Theory Manual

GH Bladed
Theory Manual
Document No 282/BR/009
Classification Published
Issue no. 17
Date September 2007
Author E A Bossanyi
DISCLAIMER
Acceptance of this document by the client is on the basis that Garrad Hassan and
Partners Limited are not in any way to be held responsible for the application or use
made of the findings of the results from the analysis and that such responsibility
remains with the client.
Key To Document Classification
Strictly Confidential : Recipients only
Private and Confidential : For disclosure to individuals directly

concerned within the recipient’s organisation
Commercial in Confidence : Not to be disclosed outside the recipient’s

organisation
GHP only : Not to be disclosed to non GHP staff
Client’s Discretion : Distribution at the discretion of the client

subject to contractual agreement
Published : Available to the general public
© 2007 Garrad Hassan and Partners Limited

Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd Document: 282/BR/009 ISSUE:017
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Theoretical background 2
1.3 Support 3
1.4 Documentation 3
1.5 Acknowledgements 3
2. AERODYNAMICS 4
2.1 Combined blade element and momentum theory 4
2.1.1 Actuator disk model 4
2.1.2 Wake rotation 5
2.1.3 Blade element theory 6
2.1.4 Tip and hub loss models 8
2.2 Wake models 9
2.2.1 Equilibrium wake 9
2.2.2 Frozen wake 9
2.2.3 Dynamic wake 9
2.3 Steady stall 11
2.4 Dynamic stall 11
3. STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS 13
3.1 Modal analysis 13
3.1.1 Rotor modes 14
3.1.2 Tower modes (axisymmetric model) 15
3.1.3 Tower modes (multi-member model) 16
3.1.4 Coupling between rotor and tower modes 16
3.2 Equations of motion 17
3.2.1 Degrees of freedom 17
3.2.2 Formulation of equations of motion 17
3.2.3 Solution of the equations of motion 19
3.3 Calculation of structural loads 19
3.4 Calculation of structural deflections 19
4. POWER TRAIN DYNAMICS 20
4.1 Drive train models 20
4.1.1 Locked speed model 20
4.1.2 Rigid shaft model 20
4.1.3 Flexible shaft model 20
4.2 Generator models 21
4.2.1 Fixed speed induction generator – mechanical model 21
4.2.2 Fixed speed induction generator: electrical model 22
4.2.3 Variable speed generator – mechanical model 24
4.2.4 Variable speed generator – DFIG electrical model 24
4.2.5 Variable slip generator 27
4.3 Drive train mounting 27
4.4 Energy losses 28
4.5 The electrical network 28
5. CLOSED LOOP CONTROL 30
-i-
5.1 Introduction 30
5.2 The fixed speed pitch regulated controller 30
5.2.1 Steady state parameters 31
5.2.2 Dynamic parameters 31
5.3 The variable speed stall regulated controller 31
5.4 The variable speed pitch regulated controller 34
5.5 Transducer models 36
5.6 Modelling the pitch actuator 36
5.7 The PI control algorithm 39
5.7.1 Gain scheduling 40
5.8 Control mode changes 41
5.9 Client-specific controllers 41
5.10 Signal noise and discretisation 42
6. SUPERVISORY CONTROL 43
6.1 Start-up 43
6.2 Normal stops 44
6.3 Emergency stops 44
6.4 Brake dynamics 45
6.5 Idling and parked simulations 45
6.6 Yaw control 45
6.6.1 Active yaw 45
6.6.2 Yaw dynamics 46
6.7 Teeter restraint 47
7. MODELLING THE WIND 48
7.1 Wind shear 49
7.1.1 Exponential model 49
7.1.2 Logarithmic model 49
7.1.3 User-defined model 49
7.2 Time varying wind 49
7.2.1 Single point time history 49
7.2.2 3D turbulent wind 49
7.2.3 IEC transients 50
8. MODELLING WAVES AND CURRENTS 52
8.1 Tower and Foundation Model 52
8.2 Wave Spectra 53
8.2.1 JONSWAP / Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum 53
8.2.2 User-defined Spectrum 53
8.3 Wave diffraction approximation 54
8.3.1 MacCamy-Fuchs approximation 54
8.3.2 Simple cut-off frequency 54
8.4 Wave Particle Kinematics 54
8.5 Wheeler Stretching 55
8.6 Simulation of Irregular Waves 56
8.7 Simulation of Regular Waves 57
8.8 Constrained Waves 59
- ii -
8.9 Current Velocities 60

8.9.1 Near-Surface Current 60
8.9.2 Sub-Surface Current 60
8.9.3 Near-Shore Current 60
8.10 Total Velocities and Accelerations 61
8.11 Applied Forces 61
8.11.1 Relative Motion Form of Morison’s Equation 61
8.11.2 Longitudinal Pressure Forces on Cylindrical Elements 62
9. TOWER SHADOW AND WAKE EFFECTS 63
9.1 Tower shadow 63
9.1.1 Potential flow model 63
9.1.2 Empirical model 63
9.1.3 Combined model 64
9.2 Upwind turbine wake 64
9.2.1 Eddy viscosity model of the upstream turbine wake 64
9.2.2 Turbulence in the wake 67
10. TURBULENCE MODELS 69
10.1 Three dimensional turbulence model 69
10.1.1 The basic von Karman model 69
10.1.2 The improved von Karman model 71
10.1.3 The Kaimal model 74
10.1.4 The Mann model 76
10.1.5 Using 3D turbulent wind fields in simulations 76
11. MODELLING EARTHQUAKES 78
11.1 Calculation of dynamic response 78
11.2 Response Spectrum 78
11.3 Generation of response spectrum compatible accelerogram 79
12. POST-PROCESSING 80
12.1 Basic statistics 80
12.2 Fourier harmonics, and periodic and stochastic components 80
12.3 Extreme prediction 81
12.4 Spectral analysis 84
12.5 Probability, peak and level crossing analysis 84
12.6 Rainflow cycle counting and fatigue analysis 85
12.6.1 Rainflow cycle counting 85
12.6.2 Fatigue analysis 86
12.7 Annual energy yield 87
12.8 Ultimate loads 88
12.9 Flicker 88
12.10 Extreme load extrapolation 89
13. The Windfarmer link module 91
13.1 Purpose and motivation 91
13.2 Overview of site-specific fatigue load calculations 91
13.3 General methodology of the Windfarmer Link 92
13.4 Wake modelling 92
13.4.1 Wake affected turbulence intensity 93
13.4.2 Eddy viscosity wake model 94
- iii -
13.5 Wind flow modelling 94

13.5.1 Site mast data and speed-up factors 94
13.5.2 Wind speed and direction distribution 95
13.5.3 Upflow angles 95
13.6 Selection of wake-affected and ambient simulations 96
13.6.1 Wake-affected simulations 96
13.6.2 Ambient simulations 97
13.6.3 Non-operational simulations 97
13.7 Generation of GH Bladed simulations 98
13.8 Wind file structure 99
13.9 Pre-processing ranking routine 99
13.9.1 Turbine rank methodology 99
13.9.2 IEC class comparison 100
13.10 Post-processing routine 100
14. References 101
- iv -
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
GH Bladed is an integrated software package for wind turbine performance and loading
calculations. It is intended for the following applications:
• Preliminary wind turbine design

• Detailed design and component specification
• Certification of wind turbines
With its sophisticated graphical user interface, it allows the user to carry out the following
tasks in a straightforward way:
• Specification of all wind turbine parameters:

Aerodynamic and structural properties
Power train and electrical systems
Sensors and actuators
Control and safety systems
• Specification of environmental inputs and load cases:

Wind field
Waves and currents
Earthquakes
Turbine faults
Electrical network disturbances
• Rapid calculation of steady-state performance characteristics, including:

Aerodynamic information
Performance coefficients
Power curves
Steady operating loads
Steady parked loads
• Dynamic simulations covering all turbine states:

Normal running
Start-up
Normal and emergency shut-downs
Idling
Parked
• Post-processing of results to obtain:

Basic statistics
Periodic component analysis
Probability density, revs at level, peak value and level crossing analysis
Spectral analysis
Cross-spectrum, coherence and transfer function analysis
1 of 104
Rainflow cycle counting and fatigue analysis

Combinations of variables
Dynamic power curve and annual energy yield
Ultimate loads (identification of worst cases)
Statistical extrapolation of extreme loads
Flicker severity
• Presentation: results may be presented graphically and can be combined into a word
processor compatible report.
1.2 Theoretical background
The Garrad Hassan approach to the calculation of wind turbine performance and loading has
been developed over many years. The main aim of this development has been to produce
reliable tools for use in the design and certification of wind turbines.
The models and theoretical methods incorporated in GH Bladed have been extensively
validated against monitored data from a wide range of turbines of many different sizes and
configurations, including:
• WEG MS-1, UK, 1991

• Howden HWP300 and HWP330, USA, 1993
• ECN 25m HAT, Netherlands, 1993
• Newinco 500kW, Netherlands, 1993
• Nordex 26m, Denmark, 1993
• Nibe A, Denmark, 1993
• Holec WPS30, Netherlands, 1993
• Riva Calzoni M30, Italy, 1993
• Nordtank 300kW, Denmark, 1994
• WindMaster 750kW, Netherlands, 1994
• Tjaereborg 2MW, Denmark, 1994
• Zond Z-40, USA, 1994
• Nordtank 500kW, UK, 1995
• Vestas V27, Greece, 1995
• Danwin 200kW, Sweden, 1995
• Carter 300kW, UK, 1995
• NedWind 50, 1MW, Netherlands, 1996
• DESA, 300kW, Spain 1997
• NTK 600, UK, 1998
• West Medit, Italy, 1998
• Nordex 1.3 MW, Germany, 1999
• The Wind Turbine Company 350 kW, USA, 2000
• Windtec 1.3 MW, Austria, 2000
• WEG MS-4, 400 kW, UK, 2000
• EHN 1.3 MW, Spain, 2001
• Vestas 2MW, UK, 2001
• Lagerwey 750 Netherlands, 2001
• Vergnet 200, France 2001
2 of 104
This document describes the theoretical background to the various models and numerical
methods incorporated in GH Bladed.
1.3 Support
GH Bladed is supplied with a one-year maintenance and support agreement, which can be
renewed for further periods. This support includes a ‘hot-line’ help service by telephone, fax
or e-mail:
Telephone: +44 (0)117 972 9900

Fax: +44 (0)117 972 9901
E-mail bladed@bristol.garradhassan.co.uk
1.4 Documentation
In addition to this Theory Manual, there is also a GH Bladed User Manual which explains
how the code can be used.
1.5 Acknowledgements
GH Bladed was developed with assistance from the Commission of the European
Communities under the JOULE II programme, project no. JOU2-CT92-0198.
3 of 104
2. AERODYNAMICS
The modelling of rotor aerodynamics provided by GH Bladed is based on the well established
treatment of combined blade element and momentum theory [2.1]. Two major extensions of this
theory are provided as options in the code to deal with the unsteady nature of the aerodynamics.
The first of these extensions allows a treatment of the dynamics of the wake and the second
provides a representation of dynamic stall through the use of a stall hysteresis model.
The theoretical background to the various aspects of the treatment of rotor aerodynamics
provided by GH Bladed is given in the following sections.
2.1 Combined blade element and momentum theory
At the core of the aerodynamic model provided by GH Bladed is combined blade element and
momentum theory. The features of this treatment of rotor aerodynamics are described below.
2.1.1 Actuator disk model

To aid the understanding of combined blade element and momentum theory it is useful initially
to consider the rotor as an “actuator disk”. Although this model is very simple, it does provide
valuable insight into the aerodynamics of the rotor.
Wind turbines extract energy from the flow by producing a step change in static pressure across
the rotor-swept surface. As the air approaches the rotor it slows down gradually, resulting in an
increase in static pressure. The reduction in static pressure across the rotor disk results in the
fluid behind it experiencing a reduction in pressure compared to free stream conditions. As the
fluid proceeds downstream the pressure climbs back to the free stream value resulting in a
further slowing down of the flow. There is therefore a reduction in the kinetic energy in the flow,
some of which is converted into useful energy by the turbine.
In the actuator disk model of the process described above, the flow velocity at the rotor disk Ud
is related to the upstream wind velocity Uo as follows:
U d = ( 1 a )U o
The reduced flow velocity at the rotor disk is clearly determined by the magnitude of a, the axial
flow induction factor or inflow factor.
By applying Bernoulli’s equation and assuming the flow to be uniform and incompressible, it
can be shown that the power P extracted by the rotor is given by :
P = 2 AU o3 a (1 a ) 2
where is the fluid density and A the area of the rotor disk.
The thrust T acting on the rotor disk can similarly be derived to give:
4 of 104
T = 2 AU o2 a( 1 a )
The dimensionless power and thrust coefficients, CP and CT are respectively:
CP = P / ( 1 2 AU o3 ) = 4a( 1 a )2
and:
CT = T / ( 1 2 AU o2 ) = 4a( 1 a )
The maximum value of the power coefficient CP occurs when a is 1 /3 and is equal to 16/27 which
is known as the Betz limit.
The thrust coefficient CT has a maximum value of 1 when a is 1 /2.
2.1.2 Wake rotation

The actuator disk concept used above allows an estimate of the energy extracted from the flow
without considering that the power absorbed by the rotor is the product of torque Q and angular
velocity of the rotor. The torque developed by the rotor must impart an equal and opposite
rate of change of angular momentum to the flow and therefore induces a tangential velocity to
the flow. The change in tangential velocity is expressed in terms of a tangential flow induction
factor a’. Upstream of the rotor disk the tangential velocity is zero, at the disk the tangential
velocity at radius r on the rotor is ra’ and far downstream the tangential velocity is 2 ra’.
Because it is produced in reaction to the torque, the tangential velocity is opposed to the motion
of the blades.
The torque generated by the rotor is equal to the rate of change of angular momentum and can be
derived as:
Q= R 4 (1 a )a ,U o
5 of 104
2.1.3 Blade element theory

Combined blade element and momentum theory is an extension of the actuator disk theory
described above. The rotor blades are divided into a number of blade elements and the theory
outlined above used not for the rotor disk as a whole but for a series of annuli swept out by each
blade element and where each annulus is assumed to act in the same way as an independent
actuator disk. At each radial position the rate of change of axial and angular momentum are
equated with the thrust and torque produced by each blade element.
The thrust dT developed by a blade element of length dr located at a radius r is given by:
dT = 1 2 W 2 ( CL cos + CD sin )cdr
where W is the magnitude of the apparent flow speed vector at the blade element, is known
as the inflow angle and defines the direction of the apparent flow speed vector relative to the
plane of rotation of the blade, c is the chord of the blade element and CL and CD are the lift
and drag coefficients respectively.
The lift and drag coefficients are defined for an aerofoil by:
CL = L / ( 1 2 V 2 S )
and
CD = D / ( 1 2 V 2 S )
where L and D are the lift and drag forces, S is the planform area of the aerofoil and V is the
flow velocity relative to the aerofoil.
The torque dQ developed by a blade element of length dr located at a radius r is given by:
dQ = 1 2 W 2 r( CL sin CD cos )cdr
In order to solve for the axial and tangential flow induction factors appropriate to the radial
position of a particular blade element, the thrust and torque developed by the element are
equated to the rate of change of axial and angular momentum through the annulus swept out
by the element. Using expressions for the axial and angular momentum similar to those
derived for the actuator disk in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 above, the annular induction factors
may be expressed as follows:
a = g1 / ( 1 + g1 )
and
a , = g2 / ( 1 g 2 )
where
6 of 104
Bc ( CL cos + CD sin )
g1 = H
2 r 4 F sin 2
and
Bc ( CL sin CD cos )
g2 =
2 r 4 F sin cos
Here B is the number of blades and F is a factor to take account of tip and hub losses, refer
Section 2.1.4.
The parameter H is defined as follows:
for a 0.3539, H = 10
.
4a (1 a )
for a > 0.3539, H =
(0.6 + 0.61a + 0.79a 2 )
In the situation where the axial induction factor a is greater than 0.5, the rotor is heavily
loaded and operating in what is referred to as the “turbulent wake state”. Under these
conditions the actuator disk theory presented in Section 2.1.1 is no longer valid and the
expression derived for the thrust coefficient:
CT = 4a( 1 a )
must be replaced by the empirical expression:
CT = 0.6 + 0.61a + 0.79a 2
The implementation of blade element theory in GH Bladed is based on a transition to the

empirical model for values of a greater than 0.3539 rather than 0.5. This strategy results in a
smoother transition between the models of the two flow states.
The equations presented above for a and a’ can only be solved iteratively. The procedure
involves making an initial estimate of a and a’, calculating the parameters g1 and g2 as
functions of a and a’, and then using the equations above to update the values of a and a’.
This procedure continues until a and a’ have converged on a solution. In GH Bladed
convergence is assumed to have occurred when:
ak ak 1 tol
and
a'k a'k 1 tol
where tol is the value of aerodynamic tolerance specified by the user.
7 of 104
2.1.4 Tip and hub loss models

The wake of the wind turbine rotor is made up of helical sheets of vorticity trailed from each
rotor blade. As a result the induced velocities at a fixed point on the rotor disk are not constant
with time, but fluctuate between the passage of each blade. The greater the pitch of the helical
sheets and the fewer the number of blades, the greater the amplitude of the variation of induced
velocities. The overall effect is to reduce the net momentum change and so reduce the net power
extracted. If the induction factor a is defined as being the value which applies at the instant a
blade passes a given point on the disk, then the average induction factor at that point, over the
course of one revolution will be aFt,, where Ft is a factor which is less than unity.
The circulation at the blade tips is reduced to zero by the wake vorticity in the same manner as at
the tips of an aircraft wing. At the tips, therefore the factor Ft becomes zero. Because of the
analogy with the aircraft wing , where losses are caused by the vortices trailing from the tips, Ft
is known as the tip loss factor.
Prandtl [2.2] put forward a method to deal with this effect in propeller theory. Reasoning that, in
the far wake, the helical vortex sheets could be replaced by solid disks, set at the same pitch as
the normal spacing between successive turns of the sheets, moving downstream with the speed
of the wake.
The flow velocity outside of the wake is the free stream value and so is faster than that of the
disks. At the edges of the disks the fast moving free stream flow weaves in and out between them
and in doing so causes the mean axial velocity between the disks to be higher than that of the
disks themselves, thus simulating the reduction in the change of momentum.
The factor Ft can be expressed in closed solution form:
Ft = 2 arccos[exp( s )]
d
where s is the distance of the radial station from the tip of the rotor blade and d is the distance
between successive helical sheets.
A similar loss takes place at the blade root where, as at the tip, the bound circulation must fall to
zero and therefore a vortex must be trailed into the wake, A separate hub loss factor Fh is
therefore calculated and the effective total loss factor at any station on the blade is then the
product of the two:
F = Ft Fh
The combined tip and hub loss factor is incorporated in the equations of blade element theory
as indicated in Section 2.1.3 above.
8 of 104
2.2 Wake models
2.2.1 Equilibrium wake

The use of blade element theory for time domain dynamic simulations of wind turbine
behaviour has traditionally been based on the assumption that the wake reacts instantaneously
to changes in blade loading. This treatment, known as an equilibrium wake model, involves a
re-calculation of the axial and tangential induction factors at each element of each rotor
blade, and at each time step of a dynamic simulation. Based on this treatment the induced
velocities along each blade are computed as instantaneous solutions to the particular flow
conditions and loading experienced by each element of each blade.
Clearly in this interpretation of blade element theory the axial and tangential induced
velocities at a particular blade element vary with time and are not constant within the annulus
swept out by the element.
The equilibrium wake treatment of blade element theory is the most computationally
demanding of the three treatments described here.
2.2.2 Frozen wake

In the frozen wake model, the axial and tangential induced velocities are computed using
blade element theory for a uniform wind field at the mean hub height wind speed of the
simulated wind conditions. The induced velocities, computed according to the mean, uniform
flow conditions, are then assumed to be fixed, or “frozen” in time. The induced velocities
vary from one element to the next along the blade but are constant within the annulus swept
out by the element. As a consequence each blade experiences the same radial distribution of
induced flow.
It is important to note that it is the axial and tangential induced velocities aUo and a’r and
not the induction factors a and a’ which are frozen in time.
2.2.3 Dynamic wake

As described above, the equilibrium wake model assumes that the wake and therefore the
induced velocity flow field react instantaneously to changes in blade loading. On the other
hand, the frozen wake model assumes that induced flow field is completely independent of
changes in incident flow conditions and blade loading. In reality neither of these treatments is
strictly correct. Changes in blade loading change the vorticity that is trailed into the rotor
wake and the full effect of these changes takes a finite time to change the induced flow field.
The dynamics associated with this process is commonly referred to as “dynamic inflow”.
The study of dynamic inflow was initiated nearly 40 years ago in the context of helicopter
aerodynamics. In brief, the theory provides a means of describing the dynamic dependence of
the induced flow field at the rotor upon the loading that it experiences. The dynamic inflow
model used within GH Bladed is based on the work of Pitt and Peters [2.3] which has
received substantial validation in the helicopter field, see for example Gaonkar et al [2.4].
The Pitt and Peters model was originally developed for an actuator disk with assumptions
made concerning the distribution of inflow across the disc. In GH Bladed the model is
applied at blade element or actuator annuli level since this avoids any assumptions about the
distribution of inflow across the disc.
9 of 104
For a blade element, bounded by radii R1 and R2 , and subject to uniform axial flow at a flow
speed Uo, the elemental thrust, dT, can be expressed as:
dT = 2U o am + U o m A a&
where m is the mass flow through the annulus, mA is the apparent mass acted upon by the
annulus and a is the axial induction factor.
The mass flow through the annular element is given by:
m = U o (1 a )dA
where dA is the cross-sectional area of the annulus.
For a disc of radius R the apparent mass upon which it acts is given approximately by
potential theory, Tuckerman, [2.5]:
mA = 8 R3
3
Therefore the thrust coefficient associated with the annulus can be derived to give:
16 (R 32 R 13 )
C T = 4a (1 a ) + a&
3 U o (R 22 R 12 )
This differential equation can therefore be used to replace the blade element and momentum
theory equation for the calculation of axial inflow. The equation is integrated at each time
step to give time dependent values of inflow for each blade element on each blade. The
tangential inflow is obtained in the usual manner and so depends on the time dependent axial
value. It is evident that the equation introduces a time lag into the calculation of inflow which
is dependent on the radial station.
It is probable that the values of time lag for each blade element calculated in this manner will
under-estimate somewhat the effects of dynamic inflow, as each element is treated
independently with no consideration of the three dimensional nature of the wake or the
possibly dominant effect of the tip vortex. The treatment is, however, consistent with blade
element theory and provides a simple, computationally inexpensive and reasonably reliable
method of modelling the dynamics of the rotor wake and induced velocity flow field.
10 of 104
2.3 Steady stall
The representation and to some extent the general understanding of aerodynamic stall on a
rotating turbine blade remain rather poor. This is a rather extraordinary situation in view of
the importance of stall regulation to the industry.
Stall delay on the inboard sections of rotor blades, due to the three dimensionality of the
incident flow field, has been widely confirmed by measurements at both model and full scale.
A number of semi-empirical models [2.6, 2.7] have been developed for correcting two
dimensional aerofoil data to account for stall delay. Although such models are used for the
design analysis of stall regulated rotors, their general validity for use with a wide range of
aerofoil sections and rotor configurations remains, at present, rather poor. As a consequence
GH Bladed does not incorporate models for the modification of aerofoil data to deal with
stall delay, but the user is clearly able to apply whatever correction of the aerofoil data he
believes is appropriate prior to its input to the code.
2.4 Dynamic stall
Stall and its consequences are fundamentally important to the design and operation of most
aerodynamic devices. Most conventional aeronautical applications avoid stall by operating
well below the static stall angle of any aerofoils used. Helicopters and stall regulated wind
turbines do however operate in regimes where at least part of their rotor blades are in stall.
Indeed stall regulated turbines rely on the stalling behaviour of aerofoils to limit maximum
power output from the rotor in high winds.
A certain degree of unsteadiness always accompanies the turbulent flow over an aerofoil at
high angles of attack. The stall of a lifting surface undergoing unsteady motion is more
complex than static stall.
On an oscillating aerofoil, where the incidence is increasing rapidly, the onset of the stall can be
delayed to an incidence considerably in excess of the static stall angle. When dynamic stall does
occur, however, it is usually more severe than static stall. The attendant aerodynamic forces
and moments exhibit large hysteresis with respect to the instantaneous angle of attack,
especially if the oscillation is about a mean angle close to the static stall angle. This represents
an important contrast to the quasi-steady case, for which the flow field adjusts immediately,
and uniquely, to each change in incidence.
Many methods of predicting the dynamic stall of aerofoil sections have been developed,
principally for use in the helicopter industry.
The model adopted for inclusion of unsteady behaviour of aerofoils is that due to
Beddoes [2.8]. The Beddoes model was developed for use in helicopter rotor performance
calculations and has been formulated over a number of years with particular reference to
dynamic wind tunnel testing of aerofoil sections used on helicopter rotors. It has been used
successfully by Harris [2.9] and Galbraith et al [2.10] in the prediction of the behaviour of
vertical axis wind turbines.
11 of 104
The model used within GH Bladed is a development of the Beddoes model which has been
validated against measurements from several stall regulated wind turbines. The model utilises
the following elements of the method described in [2.8] to calculate the unsteady lift coefficient
• The indicial response functions for modelling of attached flow

• The time lagged Kirchoff formulation for the modelling of trailing edge separation and vortex
lift
The use of the model of leading edge separation has been found to be inappropriate for use on
horizontal axis wind turbines where the aerofoil characteristics are dominated by progressive
trailing edge stall.
The time lag in the development of trailing edge separation is a user defined parameter within
the model implemented in GH Bladed. This time lag encompasses the delay in the response of
the pressure distribution and boundary layer to the time varying angle of attack. The magnitude
of the time lag is directly related to the level of hysteresis in the lift coefficient.
The drag and pitching moment coefficients are calculated using the quasi-steady input data along
with the effective unsteady angle of attack determined during the calculation of the lift
coefficient.
12 of 104
3. STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
In the early days of the industry, wind turbine design was undertaken on the basis of quasi-
static aerodynamic calculations with the effects of structural dynamics either ignored
completely or included through the use of estimated dynamic magnification factors. From the
late 1970’s research workers began to consider more reliable methods of dynamic analysis
and two basic approaches were considered: finite element representations and modal analysis.
The traditional use of standard, commercial finite element analysis codes for dealing with
problems of structural dynamics is problematic in the case of wind turbines. This is because
of the gross movement of one component of the structure, the rotor, with respect to another,
the tower. Standard finite element packages are only used to consider structures in which
motion occurs about a mean undisplaced position and for this reason the finite element
models of wind turbines which have been developed have been specially constructed to deal
with the problem.
The form of wind turbine dynamic modelling most commonly used as the basis of design
calculations is that involving a modal representation. This approach, borrowed from the
helicopter industry, has the major advantage that it offers a reliable representation of the
dynamics of a wind turbine with relatively few degrees of freedom. The number and type of
modal degrees of freedom used to represent the dynamics of a particular wind turbine will
clearly depend on the configuration and structural properties of the machine.
At present, largely because of the very extensive computer processing requirements

associated with the use of finite element models, the state of the art in the context of wind
turbine dynamic modelling for design analysis is based squarely on the use of limited degree
of freedom modal models. The representation of wind turbine structural dynamics within GH
Bladed is based on a modal model.
3.1 Modal analysis
Because of the rotation of the blades of a turbine relative to the tower support structure, the
equations of motion which describe its dynamics contain terms with periodic coefficients.
This periodicity means that the computation of the modal properties of an operating turbine
as a complete structural entity is not possible using the standard eigen-analysis offered by
commercial finite element codes.
One solution to this problem is to make use of Floquet analysis to determine the modal
properties of the periodic system. However, the mode shapes obtained by such calculations
are complex and not directly useful for a forced response analysis.
An alternative solution is based on the use of “component mode synthesis”. Here the modal
properties of the rotating and non-rotating components of the turbine are computed
independently. The component modes are then coupled by an appropriate formulation of the
equations of motion of the turbine in the forced response analysis. This approach has been
adopted for GH Bladed.
13 of 104
3.1.1 Rotor modes

The vibration of the tapered and twisted blades of a wind turbine rotor is a complex
phenomenon. A classical method of representing the vibration is by means of the orthogonal,
uncoupled “normal” modes of the structure. Each mode is defined in terms of the following
parameters:
• Modal frequency, i
• Modal damping coefficient, i
• Mode shape, i (r )
where the subscript i indicates properties related to the ith mode.
The modal frequencies and mode shapes of the rotor are calculated based on the following
information:
The number of blades.

The rotor modes will be arranged in groups; each group consists of N modes, where N is the
number of blades.
The mass distribution along the blade.

The mass distribution is defined as the local mass density (kg/m) at each radial station in
addition to the magnitude and location of any discrete, lumped masses.
The bending stiffnesses along the blade.

The bending stiffnesses are defined in local flapwise and edgewise directions at each radial
station.
The twist angle distribution along the blade.

The mode shapes are computed in the rotor in-plane and out-of-plane directions and hence the
flapwise and edgewise stiffnesses at each radial station are resolved through the local twist
angle.
The blade pitch and setting angles.

The mode shapes are computed in the rotor in-plane and out-of-plane directions and hence the
flapwise and edgewise stiffnesses at each radial station are resolved through the blade pitch
and setting angles. The user of GH Bladed may select a series of different pitch angles for
which the modal analysis is carried out. During subsequent dynamic simulations, the modal
frequencies appropriate to the instantaneous blade pitch angle are therefore obtained by linear
interpolation of the results of the modal analyses.
The presence or otherwise of a hub teeter hinge for a two bladed rotor.
For a two-bladed rotor the hub can be rigid or teetered. The presence of a teeter hinge will
introduce asymmetric rotor modes involving out-of-plane rotation of the rotor about the teeter
hinge.
The presence or otherwise of a flap hinge for a one-bladed rotor.

For a one-bladed rotor the hub can be rigid or have a flap hinge. The presence of a flap hinge
will introduce rotor modes involving out-of-plane rotation of the rotor about the teeter hinge.
14 of 104
The counter-weight mass and moment of inertia about the flap hinge for a one-bladed rotor.
Whether the hub can rotate.

Rotation of the hub will affect the frequencies and mode shapes of the in-plane rotor modes.
With the shaft brake engaged and the rotor locked in position with no torsional flexibility
between hub and tower, the in-plane modes will include both symmetric and asymmetric
cantilever-type modes. With the rotor free to rotate, each group of N in-plane modes will be
split into cantilever-type asymmetric modes with no hub rotation, and collective modes
involving rotation about the rotor shaft. For N = 3 blades, there will be two antisymmetric
and one collective mode in each group. See also Section 3.1.4.
The rotational speed of the rotor.

The frequencies and mode shapes of both in-plane and out-of-plane modes will be dependent
on the rotational speed of the rotor. This dependence is explained by the additional bending
stiffness developed because of centrifugal loads acting on the deflected rotor blades. The user
of GH Bladed may select different rotational speeds for which the modal analysis is carried
out. During subsequent dynamic simulations, the modal frequencies appropriate to the
instantaneous rotational speed are therefore obtained by quadratic interpolation of the results
of the modal analyses.
The frequencies and mode shapes of the rotor modes are computed from the eigen-values and
eigen-vectors of a finite element representation of the rotor structure. The finite element
model of the rotor is based on the use of two-dimensional beam elements to describe the mass
and stiffness properties of the rotor blades.
The outputs from the modal analysis of the rotor are the modal frequencies and mode shapes
defined in the rotor in-plane and out-of-plane directions. The modal damping coefficients are
an input defined by the user and may be used to represent structural damping.
3.1.2 Tower modes (axisymmetric model)

The representation of the bending dynamics of the tower is based on the modal degrees of
freedom in the fore-aft and side-side directions of motion. As for the rotor, the tower modes
are defined in terms of their modal frequency, modal damping and mode shape.
The calculation of modal frequencies and mode shapes of the tower make use of the
following information:
The mass distribution along the tower

The mass distribution is defined as the local mass density (kg/m) at each tower station height
in addition to the magnitude and location of any discrete, lumped masses.
The bending stiffness along the tower

The tower is assumed to be axisymmetric with the bending stiffness therefore independent of
bending direction.
The mass, inertia and stiffness properties of the tower foundation

The influence of the foundation mass and stiffness properties on the tower bending modes
may be taken into account. The model takes account of motion of the foundation mass and
inertia against both translational and rotational stiffnesses.
15 of 104
The mass and inertia of the nacelle and rotor

For calculation of the tower modes, the nacelle and rotor are modelled as lumped mass and
inertia located at the nacelle centre of gravity and rotor hub respectively. For one and two-
bladed rotors, the influence of the rotor inertia on the tower modal characteristics depends on
the rotor azimuth and this may therefore be defined by the user. The variation of the tower
modal frequencies with rotor azimuth is normally small and the assumption of a single rotor
azimuthal position for the modal analysis is therefore a reasonable approximation. The user
can, of course, determine the extent of the azimuthal variation in the tower modal frequencies
by undertaking the modal analysis at a series of different rotor azimuths.
The frequencies and mode shapes of the tower modes are computed from the eigen-values
and eigen-vectors of a finite element representation of the tower structure. The finite element
model of the tower is based on the use of two-dimensional beam elements to describe the
mass and stiffness properties of the tower.
The outputs from the modal analysis of the tower are the modal frequencies and mode shapes
defined in the fore-aft and side-side directions. The modal damping coefficients are an input
defined by the user and may be used to represent structural damping.
3.1.3 Tower modes (multi-member model)

Once again a modal representation is used, but in this case an arbitrary structure consisting of
any number of straight interconnected members is permitted. Since the tower is no longer
axisymmetric, the modes are three-dimensional and contain all six degrees of freedom at each
node, and there may be a foundation at more than one node.
3.1.4 Coupling between rotor and tower modes

The modal analysis calculation generates the uncoupled component modes of vibration for
the rotor and tower. These are linked together in the GH Bladed equations of motion to give
coupled system modes. The frequencies of the coupled system modes will not be the same as
those of the uncoupled component modes; the coupled mode frequencies can be found using
the Campbell diagram calculation.
For forced response simulations, the modal approach is much more efficient computationally
than a full finite element (FE) modelling approach, but it is of course an approximation. GH
Bladed uses separate FE models for the rotor and the tower and there are a number of options
on how we choose to couple the two FE models for the modal analysis, depending on the
extent of the coupling between the rotor and tower.
Of particular significance is the coupling between the side-side tower modes, the drive train
torsional degree of freedom, and the rotor in-plane collective modes (see Section 3.1.1). The
extent of this coupling is determined, amongst other things, by the slope of the side-side
tower mode shapes at the tower top – the greater the slope, the more the coupling. Three
options are provided in GH Bladed:
(a) Locked hub. This option is available for the case of completely rigid coupling, in which
there is no possibility of hub rotation relative to the tower (see Section 3.1.1).
(b) Free hub, stiff in-plane / side-to-side coupling. This option allows hub rotation, but
assumes an otherwise stiff connection to the tower, and is provided for compatibility
with GH Bladed versions prior to version 3.7. However as turbines become larger and
more flexible, a different assumption has been found to result in a closer approximation
to the true coupled system dynamics, namely:
16 of 104
(c) Free hub, flexible in-plane / side-to-side coupling. This is the recommended choice for
all situations in which any rotation is possible between hub and tower.
3.2 Equations of motion
Because of the complexity of the coupling of the modal degrees of freedom of the rotating
and non-rotating components, the algebraic manipulation involved in the derivation of the
equations of motion for a wind turbine is a complicated problem. In the case of the dynamic
model within GH Bladed, the derivation has been carried out using energy principles and
Lagrange equations by means of a computer algebra package.
3.2.1 Degrees of freedom

The degrees of freedom involved in the equations of motion for the structural dynamic model
for GH Bladed are as follows:
• Rotor out of plane including teeter, maximum 9 modes

• Rotor in-plane, maximum 9 modes
• Nacelle yaw
• Tower fore-aft (axisymmetric tower model): maximum three modes
• Tower side-side (axisymmetric tower model): maximum three modes
• General tower motion (multi-member tower model): a larger number of modes is allowed,
including the torsional degree of freedom.
In addition, the following dynamics can also be included as required:
• A sophisticated representation of the power train dynamics as described in Section 4.1 of

this manual.
• A range of different representations of generator and power converter dynamics,
including both mechanical models and electrical models which can include network
interactions (Section 4.2).
• A range of pitch actuator models, from simple passive models to detailed representations
of electric servo drives and hydraulic actuators (Section 5.6).
• Teeter restraints, passive blade vibration dampers and tower dampers, and yaw system
dynamic response.
• Transducer dynamics for control signals.
• All controller dynamics.
3.2.2 Formulation of equations of motion

The equation of motion for a single modal degree of freedom, assuming no coupling with
other degrees of freedom, is as follows:
2
q&&i + 2 i q& +
i i i q = Fi / Mi
where:
qi is the time dependent modal displacement,
17 of 104
2
Mi = m(r ) i (r )dr is the modal mass,
rotor
and:
Fi = f (r ) i (r )dr is the modal force.

rotor
Here f(r) is the distributed force over the rotor or tower component.
The modal degrees of freedom are, of course, coupled and the formulation of the equations of
motion within GH Bladed is as follows:
&& + [ C]q& + [ K ]q = F
[ M ]q
where [M], [C] and [K] are the modal mass, damping and stiffness matrices, q is the vector
of modal displacements and F the vector of modal forces. The system matrices are full due to
the coupling of the degrees of freedom and contain periodic coefficients because of the time
dependent interaction of the dynamics of the rotor and tower.
Because of their complexity, the equations of motion are not presented in this manual. The
following key comments are, however, provided:
• Although the equations of motion are based on a linear modal treatment of the structural
dynamics, the model does contain non-linear terms associated primarily with gyroscopic
coupling.
• The rotor teeter degree of freedom is provided through the first out-of-plane mode and the
equation of motion includes representation of mechanical damping, stiffness and pre-load
restraints as specified by the user.
• The equation of motion for the nacelle yaw degree of freedom is based on the inertia of
the turbine about the yaw axis with mechanical restraints provided through yaw damping
and stiffness as specified by the user.
• The aeroelasticity of the turbine is taken into account in the equations of motion by
consideration of the interaction of the total structural velocity vector with the flow
velocity vector at each element along the rotor blades. The total structural velocity vector
at each element on the rotor blades is composed of the appropriate summation of the
velocities associated with each structural degree of freedom. In addition to the feedback of
the structural velocities into the rotor blade aerodynamics, the structural displacement
associated with any rotor teeter and nacelle yaw is also taken into account.
18 of 104
3.2.3 Solution of the equations of motion

The equations of motion are solved by time-marching integration of the differential equations
using a variable step size, fourth order Runge Kutta integrator.
3.3 Calculation of structural loads
The structural loads acting on the rotor, power train and tower are computed by the
appropriate summation of the applied aerodynamic loads and the inertial loads. The inertial
loads are calculated by integration of the mass properties and the total acceleration vector at
each station. The total acceleration vector includes modal, centrifugal, Coriolis and
gravitational components. “Second-order” effects due to structural deflections are taken into
account, i.e. the contribution to bending moments caused by the applied forces acting on the
deflected structure. For example, the contribution to tower base bending moment caused by
the weight of the nacelle takes into account the true position of the nacelle centre of gravity
including the deflection of the tower top.
3.4 Calculation of structural deflections
With the modal model, the deflected shape of the blades and tower at any instant must be a
linear combination of the available mode shapes. With only a small number of modes, the
resulting deflections may therefore not be accurately predicted, although the loads themselves
are much more accurately predicted. When the deflections themselves are important, for
example at the moment of closest approach between blade tip and tower, users often take the
structural blade loads output from GH Bladed, and recalculate the deflections by applying
them to the blade stiffness distribution: at each station, the blade flapwise and edgewise
curvatures are given by the flapwise or edgewise bending moment divided by the flapwise or
edgewise blade stiffness, and the resulting curvatures are integrated along the blade to
generate the flapwise and edgewise deflections. These are rotated at each station into in and
out of plane deflections by taking account of the blade twist, set angle and pitch.
The result is often an increased blade tip deflection. However this approach tends to be
conservative: the increased deflection means that the effect of the radial blade load (e.g. from
centrifugal and gravity effects) then causes a reduction in the bending moments, so the
deflections should be recalculated again. This calculation can be iterated until convergence
when the bending moments and deflections are fully consistent. The final solution can
significantly change the blade tip deflections, although the effect on the bending moments is
usually small.
From GH Bladed version 3.71, the option to do this iteration for the blade and tower
deflections has been provided. Generally about three iterations are sufficient. This option
only affects the output loads and deflections, and does not affect the dynamic solution. All
velocities and accelerations are also unaffected. Blade torsional deflections due to flap-twist
coupling are not refined in this way since torsional modes are not modelled.
Note that for the multi-member tower model, the solution uses the technique of static
improvement [3.1], which effectively achieves the same thing for the tower loads and
deflections.
19 of 104
4. POWER TRAIN DYNAMICS
The power train dynamics define the rotational degrees of freedom associated with the drive
train, including drive train mountings, and the dynamics of the electrical generator. The drive
train consists of a low speed shaft, gearbox and high speed shaft. Direct drive generators can
also be modelled.
4.1 Drive train models
4.1.1 Locked speed model

The simplest drive train model which is available is the locked speed model, which allows no
degrees of freedom for the power train. The rotor is therefore assumed to rotate at an
absolutely constant speed, and the aerodynamic torque is assumed to be exactly balanced by
the generator reaction torque at every instant. Clearly this model is unsuitable for start-up
and shut-down simulations, but it is useful for quick, preliminary calculations of loads and
performance before the drive train and generator have been fully characterised.
4.1.2 Rigid shaft model

The rigid shaft model is obtained by selecting the dynamic drive train model with no shaft
torsional flexibility. It allows a single rotational degree of freedom for the rotor and
generator. It can be used for all calculations and is recommended if the torsional stiffness of
the drive train is high. The acceleration of the generator and rotor are calculated from the
torque imbalance divided by the combined inertia of the rotor and generator, making
allowance for the gearbox ratio. Direct drive generators are modelled simply by setting the
gearbox ratio to 1. The torque imbalance is essentially the difference between the
aerodynamic torque and the generator reaction torque and any applied brake torque, taking
the gearbox ratio into account. However, this is corrected to account for the inertial effect of
blade deflection due to any edgewise blade vibration modes. To use the rigid shaft model, a
model of the generator must also be provided, so that the generator reaction torque is defined.
During a parked simulation, or once the brake has brought the rotor to rest during a stopping
simulation, the actual brake torque balances the aerodynamic torque exactly (making
allowance for the gearbox ratio if the brake is on the high speed shaft) and there is no further
rotation. However, if the aerodynamic torque increases to overcome the maximum or applied
brake torque, the brake starts to slip and rotation recommences.
The rigid drive train model may be used in combination with flexible drive train mountings.
In this case the equations of motion are more complex - see Section 4.3.
4.1.3 Flexible shaft model

The flexible shaft model is obtained by selecting the dynamic drive train model with torsional
flexibility in one or both shafts. It allows separate degrees of freedom for the rotation of the
turbine rotor and the generator rotor. The torsional flexibility of the low speed and high
speed shafts may be specified independently. As with the rigid shaft model, a model of the
generator must be provided so that the generator reaction torque is specified.
20 of 104
The turbine rotor is accelerated by the torque imbalance between the aerodynamic torque
(adjusted for the effect of edgewise modes as explained in Section 4.1.2) and the low speed
shaft torque. The generator rotor is accelerated by the imbalance between high speed shaft
torque and generator reaction torque. The shaft torques are calculated from the shaft twist,
together with any applied brake torque contributions depending on the location of the brake,
which may be specified as being at either end of either the low or high speed shaft.
During a parked simulation, or once the brake disk has come to rest during a stopping
simulation, the equations of motion change depending on the brake location. If the brake is
immediately adjacent to the rotor or generator then there is no further rotation of that
component, but the other component continues to move and oscillates against the torsional
flexibility of the shafts. If the brake is adjacent to the gearbox and both shafts are flexible,
then both rotor and generator will oscillate. However, if the torque at the brake disk increases
to overcome the maximum or applied brake torque, then the brake starts to slip again.
The flexible drive train model may be used in combination with flexible drive train
mountings. In this case the equations of motion are more complex - see Section 4.3.
It should be pointed out that while the flexible shaft model provides greater accuracy in the
prediction of loads, there is potential for one of the drive drain vibrational modes to be of
relatively high frequency, depending on the generator inertia and shaft stiffnesses. The
presence of this high frequency mode could result in slower simulations.
4.2 Generator models
The generator characteristics must be provided if either the rigid or flexible shaft drive train
model is specified. Three types of generator model are available:
• A directly-connected induction generator model (for constant speed turbines),

• A variable speed generator model (for variable speed turbines), and
• A variable slip generator model (providing limited range variable speed above rated)
In each case there is a choice between a mechanical model and an electrical model. The
electrical model allows interactions with the network to be modelled. This is useful for
calculations of electrical flicker, voltage variations, power and reactive power variations and
power factor, and response to network transients such as voltage and frequency transients,
(which wind turbines are increasingly being required to ride through without shutting down).
4.2.1 Fixed speed induction generator – mechanical model

This model represents an induction generator directly connected to the grid. Its
characteristics are defined by the slip slope h and the short-circuit transient time constant .
The air-gap or generator reaction torque Q is then defined by the following differential
equation:
Q& = 1 [h( 0 ) Q]
where is the actual generator speed and 0 is the generator synchronous or no-load speed.
21 of 104
The slip slope is calculated as
Pr
h=
r ( r 0 )
where r is the generator speed at rated power output Pr , given by r = 0 (1 + S/100) where
S is the rated slip in %, and is the full load efficiency of the generator.
4.2.2 Fixed speed induction generator: electrical model

A more complete model of the directly-connected induction generator is also available in GH
Bladed. This model requires the equivalent circuit parameters of the generator to be supplied
(at the operating temperature, rather than the ‘cold’ values), along with the number of pole
pairs, the voltage and the network frequency. It is also possible to model power factor
correction capacitors and auxiliary loads such as turbine ancillary equipment. The equivalent
circuit configuration is shown in Figure 4.1.
Rs = Stator resistance
xs = Stator reactance = sls
Rr/s Rs Rr = Rotor resistance
xr = Rotor reactance = slr
xs Ra xm = Mutual reactance = sLm
xr xm C C = Power factor correction
Xa Ra = Auxiliary load resistance
Xa = Auxiliary load reactance = sL a
s = fractional slip
s = network frequency
Figure 4.1: Equivalent circuit model of induction generator
The equivalent circuit parameters should be given for a star-connected generator. If the
generator is delta-connected, the resistances and reactances should be divided by 3 to convert
to the equivalent star-connected configuration.
The voltage should be given as rms line volts. To convert peak voltage to rms, divide by 2.
To convert phase volts to line volts, multiply by 3.
Since this model necessarily includes electrical losses in the generator and ancillary
equipment, it is not possible to specify any additional electrical losses, although mechanical
losses may be specified - see Section 4.4.
Four different models of the electrical dynamics of the system illustrated in Figure 4.1 are
provided:
• Steady state
• 1st order
• 2nd order
• 4th order
The steady state model simply calculates the steady-state currents and voltages in Figure 4.1
at each instant. The 1st order model introduces a first order lag into the relationship between
the slip (s) and the effective rotor resistance (Rr/s), using the short-circuit transient time
constant given by [4.1]:
22 of 104
X s X r x 2m
= (4.2.2.1)
XsR r s
where Xs = xs+xm = sLs, Xr = xr+xm = sLr, and s is the grid frequency in rad/s.
The 2nd order model represents the generator as a voltage source behind a transient
reactance X’ = Xs - xm2/Xr, ignoring stator flux transients:
is (rs + jX’) = vs -
where is and vs are the stator current and terminal voltage respectively. The dynamics of the
rotor flux linkage r may be written as
1
& r = rr i r + js r (4.2.2.2)
s (1 + s)
where s is the fractional slip speed (positive for generating) and ir is the rotor current. This
can be re-written in terms of the induced voltage using
xm
r = j (4.2.2.3)
Xr
to give
rs + jX s Xs X
T0 & = js s T0 +j vs (4.2.2.4)
rs + jX rs + jX
where
Xr
T0 = . (4.2.2.5)
s rr
The 4th order model is a full d-q (direct and quadrature) axis representation of the generator
which uses Park’s transformation [4.2] to model the 3-phase windings of the generator as an
equivalent set of two windings in quadrature [4.3]. Using complex notation to represent the
direct and quadrature components of currents and voltages as the real and imaginary parts of
a single complex quantity, we can obtain
(L L L2m ) dtd !ii s

=
! L r rs j s (L L s r sL2m ) L m rr j s L r L m (1 s) !i s ! L r
+
s r
r L m rs + j s L s L m (1 s) L s rr + j (
s Lm
2
sL s L r )
) ir Lm
vs
(4.2.2.6)
where all the currents and voltages are now complex.
Where speed of simulation is more important than accuracy, one of the lower order models
should be used. The 4th order model should be used for the greatest accuracy, although in
many circumstances the lower order models give very similar results. The lower order
models do not give an accurate representation of start-up transients, however.
23 of 104
4.2.3 Variable speed generator – mechanical model

This model should be used for a variable speed turbine incorporating a frequency converter to
decouple the generator speed from the grid frequency. The variable speed drive, consisting
of both the generator and frequency converter, is modelled as a whole. A modern variable
speed drive is capable of accepting a torque demand and responding to this within a very
short time to give the desired torque at the generator air-gap, irrespective of the generator
speed (as long as it is within specified limits). A first order lag model is provided for this
response:
Qd
Qg =
(1 + e s)
where Qd is the demanded torque, Qg is the air-gap torque, and e is the time constant of the
first order lag. Note that the use of a small time constant may result in slower simulations. If
the time constant is very small, specifying a zero time constant will speed up the simulations,
without much effect on accuracy.
A variable speed turbine requires a controller to generate an appropriate torque demand, such
that the turbine speed is regulated appropriately. Details of the control models which are
available with GH Bladed can be found in Section 5.
The minimum and maximum generator torque must be specified. Motoring may occur if a
negative minimum torque is specified.
The phase angle between current and voltage, and hence the power factor, is specified, on the
assumption that, in effect, both active and reactive power flows into the network are being
controlled with the same time constant as the torque, and that the frequency converter
controller is programmed to maintain constant power factor.
An option for drive train damping feedback is provided. This represents additional
functionality which may be available in the frequency converter controller which adds a term
derived from measured generator speed onto the incoming torque demand. This term is
defined as a transfer function acting on the measured speed. The transfer function is supplied
as a ratio of polynomials in the Laplace operator, s. Thus the equation for the air-gap torque
Qg becomes
Qd Num(s)
Qg = + g
(1 + e s) Den (s)
where Num(s) and Den(s) are polynomials. The transfer function would normally be some
kind of tuned bandpass filter designed to provide some damping for drive train torsional
vibrations, which in the case of variable speed operation may otherwise be very lightly
damped, sometimes causing severe gearbox loads.
4.2.4 Variable speed generator – DFIG electrical model

An electrical model for doubly-fed induction generators is available, as shown in Figure 4.2.
The stator active and reactive power (ps and qs) are fed directly to the network, while the rotor
active and reactive power (pr and qr) pass through the power converter. The converter
efficiency kc results in a loss of active power.
24 of 104
ps , qs
DFIG
Crowbar
pr , qr kc pr
Torque Voltage or
control PF control
Figure 4.2: Schematic of doubly-fed induction generator system
The converter is controlled by two main control loops, as described in [4.5]: a torque control
loop which works by injecting a quadrature-axis voltage into the rotor circuit, and a voltage
or power factor control loop which works by injecting a direct-axis voltage. Both loops are
essentially PI controllers, with additional terms for decoupling the two loops, for inertia
compensation, and for frequency support. Crowbar protection is included: in the event of
excessive rotor current, this disconnects the converter and connects the rotor circuit to a
crowbar resistor instead. When the current drops back below a set value, the crowbar
disengages and the converter is reconnected.
The rotor voltage injection is modelled by additional terms in the induction generator
equations: For the 2nd order model, an additional term
L
j s m vr
Rr
is added to the right hand side of equation 4.2.2.4, while for the 4th order model, a term
! Lm
vr
Ls
is added to the right hand side of equation 4.2.2.6, where vr is the complex rotor voltage
vdr + jvqr, made up of the direct and quadrature components of the injected rotor voltage.
These two components are calculated by separate control loops. The quadrature component
is calculated by the torque loop (Figure 4.3), which is essentially a PI controller acting on the
error in the quadrature-axis rotor current, compared to the reference value iqr_ref. This is
simply scaled from the torque demand coming from the turbine controller. The Laplace
operator is denoted by ", and the inductances are given by Lr = Xr/ s, Ls = Xs/ s, and Lm =
xm/ s. The torque loop proportional and integral gains are Kqp and Kqi respectively.
An addition to the torque demand, Tf-cont, can be included, which responds to the rate of
change of network frequency. A first-order low-pass filter , the “inertia term filter time
constant”, is included with the frequency differentiator to prevent excessive noise response at
25 of 104
high frequencies. The gain Kf represents the additional inertia contribution which this term
provides.
There is also a loop decoupling term which can be used to cancel the cross-coupling between
the control loops [4.6], which adds on a final voltage contribution vqr_dec.
iq r PI controller
Torque demand
from controller: Tc 2 2 s Ls iqr _ref - K iq + vqr
K pq +
+ - 3 p Lm vqs + "
+
Inertia compensation
" Tf cont vqr_dec
fs Kf Loop decoupling term
1+ " s
id r s s Lr idr
Figure 4.3: Torque loop
The direct component of the injected rotor voltage is calculated by the voltage loop (Figure
4.4). Once again a PI controller is used, the input being the error in the direct-axis rotor
current compared to the reference current idr_ref. The voltage loop proportional and integral
gains are Kvp and Kvi respectively. Once again the loop decoupling term, if defined, adds on a
final voltage contribution, vdr_dec.
id
PI controller
vs 1 + 1 + - K iv + vdr
K pv +
s Lm 1 + ;< : idr ref U
+
vs _ ref - Loop decoupling term vdr_dec

K VC s
+ L2 m
iq s s Lr iqr
Voltage loop gain Ls
Figure 4.4: Voltage loop
The output of each PI controller is subject to a voltage limit. To prevent integrator windup,
the integrator is fully desaturated by setting the integrator desaturation time constant to zero:
this switches off the integration whenever the voltage exceeds the limit. Alternatively a non-
zero time constant i can be specified, in which case a term (v-vlimit)/ i is subtracted from the
integrator input.
If crowbar protection is defined, the crowbar is activated if the rotor current magnitude
exceeds (1+Tol) times the specified current limit, where Tol is the crowbar switching
tolerance. The crowbar is switched out again when the current drops below (1-Tol) times the
current limit. When the crowbar is active, the rotor terminals are connected to the crowbar
resistance instead of the power converter.
26 of 104
4.2.5 Variable slip generator

A variable slip generator is essentially an induction generator with a variable resistance in
series with the rotor circuit [4.3, 4.4]. Below rated power, it acts just like a fixed speed
induction generator, so the same parameters are required as described in Section 4.2.1.
Above rated, the variable slip generator uses a fast-switching controller to regulate the rotor
current, and hence the air-gap torque, so the generator actually behaves just like a variable
speed system, albeit with a limited speed range. The same parameters as for a variable speed
system must therefore also be supplied (see Section 4.2.3), with the exception of the phase
angle since power factor control is not available in this case.
Alternatively, a full electrical model of the variable slip generator is available. The generator
is modelled as in Section 4.2.2, and the rotor current controller is modelled as a continuous-
time PI controller which adjusts the rotor resistance between the defined limits (with
integrator desaturation on the limits), in response to the difference between the actual and
demanded rotor current. The steady-state relationship between torque and rotor current is
computed at the start of the simulation, so that the torque demand can be converted to a rotor
current demand. The scheme is shown in Figure 4.5.
Torque Current 1 PI with Rotor

demand demand |I| limits resistance
Measured current |I|
Figure 4.5: Variable slip generator – rotor current controller
4.3 Drive train mounting
If desired, torsional flexibility may be specified either in the gearbox mounting or between
the pallet or bedplate and the tower top. This option is only allowed if either the stiff or
flexible drive train model is specified, and it adds an additional rotational degree of freedom.
In either case, the torsional stiffness and damping of the mounting is specified, with the axis
of rotation assumed to coincide with the rotor shaft. The moment of inertia of the moving
components about the low speed shaft axis must also be specified. In the case of a flexible
gearbox mounting, this is the moment of inertia of the gearbox casing. In the case of a
flexible pallet mounting, it is the moment of inertia of the gearbox casing, the generator
stator, the moving pallet and any other components rigidly fixed to it.
If either form of mounting is specified, the direction of rotation of the generator shaft will
affect some of the internal drive train loads. If the low speed and high speed shafts rotate in
opposite directions, specify a negative gearbox ratio in the drive train model. The effect of
any offset between the low speed shaft and high speed shaft axes is ignored.
Any shaft brake is assumed to be rigidly mounted on the pallet. Thus any motion once the
brake disk has stopped turning depends on the type of drive train mounting as well as on the
27 of 104
position of the brake on the low or high speed shaft. For example if there is a soft pallet
mounting, then there will still be some oscillation of the rotor after the brake disk has stopped
even if both shafts are stiff.
As in the case of the flexible shaft drive train model, it should be pointed out that while
modelling the effect of flexible mountings provides greater accuracy in the prediction of
loads, there is potential for one or two of the resulting drive train vibrational modes to be of
relatively high frequency, depending on the various moments of inertia and shaft and
mounting stiffnesses. The presence of high frequency modes could result in slower
simulations.
4.4 Energy losses
Power train energy losses are modelled as a combination of mechanical losses and electrical
losses in the generator (including the frequency converter in the case of variable speed
turbines).
Mechanical losses in the gearbox and/or shaft bearings are modelled as either a loss torque or
a power loss, which may be constant, or interpolated linearly from a look-up table. This may
be a look-up table against rotor speed, gearbox torque or shaft power, or a two-dimensional
look-up table against rotor speed and either shaft torque or power. Mechanical losses
modelled in terms of power are inappropriate if calculations are to be carried out at low or
zero rotational speeds, e.g. for starts, stops, idling and parked calculations. In these cases, the
losses are better expressed in terms of torque.
The electrical losses may specified by one of two methods:
Linear model: This requires a no-load loss LN and an efficiency , where the electrical power
output Pe is related to the generator shaft input power Ps by:
Pe = (Ps - LN)
Look-up table: The power loss L(Ps) is specified as a function of generator shaft input power
Ps by means of a look-up table. The electrical power output Pe is given by:
Pe = Ps - L(Ps)
Linear interpolation is used between points on the look-up table.
Note that if a full electrical model of the generator is used, additional electrical losses in this
form cannot be specified since the generator model implicitly includes all electrical losses.
4.5 The electrical network
Provided either the detailed electrical model of the induction generator or the variable speed
generator model is used, so that electrical currents and voltages are calculated, and reactive
power as well as active power, then the characteristics of the network to which the turbine is
connected may also be supplied. As well as allowing the voltage variations, and hence the
28 of 104
flicker, at various points on the network to be calculated, the presence of the network may
also, in the case of the directly connected induction generator, influence the dynamic
response of the generator itself particularly on a weak network.
The network is modelled as a connection, with defined impedance, to the point of common
coupling (PCC in
Figure 4.6) and a further connection, also with defined impedance, to an infinite busbar.
Further turbines may be connected at the point of common coupling. These additional
turbines are each assumed to be identical to the turbine being modelled, including the
impedance of the connection to the point of common coupling. However they are modelled
as static rather dynamic, with current and phase angle constant during the simulation. The
initial conditions are calculated with the assumption that all turbines are in an identical state,
and the ‘other’ turbines then remain in the same state throughout. Thus the steady state
voltage rise due to all the turbines at the point of common coupling will be taken into account
in calculating the performance of the turbine whose performance is being simulated .
Other turbines
(if required)
Wind
turbine R1 + jX1 R2 + jX2
PCC
Farm Network
interconnection connection
impedance impedance
Infinite
busbar
Figure 4.6: The network model
29 of 104
5. CLOSED LOOP CONTROL
5.1 Introduction
Closed loop control may be used during normal running of the turbine to control the blade
pitch angle and, for variable speed turbines, the rotor speed. Four different controller types
are provided:
1. Fixed speed stall regulated. The generator is directly connected to a constant frequency
grid, and there is no active aerodynamic control during normal power production.
2. Fixed speed pitch regulated. The generator is directly connected to a constant frequency
grid, and pitch control is used to regulate power in high winds.
3. Variable speed stall regulated. A frequency converter decouples the generator from the
grid, allowing the rotor speed to be varied by controlling the generator reaction torque. In
high winds, this speed control capability is used to slow the rotor down until aerodynamic
stall limits the power to the desired level.
4. Variable speed pitch regulated. A frequency converter decouples the generator from the
grid, allowing the rotor speed to be varied by controlling the generator reaction torque. In
high winds, the torque is held at the rated level and pitch control is used to regulate the
rotor speed and hence also the power.
For a constant speed stall regulated turbine no parameters need be defined as there is no
control action. In the other cases the control action will determine the steady state operating
point of the turbine as well as its dynamic response. For steady state calculations it is only
necessary to specify those parameters which define the operating curve of the turbine. For
dynamic calculations, further parameters are used to define the dynamics of the closed loop
control. The parameters required are defined further in the following sections.
Note that all closed loop control data are defined relative to the high speed shaft.
5.2 The fixed speed pitch regulated controller
This controller is applicable to a turbine with a directly-connected generator which uses blade
pitch control to regulate power in high winds. It is applicable to full or partial span pitch
control, as well as to other forms of aerodynamic control such as flaps or ailerons. In the
latter case, the pitch angle can be taken to refer to the deployment angle of the flap or aileron.
From the optimum position, the blades may pitch in either direction to reduce the
aerodynamic torque. If feathering pitch action is selected, the pitchable part of the blade
moves to reduce its angle of attack as the wind speed (and hence the power) increases. If
stalling pitch action is selected, it moves in the opposite direction to stall the blade as the
wind speed increases. In the feathering case, the minimum pitch angle defines the pitch
setting below rated, while in the stalling case the maximum pitch angle is used below rated,
and the pitch decreases towards the minimum value (usually a negative pitch angle) above
rated.
30 of 104
Driving Electric Power Measured

Turbine
torque power transducer power Controller
Power
Pitch set-point
Blade pitch Pitch demand
actuator
Figure 5.1: The fixed speed pitch regulated control loop
Figure 5.1 shows schematically the elements of the fixed speed pitch regulated control loop
which are modelled.
5.2.1 Steady state parameters

In order to define the steady-state operating curve, it is necessary to define the power set-
point and the minimum and maximum pitch angle settings, as well as the direction of pitching
as described above. The correct pitch angle can then be calculated in order to achieve the set-
point power at any given steady wind speed.
5.2.2 Dynamic parameters

To calculate the dynamic behaviour of the control loop, it is necessary to specify the dynamic
response of the power transducer and the pitch actuator, as well as the actual algorithm used
by the controller to calculate a pitch demand in response to the measured power signal.
Section 5.5 describes the available transducer and actuator models, while Section 5.6
describes the PI algorithm which is used by the controller.
5.3 The variable speed stall regulated controller
This controller model is appropriate to variable speed turbines which employ a frequency
converter to decouple the generator speed from the fixed frequency of the grid, and which do
not use pitch control to limit the power above rated wind speed. Instead, the generator
reaction torque is controlled so as to slow the rotor down into stall in high wind speeds. The
control loop is shown schematically in Figure 5.2.

The steady-state operating curve can be described with reference to a torque-speed graph as
in Figure 5.3. The allowable speed range in the steady state is from S1 to S2. In low winds it
is possible to maximise energy capture by following a constant tip speed ratio load line which
corresponds to operation at the maximum power coefficient. This load line is a quadratic
curve on the torque-speed plane, shown by the line BG in Figure 5.3. Alternatively a look-up
table may be specified. If there is a minimum allowed operating speed S1, then it is no longer
possible to follow this curve in very low winds, and the turbine is then operated at nominally
constant speed along the line AB shown in the figure. Similarly in high wind speeds, once
the maximum operating speed S4 is reached, then once again it is necessary to depart from
31 of 104
Generator Speed Measured

speed transducer speed
Driving
Turbine
torque
Electrical Power Measured Controller
power transducer power
Desired
Generator power,
torque torque,
demand speed
Figure 5.2: The variable speed stall regulated control loop
depart from the optimum load line by operating at nominally constant speed along the line
GH.
Once maximum power is reached at point H, it is necessary to slow the rotor speed down into
stall, along the constant power line HI. If high rotational speeds are allowed, it is of course
possible for the line GH to collapse so that the constant power line and the constant tip speed
ratio line meet at point J.
Figure 5.3: Variable speed stall regulated operating curve
32 of 104
Clearly the parameters needed to specify the steady state operating curve are:
• The minimum speed, S1
• The maximum speed in constant tip speed ratio mode, S4
• The maximum steady-state operating speed. This is usually S4, but could conceivably be
higher in the case of a turbine whose characteristics are such that as the windspeed
increases, the above rated operating point moves from H to I, then drops back to H, and
then carries on (towards J) in very high wind. This situation is somewhat unlikely
however, because if rotational speeds beyond S4 are permitted in very high winds, there is
little reason not to increase S4 and allow the same high rotor speeds in lower wind.)
• The above rated power set-point, corresponding to the line HI. This is defined in terms of
shaft power. Electrical power will of course be lower if electrical losses are modelled.
• The parameter K# which defines the constant tip speed ratio line BG. This is given by:
K# = R5 Cp(#) / 2 #3 G3
where
= air density
R = rotor radius
# = desired tip speed ratio
Cp(#) = Power coefficient at tip speed ratio #
G = gearbox ratio
Then when the generator torque demand is set to K# 2 where is the measured generator
speed, this ensures that in the steady state the turbine will maintain tip speed ratio # and the
corresponding power coefficient Cp(#). Note that power train losses may vary with rotational
speed, in which case the optimum rotor speed is not necessarily that which results in the
maximum aerodynamic power coefficient.
As an alternative to the parameter K#, a look-up table may be specified giving generator
torque as a function of speed.

response of both power and speed transducers, as well as the actual algorithm used by the
controller to calculate a generator torque demand in response to the measured power and
speed signals. Section 5.5 describes the available transducer and actuator models.
Two closed loop control loops are used for the generator torque control, as shown in Figure
5.4. An inner control loop calculates a generator torque demand as a function of generator
speed error, while an outer loop calculates a generator speed demand as a function of power
error. Both control loops use PI controllers, as described in Section 5.6.
Below rated, the speed set-point switches between S1 and S4. In low wind it is at S1, and the
torque demand output is limited to a maximum value given by the optimal tip speed ratio
curve BG. This causes the operating point to track the trajectory ABG. In higher winds, the
set-point changes to S4, and the torque demand output is limited to a minimum value given by
the optimal tip speed ratio curve, causing the operating point to track the trajectory BGH.
Once the torque reaches QR, the outer control loop causes the speed set-point to reduce along
HI, and the inner loop tracks this varying speed demand.
33 of 104
Power PI Speed PI
set-point controller demand controller
Measured power
Measured speed
Generator torque demand
Figure 5.4: Stall regulated variable speed control loops
5.4 The variable speed pitch regulated controller
This controller model is appropriate to variable speed turbines, which employ a frequency
converter to decouple the generator speed from the fixed frequency of the grid, and which use
pitch control to limit the power above rated wind speed. The control loop is shown
schematically in Figure 5.5.

The steady-state operating curve can be described with reference to the torque-speed graph
shown in Figure 5.6. Below rated, i.e. from point A to point H, the operating curve is exactly
as in the stall regulated variable speed case described in Section 5.3.1, Figure 5.3. Above
rated however, the blade pitch is adjusted to maintain the chosen operating point, designated
L. Effectively, changing the pitch alters the lines of constant wind speed, forcing them to
Generator Speed Measured

speed transducer speed
Wind Turbine
Controlle
Blade pitch Pitch Pitch Desired

actuator demand torque
Generator and speed
torque
demand
Figure 5.5: The variable speed pitch regulated control loop
pass through the desired operating point.
34 of 104
Figure 5.6: Variable speed pitch regulated operating curve
Once rated torque is reached at point H, the torque demand is kept constant for all higher
wind speeds, and pitch control regulates the rotor speed. A small (optional) margin is
allowed between points H (where the torque reaches maximum) and L (where pitch control
begins) to prevent excessive mode switching between below and above rated control modes.
However, this margin may not be required, in which case points H and L coincide. As with
the stall regulated controller, the line GH may collapse to a point if desired.
Clearly the parameters needed to specify the steady state operating curve are:
• The minimum speed, S1
• The maximum speed in constant tip speed ratio mode, S4
• The speed set-point above rated (S5). This may be the same as S4.
• The maximum steady-state operating speed. This is normally the same as S5.
• The above rated torque set-point, QR.
• The parameter K# which defines the constant tip speed ratio line BG, or a look-up table.
This is as defined in Section 5.3.1.

response of the speed transducer and the pitch actuator, as well as the actual algorithm used
by the controller to calculate the pitch and generator torque demands in response to the
measured speed signal. Section 5.5 describes the available transducer and actuator models.
35 of 104
Figure 5.7 shows the control loops used to generate pitch and torque demands. The torque
demand loop is active below rated, and the pitch demand loop above rated. Section 5.6
describes the PI algorithm which is used by both loops.
Below rated, the speed set-point switches between S1 and S4. In low winds it is at S1, and
the torque demand output is limited to a maximum value given by the optimal tip speed ratio
curve BG. This causes the operating point to track the trajectory ABG. In higher winds, the
set-point changes to S4, and the torque demand output is limited to a minimum value given by
the optimal tip speed ratio curve, causing the operating point to track the trajectory BGH, and
a maximum value of QR. When point H is reached the torque remains constant, with the
pitch control loop becoming active when the speed exceeds S5.
Above rated
Speed
set-point
Below rated PI PI
Measured speed controller controller
Generator torque demand
Blade pitch demand
Figure 5.7: Pitch regulated variable speed control loops
5.5 Transducer models
First order lag models are provided in GH Bladed to represent the dynamics of the power
transducer and the generator speed transducer. The first order lag model is represented by
1
y& = (x y)
T
where x is the input and y is the output. The input is the actual power or speed and the output
is the measured power or speed, as input to the controller.
5.6 Modelling the pitch actuator
The pitch actuator may be modelled as either a pitch position or pitch rate actuator, and either
active or passive dynamics may be specified.
The simplest model is a passive actuator, with the relationship between the input and the
output represented by a transfer function. For the pitch position actuator, the input is the
pitch demand generated by the controller and the output is the actual pitch angle of the
blades. For the pitch rate actuator, the input is the pitch rate demand generated by the
controller and the output is the actual pitch rate at which the blades move. The transfer
function may be a first order lag, a second order response, or a general transfer function, up to
36 of 104
to 8th order.
The first order lag model is represented by
1
y& = (x y)
T
where x is the input and y is the output. The second-order model is represented by
y + 2$ y& =
&& 2
(x y)
where is the bandwidth and $ the damping factor. The general transfer function model is
represented by numerator and denominator polynomials in the Laplace operator.
For detailed calculations, especially to understand the loads on the pitch actuator itself and
the duty which will be required of it, it is possible to enter a more detailed model. This can
take into account any internal closed loop dynamics in the actuator, and also the pitch motion
resulting from the actuator torque acting on the pitching inertia, with or against the
aerodynamic pitch moment and the pitch bearing friction. The bearing friction itself depends
critically on the loading at the pitch bearing.
Figure 5.8 shows the various options for controlling the pitch angle, starting from either a
pitch position demand or a pitch rate demand. The pitch position demand may optionally be
processed through a ramp control, shown in Figure 5.9, which smooths the step changes in
demand generated by a discrete controller by applying rate and/or acceleration limits. Then
the pitch position demand can act either through passive dynamics to generate a pitch
position, or through a PID controller on pitch error to generate a pitch rate demand. Rate
limits are applied to the output, with instantaneous integrator desaturation to prevent wind-up
in the PID case. Thus the pitch rate demand may come either from here or directly from the
controller. This rate demand can act either through passive dynamics to generate a pitch rate,
or through a PID controller on pitch rate error to generate an actuator torque demand. In the
latter case, the pitch actuator passive dynamics then generate an actual actuator torque, which
acts against bearing friction and any aerodynamic pitching moment to accelerate the pitching
inertia of the blades and the actuator itself. An optional first order filter on each PID input
allows step changes in demand from the controller to be smoothed, and instantaneous
integrator desaturation prevents wind-up when the torque limits are reached.
Both PID controllers include a filter on the differential term to prevent excessive high
frequency gain. Also there is a choice of derivative action, such that the derivative gain may
be applied either to the feedback (i.e. the measured position or rate), the error signal, or the
demand. The latter case represents a feed-forward term in the controller.
If passive pitch rate dynamics are selected, the response will be subject to acceleration limits
calculated from the aerodynamic pitching moment, bearing friction and the actuator toque
limits acting on the pitching inertia. If the total pitching inertia is zero, no limits will be
applied.
The pitch bearing sliding friction torque is modelled as the sum of four terms: a constant, a
term proportional to the bending moment at the bearing, and a term proportional to the axial
and radial forces on the bearing. Sometimes the actuator cannot overcome the applied
torques and the pitch motion will stick. Before it can move again, the break-out or ‘stiction’
37 of 104
torque must be overcome. This is modelled as an additional contribution to the friction

torque while the pitch is not moving. This additional contribution is specified as a constant
torque, plus a term proportional to the sliding friction torque.
Pitch position Measured Pitch rate

Measured
demand from pitch demand from
pitch rate
controller position controller
Bearing
- loads
Ramp control +
Pitching Bearing
moment friction
PID controller
Actuator
torque
limits
Pitch rate
demand
-
+
Pitching
inertia
Acceleration
Passive
limits PID controller
dynamics
Actuator
Passive
torque
dynamics
demand
Passive
dynamics
Actuator
torque
Pitching
inertia
Pitch rate
Actual pitch
position
Figure 5.8: Pitch actuator options
38 of 104
1.2
0.8
Demand
0.6
0.4 Raw demand

Rate limit
0.2 Acceleration limit
Rate & acceleration limits
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Timesteps
The ramp is re-started each timestep. If the ramp is not completed by the end of the timestep
and an acceleration limit is specified, the slope at the start of the next timestep will be non-
zero.
Figure 5.9: Ramp control for pitch actuator position demand
GH Bladed supports both rotary and linear pitch actuators. For linear actuators, for example
using a hydraulic ram, the linkage geometry must be supplied. The principal difference
between the linear and rotary actuator models is that a rotary actuator has a torque limit,
while a linear actuator has a force limit (which translates into a torque limit which varies with
pitch position).
5.7 The PI control algorithm
All the closed loop control algorithms described above use PI controllers to calculate the
output y (pitch, torque or speed demand) from the input x (power or speed error). The basic
PI algorithm can be expressed as
y& = K p x& + Ki x
where Kp and Ki represent the proportional and integral gains. The ratio Kp/Ki is also known
as the integral time constant. Calculation of appropriate values for the gains is a specialist
task, which should take into account the dynamics of the turbine together with the
aerodynamic characteristics and principal forcing frequencies, and should aim to achieve
stable control at all operating points and a suitable trade-off between accuracy of tracking the
set-point and the degree of actuator activity.
Straightforward implementation of the above equation leads to the problem of ‘integrator

wind-up’ if the output y is subject to limits, as is the case here. This means that the raw
output calculated as above continues to change as a result of the integral (Ki) term even
though the actual output is being constrained to a limit. When the direction of movement of y
39 of 104
changes, it will then take a long time before it comes back to the limit so that the final
(constrained) output starts to change. This is avoided in the continuous-time implementation
of the PI controller by an additional term -%y/Td in the above equation, where %y is the
amount by which the raw output y has gone beyond the limit, and Td is the desaturation time
constant which must be supplied by the user.
In practice the control algorithm is usually implemented in a digital controller working on a

discrete timestep. In the GH Bladed model, the continuous implementation of the controller
is an approximate representation, although the discrete timestep is usually fast enough for the
approximation to be a very good one. Since the integrator desaturation in a discrete
controller can be implemented by fully adjusting the raw integrator output at every timestep,
a suitable approximation for the continuous case is to use a desaturation time constant
approximately equal to the discrete controller timestep.
Alternatively, perfect or instantaneous desaturation can be specified by setting the

desaturation time constant to zero.
5.7.1 Gain scheduling

Since the characteristics of the turbine, especially the aerodynamic characteristics, are not
constant but will vary according to the operating point, and hence the wind speed, it may be
necessary to adjust the controller gains as a function of the operating point in order to ensure
that suitable control loop characteristics are achieved at all wind speeds. This is known as
gain scheduling, and the gain scheduling model provided in GH Bladed allows both the
proportional and integral gains of any control loop to be scaled by a factor 1/F, where F is a
function of some variable V which is accessible to the controller and which is representative
of the operating point in some way.
The choices available are:

• F = constant
• F = F(V) as defined by a look-up table
• F = F(V) as defined by a polynomial, but with minimum and maximum limits applied to F
The choice of variable V depends on the particular control loop. The following choices are
provided:
Fixed speed pitch regulated controller:

• Electrical power, pitch angle, wind speed.
Variable speed below-rated torque controller:

• Electrical power, generator speed, wind speed, and pitch angle (in the pitch regulated
case).
Variable speed stall regulated above-rated controller:

• Electrical power, generator speed, wind speed.
Variable speed pitch regulated above-rated controller:

• Electrical power, generator speed, wind speed, pitch angle.
The variables shown in bold are normally recommended. Gain scheduling is unlikely to be
required for the variable speed below rated controllers. For the variable speed stall regulated
40 of 104
above-rated controller, no general rule can be given. Gain scheduling on wind speed is not
usually a practical proposition because of the difficulty of measuring a representative wind
speed, and this option is only provided for research purposes. The wind speed used is the hub
wind speed, which may differ from any wind speed measured by an anemometer mounted on
the nacelle, especially in the case of an upwind turbine.
Gain scheduling on pitch angle is recommended for the pitch regulation controllers, to
compensate for the large changes in the sensitivity of aerodynamic torque to pitch angle over
the operating range. The steady loads calculation may be used to calculate the partial
derivative of aerodynamic torque with respect to pitch angle, and F may be set proportional to
this. In many cases, simply setting F proportional to pitch angle is a good approximation, but
a lower limit for F must be set to prevent excessive gains at small pitch angles.
5.8 Control mode changes
The variable speed controllers, both stall regulated and pitch regulated, require the following
mode changes:
• Change of speed set-point from S1 to S4 (refer to Figures 5.3 and 5.6). This occurs when
the measured speed crosses the threshold value (S1+S4)/2. This mode change is
completely benign as the control action along the optimum tip speed ratio line BG is the
same either side of the mode change point, so no hysteresis is required.
• Change from below rated to above rated control.
For the stall regulated case, the change from below rated to above rated is also benign.
Making the switch in the middle of the section GH of Figure 5.3 causes no immediate change
in control action. However, in the case of G and H coinciding, or being very close together, it
may be necessary to modify the mode change strategy, depending on the turbine
characteristics.
For the pitch regulated case, the change to above rated control occurs when the torque
demand is at maximum (QR) and the speed exceeds S5 (refer to Figure 5.6). The change to
below rated occurs when the pitch demand is at fine pitch (minimum pitch for the feathering
case, maximum pitch for pitch-assisted stall) and the speed falls below S4. While this
strategy is usually suitable, it may be desirable to modify it depending on the turbine
characteristics.
The mode changes occur on a discrete timestep set to a default value of 0.1 seconds.
5.9 Client-specific controllers
The control algorithms described above have been developed to be suitable for a wide range
of cases. However, these are very basic algorithms, and it is recognised that in reality there is
great variation in the design of controllers for different turbines.
GH Bladed therefore offers the possibility of incorporating user-defined controllers in the

dynamic simulations. Through a defined interface, a user’s external control program, written
41 of 104
in any language and compiled either as an executable or (preferably) a DLL, can be used to
control the simulation. Like a real controller, the external controller runs on a discrete
timestep. Using this facility, GH Bladed simulations can use any real control algorithm, and
provide a very useful means for testing new control algorithms.
For example, the user-defined controller may do any of the following:
• Collective or individual blade pitch angle or pitch rate control during any phase of
operation including power production, stops, starts, idling etc.
• Generator torque control for variable speed or variable slip turbines
• Switch between generators for two-speed turbines
• Control the generator contactor, allowing the generator to be switched on or off for
simulating stops and starts
• Control the shaft brake, to simulate transitions between parked, idling, starting, stopping,
and power production states.
• Control of nacelle yaw to simulate closed loop yaw control algorithms and/or yawing
strategies for start-up, shutdown etc.
The User Manual describes how to write an external user-defined controller. In an ideal
situation, the principal algorithm code modules could be shared between the GH Bladed
external controller code and the code in the actual controller hardware used on the turbine.
Alternatively, it is possible to use a GH Bladed external controller which communicates
directly with the turbine controller hardware. GH Bladed also incorporates an option to run
in real time, which allows it to be used as a virtual turbine for testing the real controller.
5.10 Signal noise and discretisation
When a discrete external controller is used, GH Bladed offers the possibility of adding
random noise to the measured signals sent to the controller, and also to discretise the signals
to a specified resolution.
The random noise may be Gaussian, in which case the standard deviation of the noise must be
specified, or it may be from a rectangular distribution, in which case the half-width of the
distribution should be given. The noise is added to the signal before it is discretised.
42 of 104
6. SUPERVISORY CONTROL
This section of the manual covers the modelling of the following aspects of turbine operation:
• Start-up
• Shut-down (normal and emergency stops)
• Non-operational situations (rotor parked or idling)
• Operation of the shaft brake
• Teeter restraints
• Yaw control
The standard implementation of these features in the simulation model is described. As in the
case of Closed Loop Control, alternative supervisory control logic can be incorporated in a
user-defined controller - see Section 5.9.
6.1 Start-up
Simulation of a wind turbine start-up begins with the rotor at a specified speed (usually but
not necessarily zero) and the generator off-line. The brake is assumed to be released at the
start of the simulation (i.e. at time zero).
If blade pitch or aileron control is available, the initial pitch or aileron angle is specified,
along with a constant rate of change which continues until either a specified angle is reached
or the closed loop controller takes over.
When a specified rotational speed is reached, the generator comes on line, and the closed
loop controller begins to operate. The simulation continues until the specified simulation end
time.
In the case of a variable speed turbine, there may be a transition period after cut-in of the
closed loop controller before the turbine is fully in the normal running state. There are two
different cases:
Variable speed pitch regulation: in the case when the pitch angle has not yet reached the
normal operating value (‘fine pitch’) at the moment when the closed loop controller cuts in,
then the pitch change rate for start-up continues to apply until either fine pitch is reached, or
until the conditions of Section 5.8 for starting the closed loop pitch controller are satisfied.
Variable speed stall regulation: when the closed loop controller cuts in, the above-rated
control mode is assumed to apply initially. In practice this assumption does not affect the
start-up since in low winds the operating point would be constrained by the quadratic
optimum-Cp characteristic in any case.
43 of 104
6.2 Normal stops
A normal stop is initiated at a specified time after the start of the simulation. Normal
operation in power production mode is assumed prior to this point, with full structural and
control dynamics in effect if desired. The structural dynamics continue in effect during the
entire simulation.
The standard logic for a normal stop is to start pitching the blades (or moving the ailerons) at
a specified rate from the moment that the stop is initiated, continuing until a final pitch angle
is reached. The generator is taken off-line when the electrical power reaches zero. If the
built-in variable speed power production controller is used, the torque controller continues to
operate normally until this point1.
Once the rotational speed drops below a specified value, the shaft brake is applied to bring
the rotor to rest.
The simulation continues until the rotor comes to rest, or for a certain time longer if so
desired in order that the transient loads can be simulated as the brake disk stops. However,
the simulation end time overrides this, so it must be set long enough for the stop event to be
completed.
If there is no pitch control, the brake trip speed may be set high so that the shaft brake is
applied immediately at the initiation of the stop.
Section 6.4 describes the dynamic characteristics of the shaft brake itself.
6.3 Emergency stops
An emergency stop is initiated at a specified time after the start of the simulation. Normal
operation in power production mode is assumed prior to this point, with full structural and
control dynamics in effect if so desired. The structural dynamics continue in effect during the
entire simulation.
Several options are available for simulating emergency stops. In all cases it is assumed that
the generator load is lost at the initiation of the emergency stop, whether because of grid
failure or some electrical or mechanical failure of the turbine.
Pitch (or aileron) action is initiated either immediately or when the rotational speed exceeds a
specified value. A fixed pitch rate then applies until a final pitch angle is reached. Provision
is made for the pitch of one or more of the blades to ‘stick’ at a specified angle to simulate
failure of a pitch bearing or actuator.
The shaft brake can also be applied either at the initiation of the stop or when a specified
overspeed is reached. Section 6.4 describes the dynamic characteristics of the shaft brake
itself. There is also a rotational speed below which the shaft brake is applied for parking, in
the event that it has not already been applied because of load loss or overspeed.
1
Simulations using dtbladed.exe version 2.85 or earlier with the built-in variable speed controller used a simpler
strategy in which the generator was disconnected as soon as the minimum generator speed was reached.
44 of 104
The simulation continues until the rotor comes to rest, or for a certain time longer if so
desired in order that the transient loads can be simulated as the brake disk stops. However,
the simulation end time overrides this, so it must be set long enough for the stop event to be
completed.
6.4 Brake dynamics
When the shaft brake is applied, either during a normal or an emergency stop, the full braking
torque is not available instantly. Instead, the torque builds up to the full value over a short
period of time. This torque build-up may be modelled as either a linear torque ramp, or by
specifying a look-up table giving achieved braking torque as a function of time.
6.5 Idling and parked simulations
For simulations in the idling and parked states, a fixed pitch angle is specified, the generator
is off line, and there is no pitch control action. In the case of a parked rotor the shaft brake is
applied, and the rotor azimuth must be specified. The azimuth is measured from zero with
blade 1 at top dead centre.
All specified structural dynamics will be in effect during these simulations. This also allows
for the possibility of the shaft brake slipping during a parked simulation if the shaft torque
exceeds the specified brake torque.
6.6 Yaw control
6.6.1 Active yaw
Active yaw movement may be specified in one of two ways:
1. One fixed-rate yaw manoeuvre may be specified, starting at a given point in any
simulation. This represents a change in the nominal nacelle position through a given angle
at a specified angular speed.
2. A user-defined controller (Section 5.9) may be used to specify either the yaw rate or the
yaw actuator torque at any time.
If active yaw is used to control the yaw rate, the effect of this is to change the ‘demanded
nacelle angle’ in a specified way. The actual nacelle angle depends on the yaw dynamics -
see next section.
45 of 104
6.6.2 Yaw dynamics
Three options are available to define the yaw dynamics:
1. Rigid yaw: the actual nacelle angle exactly follows the ‘demanded nacelle angle’ 0.
2. Flexible yaw: a certain amount of flexibility is present, usually in the yaw actuation
system, such that the actual nacelle angle may not follow the ‘demanded nacelle angle’
0 exactly. The extreme case is free yaw, when the demanded nacelle angle does not have
any effect.
3. Controlled yaw torque: this is available only with an external controller to define the yaw
actuator torque demand.
Demanded yaw rate
Tower Applied torque*
Controlled
torque Yaw spring
Friction Damper
*(Aerodynamic and inertial yaw torque)
Yaw control type Demanded Yaw spring and Controlled

yaw rate damper Friction torque
None No No No No
Rigid Yes No Yes No
Flexible Yes Yes Yes No
Controlled torque No No Yes Yes
In the case of flexible or free yaw, the yaw damping Dy may be specified. This specifies a
torque Qd which opposes the yaw motion, given by
Qd = Dy ( & 0 &)
In the case of flexible yaw, a yaw spring may be specified either as a linear spring or as a
hydraulic accumulator system such as is often used to provide flexibility in hydraulic yaw
drives. The hydraulic system is assumed to be double-acting, with one accumulator (or set of
accumulators) on either side of the yaw motor. The torque opposing the motion is provided
by compression of the gas in the accumulators. If the nominal gas volume is V0 and the
instantaneous gas volumes either side of the yaw motor are v1 and v2 then the opposing torque
Qk is given by
& &
! V0 ! V0
Q k = KP0
v1 v2
46 of 104
where v1 = V0 + F( - 0 ) and v2 = V0 - F( - 0 ) and P0 is the equilibrium pressure in the

hydraulic system. The constant K defines the relationship between the torque developed at
the yaw bearing and the pressure difference across the yaw motor, while F the relationship
between the volume of oil flowing through the yaw motor and the resulting angular
movement at the yaw bearing. & is the gas law constant: PV& = RT. Putting & = 1 specifies
isothermal conditions in the accumulators.
6.7 Teeter restraint
Although not strictly a supervisory control function, the teeter restraint model available in
GH Bladed for teetered rotors is described here. The model allows a linear variation of
restoring torque with teeter angle, but also allows a free teeter range and an initial pre-load.
Figure 6.1 defines the relevant parameters. Linear damping is also allowed, giving an
additional torque contribution proportional to teeter rate.
Restoring torque
Pre-load Spring constant
free Teeter angle

teeter
angle
Figure 6.1: Teeter restraint model
47 of 104
7. MODELLING THE WIND
The wind field incident on the turbine may be specified in a number of ways. For some
simple calculations, a uniform, constant wind speed is assumed, such that the same incident
wind speed is seen by every point on the rotor. For more detailed calculations however, it is
important to be able to define both the spatial and temporal variations in wind speed and
direction.
The steady-state spatial characteristics of the wind field may include any combination of the
following elements:
• Wind shear: the variation of wind speed with height.

• Tower shadow: distortion of the wind flow by the wind turbine tower (Chapter 9).
• Upwind turbine wake: full or partial immersion of the turbine rotor in the wake of
another turbine operating further upwind (Chapter 9).
The wind direction must also be specified, both relative to the direction in which the nacelle
is pointing (to define the yaw error), and relative to the horizontal plane (to define the upflow
angle). The latter effect may be important for turbines operating in hilly terrain.
For simulations, it is also important to be able to define how the wind speed and direction
vary with time. The following alternative models are provided:
• Constant wind: no variation with time.

• Single point history: a time history of wind speed and direction, which is fully coherent
over the whole rotor, is specified as a look-up table against time. Linear interpolation is
used between the time points.
• 3D turbulent wind: this option uses a 3-dimensional turbulent wind field with defined
spectral and spatial coherence characteristics representative of real atmospheric
turbulence. This option will give the most realistic predictions of loads and performance
in normal conditions (Chapter 10).
• IEC transients: this option uses wind speed and direction transients as defined by the IEC
1400-1 standard [7.1, 7.7]. It is intended for evaluating specific load cases, for example
during extreme gusts.
48 of 104
7.1 Wind shear
Wind shear is the variation of steady state mean wind speed with height. Three alternative
models are provided, to relate the wind speed V(h) at height h above the ground to the wind
speed V(h0) at some reference height h0..
7.1.1 Exponential model

This model is defined in terms of a wind shear exponent ':
'
h
V (h) = V (h0 )
h0
Specifying the exponent as zero results in no wind speed variation with height.
7.1.2 Logarithmic model

This model is defined in terms of the ground roughness length z0:
log(h / z0 )
V (h) = V (h0 )
log(h0 / z0 )
7.1.3 User-defined model

A different shear profile may be defined by entering a lookup table giving a wind speed
multiplication factor as a function of height.
7.2 Time varying wind
Various forms of temporal variation of wind speed and direction may be superimposed on the
spatial variations described in Section 7.1 above and Chapter 9.
7.2.1 Single point time history

A look-up table can be used to supply the wind speed and direction as a function of time, at a
defined reference height. Linear interpolation between time points is used. For any
particular point in space, the wind speed is then multiplied by the appropriate correction
factors for wind shear, tower shadow and upwind turbine wake as defined above.
7.2.2 3D turbulent wind

A 3-dimensional turbulent wind field is generated, with statistical properties representative of
real atmospheric turbulence. Chapter 10 describes how the turbulence is generated. It
consists of dimensionless wind speed deviations, defined as ( = (V-Vo)/IV0 where V0 is the
mean wind speed and I the turbulence intensity, at a number of grid points on a rectangular
array large enough to encompass the rotor swept area in the vertical and lateral (cross-wind)
directions, and long enough in the longitudinal (along-wind) direction to allow a simulation
of the desired length as the whole wind field moves past the rotor at the mean wind speed. At
any point in time, the position in the longitudinal direction is calculated. The position in the
49 of 104
lateral and vertical directions is calculated depending on the radial (r) and azimuthal position
( ) of any particular point on the rotor at that time, and 3-dimensional linear interpolation is
then used to calculate the appropriate wind speed deviation (. The actual wind speed is then
given by
V(r, ,t) = V0Fs0 (Fs + I.((r, ,t)) .FT .FW

where
Fs0 is the wind shear factor from the reference height (for mean speed V0 ) to the hub height,
Fs is the wind shear factor from the hub height to the point (r, ),
FT is the tower shadow factor for the point (r, ), and
FW is the upwind turbine wake factor for the point (r, ).
7.2.3 IEC transients

The transient variations of wind speed, shear and wind direction defined in the international
standard for the safety of wind turbine systems, IEC 1400-1 [7.1, 7.7], may be simulated with
Bladed. Transient changes in each of the following quantities may be independently
simulated, each with its own parameter values:
• Wind speed
• Wind direction
• Horizontal shear (linear variation of wind speed from one side of the rotor to the other)
• Vertical shear (linear variation of wind speed from bottom to top of the rotor)
Each may be either a half-wave transient or a full-wave transient. The transients are
sinusoidal, with a more complex shape defined in edition 2 of the standard [7.7]. The
parameters needed to define each transient are the starting value Y0, the start time t0, the
duration T, and the amplitude A. These parameters are illustrated in Figure 7.1.
The actual wind speed at radius r, azimuth and time t is then given by:
V(r, ,t) = (V0Fs0 Fs + Vtrans) .FT .FW
where V0 is the starting wind speed at the reference height, Vtrans is the combined effect of the
wind speed and horizontal and vertical shear transients, and other parameters as defined in
Section 7.4.2.
50 of 104
12.5
Half wave
Y0 + 12
A
11.5
11
Full wave
10.5
Y0 10
9.5
IEC edition 2
9
-0.2 t00 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
t0 1+ T 1.2
Time
Figure 7.1: Definition of IEC sinusoidal transients
51 of 104
8. MODELLING WAVES AND CURRENTS
For wind turbines sited offshore, the fatigue loads and extreme loads experienced by the
tower are strongly dependent on the action of waves and currents on the tower base. For
fatigue load calculations in particular it is important to couple the wind and wave load
calculations so that both aerodynamic and hydrodynamic damping act together to moderate
tower movement.
For fatigue load calculations, GH Bladed creates a series of irregular waves based on linear
Airy theory. The amplitude and frequency content of these waves are specified by the user in
terms of a power spectral density function. This may be either:
• the standard JONSWAP / Pierson-Moskowitz function, or

• a user-defined function.
For extreme load calculations, a regular wave train may be defined. The kinematics of this
wave are calculated using stream function theory.
8.1 9910Tower and Foundation Model
Offshore wind turbines are most likely to be installed in relatively sheltered inshore
conditions, where the sea depth is in the range 5m to 25m. GH Bladed assumes that the tower
is fixed to the sea bed as a simple monopile as shown in Figure 8.1 below. The tower may be
defined over the full depth (Figure 8.1a) or above a rigid base (Figure 8.1b). In both cases, the
turbine structure is regarded as being transparent to the waves, implying that both tower and
base are slender in comparison to the wavelength.
a) Simple Monopile b) Monopile with narrow base
Figure 8.1: Assumed base structures
As for onshore cases, the tower is assumed to have a circular cross-section and may be
tapered. Foundation translational and rotational stiffnesses may also be specified.
52 of 104
8.2 Wave Spectra
To create an irregular wave train for fatigue load calculations the user must specify a suitable
wave spectral formula S$ ( f ) . This function will depend on the location of the turbine being
modelled and the prevailing meteorological and oceanographic conditions. GH Bladed allows
the wave spectrum to be specified in one of two ways: as a JONSWAP / Pierson-Moskowitz
spectrum or as a user-defined look-up table.
8.2.1 JONSWAP / Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum

There are several different versions of the JONSWAP formula. The version used is based on
an expression by Goda [8.1].
5
! 4
f f
S$ ( f ) = ' 2
2 H s Tp exp 125
. &)
fp fp
where f is the wave frequency (in Hz), H s is the significant wave height, Tp is the peak
spectral period, f p = 1 Tp , & is the JONSWAP peakedness parameter,
0.0624
'2 =
0.185
0.230 + 0.0336&
1.9 + &
! f
2
1
fp
) = exp 0.5
*
and
* = 0.07 for f fp
* = 0.09 for f > f p
The Pierson-Moskowitz spectral density function may be regarded as a special case of the
JONSWAP spectrum with & = 1.0 :
5
! 4
f f
S$ ( f ) = 0.3123H s2 Tp exp 1.25
fp fp
If the JONSWAP / Pierson-Moskowitz option is selected, the user is required to enter values
for H s , Tp and & .
8.2.2 User-defined Spectrum

A user-defined spectrum may be entered in the form of a look-up table. Up to 100 pairs of
S$ ( f ) and f may be entered. The values of S$ ( f ) at the lowest and highest frequencies
53 of 104
entered should be zero. At frequencies between the specified values of f , values of S$ ( f )

are linearly interpolated.
8.3 Wave diffraction approximation
When the wavelength of waves impacting on an offshore structure becomes comparable with
the dimensions of the structure (e.g. the diameter of a monopile), diffraction effects begin to
occur. Waves which have wavelengths much smaller than the diameter of the structural
member do not contribute much to the net force because regions of positive and negative
velocity are experienced by the member at the same time. Bladed provides two different
approaches for including these effects: an approximation based on McCamy-Fuchs theory,
and a simple frequency cut-off.
8.3.1 MacCamy-Fuchs approximation

Explicit models of the diffraction phenomenon are highly specialised and computationally
expensive, and it is therefore not generally feasible to incorporate them in time domain design
tools. An alternative approach is to account for the wave diffraction effect by altering the
hydrodynamic loads experienced by the structure via revised values of the inertia and drag
coefficients Cm and Cd, calculated as a function of the wave frequency. This approach,
described by MacCamy and Fuchs in [8.10], is only applicable to the frequency domain as it
is not possible to alter the Cm and Cd coefficients in time domain analysis. Bladed includes a
variation of this technique in the time domain (MacCamy Fuchs approximation) achieved by
altering the wave energy spectrum rather than the Cm and Cd terms, to give the same resulting
hydrodynamic load on the structure over the full range of incident wave frequencies. In this
procedure, it is assumed that the Cm term dominates the hydrodynamic loading, and so the
wave energy spectrum is altered based solely on how the Cm coefficient varies as a function
of wave frequency.
8.3.2 Simple cut-off frequency

Applied forces are calculated from the wave particle kinematics at the member centreline,
using a spectrum in which the high frequencies have been cut off. The frequency cut-off is
based on experimental work by Hogben and Standing [8.2] which shows that the applied
force on a cylinder falls off rapidly when the wave number exceeds 1 / radius. Therefore:
1
S$ ( f ) = 0 for k >
radius
For a monopile, the radius is taken as the minimum tower radius between the sea bed and a
height of 3 standard deviations of the wave elevation above the mean water level. At any
instant, the wave elevation has a probability of 99.85% of being within this range.
Alternatively the cut-off frequency may be specified by the user.
8.4 Wave Particle Kinematics
In the case of Irregular Waves and Regular Waves (Linear Airy option), water particle
kinematics are based on linear Airy theory. The following equations describe the wave
( )
particle velocity vector u w = u wx , u wy , u wz , the corresponding acceleration vector
( )
u& w = u& wx , u& wy , u& wz , the hydrodynamic component of the pressure p and the water surface
elevation $ for a regular wave of height H and period T at the point ( x , y , z ) :
54 of 104
H
u wx =
2 sinh( kd )
[ ]
cos µ w cosh k (d + z ) cos(' t)
H
u wy =
2 sinh( kd )
[ ]
sin µ w cosh k (d + z ) cos(' t)
H
u wz =
2 sinh( kd )
[ ]
sinh k (d + z ) sin(' t)
2
H
u& wx =
2 sinh( kd )
[ ]
cos µ w cosh k (d + z ) sin(' t)
2
H
u& wy =
2 sinh( kd )
[ ]
sin µ w cosh k (d + z ) sin(' t)
2
H
u& wz =
2 sinh( kd )
[ ]
sinh k (d + z ) cos(' t)
gH
p=
2 cosh( kd )
[
cosh k (d + z ) cos(' ] t)
H
$= cos(' t)
2
where = 2 f is the angular wave frequency, f is the wave frequency, t is time, d is the
water depth (assumed to be constant), is the water density, g is the acceleration due to
gravity and
' = kx cos µ w ky sin µ w
where µ w is the direction from which waves arrive at the tower. The wave number k is found
as the solution to the dispersion relation:
2
= gk tanh kd
The co-ordinate system used for the wave and current calculations is a right-handed Cartesian
system in which the xy plane is horizontal with the x-axis pointing to the North, the y-axis
pointing to the West and the z-axis pointing vertically upwards. The origin of the co-ordinate
system lies where the tower centre line intersects the mean water level. Angles are defined
relative to the x-axis (North) and increase positively toward the East.
For the calculation of regular extreme waves, the above equations are used directly to
calculate the wave particle kinematics at each submerged tower station. For fatigue load
calculations, however, it is necessary to calculate an irregular (i.e. random, non-repeating)
series of waves. This is achieved using the filtered white noise ‘shift register’ procedure
described in section 8.6 below.
8.5 Wheeler Stretching
A limitation of Airy theory is that it only defines wave particle kinematics up to the mean
water level (z = 0). The theory can be extended above the mean water surface, up to the level
of the wave crest, by using the Airy formulae with positive values of z. However this
55 of 104
approach causes calculation difficulties and is known to over-estimate particle velocities and
accelerations in the crest region and to underestimate velocities and accelerations in the
troughs. To avoid these difficulties, GH Bladed uses Wheeler stretching [8.3] to take account
of the forces acting between mean water level and the instantaneous free surface.
Experimental results by Gudmestad [8.4] indicate that Wheeler stretching provides
satisfactory estimates of particle kinematics in the free surface zone in deep water.
Wheeler stretching assumes that particle motions calculated using Airy theory at the mean
water level should actually be applied at the instantaneous free surface. Airy particle motions
calculated at locations between the sea-bed and mean free surface are shifted vertically to
new locations in proportion to their height above the sea bed. Airy wave particle kinematics
calculated at a vertical location z are therefore applied to a new location z defined by:
d + $ (t )
z = + $ (t )
d
where $ (t ) is the surface elevation above the location in question.
8.6 Simulation of Irregular Waves
During a simulation in which waves are specified, the following records are synthesised:
• Wave elevation at the support structure centre-line,

• Wave particle velocities, accelerations and dynamic pressures at various points on the
structure,
• Wave forces on the submerged support structure.
For irregular waves, these records are created by the digital filtering of pseudo-random white
noise. A single white noise record is used, together with a different filter for each time history
to be generated. Because each filter introduces the correct amplitude variation and phase
shift, the resulting output time histories display the correct amplitude and phase relationships
to each other. Unlike the generation of turbulent flow fields, which are generated and written
to a file before running the simulation, wave data are generated as the simulation proceeds.
The relationship between the parameter of interest (i.e. the wave particle velocity at the first
tower station, the particle acceleration at the sea bed etc.) and the water surface elevation is
defined in terms of a complex function of the wave frequency known as a Response
Amplitude Operator (RAO). It is represented as a complex number of the form:
RAOr = Rr e i. r
The filters used to process the pseudo-random white noise are Finite Impulse Response (FIR)
filters and are defined in terms of their frequency transforms. The transformed filter for
response r is given by:
S ( f m )%f
zm,r = Rr ( f m )
4N
[ ]
exp i. r ( f m )
z m ,r = z m ,r
56 of 104
where
f m = m%f
%f = f max N
and m is in the range 0 m N.
The filter weights are then obtained as the transform of the expression:
N
imn
wn ,r = / z m,r exp
N
m = N +1
Having generated the filter functions for each parameter at each required location, time
histories are generated using a shift-register technique. Firstly an N-element array of
normally-distributed random numbers is created. The random numbers are generated by
converting the output of a simple random number generator to a normally distributed deviate
with zero mean and unit variance using the Box-Muller method. For each filter function in
turn, the N filter weights are multiplied by the values of the equivalent elements in the
random number array and the N products are then summed to give the value of the property at
one particular instant in time. To calculate the value of the property at the next time step, the
elements of the random number array are ‘shifted’ one place higher in the array, a new
random number is introduced at element 1 and the multiplication and summation process is
repeated.
8.7 Simulation of Regular Waves
Bladed offers two methods for modelling regular waves. Linear Airy waves are as described
in Section 8.4; again Wheeler stretching is used. If the Stream Function option is selected, the
wave kinematics are calculated using stream function theory. This method is more accurate
than linear wave theory in cases where the wave height is a significant proportion of the mean
water depth. The method may even be used to model waves with amplitudes close to the
breaking wave limit. In cases when currents are specified in addition to regular waves (see
Section 8.8), the wave calculation takes proper account of the influence of the current profile
on the wave kinematics. The non-linear regular wave calculations within GH Bladed are
based on original coding by Chaplin [8.5].
Regardless of whether current components are specified, GH Bladed first solves the wave
equation using stream function theory for the case of no currents. Stream function theory was
first applied to wave modelling by Dean [8.6 & 8.7] who developed the following form of
stream function:
X1
/
N
( x, z ) = z+ n=2
X n sinh(nk ( z + d )) cos(nkx)
T
where
X 1 = wavelength
X n +1 = n
and N is the order of the stream function solution.
57 of 104
The stream function as defined above satisfies the requirements that (i) the shape of the
free surface is compatible with the motion of the water just below it (the Kinematic Free
Surface Boundary Condition), (ii) the flow is periodic, and (iii) the flow is compatible with
the presence of a horizontal sea bed at the specified depth. The values of X n are determined
by a least-squares method to satisfy the additional requirements that (i) the pressure on the
free surface is uniform (the Dynamic Free Surface Boundary Condition), and (ii) the required
wave height is obtained. As implemented within GH Bladed, the order of the solution, N, is
automatically chosen based on the input values of wave height, period and mean water depth.
Once the stream function solution has been obtained, the horizontal and vertical velocities (in
the absence of a current) are calculated using the relations:
0 0
u= and v=
0y 0x
and the dynamic pressure is calculated using Bernoulli’s equation.
In cases where a current profile is specified the flow is in general rotational and the wave
solution must be modified. The method used follows the approach developed by Dalrymple
[8.8 & 8.9] and is based on coding by Chaplin [8.5]. It is assumed that the relationship
between the vorticity and stream function is the same for the combined flow as for the
undisturbed current when viewed from a reference frame moving at such a speed that total
flow rate is the same as that in the x,y frame. This requirement can be stated mathematically
as:
02 02
+ = = f( )
0x 2 0y 2
In GH Bladed, the stream function is computed at discrete points in the x,y plane using a
finite-difference calculation scheme. The most difficult feature of this approach is that the
location of the free surface is not known in advance. A regular grid of points in the x,y plane
would therefore have awkward intersections with the free surface profile, which must itself
be calculated as part of the computation. To overcome this difficulty, Dubreil-Jacotin’s
method is used to transform the problem from the x,y plane to the x, plane, with y as the
field variable. The position of the free surface is now defined along the upper boundary of a
rectangular grid in the x, plane. Treating x and as the independent parameters, the
velocity components are now given by:
0y
1 0x
u= and v=
0y 0y
0 0
The accuracy of the solution relies on a sufficiently fine mesh in the x, plane to resolve
the structure of the flow and to allow the evaluation of derivatives on the boundaries of the
computational domain, particularly at the free surface. For this purpose a regular grid in the
58 of 104
x, plane is rather inefficient and therefore a stretched grid is employed which is finer near
the free surface than the sea bed.
After solving the finite difference relations on this plane, the flow velocities are calculated
using the equations above and dynamic pressures are calculated using Bernoulli’s equation.
Reference [8.5] should be consulted for further details of this method.
8.8 Constrained Waves
GH Bladed allows the user to include one constrained wave in each irregular wave
simulation. The simulation is otherwise irregular, but the user can constrain it to have a wave
of desired height at a specified time. GH Bladed uses “NewWaves” to modify the irregular
sea around the specified time so that the constraint is met. A NewWave, by definition,
describes the most likely surface elevation around a peak (or trough). It can be computed
from the spectrum:
$( ) =' ( )
1
16
( )= 2
S $ ( f ) cos(2 f )2 df
Hs 0
Here Y gives the elevation of the crest, and Z is the time, measured relative to the time of the
crest. The water kinematics below the surface follow the usual linear wave relationships. In
the context of an irregular sea, GH Bladed uses the NewWave as a tool to achieve a
constraint. A linear combination of a standard irregular sea and a NewWave (centred on the
constraint time) is used to achieve a crest of the desired height at the desired time. The time
derivative of the water surface at the constraint time needs to be set to zero (so that it forms a
crest); this is done by using a slope NewWave:
$( ) =' ( )
1
16
( )= 2
S $ ( f ) sin( 2 f )2 df
Hs 0
The slope NewWave has zero amplitude but slope Y (at the origin), so it can be combined
linearly with the irregular sea to set the time derivative of the surface elevation to zero at the
constraint time.
When the Linear NewWave option is used, GH Bladed carries out the above procedure and
iterates the height of the crest, so that the difference in elevation between the crest and the
lowest point up to one period either preceding or following the crest meets the user’s
specification.
When the non-linear constrained wave option is used, the stream function solution (see
Section 8.7) is used for one period around the constrained crest, beyond which the linear
irregular model is used. NewWaves are used to constrain the linear sea in such a way as to
allow the two separate models to blend smoothly together. This option combines the
irregularity of the linear model with the full non-linearity achieved by the stream function
model. A full description of this approach can be found in reference [8.11].
59 of 104
8.9 Current Velocities
GH Bladed allows current velocities to be calculated based on three current profiles, either
separately or in combination:
• a near-surface (wind/wave generated) current: u cw

• a sub-surface (tidal and thermo-saline) current: u cs
• a near-shore (wind induced surf) current: u cn
These three velocity vectors have the form:
u cw = ucw ( z ) (cos µ cw , sin µ cw ,0)

u cs = ucs ( z ) (cos µ cs , sin µ cs ,0)
u cn = ucn ( z ) (cos µ cn , sin µ cn ,0)
where µ cw , µ cs and µ cn are the directions from which the three current components arrive
at the tower. Components of the calculated current velocities are then combined linearly:
u c = u cw + u cs + u cn
8.9.1 Near-Surface Current

The near-surface current velocity profile varies linearly with depth from a specified velocity
at the surface to zero velocity at the reference depth.
8.9.2 Sub-Surface Current

The sub-surface current velocity profile is of the form:
! z+d '
u cs (z ) = u s 0 (z = 0 )
d
for 0 2 z 2 d , where d is the water depth and u s0 ( z = 0) is the velocity at the sea surface.
The standard power law exponent ' is normally taken as 1/7, but can be changed by the user.
8.9.3 Near-Shore Current

The near-shore current velocity has a uniform profile, independent of depth.
If desired, a suitable current velocity at the location of the breaking wave may be calculated
as:
ucn = 2 s gH B
where g is the acceleration due to gravity, s is the beach slope and H B is the breaking wave
height given by:
60 of 104
b
HB =
1 a
+
d B gTB2
where:
[
a = 44 1 exp( 19 s) ]
[
b = 1.6 1 + exp( 19 s) ]
d B is the water depth at the location of the breaking wave and TB is the period of this wave.
For very small beach slopes H B may be estimated using the formula H B = 0.8d B .
8.10 Total Velocities and Accelerations

The wave particle velocity and acceleration vectors at a particular location ( x , y , z ) in the
wave field at time t, obtained from the white noise filtering procedure, are denoted by u w and
u& w . The total current velocity vector at the same location is u c and the velocity and
acceleration of the tower structure itself are u s and u& s .
The total velocity u t and acceleration u& t of the fluid relative to the structure at this location
and time are therefore:
ut = uw + uc us
u& t = u& w u& s
8.11 Applied Forces
Having evaluated the total particle kinematics relative to the tower, the resulting forces are
calculated as the sum of two components:
• Drag and inertia forcescalculated using the relative motion form of Morison’s equation,
• Longitudinal pressure forces.
These forces are then used to calculate the tower modal forces as described in Section 3.2.2.
8.11.1 Relative Motion Form of Morison’s Equation

To calculate the forces on the tower, the monopile is approximated by 10 cylindrical sub-
elements of equal height. The forces on each sub-element, acting normal to the cylinder axis,
are calculated using the ‘relative motion’ form of Morison’s equation:
D2 D2 1
F = (C m 1) Lu& t + Lu& w + C d DLu t u t
4 4 2
where F is the normal force on a segment of cylinder of length L and diameter D, is the
water density, Cm is the inertia coefficient and Cd is the drag coefficient.
61 of 104
8.11.2 Longitudinal Pressure Forces on Cylindrical Elements

Morison’s equation gives the force on a cylindrical element normal to the element’s axis. In
situations where the element is tapered, pressures acting longitudinally on the changing cross-
sectional area may cause a significant axial force to act on the element.
The added mass acting in the longitudinal direction is very small and so the longitudinal
forces are estimated using the hydrodynamic pressure in the ambient wave field acting over
the change in cross-sectional area of the tower between the top and bottom faces of each sub-
element. For a structure with diameter Da at the top of a sub-element and diameter Db at the
bottom, the longitudinal force acting on this portion of the structure is:
F=
(D 2
a Db2 )p
4
No pressure force is included where the end of the tubular member passes through the free
surface or terminates at the sea-bed.
62 of 104
9. TOWER SHADOW AND WAKE EFFECTS
9.1 Tower shadow
Tower shadow defines the distortion of the steady-state mean flow field due to the presence
of the turbine tower or support structure. Three different models are available: a potential
flow model for upwind rotors, an empirical tower wake model for downwind rotors, and a
combined model which is useful if the rotor yaws in and out of the downwind shadow area.
9.1.1 Potential flow model

This model is appropriate for rotors operating upwind of the tower. The longitudinal wind
velocity component upwind of the tower (V0) is modified using the assumption of
incompressible laminar flow around a cylinder of diameter D = F.DT where DT is the tower
diameter at the height where the tower shadow is being calculated, and F is a tower diameter
correction factor supplied by the user. For multimember support structures, an equivalent
tower diameter is calculated by the code. For a point at a distance z in front of the tower
centreline and x to the side of the wind vector passing through the centreline, the wind speed
V is given by:
V ( x , z ) = AV0
where
2
D ( x2 z2 )
A = 1+
2 ( x2 + z2 )2
provided the point is at an azimuth within +60° from bottom dead centre relative to the hub
centre. For azimuth within +60° of top dead centre it is assumed that V(x,z) = V0 , and to
ensure a smooth transition between these two zones, for all other azimuths, the factor A is
modified to A(0.5 cos( )) + (0.5 + cos( )) where is the blade azimuthal position.
9.1.2 Empirical model

For rotors operating downwind of the tower, an empirical model is provided, based on the
work of Powles [7.2] which uses a cosine bell-shaped tower wake. For a point at a distance z
behind the tower centreline and x to the side of the wind vector passing through the
centreline, the wind speed V is given by:
V ( x , z ) = AV0
where
x
A = 1 % cos 2
WDT
for azimuth angles within +60° of bottom dead centre. For other azimuth angles, the same
correction is applied as for the potential flow model, Section 9.1.1. Here % is the maximum
63 of 104
velocity deficit at the centre of the wake as a fraction of the local wind speed, and W is the
width of the tower shadow as a proportion of the local tower diameter DT. These quantities
are defined for a given downwind distance, also expressed as a proportion of DT . For other
distances, W increases, and % decreases, with the square root of the distance.
9.1.3 Combined model

The combined model simply uses the potential flow model at the front and sides of the tower,
and whichever of the other models gives the larger deficit at any point downwind. To ensure
a smooth transition, the product of the A factors of the two models is used in any small areas
where the potential flow model gives accelerated flow and the empirical model gives a
velocity deficit.
9.2 Upwind turbine wake
If the turbine rotor being modelled is assumed to be wholly or partially immersed in the wake
of another turbine operating further upwind, a model is provided to define the modification to
the steady-state mean wind profile caused by that wake.
A Gaussian profile is used to describe the wake of the upstream turbine. The local velocity at
a distance r from the wake centreline (which may be offset from the hub position) is given by:
r2
V = V0 1 %e 2W2
where V0 is the undisturbed wind speed, % is the fractional centre line velocity deficit, and W
is the width of the wake (the distance from the wake centre line at which the deficit is
reduced to exp(-0.5) times the centre line value).
Two options are provided for defining the velocity deficit % and the wake width W . They
can be defined directly, or they can be calculated by GH Bladed by specifying the
characteristics of the upstream turbine. In the latter case, an eddy viscosity model of the
wake is used, developed by Ainslie [7.8,7.9] and described in the next section.
9.2.1 Eddy viscosity model of the upstream turbine wake
The eddy viscosity wake model is a calculation of the velocity deficit field using a finite-
difference solution of the thin shear layer equation of the Navier Stokes equations in axis-
symmetric co-ordinates. The eddy viscosity model automatically observes the conservation
of mass and momentum in the wake. An eddy viscosity, averaged across each downstream
wake section, is used to relate the shear stress term in the thin shear equation to gradients of
velocity deficit. The mean field can be obtained by a linear superposition of the wake deficit
field and the incident wind flow. An illustration of the wake profile used in the eddy
viscosity model is shown in Figure 9.1.
64 of 104
Incident
flow profile Wake profile
Figure 9.1: Wake profile used in the eddy viscosity model
The Navier Stokes equations with Reynolds stresses and the viscous terms dropped gives
[7.10]:
0U 0U 1 0( ruv)
U +V =
0x 0r r 0r
The turbulent viscosity concept is used to describe the shear stresses with an eddy viscosity
defined by [7.11]:
(x) = L m (x).U m (x)

0U
and uv =
0r
Lm and Um are suitable length and velocity scales of the turbulence as a function of the
downstream distance x but independent of r. The length scale is taken as proportional to the
wake width Bw and the velocity scale is proportional to the difference UI – Uc across the shear
layer.
Thus the shear stress uv is expressed in terms of the eddy viscosity. The governing
differential equation to be solved becomes:
0U 0U 0( r0U / 0r )
U +V =
0x 0r r 0r
65 of 104
Because of the effect of ambient turbulence, the eddy viscosity in the wake can not be wholly
described by the shear contribution alone. Hence an ambient turbulence term is included, and
the overall eddy viscosity is given by [7.12]:
= FK 1 B w ( U i Uc ) + amb
where the filter function F is a factor applied for near wake conditions. This filter can be
introduced to allow for the build up of turbulence on wake mixing. The dimensionless
constant K1 is a constant value over the whole flow field and a value of 0.015 is used.
The ambient eddy viscosity term is calculated by the following equation proposed by
Ainslie [7.12]:
2
amb = F. K k . I amb / 100
Kk is the von Karman constant with a value of 0.4. Due to comparisons between the model
and measurements reported by Taylor in [7.13] the filter function F is fixed at unity.
The centre line velocity deficit Dmi can be calculated at the start of the wake model (two
diameters downstream) using the following empirical equation proposed by Ainslie [7.12]:
Uc
D mi = 1 = Ct 0.05 [(16C t 0.5)I amb /1000]
Ui
Assuming a Gaussian wind speed profile and momentum conservation an expression for the
relationship between the deficit Dm and the width parameter Bw is obtained as
3.56C t
Bw =
8D m (1 0.5D m )
Using the above equations, the average eddy viscosity at a distance 2D downstream of the
turbine can be calculated. The equations can then be solved for the centre-line deficit and
width parameter further downstream.
Assuming to the Gaussian profile, the velocity deficit a distance r from the wake centreline is
given by:
2
r
D m ,r = exp 3.56
Bw
Therefore the wake width W used by GH Bladed is given by:
0 .5
W = Bw
3.56
66 of 104
9.2.2 Turbulence in the wake
If the eddy viscosity wake model is used, it is also possible to calculate the additional
turbulence caused by the wake. The added turbulence is calculated using an empirical
characterisation developed by Quarton and Ainslie [7.14]. This characterisation enables the
added turbulence in the wake to be defined as a function of ambient turbulence Iamb, the
turbine thrust coefficient Ct, the distance x downstream from the rotor plane and the length of
the near wake, xn. The characterisation was subsequently amended slightly by Hassan [7.15]
to improve the prediction, resulting in the following expression:
I add = 5.7C t 0.7 I amb 0.68 ( x / x n )

0.96
in which all turbulence intensities are expressed as percentages. Using the value of added
turbulence and the incident ambient turbulence the turbulence intensity Itot at any turbine
position in the wake can be calculated as
2 2
I tot = I amb + I add
The near wake length xn is calculated according to Vermeulen et al [7.16,7.17]:

in terms of the rotor radius R and the thrust coefficient Ct as
n r0
xn =
dr
dx
where
m +1
r0 = R
2
1
m=
1 Ct
n=
0.214 + 0.144m 1 ( 0.134 + 0.124m )
(1 0.214 + 0.144m ) 0.134 + 0.124m
and dr/dx is the wake growth rate:
2 2 2
dr dr dr dr
= + +
dx dx ' dx m dx #
67 of 104
dr
= 2.5I 0 + 0.005 is the growth rate contribution due to ambient turbulence,
dx '
dr
=
(1 m ) 1.49 + m
is the contribution due to shear-generated turbulence,
dx m (1 + m ) 9.76
dr
and = 0.012 B # is the contribution due to mechanical turbulence, where B is
dx #
the number of blades and # is the tip speed ratio.
68 of 104
10. TURBULENCE MODELS
GH
10.1 Three dimensional turbulence model
The wind simulation method adopted in Bladed is based on that described by Veers [7.3]. The
rotor plane is covered by a rectangular grid of points, and a separate time history of wind
speed is generated for each of these points in such a way that each time history has the correct
single-point turbulence spectral characteristics, and each pair of time histories has the correct
cross-spectral or coherence characteristics.
Another approach due to Mann [7.18, 7.19] is also included, being now referenced in the third
edition of the IEC standard [7.20].
Calculations using such a turbulent wind field will take into account the crucially important
'eddy slicing' transfer of rotor load from low frequencies to those associated with the
rotational speed and its harmonics. This 'eddy slicing', associated with the rotating blades
slicing through the turbulent structure of the wind, is a significant source of fatigue loading.
The wind speed time histories may, in principle, be generated from any user-specified auto-
spectral density and spatial cross-correlation characteristics. A choice of two different models
of atmospheric turbulence has been provided. These are the von Karman and the Kaimal
models. Both models are generally accepted as good representations of real atmospheric
turbulence, although they use slightly different forms for the autospectral and cross-spectral
density functions. The von Karman model can be used either to generate just the longitudinal
component of turbulence, or to generate all three components if required. Two versions of the
von Karman model are available: the basic model, given in [7.4] and described in Section
7.5.1, and the improved model, described in Section 7.5.2, which is based on more up-to-date
information [7.5, 7.6].
It should be remembered, of course, that all these models tend to be based largely on
observations for flat land sites.
10.1.1 The basic von Karman model

The autospectral density for the longitudinal component of turbulence, according to the von
Karman model, is given in [7.4] as
nSuu (n) 4n~u

=
* 2u (1 + 70.8n~u2 )5/ 6
where Suu is the auto-spectrum of wind speed variation, n is the frequency of variation, * u is
the standard deviation of wind speed variation and ~ n u is a non-dimensional frequency
parameter given by:
n xLu
n~u =
U
69 of 104
Here xLu is the length scale of longitudinal turbulence and U is the mean wind speed.
If the three-component model is selected, the corresponding spectra for the lateral (v) and
vertical (w) components are:
nSii (n) 4n~i (1 + 755.2n~i2 )

=
* i2 (1 + 282.3n~i2 ) 11/ 6
where
~ n x Li
ni =
U
and i is either v or w.
Associated with the von Karman spectral equations is an analytical expression for the
cross-correlation of wind speed fluctuations at locations separated in both space and time,
derived assuming Taylor's frozen turbulence hypothesis. Accordingly for the longitudinal
component at points separated by a distance %r perpendicular to the wind direction, the
coherence Cu (%r,n), defined as the magnitude of the cross-spectrum divided by the auto-
spectrum, is:
Cu ( %r , n) = 0.994( A5/ 6 (4 u ) 1
2 4 u 5/ 3 A1/ 6 (4 u ))
Here Aj(x) = xj Kj(x) where K is a fractional order modified Bessel function, and
2
%r nLu ( %r , n)
4 u = 0.747 1 + 70.8
Lu ( %r , n) U
The local length scale Lu(%r,n) is defined by:
2/3 ( y L u %y) 2 +( z L u %z) 2

L u (%r, n ) = 2MIN(1.0,0.04n )
%y 2 + %z 2
where %y and %z are the lateral and vertical components of the separation %r, and yLu and zLu
are the lateral and vertical length scales for the longitudinal component of turbulence.
For the lateral and vertical components, the corresponding equations are:
Ci ( %r , n) =
0.597
2.869& i2 1
[
4.781& i2 A5/ 6 (4 i ) A11/ 6 (4 i ) ]
where
70 of 104
2
%r nLi ( %r , n)
4 i = 0.747 1 + 70.8
Li ( %r , n) U
and
4 i Li ( %r , n)
&i =
%
for i = v or w.
In this case the local length scales are given by:
2/3 ( y L v %y / 2) 2 +( z L v %z) 2
L v (%r, n ) = 2MIN(1.0,0.05n )
%y 2 + %z 2
and
1/ 2 ( y L w %y) 2 +( z L w %z / 2) 2
L w (%r, n ) = 2MIN(1.0,0.2n )
%y 2 + %z 2
The three turbulence components are assumed to be independent of one another. This is a
reasonable assumption, although in practice Reynolds stresses may result in a small
correlation between the longitudinal and vertical components near to the ground.
10.1.2 The improved von Karman model

The improved von Karman model [7.5] attempts to rectify some deficiencies of the basic
model at heights below about 150m. The autospectral density for the longitudinal component
of turbulence is given by:
nS uu (n) 2.987n~u / a . n~u / a

1294
= )1 + )2 F1
* u2
( ) (1 + ( )
5/ 6 5/ 6
1 + ( 2 n~u / a ) n~u / a )
2 2
where Suu is the auto-spectrum of windspeed variation, n is the frequency of variation, *u is

the standard deviation of windspeed variation and n~u is a non-dimensional frequency
parameter given by:
n xLu
n~u =
U
Here xLu is the length scale of longitudinal turbulence and U is the mean windspeed.
If the three-component model is selected, the corresponding spectra for the lateral (v) and
vertical (w) components are:
nSii (n) 2.987(1 + (8 / 3)(4 n~i / a ) 2 )(n~i / a ) . n~i / a

1294
= )1 + )2 F2
* i2
( ) ( )
11/ 6 5/ 6
1 + ( 4 n~i / a ) 1 + (2 n~i / a )
2 2
71 of 104
where
n x Li
n~i =
U
and i is either v or w.
The five additional parameters a, ) 1, ) 2, F1 and F2 are defined as follows:
[
F1 = 1 + 0.455 exp 0.76(n~u / a ) ] 0.8
F = 1 + 2.88 exp[ 0.218( n~ / a ) ]

0. 9
2 i
) 2 = 1 )1
)1 = 2.357a 0.761
a = 0.535 + 2.76(0138
. A) 0.68
where
A = 0115
. [1 + 0.315(1 z / h) 6 ]2 / 3
Here z is the height above ground, and h is the boundary layer height obtained from:
h = u * / (6 f )
f = 2 sin( # ) (the Coriolis parameter: is the angular speed of rotation of
the earth, and # is the latitude)
u * = ( 0.4U 34.5 f . z ) / ln( z / z0 )
z0 = surface roughness length
The turbulence intensities of the three components of turbulence are also defined for the same
choice of z, z0, U and #, as follows:
4 = 1 6 f . z / u*
p = 416
7.54( 0538
. + 0.09 ln( z / z0 )) p u *
*u =
1 + 0156 (
. ln u * / f . z0 )
Iu = * u / U (the longitudinal turbulence intensity)
z
I v = I u 1 0.22 cos4 (the lateral turbulence intensity)
2h
z
I w = I u 1 0.45 cos4 (the vertical turbulence intensity)
2h
although these may be changed by the user for any particular simulation.
72 of 104
The nine turbulence length scales are also defined, as follows:
( )
3
A1.5 * u / u * z
x
Lu =
2.5Kz1.5 (1 z / h) 2 (1 + 5.75z / h)
y
( (
Lu = 0.5x Lu 1 0.46 exp 35( z / h) 1.7 ))
z
Lu = 0.5 L (1
x
u 0.68 exp( 35( z / h)1.7 ))
x
Lv = 05. x Lu (* v / * u ) 3
x
Lw = 0.5x Lu ( * w / * u ) 3
y
Lv =2 y Lu (* v / * u ) 3
z
Lv = zLu ( * v / * u ) 3
y
Lw = yLu (* w / * u ) 3
z
Lw =2 z Lu (* w / * u ) 3
where
K z = 019
. ( 019
. K0 ) exp B( z / h) [ N
]
K0 = 0.39 / R 0.11
B = 24 R 0.155
N = 124
. R 0.008
u*
R=
f . z0
Associated with the von Karman spectral equations is an analytical expression for the
cross-correlation of wind speed fluctuations at locations separated in both space and time,
derived assuming Taylor's frozen turbulence hypothesis [7.6]. Accordingly for the
longitudinal component at points separated by a distance %r perpendicular to the wind
direction, the coherence Cu (%r,n), defined as the magnitude of the cross-spectrum divided by
the auto-spectrum, is:
Cu ( %r , n) = 0.994( A5/6 (4 u ) 1
2 4 u 5/3 A1/ 6 (4 u ))
Here Aj(x) = xj Kj(x) where K is a fractional order modified Bessel function, and
2 2
0.747 %r 2 n%r
4i = + c for i = u
2 Li U
The local length scale Lu(%r,n) is defined by:
73 of 104
( y L u %y) 2 + ( z L u %z) 2
L u (%r, n ) =
%y 2 + %z 2
while
. ( %r / 2 Lu ) 0.13
16
c = max(10
. , )
4 0b
with
b = 0.35( %r / 2 Lu )
0.2
and
2 2
0.747 %r 2 n%r
40 = +
2 Lu U
%y and %z are the lateral and vertical components of the separation %r, and yLu and zLu are the
lateral and vertical length scales for the longitudinal component of turbulence.
For the lateral and vertical components, the corresponding equations are:
Ci ( %r , n) =
0.597
2.869& i 1
2 [
4.781& i2 A5/ 6 (4 i ) A11/ 6 (4 i ) ] for i = v,w
where 4i is defined as above for i = v, w, and
4 i 2 Li ( %r , n)
&i =
%
In this case the local length scales are given by:
( y L v %y / 2) 2 +( z L v %z) 2
L v (%r, n ) =
%y 2 + %z 2
and
( y L w %y) 2 +( z L w %z / 2) 2
L w ( %r, n ) =
%y 2 + %z 2
The three turbulence components are assumed to be independent of one another. This is a
reasonable assumption, although in practice Reynolds stresses may result in a small
correlation between the longitudinal and vertical components near to the ground.
10.1.3 The Kaimal model

The autospectral density for the longitudinal component of turbulence, according to the
Kaimal model, is:
74 of 104
nS uu (n ) 4~
nu
=
* 2u (1 + 6.0~
n u )5 / 3
where Suu is the auto-spectrum of wind speed variation, n is the frequency of variation, * u is
the standard deviation of wind speed variation and n~u is a non-dimensional frequency
parameter given by:
~ n L1
nu =
U
Here L1 = 2.329 xLu where xLu is the length scale of longitudinal turbulence, and U is the
mean wind speed as before.
A simpler coherence model is used in conjunction with the Kaimal model. With the same
notation as in Section 7.5.1, the coherence is given by
2 2
n 0.12
C(%r, n ) = exp 8.8%r +
U L(%r, n )
A three-component Kaimal model has been introduced for compatibility with the IEC
standard 1400-1 edition 2 [7.1]. The scale parameter 51 defines the characteristics of the
turbulence, through the following relationships:
x
Lu = 8.151, xLv = 2.751, xLw = 0.6651
n x Li
n~i = i = u, v, w
U
nS ii (n) 4n~i
=
M i2 (1 + 6.0n~i ) 5/3
For the longitudinal component,
2 2
n 0.12
C( %r, n) = exp H%r +
U Lc
where the coherence decay constant H = 8.8 and the coherence scale factor Lc = 3.551. The
standard does not define the coherence for the other two components, so the following
expression is used:
n
C( %r, n) = exp H%r
U
A more general formulation for the Kaimal model has also been introduced in which the
parameters xLu, xLv, xLw and Lc can be specified separately instead of specifying 51, and the
75 of 104
parameter H and can also be specified. This can be used for compatibility with the third
edition of the IEC standard [7.20], which gives H = 12 and Lc = 8.151.
10.1.4 The Mann model

This model is also referred to in the third edition of the IEC standard [7.20]. It is based on a
three-dimensional spectrum tensor representation derived from rapid distortion of isotropic
turbulence by a uniform mean vertical velocity shear. The theory is given by Mann [7.18,
7.19]. The method derives the spectral density for any three-dimensional wavenumber vector,
and all three components of turbulence are then generated simultaneously by summing a set of
such wavenumber vectors, each with the appropriate amplitude and random phase.
This is in many ways quite an elegant approach, but there are some practical limitations to be
aware of. The summation requires a three-dimensional fast Fourier transform (FFT) to
achieve reasonable computation time. The number of points in the longitudinal, lateral and
vertical directions must be a power of two for efficient FFT computation. In the longitudinal
direction, the number of points is determined by the length of time history required and the
maximum frequency requested, and is therefore typically at least 1024. The maximum
wavelength used is the length of the file (mean wind speed multiplied by duration), and the
minimum wavelength is twice the longitudinal spacing of points (which is the mean wind
speed divided by the requested frequency). In the lateral and vertical directions, a much
smaller number of points must be used, perhaps as low as 32, depending on available
computer memory. The maximum wavelength must be significantly greater than the rotor
diameter, since the solution is spatially periodic, with period equal to the maximum
wavelength in each direction. The number of FFT points then determines the minimum
wavelength in these directions. With a realistic number of points, the resulting turbulence
spectra are deficient at the high frequency end. Mann [7.19] suggests that this is realistic,
because it represents averaging of the turbulence over finite volumes of space which is
appropriate for practical engineering applications. Bladed will report the loss of turbulence
intensity due to this effect, so if a certain turbulence intensity is requested for a simulation, the
actual turbulence intensity will be slightly lower due to a loss of high frequency variations.
Note also that the time histories at each grid point may have individual spectra and variances
which can differ from one point to another. This may well be realistic of course, but it means
that if the spectrum or variance is computed at any single point, for example at the hub
position, the result may again be a little different from the expected value.
10.1.5 Using 3D turbulent wind fields in simulations

The following points should be noted when using these turbulent windfields for wind turbine
simulations:
• The length of the windfield, Lfield, must be sufficient for the simulation to be carried out.
For a simulation of T seconds at a mean windspeed of U m/s, Lfield must be at least UT + D
metres where D is the turbine diameter (the extra diameter is needed in case the turbine is
yawed with respect to the mean wind direction). Alternatively there is an option to allow
the turbulent flowfield to wrap around at the end, starting again from the beginning. This
allows an arbitrarily long simulation.
• The width and height of the wind field must evidently be sufficient to envelope the whole
rotor, i.e. at least equal to the rotor diameter. The flow field can also be made tall enough
to encompass the entire rotor and tower.
76 of 104
• The number of grid points in the lateral and vertical directions should be chosen to achieve
adequate sampling of the wind speed variations in the rotor plane. A grid point spacing of
6 – 7 m is likely to be adequate for this. The time taken to generate the turbulence file
increases with the fourth power of the number of points, so it is important not to use more
points than necessary. In the along-wind direction, a resolution of 10 Hz is likely to be
sufficient. For certification calculations, definitive guidelines should be sought from the
certifying body.
• If a simulation uses only a part of a turbulent time history, the mean wind speed and
turbulence intensity for that part of the time history may not be the same as for the whole
time history, and therefore may not match the mean wind speed and turbulence intensity
which was specified for the simulation since this assumes that the whole time history will
be used. Note also that the number of points along the wind direction must be a power of
two for efficient calculation, since Fast Fourier Transform techniques can then be used. If
it is not a power of two, then the along-wind spacing of points will automatically be
decreased.
• Different time histories with the same turbulence characteristics can be generated by
changing the random number seed.
• A sinusoidal half- or full-wave wind direction transient as described in Section 7.2.3 may
be superimposed on the turbulent wind field. This is intended for use with turbulent wind
fields when only the longitudinal component has been generated, to ensure that some yaw
error occurs during the simulation. Using all three components of turbulence should give a
more realistic variation of yaw error.
77 of 104
11. MODELLING EARTHQUAKES
For turbines situated in seismically active areas, it is important to assess the loading due to
earthquakes. GH Bladed offers the user the option of performing calculations using a
recorded time history, or of generating a synthetic accelerogram that satisfies a given
Response Spectrum.
11.1 Calculation of dynamic response
For stiff foundations, GH Bladed assumes the soil to be rigid and so not to interact with the
dynamic response of the structure.
The equation of motion for a single modal degree of freedom, assuming no coupling with
other degrees of freedom, is as follows:
2
q&&i + 2 i i q& i + i q = l i &x&g
where:
qi is the time dependent modal displacement,

&x&g is the ground acceleration,
and:
H
l i = m(h) i (h)dh is the earthquake participation factor.
0
l i &x&g is added to the generalised forces within Bladed.
With flexible foundations, the seismic acceleration defines the ground motion, which affects
the forces and moments developed in the foundation.
11.2 Response Spectrum
The equation of motion for a single degree of freedom system subject to the mu&&g force is
as follows:
u&& + 2 u& + 2
u = u&&g
where is the circular frequency of the structure in rad/s, and is the damping ratio. This
equation is solved for many single degree of freedom structures having different periods, each
subjected to the same ground acceleration, and each with the same damping ratio. The plot of
maximum response against structural frequency is called the response spectrum [9.1]. Design
response spectra are normally presented as a plot of the maximum acceleration against the
period (the inverse of the natural frequency of the structure).
78 of 104
11.3 Generation of response spectrum compatible accelerogram
The algorithm that generates the response spectrum compatible accelerogram is an iterative
procedure. The ability to specify a random number seed ensures repeatability of results. The
process is outlined as follows:
The first step is the generation of a set of random numbers, which are then scaled as a
function of their position in time to create the characteristic earthquake shape. The user is
able to choose between an overall shape typical of stiff or soft soil properties. If soft soil
properties are selected, the stationary part and the decay constant can also be specified. The
time history is then passed through a low and high pass band filter to remove unwanted
frequencies.
After this initial set up has taken place, the process is an iterative one [9.2], with the
following steps:
• Compute response spectrum.
• Compare against Target Response Spectrum at a number of frequency points.
• Check to see if convergence criteria have been met.
• Scale in the frequency domain.
At each iteration, the response spectrum is computed, and compared against the Target
Response Spectrum.
The user is able to specify upper and lower limits of the acceptable deviation of any of these
computed points from the Design Response Spectrum. If all the points are within this range,
the convergence criteria have been met, and the process is complete. If any points are outside
this range, the Fourier transform of the time history is scaled with the following relationship:
S aD
Vg ( new) = Vg ( old )
Sa
where Vg is the Fourier transform of the acceleration time history, S aD is the target spectrum
value and S a is the actual spectrum value.
The final stage is to correct the peak acceleration, so that it is always equal to the zero period
value on the Target Response Spectrum. The mean is also corrected, so that the velocity of
the ground at the end of the earthquake is always zero.
79 of 104
12. POST-PROCESSING
GH Bladed includes an integrated post-processing facility which allows the results of wind
turbine calculations to be processed further in various ways. The theory behind these post-
processing calculations is described in this section.
12.1 Basic statistics
The following basic statistical properties of a signal are calculated:
Minimum MIN(x)
Maximum MAX(x)
Mean x
Standard deviation *= (x x )2
Skewness (x x )3 / * 3
Kurtosis (x x )4 / * 4
12.2 Fourier harmonics, and periodic and stochastic components
Wind turbine loads consist of both periodic and random or stochastic components. The
periodic components of loads result from effects which vary as a function of rotor azimuth,
such as gravitational loads, tower shadow, yaw misalignment, wind shear etc. The stochastic
components result from the random nature of turbulence. In understanding the loads on a
wind turbine it is often useful to separate out the periodic and stochastic parts of a load time
history, and future to analyse the periodic part in terms of the harmonics of the fundamental
rotational frequency.
The periodic part of a signal is obtained by binning the signal against rotor azimuth. The
number of azimuth bins may be specified by the user, otherwise it is calculated from the first
two azimuth values in the time history. These are used to define the azimuth bin width,
which is then adjusted to an exact sub-multiple of a revolution.
The number of azimuth bins must be compatible with the sampling interval of the time
history. If too many bins are used, it is possible for some of them to be empty, in which case
the calculation will not proceed.
Having obtained the periodic component of the signal, the Fourier harmonics are obtained by
means of a discrete Fourier transform, after first increasing the number of bins by two to four
times using linear interpolation.
The stochastic component of the signal is obtained for each time point by subtracting the
periodic component calculated from the azimuth at that time point. Linear interpolation is
used between azimuth bins.
80 of 104
12.3 Extreme prediction
The prediction of the extreme loads which are likely to be encountered by a wind turbine
during its lifetime is clearly a crucially important part of the design process. It is common
practice to base the prediction of these extreme loads on deterministic load cases, in which
the wind turbulence is represented in terms of discrete gusts with amplitudes and rise times as
specified by design standards and certification rules. Discrete gusts can be modelled with
Bladed as described in Section 7.2.3.
An alternative approach, which avoids the problem of the rather arbitrary nature of these
discrete gusts, is based on probabilistic techniques, with the stochastic nature of the loads due
to wind turbulence represented by means of a probability distribution. Although this
approach has been used for many years for the evaluation of extreme loads on buildings and
similar structures, its application to wind turbine loads is relatively rare. The analysis
involved in applying it to an operational wind turbine is rather more complicated since the
probability distribution of the combined stochastic and deterministic load components must
be considered.
Any particular turbine load can be expressed as
y(t) = z(t) + x(t)
where z and x represent the periodic and stochastic parts of the load respectively (see Section
12.2). It is generally a good approximation to assume that the stochastic part of the load is
Gaussian, so its probability distribution is:
1 x 2 / 2* 2x
p( x ) = e
*x 2
where *x is the standard deviation of x. For such a signal, Rice [10.1] has derived the
probability distribution of signal peaks as:
1 &2 4 2 / 2 (1 & 2 ) 4& 42 / 2 4

p$ ( x ) = e + e 1 + erf
*x 2 2* x 2
2
&2
where
4 = x /* x
& = 60 /6m
M2
60 = (the zero up-crossing or apparent frequency)
M0
M4
6m = (the frequency of peaks)
M2
1
Mi = f i H ( f )df (the ith spectral moment)

0
81 of 104
f = frequency (Hz)
H ( f ) = power spectral density (see next section for calculation details), and
erf () = error function.
Knowing the probability distribution of peaks for such a process, the probability distribution
of extremes can then be deduced. For the extreme of the signal in a given period to be x, one
peak must have this value and all other peaks in the period must have a lesser value. The
probability distribution can be written
p$$ (4) = Np$ (4)(1 Q(4))

N 1
where
1
Q(4) = p$ (4) d4 , and

4
N = Number of peaks in the period.
Davenport [10.2] combined this with Rice’s equation to give the following analytical
expression for the probability distribution of extremes:
p$$ (4) = 4 e
where
2
= 6 0 T e 4 / 2 and
T = time period.
The mean of this distribution is
'
4ext = ) +
)
where
) = 2 ln(6 0 T ) and
' = 0.5772 (Euler’s constant).
As the term 6 0 T increases, the distribution of extremes has a larger mean and becomes very
narrow.
For an operational turbine whose loads are a combination of stochastic and periodic
components, Madsen et al [10.3] proposed an approach based on Davenport’s model of the
stochastic signal, with the assumption that the extremes in the total signal occurred at minima
and maxima of the periodic component. This allows the periodic time history to be idealised
as a square waveform as follows:
82 of 104
z
t1
zmax
zmean t2
Time
t3
zmin
T0
The resulting expressions for the mean and standard deviation of the extreme distributions
are:
For extreme maxima:
'
ye max = z max + * x ) 1 +
)1
* e max = * x
6) 1
where
) 1 = 2 ln( 16 0T )
t1 * 2z
1 = =
T0 ( zmax zmean )( z max zmin )
while for extreme minima:
'
ye min = zmin * x )3 +
)3
* e min = * x
6) 3
where
) 3 = 2 ln( 36 0T )
t3 * 2z
3 = =
T0 ( zmean zmin )( z max z min )
Here * z is the standard deviation of the periodic component z. The time period T should be
taken as the total time for which the condition being modelled will be experienced during the
lifetime.
83 of 104
12.4 Spectral analysis
Bladed allows the calculation of auto-spectral density, cross-spectral magnitude and phase,
transfer functions and coherence functions.
All calculations involving spectral analysis use a Fast Fourier Transform technique with
ensemble averaging. To perform the spectral analysis, the signal is divided into a number of
segments of equal length, each of which contains a number of points which must be a power
of 2. The segments need not be distinct, but may overlap. Each segment is then shaped by
multiplying by a ‘window’ function which tapers the segment towards zero at each end. This
improves the spectrum particularly at high frequencies. A choice of windowing functions is
available. Optionally, each segment may have a linear trend removed before windowing,
which can improve the spectral estimation at low frequencies. The final spectrum is obtained
by averaging together the resulting spectra from each segment, and scaled to readjust the
variance to account for the effect of the window function.
The information required is therefore as follows:
Number of points: the number of datapoints per segment. This must be a power of 2: if it is
not, it is adjusted by the program. The maximum allowed is 4096. The larger the number of
points, the better will be the frequency resolution, which may be important especially at low
frequencies. However, choosing fewer points may result in a smoother spectrum because
there will be more segments to average together. If in doubt, 512 is a good starting point.
Percentage overlap: the overlap between the segments. This must be less than 100%. 50%
is often satisfactory, although 0% may be more appropriate if a rectangular window is used.
Window: a choice of five windowing functions is provided:
(a) rectangular (equivalent to not using a window)

(b) triangular: 1 2 f 1
(c) Hanning: (1 cos(2 f )) / 2
(d) Hamming: 0.54 0.46 cos(2 f )
(e) Welch: 1 (2 f 1) 2
where f is the fractional position along the segment (0 at the start, 1 at the end). One of the
last three windows (which are all quite similar) is recommended.
Trend removal is usually desirable.
12.5 Probability, peak and level crossing analysis
These calculations work by binning values. The range and size of the bins to be used are
calculated by the program, unless they have been supplied by the user.
The probability density analysis simply bins the signal values. From the probability density
function it also calculates the cumulative probability distribution. Also a Gaussian
distribution is calculated for comparison, which has the same mean and standard deviation as
84 of 104
the signal. There is an option to remove the mean of the signal: this merely moves the mean
of the calculated distribution to zero.
The peak analysis bins only those signal values which are turning points of the signal. Peaks
and troughs are binned separately, so that the probability distribution of each can be output.
For the level crossing analysis, the number of up-crossings and down-crossings are counted at
each of the bin mid-points. The number of crossings per unit time in each direction is output
for each bin mid-point.
12.6 Rainflow cycle counting and fatigue analysis
Bladed offers the possibility of rainflow cycle counting of a stress time history and of
subsequent fatigue analysis based on the cycle count data. A suitable stress time history can
be generated from one or more load time histories by use of the channel combination and
factoring facility provided by the code.
12.6.1 Rainflow cycle counting

Rainflow cycle counting is the most generally accepted method used as the basis of fatigue
analysis of structures. The key advantage of the rainflow cycle counting method is that it is
able to take proper account of stress or strain reversals in the context of a stress-strain
hysteresis loop.
The cycle counting procedure involves the following steps:
• The stress history is searched to determine the successive peaks and troughs by
identification of turning points.
• The successive peaks and troughs are re-ordered so that the sequence begins with the
highest peak value of the stress history.
• The sequence of peaks and troughs is now scanned to determine the rainflow cycles. A
rainflow cycle is only recorded when the range exceeds a user specified minimum range.
The purpose of this user-specified minimum range is to filter out very small cycles where
this is desired.
• The mean and range of each rainflow cycle is recorded.
• The count of rainflow cycles is binned according to the cycle mean and range values. The
distribution of bins is defined by the user who is required to specify minimum and
maximum values of stress and the number of bins to be used.
The output from the rainflow cycle counting analysis consists of the two-dimensional
distribution of the number of cycles binned on the means and ranges of the cycles.
This calculation can also be extended to generate damage equivalent loads. The user
specifies one or more inverse S-N slopes m (see next section) and a frequency f (typically 1P
for fixed speed machines), and an equivalent load is calculated as the peak-to-peak amplitude
85 of 104
(i.e. the range) of a sinusoidal load of constant frequency f which would produce the same
fatigue damage as the original signal. The equivalent load is therefore given by:
/ ni Si m
i
m
Tf
where ni is the number of cycles in load range Si and T is the duration of the original time
history.
12.6.2 Fatigue analysis

As is described above, a complex stress history can be represented in terms of constituent
cycles by use of the rainflow cycle counting technique. The distribution of rainflow cycles is
defined in terms of the number of cycles binned against stress range and mean value.
The basis of the fatigue analysis provided in Bladed is that fatigue failure is predicted to
occur according to the Palmgren-Miner [10.4] linear cumulative damage law. Failure will
occur when the “accumulated fatigue damage number” is equal to 1.0 as follows::
ni
/N i
= 1.0
i
where ni is the number of rainflow cycles of the ith stress range and Ni is the corresponding
number of cycles to failure. The summation is defined as the accumulated damage.
For rainflow cycles of stress range Si, the number of cycles to failure Ni is given by the S-N
curve for the material. The user of Bladed must supply the S-N curve in one of two ways. The
first possibility is that the S-N curve is provided as a log-log relationship of the form:
1 1
log S = log k log N
m m
so that:
N = kS m
The user must specify the value of m, the inverse slope of the log S against log N relationship.
The user must also specify the intercept of the log-log relationship, c. The parameter k above
is related to the intercept c by:
k = cm
The second option is for the user to specify the S-N curve as an arbitrary function through the
use of a look-up table.
For a material where the mean stress has an influence on the fatigue damage accumulated,
Bladed offers the option of converting each cycle range to the equivalent range assuming a
zero mean stress value. (A cycle with a zero mean value has a R-ratio of -1, where R is the
86 of 104
ratio of minimum to maximum stress.) This conversion is performed by means of a Goodman

diagram and the user is required to provide the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the
material. Following the conversion, the fatigue analysis proceeds using the Palmgren-Miner
law and user specified S-N curve as described above.
The output from the fatigue analysis consists of the accumulated damage due to the stress
history as well as the two-dimensional distribution of the proportion of the accumulated
damage binned on the means and ranges of the rainflow cycles.
12.7 Annual energy yield
The annual energy yield is calculated by integrating the power curve for the turbine together
with a Weibull or user-defined distribution of hourly mean wind speeds. The power curve is
defined at a number of discrete wind speeds, and a linear variation between these points is
assumed.
The Weibull distribution is defined by:

k
V
F (V ) = 1 e cV
where F is the cumulative distribution of wind speed V. Thus the probability density f(V) is
given by
k
V
Vk 1
f (V ) = k e cV
(cV ) k
Here k is the Weibull shape factor, and c is the scale factor. For a true Weibull distribution,
these two parameters are related by the gamma function:
1
c = 1/ 7 1+
k
Unless the user supplies a value for c, its value is calculated as above. Note that if a different
value is supplied, the resulting distribution will have a mean value which is different from
V .
The annual energy yield is calculated as
cutout
E =Y P (V ) f (V )dV
cutin
where
P (V ) = power curve, i.e. electrical power as a function of wind speed,

Y = the length of a year, taken as 365 days.
The result is further multiplied by the availability of the turbine, which is assumed for this
purpose to be uncorrelated with wind speed.
87 of 104
Frequently a steady state power curve is used, combined with a distribution of hourly mean
wind speeds. For a more accurate calculation, it is desirable to use a dynamically calculated
power curve given as the average power from a series of simulations based on a model of the
turbulent wind field. It is common practice to use 10-minute simulations to capture the effects
of turbine dynamics and wind turbulence. Strictly speaking, the appropriate distribution to
use in this case would be one representing the distribution of 10-minute mean wind speeds in
a year. For a Weibull distribution, this will typically have a slightly smaller shape factor than
that for hourly means.
12.8 Ultimate loads
The ultimate loads calculation, which is often required for certification calculations, is simple
in concept: the results of a load case simulation are analysed to find the times at which each
of a number of specified loads reaches its maximum and minimum values. The simultaneous
values of all the loads at each of those instants is reported.
A further calculation named ‘ultimate load cases’ further analyses the results of a number of
ultimate loads calculations for different groups of load cases, and generates a histogram
showing the load cases in which the maximum and minimum values of each load occurred
within each group.
12.9 Flicker
The Flicker calculation generates short-term flicker severity values (Pst), either from a voltage
time history, or from time histories of active and reactive power. Such time histories are
available from simulations with the full electrical model of the fixed speed induction
generator, and also with the variable speed generator model.
The flicker severity is a measure of the annoyance created by voltage variations through
perception of the resulting flicker of incandescent lights. The calculation of flicker from a
voltage time history is defined in [10.5]. An algorithm conforming to this standard is
incorporated into the Bladed post-processor. It can also calculate flicker from a time history
of active and reactive power. In this case a voltage time history is calculated first, and this
can be calculated for any given network impedance to which the turbine might be connected.
In fact the flicker for several different network impedances can be calculated in a single
calculation. The network impedances are entered as a set of short circuit power levels and
network angles, the network angle being arctan(X/R), where X and R are the network
reactance and resistance respectively. The voltage is calculated as the solution of the
following equation:
U4 + U2(2{QX - PR} - U02) + (QX - PR)2 + (PX + QR)2 = 0
where U0 is the voltage at the infinite busbar, and P and Q are the active and reactive power
respectively.
88 of 104
12.10 Extreme load extrapolation
The Extreme load extrapolation calculation uses statistical methods to predict the extreme
load for a defined return period by extrapolating from the extreme load values obtained from
a large number of simulations performed with a range of external conditions.
Probability distributions are fitted to these extreme load results. These fitted distributions are
then weighted and summed to give an overall response function for each load. Extrapolated
extreme loads are then obtained for the defined return period from these overall response
functions.
Two probability density functions are used for fitting to the extreme data. These are the (2-
parameter) Gumbel distribution and the 3-parameter Weibull distribution. It has been found
[10.6] that these are likely to be the most applicable distributions to wind turbine loading.
The equations below are the cumulative distribution function form of these distributions:
Gumbel:
x u
F (x ) = e
s
e
3-parameter Weibull:
k
x u
F (x ) = 1 e s
where
u = location parameter
s = scale parameter
k = skewness parameter
The method of moments equates sample moments to parameter estimates. The method of
moments has the advantage of simplicity. The disadvantage of the method of moments is that
it tends not to be as accurate in its parameter estimates as the maximum likelihood and least
squares estimators. The moment estimates are used as starting values for the more precise
maximum likelihood and least squares estimates. They are also output as a check.
Maximum likelihood estimation begins with the mathematical expression known as a

likelihood function of the sample data. Loosely speaking, the likelihood of a set of data is the
probability of obtaining that particular set of data given the chosen probability model. This
expression contains the unknown parameters. Those values of the parameter that maximize
the sample likelihood are known as the maximum likelihood estimates.
For the Gumbel distribution, the method of least squares fits a straight line in the usual way
but in Gumbel axes and for the three parameter Weibull distribution, a similar technique is
employed but also minimising the sum of the squares for the third parameter.
89 of 104
There is no way of deciding quantitatively which distribution or fitting method best suits the
data. This motivates the diagnostic plots which can help qualitatively. For more detailed
theory points including an example of when distribution choice is important, please refer to
the GH study into extrapolation carried out under the European Union funded project,
‘Recommendations for the Design of Offshore Wind Turbines’ (RECOFF) [10.7]. Generally
the 3-parameter Weibull distribution is more flexible for fitting that the Gumbel distribution
due to the extra skewness parameter. The Gumbel distribution is always useful as a check.
90 of 104
13. THE WINDFARMER LINK MODULE
13.1 Purpose and motivation
The Windfarmer Link is a software module dedicated to the calculation of loading on wind
turbines operating in specific environmental conditions. The tool unites the respective
capabilities of GH Windfarmer [11.1, 11.2] and GH Bladed software to provide an
integrated method of site-specific fatigue load assessment. This represents a major advance,
placing the calculation of site specific wind turbine loads on the same computational basis as
the evaluation of wind farm energy production which is routinely performed for project
developers and investors.
The motivation to determine site-specific fatigue loads follows from the inability of class
structures used in wind turbine certification standards to account for the complexity inherent
in an actual wind farm. Site-specific calculations are therefore required to determine whether
the loading on a turbine operating in a particular environment falls within the machine’s
design envelope. The unique specification of a given site (in terms of its turbulence levels,
air density variation, up-flow angles, wake-flow characteristics, wind probability distribution,
and other parameters) will determine the loading experienced by each turbine and should be
accounted for in any valid model.
Successful selection of turbine and turbine layout for a given site is therefore dependent on an
accurate understanding of the associated site-specific loads, emphasising the need for
effective calculation methods.
13.2 Overview of site-specific fatigue load calculations
The principal aim of a site specific load calculation is to assess which turbines on site, if any,
exceed their certification/design levels. A wide range of load components are investigated.
This is achieved by running a number of time-domain simulations of turbine operation (and in
some cases turbine idling scenarios). It is standard practice to base these simulations upon the
associated fatigue load cases used for the turbine certification load calculations, but
significantly the generic external conditions of the certification standard are substituted with
the specific site environmental conditions. A salient consideration in this regard is the effect
of wake interaction. In summary, the site-specific conditions relevant to fatigue load
calculations include:
• air density
• wind speed and direction probability distribution (wind rose information)
• ambient turbulent intensity distribution
• wind shear
• terrain up-flow angle
• wake interaction
An initial evaluation of the site prior to the simulation stage can be used to select turbines
which are obviously the most severely loaded on site. Candidate turbines can be identified on
the basis of wake interaction (itself determined by the number of neighbouring machines, the
spacing between turbines and the predominant wind direction) and the variation in wind
shear, up-flow angle and annual mean wind speed across the site. In cases where candidate
turbines are not so obviously identified, a larger number of machines should be selected, the
worst-case scenario being an explicit analysis of the whole site.
91 of 104
Section 13.9 looks at the issue of turbine selection in more detail. An approximate pre-
simulation ranking method is described whereby turbines on site are ordered based on the
environmental severity of their location.
Once the study turbines have been selected, the WindFarmer Link module is used to
construct Bladed project files for creating the wind, performing time domain simulations, and
post-processing the results. A Bladed batch can then be constructed which incorporates all
these calculations.
In common with certification load calculations it is important to run time-domain simulations

to model the influence of non-linearities introduced by the rotor aerodynamics and the
turbine’s control systems.
The final stage is to compare the calculated site-specific fatigue loads (normally expressed as
a lifetime damage equivalent load) with the design constraints of the turbine’s components,
including safety factors. If site specific loads are found to exceed design loads for any given
turbines, repositioning of turbine locations and/or shut-down procedures may be considered
and the loads re-calculated for the revised specification.
13.3 General methodology of the Windfarmer Link
GH Windfarmer is used to provide a detailed specification of a given site in terms of its

ambient and wake-affected turbulent intensity levels, air density, up-flow angles, wind speed
and direction distribution and wake-flow characteristics.
The Windfarmer Link module is used to manipulate the site information from GH
Windfarmer (under the guidance of user-defined constraints) to generate wind file
specifications, multiple time-domain simulations and post-processing calculations in GH
Bladed that then represent the particular operating environment of selected turbines.
GH Bladed is used to create the wind-files, perform the simulations and carry out post
processing in order to generate results in terms of lifetime equivalent loads and/or rainflow
cycle counts.
13.4 Wake modelling
It is well known that the fatigue loading on a wind turbine operating in a wind farm is
critically affected by the downstream wake flow of neighbouring machines. Two load-
increasing mechanisms are observed:
• an increase in the turbulent intensity of the incident flow

• the mean profile of velocity deficit in the wake through which the blades of the
down-stream turbine pass
The nature of both mechanisms is highly dependent on the separation between incident and
upstream turbine.
Two widely used methods to account for wake effects on fatigue loading are the Frandsen
formulation [11.3] and the ‘Dynamic Loads in Wind Farms II’ (DLWF) method [11.4]. Both
introduce the concept of an artificial design turbulence to represent the complex mechanisms
of wake-affected fatigue loading.
92 of 104
Departing from the concept of design turbulence, the WindFarmer Link method draws on
the capability of a validated wake flow modelling tool conventionally used for wind farm
energy calculations and couples it with the customised load calculations of GH Bladed to
provide a state-of-the-art tool for site-specific load assessment. An important feature of this
method is its ability to model the mechanisms of increased turbulent intensity and mean
velocity profile explicitly.
13.4.1 Wake affected turbulence intensity

In contrast to the concept of design turbulence invoked in the Frandsen and ‘Dynamic Loads
in Wind Farms II’ methods, the turbulence intensity values calculated by GH WindFarmer
and subsequently used in the simulations of the WindFarmer Link method are what one
should expect to measure physically on site.
In GH WindFarmer, wind farm turbulence levels are calculated using an empirical

characterisation developed by Quarton and Ainslie [7.14]. This characterisation enables the
added turbulence in the wake to be defined as a function of ambient turbulence, the turbine
thrust coefficient, the distance downstream form the rotor plane and the length of the near
wake:
0.7
I add = 4.8C t I amb
0.68
(x / xn ) 0.57
Where xn is the calculated length of the near wake using the method proposed in [7.16, 7.17].
The characterisation was subsequently amended slightly to improve the prediction, as shown
below [7.15]:
0.7
I add = 5.7C t I amb
0.68
(x / xn ) 0.96
Using the value of added turbulence and the incident ambient turbulence, the turbulence
intensity at any position in the wake can be calculated. The model also accounts for the
turbine not being completely in the wake. The same model is used in Bladed for the Upwind
Turbine Wake model (Section 9.2).
The ambient turbulence intensity is best derived from measurements. Alternatively GH

WindFarmer can predict the turbulence intensity from an input surface roughness length,
which is representative of the site, using [7.10]:
1
I amb =
ln(h / z 0 )
The turbulence intensity is defined here as the quotient of standard deviation and mean wind
speed at high wind speeds.
In the GH WindFarmer model set-up the ambient turbulence distribution should be the mean
level. However, for load calculations, it is standard practice to use the characteristic or
representative turbulence. The characteristic turbulence cannot be used directly in GH
WindFarmer as it would introduce non-physical turbulence values into the wake model. This
problem is negotiated by defining an array of characteristic turbulence factors in the
WindFarmer Link interface which scales on the mean ambient turbulence levels subsequent
93 of 104
to execution of the eddy viscosity wake model. Further details of this functionality are given
in the Bladed User Manual.
13.4.2 Eddy viscosity wake model

There are three wake models available within GH WindFarmer;
• PARK model,
• Modified PARK model,
• Eddy viscosity model.
When using the WindFarmer Link module, the eddy viscosity model should be used.
Due to the complexity of the wake directly behind the rotor, the eddy viscosity model is
initiated from two diameters downstream. This is assumed to be the distance where pressure
gradients no longer dominate the flow. If a turbine is within this limit, the program resets the
axial distance offset to a value of two diameters. A list of the input parameters to the eddy
viscosity model in GH WindFarmer can be found in [11.1].
Using this wake model, GH WindFarmer calculates a Gaussian wake profile and outputs the
centreline velocity deficit, wake width (Bw in Section 9.2.1) and centreline horizontal offset.
The WindFarmer Link module uses this information to calculate the corresponding
parameters required by GH Bladed to define the Gaussian Wake model for the Upwind
turbine wake.
13.5 Wind flow modelling
GH WindFarmer uses a wind flow model to ascertain the variation in wind speeds incident
on each turbine at their respective locations on the site. It is conventional to use the WAsP
code for the site wind flow analysis but any wind flow model that outputs the same standard
file formats as defined by WAsP may be used. The model uses Weibull A and k parameters to
represent the directional wind speed probability distribution.
GH WindFarmer requires the following inputs to perform a wind flow calculation:
1. A WAsP wind resource grid (WRG) file at the turbine hub height with extents
covering all intended turbine locations, or a WAsP RSF file at the turbine locations
2. Turbine locations as grid co-ordinates,
3. Turbine performance data, including power, thrust and rotor speed characteristics.
13.5.1 Site mast data and speed-up factors

GH WindFarmer allows the user to use the probability distribution of wind speeds measured
at an on-site mast and scale them for each direction using predictions from the wind flow
model.
The flow and performance matrices output from GH WindFarmer are referenced to the
associated site mast wind speed. Variation in wind speed between the site mast and turbine
positions due to topographical effects are then described by the software in terms of speed-up
factors. The speed-up factors vary as a function of direction.
94 of 104
It is therefore a requirement of the WindFarmer Link module to re-scale the flow and
performance matrices so that the dependent variables are given in terms of the turbines’
localised wind speeds. These re-scaled matrices are subsequently used in the generation of
GH Bladed simulations.
13.5.2 Wind speed and direction distribution

An important aspect of site specific fatigue load assessment is the wind speed and direction
distribution (wind rose) observed at each turbine position. GH WindFarmer gives the
distribution relative to the associated mast wind speeds. It also internally re-scales the
distribution with the turbine speed-up factors to provide localised wind rose data at each
turbine location. The WindFarmer Link code does not therefore need to re-scale the wind
speed and direction distributions – the user is merely required to select the localised
distribution when outputting the flow and performance matrices from GH Windfarmer. Note
that these local distributions do not account for wake effects.
The wind speed and direction distribution is important in load calculations for two reasons:
1. The wind direction information determines the amount of time spent operating in a
wake.
2. The wind speed distribution determines the operational hours per year (time between
cut-in and cut-out wind speeds) and the annual mean wind speed at the turbine.
13.5.3 Upflow angles

The localised ground slope at each turbine position on site is calculated in GH WindFarmer
through the following routine. A circle with radius 2D (where D is the turbine rotor diameter)
is centred on the turbine’s tower base coordinates. At each degree of the circle, the elevation
of the ground directly above or below the associated circumferential point is used in
conjunction with the elevation of the turbine base to calculate the gradient between the two
points. The ground slope is assumed to be constant between these two points. A terrain angle
is thus calculated for each of direction bin around each turbine on site. This is assumed to be
equal to an effective upflow angle.
For fatigue load assessment the WindFarmer Link module only selects simulations at certain
direction sectors. The code effectively combines information for multiple direction bins into a
bin for which a single simulation is defined. Section 13.6 describes this process in detail.
With particular regard to upflow angles, the user has two options:
1. Assign the maximum up-flow angle observed over the combined direction bins to
the simulation.
2. Calculate a weighted mean up-flow angle as follows:
i=N i=N
. weighted mean = / (Pi 8 . i ) / / Pi
i =1 i =1
where Pi is the probability of the ith direction bin assigned to the simulation, . i is the upflow
angle of the ith direction bin assigned to the simulation and N is the total number of direction
bins assigned to the simulation.
95 of 104
13.6 Selection of wake-affected and ambient simulations
The WindFarmer Link module receives information from GH WindFarmer in the form of
flow and performance matrices, with mast wind speeds and wind directions introduced as the
independent variables. A number of these matrices, such as those defining the speed-up
factors or upflow angles on site, are one-dimensional as these site parameters do not vary
with wind speed, only wind direction. The majority of matrices output (those defining
turbulence levels, wake profile parameters, wind speed / direction probability distribution and
so on) are two-dimensional, varying as functions of both wind speed and direction. The
WindFarmer Link module can accept any resolution in the number of wind speed bins and
direction bins defined in the GH WindFarmer simulation. However, the user should be
aware that if a smaller number of bins is selected, a less accurate simulation will result. The
wind speed bins are recommended to go up to 70m/s to ensure that the model is valid over a
conceivable range of speed up factors. Simulations run with less than 72 direction steps
should be avoided.
13.6.1 Wake-affected simulations

For each turbine selected for analysis the WindFarmer Link module scans through the wind
speed and wind direction bins of the turbine’s flow and performance matrices (subsequent to
their speed-up re-scaling) and determines for each bin whether the turbine is operating in
wake-affected or ambient conditions. Any particular turbine is deemed to be wake-affected in
a particular wind condition if any wake offset (the distance between the hub and the wake
centreline) is less than the wake half-width at that point (Bw/2) plus one turbine radius (R):
see Figure 13.1.
Wake
offset
Bw/2
Wind direction
Figure 13.1: Wind direction at which a turbine just becomes wake-affected
The user can opt to have either one or two simulations in each wake. If one simulation is
chosen, the wind direction will be chosen so that the wake offset is zero; if two simulations
are chosen, they will be done with wind directions giving wake offsets of +R (one turbine
radius).
In real wind farms, the situation will be complicated by the occurrence of overlapping wakes
from different neighbouring turbines. This will be characterised by a range of wind directions
96 of 104
within which there are two or more distinct wakes affecting the turbine without any ambient
direction bins separating them. Then for any particular wind direction GH Windfarmer will
select the wake characteristics based on whichever wake has the greater velocity deficit at the
turbine position. If the user opts to have one simulation per wake, these simulations will be
defined for each wind direction such that turbine is on the wake centreline of each wake; with
two simulations per wake, wind directions giving wake offsets of +R for each wake are
chosen. Then if any of these simulations is for a wake which is not the strongest wake for
that wind direction, that simulation is discarded.
13.6.2 Ambient simulations

Ambient conditions are defined implicitly as those directions where there are no incident
wakes. The user is asked to constrain the number of ambient simulations per wind speed bin
required in the analysis. Clearly, a smaller number will reduce computation time, but a larger
number may be recommended if wide variation in non wake-related parameters over the wind
direction range (such as ambient turbulence or up-flow angle) is observed on site. Two
methods of selecting the ambient sectors are available.
13.6.2.1 Uniform sectors

The 360-degree direction range is divided into X sectors, where X is the number of
ambient simulations per wind speed bin assigned by the user. The code then determines:
• the maximum ambient turbulence observed in each sector.

• the maximum or weighted-mean up-flow observed in each sector (see section
13.5.3).
• the amount of time spent in ambient conditions in each sector.
If in a given sector no time is spent in ambient conditions (that is, the sector is
completely dominated by wake-affected operation) then no ambient simulation is
defined. Hence, for example, a user may specify 5 ambient simulations per wind speed
bin and yet only observe 3 simulations allocated by the code; the other 2 sectors are
completely immersed in wake-affected flow.
13.6.2.2 User-defined sectors

Alternatively, the user may manually assign ambient simulations. The directional range
is partitioned into twelve 30 degree sectors. The user, via the software interface, can then
assign any permutation of sectors to a variety of simulations.
For example, the user may observe that ambient conditions in the 1st sector are similar to
the 7th, 8th and 11th sectors. Simulation 1 should be assigned to these 4 sectors.
Furthermore, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th 10th and 12th sectors may have similar conditions.
These should be lumped as Simulation 2. Finally, the 6th and 11th sectors, if similar, can
be described by Simulation 3.
Any combination may be implemented. The most simplistic will be assigning all sectors
to Simulation 1. The most detailed will have 12 separate simulations; one for each
sector.
13.6.3 Non-operational simulations

Ambient and wake-affected simulations are only assigned by the code between the turbines’
range of cut-in and cut-out wind speeds. The sum of the wind speed / direction probability
distribution within this operational range will clearly be less than one. The GH Bladed post-
97 of 104
processing facility for fatigue loads requires that the total amount of time in one year (8766
hours) is assigned to simulations, including time below cut-in and above cut-out. This is
achieved by generating a non-operational idling simulation which effectively contributes no
damage by using values of wind speed and air density very close to zero. The Windfarmer
Link creates this non-operational simulation automatically for each turbine and subsequently
introduces it into the post-processing routine to account for time spent outside the turbine’s
operational range.
13.7 Generation of GH Bladed simulations
After determining the position of wake-affected and ambient simulations, the code proceeds
to write the associated GH Bladed project files.
A template file for the simulations is provided by the user through the interface. This file
should contain all the normal information required to successfully run a turbulent wind, time-
domain calculation in GH Bladed. Furthermore, it is a requirement that the ‘up-wind turbine
wake’ module and the ‘idling’ module are both specified in the template. However, the actual
parametric values assigned to these specific modules are, at this stage, unimportant.
The template file as provides the description of the actual turbine structure (rotor, nacelle and
tower assembly), the control system and the dynamic simulation controls, whereas the
processed information from GH Windfarmer specifies the environmental conditions. Clearly,
it is usually important to ensure that common information assumed in the two models is
consistent – for example, the turbine hub height and rotor diameter.
User-defined GH Bladed Environmental conditions

simulation template from GH Windfarmer
• Structural description • Site turbulence

• Modal behaviour • Wake characteristics
• Output options • Air density
• Simulation parameters • Terrain up-flow
• Control system • Wind shear?
Multiple GH Bladed
site-specific simulation files
Figure 13.2: Schematic showing generation of site-specific GH Bladed simulations
The GH Bladed simulation template may contain values for the environmental parameters;
but these will merely be overwritten during execution of the Windfarmer Link software.
98 of 104
In situations where the user wishes to overwrite particular outputs from GH Windfarmer, an
options module in the user interface allows particular values of air density, wind shear and
up-flow angle to be assigned to all simulations. See the User Manual for further details.
13.8 Wind file structure
Three dimensional, three component wind turbulence files are created with the “Improved
Von Karman” model (Section 10.1.2).
The wind speed bins specified by the user in the Windfarmer Link screen are used to define
the individual wind speeds and total number of the generated wind files. The turbulence data
from GH Windfarmer is used to define the turbulent characteristics of the wind files.
The Windfarmer Link module determines the required dimensions of the wind files from the
hub height and rotor diameter information contained in the turbine summary data output from
GH Windfarmer. It also assigns random number seeds to each wind file.
The turbulence data from the wind file is then combined with the appropriate wake profile,
wind shear and upflow angle during the execution of each dynamic simulation.
13.9 Pre-processing ranking routine
13.9.1 Turbine rank methodology

The highly detailed site-specification offered by the Windfarmer Link method can result in a
large number of required GH Bladed simulations. The user can vary the total number through
selection of the number of wind speed bins, simulations across a wake sector and ambient
simulations. However, even with these controls, for a large wind farm the sheer number of
simulations required to explicitly analyse the loading on each machine may become
prohibitive, both in terms of computational speed and disk space.
Traditionally engineers performing site-specific assessments have used their understanding of

the site conditions to make an educated assumption about which turbine positions are most
severely loaded and which are relatively benign. This exercise, though beneficial in reducing
processing time, is potentially quite subjective.
The Windfarmer Link module’s pre-processing ranking routine is introduced as a more

quantitative method for determining the most severely fatigue-loaded turbines on site.
The algorithm computes an ‘indication of severity’ parameter X for each turbine T, for a
range of SN-slope values, such that:
1
! i, j
( )
m
XT = /P i , j,T 8 U i ,T 8 TI i , j,T
m
where U is the hub height rotor-averaged wind speed (including wake deficit effects), TI is
the turbulence intensity distribution, P is the wind speed / direction probability distribution,
99 of 104
m is the Wohler exponent or inverse S-N slope (Section 12.6.2), T is the turbine index, i is the
wind speed index and j is the wind direction index of the flow and performance matrices.
The calculation integrates the standard deviation of the wind speed at each turbine with the
probability distribution, with an adjustment for the material inverse S-N slope m. The
probability distribution is not normalised, so that it accounts for the variation in operational
hours across the turbine positions.
The ‘indication of severity’ parameter X should in no way be interpreted as an absolute

measure of load levels; it is merely an indication of how loads may vary relatively between
turbines on site.
The ranking method does not take into account the wind shear and upflow angles, so in
addition to the turbines suggested by the ranking, the user should manually select any
turbines experiencing high wind shear and/or upflow angles for explicit simulation.
13.9.2 IEC class comparison

The user can introduce the generic wind class that the turbine on site has been certified to as a
datum for the ranking calculation. The IEC class is defined through the interface and the
‘indication of severity’ parameter X is calculated for this wind class. The margins between the
site specific rank numbers for each turbine on site and this IEC wind class value are
computed and presented in plots. Note that by convention, a negative margin indicates that
the site specific rank number exceeds the IEC wind class value, whereas if no IEC class
datum is selected, the absolute site specific rank numbers are shown in the resulting plots.
13.10 Post-processing routine
The Windfarmer Link method automatically generates rainflow cycle count simulations for
execution in GH Bladed. The user is required to define a rainflow simulation template which
the link then alters to correctly assign load cases and their associated probabilities based on
the site specification provided by GH WindFarmer. Final loads are then extracted from GH
Bladed in the normal way.
100 of 104
14. REFERENCES
2.1 Glauert H, “An aerodynamic theory of the airscrew”, Reports and memoranda, AE. 43,
No 786, January 1922
2.2 Prandtl L and Tietjens O G, “Applied Hydro and Aeromechanics”, Dover Publications,
1957
2.3 Pitt D M and Peters D A, “Theoretical prediction of dynamic inflow derivatives”,

Vertica, Vol. 5, No 1, 1981
2.4 Gaonkar G H, Sastry VV,, Reddy T S R, Nagabhushanam J and Peters D A, “The use
of actuator disc dynamic inflow for helicopter flap lag stability”, 8th European
Rotorcraft Forum, France, Sept. 1982
2.5 Tuckerman L B, “Inertia factors of ellipsoids for use in airship design”, NACA Report
No 210, 1925
2.6 Rasmussen F R, Petersen S M, Larsen G, Kretz A and Andersen P D, “Investigations of

aerodynamics, structural dynamics and fatigue on Danwin 180 kW”, Risø M-2727,
June 1988
2.7 Snel H, Houwink R, Bosschers J, Piers W J and van Bussel G J W, “Sectional

prediction of 3D effects for stalled flow on rotating blades and comparison with
measurements”, EWEC ‘93, Travemunde, March 1993
2.8 Leishman J G and Beddoes T S, “A semi-empirical model for dynamic stall”, Journal
of the American Helicopter Society, July 1989
2.9 Harris A, “The role of unsteady aerodynamics in vertical axis wind turbines”, Recent
developments in the aerodynamics of wind turbines, BWEA workshop, University of
Nottingham, February 1990
2.10 Galbraith R A McD, Niven A J and Coton F N, “Aspects of unsteady aerodynamics of

wind turbines”, Recent developments in the aerodynamics of wind turbines, BWEA
workshop, University of Nottingham, February 1990
3.1 Barltrop N D P and Adams A J, “Dynamics of fixed marine structures”, Butterworth-

Heinemann 3rd edition 1991.
4.1 Ahmed-Zaid S and Taleb M, Structural modelling of small and large induction
generators using integral manifolds, IEEE trans. Energy Conversion 6, 3, September
1991.
4.2 Park R H, Two-reaction theory of synchronous machines, Trans AIEE 48, 1929.
4.3 Bossanyi E A, Investigation of torque control using a variable slip induction generator,
ETSU WN 6018, ETSU, 1991.
101 of 104
4.4 Pedersen T K, Semi-variable speed operation - a compromise? Wind Energy

Conversion 1995, 17th BWEA Conference (Warwick), Mechanical Engineering
Publications Ltd.
4.5 Ekanayake J B, Holdsworth L, Wu X, Jenkins N: “Dynamic modelling of doubly fed

induction generator wind turbines”, IEEE Transaction on power system, Volume 18,
No. 2, May 2003, pp 803-809.
4.6 Vas P: “Sensorless vector and direct torque control”, Oxford University Press, 1998,
ISBN 19 8564651.
7.1 IEC 1400-1, Wind turbine generator systems - Part 1: Safety requirements, First
edition, 1994.
7.2 Powles S R J, “The effects of tower shadow on the dynamics of a HAWT”, Wind
Engineering, 7, 1, 1983.
7.3 Veers P S, “Three dimensional wind simulation”, SAND88 - 0152, Sandia National
Laboratories, March 1988.
7.4 Engineering Sciences Data Unit, “Characteristics of atmospheric turbulence near the
ground. Part II: Single point data for strong winds”, ESDU 74031, 1974.
ground. Part II: Single point data for strong winds (neutral atmosphere)”, ESDU 85020,
1985 (amended 1993).
ground. Part III: Variations in space and time for strong winds (neutral atmosphere)”,
ESDU 86010, 1986 (amended 1991).
7.7 IEC 1400-1, Wind turbine generator systems - Part 1: Safety requirements, Second
edition, 1999.
7.8 Ainslie J F, “Development of an eddy viscosity model for wind turbine wakes”,
Proceedings of 7th BWEA Wind Energy Conference, Oxford 1985.
7.9 Ainslie J F, “Development of an Eddy Viscosity model of a Wind Turbine Wake”,

CERL Memorandum TPRD/L/AP/0081/M83, 1983.
7.10 H Tennekes and J Lumley, “A first course in turbulence”, MIT Press, 1980.
7.11 L Prandtl, “Bemerkungen zur Theorie der freien Turbulenz”, ZAMM, 22(5), 1942.
7.12 Ainslie J F, “Calculating the flowfield in the wake of wind turbines”, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol 27, 1988.
7.13 Taylor G J, “Wake Measurements on the Nibe Wind Turbines in Denmark”, National
Power, ETSU WN 5020, 1990.
7.14 Quarton D C and Ainslie J F, “Turbulence in Wind Turbine Wakes”, Wind

Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 1, 1990.
102 of 104
7.15 U Hassan, “A Wind Tunnel Investigation of the Wake Structure within Small Wind
Turbine Farms”, Department of Energy, E/5A/CON/5113/1890, 1992.
7.16 Vermeulen P and Builtjes P, “Mathematical Modelling of Wake Interaction in Wind

Turbine Arrays, Part 1”, report TNO 81-01473, 1981.
7.17 Vermeulen P and Vijge J, “Mathematical Modelling of Wake Interaction in Wind

Turbine Arrays, Part2”, report TNO 81-02834, 1981.
7.18 J. Mann, “The spatial structure of neutral atmospheric surface-layer turbulence”, J. of

Fluid Mech., v. 273, 1994, pp. 141-168.
7.19 J. Mann, “Wind field simulation,” Prob. Engng. Mech., v. 13, n. 4, 1998, pp. 269-282.
7.20 IEC 1400-1, Wind turbine generator systems - Part 1: Safety requirements, Third
edition, 2004.
8.1 Goda Y, “A Review on Statistical Interpolation of Wave Data”, Report of the Port and
Harbour Research Institute, Vol. 18, No. 1, March 1979.
8.2 Hogben N and Standing R, “Experience in Computing Wave Loads on Large Bodies”,
OTC 2189, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1975.
8.3 Wheeler J D, “Method for Calculating Forces Produced by Irregular Waves”, J. Petr.
Techn., pp.359-367, March 1970.
8.4 Gudmestad O T, “Measured and Predicted Deep Water Wave Kinematics in Regular
and Irregular Seas”, Marine Structures, Vol. 6, pp.1-73, 1993.
8.5 Chaplin J R, “The Computation of Non-Linear Waves on a Current of Arbitrary Non-

Uniform Profile,” Den Report OTH 90 326, HMSO, 1990.
8.6 Dean R G, “Stream Function Representation of Nonlinear Ocean Waves,” Journal of

Geophysical Research, Vol.70, No. 18, Sept. 1965.
8.7 Dean R G, “Stream Function Wave Theory: Validity and Application,” Proceedings of
the Santa Barbara Specialty Conference, Ch. 12, Oct. 1965.
8.8 Dalrymple R A, “A Finite Amplitude Wave on a Linear Shear Current,” Journal of

Geophysical Research, Vol. 79, pp. 4498-4504, 1974.
8.9 Dalrymple R A, “A Numerical Model for Periodic Finite Amplitude Waves on a

Rotational Fluid,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 24, pp. 29-42, 1977.
8.10 MacCamy, R.C. and Fuchs, R.A., Wave Forces on Piles: a Diffraction Theory, Tech.
Memo No. 69, US Army Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, 1954.
8.11 Rainey P J and Camp T R, “Constrained non-linear waves for offshore wind turbine
design”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 75 (2007) 012067, “The Science of
Making Torque from Wind”,
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/75/1/012067/jpconf7_75_012067.pdf.
103 of 104
9.1 Gupta A K, “Response Spectrum Method”, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1990.
9.2 Clough R W, and Penzien J, “Dynamics of Structures”, McGraw Hill, 1993.
10.1 Rice S O, “Mathematical analysis of random noise”, Selected papers on noise and
stochastic processes, ed. N Wax, 1959.
10.2 Davenport A G, “Note on the distribution of the largest value of a random function
with application to gust loading”, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. 28, pp187-196, 1964.
10.3 Madsen P H, Frandsen S, Holley W E, Hansen J C, “Dynamics and fatigue damage of

wind turbine rotors during steady operation”, Risø report R-512, 1984.
10.4 Miner M A, “Cumulative damage in fatigue”, Transactions of the American Society of

mechanical Engineers, Vol. 67, A159-A164, 1945.
10.5 Flickermeter functional and design specification, BSEN60868, 1993, and evaluation of
flicker severity, BSEN60868-0, 1993, equivalent to IEC 868-0, 1991.
10.6 Cheng, P.W., “A Reliability Based Design Methodology for Extreme Responses of
Offshore Wind Turbines”, PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2002.
10.7 Norton, E. J. “Investigation into IEC Offshore draft standard Design Load Case (DLC)
1.1”, GH report 2762/BR/20, or
http://www.risoe.dk/vea/recoff/Documents/Sec_3/RECOFFdoc059.pdf
11.1 “WindFarmer Theory Manual”, GH & Partners Ltd, 2002.
11.2 “WindFarmer User Manual”, GH & Partners Ltd, 2002.
11.3 Frandsen S, “Turbulence and turbulence-generated fatigue loading in wind turbine

clusters”, Riso report Riso-R-1188(EN), 2003.
11.4 Adams, B.M., et al., “Dynamic loads in wind farms II,” Final report of CEC Joule
project JOU2-CT92-0094, GH report 286/R/1, 1996.
104 of 104

Theory Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Theory Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GH Bladed

Key To Document Classification

Strictly Confidential : Recipients only

Private and Confidential : For disclosure to individuals directly

Commercial in Confidence : Not to be disclosed outside the recipient’s

GHP only : Not to be disclosed to non GHP staff

Client’s Discretion : Distribution at the discretion of the client

Published : Available to the general public

© 2007 Garrad Hassan and Partners Limited

8.9 Current Velocities 60

13.5 Wind flow modelling 94

• Preliminary wind turbine design

• Specification of all wind turbine parameters:

• Specification of environmental inputs and load cases:

• Rapid calculation of steady-state performance characteristics, including:

• Dynamic simulations covering all turbine states:

• Post-processing of results to obtain:

Rainflow cycle counting and fatigue analysis

1.2 Theoretical background

• WEG MS-1, UK, 1991

Telephone: +44 (0)117 972 9900

2.1 Combined blade element and momentum theory

2.1.1 Actuator disk model

The dimensionless power and thrust coefficients, CP and CT are respectively:

The thrust coefficient CT has a maximum value of 1 when a is 1 /2.

2.1.2 Wake rotation

2.1.3 Blade element theory

dT = 1 2 W 2 ( CL cos + CD sin )cdr

dQ = 1 2 W 2 r( CL sin CD cos )cdr

The parameter H is defined as follows:

must be replaced by the empirical expression:

CT = 0.6 + 0.61a + 0.79a 2

The implementation of blade element theory in GH Bladed is based on a transition to the

a'k a'k 1 tol

where tol is the value of aerodynamic tolerance specified by the user.

2.1.4 Tip and hub loss models

The factor Ft can be expressed in closed solution form:

2.2 Wake models

2.2.1 Equilibrium wake

2.2.2 Frozen wake

2.2.3 Dynamic wake

The mass flow through the annular element is given by:

where dA is the cross-sectional area of the annulus.

2.3 Steady stall

2.4 Dynamic stall

• The indicial response functions for modelling of attached flow

At present, largely because of the very extensive computer processing requirements

3.1 Modal analysis

3.1.1 Rotor modes

• Modal damping coefficient, i

where the subscript i indicates properties related to the ith mode.

The number of blades.

The mass distribution along the blade.

The bending stiffnesses along the blade.

The twist angle distribution along the blade.

The blade pitch and setting angles.

The presence or otherwise of a flap hinge for a one-bladed rotor.

Whether the hub can rotate.

The rotational speed of the rotor.

3.1.2 Tower modes (axisymmetric model)