the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impacts of wind field characteristics and non-steady deterministic wind events on time varying main-bearing loads
- 1Wind Energy and Control Centre, Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, The University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
- 2Onyx Insight, Nottingham, UK
- 3University of Colorado, Boulder, United States
- 4National Renewable Energy Laboratory, United States
- 5ORE Catapult, Inovo, Glasgow, UK
- 1Wind Energy and Control Centre, Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, The University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
- 2Onyx Insight, Nottingham, UK
- 3University of Colorado, Boulder, United States
- 4National Renewable Energy Laboratory, United States
- 5ORE Catapult, Inovo, Glasgow, UK
Abstract. This work considers the characteristics and drivers of the loads experienced by wind turbine main-bearings. Simplified load response models of two different hub and main-bearing configurations are presented, representative of both inverting direct-drive and four-point mounted geared drivetrains. The influences of deterministic wind field characteristics, such as wind speed, shear, yaw offset and veer, on the bearing load patterns are then investigated for similarity scaled 5, 7.5 and 10 MW reference wind turbine models. Main-bearing load response in cases of deterministic gusts and extreme changes in wind direction are also considered for the 5 MW model. Perhaps surprisingly, veer is identified as an important driver of main-bearing load fluctuations. Upscaling results indicate that similar behaviour holds as turbines become larger, but with mean loads and load fluctuation levels increasing at least cubically with the turbine rotor radius. Strong links between turbine control and main-bearing load response are also observed.
Edward Hart et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2022-1', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jan 2022
Thank you for the nice publication, there are some minor spelling issues.
Additionally, there some minor flaws.
- Â all figures are missing light grids
- p.1 l.11: wind turbines with 3MW offshore are past the state of art. Such a small size is currently erected onshore
- Â p.4 l.100: the paper would be more comprehensible, if some wind turbine characteristics would be stated (ex. rotor diameter, rated torque, rated wind speed)
- Â p.5 l.124: loads are modeled according to IEC 61400-1 but is only mentioned far later or in the appendix. BTW. why not use the current IEC 61400?
- Â p.6 figure 1: Thrust curve consists out of 3 segments before rated conditions, explanation missing
- Â p.8 l.201: a rigid shaft is quite a simplification. The reasonable justification is missing
- Â p.10 l.265: you mention that you are using a reference load. Would that not mean that the output loads in the figure 4 are non-dimensional
-  p.11 figure: 4: axis-labels are missing; please indicate the direction of the rotor weight, as 0° points towards a right.
- p.15 figure 7: Not traceable. Labels cannot be read. Maybe split the graphic into two. It is not clear which is centered, and which is overhang
- p.15 l.348: explanation of how loop area is determined would be nice. As for my understanding: It is the area enclosed as shown in figure 4
- Â p.19 figure:12: ideal thrust curve should be indicated differently, otherwise it is like the end of the gust
- p.20 l.405: perspective of centered support missing?
- p.20 figure: 13: You show the control variable for corresponding wind speed. Please ad the corresponding star in control variable to improve clarity
- Â p.21 l.420 cubical increase, is not clear as rotor diameter missing
- p.21 conclusion: Your conclusion contains discussions and new references. A conclusion should only base on the work shown earlier. A split between discussion and conclusion might be better
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Edward Hart, 29 Mar 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2022-1', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Feb 2022
The publication is interesting, where looking at reduced order models for main bearing load estimation is something that could be used for various applications.
However, it would require a bit more elaboration on the turbine characteristics used, like mentioned by the previous referee.
P1. l.21 seems to have a typo, or at least reads a bit weird.
P7. figure 2: figure 3 explains perfectly how you calculate the bearing loads, however from figure 2 it might be hard for readers to understand the visual difference. You refer to GE, which shows a very in depth figure, but maybe consider changing figure 2 to make it visually more understandable for readers who have not seen these configurations before (up to the author). I would also just make a 2nd figure of the centered support in figure 3 if I were you.
P8. l. 220 Regarding the Equations , it is nice to mention that you assume static equilibrium, rather than dynamic equilibrium.
P15. figure 7,8: The legend size should be larger.Â
Your results section reads like a results & discussion. It seems this was intentional, but it is not mentioned. Either split these two up or change the title of the results section to results and discussion.
The use of grids in figures can be nice. The paper and some sentences seem to be (perhaps excessively) long and could be shortened. Text becomes more understandable for readers when sentences are kept short. However, this should be up to the author.Â
Â
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Edward Hart, 29 Mar 2022
-
AC3: 'Response to Editor', Edward Hart, 29 Mar 2022
Dear Amir,
Thank you for handling the review process for this paper. Both reviewers have made some very helpful comments regarding how the manuscript might be improved for readers. We look forward to submitting a revised manuscript based on their suggestions.Â
Best,
Edward Hart (on behalf of all co-authors)
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2022-1', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jan 2022
Thank you for the nice publication, there are some minor spelling issues.
Additionally, there some minor flaws.
- Â all figures are missing light grids
- p.1 l.11: wind turbines with 3MW offshore are past the state of art. Such a small size is currently erected onshore
- Â p.4 l.100: the paper would be more comprehensible, if some wind turbine characteristics would be stated (ex. rotor diameter, rated torque, rated wind speed)
- Â p.5 l.124: loads are modeled according to IEC 61400-1 but is only mentioned far later or in the appendix. BTW. why not use the current IEC 61400?
- Â p.6 figure 1: Thrust curve consists out of 3 segments before rated conditions, explanation missing
- Â p.8 l.201: a rigid shaft is quite a simplification. The reasonable justification is missing
- Â p.10 l.265: you mention that you are using a reference load. Would that not mean that the output loads in the figure 4 are non-dimensional
-  p.11 figure: 4: axis-labels are missing; please indicate the direction of the rotor weight, as 0° points towards a right.
- p.15 figure 7: Not traceable. Labels cannot be read. Maybe split the graphic into two. It is not clear which is centered, and which is overhang
- p.15 l.348: explanation of how loop area is determined would be nice. As for my understanding: It is the area enclosed as shown in figure 4
- Â p.19 figure:12: ideal thrust curve should be indicated differently, otherwise it is like the end of the gust
- p.20 l.405: perspective of centered support missing?
- p.20 figure: 13: You show the control variable for corresponding wind speed. Please ad the corresponding star in control variable to improve clarity
- Â p.21 l.420 cubical increase, is not clear as rotor diameter missing
- p.21 conclusion: Your conclusion contains discussions and new references. A conclusion should only base on the work shown earlier. A split between discussion and conclusion might be better
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Edward Hart, 29 Mar 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2022-1', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Feb 2022
The publication is interesting, where looking at reduced order models for main bearing load estimation is something that could be used for various applications.
However, it would require a bit more elaboration on the turbine characteristics used, like mentioned by the previous referee.
P1. l.21 seems to have a typo, or at least reads a bit weird.
P7. figure 2: figure 3 explains perfectly how you calculate the bearing loads, however from figure 2 it might be hard for readers to understand the visual difference. You refer to GE, which shows a very in depth figure, but maybe consider changing figure 2 to make it visually more understandable for readers who have not seen these configurations before (up to the author). I would also just make a 2nd figure of the centered support in figure 3 if I were you.
P8. l. 220 Regarding the Equations , it is nice to mention that you assume static equilibrium, rather than dynamic equilibrium.
P15. figure 7,8: The legend size should be larger.Â
Your results section reads like a results & discussion. It seems this was intentional, but it is not mentioned. Either split these two up or change the title of the results section to results and discussion.
The use of grids in figures can be nice. The paper and some sentences seem to be (perhaps excessively) long and could be shortened. Text becomes more understandable for readers when sentences are kept short. However, this should be up to the author.Â
Â
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Edward Hart, 29 Mar 2022
-
AC3: 'Response to Editor', Edward Hart, 29 Mar 2022
Dear Amir,
Thank you for handling the review process for this paper. Both reviewers have made some very helpful comments regarding how the manuscript might be improved for readers. We look forward to submitting a revised manuscript based on their suggestions.Â
Best,
Edward Hart (on behalf of all co-authors)
Edward Hart et al.
Edward Hart et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 343 | 115 | 13 | 471 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 343
- PDF: 115
- XML: 13
- Total: 471
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1