2 WindTurbineModeling

Short Course on Wind Energy
- Wind Turbine Modeling -
POLItecnico
di MI lano
Carlo
Carlo L.
L. Bottasso
Bottasso
Politecnico
Politecnico di
di Milano
Milano
November
November 2011
2011
POLItecnico
di MI lano
Overview of AeroAero-servoservo-elastic
Models for Wind Turbines
AeroAero-servoservo-elastic Models
Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis
Classical modeling philosophy:

philosophy:
AdAd-hoc codes tailored to specific configurations (e.g., horizontal axis,
three bladed, etc.)
Multibody approach to wind turbine modeling:
Turbine is viewed as a complex flexible mechanism
Model novel configurations of arbitrary topology by assembling basic
components chosen from an extensive library of elements
Advantages:
Advantages:
Simulation software tools are modular and expandable
Applicable to configurations with arbitrary topologies, includi
including
ng
those not yet foreseen
Existing multibody codes for wind turbines (not a complete list):
GH Bladed 4, RIS
RIS HAWC2, Adams, Mechano,
Mechano, Simpack,
Simpack, , CpCp-Lambda
POLITECNICO di MILANO
POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab
Example: CpCp-Lambda
FEM multibody code, extensively validated for rotorcraft applications:
(Bauchau, Bottasso, Nikishkov,

Nikishkov, MCM 2001)
WindWind-energy version:
CpCp-Lambda (Code for Performance, Loads
and Aeroelasticity by Multiulti-Body Dynamic
Analysis)
Topological view of possible wind turbine multibody models:
Blade
Nacelle inertia
DirectDirect-drive
three bladed
Torque
actuator
Pitch
actuator
r
to
a
r
ne ft
e
G
a
sh
ic
st
a
El
le
el ess
c
Na iffn
st
Yaw
actuator
Mechanical
losses
Teetering hinge
Tower
Friction
DirectDirect-drive
teetering
Rigid body
Beam
Releasable ice
accretion
Revolute joint
Actuator
Boundary condition
Elastic
foundation
Cp-Lambda structural element library:
Blade
Nacelle inertia
Torque
actuator
Pitch
actuator
le
el ess
c
Na iffn
st
r
to
a
r
ne ft
e
G
a
sh
ic
st
a
El
Beams:
Beams:
Geometrically exact, compositecomposite-ready beams
Curved and twisted NURBS reference lines

Yaw
(aeroelastic couplings)
actuator Fully populated 6x6 stiffness (aeroelastic
Joints:
Joints:
Tower
Enforced by Lagrange multipliers (DAE formulation)

Spring, damper, backlash and friction in all joints
Flexible joints (contact beambeam-cylindrical, prismatic,
screw)
Unilateral joints (contact(contact-impact analysis)
Rigid body
Beam
Revolute joint
Actuator
Elastic
foundation
Boundary condition
Actuators:
Actuators: first and second order linear and
rotational models, refined actuator models
Sensors and control elements
Aerodynamic model:
model:
Lifting lines (two(two-dimensional strip theory)

Tip losses, radial & unsteady flow, dynamic stall
Inflow models (Dynamic PittPitt-Peters & PetersPeters-He)
Generic interface to external CFD or free wake
Tower shadow
Wind models (according to IEC 6140061400-1):
Deterministic gusts (EOG1, ECG)
3D stochastic turbolent wind
Wind shear (exponential and logarithmic)
Analysis types:
types:
Static analysis
Eigenanalysis
Dynamic response analysis
Stability analysis (implicit Floquet or by excitation)
Cp-Lambda time integrations schemes:
Geometric integrators for DAEs:

DAEs:
Solutions that
satisfy the
constraints
Drifting
solution
Solutions that
satisfy the
invariants
System
manifold
Constraint
manifold
Manifold of
the invariants
Energy preserving
solution
Exact treatment of geometric nonnon-linearities

Exact satisfaction of constraints (no drift)
Scaling for improved numerical conditioning (Bottasso
et al. 2007)
NonNon-linear unconditional stability (Bottasso et al. 2003):
bound on total energy of deformable bodies +
vanishing of work of constraint forces +
conservation of momenta
Energy preserving/decaying scheme:
scheme:
High frequency modes artifacts of discretization
Energy decaying scheme damps unresolved modes
Improved robustness for large nonnon-linear FEM models
ED 0
Energy
manifold
Energy decaying
solution
Dissipated total energy

within a time step
Other Wind Turbine Model Types

Reduced aero-servo-elastic models:
models:
Few degrees of freedom, capture gross toto-bebe-controlled
solution scales
Flexibility neglected or modeled as
Equivalent hingehinge-spring systems or
A few carefully chosen modes
Simplified aerodynamics
Useful for low fidelity simulations, very fast simulation times,
modelmodel-based control, state observers, etc.
Reduced Model for ModelModel-Based

Controllers
Example:
Example: 6 state 2 input collectivecollective-pitchpitch-only model
e
c
Fa
JG
Telc Tele
Tl
MT ; CT ; KT
Ta
JR
Equations:
Equations:
DriveDrive-train shaft dynamics
Elastic tower forefore-aft motion
Blade pitch actuator dynamics
Electrical generator dynamics
_ ; e ; _e ; Tel
States:
States: d; d;
e
Inputs:
Inputs: c ; Telc

Controllers
Equations of motion:
motion:
_ Vm )
_ + Tl () + Tele Ta (; e ; Vw d;
(JR + JG )
_ Vm )
MT d + CT d_ + KT d Fa (; e ; Vw d;
e + 2!_ e + ! 2 (e c )
1
_
Tele + (Tele Telc )
=0
=0
=0
=0
_
Tip speed ratio: = R=(Vw d)
Wind:
Vw = Vm + Vt (mean wind + turbulence)

Controllers
Rotor force and moment coefficients:

coefficients:
1
CP (; e ; Vm )
_2
R3 e
(Vw d)
2
1
_2
Fa = R2 CFe (; e ; Vm )(Vw d)
2
CFe (; e ; Vm ); CPe (; e ; Vm ) computed offoff-line with Cp-Lambda
Ta
aeroaero-servoservo-elastic model, averaging periodic response over one rotor rev

Stored in looklook-up tables
Dependence of CFe (; e ; Vm ) and CPe (; e ; Vm ) on mean wind Vm

accounts for deformability of tower and blades under high winds
Example:
Example: 9 state 4 input
individualindividual-pitch model
Equivalent stiffness through
springs (no beam elements)
States:
States:
Blade
Pitch
actuator
c1
Equivalent shaft stiffness

Controllers
Telc
Torque
actuator
Nacelle inertia
Yaw
actuator
Generator
Tower
c2
3 flap angles
Rotor azimuth
Shaft torsion
c3
Equivalent flap hinge

and spring
3 tower angles (fore(fore-aft, sideside-side, torsion)

Yaw angle
(and their rates)
Rigid body
Inputs:
Inputs: c1 ; c2 ; c3 ; Telc
Beam
Revolute joint
Actuator
Equivalent
tower
stiffnesses
Boundary condition
AdAd-hoc Modal Approach for Wind

Turbine Modeling with Tower Coupling
Used in several wind turbine modeling codes (e.g. GHGH-Bladed):
- Compute modal base for blades/rotor and tower
- Assemble blades and tower equations (couplings towertowermotion/blade, rotorrotor-loads/tower, etc.)
- Solve numerically (efficient, few dofs)
Legacy approach still heavily in use, although:
- Complex derivations
- Assumptions (linearity, simplification of couplings, rotational
effects on blades, etc.)
- Tied to specific topological configurations of model
Flapping Equation for an Elastic Blade
Equilibrium of blade segment:

Differential equations of equilibrium:
From beam theory:

Centrifugal stiffening

Sketch of solution procedure:
Time (amplitude)
Assume:
Space (shape)
The equations of motion become:
Space
Time
Natural
frequency

Natural
frequencies
Solving equations:
Mode
shapes
Subjected to boundary conditions:

Hinged:
Null
displacement
Null
bending
Null
bending
Null
shear
Hingeless:
Null
slope
Root
POLI-Wind Research Lab

POLI
Tip

No closed form solutions in rotating case (not even for uniform blade)
Remark: often, little effect of rotation on mode shapes
In real blades:
- Rapidly varying spanspan-wise properties (e.g. root region)
- Couplings flap/lag/torsion
Numerical methods:
methods:
- Rayleigh-Ritz:
Ritz: shape approximated
with assumed functions which satisfy aapriori the boundary conditions
- Myklestad:
Myklestad: lumped parameters
approach based on replacing distributed
beam mass with nodal masses and
assuming constant elastic properties in
between
- Finite elements:
elements: divide in elements
and use shape functions to describe
unknown fields (displacements and
possibly internal reactions)

For tower and blades, the equations of motion of the single components
components
are (neglecting structural damping here for simplicity):
All loads (aero, couplings,

gravity, etc.)
with
and hence:
Remark:
Remark: being modes orthogonal to each other (only when nonnon-rotating,
not shown here), there is one such equation per assumed mode
Remark:
Remark: for simplicity, we consider one single mode per tower and blade
blade
in the following

Tower:
Tower:
Rotor mass & inertia, nacelle mass
Multiply by assumed mode and integrate over tower length:
where

Blade:
Blade:
Need to account for motion due to tower deflection
Elastic blade
deflection
Define modified blade modal shape:
Blade mode
Rigid blade motion due

to tower deflection
Motion due
to tower
deflection

Blade equations of motion:
Periodic coefficients
Multiply by assumed mode and integrate over blade span:
where
Tower inertial coupling term

Tower-blade coupled equations of motion:
Tower loading:
Direct tower loading

(e.g. aerodynamics)
Blade aerodynamic coupling
Rotor force and

moment resultants
(depend on
)

Generalize formulation by including:
- Several blade modes (flap, lag, possibly torsion)
- Several tower modes (fore(fore-aft, sideside-side)
- Drive train dynamics
Difficult to rigorously account for all couplings
Modern approach: multibody dynamics
Virtual Testing Environment

environment:
ment:
Simulation of wind turbine operations in a high fidelity environ
Compute extreme loads due to gusts
Evaluate fatigue damage due to turbulence
Evaluate response spectra
Judge performance and suitability of control laws
Simulate failures and offoff-design conditions
Etc.

Wind
generator
Measurement
noise
Virtual plant
Sensor
models
Controller
Supervisor
Choice of operating condition:
Start up
Power production
Normal shutshut-down
Emergency shutshut-down
Process
noise
Aeroero-servoservoelastic model
Observers
Estimators of wind, tower/blade states, etc.
Feedback controller
PID
MIMO LQR

Detailed FEM analysis of subsub-components

Wind
generator
Measurement
noise
Virtual plant
Sensor
models
Controller
Supervisor
Choice of operating condition:
Start up
Power production
Normal shutshut-down
Emergency shutshut-down
Process
noise
Aeroero-servoservoelastic model
Gather loads from multibody

model analysis
Observers
Estimators of wind, tower/blade states, etc.
Feedback controller
PID
MIMO LQR

Apply equivalent load system

on subsub-component
www.aicia.es
POLItecnico
di MI lano
Structural Dynamics
Multibody Models
Coordinates for Multibody Systems

Example: the four bar mechanism (from Geradin & Cardona 2000).
Gruebler (or Kutzbach)

Kutzbach) formula:
number of space dimensions,

number of bodies,
of joints,
dofs removed by a joint
numberr
numbe
This
This system has one single dof:
dof:

Minimal coordinates:
coordinates:
Pick
as free coordinate:

Minimal coordinates:
coordinates:
+ Pros:
Minimum number of unknowns
No constraint conditions, e.g. through Lagrange
multipliers (therefore, the governing equations for
dynamics are ODEs,
ODEs, and not DAEs)
DAEs)
- Cons:
Complicated, highly nonnon-linear resulting expressions
Unsuitable for flexible systems
Difficult to generalize to arbitrary topologies

Lagrangian coordinates (relative, recursive):
Write two constraints to impose loop closure:

Lagrangian coordinates (relative, recursive):

+ Pros:
For open loops, leads to minimum number of unknowns
Particularly efficient for tree topologies, e.g. robotics
(important for realreal-time applications)
- Cons:
Complicated, highly nonnon-linear resulting expressions
Not well suited for flexible systems, especially when based on
the floating frame approach

Denavit-Hartenberg formulation of Lagrangian coordinates

Systematic approach for threethree-dimensional kinematic chains, based
on homogeneous coordinates:
This coordinate transformation can be expressed through a 4x4

matrix:

DenavitDenavit-Hartenberg formulation of Lagrangian coordinates
Homogeneous coordinate transformation from frame
to frame
frame :
This transformation can be used in a recursive manner to describe

describe an
arbitrary kinematic chain

DenavitDenavit-Hartenberg formulation of Lagrangian coordinates
Each transformation is described by four parameters (two

rotations
and , and two translations and ).

Rotation
about
Translation
Rotation
along
about
Translation
along
The linklink-toto-link DenavitDenavit-Hartenberg transformation is:


Lagrangian coordinates and floating frames:
frames: motion is split into
gross rigid body motion of a floating frame and small elastic
deformation about the frame
Floating frame
Small displacement
+ Pros:
Well suited for modalmodal-based elasticity
- Cons:
Complicated expressions of the kinetic energy
Geometric stiffening is not modelled
Component Mode Synthesis Method

Not yet covered in these notes

Cartesian coordinates:
coordinates:
Write eight constraints to assemble the system:

Cartesian coordinates with geometrically exact formulations:
The strain energy is

where
are strain measures
measures that are
unaffected by arbitrarily large rigid body motions,
+ Pros:
Exact nonnon-linear geometry
Simple expression of the strain energy
Geometrically Exact Beams

Beam kinematics:
kinematics:
Deformed
configuration
B
0
v = d_ Linear velocity
u00 + d0 Tangent to reference line
_ T ) Angular velocity
! = axial(
k = axial( )
Sectional curvature
d; R
Beam
reference line
d + u0 ; = RR0
B0
(modelled as
NURBS curve)
u0 ; R0
Undeformed
configuration
aS = aB
Change of components
for generic vector a
Inertial frame
Sections remain planar after deformation, but not necessarily normal

normal
to reference line

1
K=
2
Kinetic energy:
energy:
L
0
w p ds
Generalized velocities and momenta:

momenta:
w = (v; !) p = (l; h) p = M w
6x6 inertial tensor M (constant in sectional frame B )
Remarks:
Rotary inertia effects included

Allows offset of sectional mass center and beam reference line
Reference line
Mass center line

Z
Strain energy:
energy:
1
V =
2
e f ds
Strains and sectional stress resultants:
e = (u00 + d0 Ru00 ; k Rk0 ) f = (s; m)
f = Ke
6x6 stiffness matrix K (constant in sectional frame B )

Remarks:
Geometrically exact measures (arbitrarily large rotations and displacements,

displacements, rigid motion invariance), but
small strains
Fully populated stiffness allows for modeling of elastic couplings
couplings arising from use of composite materials
Offset of tension center from shear center and beam reference line
line
Shear center line
Reference line
Stiffness matrix K can be

obtained by solving 2D FEM
sectional problem (see Giavotto,
Giavotto,
Borri, Hodges)

Hamiltons Principle:
Principle:
tf
ti
(v p e f + We ) dsdt = 0
with We = work of external forces fe

d
d
B
B
_
(Ap ) + U (d)Ap (Af B ) U (u00 + u0 )Af B = feS
dt
ds
where
0
0 0
A=
U () =
0
0
Discretize in space using isoiso-parametric shape functions and reduced
integration
Discretize in time using suitable integration scheme (HHT, modifiedmodified-,
energy preservingpreserving-decaying,
decaying, etc.)
Classification of Constraints
Holonomic constraints (most common in mechanics):
Scleronomic:
Scleronomic:
Rheonomic:
Rheonomic:
Non-holonomic constraints:
constraints:
Scleronomic:
Scleronomic:
Rheonomic:
Rheonomic:
In practical applications, nonnon-holonomic constraints are
typically linear in the velocities, i.e.
Constrained Algebraic Problems

We consider the minimization of the functional
to the equality constraints
:
with
subjected
and
There are several possible solution techniques:

- Reduction to an independent set of unknowns
- The method of Lagrange multipliers
- The penalty method
- The augmented Lagrangian method

Reduction to an independent set of unknowns (coordinate
partitioning).
The virtual variations of unknown parameters
are constrained
constrained as
where
Partition
sets, i.e.
in independent (
so that
is nonnon-singular
) and dependent (
The dependent set can now be expressed as a function of the

independent set:

The virtual variations of the unknown parameters can now be

expressed through the virtual variations of the independent set:
Stationarity of the functional
can now be written
where
Since the
are independent and free (unconstrained), the
solving equations are
+ Pros: minimal set of equations and unknowns

- Cons: need to identify nonnon-singular block

The method of Lagrange multipliers

The functional
where
Stationarity of
is augmented as
are the Lagrange multipliers

yields
and the resulting solving equations are
Linearization of the equations for solving with Newton method:

The penalty method

The functional
where
is augmented as
is a large number (penalty parameter).
Stationarity of
yields
Note: exact solution is recovered only for

However, large
implies ill conditioning
Linearization of the equations for solving with Newton method:

The augmented Lagrangian method

The functional
is augmented as
where
are the Lagrange multipliers,
is a scaling
scaling factor
penalty-like term
for the Lagrange multipliers, and
is a penalty
that however does not need to be large
Stationarity of
yields

The augmented Lagrangian method (cont.)

Linearization of the equations for solving with Newton method
yields:
The term
improves the conditioning of the Jacobian,
Jacobian,
leading to better convergence
The augmented Lagrangian method is then a combination of the
method of Lagrange multipliers with scaling and the penalty
method
The role of the penalty parameter is to improve conditioning,
conditioning, not
to enforce the constraint conditions
Constrained Dynamic Problems

The same solution techniques developed for algebraic problems can
can be
used also for dynamic problems:
problems:
Reduction to an independent set of unknowns: not
recommended, identification of independent set not trivial and
might vary with time; complex dense set of solving equations
The method of Lagrange multipliers: sparse set of equations,
ideal for FEM; presence of algebraic variables (multipliers) leads
leads to
DAEs and needs special numerical methods
The penalty method: possible severe illill-conditioning
The augmented Lagrangian method: same as Lagrangian,
Lagrangian, but
with improved conditioning

For dynamic unconstrained problems, the governing equations are
obtained through Hamiltons Principle:
Principle:
where
is the Lagrangian
is the kinetic energy,

and
is the potential energy,
is the virtual work of the external forces
To treat constrained problems, the functional

as in the algebraic case
augmented
gmented
is au

The method of Lagrange multipliers

For holonomic constraints, the functional
is augmented as
which yields the governing equations for holonomically constrained

multibody systems in first order form
Generalized coordinates
Generalized velocities
Mass matrix
and
: displacements,
: rotations),
(Recall, angular velocities are not

time rates of rotational parameters)

Theorem of total mechanical energy
Differentiating the constraint
yields:
ields:
with respect to time y
(
for scleronomic
constraints)
Dot multiplying the equations of equilibrium by the velocity, we have:
: power of rheonomic constraints;
: power of external forces.
Time rate of change of total mechanical energy is equal to the power

power
of the external forces plus the power of the rheonomic constraints
Ideal scleronomic joints do not absorb nor produce power
Joint Models
Joints (or pairs) connect two bodies allowing some kind of relative
motion.
Lower pairs:
pairs: surface contact between elements
- They are the simplest,

but most useful and
common in applications
- There are only 6 possible
surface contact joints
Higher pairs:
pairs: point or line contact between elements
Occasionally, can be expressed as combinations of lower pairs
Lower Pairs
Inertial frame
Body A frame
Body B frame
Allowed relative
displacements and rotations
for the 6 lower pairs:
Lower Pairs
Allowed relative displacements and rotations:
Revolute
Prismatic
Screw
Cylindrical
Lower Pairs
Allowed relative displacements and rotations:
Planar
Spherical
Lower Pairs
When
, we have
Use Boolean identification of translational dofs of bodies A and B

All other constraints can be written using one of these equations:
equations:
Note:
Other Joints
Sliding joints account for the contact conditions between a rigid

and a flexible body:
Sliding cylindrical
Sliding Prismatic
Point on curve
Sliding screw
Point on surface
Other Joints
Contact conditions between a rigid and a flexible body.

Beam:
where
are the shape functions, and
the positions of the
beam nodes.
is the unknown point of contact.
Shell:
Rotational constraints are enforced as for the lower pairs
Temporal Integration
Issues in the selection of appropriate numerical integration schemes:

schemes:
Explicit vs. implicit
- Low frequency aeroaero-elastic temporal scales
- Possible high frequency scales in actuator models
- Contact/impact phenomena and the need for time refinement
- Order (2nd or higher)
Full FEM or modal based approaches, and the need for high
frequency damping
DAE multibody formulations:
- Enforcement of constraints for indexindex-3 DAE
- Stiffness and need for high frequency damping
- Ill conditioning and Lagrange multiplier scaling
No general treatment on these issues in these notes
Unresolved scales in FEM and temporal processes

All numerical processes are based on the selection of a grid
The sole fact of selecting a grid,
implies that some scales will not be
accurately resolved (Nyquist
(Nyquist Theorem)
Fine unresolvable
scales
Some of the unresolved scales might

(will) appear as abnormally amplified
in the computed solution.
Coarse resolvable
scales
Grid
h
This is a universal limitation of all numerical schemes
Newton convergence
failure
Example:
Example: integration failure of flexible
constrained mechanical system due to
pollution from high frequency modes
(artifacts of spatial discretization
process)
NonNon-linearities provide a mechanism to
excite the higher nonnon-physical modes
Without highhighfrequency damping

With highhigh-frequency
damping
Buckling of clamped I
beam by a crank and
link mechanism
Properties of constrained
mechanical systems
Solutions that
satisfy the
invariants
Solutions that
satisfy the
constraints
Drifting
solution
System
manifold
Constraint
manifold
Manifold of the
invariants
Classical approach: derive the equations and apply an offoff-thethe-shelf

generalgeneral-purpose DAE integrator
Pros: easy
Cons: the integrator knows nothing about the problem being solved
solved
- Invariants are not preserved, only linear notions of stability
- Lack of robustness, failure for particularly difficult problems
Geometric integration theory

Design (backward(backward-engineer) integrators that incorporate specific
knowledge of the equations being solved:
Exact treatment of geometric nonnon-linearities
Exact satisfaction of the constraints (no drift)
NonNon-linear unconditional stability and preservation of invariants:
Bound on total energy of deformable bodies + Vanishing of the
work of constraint forces + Conservation of momenta
true
e
The numerical procedure inherits qualitative features of the tru
solution
Energy methods: discrete energy conservation imply unconditional
stability in the nonnon-linear regime (Simo
(Simo & Wong 1991: rigid bodies;
Simo & Tarnow 1994: shells; Simo et al. 1995: beams)
Tf=Ti
(T=K+V)
Energy decaying methods (Bottasso & Borri 1997: beams; Bottasso &
Borri 1998: multibodies;
multibodies; Bottasso & Bauchau 1999: multibodies and
shells):
Tf=Ti-TD
TD0 dissipated total energy
Unconditional stability in the nonnon-linear regime from the bound

on the total energy
Mechanism for controlling the unresolved frequencies
Energy preserving solution
Energy
manifold
TD
Energy decaying solution
For a single degree of freedom linear oscillator model problem:

= 1, asymptotic annihilation
= 0, energy preserving scheme recovered
Energy Decaying scheme (solid triangles) vs. modifiedmodified- (Chung
& Hulbert, 1995) (empty triangles)
Energy Decaying scheme accuracy:

Linear model problem: fourth order = 0, third order = 1
In general, between second and third order
Leitwind
Actuator Models
Passive actuator models
First order actuator:
Torque actuator
(1st order)
1
y(t)
_ + (y(t) u(t)) = 0
Second order actuator:
Yaw actuator
(2nd order)
Pitch actuator
(2nd order)
y(t) + 2!y(t)
_ + ! 2 (y(t) u(t)) = 0
where:
= time constant
! = natural frequency
= damping ratio
u = input
y = output
Rigid body
Beam
Revolute joint
Actuator
Boundary condition
Actuator Models
Pitch controller,
sensor, actuator
Example, pitch actuator:

Compute bearing internal reaction from
blade inertial and aerodynamic loads
Compute bearing friction based on
reaction (bending, axial, etc.)
Given pitch demand, actuator controller
(e.g. PID) computes necessary torque
Apply torque limits
Apply limited torque about blade pitch
axis
Blade inertial + aerodynamic
Leitwind
Refined actuator models
torque
Bearing friction
Actuator torque
Pitch demand
Actuator controller
Actuator Models
Basic hydraulic elements:
elements: building blocks for more complex
hydraulic components
d
Cd
p, V, A
p0
p1
Aorf
1) Hydraulic chamber
2) Hydraulic orifice
k
3) Pressure relief valve:
p0
A1
A0
Fp
p1
m
x
c
xmax
Actuator Models
d
Derived hydraulic elements:

elements:
Chamber 0,
p0, A0, V0
Chamber 1,
p1, A1, V1
Hydraulic linear actuator

(2 chambers + 2 orifices):
Orifice0
pE0
Simple hydraulic damper

(2 chambers + 1 orifice):
Orifice1
Aorf ,Cd
Q0
Chamber 0,
p0, A0, V0
pE1
Aorf ,Cd
Q1
Chamber 1,
p1, A1, V1
Orifice
Aorf ,Cd
Actuator Models
Initial
configuration
NonNon-linear formulation of
hydraulic elements must be
fully compatible with other
multibody components
Present
configuration
u0
i3
u0
uk
I
i2
i1
Structural response: dictated by frequency content of structural

structural
elements
Hydraulic response: dictated by bulk modulus of the fluid (very
stiff equations, very small time steps)
Decoupling strategy with subsub-cycling for efficiency:
Structural steps (implicit EDS)
Hydraulic steps (explicit RK)
POLItecnico
di MI lano
Fluid Dynamics Models
Rotor Aerodynamic Models

Aerodynamic models:
models:
Lifting lines based on twotwo-dimensional strip theory:
- Associable with any beam in the model
- Lifting line and beam reference line of the same blade can be
different, for maximum generality
- Curved and twisted lifting lines, described by NURBS curves
- Airfoil aerodynamic characteristics stored in table looklook-up form
- An arbitrary number of airfoils can be associated with any
lifting line
- Tip losses, radial flow, unsteady correction, dynamic stall
Inflow models:
- Blade element momentum (BEM) theory
- Dynamic PittPitt-Peters model and PetersPeters-He wake models
Generic interface to external CFD or free wake codes
Example of servo/structural
and aerodynamic model of
rotor:
Lifting Line Kinematics

Structural reference line
Aerodynamic reference
line (modelled
(modelled as NURBS
curve)
P
A
vP
Rotor disk
Interpolate velocities vP ! at point P on structural reference

reference line
from FEM solution
Compute velocity at airair-station A
vA = vP + ! rP A

Structural reference line
Aerodynamic centers
line
Local wind speed
vW
Local inflow
vI
A
vA
Rotor disk
Compute local flow velocity at airair-station
v = vW + vI vA

AirAir-station
reference frame
p
UT = u2 + v 2
p
v U = u2 + v 2 + w2
x Relative flow velocity
u
Compute local angle of attack and Reynolds number
tan =
v
u
cUT
Re =
Lifting Line Loads

Compute lift, drag and moment at airair-station using experimental

looklook-up tables
CL = CL (; Re) CD = CD (; Re) CM = CM (; Re)
Lifting Line Loads

Correct for unsteady effects (e.g. using thin airfoil theory)
CL = CL + CL;
CM = CM
CL;
cv_
c_
c
+
+
4UT2
4UT
16
2
cv_
c_
3c
+
+
4UT2
2UT
32
Correct for dynamic stall (e.g. ONERA, LeishmanLeishman-Beddoes)
CL = CL + CL dyn stall
CD = CD + CD dyn stall
CM = CM + CM dyn stall
Delayed
separation
Hysteresis
Correct for tip Ft (e.g. Prandtl)

Prandtl) and hub losses Fh
CL = Ft Fh CL CD = Ft Fh CD CM = Ft Fh CM
Fh = Fh (r=R)
Ft = Ft (r=R)
Rotor disk
R
r
Lifting Line Loads

AirAir-load components:
Fx =
Fy =
Fz =
Mz =
1
1
cUT (vCL + uCDp ) + cU uCf
2
2
1
1
cUT (uCL + vCDp ) + cU vCf
2
2
1
cU wCf
2
1 2 2
c UT CM
2
Pressure drag: CDp = CD Cf
Fy
P
Fx
A
Fz
Mz
z
Skin friction drag: Cf 0:006
Transport load resultants to beam reference line:
mP = mA + s rP A
s = (Fx ; Fy ; Fz )T
mA = (0; 0; Mz )T
Inflow Models
One dimensional annular stream tube theory:

theory:
V vi
p0
p1
p
VD
r
vi = aV
Axial induction
factor
Axial thrust:
Bernoulli
Bernoullis Th.:
Results:
dT = dm(V
_
VD ) = dA(p0 p1 )
p + 1=2V 2 = p0 + 1=2(V vi )2
p1 + 1=2(V vi )2 = p + 1=2VD2
dT = V 2 4a(1 a)rdr
VD = V (1 2a)
a 1=2
Inflow Models
Assuming uniform inflow across the rotor disk:
Thrust:
T = 2AV a(1 a)
CT =
CTmax = 1 for a = 1=2

Power:
T
= 4a(1 a)
2
1=2AV
P
2
=
4a(1
a)
1=2AV 3
= 16=27 0:593 for a = 1=3
P = Q = T (V vi ) CP =
CPmax
Glauert empirical
relation
Turbulent wake
state
Betz limit
Inflow Models
One dimensional annular stream tube theory with wake swirl:

swirl:
!=2 = a
Rotor torque:
! = a0 2
Angular induction
factor
dQ = dm(!r)r
_
= ((V vi )2rdr)(!r)r
= V 4a0 (1 a)r3 dr
Inflow Models
Combined lifting line - one
dimensional annular stream
tube theory with wake swirl
(Blade Element Momentum,
BEM):
BEM):
A
t
r
Rotor disk
Compute annular thrust dT and torque dQ from lifting lines

lines
Solve for axial and angular induction factors
V 2 4a(1 a)rdr = dT
V 4a0 (1 a)r 3 dr = dQ
Compute local inflow: vI = aV n + a0 r t

Iterate until convergence
Inflow Models
Cl
Finite-state dynamic inflow models
- Pitt Peters 33-state model

Rotor disk
vI = (v0 + vs sin + vc cos )n
9
8
9 8
9
8
v0 = < CT = n
v0 =
<
<
d
vs
vs
Cl
M
+ L1
=
:
;
:
;
:
;
d(V t=R)
vc
vc
Cm
CT
- Peters He n-state model (hierarchical, contains Pitt Peters)
Free wake models
Cm
CFD Coupling
Compute geometric configuration and

velocity at airair-station
Move and deform fluid dynamic mesh
according to geometry
A
vA
Apply boundary conditions according to

motion
Solve flow problem
Integrate pressures at airair-station local span
to get airair-loads
Transport airair-loads to beam reference line
Fy
A
Fx
Fz M
z
Wind Models
Aerodynamic model (continued):
Wind models (according to IEC 6140061400-1):
Deterministic gusts (EOG1, ECG)
3D stochastic turbolent wind:
wind:
- PrePre-computed before the beginning of the simulation for an
assigned duration of time and for a useruser-specified twotwodimensional grid of points
- Steady mean wind + stochastic component based on von
Karman and Kaimal turbolence
Wind shear:
shear: exponential and logarithmic models
Tower shadow:
shadow: potential flow model for a conical tower, downwind
empirical Powles model, or an interpolation of the two
Wind Models
Wind speed distribution

distribution
tion of
Probability distribution function, used to describe the distribu
wind speeds over an extended period of time
Weibull distribution
k
Fw = 1 exp (V0 =C)
V0k1
k
fw = k k exp (V0 =C)
C
Fw (V0 ) = cumulative probability function, i.e. probability that V < V0

fw (V0 ) = probability density function
V0 = wind speed
C = scale parameter ( C = cV , c = 1=(1 + 1=k))
k = shape parameter
Example: annual energyZyield given powerpower-speed curve P (V0 )
Vout
E=Y
P (V0 )fw dV0
Y = year length
Vin
Wind Models
Wind profile - wind shear law

Logarithmic or power law profiles
ln(z=z0 )
V (z) = V (zr )
ln(zr =z0 )
V (z) = V (zr )
z
zr
V (z) = wind speed at height z

z = height above ground
zr = reference height above ground
for fitting the profile
z0 = roughness length
= wind shear (power law) exp
Normal Wind Profile (NWP):
V (z) = Vhub
z
zhub
0:2
Wind Models
Extreme wind conditions

as
s
The extreme wind conditions include wind shear events, as well a
peak wind speeds due to storms and rapid changes in wind speed
and direction
Extreme wind speed model (EWM)
Ve50 (z) = 1:4Vref
z
zhub
0:11
Ve1 (z) = 0:8Ve50 (z)
Vref = reference wind speed used for defining wind turbine classes
classes
Wind Models
Extreme Operating Gust (EOG)
V (z; t) =
V (z) 0:37Vgust sin(3t=T )(1 cos(2t=T )) for 0 t T

V (z)
otherwise
Vgust = min (1:35(Ve1 Vhub ; 3:3(1 =(1 + 0:1D=1 ))))

1 = turbulence standard deviation
1 = turbulence scale parameter
D = rotor diameter
T = gust duration ( T = 10:5 s)
Wind Models
Extreme Direction Change (EDC)
8
<
0 deg
for t < 0
0:5 e (1 cos(t=T )) for 0 t T
(t) =
:
otherwise
e
e = 4 arctan(1 =(Vhub (1 + 0:1(D=1 ))))
Duration: T = 6 s
Wind Models
Extreme coherent gust with direction change (ECD)
8
<
V (z)
for t < 0
V (z) 0:5Vcg (1 cos(t=T )) for 0 t T
V (z; t) =
:
V (z) + Vcg
for t > T
Vcg = 15 m/s
8
0 deg
for t < 0
<
0:5 cg (1 cos(t=T )) for 0 t T
(t) =
:
cg
for t > T
180 deg
for Vhub < 4 m/s
cg =
720 deg=Vhub for 4 m/s Vhub Vref
Wind Models
Extreme wind shear (EWS)

Vertical8shear
V (z; t) =
>
< Vhub
>
:
z
zhub
zz
hub
Horizontal shear
0:25
(1 cos(t=T )) for 0 t T
2:5 + 0:21 D1
z
Vhub zhub
otherwise

0:25
>
y
< Vhub z
(1 cos(t=T )) for 0 t T
D
2:5 + 0:21 D1
zhub
V (y; z; t) =
>
z
:
Vhub zhub
otherwise
= 0:2
= 6:4
T = 12 s
Wind Models
Normal Turbulence Model (NTM)

Turbulence standard deviation:
1 = Iref (0:75Vhub + b)
Iref
b = 5:6 m/s
= expected value of turbulence intensity at 15 m/s
Vref = reference wind speed averaged over ten minutes

Vhub = wind speed at hub height averaged over ten minutes
Wind Turbine Class
II
III
50
42.5
37.5
Vref
(m/s)
m/s)
Iref (-)
0.16
Iref (-)
0.14
Iref (-)
0.12
Values
specified
by
designer
Wind Models
Normal Turbulence Model (NTM)

According to IECIEC-6140061400-1, Ed.3, the following turbulence models
may be used for design load calculations:
1. Kaimal spectral and exponential coherence model
2. Mann uniform shear model
Kaimal spectral and exponential coherence model with 13m/s mean wind speed:
speed:
Turbulence intensity s1= 5%
Turbulence intensity s1 = 16% (wind turbine Class A)
Wind Models
Tower shadow model
120 deg
A=1
Accounts for wind distortion due to tower
Vs (x; y; z) = A(x; y; z)V

Potential flow model (upwind turbine)
D(z)2 (y 2 x2 )
A=1+
4(y 2 + x2 )2
Ab
A
120 deg
Empirical model of Powles (downwind turbine)
x
2
A = 1 cos
WD
Blending function
Ab = A(0:5 cos() + (0:5 + cos ))

x
Other Important Topics not yet Covered

in These Notes
Upwind turbine wake models

Current and wave models for offoff-shore applications
POLItecnico
di MI lano
Analysis Types
Analysis Types
Static analysis:
analysis:
dm r
Yields deformed structural configuration under
steady loads:
Prescribed external forces

Inertial loads due to rotation of elements of the model at constant
constant
prescribed angular velocity
Steady aerodynamic loads
dFa (; V )
P
It is an approximation: gravity neglected (1P)

and aerodynamic loads are not steady (even in
non turbulent wind) because of
Wind shear
Tower shadow
Non axial flow (rotor upup-tilt, yaw)
Useful for:
Finding approximate deflected configuration for eigenanalysis

Computing initial conditions for a subsequent dynamic analysis,
reducing transients to arrive to trimmed periodic response
x
z
y
Analysis Types
Eigenanalysis:
Eigenanalysis:
Yields natural frequencies and eigenmodes
Analysis of isolated undeflected subcomponents (tower, blade, rotor)
Analysis of complete model for varying angular and wind speed
Compute deflected configuration

Remove aerodynamic loads
Perform eigenanalysis in a vacuum about deflected configuration
1st rotor collective flap
2nd rotor collective flap
Analysis Types
Campbell diagram
1st rotor collective
2nd tower sideside-side

2nd tower forefore-aft
9P = 3NP
8P
2nd blade flapwise
7P
6P = 2NP
1st blade edgewise
5P
4P
1st blade flapwise
3P = NP
2P
1st
1 tower sideside-side
1st tower forefore-aft
1P
Operating regime
Analysis Types
Dynamic response analysis:

analysis:
Implicit or explicit time marching, depending on formulation

Time step size chosen based on stability and accuracy
Automatic time step selection
Restart capability from a previous static or dynamic analysis
Useful productivity tools:
Automated run of parametric simulations

Automated output file naming and segregation
Search for peaks and ultimate load cases
EOG1 with electrical network loss
Design Load Cases

Design situation
Wind condition
Other conditions
1) Power production
NTM Vin < Vhub < Vout
For extrapolation of extreme events U
ETM Vin < Vhub < Vout
ECD Vhub = Vr-2m/s, Vr, Vr+2m/s
EWS Vin < Vhub < Vout
2) Power production plus
occurrence of fault
Protection system or preceding

internal electrical fault
EOG Vhub = Vr2m/s and Vout
Legend
ECD
Extreme coherent
gust with direction
change
EDC
Extreme wind
direction change
EOG
Extreme operating
gust
ETM
Extreme turbulence
model
EWM
Extreme wind speed

model
External or internal electrical fault

including loss of electrical network
Partial safety factors
Control system fault or loss of

electrical network
Type of analysis
Control, protection, or electrical

system faults including loss of
electrical network
NWP Vin < Vhub < Vout
EWS
Extreme wind shear
EOG Vhub = Vin, Vr2m/s and Vout
NWP
EDC Vhub = Vin, Vr2m/s and Vout
Normal wind profile

model
NWP Vin < Vhub < Vout
NTM
EOG Vhub = Vr2m/s and Vout
Normal turbulence
model
5) Emergency shut down
NTM Vhub = Vr2m/s and Vout
Ultimate
6) Parked (standing still or idling)
EWM 50 year recur. period
Fatigue
Normal
Abnormal
Partial safety for

fatigue
Transport
3) Start up
4) Normal shut down
EWM 50 year recur. period.
Loss of electrical network conn.
Extreme yaw misalignment
NTM Vhub < 0.7 Vref
7) Parked and fault conditions
8) Transport, assembly, maint.

maint.
To be stated by the manufacturer
and repair
Analysis Types
Data output, post-processing, visualization:

visualization:
Sensor measured data output in ASCII data
files at each time step (useful for further
postpost-processing in MATLAB or other external
software)
PostPost-processing tool to produce timetimehistory plots of any quantities of interest in
useruser-specified reference frames
Graphic tool for model animation of
eigenmodes and dynamic responses
Example of animation of wind

turbine model with visualization
of aerodynamic loads at
airstations
Analysis Types
Spectral analysis
1P
1st blade edgewise

1st rotor collective
Vibratory phenomenon
during regular operation
in turbulent wind
Fast Fourier transform of
edgewise blade root bending
moment
* Numerical values removed to protect reserved data
Vibration present
Vibration absent
Analysis Types
Fatigue analysis
Perform simulation in turbulent wind (600 sec)

Reduce time histories of stochastic loads into simple
cyclic loads using rainflow analysis
For each stress level, calculate degree of cumulative
damage using Whler S-N curve
Combine individual contributions using PalmgrenPalmgren-Miner
linear damage rule: k
where
X ni
= 1 Failure condition
N
i
i=1
k = number of different stress ranges Ri (bins)

ni (Ri ) = number of cycles occurred in the range Ri
Ni (Ri ) = number of cycles to failure at the stress level Ri
from SS-N curve
Analysis Types
Rainflow analysis
Input: stress time history
Output: number of stress cycles binned in terms of amplitude ranges
ranges
and mean values
Tower root forefore-aft bending

moment rainflow counting
matrix
Blade root edgeedge-wise bending

moment rainflow counting matrix
Blade root flapflap-wise bending

moment rainflow counting matrix
Analysis Types
Stability analysis:
analysis: see part I of these notes
POLItecnico
di MI lano
Drive Train Modeling
e
bl
xi
fle
t
af
sh
Nacelle frame modeled as an equivalent beam
x
bo
g
ar
in
Ge
r
ar
B e ple
u
co
Rigid bodies to account for inertia not included

in beam elements
t
af
sh
Blade
le
ib
ex
Fl
Shafts modeled with beam elements
e
bl
xi
fle
Bearings with internal friction models depending

on internal reaction components
d
ee
sp
Couplers modeled as flexible joints with internal

equivalent springs and dampers
e
qu r
or to
rt a
u
to ct
ra a
tia
er
ne
in
Ge
d
ee
sp
r
to
ra
ne
Ge
gh
Hi
Topological view of possible drive

train multibody model:
w
Lo
Pitch
actuator
e
m
a
Fr
ss
e
n
iff
t
s
Yaw
actuator
Rigid body
Beam
Tower
Revolute joint
Flexible joint
Actuator

Contact/impact analysis in multibody dynamics
Possible applications in wind turbine analysis:
Gear meshing, dynamic loads, wear, backlash in
- Gearboxes
- Yaw drive systems
Bearings
Clutches
Brakes
Teetering restraints
Rotor outout-ofof-thethe-wind yawing or tilting mechanisms

Contact/Impact in MBD
The different phases of contact:
V2
VT
VT
V1
Approach
VN
Compression
VN
Expansion
Complementarity property of contact:
r FN = 0 r = 0, FN 0 or r 0, FN = 0
The situation is more complicated if friction is present, but the
the
complementarity property still holds
Local Models
Locally deformable models:

models:
Example: ABACUS
simulation of gear
meshing
Typically FEM based, discretize the equilibrium and

constitutive equations in the contact zone
Yield details of stresses and strains in the contact area
Also required if the geometry of contact changes
profoundly throughout the simulation (e.g. crash) or when
details of deformation influence the global dynamics
General and flexible
Expensive and potentially difficult to use (need to provide
numerous local data which might be hard to predict)
Local Models
Locally undeformable models:

models:
Contact point or
interpenetration
zone
Rigid curves
Contact model
The curve shape does not change throughout the simulation

The candidate contact points are determined based on
geometric conditions
Equivalent local models try to capture the effects of
deformability (coefficients of restitution, laws based on local
interpenetration (approach), etc.)
Cheap and simpler to use than deformable models
Useful when the details of local deformation are not important
for the determination of the global system dynamics (typical of
most MBD applications)
Unilateral Contact Modeling in MBD

We concentrate in the following on the locally undeformable model

Ingredients:
NURBS parameterization of contacting parts for representing
arbitrary geometries
Minimum distance problem gives the position of the candidate
contact points and the relative distance q (holonomic constraints)
t1
s1
t2
n1
Surface 2
s2
n2
Surface 1
A contact model defines the constitutive law of the interaction forces;

two main options: impulsive and continuous models
Kinematics of Contact
2D case:
case: regular curves u i : Ai a R 2 defined by the mapping
Ci := {u R 2 : u u i ( i ) i Ai R}, i = 1,2
where i is the curvilinear coordinate of the curve.

The candidate contact points are
determined by the two nonnon-linear
holonomic constraints:
t1
n2
n1
t2
n1 (1 ) t 2 ( 2 ) = 0
r (1 , 2 ) t 2 ( 2 ) = 0
The minimum relative

distance q is then:
q = r n1
3D case:
case: regular surfaces u i : Ai a R 3
defined by the mapping
2
r
t2
s2
t1
n2
n1
s1
1
The candidate contact points are determined
by the four nonnon-linear holonomic constraints:
n1 (1 ) s 2 ( 2 ) = 0
n ( ) t ( ) = 0
1 1 2 2
r (1 , 2 ) s 2 ( 2 ) = 0
r (1 , 2 ) t 2 ( 2 ) = 0
The minimum relative

distance q is then:
q = r n1
Normals,
Normals, tangents and distances appearing in the minimum distance
problem need to be linearized (solution based on some form of
Newton method). E.g., normal:
n = R n*
S*
n = R n* + R n*
= d R n * + R g n d
= n d + R g n d
= n S d + R g n d [ with d = S d ]
When bodies are in contact,

this problem yields the
approach a:
q>0
q < 0, a = q
The complete set of constraints is then:
C1 = u1 d1 z1 = 0
C2 = u 2 d 2 z 2 = 0
Point on curve
C3 = n1 t 2 = 0
C4 = (u 2 u1 ) t 2 = 0
Candidate points 1
t1
n2
z1
z2
u1
d1
u2
n1
t2
d2
C5 = q (u 2 u1 ) n1 = 0 Minimum distance
r = u 2 u1
The constraints are enforced using the Lagrange multiplier technique:

5
WC = i Ci
i =1
Variations of Wc yield: WC = i Ci + i Ci
i =1
i =1
1
424
3 1
424
3
Constraint s
Reactions
Relative velocities are computed as:
u& = d& + z&

& z*
= d& + R
= d& + z
holding fixed. Then
u =d+z
vR
t1
n2
z1
= u& 1 u& 2
= d& 1 d& 2 (z1 1 z 2 2 )
d1
u1
u2
n1
z2
t2
d2
The tangential velocity is then:
vT
= t1 v R
= t1 u& 1 + t 2 u& 2 [t1 = t 2 at contact ]
= t1 d& 1 + t 2 d& 2 (t1 z1 1 + t 2 z 2 2 )
Similarly for vN
E.g.: Coulomb friction model

Sliding: FT = k (vT ) sign(vT ) FN
Sticking or vT
rolling:
FT
= 0
s FN
m
A simple practical example:
Contact condition: q 0
Introduce slack r:
K
V
1
mq& 2
2
= mgq
=
q r2 = 0
Constraint potential: Wc = (q r 2 ) . Variations
( K + V + Wc ) = 0
yield mq&q& + mgq + (q r 2 ) + q 2rr = 0

Resulting equations: mq&&
r
q r 2
= mg +
= 0
= 0
Two possible solutions: = 0, r 0,
Equilibrium
Complementarity condition
Contact condition
separation ( q > 0)
0, r = 0, contact
( q = 0)
Integrate using e.g. the mid point rule:
q& f q&i
m
q& +q&t
i
f
2
r f + ri
m
2
2
q f r f
= mg + m
=
q f qi
t
= 0
= 0
(but also qi ri 2 = 0)
2q&i
At contact: rm = 0 rf = ri q f = qi q& f = q&i m = m g +
a discrete version of the principle of impulse and momentum

Note that q f = qi and not q f = 0 .
Accurate determination of contact event will in general necessitate
necessitate
of time refinement
Handling multiple contacts:

contacts:
To avoid solving minimum

distance problems when not
necessary, use cheap filters,
e.g. bounding spheres or
boxes:
rij
Ri
Rj
(i, j ), if rij Ri + R j , minimum distance pb.
Need to provide linear initial guess algorithm

Interaction Models
Interaction model:
model: constitutive law of the interaction forces
Impulsive models:
models:
- Null duration of the event (impulsive nature) (can be
tough numerically since impulses will excite higher nonnonphysical modes of the MB system)
- Two different flavors: Newton and Poisson
- Restitution coefficients model the details of contact
(local deformation, local geometry, hysteresis etc.)
Continuous models:
models:
- Finite duration event
- Contact force models based on local interpenetration
- Time refinement (triggered by contact forces)
automatically determines contact events with accuracy
stick,, slip
slip,, adhesion of finite duration etc.
Both can model stick
Impulsive Models
Newtons law.
law. Hypothesis: very short duration, frozen configuration
during impact.
MBS equations of dynamic equilibrium:
&& = h + A + A C C
Mu
= 0
c
q
= 0
C
with c& = A T u& + a and the relative distances q C = [K , qi , K]T , i = 1, m
q& C = v N = A TC u& + a C
v N = [K , v N i ,K]T , i = 1, m
The relative normal velocities are:
vN
= n1 v R
= n1 u& 1 + n 2 u& 2 [n1 = n 2 at contact ]
= n1 d& 1 + n 2 d& 2 (n1 z1 1 + n 2 z 2 2 )
Impulsive Models
Impact begins at ti, ends at tf. Integrate over the interval

tf
&& h A A C C )dt = 0
lim (Mu
t f t i t i
to get
M (u& f u& i ) A C C = 0
tf
assuming a frozen configuration at impact, and where C = lim C dt

t f t i t i
The normal relative velocities at tf and ti are
v N i = A TC u& i + a C
v N f = A TC u& f + a C
So that we find
v N f v Ni
= A TC (u& f u& i )
= A TC M 1A C C
The problem unknowns are v N f , C , and we need additional

relations in order to solve the problem.
Impulsive Models
Newton
Newtons relations between the pre and post impulse velocities:
v N f = v N i , = diag( i ), 0 i 1
Coefficients of restitution i.
i=0:
=0: completely inelastic shock; i=1:
=1: completely reversible event
With the help of Newton

Newtons relations, we get
(I + ) v N i = A TC M 1A C C
The contact impulses are
C = A TC M 1A C
(I + ) v N i
and the MBS velocities
u& f = u& i M 1A C A TC M 1A C
(I + ) v N i
Since the configuration was frozen at impact, this information is

is
enough to restart the computation after contact
Impulsive Models
Poissons law.
law. Hypothesis: very short duration, frozen configuration
during impact.
Two impact phases: compression (begins at ti, ends at tc), expansion
(begins at tc, ends at tf).
MBS equations of dynamic equilibrium, including friction:
CN
&
&
Mu = h + A + [ A CN A CT ]
CT
The normal and tangential relative velocities can be expressed in
in
terms of u& as
a CN
v N A TCN
&
= T u +
v
a
T A CT
CT
Impulsive Models
Compression phase.
phase. Integrate over the interval
tc

&& h A [ A CN A CT ] CN ) dt = 0
lim (Mu
t c ti ti
CT
to get
CCN
M (u& c u& i ) [ A CN A CT ] C = 0
CT
Expansion phase.
phase. Integrate over the interval
lim
tf
t f t c t c
to get
CN
&& h A [ A CN A CT ]
( Mu
) dt = 0
CT
E
CN
M (u& f u& c ) [ A CN A CT ] E = 0
CT
Impulsive Models
We find:
v Nc v Ni
A TCN 1
CCN
= T M [ A CN A CT ] C
A CT
CT
v Tc v Ti
E
v N f v N c
A TCN 1
CN
[
]
=
M
A
A
v
T
CN
CT E
A
T f v Tc
CT
CT
The problem unknowns are

E
E
v N f , v T f , v N c , v Tc ; CCN , CCT , CN
, CT
and we need additional relations in order to solve the problem.

Poissons relations between the compression and expansion
impulses:
E
CN
= CCN , = diag( i ), 0 i 1
Coefficients of restitution i
Impulsive Models
s:
The complete set of conditions that makes the problem solvable iis:
E
CN
= CCN
Poisson impact conditions
v Nc = 0
End of compression condition
C
C
CT
<
vTci = 0
s
CN
i
i
i
C
C
sign(
v
)
CTi
ki
Tci
CN i
Coulombs law during

compression
E
E
CT
<
vT fi = 0
s
CN
i
i
i
E
E
sign(
v
)
CTi
ki
T fi
CN i
Coulombs law during

expansion
The situation can be more complicated, e.g. if v N f i < 0 the Poisson

E
impulse CN
is not strong enough and bodies will not separate, i.e.
i
we need to replace
E
C
CN
=
i CN i
i
with
vN f = 0
i
Continuous Models
At contact, introduce the new
variable a (approach):
approach):
q>0
a = q
q < 0, a = q
The complementarity condition is in this case:
(a + q ) FN = 0
which yields
a + q > 0, FN = 0,
a + q = 0, FN > 0,
separation
contact
Need a phenomenological law that relates FN to a:
FN = FN ( a, a& , a&&, K)
FN = FNElastic + FNDissipativ e
Continuous Models
Modeling the elastic part of the interaction forces FNElastic :
Linear spring (simplest possible model): elastic potential
V=
1 2
ka
2
Hertz model:
model: elastic potential
V=
where
c=
4
1 12 1 2 2
3
+
E2
E1
2 52
ca
5
R1 R2
R1 + R2
E = Young
Youngs modulus
= Poisson ratio
R = local radius of curvature
Continuous Models
Modeling the dissipative part of the interaction forces FNDissipativ e :

Linear damper (simplest possible model):
FND = ca&
Unfortunately, this model does not make physical sense.

sense. In fact
locally
ma&& + ca& + ka n = 0
At separation
a = 0, a& < 0
and the interaction force is

is
ca& + ka n < 0
and therefore adhesive!
FN
Unphysical hysteresis loop:

shock
adhesion
a
Continuous Models
An improved model with physical hysteresis:
hysteresis:
FN
FND = da n a&
Characterization of parameter d based on

restitution coefficients:
a& f = a&i
= 1 a&i
The dissipated energy is E
1
2
2
m ( a& f a&i )
2
1
2
2
=
m a&i ( 2 a&i 2 a&i )
2
3
ma&i
=
If the dissipated energy is small, the deformation energy is approx.

approx.
equal to the initial kinetic energy:
1
2
ma&i
2
aM
ka da
n
a&i =
2k
( n +1) / 2
aM
m( n + 1)
( 2k ) 3
3( n +1) / 2
E =
a
M
m( n + 1) 3
Continuous Models
Analogously, for a generic time instant:

a
1
1
2
ma& 2 ma&i ka n da a& =
2
2
0
2k
n +1
aM a n +1
m( n + 1)
We can now compute the dissipated energy, which gives

aM
= 2 ca& da
0
aM
= 2 da n a& da
0
= d
2k
4
3( n +1) / 2
aM
m( n + 1) 3( n + 1)
Comparing with the previously found expression

( 2k ) 3
3( n +1) / 2
E =
a
M
m( n + 1) 3
3
3
we finally get d = k so that the improved model is FND = ka n a&
2
2
Modeling Backlash and Freeplay

Example: the revolute joint (but readily applicable to any joint

where a relative distance can be defined)
Modeling of a teetering restraint
e 3A
e 3B
Revolute joint constraint conditions:

C1 = e 3A e1B = 0
C2 = e3A e 2B = 0
C3 = e1A e1B sin + e1A e 2B cos = 0
e1A
e 2B
e 2A
e1B
Define a relative distance q even in this

case:
q1 = R1 (1 )
q2 = R2 ( 2 )
and add a contact model
Other Advanced Issues
There are many other important issues in the modeling of

unilateral constraints in MBD, e.g.:
Analysis of wear in joints (with effects on noise, vibration,
functionality, etc.)
Joints with clearance (noise, vibration, etc.)
Contacts with local nonnon-convex geometry (segmentation,
starting points, multiple contacts)
Automatic time adaption and event determination
Robust time integration schemes
POLItecnico
di MI lano
Model Validation
Model Validation
This topic is not yet covered in these notes
Measurements and turbine instrumentation for model validation
Examples
System identification

2 WindTurbineModeling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 WindTurbineModeling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Short Course on Wind Energy

- Wind Turbine Modeling -

Classical modeling philosophy:

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

(Bauchau, Bottasso, Nikishkov,

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

Curved and twisted NURBS reference lines

Enforced by Lagrange multipliers (DAE formulation)

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

Lifting lines (two(two-dimensional strip theory)

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

Geometric integrators for DAEs:

Exact treatment of geometric nonnon-linearities

Dissipated total energy

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

Other Wind Turbine Model Types

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Reduced Model for ModelModel-Based

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

Reduced Model for ModelModel-Based

Vw = Vm + Vt (mean wind + turbulence)

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Reduced Model for ModelModel-Based

Rotor force and moment coefficients:

aeroaero-servoservo-elastic model, averaging periodic response over one rotor rev

Dependence of CFe (; e ; Vm ) and CPe (; e ; Vm ) on mean wind Vm

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Equivalent shaft stiffness

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

Reduced Model for ModelModel-Based

Equivalent flap hinge

3 tower angles (fore(fore-aft, sideside-side, torsion)

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

AdAd-hoc Modal Approach for Wind

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

Flapping Equation for an Elastic Blade

Equilibrium of blade segment:

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Flapping Equation for an Elastic Blade

Differential equations of equilibrium:

From beam theory:

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Flapping Equation for an Elastic Blade

Sketch of solution procedure:

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Flapping Equation for an Elastic Blade

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

Subjected to boundary conditions:

POLI-Wind Research Lab

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis

Flapping Equation for an Elastic Blade

POLIPOLI-Wind Research Lab

Wind Turbine Modeling and Analysis