Reliability comparison of wind turbines with DFIG and PMG drive trains

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

71 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Modern wind turbines vary greatly in their drive train configurations. With the variety of options available, it can be difficult to determine which type is most suitable for on and offshore applications. A large percentage of modern drive trains consist of either doubly fed induction generators with partially rated converters or permanent magnet generators with fully rated converters. These configurations are the focus of this empirical reliability comparison. The turbine population for this analysis contains over 1800 doubly fed induction generators, partially rated converter wind turbines, and 400 permanent magnet generator fully rated converter wind turbines. The turbines analyzed are identical except for their drive train configurations and are modern MW scale turbines making this population the largest and most modern encountered in the literature review. Results of the analysis include overall failure rates, failure rates per operational year, failure rates per failure mode, and failure rates per failure cost category for the two drive train configurations. These results contribute toward deciding on the most suitable turbine type for a particular site, as well as toward cost of energy comparisons for different drive train types. A comparison between failure rates from this analysis and failure rates from similar analyses is also shown in this paper.

LanguageEnglish
Pages663-670
Number of pages8
JournalIEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion
Volume30
Issue number2
Early online date26 Nov 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2015

Fingerprint

Wind turbines
Turbines
Asynchronous generators
Permanent magnets
Failure modes
Costs

Keywords

  • converter
  • doubly fed induction generator (DFIG)
  • drive train
  • failure mode
  • failure rate
  • fully rated converter (FRC)
  • generator
  • permanent magnet generator (PMG)
  • reliability
  • wind turbines
  • renewable energy

Cite this

@article{e005f3cb785b484bb6ee0cbd805a0b4a,
title = "Reliability comparison of wind turbines with DFIG and PMG drive trains",
abstract = "Modern wind turbines vary greatly in their drive train configurations. With the variety of options available, it can be difficult to determine which type is most suitable for on and offshore applications. A large percentage of modern drive trains consist of either doubly fed induction generators with partially rated converters or permanent magnet generators with fully rated converters. These configurations are the focus of this empirical reliability comparison. The turbine population for this analysis contains over 1800 doubly fed induction generators, partially rated converter wind turbines, and 400 permanent magnet generator fully rated converter wind turbines. The turbines analyzed are identical except for their drive train configurations and are modern MW scale turbines making this population the largest and most modern encountered in the literature review. Results of the analysis include overall failure rates, failure rates per operational year, failure rates per failure mode, and failure rates per failure cost category for the two drive train configurations. These results contribute toward deciding on the most suitable turbine type for a particular site, as well as toward cost of energy comparisons for different drive train types. A comparison between failure rates from this analysis and failure rates from similar analyses is also shown in this paper.",
keywords = "converter, doubly fed induction generator (DFIG), drive train, failure mode, failure rate, fully rated converter (FRC), generator, permanent magnet generator (PMG), reliability, wind turbines, renewable energy",
author = "James Carroll and Alasdair McDonald and David McMillan",
note = "{\circledC} 2015 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1109/TEC.2014.2367243",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "663--670",
journal = "IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion",
issn = "0885-8969",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability comparison of wind turbines with DFIG and PMG drive trains

AU - Carroll, James

AU - McDonald, Alasdair

AU - McMillan, David

N1 - © 2015 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.

PY - 2015/6/1

Y1 - 2015/6/1

N2 - Modern wind turbines vary greatly in their drive train configurations. With the variety of options available, it can be difficult to determine which type is most suitable for on and offshore applications. A large percentage of modern drive trains consist of either doubly fed induction generators with partially rated converters or permanent magnet generators with fully rated converters. These configurations are the focus of this empirical reliability comparison. The turbine population for this analysis contains over 1800 doubly fed induction generators, partially rated converter wind turbines, and 400 permanent magnet generator fully rated converter wind turbines. The turbines analyzed are identical except for their drive train configurations and are modern MW scale turbines making this population the largest and most modern encountered in the literature review. Results of the analysis include overall failure rates, failure rates per operational year, failure rates per failure mode, and failure rates per failure cost category for the two drive train configurations. These results contribute toward deciding on the most suitable turbine type for a particular site, as well as toward cost of energy comparisons for different drive train types. A comparison between failure rates from this analysis and failure rates from similar analyses is also shown in this paper.

AB - Modern wind turbines vary greatly in their drive train configurations. With the variety of options available, it can be difficult to determine which type is most suitable for on and offshore applications. A large percentage of modern drive trains consist of either doubly fed induction generators with partially rated converters or permanent magnet generators with fully rated converters. These configurations are the focus of this empirical reliability comparison. The turbine population for this analysis contains over 1800 doubly fed induction generators, partially rated converter wind turbines, and 400 permanent magnet generator fully rated converter wind turbines. The turbines analyzed are identical except for their drive train configurations and are modern MW scale turbines making this population the largest and most modern encountered in the literature review. Results of the analysis include overall failure rates, failure rates per operational year, failure rates per failure mode, and failure rates per failure cost category for the two drive train configurations. These results contribute toward deciding on the most suitable turbine type for a particular site, as well as toward cost of energy comparisons for different drive train types. A comparison between failure rates from this analysis and failure rates from similar analyses is also shown in this paper.

KW - converter

KW - doubly fed induction generator (DFIG)

KW - drive train

KW - failure mode

KW - failure rate

KW - fully rated converter (FRC)

KW - generator

KW - permanent magnet generator (PMG)

KW - reliability

KW - wind turbines

KW - renewable energy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930196906&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1109/TEC.2014.2367243

DO - 10.1109/TEC.2014.2367243

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 663

EP - 670

JO - IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion

T2 - IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion

JF - IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion

SN - 0885-8969

IS - 2

ER -