[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

Go to multi-category search »


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Samso turbine collapse: Siemens updates inspection plan  

Credit:  By Sara Knight | Windpower Monthly | 12 February 2016 | www.windpowermonthly.com ~~

EUROPE: But questions remain over who pays for the additional inspections required following the failure of a Bonus turbine at the Danish Paludan Flaks offshore project in November.

Catastrophic failure is widely defined as the complete, sudden, often unexpected breakdown in a machine or other system. This winter, there have been four such events reported across the wind industry.

With regular wind turbine service and maintenance and the possibility of sophisticated condition monitoring, how is such an embarrassing failure – appearing as it seems out of the blue – still possible?

At Paludan Flaks, the answer is still not clear.

On 28 November 2015, one of ten Bonus Energy 2.3MW turbines at the 14-year-old Paludan Flaks offshore wind project near the Danish island of Samso suffered a catastrophic failure; the nacelle and blades broke off and fell into the sea.

The wind park owners – a group of municipalites and investors – are still negotiating over the consequences with German industry giant Siemens, which has the service contract for the Paludan Flak wind farm.

Siemens acquired Danish turbine manufacturer Bonus Energy in 2004 and so too the service contracts.

The spokesman for Paludan Flaks, Jorgen Tranberg, told Windpower Monthly this week: “I cannot comment on the situation because Siemens insisted on a non-disclosure agreement before it would begin negotiations with us on how the problems at the wind park will be solved.”

For its part, Siemens declined to comment on who will pay for the lost electricity output of the destroyed turbine.

Whether the destroyed turbine will be replaced and if the tower can be re-used “is currently under clarification together with the customer”, the German manufacturer said.

The remaining nine Bonus 2.3MW turbines at Paludan Flaks were inspected shortly after the incident, found to have no defects, and have been producing since, Siemens continued.

Siemens and the Secretariat for the Danish Wind Turbine Certification Scheme agreed that regular checks on the remaining turbines will be performed once a month until further notice, in line with the “Technical certification scheme for design, manufacture, installation, maintenance and service of wind turbines”. But who pays for the extra inspections is also not clear.
Investigations ongoing

Technical investigations are still underway into the root cause of the failure at Paludan Flak.

“Investigations so far have concluded that the tower top flange welding-geometry is not optimal, but it can’t be ruled out that the turbine was affected by abnormal load conditions causing the crack in the tower to occur,” Siemens said in early February.

An issue with the top-flange on Bonus machines was first identified in 2003 at an undislosed site with extremely high and turbulent wind conditions.

This led, “after a thorough technical assessment”, to a general update of the design of the top-flange configuration for new installations as well as a retrofit programme for already installed turbines depending on site specific assessment.

In this connection the Paludan Flaks wind farm was assessed as not being affected, Siemens said.

But after identification of a crack in the tower top flange weld of a 1.3MW Bonus turbine in January 2016, Siemens re-assessed the 2003 retrofit criteria using a more advanced calculation model – this assessment is still on going, the company added.

Under the review, Siemens launched an inspection campaign of about 750 Bonus turbines to ensure the potential risk is controlled, the company continued, without divulging the locations of these turbines.

The tower top flange is inspected visually by the local service staff operating the turbines, the company said.

“It is not a major task and can be done quickly,” said a spokeswoman for Siemens, declining to comment on the cost involved.
Similar problems

Why the company did not react earlier – in view of the small outlay in time and effort for inspection, and experience with issues of the tower top flange retrofit dating back as far as 2003 – to amend other turbines with the same problem and prevent such potentially image-damaging catastrophic failure is not clear.

An incident at the Smola wind park in Norway also gave the company some experience in the issues.

In October 2011, Statkraft technicians who performed the wind park O&M noted a noise problem at Smola phase 1 comprising twenty 2MW Bonus machines, commissioned in 2002.

During additional inspections they discovered a crack in the tower top of one turbine and closed it down. Five of the other turbines were also badly damaged, and had to be repaired.

The repairs were carried out by Statkraft in cooperation with Siemens, said Statkraft’s vice president communications wind power and technologies Torbjorn Steen, in February.

Why the Smola incident did not trigger wider action by Siemens at that time is not clear.

Also in November 2015, the rotor fell off a Repower MD77-1500kW turbine in France. And in December, a Vestas V112-3MW turbine collapsed in Sweden, and a Suzlon S95-2.1MW turbine tower collapsed in Brazil.

None of the incidents resulted in injury.

Source:  By Sara Knight | Windpower Monthly | 12 February 2016 | www.windpowermonthly.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments to query/wind-watch.org.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.