Simulating the Dynamics of the CX-100 Wind Turbine Blade: Model Selection Using a Robustness Criterion

Several plausible modeling strategies are available to develop finite element (FE) models of ever-increasingly complex phenomena. Expert judgment is typically used to choose which strategy to employ, while the “best” modeling approach remains unknown. This paper proposes a decision analysis methodology that offers a systematic and rigorous methodology for comparing plausible modeling strategies. The proposed methodology departs from the conventional approach that considers only test-analysis correlation to select the model that provides the highest degree of fidelity-to-data. The novelty of the methodology lies in an exploration of the trade-offs between robustness to uncertainty and fidelity-to-data. Exploring robustness to model imprecision and inexactness, in addition to fidelity-to-data, lends credibility to the simulation by guaranteeing that its predictions can be trusted even if some of the modeling assumptions and input parameters are incorrect. To demonstrate this approach, an experimental configuration is analyzed in which large masses are used to load the CX-100 wind turbine blade in bending during vibration testing. Two plausible simulations are developed with differing strategies to implement these large masses using (i) a combination of point-mass and spring elements or (ii) solid elements. In this paper, the authors study the ability of the two FE models to predict the experimentally obtained natural frequencies, and the robustness of these competing models to uncertainties in the input parameters. Considering robustness for model selection provides the extent to which prediction accuracy deteriorates as the lack-of-knowledge increases. Therefore, the preferable modeling strategy is the one that offers the best compromise between fidelity-to-data and robustness to uncertainty. To predict the bending vibration of the CX-100 wind turbine blade, it is observed that the modeling strategy with solid elements is far superior to the other one in its ability to provide a compromise between fidelity-to-data and robustness to the modeling assumptions.

[1]  James O. Berger,et al.  Objective Bayesian Methods for Model Selection: Introduction and Comparison , 2001 .

[2]  Gyuhae Park,et al.  Full-scale fatigue tests of CX-100 wind turbine blades. Part I: testing , 2012, Smart Structures and Materials + Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring.

[3]  Samuel Müller,et al.  Outlier Robust Model Selection in Linear Regression , 2005 .

[4]  Yingning Qiu,et al.  Monitoring wind turbine gearboxes , 2013 .

[5]  D. Posada,et al.  Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of akaike information criterion and bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[6]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Fractional Bayes factors for model comparison , 1995 .

[7]  I. J. Myung,et al.  The Importance of Complexity in Model Selection. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[8]  François M. Hemez,et al.  Simulating the dynamics of wind turbine blades: part I, model development and verification , 2011 .

[9]  F. M. Jensen,et al.  Structural testing and numerical simulation of a 34 m composite wind turbine blade , 2006 .

[10]  Walter Zucchini,et al.  Model Selection , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[11]  James B. Ramsey,et al.  Evaluation of Econometric Models , 1980 .

[12]  François M. Hemez,et al.  Simulating the dynamics of wind turbine blades: part II, model validation and uncertainty quantification , 2013 .

[13]  David Draper,et al.  Assessment and Propagation of Model Uncertainty , 2011 .

[14]  Ola Carlson,et al.  Validation of fixed speed wind turbine dynamic models with measured data , 2007 .

[15]  Scott Cogan,et al.  Reliability of structural dynamic models based on info-gap models , 2002 .

[16]  Sylvain Arlot,et al.  A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection , 2009, 0907.4728.

[17]  S. Larson The shrinkage of the coefficient of multiple correlation. , 1931 .

[18]  Jerald B. Johnson,et al.  Model selection in ecology and evolution. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[19]  J. Berger,et al.  The Intrinsic Bayes Factor for Model Selection and Prediction , 1996 .

[20]  N. Lazar,et al.  Methods and Criteria for Model Selection , 2004 .

[21]  Gabriel Terejanu,et al.  Application of Predictive Model Selection to Coupled Models , 2011, ArXiv.

[22]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit , 2002 .

[23]  Grünwald,et al.  Model Selection Based on Minimum Description Length. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[24]  D. C. Quarton,et al.  The evolution of wind turbine design analysis—a twenty year progress review , 1998 .

[25]  Walter Musial,et al.  Determining equivalent damage loading for full-scale wind turbine blade fatigue tests , 2000 .

[26]  J. Beck,et al.  Model Selection using Response Measurements: Bayesian Probabilistic Approach , 2004 .

[27]  G. Park,et al.  Towards the Experimental Assessment of NLBeam for Modeling Large Deformation Structural Dynamics , 2012 .

[28]  J. Dickey,et al.  Bayesian Decision Theory and the Simplification of Models , 1980 .

[29]  J. Gordon Leishman,et al.  Challenges in modelling the unsteady aerodynamics of wind turbines , 2002 .

[30]  Franklin A. Graybill,et al.  Theory and Application of the Linear Model , 1976 .

[31]  S. Report,et al.  The Sandia 100-meter All-glass Baseline Wind Turbine Blade: SNL100-00 , 2011 .

[32]  J. Gordon Leishman,et al.  Challenges in Modeling the Unsteady Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines , 2002 .

[33]  H. Bozdogan,et al.  Akaike's Information Criterion and Recent Developments in Information Complexity. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[34]  Daniel L. Laird,et al.  Estimation of uncertain material parameters using modal test data , 1998 .

[35]  Wasserman,et al.  Bayesian Model Selection and Model Averaging. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[36]  Gaëtan Kerschen,et al.  Design of Uncertain Prestressed Space Structures: An Info-Gap Approach , 2012 .

[37]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Predicting the output from a complex computer code when fast approximations are available , 2000 .

[38]  Kevin M. Farinholt,et al.  Modal Analysis and SHM Investigation of CX-100 Wind Turbine Blade , 2011 .

[39]  D. Higdon,et al.  Computer Model Calibration Using High-Dimensional Output , 2008 .

[40]  Y. Ben-Haim Info-Gap Decision Theory: Decisions Under Severe Uncertainty , 2006 .

[41]  François M. Hemez,et al.  Robustness, fidelity and prediction-looseness of models , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[42]  R. A. Lebensohn,et al.  A Resource Allocation Framework for Experiment-Based Validation of Numerical Models , 2015 .