wind turbine reliability: a view from the...

Wind Turbine Reliability: A View From the FieldDesign for Reliability: Economic Optimization

Presented by: Benjamin Bell, CEO and PresidentGarrad Hassan America, Inc.

2009 Wind Turbine Reliability WorkshopSandia National Laboratories

Editors: Ben Hendricks, GHNL and Daniel Bacon, GHUK

Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, NMJune 18, 2009

Garrad Hassan Worldwide

Overview:

• An increased need for reliability

• Reliability in the various project phasesy p j p

• Designing machines for reliability

• Operating and maintaining machines for reliability• Operating and maintaining machines for reliability – Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Analysis– Case study: A view from the field– Calculation method and input– Results

• Conclusions

Reliability in the various project phases:

PHASE ACTIVITY GH SERVICES AND SOFTWARE

Wind Turbine Design Quantified analysis of cost of energy: Turbine DesignWind Turbine Design Quantified analysis of cost of energy: Integrating reliability aspects in the design of a turbine.

Turbine Design

Project Development Onshore

Reliable prediction of expected energy production from any wind farm

Energy DevelopmentOnshore production from any wind farm

Project DevelopmentOffshore

Site evaluation and analysis of availability and O&M costs for offshore farms, and optimization of

Offshore Wind Farms

maintenance strategies

Operational Phase Monitoring wind farmAssessing wind farm operating

performance

SCADAAsset Managementand Optimization

Forecasting Services (AMOS)Forecaster

Reliability analysis in the design:

Reliability

Turbine design

Component ReliabilityAnalysis

ComponentSpecification

Critical failure modes (FMECA*)

Fault Trees of critical events

Maintainability/ time to repair

Optimize/Redesign Maintainability/ time to repair

Failure rates

g

* Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis

Approach in this field case study (offshore):

Turbine design

C t R li bilit F ilComponentSpecification

Capital Costs

ReliabilityAnalysis

Failure Statistics

O&MAnalysis

Capital Costs

Downtime

O&M CostsOptimize/R d i

Cost of Energy EconomicA l i O&M CostsRedesign Analysis

Why O&M analysis for offshore projects?

• Additional operational risks compared to onshore projects:– Weather / access risk

E i i k– Equipment risk– Export system risk

A h i k• Assess these risks• Eliminate, reduce or transfer risks• Minimize the impact through adequate O&M resources and operating

t t istrategies• Integrate O&M in the optimization of the turbine design (integrated

design)

Calculation method and input:

• O2M Software: Optimization of Operations & Maintenance Approachpp

• Maintenance strategies

• Failure data

• Cost data

• Levelized production costs

O&M analysis – O2M modelling structure:

• Optimization of Operations & Maintenance: “O2M” software – Based on work by Bossanyi and Strowbridge (ETSU 1994)

ProjectDescription

Maintenance

Requirements

Operations

Availability

Operating Conditions

OperationsSimulation Post-Processing Production

Costs

O&MProvisions

O&M Analysis - Modelling Structure:

Project

Maintenance

jDescription

Availability

• Number of wind farm sites

• Number of turbines on each site


Requirements

Operationssimulation Post-Processing Production

• Turbine rated capacity

• Service base location

P t t l ti

O&MProvisions

Costs• Parts store location

• Long-term energy prediction


Project• Scheduled maintenance

MaintenanceRequirements

jDescription

Availability

• Unscheduled maintenance• Several failure categories defined by

- Failure Rate (MTBF)Di Ti T R i (DTTR)


Requirements


- Direct Time To Repair (DTTR)- Spares and equipment requirements

• Example WTG reliability profile:

O&MProvisions

Costs

82,500Minor change-out41,500Manual restart

DTTR (Labor-hours)MTBF (hrs)Category

9050,000Major change-out7020,000Major repair


Project

• Wave time series• Wind time series

Maintenance

jDescription

Availability

Wind time series• Wind – wave relationship

1.8


Requirements

Operationssimulation Post-Processing Production1.2

t at

Bu

oy B

(m

)

O&MProvisions

Costs0.6

Sig

. w

ave

ht

0.00 5 10 15

Wind speed at Mast A (m/s)


ProjectD i ti

• Number of technicians

Maintenance

R i t

Description

Availability

• Shift system• Seasonal resources• Number of vessels

V l bilit


Requirements


• Vessel capability- Speed limit for personnel transfer- Cruising speed-Mobilization time

P it

O&MProvisions

Costs- Passenger capacity• Helicopter utilization• Major repair vessel strategy• Spares stock level andSpares stock level and

lead times

Input Data - Offshore Field Case Study:F il RFailure Rates

nual

st

art

nor r

epai

r

jor r

epai

r

jor

lace

men

t

cat

Component Failures

Man

Res

Min

Maj

Maj

rep

All c

Blade 0.0000 1.4800 0.0800 0.0400 1.600Pitch system 0.6800 0.0800 0.0320 0.0080 0.800Hub 0.0000 0.1850 0.0100 0.0050 0.200 er

Yea

r

Component Failures

Main shaft and bearings 0.0000 0.1850 0.0100 0.0050 0.200Gearbox 0.6800 0.0800 0.0200 0.0200 0.800High-speed shaft 0.0000 0.1900 0.0100 0.0000 0.200Mechanical Brake 0.3400 0.0400 0.0200 0.0000 0.400Generator (high speed) 0 6800 0 0800 0 0200 0 0200 0 800 ur

e R

ates

pe

Generator (high speed) 0.6800 0.0800 0.0200 0.0200 0.800Control System 2.1600 0.2400 0.0000 0.0000 2.400Yaw System 1.0200 0.1200 0.0480 0.0120 1.200Hydraulic Services 1.0200 0.1200 0.0600 0.0000 1.200Power Electrics 2.0400 0.2400 0.1200 0.0000 2.400

Failu

o e ect cs 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0000 00Transformer 0.1700 0.0200 0.0080 0.0020 0.200Tower 0.0000 0.1900 0.0100 0.0000 0.200

8.7900 3.2500 0.4480 0.1120

Input Data - Offshore Field Case Study:F il RFailure Rates

2 5ear]

1.5

2.0

2.5

s/tu

rbin

e/ye maintenance categories

1 2 3 4

0.5

1.0

Rat

e [fa

ilure

s

0.0

Electric

sl S

ystem

Blade

Service

sw

System

Gearbo

xh sy

stem

h spee

d)al

Brake

Hubbe

aring

sed

shaft

nsfor

merTow

erFailu

re R

Power

ElCon

trol S

Hydrau

lic Se

Yaw S Ge

Pitch s

Genera

tor (h

igh

Mecha

nical

Main sh

aft an

d be

High-sp

eeTran

s

M

Input Data - Offshore Field Case StudyC i l C

15%ar]

Capital Costs

15%ar]

10%

15%

s/tu

rbin

e/ye

a

10%

15%

s/tu

rbin

e/ye

a

Failure rates

5%

Rat

e [fa

ilure

s

5%

Rat

e [fa

ilure

s

0%

Electric

sol

System

Blade

Service

sw

System

Gearbo

xch

syste

m Gen

erator

cal B

rake

Hubd be

aring

see

d sha

ftns

former

TowerFa

ilure

R

0%

Electric

sol

System

Blade

c Service

sw

System

Gearbo

xch

syste

m Gen

erator

cal B

rake

Hubd be

aring

see

d sha

ftan

sform

erTow

erFailu

re R

Power

ECon

trol

Hydrau

lic S

Yaw G

Pitch Ge

Mecha

nica

Main sh

aft an

d bHigh

-spee

Tran

Power

ECon

trol

Hydrau

lic S

Yaw G

Pitch Ge

Mecha

nica

Main sh

aft an

d bHigh

-spee

Tran

Input Data Case StudyL li d P d i CLevelized Production Costs

M&OFCRICCAEP

M&OFCRICCCoENet

+×=

year)per(%RateChargeFixedFCRkWh)per (costsEnergy ofCost CoE

==

year)per(kWhProductionEnergyAnnualAEPyear)per (costs costs eMaintenanc & Operations M&O

year)per (%RateChargeFixed FCR

==

=

year)per (kWh ProductionEnergy Annual AEP Net =

Example Results• 100 WTGs in “benign” climate, located close to shore• Comparison of two O&M strategies:

– Onshore based workboats

98

– Onshore based workboats with helicopter support

25000000

94

95

96

97

ty (%

)

– Used to analyze the impact and suitability of different O&M strategies for offshore wind farmsC l i hi hl j t d d t

15000000

20000000

um (£

) Optimal range

90

91

92

93

Avai

labi

lit

Onshore BasedWorkboats

Onshore Based with

– Conclusions highly project dependent

5000000

10000000

Cost

/ A

nnu

OBW - Direct O&M CostsOBW - Lost ProductionOBW Total CostOBHS - Direct CostsOBHS Lost Production

88

89

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Number of Crews

Helicopter Support

00 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Number of Crews

OBHS - Lost ProductionOBHS - Total Cost

Example Results

Reduced Failure Rates (50%):Effect on Annual Energy Production (AEP)

101.0%

99.5%

100.0%

100.5%

AEP

ratio

99.0%

ontro

l Sys

temow

er Elec

trics

aulic

Service

sYaw

Sys

temPitc

h sys

tem

Gearbo

xGen

erator

Trans

former

and b

earin

gs

Blade

Hubh-s

peed

shaft

hanic

al Brak

e

Tower

Con PowHyd

rau

Y P TMain

shaft

an

High-

Mecha

Example Results

Reduced Failure Rates (50%):Effect on Direct O&M Costs

100.5%101.0%

tio

98.5%99.0%99.5%

100.0%00 5%

O&

M c

osts

ra

98.0%

Contro

l Sys

temow

er Elec

trics

aulic

Service

sYaw

Sys

temPitc

h sys

tem

Gearbo

xGen

erator

Trans

former

and b

earin

gs

Blade

Hubh-s

peed

shaft

chan

ical B

rake

Tower

O

Con PowHyd

rau P

Main sh

aft a

High

Mech

Example Results

Reduced Failure Rates (50%):Effect on Cost of Energy

99 6%

99.8%

100.0%

of e

nerg

y

99.2%

99.4%

99.6%

elat

ive

cost

o

99.0%

ntrol

System

wer Ele

ctrics

ulic S

ervice

sYaw

Sys

temPitc

h sys

tem

Gearbo

xGen

erator

Transfo

rmer

and b

earin

gsBlad

e

Hubsp

eed s

haft

anica

l Brak

eTow

er

Re

Cont

Powe

Hydra

ul Ya Pi Tr

Main sh

aft an

High-s

Mecha

n

Example Results

Reduced Failure Rates (50%):Saved revenue losses and O&M costs have been capitalized and

compared with the initial capital costs for the component

costs capital initialcosts saved ratio =

250%

apita

l cos

ts

p p p

50%100%150%200%

sts/

initi

al c

a

0%

trol S

ystem

erElec

trics

lic Serv

ices

Yaw Sys

temitc

h sys

tem

Gearbo

xGen

erator

ransfo

rmer

nd be

aring

sBlad

eHub

peed

shaft

nical

Brake

Tower

io s

aved

co

Contro

Power

Hydrau

lic Yaw Pitc G Tra

Main sh

aft an

d

High-sp

Mecha

nic

Rat

Example Results

Reduced Failure Rates (50%):Further breakdown of pitch system, contribution to plant

capital cost

2.0%

2.5%

apita

l cos

ts

capital cost

1 0%

1.5%

tion

to p

lant

ca

0.5%

1.0%

tive

cont

ribut

0.0%Pitch Bearing Pitch Motor Pitch Local

ControlPitch System

Back UpSlip ringR

elat

Example Results

Reduced Failure Rates (50%):Further breakdown of pitch system, ratio of saved capital

costs over initial capital cost

100%

120%

cost

s

costs ove t a cap ta cost

Capital cost ratio

60%

80%

100%

s/in

itial

cap

ital Capital cost ratio

for complete pitch system: 19%

20%

40%

tio s

aved

cos

ts

0%Pitch Bearing Pitch Motor Pitch Local

ControlPitch System

Back UpSlip ring

Rat

Concluding Remarks

• It has been shown that reliability analysis and modelling of O&M can be used in an integrated design approach to

ti i th i f i d t bi d ioptimize the economics of a wind turbine design.

O&M l i i i t t i i ti l i k• O&M analysis is important in assessing operational risk of offshore wind projects. O2M software is a good tool for evaluating the cost benefit of various O&M

• Method is also applicable to the optimization of onshore

strategies.

Method is also applicable to the optimization of onshore designs.

Thank you!

For more informationl t tplease contact:

Benjamin BellGarrad Hassan America, Inc.45 M i St t S it 30245 Main Street, Suite 302Peterborough, NH [email protected] @gwww.garradhassan.com

wind turbine reliability: a view from the...

Documents