From icing loss to production loss - a comprehensive comparison of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

from icing loss to production loss
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

From icing loss to production loss - a comprehensive comparison of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

From icing loss to production loss - a comprehensive comparison of todays tools (in Sweden) Daniel Lindholm (presenter), Morten Thgersen, Henrik Sundgaard Pedersen, Wiebke Langereder 06-02-2018 Background Purpose of presentation Most


slide-1
SLIDE 1

From icing loss to production loss -

a comprehensive comparison of today´s tools (in Sweden)

06-02-2018

Daniel Lindholm (presenter), Morten Thøgersen, Henrik Sundgaard Pedersen, Wiebke Langereder

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Background

  • Most presentations focus on this:

Purpose of presentation

2 06-02-2018

Today, Im going to talk about this:

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Limitations

  • Compare the different methods on the same location
  • Create a basis for expected differences and

uncertainties in pre construction situations Goal of the Presentation

3 06-02-2018

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Available methods

  • IEA icing classification
  • “Fiddle factor” estimate
  • Kjeller Vindteknikks icing map
  • DNV/GL Ice map.
  • WIceAtlas map

In this presentation the following methods were observed:

4 06-02-2018

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Model description

  • Presents icing in five

different classes IEA icing classification

5 06-02-2018

  • Overlapping Classes

and “unusable” range

  • f expected losses

Challenges

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Model description

  • Uses a factor on the observed icing to

present icing loss

  • Examples have been seen varying from

0,25-0,5

“Fiddle factor”

6 06-02-2018

Challenges

  • Result highly dependent on the factor

chosen

  • “Based on experience” is a rather vague

argument

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Model description

Kjeller Vindteknikks icing map

7 06-02-2018

  • Presents icing as number of icing

hours per year which is converted to production loss.

  • Low Resolution and inability to

capture local “coldspots”

  • Estimates presented in a range

Challenges

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Model description

DNV/GL map

8 06-02-2018

  • Presents icing as a fixed

number, based on production data and the relationship between hub height elevation and ice loss

  • Questions related to the

second trend (not implemented in the current ice map) Challenges

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Model description

WIceAtlas map (honorable mention)

9 06-02-2018

  • Presents results as different

IEA ice classes

  • Hard (as in not really

possible) to convert to a single value Challenges

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Methodology

  • Flagging system based on difference in ΔV between fully heated and shaft heated

anemometer as well as instrumental stand-still during icing season

  • Period assumed to start 30 minutes before and after each flagged period
  • Only one winter season is taken into account
  • Multiple winters are split and treated separately
  • Mean value from Kjeller Vindteknikk map ranges used
  • No consideration taken in regards to proximity to nearby areas (KVT)
  • Single value obtained from the IEA relationship between instrumental icing and

production loss

  • “Fiddle factor” of 0,4 used for presentation
  • All instrumental icing Long term corrected with seasonal Icing index
  • Only masts between 85-100m used for evaluation
  • Only Thies first class shaft heated anemometers used for evaluation

Assumptions and methodology

10 06-02-2018

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Results

Examples of Inter annual difference in instrumental icing

11 06-02-2018

Before seasonal index correction After seasonal index correction

Instrumental icing % Instrumental icing %

2 4 6 8 10 12 Mast 1 Mast 2 Mast 3 Mast 4 Mast5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mast 1 Mast 2 Mast 3 Mast 4 Mast5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Results

Difference of expected long term production loss

12 06-02-2018

Production loss %

2 4 6 8 10 12

Resulting production loss estimates for the four models for 10 sites and 16 different seasons

FF 0,4 KVT IEA DNV/GL ICE

1A 1B 2 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 5A 5B 6 7 8 9 10

Mast Name

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Results

Difference of expected long term production loss

13 06-02-2018

  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1 2 3 4 5 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

% Production loss difference

Absolute difference to the mean of the four models

FF 0,4 KVT IEA DNV/GL ICE

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Wrap-up

  • Some spread can be observed (and was expected),

but given the strict input procedure, the results are looking promising

  • Using a mean value of all methods is a possible

approach

  • Having one year of measurement as a basis for a icing

loss evaluation increases uncertainty due to inter annual variability What can be learned

14 06-02-2018

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Thank you for listening!

15 06-02-2018

Och håll ut!