Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90137

MODELLING OF WIND TURBINE FALL-INDUCED VIBRATIONS NEAR BURIED STEEL TRANSMISSION PIPELINES, AN UPDATED RAMCES SOFTWARE EXTENSION
Charles Fernandez , Laurent Bourgouin GDF SUEZ, CRIGEN Innovation and Research Division Mechanics, Materials and Structure dpt. 361 av. Pst Wilson, 93211 Saint-Denis, France 1 Contact Author Frederic Riegert GDF SUEZ, GRTgaz 6 rue Raoul Nordling, 92277 Bois-Colombes Cedex - France Alain Pecker Geodynamique et Structure 157 rue des Blains, 92200 Bagneux, France
1

KEYWORDS Buried transmission steel pipelines, Vibration modelling, Wind Turbine fall, safety distances ABSTRACT At CRIGEN, the GDF SUEZ research center for gas and new energies, a project on risk management on gas infrastructures (MARTHO project) is aimed, among other goals, at protecting the pipelines against external aggressions such as vibrations. Over the past few years, extensive construction of wind turbines has taken place all around the world in areas where many steel pipelines are already buried. The possible fall of these heavy machines may induce damageable vibrations to the pipeline. The common threshold used by the industry, established by the American Gas Association, is stated1 at PPV 50 mm.s-1. A more accurate and less conservative model of vibration propagation has been developed and validated by extensive field measurements coupled with a nonlinear 2D-finite element model for the soil. An experimental soil characterization through MASW tests coupled with vibration measurements was performed in a
1

representative soil. As a result, safety distances between wind turbines and pipelines were considerably shortened compared to the previous model. The updated model is now part of the RAMCES software which has been developed for more than a decade at CRIGEN and is widely used in France by transmission operators. INTRODUCTION In this paper, problems related to damages to buried steel pipelines from impact-induced vibrations are addressed. The impact is due to a hypothetical fall of a wind turbine which is a heavy and tall structure. Over the last decades, that kind of vibration problem has been dealt with in different ways. One could evaluate the stress induced by the propagating waves into the ground or the deformation in the soil and then apply it directly or partially to the pipe with soil/structure interaction laws. One could also use empirical tests to assess directly the pipe integrity. This last approach was chosen by GDF SUEZ and was set in terms of particle velocity. The resulting criterion was defined using the AGA reports on buried explosive detonations ([1], [2]) and the threshold for all diameters, all steel grades and all pressures was set to 50 mm.s-1 (1.97 in.s-1) for the soil particles

PPV stands for Peak Particle Velocity

Copyright 2012 by ASME

immediately near the pipe ([3]). This level of vibration is relatively high compared to the thresholds of vibration usually allowed near aerial constructions; however buried pipelines are robust structures regarding vibrations (robust and elastic material, long linear structures, electric arc welds, etc.). In addition, the particle velocity is a very easy-to-use practicaloriented criterion and that is a useful advantage when applying it in the field. GRTgaz, the GDF SUEZ gas transmission operator, and other transmission operators use the RAMCES software to evaluate the risk induced by hypothetical wind turbine impact on the ground. This software has been developed and maintained by the CRIGEN2. In the previous RAMCES releases (see [4]), the particle velocity evaluation was performed with empirical relations based on dynamic compaction ([5], [6] and [7]) which was considered a relatively similar physical phenomenon to explosive detonations. However, the energy available to the crash on the ground is much higher in the wind turbine case than in the dynamic compaction case. Therefore, a very conservative relation was used when extrapolating the levels of vibration induced by a wind turbine fall with the Mayne relation ([5]) or the Menard relation ([6]). Over the past few years, extensive construction of wind turbines has taken place all around the world in areas where many steel pipelines are already buried in the ground. Consequently, there have been more and more critical locations which needed specific attention. For that reason, it was decided to update the model to get a more accurate and less conservative release of RAMCES so as to reduce the safety distances between wind turbines and pipelines. An attempt to develop a theoretical model was made using basic hypothesis such as propagation in an elastic soil with a Heaviside excitation to model the crash on the ground ([8][10]). On the one hand, this model was updated with measurements of vibrations and complex seismic tests (MASW tests, see [11]) in a real operational field. On the other hand, a nonlinear 2D-finite element model for the soil was used to optimize the parameters for the calibration ([12]-[15]) and take into account a realistic impact model for the falling mass (mainly a craterization phenomenon). The first part deals with the state of the art relations used to estimate the particle velocity in dynamic compaction problems. The second part presents the results of a simplified analytical model of the particle velocity induced by an elastic wave following an impact in an elastic soil. The third part describes the field tests performed to calibrate the computational model presented in the fourth part.

OF THE PARTICLE PREVIOUS ESTIMATION VELOCITY Until recently, the estimation of the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) was performed with the dynamic compaction Mayne relation ([5]) which is written, Eq. 1 ,

where PPVMayne is in mm.s-1, M is the falling mass in kg, H is the height in m and r the distance in m between the falling mass and the point where one wants to estimate the particle velocity. This relation has been established for values of M.H which dont exceed 1000 t.m (where 1 t = 103 kg, the product M.H is homogeneous to an energy divided by g = 9.81 m.s-2, the gravity). The Mayne particle velocity can be compared to the Menard particle velocity, PPVMenard ([6] and [7]) which comes from field observation and is written, Eq. 2 ,

for M.H comprised between 200 and 300 t.m. The wind turbines M.H energies are far greater than 1,000 t.m (closer to 24,000 t.m). The energy dissipation at the impact greatly increases as both the soil yielding and a larger crater appear for heavier masses compared to the masses used in dynamic compaction. In general, the dissipation of energy is greater for important surfaces of impact than small ones. The phenomenon is highly non linear and thus a finite element model had to be used to account for it. Therefore, when extrapolating these relations to wind turbines, the energy dissipation is underestimated and thus the model may be overconservative. The results presented in TABLE 3 and TABLE 4 show it.

FIGURE 1 ILLUSTRATION OF THE PHYSICAL PROBLEM

2 CRIGEN : Center for Research and Innovation on Gas and New Energies

Copyright 2012 by ASME

PARTICLE VELOCITY ANALYTICAL EVALUATION In this part, one presents the hypothesis and the attempted approach to build an analytical model for the evaluation of the particle velocity. The physical problem to model is the impact of a heavy mass in the ground and the induced wave propagations (see FIGURE 1). To begin with, one assumes that the soil is an elastic half-space and that the excitation is a point source modeled by a Heaviside function. The solution of the differential equation for the displacements of the surface in that case was solved by Pekeris ([8]). One can then show that the Rayleigh waves are preponderant compared to the other kind of waves3, their amplitude induces the greater perturbation in the soil in terms of displacement as the graph of the surface vertical displacement from Pekeris shows in FIGURE 2.

TABLE 1 EXAMPLE OF DATA FOR WIND TURBINES Data Value Equivalent radius for the impact 0.5 < r0 < 5 m surface Nacelle mass 25 < M < 70 t Fall height 50 < H < 100 m Soil shear wave velocity 150 < cT < 1000 m.s-1 With the TABLE 1 values and the Gazetas solution for the impedance factors, the absolute value of vertical and horizontal and verify, velocities, respectively Eq. 3
< 0 18

< 0 53

where 2 , is the gravity, is the Lams coefficient, r is the distance between the impact point and the pipe, z is the depth from the ground surface, cT is the shear wave velocity. The direct application of Eq. 3 does not give an accurate prediction as the general trend is an overestimation of the particle velocity. However, one can see that the analytical model gives a particle velocity with the following shape,
Eq. 4 ,

FIGURE 2 NORMALIZED SURFACE VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT DUE TO RAYLEIGH WAVES IN FUNCTION OF NORMALIZED TIME. APPARITION OF COMPRESSION WAVES (P), SHEAR WAVES (S) AND RAYLEIGH WAVES (R) A solution with Rayleigh waves for this problem is given by Chao et al. (see [9]) but is only valid for z/r<<1 and times close to the Rayleigh wave arrival time. The solution for a point source excitation, a pulse and then any kind of force source can be calculated. The impact force due to the wind turbine fall can be modeled as a moving circular foundation. The foundation is modeled as an impedance with stiffness and damping factors. The solution for an impedance set on the surface of an isotropic homogeneous half-space has been given by Gazetas (see [10]). One can find the values of the impedance parameters in that paper.
3 Compression waves, and other shear waves like Loeve waves for example.

where n and k are problem-dependant constants, which is similar to the relation given by Mayne and Menard (see Eq. 1 and Eq. 2). The velocities estimated with Eq. 3 are too conservative because of the following hypothesis: elastic impact ; elastic soil ; Rayleigh waves are preponderant (only valid for z/r<<1 and thus this relation cannot be used for short pipe/impact point distances) ; Therefore, in the following, a non linear computational model with plasticity is implemented and calibrated with field tests to update a velocity described like the one in Eq. 4.

FIELD TESTS: VIBRATIONS AND MASW Field tests were performed during two campaigns: 1. particle velocity measurements, 2. MASW tests. The first campaign was aimed at measuring the surface ground particle velocity at a distance of 3 m, 8 m, 15 m, 30 m, 50 m and 80 m of a 1.5 t mass falling from a height of 3 m, 5 m, 10 m and 15 m. During these tests, the effect of the soil yielding was evaluated. An illustration is displayed in FIGURE 3. The second campaign was aimed at measuring the soil geotechnical data with the multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) method (see [11]). A layout is displayed in

Copyright 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 4. The mass used weighted 80 N (8 kg). There were 24 sensors. The tests have shown that: The frequencies of interest are in the [0,30Hz] range. The depth of the massprint increases with the height from 30 cm (1ft) to 1 m (3.2ft). 1ft) ( The particle velocities repartition shows some dispersion along the sensors. Some sensors were saturated during the tests. These tests have allowed the particle velocity to be fitted to a law like the one proposed in Eq. 4.

COMPUTATIONAL MODEL AND CHOSEN LAW As written previously in this paper, the wind turbines are of much higher height and heavier mass than the masses used in dynamic compaction and the performed tests. Therefore, a computational evaluation was compulsory to achieve a predictive model for the wind turbine configuration. In a first step, the computational model was built and updated with the field data and empirical relations and in a second step, the updated model was used to get the wind turbine fitted data. The axisymmetric finite element model (see [12]) is built with a realistic constitutive law (see [13] and [14]). The computation is dynamic and non linear. The mesh is composed of 10 elements per wavelength corresponding to one element for 50 cm (1.6 ft). There are 14,523 elements and 29,048 degrees of freedom (DOF); the boundary conditions are: lateral nodes can only move vertically and the base is fixed. The mesh with the different soil layers is displayed in FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5 COMPUTATIONAL MODEL; THE RED ARROW ON THE UPPER LEFT INDICATES THE IMPACT POINT
The law which is proposed in Eq. 4 has been updated by field tests and computational tests and is written as,

FIGURE 3 ILLUSTRATION OF THE VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS

Eq. 5

where PPV is the particle velocity in mm.s-1, is the falling mass velocity in m.s-1, is the soil density in 106 kg.m-3, M is the mass in 106 kg, r is the distance between the impact point and the pipe. The values of and n are given in TABLE 2. TABLE 2 PARAMETERS FOR THE PARTICLE VELOCITY LAW EVALUATION IMPACT MOMENTUM in MN.s 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.3 2.0 3.0 5.0 10.0 k 29.2 4.3 1.8 0.7 n 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

FIGURE 4 ILLUSTRATION OF THE MASW TESTS In these tests, the dilatational wave celerity Vp, the shear wave Vs, the Young Modulus E, the Poissons coefficient , the shear modulus G and particle velocities were measured and calculated. These parameters were then used in the computational model.

RAMCES UPDATE The RAMCES software has been developed and maintained by the CRIGEN for more than a decade. This software is aimed at calculating stresses induced by the most

Copyright 2012 by ASME

common external loads on steel transmission pipes through 9 modules which are not described in this paper. One of the modules is CHUTOSOL4. That module is made up of four tabs; each one allows for the computation of a safety distance between a buried pipe and a heavy and tall structure. The four kinds of structures are presented in the FIGURE 6 a., b., c. and d. In each of these tabs, the updated law of Eq. 5 is used to evaluate the vibration-specific risk for each kind of structure. In the wind turbine specific case which is the scope of this paper, the software gives two circular zones of safety (see FIGURE 7): The yellow circle (the smaller one) matches the zone where the risk is the combination of the structure fall (i.e. direct impact of the structure) and the fall-induced vibration of the impact. The blue circle matches the zone where only the fall-induced vibrations are damageable (the height of the structure is no longer a problem). Except for the pale-projection risk which is not considered yet in that version, one can say that the installation of a wind turbine at a distance to the pipe greater than D1 is a safe installation. b.

a.

c.

CHUTOSOL means literally FALLTOGROUND

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The pale projection risk is not considered here and has to be calculated otherwise. We give in TABLE 3 (no guarantee about the tower fall probability) and TABLE 4 (guarantee that the tower fall probability is less than or equal to 10-6) a comparison between the previous RAMCES version and the one presented in this paper. The wind turbines are from VESTAS and ACCIONA companies, data come from their Internet web sites (year 2010); see [16] and [17]. TABLE 3 SAFETY DISTANCES WITH NO GUARANTEE ABOUT THE TOWER FALL PROBABILITY Wind turbine V52 V82 V80 V90 AW1500-70 AW1500-82 AW3000-100 AW3000-116 Mrotor+nacelle (t) 32 95 104 111 67.5 67.5 154 154 Mtower (t) 110 127 200 235 95 135 840 1,100 H (m) 86 78 100 105 60 80 100 120 Dold_version (m) 196 219 281 302 165 212 404 489 DRamcesIII (m) 105(*) 100(*) 130 138 79 101 170 209

d. FIGURE 6 THE 4 TABS OF THE CHUTOSOL MODULE; a. FIXED CRANE; b. MOBILE CRANE; c. WIND TURBINE; d. OTHER STRUCTURES

(*) The apparent contradiction between these 2 distances (V82 wind turbine is heavier than V52) comes from the height of the wind turbine V52. The height H takes into account the whole length of the pales and the computation for the fall takes only into account the rotor height without the pales length. TABLE 4 SAFETY DISTANCES WITH GUARANTEE THAT THE TOWER FALL PROBABILITY IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 10-6 Wind turbine V52 V82 V80 V90 AW1500-70 AW1500-82 AW3000-100 AW3000-116 Mrotor+nacelle (t) 32 95 104 111 67.5 67.5 154 154 H (m) 86 78 100 105 60 80 100 120 Dold_version (m) 93 135 156 163 107 119 184 199 DRamcesIII (m) 39 44 45 45 41 42 47 48

FIGURE 7 A COMPLETED CALCULUS FOR A WIND TURBINE WITH RAMCES/CHUTOSOL One considers two cases for the safety assessment of the wind turbine: No study about the probability of the tower fall, the whole wind turbine mass is considered (but the tower is considered to be falling from half its height); A study proving that the tower fall probability is less than or equal to 10-6, then only the nacelle and rotor masses are considered.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

For example, the gain for a VESTAS V90 wind turbine is about 164 m (from 302 m to 138 m) between the two RAMCES versions for the case where no guarantee about the wind turbine construction is given. CONCLUSION In this paper, a more accurate and less conservative model has been presented. This model is used in the GDF SUEZ RAMCES software in order to predict safety distances between buried transmission steel pipes and wind turbines. The safety distance is elaborated by taking into account the height and mass of the wind turbine components. A first safety circle represents the risk of a direct hit from the structure height (except the projection pale risk) and a second safety circle represents the risk due to vibrations from impact to the ground. The considered vibrations threshold is 50 mm.s-1 ( 2 in.s-1) for any pipe configuration. As an example, the reduction in proximity for a VESTAS V90 wind turbine is about 164 m (from 302 m to 138 m) between the two RAMCES versions. NOMENCLATURE M in t falling mass H in m falling height u horizontal displacement w vertical displacement Vp dilatational wave velocity PPV in mm.s-1 peak particle velocity z in m depth of the considered point from the ground surface r in m distance between the falling mass and the pipe in RAMCES software cT and Vs in m.s-1 shear wave velocity in Pa Lams coefficient G in Pa shear modulus E in Pa elastic modulus vz in m.s-1 falling mass velocity k, n updated model parameters D1 in m safety distance between a wind turbine and a buried pipe calculated by RAMCES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors want to thank the GRTgaz Engineering Center of Lille and particularly Marc Rifaut who found the right place to perform the seismic tests and also Jean-Luc Mattiuzzo from INNOGEO who performed the field tests. REFERENCES [1] Esparza, E.D., P.S. Westine and A.B. Wenzel (1981). Pipeline response to buried explosive detonations, Vol. I & II, SRI, Final report of the American Gas Association. Project PR-15-109 for the Pipeline Research Committee. [2] Esparza, E.D. (1991). Pipeline response to blasting in rocks, Southwest Research Institute, American Gas Association.

[3] Bordonne, P.A., Akel S. and Dang Van K (1991). Tenue mcanique des canalisations enterres soumises des vibrations dorigine ponctuelle, Gaz de France report nCRSTA-BO/VH 91173. [4] GDF SUEZ Center for Research and Innovation, Gas and New Energies, RAMCES software - Theoretical references, GDF SUEZ Report. [5] Mayne, P.W., J.S. Jones and J.C. Dumas (1984). Ground response to dynamic compaction, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 109, pp. 757-774. [6] Menard Sol Traitement (2001), Vitesse particulaire resultante en function de la distance au point dimpact, Private conversation. [7] Semblat, J.F. and Pecker A. (2010), Waves and Vibrations in Soils: Earthquakes, Traffic, Shocks, Construction Works, IUSS Press. [8] Pekeris, C.L. (1955). The seismic surface pulse, Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences, 41, pp 469-480. [9] Chao, C.C., H.H. Bleich and J. Sackman (1961), Surface waves in an elastic half space, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 28, pp 300-301. [10] Gazetas, G. (1983), Analysis of machine foundations vibrations State of the Art, International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2, pp 242. [11] Park, C.B., R.D. Miller and H. Miura (2002), Optimum field parameters of an MASW survey [Exp. Abs.], SEG-J, Tokyo. [12] Prevost, J.H. (2002), DYNAFLOW A finite element analysis program for the static and transient response of linear and non linear two and threedimensional systems, Dpt of Civil Eng. Princeton Univ. VersionV02. [13] Prevost, J.H. (1978), Plasticity theory for soil stressstrain behavior, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 104 (EM5). [14] Prevost, J.H. (1985), A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless soils, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 4(1), pp 9-17. [15] Hughes, T.J.R (1983), Analysis of transient algorithms with particular reference to stability behavior, Computational Methods for Transient Analysis, Elsevier. [16] http://www.vestas.com/ (last consultation, 2010). [17] http://www.acciona-energia.com/ (last consultation, 2010).

Copyright 2012 by ASME