Practical Aspects of Dynamic Substructuring in Wind Turbine Engineering

  • S. N. Voormeeren
  • P. L. C. van der Valk
  • D. J. Rixen
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)


In modern day society concern is growing about the use of fossil fuels to meet our constantly rising energy demands. Although wind energy certainly has the potential to play a significant role in a sustainable future world energy supply, a number of challenges are still to be met in wind turbine technology. One of those challenges concerns the correct determination of dynamic loads caused by structural vibrations of the individual turbine components (such as rotor blades, gearbox and tower). Thorough understanding of these loads is a prerequisite to further increase the overall reliability of a wind turbine. Hence, improved insight in the component structural dynamics could eventually lead to more cost-effective wind turbines. This paper addresses the use of dynamic substructuring (DS) as an analysis tool in wind turbine engineering. The benefits of a component-wise approach to structural dynamic analysis are illustrated, as well as a number of practical issues that need to be tackled for successful application of substructuring techniques in an engineering setting. Special attention is paid to the modeling of interfaces between components. The potential of the proposed approach is illustrated by a DS analysis on a Siemens SWT-2.3-93 turbine yaw system.


Wind Turbine Reduction Basis Boolean Matrix Modal Assurance Criterion Rigid Body Mode 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen, M., and Mayes, R. Comparison of FRF and Modal Methods for Combining Experimental and Analytical Substructures. In Proceedings of the Twentyfifth International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL (Bethel, CT, 2007), Society for Experimental Mechanics.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balm`es, E. Use of generalized interface degrees of freedom in component mode synthesis. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Modal Analysis Conference, Dearborn, MI (February 1996).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balm`es, E., Bianchi, J., and Lecl`ere, J. Structural Dynamics Toolbox - User’s Guide Version 6.1. Paris, France, August 2008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernardi, C., Maday, Y., and Patera, T. A new non conforming approach to domain decomposition: the Mortar Element Method. In Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations and their Applications, H. Brezis and J. Lions, Eds. Pitman, London, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craig, R. Coupling of Substructures for Dynamic Analyses – An Overview. In Proceedings of AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and Exhibit (April 2000), pp. 1573–1584.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Craig, R., and Bampton, M. Coupling of Substructures for Dynamic Analysis. AIAA Journal 6, 7 (1968), 1313 1319.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Craig, R., and Chang, C. A review of substructure coupling methods for dynamic analysis. NASA. Langley Res. Center Advan. in Eng. Sci. 2, CR-2781 (1976), 393–408.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Klerk, D., Rixen, D., and Voormeeren, S. General Framework for Dynamic Substructuring: History, Review and Classification of Techniques. AIAA Journal 46, 5 (May 2008), 1169–1181.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Klerk, D., Rixen, D., Voormeeren, S., and Pasteuning, F. Solving the RDoF Problem in Experimental Dynamic Substructuring. In Proceedings of the Twenty Sixth International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL (Bethel, CT, February 2008), Society for Experimental Mechanics. Paper no. 129.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duncan, W. The admittance method for obtaining the natural frequencies of systems. Philosophical Magazine 32 (1941), 401–409.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guyan, R. Reduction of Stiffness and Mass Matrices. AIAA Journal 3 (February 1965), 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO. ISO 6336–1: Calculation of load capacity of spur and helical gears – Part 1: Basic principles, introduction and general influence factors, second ed. Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Junge, M., Brunner, D., Becker, J., and Gaul, L. Interface-reduction for the CraigBampton and Rubin method applied to FEBE coupling with a large fluidstructure interface. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 77 (2009), 1731–1752.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kubur, M., Kahraman, A., Zini, D. M., and Kienzle, K. Dynamic Analysis of a Multi-Shaft Helical Gear Transmission by Finite Elements: Model and Experiment. Journal of Vibrations and Acoustics 126 (July 2004), 398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacNeal, R. A Hybrid Method of Component Mode Synthesis. Computers & Structures 1, 4 (1971), 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mayes, R., and Stasiunas, E. Combining Lightly Damped Experimental Substructures with Analytical Substructures. In Proceedings of the Twentyfifth International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL (Bethel, CT, 2007), Society for Experimental Mechanics.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Callahan, J., Avitabile, P., and Riemer, R. System Equivelant Reduction Expansion Process (SEREP). In Proceedings of the Seven International Modal Analysis Conference, Las Vegas, NV (Bethel, CT, February 1989), Society for Experimental Mechanics, pp. 29–37.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Passon, P., K¨uhn, M., Butterfield, S., Jonkman, J., Camp, T., and Larsen, T. OC3-Benchmark Exercise of Aero-elastic Offshore Wind Turbine Codes. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 75 (2007), 1–12.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peeters, J., Vandepitte, D., and Sas, P. Analysis of internal drive train dynamics in a wind turbine. Wind Energy 9 (2006), 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rixen, D. J. Substructuring and Dual Methods in Structural Analysis. PhD thesis, Universit´e de Li`ege, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rixen, D. J. A dual Craig-Bampton method for dynamic substructuring. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 168 (2004), 383–391.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rubin, S. Improved Component-Mode Representation for Structural Dynamic Analysis. AIAA Journal 13 (1975), 995–1006.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sofrin, T. The combination of dynamical systems. Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences 13, 6 (1946), 281–288.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tran, D.-M. Component Mode Synthesis Methods Using Interface Modes: Application to Structures with Cyclic Symmetry. Computers & Structures 79 (2001), 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Witteveen, W., and Irschik, H. Efficient modal formulation for vibration analysis of solid structures with bolted joints. In Proceedings of the Twenty Fifth International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL (Bethel, CT, February 2007), Society for Experimental Mechanics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. N. Voormeeren
    • 1
  • P. L. C. van der Valk
    • 1
  • D. J. Rixen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Precision and Microsystem Engineering, section Engineering DynamicsDelft University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials EngineeringDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations