tower, Softer Rotor, Nodding & Yawing Nacelle B Blade Flapwis e Moment Blade Edgewise Moment Towe r Top Yaw Mome nt Towe r Top Tilt Mome nt Figure 10. Impact of Rotor, Tower, and Tower Top Flexibility on Fatigueas Determined through Simulations 28
Page 1 and 2: National Renewable Energy Laborator
Page 3 and 4: NOTICE This report was prepared as
Page 5 and 6: Abstract This document reports the
Page 7 and 8: In addition to innovations resultin
Page 9 and 10: 3.2.3 Mechanical Loads Testing of t
Page 11 and 12: List of Symbols and Abbreviations A
Page 13 and 14: The SOW also stipulates that GE see
Page 15 and 16: 2.1 Electromechanical Systems Conce
Page 17 and 18: Table 1. Summary of the Key Drive T
Page 19 and 20: 2.1.1 Conventional-Speed Generators
Page 21 and 22: other than the wound rotor inductio
Page 23 and 24: offer compelling advantages to COE.
Page 25 and 26: cluded that the same would likely b
Page 27 and 28: cannot be designed for unity power
Page 29 and 30: Figure 5. Fatigue Damage Equivalent
Page 31 and 32: 2.3 Rotor and Structural Design Con
Page 33 and 34: 2.3.1.1 Upwind Rotor Blade and Towe
Page 35 and 36: Percent Change in Load Percent Chan
Page 37: the other three combinations of rot
Page 41 and 42: Design rules were used to estimate
Page 43 and 44: formed using the baseline rotor des
Page 45 and 46: duce an average flapwise deflection
Page 47 and 48: would be to reduce the COE by reduc
Page 49 and 50: 2.3.5 Boundary Layer Control GE com
Page 51 and 52: Perhaps the most important outcome
Page 53 and 54: Table 3. Proof of Concepts Turbine
Page 55 and 56: Figure 16. Schematic of the Proof o
Page 57 and 58: • Measure thermal characteristics
Page 59 and 60: Figure 21. POC Drive Train on the N
Page 61 and 62: • The lift and drag characteristi
Page 63 and 64: Figure 24. NGT POC Airfoil Family F
Page 65 and 66: One of the prototype blades was ini
Page 67 and 68: least 20 years of equivalent loadin
Page 69 and 70: 3.2.1 Power Performance Testing of
Page 71 and 72: Maxi mum Ti p Speed (m/s) Sound Pow
Page 73 and 74: Table 6. Engineering & Manufacturin
Page 75 and 76: GE briefly considered the costs and
Page 77 and 78: Figure 38. EMD 37-m (GE37a) Blade 6
Page 79 and 80: Development of the concept required
Page 81 and 82: Bench tests verified PLC control mo
Page 83 and 84: 4.3.2 Mechanical Loads Testing of t
Page 85 and 86: 5 Commercialization of GE NGT Techn
Page 87: F1146-E(12/2004) REPORT DOCUMENTATI

Advanced Wind Turbine Program Next Generation Turbine ... - NREL

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?