OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

Similar documents
The impact of different means of transport on the operation and maintenance strategy for offshore wind farms

Analysis of different means of transport in the operation and maintenance strategy for the reference DOWEC offshore wind farm

V MW Offshore leadership

Performance Evaluation of the Wavestar Prototype

That is why. April 24, 2008

Offshore Service Vessels for Wind Farming. BALTEXPO 2011, September 2011

Offshore wind power in the Baltic sea

V MW Versatile megawattage

COMPARISON OF FIXED & VARIABLE RATES (25 YEARS) CHARTERED BANK ADMINISTERED INTEREST RATES - PRIME BUSINESS*

OFFSHORE WIND: A CRASH COURSE

Modelling the Impact of the Environment on Offshore Wind Turbine Failure Rates

V MW. Exceptional performance and reliability at high-wind-speed sites. vestas.com

System Performance, Availability and Reliability Trend Analysis Portfolio Review 2016

Wind Turbine Shuttle. Ferdinand van Heerd

THE HORNS REV WIND FARM AND THE OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE WIND FARM MAIN CONTROLLER

Farm Energy IQ. Wind Energy on Farms. Objectives of this Module. How windy is it? How windy is it? How windy is it? 2/16/2015

Offshore Wind Energy Potential for the United States

Analysis of Wind and Wave Data to Assess Maintenance Access to Offshore Wind Farms

Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Program and Test Pad Sites

Wind farm performance

Compiled by Uwe Dornbusch. Edited by Cherith Moses

FAQ MOTS (Momac-Offshore-Transfer-System):

Alstom Ocean Energy Path towards Industrailsation. Ken Street 18 th April 2013

OFFSHORE WIND ACCELERATOR (OWA) Access Competition. Competition Overview and Technical Specification

Yawing and performance of an offshore wind farm

Yawing and performance of an offshore wind farm

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Wind Resource Data Summary Guam Naval Ordnance Annex Data Summary and Retrieval for November 2009

2018 HR & PAYROLL Deadlines

TOPICS TO BE COVERED

WIND TURBINE SHUTTLE HUISMAN PRODUCT BROCHURE

Expertise, Innovation and reduction of cost of energy: Vestas experience

Wind Energy Technology. What works & what doesn t

Farm Energy IQ. Farms Today Securing Our Energy Future. Wind Energy on Farms

LECTURE 18 WIND POWER SYSTEMS. ECE 371 Sustainable Energy Systems

Hydraulics and Maritime Research Centre, University College Cork, Pouladuff Road, Togher, Cork, Ireland

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN WIND TURBINE TURBULENCE AND PITCH FAILURE

Wind Resource Assessment for SAINT PAUL, ALASKA

WindPRO version Jan 2011 Printed/Page :55 / 1. SHADOW - Main Result

WAVE HUB. Dr Mike Patching. A Future for Wave Energy in Cornwall. BEng, PhD, CEng, MEI

Control Strategies for operation of pitch regulated turbines above cut-out wind speeds

Vestas Cold Climate Solutions and next stepsclimate Offerings

Hywind. Deep offshore wind operational experience. Finn Gunnar Nielsen, Statoil RDI

Wind Resource Assessment for DEADHORSE, ALASKA

Upgrading Vestas V47-660kW

Energy Output. Outline. Characterizing Wind Variability. Characterizing Wind Variability 3/7/2015. for Wind Power Management

The WindFloat Project. Hamburg, September 2016

A2SEA corporate presentation. Søren Rønnow Poulsen Key Account Manager, Scandinacia & Baltic

Maintenance Forecast Summary

International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development

Methods for Using Operational Experience for Optimizing O&M of Offshore Wind Farms MSc thesis

Norway s solution: Hywind- world s first full scale floating turbine Dr. Nenad Keseric Asset Manager/Specialist Statoil ASA MPR RE Operations

Nordel GRID DISTURBANCE AND FAULT STATISTICS

Examining the merits of jack up platforms as foundations for the offshore wind industry

Comparison of Wind Turbines Regarding their Energy Generation.

2MW baseline wind turbine: model development and verification (WP1) The University of Tokyo & Hitachi, Ltd.

SWISS Traffic Figures May 2004

Small Scale Wind Technologies Part 2. Centre for Renewable Energy at Dundalk IT CREDIT

Anchor operations for Jack-up barge in offshore wind farms during service Customers perspective

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS OF BARGE FLOATER WITH MOONPOOL FOR 5 MW WIND TURBINE

Wind Resource Assessment for CHEFORNAK, ALASKA

Planning of Drilling Operations in Extreme Ocean Currents

NORCOWE met-ocean measurement campaigns

WAVE FORECASTING FOR OFFSHORE WIND FARMS

Hydrodynamic Analysis of a Heavy Lift Vessel during Offshore Installation Operations

Adaptation to climate variation in a diversified fishery:

Report. User guide for the NOWIcob tool (D5.1-75) Author(s) Matthias Hofmann Iver Bakken Sperstad Magne Kolstad

The Wind Observation on the Pacific Ocean for Offshore Wind Farm

Implementation of an Asset Management Software for Proactive Management and Optimization of the Collection System Rehabilitation and Renewal Program

Wind Resource Assessment for NOME (ANVIL MOUNTAIN), ALASKA Date last modified: 5/22/06 Compiled by: Cliff Dolchok

CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR LARGE WIND TURBINE APPLICATIONS

Short-Term Transit Ridership and Revenue Forecasting

Wind Resource Assessment for KING SALMON, ALASKA

OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY POTENTIAL ALONG INDIAN COAST

Wind Data Verification Report Arriga 50m

NORCOWE Reference Wind Farm

Wind Energy 101 for Southeastern Policy Makers Overview of Wind Energy Development and Potential in the US

Report. User guide for version 3.3 of the NOWIcob tool. NOWITECH deliverable DB.1-25

Kodiak, Alaska Site 1 Wind Resource Report for Kodiak Electric Association

REMOTE SENSING APPLICATION in WIND ENERGY

Increased Project Bankability : Thailand's First Ground-Based LiDAR Wind Measurement Campaign

A NOVEL FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE CONCEPT: NEW DEVELOPMENTS

Wake measurements from the Horns Rev wind farm

Vestas Service Value Proposition

WESEP 594 Research Seminar

Rural Small Wind Energy:

Innovative and Robust Design. With Full Extension of Offshore Engineering and Design Experiences.

The Criticality of Cooling

General Specification. V MW 60 Hz OptiSlip Wind Turbine. Item no R3 Class 1

OCEAN2012 Fish Dependence Day - UK

Lopez Community Land Trust. Final Wind Energy Report

Assessment and operation of Wind Turbine Installation Vessels.

How Does A Wind Turbine's Energy Production Differ from Its Power Production? 1

USING A COLLISION RISK MODEL TO ASSESS BIRD COLLISION RISKS FOR OFFSHORE WINDFARMS WITH EXTENDED METHOD

Wind Mills of the Mind Delivering large scale offshore wind. Andy Kinsella CEO, Offshore November 24th, 2011, Dundalk

Rural Energy Conference Planning the Construction of Lake Dorothy Hydro By Tim McLeod President Alaska Electric Light and Power

windnavigator Site Analyst Report

Computationally Efficient Determination of Long Term Extreme Out-of-Plane Loads for Offshore Turbines

Comparing the calculated coefficients of performance of a class of wind turbines that produce power between 330 kw and 7,500 kw

Heron s Application for Wind Industry - Gorillas Need Not Apply

OFFSHORE WIND Kosten heute und morgen welche Potentiale zur Kostensenkung gibt es

Transcription:

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE Gerard van Bussel section Wind Energy Typical contribution to energy cost O & M 23% Decommissioning 3% Investment 74% O & M 25-30% Investment & Decommissioning ~ 75 % Opti-OWECS study (1998) CA-OWEE (2001) 1

Maintenance Concepts maintenance corrective maintenance repair preventive maintenance service batch wise corrective maintenance corrective maintenance on demand periodic preventive maintenance condition based maintenance opportunity based calendar based condition judging condition monitoring Failure frequencies 500kW class Tacke TW600 Enercon 40 Vestas V39/500 number of turbines 25 26 59 events/year events/year events/year Lightning 0 0.03 0 Blade 0.76 0.42 0.32 Rotor Brake 0 0 0 Pitch Mechanism 0 0.30 0.03 Brake 0.08 0 0 Shaft/Bearing 0.04 0.03 0 Gearbox 0.16 0 0.03 Generator 0 0.03 0.33 Hydraulic 0.32 0 0.27 Yaw System 0.32 0.23 0.08 Anemometry 0 0 0.01 Electronics 0.04 0.42 0.33 Electric 0.20 0.69 0.30 Inverter 0 0 0 Sensors 0.08 0.07 0.18 Other 0.20 0.38 0.37 Overall Total 2.2 2.6 2.25 Failure frequencies 2.2 2.6 2.25 For larger machines (onshore) => 2.2 /year 2

Failure frequencies multi MWW class Component Failure frequency (failures/year) Shaft & Bearings 0.02 Brake 0.05 Generator 0.05 Parking Brake 0.05 Electric 0.14 Blade 0.16 Yaw System 0.23 Blade tips 0.28 Pitch Mechanism 0.28 Gearbox 0.30 Inverter 0.32 Control 0.34 Total 2.20 Total of all components: 2.20 failures/year Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Serviceability reliability (failures/year) maintainability (MTTR) serviceability (PM demand) accessibility of the site theoretical availability maintenance strategy actual availability 3

state running A measure for availability failed MTTR MTTF Mean Time To Repair Mean Time To Failure Availability = MTTF MTTR + MTTF time Experienced Availability Tuno Knob (inshore, Denmark) 97% Tuno Knob availability 100.00% 100.00% 98.00% 98.00% 96.00% 96.00% 94.00% 94.00% 92.00% 92.00% 90.00% 90.00% 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 4

Present maintenance demand 4 Visits per turbine per year 3 2 1 0 Unplanned Planned Accessibility of site (Vessel) Vindeby DK inshore Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Total Nominal 23 21 20 22 20 22 19 19 21 23 210 Working Days Bad Weather 1 1 0 2 4 5 4 0 0 0 17 (Days) Bad Weather 5 2 2 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 18 (o.5 Day) Lack of 0 2 0 0 1.5 4 6 1 0 0 14.5 Transport Inaccessible 3.5 4 1 4 6 10.5 10.5 1 0 0 40.5 Days % Total Time 15.2 19 5 18.2 30 47.7 55.3 5.3 0 0 19.3 5

Accessibility of site (Vessel) Horns Rev (near shore, North Sea) Vindeby (inshore, Denmark) Horns Rev versus Vindeby Accessibility 120.00% 100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec Fraction of time 6 hours 12 hours 24 hours Vindeby Means of crew transport Helicopter - fast - expensive - helipad - large operational window Tender vessel - fairly slow - cheap - boat landing -medium window 6

Means of crew transport 2 A tender vessel For crew transport A gol boat Harbour pilots Means of crew transport 3 A tender vessel For crew transport With a Zodiac for landing 7

Means of crew transport 4 With a Zodiac for landing?? Means of crew transport 5 Crew transport by helicopter 8

Trends: Access methods Catamaran landing vessel SWATH@A&R / Abeking &Rasmussen Trends: Access methods Flexible gangway: OAS: P&R systems / Reinout Prins 9

Trends: Access methods Flexible gangway Flexible gangway OAS: P&R systems / Reinout Prins Trends: Access methods Ampelmann 10

Cost comparison transport Vessel/Helicopter Costs [euro] 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2 MW Wind turbine farm 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Distance Mantenance base to offshore wind farm [km] Vessel Helicopter Vessel+Downtime Heli+Downtime Experiences in the real world Maintaining Horns Rev: Access by boat: Winter 02/03: 5/7 days» Winter 03/04: 1/7 days Helicopter: 6/7 days Vestas responsible for crew (60 people) Elsam for transport (6 people) 75.000 transfers in 1.5 years (2 x /day/turbine) 11

Experiences in the real world Maintaining Horns Rev: Reasons: Design not well adapted for offshore Strategy not optimal Onshore crew Sophisticated alarms, but what does it mean? Lifting equipment Jack-up barge Crane vessels Helicopter Jack up vessel assisted with built-in facility (in wind turbine) 12

Installation & O&M lifting facilities Jack up vessels Utgrunden Wind farm, Sweden A2Sea Ocean Hanne at Horns Rev Denmark Installation and O&M lifting facilities Jack up vessels A2Sea Ocean Hanne at Horns Rev and at Nysted Denmark 13

Trends: Lifting at wind turbine Hoisting outside Picture: Enron (Utgrunden, Sweden) Internal cranes Picture: Nordex N80 Offshore Trends: Installation Ballast-Nedam NEG-Micon Dowec project 14

Maintenance strategies PM and CM on demand (onshore practice) Opportunity based maintenance (PM when CM is demanded) Condition based maintenance (PM and CM only when demanded) No maintenance/ batch maintenance Maintenance strategies PM and CM on demand (reduced PM demand, increased reliability) Opportunity based maintenance (flexible PM interval, increased reliability) Condition based maintenance (extensive condition monitoring) No maintenance/ batch maintenance (only feasible when failure freq. < 0.2 /year) 15

Importance of Reliability and Accessibility 100% Availability 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 100 % (onshore) 80 % (nearshore) 60 % (offshore) Accessibility 40 % (remote offshore) Reliability highly improved improved onshore design Importance of (improved) Reliability 100% Availability 90% 80% 70% 60% Offshore designed Offshore adapted 50% 100 % (onshore) 80 % 60 % (near shore) (offshore) Vessel accessibility 40 % (remote offshore) Tuno & Vindeby (DK inshore) Horns Rev (North Sea) 16

Assessing reliability, availability and O&M in the design process Design evaluation Conceptual design Feasibility study RAMS targets on system level RAMS targets sub-system level RAMS targets on component level Waiting time analysis Expert system approach Monte Carlo Simulations Final design Systems specification RAMS targets sub-component level Full FMECA analysis Probabilistic Waiting time analysis Time To Repair IJmuiden Munitie Stortplaats Chance [%] CDF 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% T_mission: 24 h 50% 40% T_mission: 72 h 30% 20% T_mission: 168 h 10% 0% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 time [hrs] ECN/ Luc Rademakers Time [hrs] 17

Trend lines in expert system Availability [%] Availability as Function of Maximum (onshore) Availability and Storm Percentage 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Max.availability 99.0 % 98.0 % 97.0 % Symbols: simulations 50 100 150 No access percentage Monte Carlo simulations Analysis of complex stochastic processes Failure simulation of wind turbines Storm simulation for OWECS accessibility Availability estimates for OWECS O&M costs estimates for OWECS 18

FMECA: Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis systematic brake down of: - functional components - hardware component analysis of: - effects of all kinds of failures upon functioning - criticality of failure (how does failure affect costs/environment) Reliability vs. turbine design Turbine design gets more complex: Three bladed, variable speed pitch control Doubly fed generators, Inverters BUT Offshore environment demands a robust, lean design: Two blades!? Stall control!?? Low speed or Direct drive generator!? 19

Recent wind turbine failures NEG Micon Yttre Stengrunden V 80 at Tjaereborg Nordex N 80 Blyth offshore Context of the project Consortium of industries and institutes Project: ~ 500 MW offshore wind farm Location: North Sea > 12 mile zone Concepts of 5 MW wind turbines Turbine design for large scale wind farm Assess wind turbine RAMS aspects in the context of the whole wind farm 20

Wind turbine s reliability Yearly failure freq. 2 1 0 Present 500 kw Assumed 1.5-2 MW DOWEC target (5 MW) Reduction of failure frequencies Components factor events/year Electric system 0.7 0.10 Blades 0.7 0.07 / 0.11 Yaw System 0.65 0.15 blade tips 0.5 0.14 Pitch Mechanism 0.5 0.13 / 0.14 Gearbox 0.5 0.13 / 0.15 Inverter 0.5 0.16 Control system 0.5 0.15 / 0.19 21

DOWEC concepts Base line Advanced Robust Stall-teeter Smart stall Direct drive Active Stall Pitch Stall Stall Stall pitch 3 blades 3 blades 2 blades 2 blades 3 blades 3 blades 2 speed Tubular tower Var. speed (30%) Tubular tower Fixed speed Var. speed Tubular tower (full) Truss tower Var. speed (full) Tubular tower Var. speed (full) Tubular tower Piled (tripod) Up wind Piled (tripod) Up wind Monopile Up wind Gravity Down wind (teetered hub) Piled (tripod) Up wind Piled (tripod) Up wind DOWEC concepts: reliability basic control concepts: yearly failure frequencies 1.40 target Cumulative failure frequency 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 Control Inverter Gearbox Pitch Mechanism blade tips Yaw System Blade Electric Brakes Generator Shaft & Bearings 0.00 Base Line Advanced Robust Stallteeter Smartstall Direct drive 22

1 1 DOWEC concepts: failure classes basic control concepts: yearly failure frequencies target Cumulative failure frequency 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 Cat. 4: Small or no parts, 24 hrs Cat. 3: Small parts, 48 hrs Cat. 2: Large components internal crane Cat. 1: Heavy components, external crane 0.00 Base Line Advanced Robust Stallteeter Smartstall Direct drive Numerical Monte Carlo Simulation Site conditions (wind and waves) Failures components of turbine, and wind farm Maintenance strategy - ships and crew - immediate/batch repair - overhaul - stock keeping quantity Quantity of Spare Parts in Stock 25 20 Spare Part 1 15 Spare Part 2 10 Spare Part 3 5 Spare Part 4 0 1231 2461 3691 4921 6151 7381 8611 9841 11071 12301 13531 14761 15991 17221 time [hours] Accumulative Availability of Wind Farm against Time 101.00% 100.00% 99.00% 98.00% 97.00% 96.00% 941 1881 2821 3761 4701 5641 6581 7521 8461 9401 10341 11281 12221 13161 14101 15041 15981 16921 time [hours] turbine 1 Availability of Turbines turbine 2 turbine 3 101.00% turbine 4 100.00% turbine 5 99.00% turbine 6 98.00% turbine 7 97.00% turbine 8 96.00% turbine 9 95.00% turbine 10 94.00% turbine 11 93.00% turbine 12 23

DOWEC 500 MW wind farm 100.00% Accessibility 80 % 2.10E+09 target 95.00% 90.00% 85.00% 80.00% Base Line Advanced Robust Stall-teeter Smart-stall Direct drive 2.00E+09 1.90E+09 1.80E+09 1.70E+09 1.60E+09 Yearly yield [kwh] DOWEC 500 MW wind farm 100.00% Accessibility 60 % 2.10E+09 target 95.00% 90.00% 85.00% 80.00% Base Line Advanced Robust Stall-teeter Smart-stall Direct drive 2.00E+09 1.90E+09 1.80E+09 1.70E+09 1.60E+09 Yearly yield [kwh] 24

DOWEC 500 MW wind farm Yearly O&M costs of wind farm [Euro] Euro 45,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Base Line Advanced Robust Stall-teeter Smart-stall Fixed costs Transport costs Crew costs Cat 4: No parts Direct drive Cat 3: Small parts Cat 2: Large comp. Cat 1: Heavy lift Context of the project Consortium of industries and institutes Project: ~ 500 MW offshore wind farm Location: North Sea > 12 mile zone Concepts of 5 MW wind turbines Turbine design for large scale wind farm Develop optimal crew transport strategy 25

The Target Develop an optimal O&M strategy for crew transport in the DOWEC offshore wind farm 80 * 6 MW wind turbines 43 km off the Dutch coast ( NL7 ) 40 PM operations per year 1.5 failure per year per turbine (120 (averaged) CM operations per year) 1 shift (12h) per 24 hours Access systems considered No Access system Significant wave height [m] Average (1-hour) wind speed [m/s] 1 Fictitious 0.75 N.A. 2 Rubber boat, jump onto 1.5 10 ladder 3 Offshore Access System 2 11.5 (OAS) 4 Offshore Access System 3 15 + (optimistic assumption) 5 Helicopter NA 20 26

Wind & waves from the NESS/NEXT database North European Storm Study consortium of oil companies ( NL7 data made available by Shell) hindcast data wind fields based on pressure data application of wave models verification with measurements 3- hours interval; 30*30 km grid 30 years; 9 years complete (long term correlation of wind and waves) NL7 location + Variables in the NESS/NEXT database Characteristic values for each 3-hour period: V (1-hour) mean wind speed (m/s) at 10 m height θ V wind direction (degrees) H s significant wave height (m) T z mean zero upcrossing period (s) Θ m wave direction (degrees) 9 years of consecutive data 27

pdf From 3 D scatter plot pdf Vw Hs? pdf Tz NEXT database: built-in (long term) correlation between wind and wave data To 2 D relations V Hs 28

NESS/NEXT database relation for NL7 V 25 20 15 10 5 Zodiac OAS+ OAS Helicopter 1 2 3 4 5 Hs Example: Uninterrupted time intervals H s < 1.25 m Weather windows 1 Windows: 6 hours 12 hours 24 hours... hours 29

Weather windows 2 % Percentage 120 100 80 60 40 Heli summer Heli winter OAS+ summer OAS summer OAS+ winter Zodiac summer OAS winter Zodiac winter Fictitious summer Fictitious winter 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Weather window [hours] Weather Window [hours] Availability of the DOWEC wind farm Availability [%] 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 Zodiac OAS+ Heli OAS 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Accessibility [%] [%] 30

Immediate maintenance action Direct action and compltetion % [%] 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Accessibility [%] Accessibility [%] 12 hours 24 hours 48 hours 168 hours 336 hours 12 hours 24 hours 48 hours 168 hours 336 hours 336 Average waiting time Average nr of waiting hours Waiting hours 288 240 192 144 96 48 12 hours 24 hours 48 hours 168 hours 336 hours 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Accessibility [%] [%] 31

CONTOFAX overall results DOWEC reference wind farm: one shift with two crews No Access system Accessibility Availability [%] [%] 1 Fictitious 34 49 2 Rubber boat, jump onto 71 83 ladder 3 Offshore Access System 84 91 4 Offshore Access System+ 95 95 (optimistic assumption) 5 Helicopter 100 96 DOWEC crew transport conclusions Rubber boat landing strategy not feasible OAS wind farm availability > 90% OAS+ availability > 95% OAS+ and heli comparable availability Average waiting time for short maintenance actions (<48h) is limited (10 to 20 h) 32

O&M Conclusions Present wind turbine reliability insufficient Certainly for wind farms at remote sites Different maintenance strategy needed Opportunity based (flexible service intervals) Condition based maintenance High impact of heavy lifting operations on costs Large offshore wind farms need integrated design Wind turbines designed for marine maintenance (and installation!!) operations Special purpose O&M hardware 33