11 views

Uploaded by Ma Rco

pile

- Renewable Energy That is Truly Sustainable
- Analyzing the Global Wind Turbine Market
- offshore_data_requirements_gaps_analysis.pdf
- The Wind Turbine
- Offshore Code Comparison(OCE3)_Jonkman
- Electrical Systems for Offshore Wind Farms
- Sanjay Ghodawat
- Parts of policy of Wind energy in China
- Wind Power in India & Globally
- Experimental And Numerical Methods For The Prediction Of Wave Loads In Extreme Sea Conditions
- EWEA European Offshore Statistics 2015
- c03006
- The Term Renewable Energy is Used to Describe a Source of Energy or Power That Has the Capacity to Replenish Itself
- Floating Offshore Wind Market Technology Review
- RTKoekkoek Msc Thesis - Gravity Base Foundations for Offshore Wind Turbines
- Construction & Testing of a Vertical Axis Wind Turbine
- Increasing Wind Turbine Efficiency Using Doubly Fed Induction Generator
- Comparison of Integration Solutions for Wind Power in the Netherlands
- Alternative Energy
- Presentation THREEler

You are on page 1of 13

**www.elsevier.com/locate/apor
**

Foundation modelling to assess dynamic behaviour of offshore wind turbines

M.B. Zaaijer

∗

DUWIND, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5058, 2600 GB Delft, The Netherlands

Received 22 August 2005; accepted 20 March 2006

Available online 11 September 2006

Abstract

The dynamic behaviour of wind turbines at offshore locations is more complex than that of both onshore wind turbines and offshore platforms

used in the oil and gas industry. In order to reduce the computational burden, the work presented in this paper aims at simpliﬁcation of the dynamic

model of the foundation, while maintaining sufﬁcient accuracy. A stiffness matrix at the mudline is found to be the best solution for monopiles.

With respect to the required accuracy, the sensitivity of dynamic behaviour to variations in several parameters is investigated. An inaccuracy

of about 4% can be expected for the ﬁrst natural frequency. Finally, experimental data is used to determine whether expected accuracy is met

in practice and whether modelling techniques, which are commonly used for offshore structures, can be used for wind turbines on monopile

foundations. For ﬁve wind turbines in an offshore wind farm the results corresponded with expectations, but two wind turbines in another farm

gave unexplained higher errors.

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wind energy; Foundations; Dynamics; Modelling; Frequency measurement

1. Introduction

Offshore wind energy is at the threshold of large-scale

application throughout Europe, followed by the US and

Canada [1]. Other regions in the world, particularly Asia, are

currently exploring their potential of offshore wind energy.

After a series of demonstration projects up to 40 MW installed

capacity, mainly at benign sites, the ﬁrst large offshore wind

farm of 160 MW has been built at the exposed North Sea site

‘Horns Rev’ off the west coast of Denmark.

Right from the beginning of the exploration of offshore

wind energy, the importance of dynamic behaviour for the

design of the support structure was well recognised. The

assessment of dynamic response of offshore wind turbines

differs in some important aspects from that of platforms for

the offshore oil and gas industry on the one hand and onshore

wind turbines on the other. Loading of the rotating wind

turbine blades causes at least two signiﬁcant extra excitation

frequencies: one at the rotation frequency and one at the blade

passing frequency. Therefore, the ﬁrst natural frequency of

an offshore wind turbine is wedged between wave and rotor

∗

Tel.: +31(0)15 27 86426; fax: +31(0)15 27 85347.

E-mail address: M.B.Zaayer@tudelft.nl.

excitation frequencies, whereas the natural frequencies of a

ﬁxed platform for the offshore oil industry are usually designed

to be well above the main wave frequencies [2]. In contrast with

common practice in the offshore industry, frequency domain

analysis of dynamic response is seldom used for wind turbines,

even for the fatigue load cases. Due to the highly non-linear

behaviour of aerodynamic loading of the rotor, time domain

simulations are required for accurate assessment of both fatigue

and ultimate limit states [3]. The number of load cases herein

is expanded by the signiﬁcance of variation in wind conditions

and the operating status of the turbine. The consequential high

computational burden necessitates simple structural models

that capture the most important characteristics of dynamic

behaviour.

Compared with the application of wind turbines onshore

the wave and current climate offshore causes a large extension

of the number of load cases. Besides, the geometry and

dimensions of offshore foundations differ from typical onshore

solutions, resulting particularly in an expected larger inﬂuence

of the slender monopile foundation on the dynamic behaviour.

As a consequence of this, the oversimpliﬁed foundation model

commonly used in simulation tools for onshore wind turbines

may prove to be too inaccurate.

Given the opposing requirements for accuracy and

simplicity, this paper aims at better insight in the main

0141-1187/$ - see front matter c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.apor.2006.03.004

46 M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57

contributions of the foundation to inaccuracies in dynamic

response. It does so with three activities:

• selection of foundation models with a limited number of

degrees of freedom, but with sufﬁcient ability to model the

dynamic behaviour of the wind turbine,

• investigation of the sensitivity of dynamic behaviour to

variations in several parameters,

• collection of experimental data to determine whether

expected accuracy is met in practice and whether modelling

techniques commonly used for offshore structures can be

used for wind turbines on monopile foundations.

In this paper natural frequencies of the ﬁrst and second

bending mode of the support structure are taken as the primary

indicators of dynamic response. These natural frequencies are

close to the excitation frequencies of wind, wave and rotor,

meaning that the prediction of the response is very sensitive to

shifts in these frequencies. Vibrations corresponding to higher

natural frequencies are generally excited quasi-statically or by

harmonics of the main rotor excitations with lower energy

content. However, it must be emphasised that these vibrations

may not be disregarded in a comprehensive dynamic analysis.

Part of the work presented in this paper is performed in the

framework of the project ‘Design methods for Offshore Wind

Turbines at Exposed Sites (OWTES)’ [4,5].

2. Foundation models

2.1. Introduction

The assessment of the foundation models is performed

for three types of support structures with pile foundations.

Although gravity bases have been applied for offshore wind

turbines in benign seas, this foundation type is not investigated.

Due to the stiffness of these structures, it is common practice

to use lumped mass, stiffness and damping properties of the

structure–soil interaction and no signiﬁcant reduction of the

degrees of freedom can be obtained.

The most comprehensive, practicable engineering model

for pile foundations is a ﬁnite element model with ‘py’, ‘tz’

and ‘Qz’ curves to represent the pile–soil interaction [6].

Therefore, this model is used as a reference. The commonly

used foundation model for monopile structures in simulation

tools for onshore wind turbines is a single rotation spring at

the mudline, sometimes appended with an uncoupled spring for

horizontal displacements.

2.2. Description of wind turbines and site

The investigation of the foundation models is performed

for the following three support structure concepts with pile

foundations, which are illustrated in Fig. 1.

• tubular tower on a monopile

• tripod and tubular tower with piles

• lattice tower with piles

The support structures are designed for a 3 MW turbine

and typical site conditions for the North Sea. The main

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of concepts with pile foundations.

dimensions of the support structures are given in Appendix A.

The foundation piles of all structures are larger than required

to provide sufﬁcient bearing. This has been done to give these

piles the same stiffness as inﬁnitely long piles and make the

dynamic behaviour of the support structures insensitive to the

pile penetration depth.

For better mutual comparison of the inﬂuence of the

foundation on the dynamic behaviour of the different concepts,

the same soil conditions were used for all support structures.

The soil conditions are obtained for a coastal site off the

Netherlands from drilling samples and geological proﬁle maps.

The seabed consists of 12 m medium dense sand on top of a 1 m

thick soft clay layer. The rest of the relevant subsoil is dense

sand.

2.3. Description of foundation models

The support structures are modelled in a ﬁnite element

analysis program. As stated in the introduction, a full ﬁnite

element representation of the pile foundation is used as

a reference model. For the modal analysis, the non-linear

soil–structure interaction is linearised around the stress-free

state. The reference model is illustrated in Fig. 2, along with

the other models explained below. For analysis purposes, for

each of the alternative models the stiffness at the mudline will

be given in accordance with

F = Ku,

F

x

M

F

z

=

k

xx

k

xθ

0

k

θx

k

θθ

0

0 0 k

z

x

θ

z

. (1)

2.3.1. Effective ﬁxity length

In this model the clamping effect of the soil is replaced by

rigid clamping of the pile at an effective depth belowthe seabed.

For offshore structures Barltrop [7] proposes an effective ﬁxity

length between 3.5 and 8 times the pile diameter, depending

on the soil conditions. Analysis of K¨ uhn [8] leads to values

between 3.3 and 3.7 times the pile diameter for offshore wind

turbines on monopile foundations. The stiffness matrix K at the

mudline of a pile with an effective ﬁxity length l is given by

K =

2EI

l

3

6 −3l 0

−3l 2l

2

0

0 0

Al

2

2I

. (2)

M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57 47

Fig. 2. Foundation models for piled structures.

2.3.2. Stiffness matrix

Two methods are used to obtain a stiffness matrix that

expresses the stiffness of the pile soil system at seabed level. In

the ﬁrst approach the unknown elements of the stiffness matrix

are obtained from static analyses of the reference ﬁnite element

model. Substituting the results of two lateral load cases 1 and

2 and an axial load case 3 in Eq. (1) results in the following

equation to solve the elements:

F

1

M

1

F

2

F

3

=

x

1

θ

1

0 0

0 x

1

θ

1

0

x

2

θ

2

0 0

0 0 0 z

k

xx

k

xθ

k

θθ

k

z

and k

θx

= k

xθ

. (3)

In the second approach Randolph’s elastic continuum model

is used. Randolph performed dimension analysis and ﬁnite

element analysis of piles in an elastic continuum to obtain an

expression for the pile head ﬂexibility for piles in an elastic

continuum with a linearly increasing soil shear modulus [9].

The rate of change m of the soil shear modulus is obtained from

a linear ﬁt to the actual modulus obtained from the site data. For

the tripod and lattice tower the vertical degree of freedom is

constrained, as this method provides no value for the axial pile

stiffness. The other elements in the stiffness matrix are given by

k

xx

= 4.52 m

∗

r

2

o

E

p

m

∗

r

o

1

3

k

xθ

= k

θx

= −2.40 m

∗

r

3

o

E

p

m

∗

r

o

5

9

k

θθ

= 2.16 m

∗

r

4

o

E

p

m

∗

r

o

7

9

(4)

where

E

p

=

EI

1

64

πD

4

and m

∗

= m ·

1 +

3

4

ν

. (5)

2.3.3. Uncoupled springs

In this model the coupled stiffness of the pile head is

simpliﬁed to independent springs for each relevant degree of

freedom. In Fig. 2 the springs are illustrated only for the lateral

translation and the rotation. For the tripod and lattice tower this

is combined with a spring for the vertical degree of freedom. To

obtain the stiffness of the spring elements both the force method

and the displacement method are applied, using the reference

ﬁnite element model. The spring stiffness of the uncoupled

springs can be determined from the stiffness matrix using

Displacement method: K =

k

xx

0 0

0 k

θθ

0

0 0 k

z

or (6)

Force method: K =

k

xx

−

k

2

xθ

k

θθ

0 0

0 k

θθ

−

k

2

xθ

k

xx

0

0 0 k

z

. (7)

The non-linearity of the soil–structure interaction will result

in small deviations in the values obtained by substituting the

results of Eq. (3) into Eq. (6) or Eq. (7) and those obtained with

the ﬁnite element analysis. This will be ignored in the analysis.

2.3.4. Element reduction

To assess the relative importance of various elements of

the foundation models, for several models the ﬂexibility in

certain directions has been constrained. The foundation of the

tripod and lattice tower has been analysed with only axial

ﬂexibility and with only lateral ﬂexibility. The monopile has

been analysed with only rotation at the mudline, with spring

stiffness according to the force method.

2.4. Basis for the analysis

The differences between the different models will be

interpreted using the kinetic and strain energy content of

the vibration modes. In free vibration, energy is exchanged

between these two types of energy and according to Rayleigh’s

approach equating their maxima results in the following

equation for the natural frequency [10]:

ω

2

=

k(s) · f (Ψ(s))

2

· ds

m(s) · Ψ(s)

2

· ds

=

strain energy V

(kinetic energy K)/ω

2

, (8)

48 M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57

Fig. 3. Predicted ﬁrst natural frequencies for several foundation models.

where the function of the mode shape Ψ in the numerator

is either a displacement, rotation or curvature, depending on

the corresponding stiffness k. Although Rayleigh’s method

is normally applied to estimate the ﬁrst natural frequency,

Eq. (8) is also valid for higher natural frequencies when the

corresponding mode shape is substituted. The ﬁnite element

analysis provides the maximum strain and kinetic energy, as

well as the mode shapes for the reference model. In a ﬁrst order

approximation, the mode shapes for the alternative foundation

models are assumed to be identical to the mode shapes of

the reference model. Since the alternative foundation models

only represent the stiffness of the foundation, the contribution

of the foundation to the denominator of Eq. (8) drops out

and the numerator is affected by the changed stiffness. Using

the deﬂection and rotation at the mudline, the strain energy

contained in the springs and stiffness matrices are obtained

from

V =

1

2

u

T

Ku =

1

2

k

11

x

2

+

1

2

k

22

θ

2

+k

12

xθ +

1

2

k

z

z

2

. (9)

Eq. (9) separates the contribution of the displacements, the

rotation and the coupling effect and can therefore be used to

determine their relative importance to Eq. (8).

2.5. Results and discussion

For each of the support structures and foundation models

the ﬁrst and second natural frequency are determined with a

modal analysis and normalised with the results for the reference

model. Note that only Randolph’s stiffness matrix and the

effective ﬁxity length are independent of the reference model,

which is used for pre-analysis of the other foundation models.

The results are plotted in Figs. 3 and 4. Table 1 provides

the strain and kinetic energy of the ﬁnite element analysis.

It is plausible to focus foundation modelling on stiffness

properties for the analysed lower natural frequencies. When the

Fig. 4. Predicted second natural frequencies for several foundation models (see

Fig. 3 for legend).

Table 1

Normalised kinetic and strain energy of the ﬁnite element analysis

Energy type Monopile Tripod Lattice tower

1st mode

Kinetic Tower 1 1 1

Foundation

a

0.00032 1.9 ×10

−5

0.00025

Strain Tower 0.69 0.97 0.90

Foundation 0.31 0.03 0.10

2nd mode

Kinetic Tower 0.98 0.99 0.98

Foundation

a

0.02 0.01 0.02

Strain Tower 0.50 0.41 0.42

Foundation 0.50 0.59 0.58

a

Inertia and kinetic energy of soil is neglected.

inertia of the foundation is negligible, the pile deformations

during free vibration correspond with the static response to

the loading at the pile head caused by the inertia forces in

the tower. In that case, the behaviour of the foundation can be

represented completely by a stiffness matrix. This is conﬁrmed

by the good correspondence between the natural frequencies

obtained with the reference model and with the stiffness matrix

that was created from the reference model. Therefore, results

obtained with this stiffness matrix will sometimes be used as

a reference in the discussion of the relevance of the degrees of

freedom.

The high strain energy content of the monopile foundation

in the ﬁrst vibration mode demonstrates a signiﬁcant inﬂuence

of the foundation on the natural frequency according to Eq. (8).

Therefore, the strain energy of that foundation is further divided

according to Eq. (9) as given in Table 2.

In the next paragraphs the results are discussed per model.

M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57 49

Table 2

Normalised energy content of monopile foundation for different models

Fixity length Fixity length Fixity length FEM matrix Randolph’s matrix Force method Displacement method

6D 4D 2D

1st mode

Horizontal 0.38 1.27 10.14 0.56 0.61 0.21 0.56

Rotation 0.84 1.26 2.52 0.80 0.87 0.29 0.80

Coupling −0.97 −2.19 −8.76 −1.06 −1.12 0.00 0.00

Total 0.24 0.34 3.90 0.31 0.36 0.50 1.36

2nd mode

Horizontal 0.78 2.65 21.16 1.18 1.27 0.44 1.17

Rotation 1.21 1.82 3.64 1.15 1.25 0.42 1.15

Coupling −1.69 −3.80 −15.20 −1.84 −1.94 0.00 0.00

Total 0.31 0.66 9.60 0.50 0.58 0.85 2.32

2.5.1. Effective ﬁxity length

Both ﬁrst and second natural frequency of the tripod and

lattice tower correspond with the reference for an effective

ﬁxity depth of approximately 6 times the pile diameter. This is

in agreement with the suggested value for general calculations

for offshore platforms, since the mode shape of the foundation

and the pile diameter are similar for these structures. The best

effective ﬁxity depth of the tubular tower is in the order of 4

times the pile diameter, in agreement with earlier studies of

monopile behaviour. The difference with the tripod and lattice

tower may be contributed to the larger diameter of the pile,

but also to the different mode shape of the vibration. Table 2

indicates that around the best ﬁt for the ﬁxity length the ratios

between the horizontal, vertical and coupling contributions are

similar to those of the stiffness matrix based on the reference

model.

The results of this model are very sensitive to the selected

effective ﬁxity length. The tabulated values of the effective

ﬁxity length show a large variation as a function of soil

conditions. Therefore, large inaccuracies of natural frequency

must be anticipated for a priori assumed ﬁxity lengths.

2.5.2. FEM based stiffness matrix

As discussed earlier, the stiffness matrix based on ﬁnite

element analysis gives a good match for the ﬁrst two natural

frequencies, according to expectations. Small differences may

occur due to non-linear soil–structure interaction, which leads

to variation of foundation stiffness with changing loading

conditions and due to small contributions of inertia of the

foundation. The mode shapes of higher natural frequencies

will have larger relative displacements in the foundation and

consequently a larger inﬂuence of inertia of the pile and soil.

2.5.3. Randolph’s linear elastic model

The ﬁrst natural frequencies obtained with Randolph’s

model correspond within 2.5% with the ﬁnite element model.

It must be noted that Randolph’s model assumes that the piles

are longer than a critical pile length and thus have the same

behaviour as inﬁnitely long piles. When the pile length is

below the critical pile length the increased ﬂexibility of the pile

will not be revealed by Randolph’s model. Furthermore, the

natural frequency with the ﬁnite element foundation model is

obtained for the linear region of the stress–strain curves. When

large deﬂections are expected the non-linear effect will not be

revealed with the linear model. Part of the error made with

Randolph’s model for the tripod and lattice tower is caused by

the omission of axial pile ﬂexibility. This omission is discussed

later.

2.5.4. Uncoupled lateral and rotation springs

When the displacement method is used to determine

spring stiffness, extra constraints are introduced, which cause

increased stiffness, increased energy content in the foundation

according to Eq. (9) and increased natural frequency. For the

tripod and lattice structure, the extra constraint to determine

the horizontal stiffness corresponds closely with the pile head

constraint due to the structure. Therefore, the increase in natural

frequency is smaller than for the monopile. As Table 2 shows,

the contribution of coupling to the energy content is large for the

monopile and this subtraction from the energy is not achieved

with the displacement method.

Some of the ﬂexibility associated with the coupling between

translation and rotation is recovered in the force method, as

can be seen from Eq. (7). This leads to a reduction in the

energy content of the monopile and therefore a better match

of the natural frequency. For the tripod and lattice tower this

extra ﬂexibility is associated with a release of the clamping

constrained at the pile head and therefore this model provides a

lower natural frequency than the reference model.

2.5.5. Reduction of degrees of freedom

The foundation models are further simpliﬁed by ﬁxing some

degrees of freedom. In this case the assumption that the mode

shape of the reference model can be used in Eq. (8) is not valid,

since that mode shape does not meet the boundary conditions

set by the extra constraints. By constraining a degree of freedom

the effect of the foundation model on the mode shape of the

tower above the mudline becomes more pronounced. Therefore,

Table 2 cannot be used to interpret the energy content of the

foundation for the remaining degrees of freedom.

For the monotower Figs. 3 and 4 show that the use of a

rotational spring only does not result in a large difference with

the results with uncoupled springs. As discussed before, the

force method provides the best results in this situation. The

50 M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57

Fig. 5. Schematic representations of concepts with gravity base foundations.

rotation ﬂexibility of the monopile leads to large displacement

of the tower top mass and the associated kinetic energy

dominates the contribution associated with the horizontal

displacement.

For the tripod and lattice tower, the use of only a lateral

stiffness matrix gives less deviation than the model with only

axial springs. Due to the lateral ﬂexibility of the piles, which is

at least an order of magnitude higher than the axial ﬂexibility,

the horizontal translation of the tower is a more important

contribution to the kinetic energy than its rotation. The wide

base of these structures results in a small displacement of the

tower top mass associated with the axial ﬂexibility of the piles.

3. Parameter sensitivity of dynamic behaviour

3.1. Introduction

Several parameters contribute to the dynamic behaviour of

an offshore wind turbine, through their contributions to stiffness

and inertia. The causes of the variations in these parameters that

are assessed in this sensitivity study are:

• Uncertainty: e.g. measurement inaccuracy

• Lifetime: e.g. aging effects

• Location: e.g. changes within a wind farm

Many parameters that describe the soil and foundation

are varied. Some environmental and structural parameters are

varied as well to provide insight in the relative importance of the

sensitivities. Very large variations in environmental conditions,

water depth or morphology may require changes in the support

structure designs, which have not been considered in this study.

3.2. Description of wind turbines and sites

The sensitivity analysis is performed for the same three

support structures used in the investigation of the foundation

models. In addition, a tubular tower and a lattice tower on

gravity base foundations are evaluated. These concepts are

illustrated in Fig. 5 and the main dimensions are given in

Appendix A. The only support structure not designed for North

Sea conditions is the tubular tower on a gravity base structure

(GBS), which is designed for the Baltic Sea between Denmark,

Germany and Sweden. The lattice tower is the same for the pile

foundation and the gravity base structure, but the two tubular

towers have different dimensions. The site conditions are the

same as those used in the study of the foundation models and

are described in Section 2.2.

3.3. Description of models and parameter variations

The support structures are modelled in a ﬁnite element

analysis program in the same way as in Section 2. For the

pile foundations a full ﬁnite element model is used, equivalent

with the reference model used in Section 2. For gravity base

structures the structure soil interaction is represented with

uncoupled springs according to the API [6] and dampers and

masses according to Barltrop [7], lumped at the centre of the

contact surface.

The effect of scour on pile foundation stiffness is modelled

with a linear overburden reduction model. The effective vertical

soil pressure from the soil at the level of the scour hole is

effective below an overburden reduction depth 6 times the pile

diameter and decreases linearly to zero at the bottom of the

scour pit.

The selected models for soil behaviour and soil–structure

express the inﬂuence of the parameters that are varied in

this study. The assessed parameter variations are listed in

Appendix B. The ranges of the parameter variations are

assessed for the different causes mentioned in the introduction

to this Section. Several publications are used in this assessment,

but remaining issues are based on expert opinion. For

parameters that were not inherently deﬁned by the support

structure design or the reference site a suitable reference value

has been selected. Only one-dimensional parameter variations

were performed, with all other parameters at their reference

value. Each variation consisted of ﬁve points, including the

extreme values of the parameter range and its reference

value.

3.4. Basis for the analysis

To get more insight in the aspects that dominate the

sensitivity, Eq. (8) is further analysed. First, the sensitivity

S is deﬁned as the ratio between the relative change of

the dependent parameter ω and the relative change of the

independent parameter x:

S

x

ω

≡

ω/ω

x/x

linearised

≈

∂ω

∂x

· x

ω

.

The derivative of the ﬁrst natural frequency to changes in a local

parameter x can be obtained fromEq. (8), by noting that the ﬁrst

natural frequency leads to a minimum value in this equation.

Therefore, the derivative of Eq. (8) with respect to changes in

the mode shape equals zero. As a result, only the derivatives of

the mass and stiffness distribution are involved, leading to

∂ω

1

∂x

=

1

2

∂k(s)

∂x

· f (Ψ(s))

2

· ds −

1

2

ω

2

1

∂m(s)

∂x

· Ψ(s)

2

· ds

ω

1

·

m(s) · Ψ(s)

2

· ds

. (10)

Substituting

k(s)

linearised

≈

∂k(s)

∂x

x, m(s)

linearised

≈

∂m(s)

∂x

x (11)

M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57 51

Fig. 6. Relative energy distribution for ﬁrst mode.

Fig. 7. Relative energy distribution for second mode.

in Eq. (10) and using the deﬁnition for sensitivity, leads to

S

x

ω

1

=

1

2

S

x

k(s)

· k(s) · f (Ψ(s))

2

· ds −

1

2

ω

2

1

S

2

m(s)

· m(s) · Ψ(s)

2

· ds

ω

2

1

m(s) · Ψ(s)

2

· ds

. (12)

The ﬁrst factor in the numerator equals the integral of the local

sensitivity of the stiffness to the independent parameter times

the local content of the strain energy. The second factor is a

similar integral containing the kinetic energy. Thus, the local

kinetic and strain energies are useful parameters to analyse the

sensitivity. Note that the local kinetic and strain energy also

provide insight in the distribution of the contributions to the

natural frequency itself, as can be seen in Eq. (8) and as used in

the analysis of the foundation models.

3.5. Results and discussion

For each of the support structures the energy distribution

in the ﬁrst and second mode is plotted in Figs. 6 and 7,

respectively, normalised with the total energy of the vibration.

The jagged character of the distributions is caused by the

transitions in the structure and meshing of the ﬁnite element

model. First, the energy distribution for the ﬁrst mode is

discussed in more detail.

For all support structures the kinetic energy is concentrated

in the rotor–nacelle assembly, with a small contribution from

the tower near the top. The monopile strain energy increases

at approximately 12 m, where the tower has a conical drop to

smaller diameters. The dip between 16 and 21 m is caused by

the very rigid grouted connection. The strain energy decreases

toward the top, where the bending curvature decreases and

the largest bending in the pile occurs a few metres below the

seabed. Although the geometry of the tubular tower on a gravity

base is slightly different from that of the monopile structure, the

pattern of the energy distribution is similar. The strain energy

in the tripod largely occurs near the joint of the braces at 25 m.

Below the joint the high stiffness of the tripod results in very

52 M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57

Table 3

Dominant frequency deviations due to parameter variations (symbols according to Appendix B)

Uncertainty Lifetime Location

Tubular tower on a monopile

Soil 4% (ϕ) 6% (Z

G

) 4% (ϕ)

Foundation 0.06% (t) – –

Environment – 0.1% (sl) 0.1% (msl)

Structure 0.02% (D) 4% (m

R

) 4% (m

R

)

Tubular tower on a gravity base

Soil 19% (G) 4% (G) 35% (G)

Foundation 0.01% (D) – –

Environment – 0.03% (sl) 0.03% (msl)

Structure 0.2% (t) 4% (m

R

) 4% (m

R

)

Tripod with piles

Soil 0.9% (ϕ) 0.7% (S

g

) 0.9% (ϕ)

Foundation <0.01% (t) – –

Environment – 0.01% (sl) 0.01% (msl)

Structure 0.1% (t) 3.2% (m

R

) 3.2% (m

R

)

Lattice tower with pile

Soil 3% (ϕ) 3% (S

g

) 3% (ϕ)

Foundation 0.01% (t) – –

Environment – 0.04% (sl) 0.04% (msl)

Structure 0.04% (m

R

) 4% (m

R

) 4% (m

R

)

Lattice tower on gravity bases

Soil 23% (G) 7.8% (G) 38% (G)

Foundation 0.01% (m) – –

Environment – 0.02% (sl) 0.02% (msl)

Structure 0.04% (m

R

) 4% (m

R

) 4% (m

R

)

small deformations. The large, but narrow, peak of strain energy

near the seabed is caused by the accumulated strain energy of

the base members. The strain energy distribution of the lattice

tower is very jagged, due to changes in the geometry and in

member dimensions. Apparently the section around 25 m is

fairly rigid.

For all piled structures the strain energy associated with the

lateral compression of the soil is concentrated in the ﬁrst 10 m

below the seabed. The strain energy associated with the axial

shear of the soil, which is only relevant for the tripod and lattice

tower, is very small.

The contribution of the kinetic energy of the piles is

negligible, which is due to the small displacements. The mass of

the soil is not included in the pile model, but it is expected that

the kinetic energy of the soil is similarly negligible. Likewise,

the kinetic energy of the gravity base and soil add up to less

than 1% of the total energy content. For the monopile the strain

energy in the pile exceeds the strain energy in the soil, which

indicates dominance of pile stiffness over soil stiffness. The

difference is less pronounced for the tripod and the lattice tower.

The strain energy in the soil below the gravity base of the

tubular tower and the lattice tower is not negligible, being 10%

and 17%, respectively. The results for the relative strain energy

of the foundations lead one to expect the largest sensitivity

to the foundation parameters for the monopile and the largest

inﬂuence of the soil parameters for the gravity base structures.

The tripod and particularly the lattice tower have larger strain

energy in lateral compression of the soil than in axial shear.

This indicates larger sensitivity to lateral behaviour, especially

because the pile strain energy is expected to be contained

mainly in lateral bending.

In the second mode the rotor–nacelle assembly becomes a

pivot and the kinetic energy reduces to much smaller values.

Because the largest displacements for this mode shape occur

at a lower position, the kinetic energy is concentrated in the

middle section of the support structures and the contributions

of the foundations to the kinetic and strain energy increase.

As a consequence, the second natural frequency will be much

more sensitive to the foundation parameters than the ﬁrst

natural frequency. In particular, structures with gravity base

foundations are expected to be very sensitive.

For each of the support structures the ﬁrst and second natural

frequencies are determined for ﬁve values of the parameter

variations given in Appendix B. The natural frequencies

obtained with the reference value for each of the parameters

are taken as references and these are included in the support

structure descriptions in Appendix A. The deviations of

the natural frequencies from the references are taken as a

percentage of the reference values. The maximum deviations

for each of the support structures and for each type of parameter

variation are presented in Table 3 and are discussed below per

support structure type.

3.5.1. Tubular tower on a monopile

The most important uncertainty, relating to the soil friction

angle, is manageable in the design process of the support

M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57 53

Table 4

Speciﬁcations of measured turbines

Farm (turbine ID) Lely (A2) Lely (A3) Irene Vorrink

Turbine

Type NM41 idem NTK 600

Power 500 kW idem 600 kW

Rotor diameter (m) 40.77 idem 43

Hub height (m) 41.5 idem 51

Topmass (kg) 32,000 idem 35,700

Water depth (m) 4.6 9.6 3–3.8

Foundation

Cross section (m

2

) ∅3.7 ×0.035 ∅3.2 ×0.035 ∅3.5 ×0.028

Penetration (m) 20.9 13.9 ∅19

Tower

Diameter (conical) (m) 1.9–3.2 idem 1.7–3.5

Wall thickness (m) 0.012 idem 0.008–0.014

in steps

structure. The variation during the lifetime due to local scour

is less than 6% and this does not imply that scour protection

should be necessarily applied to avoid changes in dynamic

behaviour.

In addition to the parameter variations, the natural frequency

of a tubular tower on a monopile has been determined for

increasing loading conditions, to assess the effect of the non-

linear soil–structure interaction. At maximum loading, the

natural frequency relating to the secant stiffness reduced by 3%

for the ﬁrst mode and 7% for the second mode.

3.5.2. Tubular tower on a gravity base structure

In the reference situation the natural frequency of this

support structure is higher than that of a tubular tower on

a monopile. This difference is mainly caused by the smaller

water depth, the lower hub height and the different tower

design, rather than by the different foundation. As expected, this

structure is more sensitive to soil parameters than the monopile.

In this analysis no scour is assumed, since this foundation type

would need protection against scour.

3.5.3. Tripod with piles

Of all analysed structures the tripod is least sensitive to

parameter variations. The foundation is stiff compared to the

rest of the structure and due to its mass the upper part of the

tower contains a high fraction of the kinetic energy of the ﬁrst

mode. The latter effect reduces the inﬂuence of changes in

rotor–nacelle mass.

3.5.4. Lattice tower with piles

With respect to the ﬁrst natural frequency this structure is

particularly less sensitive to scour than the monopile. Because

of the high stiffness of the tower, this structure is more sensitive

to ﬂexibility of the foundation than the tripod.

3.5.5. Lattice tower with a gravity base structure

This structure is most sensitive to soil parameters, consistent

with its large relative strain energy in the soil. Unlike the tripod,

the upper region of this structure has a low mass and therefore

the ﬁrst natural frequency is more sensitive to changes in the

rotor–nacelle mass.

The frequency deviation of the second natural frequency

due to variation in soil parameters is 10%–20% for pile

foundations and larger than 50% for GBS foundations. These

larger sensitivities are consistent with the expectation based on

the analysis of the energy distribution. The frequency deviation

due to changes in environmental parameters is up to 3.5%, but

this will generally be negligible compared with the frequency

deviation due to soil parameters. The frequency deviation due

to changes in foundation and structure parameters is less than

0.1%.

4. Experimental validation for monopiles

4.1. Introduction

With complete freedom of the pile head for rotation, the

deformations of the monopile differ from piles in jackets

or sleeves, and at 4 m, the pile diameter is much larger

than in typical offshore structures. The applicability of

modelling techniques that are commonly used for offshore

structure is analysed in depth in several studies, e.g. by

Wiemann [11]. Here, the applicability is assessed from

an empirical perspective, by comparison of predicted and

measured system behaviour. The natural frequencies of the

support structures of ﬁve wind turbines in the wind farm ‘Irene

Vorrink’ and two wind turbines in the wind farm ‘Lely’ are

measured and compared with estimates from ﬁnite element

modal analysis. Both wind farms are located in the inland sea

‘IJsselmeer’ in the Netherlands.

4.2. Description of wind turbines, sites, measurement set-up

and modelling

The wind turbines are of the

1

2

MW class. The speciﬁcations

of the turbines are given in Table 4. Note that the two wind

turbines in the ‘Lely’ farm have different pile dimensions,

which is a result of tuning the natural frequency for the different

water depths and soil conditions.

54 M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57

Fig. 8. Power spectrum of acceleration in the y-direction (Irene Vorrink,

Turbine 12).

For the analysed wind turbines cone penetration test data

was available. The support structure was modelled in the same

way as explained in Section 2, with the ﬁnite element reference

model for the foundation.

The movement of the tower top was measured by

accelerometers in the nacelle [12]. The ﬁrst and second natural

frequencies were determined from the spectra obtained from

about 16 h measurements with the turbine both in operation and

with a parked rotor. The resonance peaks in the spectra were

enhanced with spline interpolation.

4.3. Basis for the analysis

The following main sources of errors are identiﬁed to explain

the differences between the measurements and ﬁnite element

analysis:

• Frequency measurements

◦ Acceleration measurements

◦ Data processing and interpretation

• Modal analysis

◦ Finite element approach

◦ Input data for soil and structure

◦ Soil–structure interaction model.

After processing, the resolution to determine peaks in the

spectrum was approximately 0.002 Hz and a similar absolute

accuracy is expected. The most critical step in the frequency

measurements is the interpretation of the spectrum. An example

of a measured power spectrum is given in Fig. 8, with peaks

at several frequencies. The ﬁrst natural frequency is clearly

present at slightly more than 0.5 Hz, but is ﬂanked by a rotor

excitation at 0.45 Hz. The second natural frequency is identiﬁed

at 3.3 Hz, but other peaks are present in the spectrum. Some

peaks could be eliminated through comparison of the spectra

with an operating and a parked rotor, an indication of the natural

frequencies of the blades and the expectation based on the ﬁnite

element analysis. However, misinterpretation of the spectrum is

possible for the second natural frequency.

With the used mesh the error caused by the ﬁnite

element approach is negligible. The expected error caused by

inaccuracies in the input data is in the order of 4% for the

ﬁrst natural frequency and 10%–20% for the second natural

frequency. This expectation is based on the results of the

sensitivity study, which are presented in Section 3.5. The

remaining error, caused by the soil–structure interaction model,

is the main unknown for this type and size of foundation.

It is known from offshore practices that the model tends to

underpredict the foundation stiffness. As a consequence, actual

natural frequencies are usually higher than the predicted ones.

4.4. Results and discussion

Table 5 presents the predicted and measured natural

frequencies for the wind farms ‘Irene Vorrink’ and ‘Lely’. The

differences are given as a percentage of the measured frequency.

Except for turbine 7 in the wind farm ‘Irene Vorrink’,

all predicted natural frequencies are below the measured

frequencies. This is consistent with the notion that p–y

curves tend to underestimate the stiffness of the soil–structure

interaction.

4.4.1. Wind farm ‘Irene Vorrink’

The results for ‘Irene Vorrink’ are consistent with the results

of the parameter sensitivity study, where an uncertainty in the

order of 4% was found for a tubular tower. However, it must

be noted that the parameter sensitivity study was performed for

a different support structure at a different location and that the

systematic underestimation of the soil–structure stiffness was

not included. The difference in the wind farm ‘Irene Vorrink’

is largest for turbine 3. According to the cone penetration test

at this site the stiffer sandy soil starts approximately 3 m lower

than at the other sites and the sensitivity study shows that the

prediction is sensitive for uncertainties in the upper part of the

foundation, such as scour.

The differences in the second natural frequencies are larger

than in the ﬁrst natural frequencies. These differences are of

similar magnitude as the uncertainty found in the sensitivity

study for the tubular tower. However, the results for the second

natural frequency must be considered carefully, since the higher

frequencies are more difﬁcult to identify, as discussed in the

previous section.

4.4.2. Wind farm ‘Lely’

The differences for the natural frequencies of the turbines in

the wind farm ‘Lely’ are very high, particularly for turbine A2.

This was found earlier in a comparison of a ﬁnite element model

prediction with measurements performed by ECN [13,14]. The

results of that study are also given in Table 5, along with the

values used in the design phase. Given the rotation frequency

of 0.53 Hz and a blade passing frequency of 1.06 Hz for this

two-bladed rotor, the measured natural frequency appeared to

be between these two rotor excitation frequencies, whereas it

was designed to be below both.

No explanation has been found for the large difference for

turbine A2. A sensitivity study for this particular turbine was

M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57 55

Table 5

Predicted and measured frequencies of offshore wind turbines

Turbine 1st mode (Hz) 2nd mode (Hz)

Predicted Measured Difference Predicted Measured Difference

Irene Vorrink

3 0.517 0.546 −5.3% 2.5 3.3 −24%

7 0.557 0.554 0.5% 3.2 3.3 −3%

12 0.542 0.553 −2.0% 3.0 3.3 −9%

23 0.544 0.563 −3.4% 3.0 3.3 −9%

28 0.541 0.560 −3.4% 3.0 3.3 −9%

Lely

A2 0.399 0.634 37% 1.6 3.7 57%

A3 0.672 0.735 9% 2.6 4.0 35%

Predicted

a

Measured

a

Designed

a

A2 0.44 Hz 0.63 Hz 0.41 Hz

A3 0.72 Hz 0.72 Hz 0.68 Hz

a

Obtained from earlier studies.

performed in the earlier study, but the resulting variations in the

natural frequency were much lower. Since the measurements of

the two independent studies agree it is expected that there is

a difference between the input for the structural or foundation

model of this turbine and the actual situation, although this

could not be investigated within the timescale and scope of the

current study.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The work presented in this paper is based on several

concepts for support structures, several wind turbines and

several locations with typical soil conditions for the North

Sea between the Netherlands and the UK. Therefore, the

interpretation of the results covers a broad area of applicability.

However, it must be noted that the results themselves are related

to very speciﬁc situations and that deviating conﬁgurations may

require some duplication of the outlined procedures to conﬁrm

or deny the generic nature of the conclusions.

5.1. Foundation models

The natural frequencies obtained with Randolph’s linear

elastic model approximate the results of the comprehensive

reference model, with less than 2%deviation for the ﬁrst natural

frequency and 6% for the second natural frequency. However,

the soil of this case study is nearly uniform, as assumed

in Randolph’s model, and the model may perform worse

for irregular soil proﬁles. Randolph’s method will not reveal

the inﬂuence of loading conditions outside the linear region

of the soil–structure interaction. However, with a maximum

deviation of 3% for the ﬁrst natural frequency at extreme

loading conditions, this inﬂuence is negligible for the loading

conditions that dominate fatigue.

The appropriate value of the effective ﬁxity length depends

on pile stiffness, soil properties and mode shape, and this

dependency is not rigorously represented in tabulated values.

Due to the large sensitivity of the predicted natural frequency

to the effective ﬁxity depth this model is strongly discouraged

as an a priori model for analysis beyond an initial guess of

support structure behaviour. An effective ﬁxity depth could be

determined from a reference model or from measurements, but

as a single parameter model only one natural frequency can be

matched. A sensitivity study is always recommended when this

model is applied.

The other investigated models are derived models and in

this study they are based on the ﬁnite element model. The ﬁrst

and second natural frequency obtained with a stiffness matrix

with coupled lateral behaviour gives very good correspondence

with the ﬁnite element foundation model. When inertia effects

in the foundation and non-linear soil–structure interaction are

negligible this stiffness matrix models all relevant behaviour.

Therefore, the applicability of this model may be extrapolated

to the lower bending modes of all practicable pile foundations

for wind turbines under loading conditions that are relevant for

the fatigue analysis. The stiffness matrix has far fewer degrees

of freedom than the comprehensive ﬁnite element model and

will therefore reduce the computations in dynamic analyses.

The uncoupled springs and reduction of degrees of freedom

give larger deviations from the reference model and do not

give a signiﬁcant reduction of computations compared to the

stiffness matrix. Therefore, their use is not recommended.

Although axial bearing capacity may dominate the design

of piles for tripods and lattice towers, this study shows that

lateral ﬂexibility may dominate axial ﬂexibility with respect to

dynamic behaviour.

5.2. Parameter sensitivity

Soil parameters dominate the uncertainty of the natural

frequency and its variation within a wind farm and during

the lifetime of the support structure. Although the sensitivity

to soil parameters needs consideration for the pile structures,

it is within practicable margins, even for the monopile. The

ﬁrst natural frequency of the monopile showed a sensitivity

of approximately 4% to variation in the soil friction angle.

With a decrease of the ﬁrst natural frequency of less than 6%

for a local scour hole of 2 times the pile diameter, the added

variation in dynamic behaviour does not block the option to

56 M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57

omit scour protect. Typical variations of the natural frequencies

of the tripod and lattice tower with pile foundations are only 1%

and 3%, respectively, for the cases analysed in this study. The

tripod is least sensitive to parameter variations, which makes

it the preferred concept when precise prediction of dynamic

behaviour is essential, e.g. when resonance can only be avoided

in narrow bands in the load spectrum.

The sensitivity of gravity base structures appears to be

much larger. However, the analysis of the GBS is based on

a rather simple foundation model and a conservatively large

variation of soil parameters. An uncertainty of approximately

20% was found for the ﬁrst natural frequency. The natural

frequency may vary to a large extent between different locations

within the wind farm. Therefore, it is possible that the design

of the gravity base needs to vary within the wind farm, to

tune dynamic behaviour. Furthermore, to perform design and

validation calculations for different locations within the wind

farm detailed knowledge of the local soil conditions will be

required.

Rotor–nacelle mass causes a relatively large variation

in the natural frequency, under the assumption that up to

10% variation in total mass can occur when components

from different suppliers are used. However, conﬁguration

management can avoid this. Other parameter variations relating

to the structure cause a variation of the ﬁrst natural frequency

of less than 0.2%.

5.3. Comparison of predictions with measurements

The predicated ﬁrst natural frequencies of ﬁve turbines in

the wind farm ‘Irene Vorrink’ are within expectable deviations

fromthe measured frequencies. The largest deviation was 5.3%.

The soil proﬁle at the site of this turbine differs slightly from

that of the other turbines, which show a difference of less than

3.5% between prediction and measurement. This indicates that

information of the local soil proﬁles is important, especially in

case variability in the depth of the ﬁrst stiff soil layer can be

expected.

One of the turbines in the wind farm ‘Lely’ showed a

large difference of 9% between the predicted and measured

ﬁrst natural frequency. An earlier study for the same turbine

resulted in a slightly smaller difference, but this could not

be reproduced. Moreover, the current prediction is close to

the design value, which is a prediction without a posteriori

knowledge. For the other turbine in the wind farm ‘Lely’,

the predictions of the natural frequency of this study, an

earlier study and the design study all deviated more than 30%

from the measured value. The earlier study has investigated

this difference extensively, without success. The difference

can also not be explained by the results of the parameter

sensitivity study. A comprehensive re-assessment of the

structural parameters and soil data for the support structure

to model the actual situation would be required to get new

insights.

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this paper is part of the project

OWTES, which has received substantial funding from the

EC. Contributions of Mr. M. van der Kraan and Mr. S.

Kay of Fugro Engineers BV to pile foundation modelling

are gratefully acknowledged, as well as contributions to the

sensitivity analysis of gravity base structures and review of the

work by Mr. U. Mirza of John Brown Ltd.

Appendix A. Main properties of analysed support struc-

tures

Table 6 provides the main properties of the support structures

used in the sensitivity study. The piled support structures are

also used in the analysis of foundation models.

Table 6

Main properties of analysed support structures

Tubular/monopile Tubular/GBS Tripod/piles Lattice/piles Lattice/GBS

General

Hub height above MSL (m) 60 54.5 69.2 59

a

61

a

Rotor–nacelle mass (kg) 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000

Water depth (m) 21 15 25 25 25

First natural frequency (Hz) 0.291 0.471 0.455 0.725 0.715

Second natural frequency (Hz) 1.33 1.48 1.25 2.26 2.36

Tower

Diameter (m) 2.8–3.5 one transition 3–4 in steps 3–4.5 in steps 0.32–0.85 members 0.32–0.85 members

Wall thickness (m) 0.02–0.075 in steps 0.025–0.045 in steps 0.025–0.045 in steps 0.012–0.03 members 0.012–0.03 members

Braces (m×m) ∅1.75 ×0.038

Foundation

Base radius (m) 30.75 28.9

Cross section (m×m) ∅3.5 ×0.075 ∅1.2 ×0.02 ∅1.2 ×0.02

Penetration (m) 50 50 50

Diameter (m) 25 9

Height (m) 3.5 2

Density (not submerged) (kg/m

3

) 2400 2400

a

The different hub height is caused by the height of the gravity bases.

M.B. Zaaijer / Applied Ocean Research 28 (2006) 45–57 57

Table 7

Parameter variations and reference values

Symbol Uncertainty Location variation Lifetime variation Reference value

Soil

Effective unit weight γ

**±10% ±10% Soil proﬁle
**

Friction angle ϕ ±10% ±10% Soil proﬁle

Coefﬁcient of lateral earth pressure K 0.7–1.0 0.7–1.0 0.8

Poisson’s ratio ν 0.4–0.5 0.4–0.5 0.5

Shear modulus of elasticity G ∗/5

a

∗/10

a

∗5

a

From model

Initial modulus of subgrade reaction k ∗/2

a

∗/2

a

From model

Position of characteristic soil layer transition Z

s

±1 m ±5 m Soil proﬁle

General scour S

g

−2–0 m 0

Local scour S

l

0–2 D 0

Postholing gap Z

G

0–3 D 0

Foundation

Pile diameter D ±0.1% Appendix A

Pile wall thickness t ±0.5% Appendix A

GBS diameter D ±0.1% Appendix A

GBS mass m ±0.1% Appendix A

Environment

Marine growth t 0–50 mm 0

Sea level sl ±3 m Appendix A

Water depth msl ±3 m – Appendix A

Structure

Rotor–nacelle mass m

R

±0.1% ±10% ±10% Appendix A

Fittings mass m

l

±0.1% 1 ×10

3

kg at 15 m MSL

Cable and ladder mass m

C

±0.1% 100 kg/m

Diameter D ±0.1% Appendix A

Wall thickness t ±0.5% Appendix A

Vertical position h ±0.1 m Appendix A

a

The reference value is multiplied and or divided by this factor.

Appendix B. Parameters of the sensitivity study

Table 7 provides a list of parameters used in the sensitivity

analysis, along with the applied range and reference values.

References

[1] Zaaijer MB, Henderson AR. Review of current activities in offshore wind

energy. In: Proceedings of ISOPE 2004 conference, 2004.

[2] van der Tempel J, Molenaar DP. Wind turbine structural dynamics—

a review of the principles for modern power generation onshore and

offshore. Wind Engineering 2002;26(4).

[3] K¨ uhn M. Dynamics and design optimisation of offshore wind energy

conversion systems. Ph.D. thesis. Delft: Delft University of Technology;

2001.

[4] Zaaijer MB et al. Design methods for offshore wind turbines at exposed

sites (OWTES)—sensitivity analysis for foundations of offshore wind

turbines. Section wind energy, WE 02181, Delft. 21 March 2002.

[5] Camp TR et al. Design methods for offshore wind turbines at exposed

sites. Final report EU Joule III project JOR3-CT95-0284. Bristol (UK):

November 2003.

[6] API, RP 2A-LRFD: API recommended practices for planning designing

and constructing ﬁxed offshore platforms—load and resistance factor

design. 1st ed. July 1, 1993.

[7] Barltrop NDP, Adams AJ. Dynamics of ﬁxed marine structures. Oxford:

Butterworth Heinemann Ltd; 1991.

[8] van Bussel GJW, Sch¨ ontag C, Cockerill TT, Harrison R, Harland LA,

Vugts JH. In: K¨ uhn M, editor. Methods assisting the design of offshore

wind energy conversion systems. Opti OWECS ﬁnal report, vol. 2. Delft:

Institute for Wind Energy; 1998.

[9] Randolph MF. The response of ﬂexible piles to lateral loading.

G´ eotechnique 1981;31(2):247–59.

[10] Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures. New York: McGraw-Hill;

1993.

[11] Wiemann J, Lesny K, Richwien W. Evaluation of pile diameter effects

on soil pile stiffness. In: Dokumentation der 7th German wind energy

conference DEWEK. 2004.

[12] Subroto TH, Speet LJJ. Natural frequency calculations and measurements

on wind energy converters at ‘Irene Vorrink’ windpark. In: Proceedings of

the European wind energy conference and exhibition 2001. July 2001.

[13] van der Wekken AJP. Frequency measurements nedwind 40 wind turbines

of wind farm Lely. Petten: ECN; October 1995 [conﬁdential].

[14] K¨ uhn M. Modal analysis of the nedwind 40 tower—comparison

of measurements and calculations for the sites Oostburg and Lely

(IJsselmeer). Delft: Institute for Wind Energy; November 1995

[conﬁdential].

- Renewable Energy That is Truly SustainableUploaded byRoy_Shantanu
- Analyzing the Global Wind Turbine MarketUploaded byBharat Book Bureau
- offshore_data_requirements_gaps_analysis.pdfUploaded byleadstructure
- The Wind TurbineUploaded byyagnasree_s
- Offshore Code Comparison(OCE3)_JonkmanUploaded byBaran Yeter
- Electrical Systems for Offshore Wind FarmsUploaded byJoni
- Sanjay GhodawatUploaded bynavneet sumeet
- Parts of policy of Wind energy in ChinaUploaded byCherry Shen
- Wind Power in India & GloballyUploaded byRaghveer Singh
- Experimental And Numerical Methods For The Prediction Of Wave Loads In Extreme Sea ConditionsUploaded byUmberto Ghisaura
- EWEA European Offshore Statistics 2015Uploaded byjobinhoeljoven
- c03006Uploaded bysrgankar1234
- The Term Renewable Energy is Used to Describe a Source of Energy or Power That Has the Capacity to Replenish ItselfUploaded bydarkzaini
- Floating Offshore Wind Market Technology ReviewUploaded byjobinhoeljoven
- RTKoekkoek Msc Thesis - Gravity Base Foundations for Offshore Wind TurbinesUploaded byDuck
- Construction & Testing of a Vertical Axis Wind TurbineUploaded byIrfan Mehfooz
- Increasing Wind Turbine Efficiency Using Doubly Fed Induction GeneratorUploaded byijteee
- Comparison of Integration Solutions for Wind Power in the NetherlandsUploaded byzakiannuar
- Alternative EnergyUploaded byAssignmentLab.com
- Presentation THREElerUploaded byHector Ledesma III
- Enercon MonitorEnercon Monitoring Grid Connectioning Grid ConnectionUploaded byDeva Sravan Kumar Sarma
- Ocean grapihicUploaded byChien Manh Nguyen
- 5.4. Thailand Country Presentation by S. TwarathUploaded byquantum_leap_wind
- Modelling and Fuzzy Logic Control of the Pitch of a Wind TurbineUploaded byIRJET Journal
- DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF DOMESTIC WIND TURBINEUploaded byIJIERT-International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology
- 3rd Int Urban Design Conf the Future of Wind Energy in the City Damon MoloneyUploaded bySimplicio Pérez
- STATCOM & DBRUploaded byAlok Bikash Sadangi
- 100W Wind Turbine ManualUploaded byClct English
- Abusannuga_badri-The Current r & d Activities Related to Wind Energy in Libya and “Csers” EffortsUploaded bySaad Muftah
- PreliminaryReport_20110802Uploaded byNew England Wind

- 3349Uploaded byMohamedHassan
- gr1_praepositionenUploaded byMiho ElMasry
- Corso Geometri -Lezione Cemento Armato Stati LimiteUploaded byMa Rco
- A Probabilistic Fatigue Model Based on the Initial Distribution to ConsiderUploaded bySahir Saghar
- Deutsch PrapositionenUploaded byCristina Maria Moldovan
- 04.2 Costruzioni in AcciaioUploaded byClaudio Nastasi
- Erc Scc Guidelines Open AccessUploaded byMa Rco
- 13 Opere Di SostegnoUploaded byMa Rco
- Dispensa Del Corso Di Costruzioni in Acciaio IUploaded byEnrico Bergamo
- 9.3.4_esercizi_svoltiUploaded byga_fa
- A 03 2010-05-21 Unioni Biagini SienaUploaded byMa Rco
- Outokumpu Stainless Steel HandbookUploaded byMa Rco
- b1_modellsatz_erwachsene.pdfUploaded byMisi
- Forensic_Document_ExaminationUploaded byDark Lider
- Corso l'Aquila - Unioni e Collegamenti - FormisanoUploaded byMa Rco
- Elementi Di Dinamica Delle StruttureUploaded byChristos Tsaropoulos
- Review of P-y Relationships in Cohesionless SoilUploaded byMa Rco
- Basile 2010dUploaded byMa Rco
- 18-nov-fantilli_762Uploaded byMa Rco
- BushAgarwalManuel_OMAE2008-57893Uploaded byMa Rco
- ANALYSIS OF SINGLE PILES UNDER LATERAL LOADINGUploaded byAmanda Cervantes
- 1-s2.0-S003808061300019X-mainUploaded byMa Rco
- CubicSplinesUploaded byCarlos Alberto
- Soil-Structure Interaction Alex. TyapinUploaded byajalil2000
- 1-s2.0-S0267726111001278-mainUploaded byMa Rco
- Foundation Models for the Dynamic ResponseUploaded byLászló Arany
- Soil Structure InteractionUploaded byEmad Ahmed Khan
- 36-SadonUploaded byMa Rco
- t00-058Uploaded byMa Rco
- Structural Element Approaches for Soil-Structure InteractionUploaded bydonly1

- Civil Engineering Et 2013Uploaded byNeeraj Kumar Meena
- KubekUploaded byjoydeep_d3232
- Mechanical, Fiber Properties, StructureUploaded by159753ADANA
- Mechanical Properties of SolidsUploaded byprabs20069178
- 02-07ChapGere.pdfUploaded byMariane Rodrigues
- Stability analysis and design of steel-concrete composite columns.pdfUploaded byDarsHan MoHan
- Midas OutputUploaded byLingga
- 1-s2.0-S0008884613001063-mainUploaded byabid
- Design of Industrial Building Using ETABSUploaded byNivan Rolls
- Strength of MaterialUploaded byFahad Areeb
- Sap TutorUploaded byRoger Jaimes
- Exercise 11 Mass Properties CalculationsUploaded bySpeeder John
- SPM PHYSICS FORM 4 Forces and MotionUploaded byJunelle Lau Xia Jiun
- IES OBJ Civil Engineering 2003 Paper IUploaded byArnab Dutta
- 2.pdfUploaded byDiela Kasim
- Postharvest Technology-units Operations NotesUploaded byntjanv
- SMiRT-23 Paper 043 -Part 2Uploaded byBishnu
- Soporte Block CavingUploaded bycamilajostin
- EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTIVE STRESS COEFFICIENT FOR VARIOUS HIGH POROSITY OUTCROP CHALKSUploaded byari_si
- Finite Element Modelling of Anisotropic Elasto-plastic Timber Composite Beams With OpeningsUploaded byKhairul Salleh Baharudin
- 33. 269-Design and Tensiometric Analysis of the C-clamp for Railroad TracksUploaded byIvancevic Ilija
- Seismic Earth Pressures Against Structures With Restrained DisplacementsUploaded byeduardomanar1224
- Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook Vol 2 FormingUploaded byNguyên Phan
- Column bucklingUploaded byCinitha A
- LEP1301_11 Hooke’s law with Cobra3.pdfUploaded byJose Galvan
- Lecture 9Uploaded byJorige Kotanagaramanjaneyulu
- Mech Problems 2Uploaded bySuresh mohta
- MESB333 Lab Manual (Uniten)Uploaded byNatalie Ninachuu
- Msc[1]. Thesis. PDFUploaded byKiplgat Chelelgo
- Hurff Jonathan b 201008 PhdUploaded bysam