the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Surrogate Based Optimization Framework to analyse Stall Induced Vibrations
Abstract. Stall Induced Vibrations (SIV) are an important design consideration for wind turbine blade design, especially for large, modern wind turbines which require long and flexible blades. Their severity depends on the inflow conditions, and structural characteristics of the blade, and the study of the parameter space that leads to SIV has a high computational cost due to the aeroelastic simulations involved, and the cost increases drastically with increasing number of variables to be studied. Given the computationally expensive nature of the problem, in this work, a Surrogate-Based Optimization (SBO) framework which uses surrogate models as an alternative to the high fidelity simulations is proposed to explore the behaviour of SIV. The proposed framework is not specific to any type of surrogate model and uses Delaunay Triangulation to iteratively select samples to refine the surrogate model. The framework is demonstrated to study the occurrence and severity of SIV on the IEA 10MW turbine in a five variable inflow space consisting of wind speed, yaw angle, vertical wind shear, wind veer, and atmospheric temperature. Using the proposed framework, a well-trained surrogate model is developed and used to predict the damping ratio of the first blade edgewise mode in the entire inflow space at a reduced computational cost. Sensitivity analysis of the predicted damping ratio shows that yaw angle is the most influential variable, while temperature is the least influential variable in terms of inflow conditions that can lead to occurrence of SIV. Inflow conditions with a moderate yaw angle (around 15–20 deg), high wind speeds, and moderate to high negative veer are found to lead to severe SIV. This framework is expected to serve as a guiding tool to decide the scope of the more computationally expensive simulations such as high fidelity CFD-based aeroelastic simulations which can provide a more accurate description of SIV.
- Preprint
(1792 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2022-79', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Sep 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Chandramouli Santhanam, 04 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2022-79', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Sep 2022
This paper presents an interesting research applying surrogate models to study the stall-induced vibrations of the IEA 10-MW wind turbine blades. Although limited scientific novelty can be found in the paper, the engineering observations are still useful. There are a few major concerns that affect the quality of the paper and should be addressed by the authors.
- The major problem is that HAWC2 is applied to analyze a parked rotor. Note that the verification article the authors cited applies to operating wind turbines with rotating blades. To the reviewer, the validity of the results is subjected to questions. Since surrogate models are applied, why not using CFD or a lifting line model?
- Table 1 shows a number of considered variables. Please clarify why they are selected here and whether there are other more important parameters.
- Some of the statements are not justified. For example, “The reference temperature for the normal damping values is considered as 15 °C, and a decrease of 50% in the structural damping is assumed at −10 °” Are there any grounds that can be used to support this statement?
- The language is acceptable, but a check should be done to avoid a mixed use of American/British spelling in the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-79-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Chandramouli Santhanam, 04 Nov 2022
-
RC3: 'Comment on wes-2022-79', Anonymous Referee #3, 06 Oct 2022
Please find the comments in the attached document.
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Chandramouli Santhanam, 04 Nov 2022
-
AC4: 'Other major changes to the paper after the first set of referee comments', Chandramouli Santhanam, 04 Nov 2022
Other major changes to the paper after the first set of referee comments
1) The x-axis in Figures 8b) and 12 have been changed to correct some errors in calculations.
2) Notational inconsistencies relating to the use of S(x) and Si (x) in lines 247 and 263 (in the earlier version) have been corrected
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-79-AC4
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2022-79', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Sep 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Chandramouli Santhanam, 04 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2022-79', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Sep 2022
This paper presents an interesting research applying surrogate models to study the stall-induced vibrations of the IEA 10-MW wind turbine blades. Although limited scientific novelty can be found in the paper, the engineering observations are still useful. There are a few major concerns that affect the quality of the paper and should be addressed by the authors.
- The major problem is that HAWC2 is applied to analyze a parked rotor. Note that the verification article the authors cited applies to operating wind turbines with rotating blades. To the reviewer, the validity of the results is subjected to questions. Since surrogate models are applied, why not using CFD or a lifting line model?
- Table 1 shows a number of considered variables. Please clarify why they are selected here and whether there are other more important parameters.
- Some of the statements are not justified. For example, “The reference temperature for the normal damping values is considered as 15 °C, and a decrease of 50% in the structural damping is assumed at −10 °” Are there any grounds that can be used to support this statement?
- The language is acceptable, but a check should be done to avoid a mixed use of American/British spelling in the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-79-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Chandramouli Santhanam, 04 Nov 2022
-
RC3: 'Comment on wes-2022-79', Anonymous Referee #3, 06 Oct 2022
Please find the comments in the attached document.
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Chandramouli Santhanam, 04 Nov 2022
-
AC4: 'Other major changes to the paper after the first set of referee comments', Chandramouli Santhanam, 04 Nov 2022
Other major changes to the paper after the first set of referee comments
1) The x-axis in Figures 8b) and 12 have been changed to correct some errors in calculations.
2) Notational inconsistencies relating to the use of S(x) and Si (x) in lines 247 and 263 (in the earlier version) have been corrected
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-79-AC4
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
450 | 239 | 37 | 726 | 25 | 18 |
- HTML: 450
- PDF: 239
- XML: 37
- Total: 726
- BibTeX: 25
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1