691 views

Uploaded by Leo Zen

Wind Turbine Foundation Design Ch5

- Design of Wind Turbine Foundation Slabs
- Design of Wind Turbine Tower and Foundation
- Wind Turbine Footing Design STAAD EJEMPLO
- Wind Turbine Foundations
- Wind Turbines - Design and Components
- Wind Turbine Accidents
- Wind Turbine design
- Wind Turbine Design
- P&H Foundation Systems 2011
- Wind Turbine Foundation Behavior and Design
- Foundation Loads
- NREL - Wind Turbine Design Costs and Scale Model
- Wind Turbines Guidelines for Design
- Wind Turbine Feasibility Report
- Foundation Loads
- Wind Turbine
- Wind Blatt-On Solid Foundations
- Wind Turbine Design
- Wind Turbine Sample Design Report
- Wind Turbine Buyer's Guide

You are on page 1of 22

Wind Turbine

Foundation Design

Contents

Wind Turbine Foundation Design Chapter for Civil Wind Energy Design and Construction

2

1.0 Introduction 2

1.1 Foundation Types 2

1.1.1 Shallow Octagonal Gravity Base Foundation

2

1.1.2 Shallow Rock Socketed, Rock Anchor, and Short Pier Foundations

2

1.1.3 Deep Pile and Cap Foundations 2

1.1.4. Patrick and Henderson Patented Foundations

3

1.2 What Makes Wind Turbine Foundation Design Unique?

3

1.3 Wind Turbine Driving Forces 3

2.0 Wind Turbine Foundation Design Path 4

2.1 Turbine Specific Load Document and Design Requirements

4

2.2 Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Report

4

2.2.1 Ground Improvement Recommendations 4

3.0 Wind Turbine Foundation Design and Analysis 5

3.1 Preliminary Design 5

3.2 Pre-Design Check Calculations 5

3.2.1 Eccentricity 5

3.2.2 Wind Turbine Foundation Effective Area

6

3.2.3 Horizontal Wind Force Correction for Mechanical Torque

7

3.3 Wind Turbine Foundation Design Checks 7

3.3.1 Foundation Overturning 7

3.3.2 Rotational Stiffness 9

3.3.3 Bearing Capacity 13

3.3.4 Sliding 15

3.3.5 Settlement 20

References 22

Draft - Version 1.0

1.0 Introduction

Wind turbine foundation design is unique due to untraditional loading conditions and large site and geotechnical

variance. When designing a wind turbine foundation, the

foundation engineer has several foundation options to

choose from including shallow octagonal gravity base,

rock anchors, pier-type foundations, and deep piles.

Design parameters are dependent on wind turbine size,

turbine and site specific loading conditions, and site

specific geotechnical conditions. Furthermore, there are

a series of design checks to ensure the foundation type,

size, and placement is capable of withstanding the extreme loading conditions.

1.1 Foundation Types

There are several options available for wind turbine generator foundation design. Depending on the localized

geotechnical and the turbine specific load conditions,

the best fit foundation option is chosen by the foundation design engineer for a wind turbine and wind farm

project. Foundation size and type may vary throughout

a wind farm.

The foundations options include both shallow foundations and deep foundations. The shallow foundations

include octagonal gravity base, rock socketed, rock anchor, and short pier foundations. The deep foundations

include pile and cap foundations, and the patented Patrick and Henderson Tensionless Pier, Rock Anchor and

Pile Anchor foundations. The deep foundations are often

chosen for poor soil conditions. Mono-pile foundations

are another deep foundation type that is most commonly

utilized for offshore applications.

1.1.1 Shallow Octagonal Gravity Base Foundation

Octagonal gravity base foundations are the most common non-proprietary foundation type used for landbased wind turbines and will be the focus of this foundation design chapter. These foundations are applicable in

a broad range of soil conditions. In general, this type of

foundation is a large octagonal mass of concrete and

steel rebar reinforcement. Typically, octagonal gravity

base foundations are 12 to 18 m in diameter, approximately 0.7 m thick at the edge, 2.5 to 3.5 meters thick at

the center, contain 140 to 460 cubic meters of concrete,

125 to 360 kN of reinforcing steel, and cost $100,000

to $250,000 per foundation. This foundation type relies

on the weight of the concrete and steel as well as the

overburden soil to resist the overturning moment from

the horizontal wind load on the turbine structure. These

foundations are typically embedded 2.4 to 3 m beneath

the finish grade of overlying soil. The size of these foundations is usually dictated by either the maximum allowable edge pressure or overturning due to a high groundwater table (Tinjum and Christensen, 2010). Figure 1

depicts geometry of this type of foundation and Figure 2

is an example of a shallow octagonal foundation before

the overlying soil is backfilled.

Wind Turbine Foundation

Foundation before Overlying Soil is Backfilled

and Short Pier Foundations

In locations where a thin layer of incompetent soil is overlying competent soil or rock, rock socketed, rock anchor,

and short pier foundations can be utilized. These rock

sockets, rock anchors, and short piers extend through

the poor soil into the competent soil or rock. These foundation types rely on end bearing, side wall friction, tension in steel reinforcement, and lateral earth pressure on

the rock sockets and anchors or short piers for stability

(Morgan & Ntambakwa 2008).

1.1.3 Deep Pile and Cap Foundations

Deep pile and cap foundations are applicable where

competent soil or rock is located deep below the ground

surface. These foundations utilize piles that are drilled

deep beneath the ground surface, through the layer of

incompetent soil, into the competent soil or rock. Similarly to shallow pier foundations, deep pile and cap foundations rely on end bearing, sidewall friction, and lateral

earth pressure for stability (Morgan & Ntambakwa 2008).

Draft - Version 1.0

Tensionless Pier consist of post-tensioned concrete annulus, typically 4.5 to 5.5 meters in diameter installed

to a depth of between 8 and 12 m. The annulus is constructed by placing two corrugated metal cylinders in an

excavated or drilled hole, and filling the annular space

with concrete. The interior space is backfilled with a 1 m

thick concrete plug, followed by uncompacted excavation spoil. The pier is capped with a structural slab. The

exterior space between the outer corrugated cylinder

and the natural soil is backfilled with sand-cement slurry

or grout. The principal advantage claimed for this foundation type is cost savings. However, there are aspects

to the construction of these piers that can negate the apparent savings; principally, caving soils and large grout

takes (Tinjum and Christensen, 2010). A diagram of the

P&H Tensionless Pier is shown in Figure 3. Patrick and

Henderson also have patented Rock Anchor and Pile

Anchor foundations. Figure 4 shows a diagram of the

P&H Pile Anchor Foundation.

wind turbine foundation

wind turbine foundation

The patented Patrick and Henderson (P&H) Tensionless Pier is classified as a deep foundation and is applicable where competent bedrock or non-collapsing soil

is located relatively near the ground surface. The P&H

Foundation Design Unique?

Wind turbine foundation design is unique when compared to tradition foundation design due to untraditional

loading conditions and large site and geotechnical variance. Wind turbine structures experience an unusually

high horizontal wind load and thus a large overturning

moment. In addition to this high overturning moment,

the wind turbine structure has a low vertical or axial load.

Furthermore, wind turbine foundation design is unique

because wind farm projects often incorporate hundreds

of wind turbines over large areas of land. Because of

this, extreme variance in soil and groundwater conditions can be encountered on a single wind farm project.

Wind turbine foundation design has both typical and

atypical design criteria. These design criteria are based

on turbine specific load documents and site specific soil

and groundwater conditions. Typical design criteria include soil bearing capacity and foundation settlement.

Atypical design criteria include vertical and rotational

stiffness, electrical resistivity for electrical grounding,

and thermal resistivity for underground electrical transmission.

1.3 Wind Turbine Driving Forces

There are several driving forces that need to be accounted for in wind turbine foundation design. The wind turbine foundation needs to resist these driving forces to

safely support the wind turbine structure. The most important driving forces in wind turbine foundation design

are horizontal wind loads, mechanical and operation

loads, vertical and axial forces, ice loads, and seismic

loads. The horizontal wind loads are based on a 50 year

extreme wind gust and create a large overturning moment about the foundation edge. The mechanical and

operational loads are cyclic in nature and should be considered in foundation and tower fatigue calculations. The

Draft - Version 1.0

vertical and axial forces include the weight of the wind

turbine structure, the weight of the foundation, and the

weight of the overlying soil. The ice and seismic loads

may or may not be included in foundation design depending on the geographic location. Design loads for the

above listed driving forces are typically provided by the

turbine manufacturer.

path shown in Figure 5 should be followed. The path includes obtaining the turbine specific load document and

design requirements, obtaining a site specific geotechnical report, creating a preliminary design, completing

the required geotechnical deign checks, completing the

structural design, and evaluating the field and construction quality control.

the sites geotechnical report, location specific environmental restrictions, a wind modeling and resource assessment report, and a seismic risk analysis. The owner

and O&M requirements are specific to the project owner

and utility company that the electricity will supply. The

current codes and regulatory standards include the design loads and load factors, ultimate limit state (ULS) and

serviceability limit state (SLS) requirements and checks,

stability and overturning checks, and fatigue checks.

The loads that control the design need to be evaluated

by the foundation engineer and can be any of the following, wind, ice, operational, fatigue, seismic, or wave action for offshore applications. Load cases can be found

listed in IEC-61400 (2005).

and Geotechnical Report

The geotechnical investigation and report are important documents needed

for wind turbine foundation design.

There are several purposes of the geotechnical investigation, analysis, and

report. First, it is meant to explore the

subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater

conditions. Second, it reports the results of field and laboratory testing that

characterize the subsurface soils and

bedrock properties. Lastly, it provides

geotechnical recommendations for the

design and construction of the foundation systems.

and Design Requirements

The wind turbine manufacturer provides turbine specific load documents and design requirements to the

projects foundation engineer. These load documents

include both characteristic and extreme conditions. The

extreme conditions are based on a 50-year extreme

wind gust. The loads and design requirements include

the overturning moment, the vertical load, the horizontal

wind load, the allowable tilt or differential settlement, the

overall allowable settlement, the horizontal, vertical, and

rotational foundation stiffness, and the design life of the

wind turbine generator.

Further design requirements that are not turbine specific

must also be obtained. These include site conditions,

owner requirements, operation and maintenance (O&M)

requirements, current codes and regulatory standards,

and an evaluation of loads that will ultimately control

the design of the foundation. The site condition require-

typically collected by a combination of

field and laboratory test prior to the design of wind turbine foundations. Data and specimens

that are collected in field testing include soil borings, rock

coring, grab samples from test trenches and thin walled

Shelby Tubes, cone penetrometer test (CPT), standard

penetrometer test (SPT), and geophysical testing that

includes resistivity arrays and seismic surveys. A minimum of one boring or CPT at each turbine location as

well as several borings for access roads and substation

locations are required. Data and parameters collected

in lab test include soil data classifications such as unit

weight, Atterburg limits, moisture content, unconfined

compressive strength, compressive strength rock core,

consolidation test, permeability test, thermal resistivity

test, chemical compatibility tests, and electrical resistivity for electrical ground (Tinjum and Christensen, 2010).

2.2.1 Ground Improvement Recommendations

The geotechnical report may also include ground improvement recommendation for areas with poor soil

conditions. This is done through methods of over exca-

Draft - Version 1.0

vation and replacement, dynamics compaction, rammed

aggregate piers and stone columns. Over excavation

and replacement can be economical up to depths of 3

m or so beneath the base of the foundation. It is not

uncommon for the over excavation to be replaced with

a concrete slurry rather than using an engineered subgrade soil for replacement. Dynamics compaction can

be effective to depths of 7 to 10 m. Dynamic compaction is limited to course-grained soil. Rammed aggregate

piers (RAP) are increasingly used in conjunction with

conventional spread footings. This technique is applicable where the soil profile contains a soft or loose upper

later underlain by more competent material. Pier lengths

up to about 7 m can be installed with auger rigs; greater

lengths may be achieved with casing and mandrel systems (impact piers) (Tinjum and Christensen, 2010).

Design and Analysis

After the turbine specific load document, design requirements, and site specific geotechnical report have been

obtained and evaluated, a preliminary foundation design

can be created. When creating a preliminary design, the

foundation type, dimensions, and embedment depth

must be chosen. For most foundation engineers the preliminary design draws on past experience of foundation

design for similar geotechnical conditions. Past experience is helpful, but if an inexperienced engineer creates

a preliminary design that is over or under designed, the

foundation design checks will show if the design needs

to be altered. It is again noted that this foundation design

chapter will focus on the shallow octagonal gravity base

wind turbine foundation.

3.2 Pre-Design Check Calculations

Before completing the foundation design checks, three

calculations are required. First, the wind turbine systems

eccentricity is determined. Next, the wind turbine foundations effective loading area is calculated. Last, a correction to the horizontal force on the wind turbine, due

to the presence of a mechanical torque on the structure

and foundation, is needed.

3.2.1 Eccentricity

Before the foundations effective area is calculated, the

eccentricity of the wind turbine structure and system

needs to be determined. Due to the large horizontal wind

loads on the wind turbine and tower, the foundation load

center is offset from the center of the foundation by a

distance referred to as the eccentricity (e). This distance

can be calculated with Equation 1 if the design overturning moment and design vertical forces are known. Figure 6 shows a diagram of eccentric loading on a wind

turbine foundation. It is important to note that the ec-

design calculations, extreme wind conditions are used in

calculation to ensure the foundation will not fail.

[1]

Md

e = ___

Vd

where:

e = eccentricty

Md = design overturning moment

Vd = design vertical load

Example 3.2.1

If an extreme overturning moment is given as 52,500

kNm and a design vertical load of 11,800 kN the eccentricity is calculated below in meters.

Md

e = ___

Vd

e = 52,500 kNm

11,800 kN

e = 4.45 m from center of wind turbine structure

Draft - Version 1.0

3.2.2 Wind Turbine Foundation Effective Area

When wind loading is present, the load center is at the

center of the effective foundation area, a distance equal

to the eccentricity from the center of the system. The

effective area is important to determine the maximum

applied pressure to ensure adequate bearing capacity

is available. The effective foundation area for a shallow gravity base octagonal wind turbine foundation is

approximated to an ellipse and then later simplified to

a rectangle with the following equations. It may not be

immediately apparent why the ellipse needs to be approximated to a rectangle, but the rectangle will appear

in design calculations later in the chapter.

The effective area, approximated to an ellipse, can be

calculated using Equation 2.

[2]

where:

Aeff = effective foundation area

R = radius of inscribed circle of polygon

e = eccentricity

the Ellipse Approximation, and the Rectangular Approximation

The major axes of the approximated ellipse can be calculated with Equations 3 and 4.

be = 2(R - e)

[3]

le = 2R1-(1- 2Rb )2

[4]

where:

be = width of ellipse

le = length of ellipse

For a wind turbine foundation with a diameter of 15 m

and a calculated eccentricity of 4.45 m the effective

loading area is calculated.

The effective area, approximated to an ellipse.

Aeff = 2[R2 cos-1 ( Re ) - eR2 - e2]

4.45m

Aeff = 2[(7.5m)2 cos-1 (7.5m

) - (4.45m)(7.5m)2 - (4.45m)2]

the dimensions from Equations 5 and 6.

leff

beff = ___

be

le

[5]

leff = Aeff

[6]

le

be

Aeff = 51.5 m2

where:

beff = width of rectangle

leff = length of rectangle

Aeff = effective foundation area

A diagram of the octagonal foundation footprint, ellipse

approximation, and rectangular approximation is shown

in Figure 7.

be = 2(R - e)

be = 2(7.5m - 4.45m)

be = 6.1 m

le = 2R1-(1- 2Rb )2

6.1m 2

le = 2(7.5m)1-(1- 2(7.5m)

)

le = 12.1 m

The dimensions of the rectangle approximated

from the ellipse.

leff = Aeff

Draft - Version 1.0

le

be

12.1m

leff = 51.5 m2 (6.1m

)

H1 = 9,640.5 kN

Ieff = 10.1 m

After a preliminary design is created and the pre-design

check calculations have been completed, there are several design checks that must be evaluated to both ensure that the foundation is suitable to support the wind

turbine structure and to ensure that the foundation is not

over designed for cost purposes. There are five main

design checks that must be evaluated: foundation overturning, rotational stiffness, soil bearing capacity, sliding,

and settlement.

leff

beff = ___ be

le

10.1 m 6.1m

beff = _______

12.1 m

beff = 5.09 m

Correction for Mechanical

Torque

Before completing the design checks, the horizontal

load needs to be adjusted

due to the presence of a

mechanical torque on the

structure and foundation.

Most modern wind turbines

are designed to orientate

the turbine to face the direction of the incoming wind.

This mechanical action creates a mechanical torque

about the Z-axis of the system. The mechanical torque

can be seen as Mz in Figure

8. The mechanical torque

needs to be accounted for

in the design calculations

by adjusting the horizontal load on the system with

Equation 7.

H1 =

2M z

leff

Foundation overturning is often one of the first design

checks evaluated. This design check is meant to ensure

the destabilizing forces of the wind turbine system, from

an extreme loading case, do not exceed the stabilizing

forces. The destabilizing forces include the horizontal

wind load adjusted with mechanical torque, and any

other mechanical forces the turbine may create. The stabilizing forces include the mass of the turbine structure,

the mass of the concrete foundation, and the overburden soil mass and pressure. Some important geometric

foundation parameters, shown in the Figure 9, will be required for this design check calculation. After these geometric parameters have been identified, several steps

must be followed to complete the design check.

and Resultant Moment

on Wind Turbine System

+ H2 + (

2Mz

leff

[7]

If a mechanical torque of 27,000 kNm is applied to a system with an already existing horizontal force of 900 kN

and a foundation radius of 15 m, determine the adjusted

horizontal force.

H1 =

2(27,000 kNm)

10.1 m

2Mz

leff

+ H2 + (

2Mz

leff

+ (900kN)2 + (

2(27,000 kNm)

10.1 m

2. Calculate the total volume (Vc) and weight of concrete (Wc) in the foundation.

3. Calculate the soil dead load (WT). The soil dead

load is the weight of the soil that is above the octagonal foundation.

where:

H1 = adjusted horizontal force

Mz = mechanical torque

leff = length of approximated rectangle of

octagonal foundation

H1 =

1. Determine the foundation geometry, soil properties, concrete properties and the extreme factored

turbine loads. The foundation geometry will come

from the preliminary design. The soil properties can

be found in the geotechnical report. The concrete

properties will come from the concrete supplier for

the specific concrete that is to be used. Lastly, the

extreme factored turbine loads can be found in the

manufacturer supplied load document.

4. Calculate the total resisting moment (MR). The total resisting moment is a function of the weight of

the concrete, the weight of the soil, and the vertical

or axial forces of the turbine structure. The combination of these weights and forces are multiplied by the

foundation radius to obtain the total resisting moment.

5. Calculate the total overturning moment for the

extreme conditions (MOE). The total overturning moment is the combination of the existing overturning

moment at the base of the wind turbine tower cou-

Draft - Version 1.0

Extreme Factored Turbine Loads

Fxy = 163 kips horizontal

Fz = 497 kips vertical

Mxy = 36,587.2 ft kips

Operational Loads

Fxy = 45.0 kips horizontal

Fz = 509 kips vertical

Mxy = 11,300 ft kip

that will be installed.

Figure 9: Important geometric foundation parameters for

overturning calculation

height of the foundation.

6. Determine the factor of safety against overturning.

This is the ratio of the total resisting moment to the

extreme condition overturning moment. A factor of

safety of 1.5 or greater is commonly accepted for

foundation overturning.

Note: If the water table is above base of foundation, total

resisting moment (MR) needs to be adjusted with a buoyancy calculation.

Example 3.3.1 Design Check Wind Turbine Foundation Overturning

1. Determine foundation geometry, soil properties from

the geotechnical report, the properties of the concrete

that is to be used, and the extreme factored turbine

loads from the manufacturer supplied load document.

Ao = 8R1 tan(/8)

Ao = 8(25ft)2tan(/8) = 2071.1 ft2

Volume of Flat Octagon

Vo = (hb+hc ) Ao

Vo = (1.83ft+3.75ft) 2071.1 ft2 = 11,557 ft3

Deduction of Wedges

Rectangular wedges (4) total

VWR = hc (R1- B2) B

VWR = (3.75ft)[25ft - ((20.7ft)2)](20.7ft) = 568.7 ft3 EA

Triangular wedges (4) total

VWT = 1/3 Bhc (R1- (B2) 2)

VWT = 1/3 (20.7ft)(3.75ft)(25ft - (20.7ft2)2)

VWT = 134.0 ft3 EA

Total Wedge Volume

VW = 4 (VWR + VWT)

VW = 4 (568.7 ft3 + 134.0 ft3) = 2810.8 ft3

Pedestal Area

AP = (R2)2

AP = (8.5ft)2 = 227.0 ft2

Foundation Geometry

hp = 4.0 ft

hc = 3.75 ft

hb = 1.83 ft

hg = 3.5 ft

R = 27.1 ft

R1 = 25 ft

R2 = 8.5 ft

X1 = 13.0 ft

B = 20.7 ft

Pedestal Volume

VP = AP hP

VP = 227.0 ft2 4.0 ft = 907.9 ft3

Total Concrete Volume

Vc = Vo - VW + VP

Vc = 11,557 ft3 - 2810.8 ft3 + 907.9 ft3 = 9,659.8 ft3

or 357.8 YD3

Concrete Properties

Weight = 150 lb/ft3

f'c = 5000 psi

Taper rate = 0.256

Weight of Concrete

Wc = Vc 150 lb/ft3

Wc = 9,659.8 ft3 150 lbsft3 = 1,449.0 kips

Soil Properties

Weight = 120 lb/ft3

Allowable Bearing = 5440 psf

Extreme Allowable Bearing = 6400 psf

Friction Coefficient, = 0.35

Water table height = 20 ft

Change in soil height, g. Soil grade at " per foot.

g = in 1 ft/12 in (R1 - R2)

g = in 1 ft/12 in (25.0ft - 8.5 ft) = 0.344 ft

Draft - Version 1.0

hg_ave = [hg + (hg - g)]/2

hg_ave = [3.5ft + (3.5ft-0.344ft)]/2 = 3.33 ft

Soil Area without Pier

As = Ao - AP

As = 2071.1 ft2 - 227.0 ft2 = 1,844.1 ft2

Soil Weight Above Flat Octagon, Ws

Ws = As hg_ave s

Ws = 1,844.1 ft2 3.33 ft 120 lb/ft3 = 736.5 kips

Wedge Soil Weight, Wws

Wws = VW s

Wws = 2810.8 ft3 120 lb/ft3 = 337.3 kips

Total Soil Weight, WT

WT = Wws + Ws

WT = 337.3 kips + 736.5 kips = 1073.8 kips

4. Determine the total resisting moment, MR.

MR = (Wc + WT + FZ) R1

MR = (1,449.0 kips + 1073.8 kips + 497.0 kips) 25.0 ft

MR = 75,495 ft kips

5. Calculate the total overturning moment for the extreme conditions, MOE.

MOE = Mxy + Fxy(hb + hc + hp)

MOE = 36,587.2 ft kips + 163 kips (1.83 ft + 3.75 ft + 4.0ft)

MOE = 38,148.7 ft kips

MOO = Mxy + Fxy (hb + hc + hp)

MOO = 11,300ft kips + 45.0 kips (1.83 ft + 3.75 ft + 4.0 ft)

MOO = 11,731.1 ft kips

6. Determine the factor of safety against overturning.

FS = MR / MOE

FS = (75,495 ft kips) / (38,148.7 ft kips) = 1.98

1.98 > 1.5

Foundation Design Passes Overturning Check

Summary of steps to check foundation overturning:

1. Determine geometry, properties, and extreme

loads of the system

2. Determine the volume and weight of concrete

that will be installed

3. Determine Soil Dead Load

4. Determine the total resisting moment, MR

6. Determine the factor of safety against

overturning

Buoyancy Calculation

Two changes take place when the water table is above

the base of the foundation. First, an uplift force from the

water pressure occurs at the base of the foundation.

Second, if the water table is above the upper edge of the

foundation base, the soil above the foundation, below

the water table, becomes saturated.

The uplift force due to the water pressure can be calculated with Equation 8.

FH2O = w hw Afoundation

[8]

where:

FH O = uplift force due to water pressure

2

w = unit weight of water

hw = height of water above foundation base

Afoundation = area of foundation footprint

The moment the uplift force creates about the edge of

the foundation must be subtracted from the total resisting moment (MR) previously calculated.

In the scenario that the water table is above the upper

edge of the foundation base, the weight of the overlying

soil must be recalculated using the saturated unit weight.

3.3.2 Rotational Stiffness

There are several types of foundation stiffness checks.

However, rotational stiffness is almost always the design

controlling stiffness parameter, and is often the overall

design controlling parameter. Vertical, horizontal, and

torsional stiffness rarely control the design. The turbine

manufacture provides a nominal minimum value of rotational stiffness that is required in the foundation design.

Foundation rotational stiffness is defined as the ratio of

the applied moment to the foundations angular rotation

in radians as shown below.

k M/

where:

k = rotational stiffness

M = applied moment

= rotation in radians

For a rigid circular foundation resting on an elastic halfspace and subjected to rocking motion, Richart et al.

(1978) provides Equation 9 for rotational stiffness.

k = 8GR3 / 3(1-v) = M/

Draft - Version 1.0

[9]

Modulus reduction = G / Gmax

where:

G = shear modulus

R = foundation radius

v = Poisson's ratio

It is important to note there are two key soil parameters

needed for a stiffness check, Poissons ratio (v), and

shear modulus (G). Poissons ratio is usually estimated

based on the type of soil and details in the geotechnical report. Figure 10 from Tinjum and Christensen, 2010

shows commonly used values for Poissons ratio. In unsaturated soils, Poissons ratio can be determined from

equation:

v = [0.5(Vp Vs) -1] / [(Vp Vs) - 1]

where

Vp = compression wave velocity

Vs = shear wave velocity

v = poisson's ratio

There are empirical correlations in

DNV Riso, 2002 from

which you can obtain shear modulus

(G) values. However,

in current US based

practice the shear

modulus is often determined from testing such as cone Figure 10: Commonly used values for

penetrometer testing

Poisson's Ration by soil type from

(CPT), seismic testTinjum and Christensen, 2010

ing, or surface geophysical testing. Through these test, the shear wave velocity (Vs) can be obtained. Once the shear wave velocity

is obtained, the maximum shear modulus (Gmax) can be

calculated with the following equation.

where:

G = reduced shear modulus

Gmax = nonreduced modulus

Figure 12 shows the

variation of modulus

reduction factors for

normally

consolidated soil based on

plasticity index (PI)

and granular soil as

a function of cyclic

shear strain (after

Sykora et al. 1992

and Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).

It is recommended

Figure 11: Common values for shear

by DNV Riso, 2002

wave velocity (Vs) are shown in Figure

to assume a cyclic 3.6 from Tinjum and Christensen, 2010

shear strain value of

0.1% for wind turbine foundation stiffness calculations.

DNV Riso, 2002 also gives recommended cyclic shear

strain values for rotating machines, wind and ocean

waves, and earthquakes. These ranges can be seen

shaded on Figure 12.

The reduced shear modulus obtained from Figure 12 is

to be used in the rotational stiffness calculation.

[10]

where:

= soil density

Vs = shear wave velocity

E = modulus of elasticity

Common values for shear wave velocity (Vs) are shown in

Figure 11 from Tinjum and Christensen, 2010.

Because soil behaves with a non-linear response to

stress, the shear modulus obtained from the previous

equation needs to be reduced by a reduction factor. The

modulus reduction factor is a function of cyclic shear

strain (c), and can be defined as the ratio of the reduced

shear modulus to the unreduced maximum shear modulus as shown below.

normally consolidated soil based on plasticity index,

PI and granular soil as a function of cyclic shear strain

(after Sykora et al. 1992 and Vucetic and Dobry, 1991)

embedded foundation on a medium above bedrock are

shown in Figure 13 from DNV Riso, 2002. These equations are modified in DNV Riso, 2002 for other geotechnical conditions including foundation, which are not

embedded, placed on soil over bedrock or a two layer

infinite half-space. The equation to calculate rotational

stiffness for an embedded foundation on soil over bedrock is shown below.

Draft - Version 1.0

Example 3.3.2 Design Check Rotational Stiffness

A wind turbine is to be constructed where the soil profile

is a very uniform, poorly graded sand where the bedrock

is generally at depths of 200 ft and deeper. The subsurface profile for this location is shown in Figure 14.

embedded foundation on a medium above bedrock

from DNV/Riso 2002

k = (8GR3 / 3(1 - v))(1 + R/6H)(1 + 2D/R)(1 + 0.7 D/H) [11]

where:

H = depth to bedrock

d = depth of embedment

R = foundation radius

range of validity: DR < 2 and DH <

If the bedrock is located 200 feet or deeper below the

surface the (1 + R/6H) and (1 + 0.7 D/H) terms can be ignored in the above equation.

Maximum Foundation Inclination

The maximum inclination that the foundation will encounter can be determined once the rotational stiffness of the

system is determined. From the definition of rotational

stiffness along with the maximum applied moment, the

rotation in radians can be determined by rearranging the

definition of rotational stiffness as seen below.

= M / k

[12]

where:

k = rotational stiffness

M = applied moment

= rotation in radians

Using geometry the maximum deflection of the edge of

the foundation can be determined.

loads:

M = 45,000 ft-kips

K(min) = 33 GNm/rad

For a preliminary design of a foundation equivalent diameter of 48.0 ft and an embedment depth of 8.0 ft, answer the following:

a. What is the available rotational stiffness?

b. Does the rotational stiffness meet the minimum

requirements provided by the manufacturer?

c. What is the maximum displacement at the out

edge of the foundation?

1. Select appropriate approach. For this scenario of a

circular footing embedded in stratum over bedrock, the

Draft - Version 1.0

Equation 11 from Figure 13 should be used.

k = (8GR3 / 3(1 - v))(1 + R/6H)(1 + 2D/R)(1 + 0.7 D/H)

where:

G = reduced shear modulus

R = foundation radius

v = Poisson's Raio

H = depth to bedrock

D = embedment depth

Because the bedrock is located at 200 feet or deeper

below the surface the (1 + R/6H) and (1 + 0.7 D/H) terms

can be ignored.

2. Estimate Poissons ratio based off of the soil description and soil profile.

from given soil information for example 3.3.2

a reasonable approximation.

H = 200 ft

D = 8.0 ft

The effective zone for a foundation maybe considered to

be the foundation diameter divided by two. Thus, only

the first 24 ft. of the soil profile below the base should

be evaluated for shear wave velocity. A conservative estimate of shear wave velocity, Vs = 150 m/s or 492 ft/s,

should be used.

K = 24,519,286 kip ft rad or 33.24 GN mrad

7. Does the available rotational stiffness meet the design

requirements?

33.24 GN mrad > 33 GN mrad

Design Passes Rotational Stiffness Check

the correlation with shear velocity and soil density.

edge of the foundation.

weight of approximately 115 pcf.

K M /

Gmax = Vs

5. Determine the correct modulus reduction factor from

the given soil information and reduce the shear modulus.

This is shown in Figure 15.

G Gmax = 0.3

G = Gmax G Gmax

G = 864.5 ksf 0.3 = 259.4 ksf

6. Enter all the known parameters into the stiffness equation and calculate the available rotational stiffness.

G = 259.4 ksf

R = 24.0 ft

v = 0.35

where:

K = rotational stiffness

M = applied moment

= rotation in radians

= M / K

= (45,000 ft kips) / (24,519,286 kip ftrad)

= 0.001835 radians

Once the maximum rotation is known, the maximum vertical displacement of the out edge of the foundation can

be determined.

vert disp = R sin

vert disp = 24 ft sin (0.001835 rad) = 0.044 ft or 0.528 in

Summary of steps to check foundation stiffness:

1. Select appropriate approach.

2. Estimate Poissons ratio based off of the soil description and soil profile.

Draft - Version 1.0

3. Determine a shear wave velocity, Vs from the soil

profile.

4. Calculate the maximum shear modulus, Gmax

though the correlation with shear velocity and soil

density.

5. Determine the correct modulus reduction factor

from the given soil information and reduce the shear

modulus.

6. Enter all the known parameters into the stiffness

equation and calculate the available rotational stiffness.

7. Check if the available rotational stiffness meets

the design requirements.

8. Determine the maximum displacement of the outer edge of the foundation.

3.3.3 Bearing Capacity

When calculating a soils ultimate bearing capacity the

engineer must determine whether the soil condition will

be drained or undrained. Because it cannot often be assumed that a soil will remain in the drained condition for

the life of the wind turbine or wind turbine foundation,

the more conservative undrained bearing capacity calculation is most often used in wind turbine foundation

design.

It is noted that in the case of extreme eccentric loading, e > 0.3B, where B is the diameter of the foundation,

an additional bearing capacity calculation needs to be

evaluated. If extreme eccentricity is present, there is a

possibility of failure according to rupture 2 in Figure 16. A

rupture 2 failure indicates failure of the soil under the unloaded part of the foundation as well as the loaded area

(DNV Riso 2002). Although there are additional calculations to evaluate the stability of a system with extreme

eccentricity, other design checks will often show that the

size of the foundation needs to be increased to a point

that extreme eccentricity no longer exist.

Fully Drained Bearing Capacity

Assuming that the wind turbine foundation is not extremely eccentric and the potential failure would occur

along rupture 1 in Figure 16, Equation 13 can be used to

evaluate the drained bearing capacity. Equation 13 is the

general form of the ultimate bearing capacity equation

with a few adjustments for the shape and inclination of a

shallow octagonal wind turbine foundation.

q = ' beff N S i + Nq Sq iq Po + cd Nc Sc ic [13]

where:

q = ultimate foundation bearing capcity

' = effective (submerged) unit weight of soil

beff = width of rectangle

N, Nq, Nc = bearing capacity factors,which depend

on the soil effective friction angle

S, Sq, Sc = shape influence factors

i, iq, ic = inclination influence factors

cd = effective cohesion of supporting soil

The three terms on the right hand side of Equation 13

represent the contribution to soil weight, overburden

pressure, and cohesion. The bearing capacity factors

may be found in charts or tables in text books or manuals or may be computed by a variety of equations or

charts in foundation engineering textbooks or manuals.

In practice, Equation 13 is rarely applied in its complete

form (Tinjum and Christensen, 2010). The more commonly used forms are:

For Granular Soil:

q = ' beff N S i + Nq Sq iq Po

[14]

q = cd Nc Sc ic + Po

[15]

The shape and inclination factors, for shallow octagonal wind turbine foundations on fully drained soil, can be

determined with the following equations from DNV Riso

2002.

[16]

[17]

Figure 16: Bearing capacity failure planes for normal

(rupture 1) and extreme eccentricity (rupture 2) failure

i = iq2

Draft - Version 1.0

[19]

Undrained Bearing Capacity

Again assuming the foundation is not experiencing extremely eccentric loading, and potential failure would

occur along rupture 1 of Figure 16, Equation 20 can be

used to determine the ultimate bearing capacity for a

shallow octagonal wind turbine foundation on undrained

soil conditions.

q = s NcScic0 + P0

[20]

where:

q = ultimate foundation bearing capcity

s = undrained shear strength

Nc = shear strength bearing capacity factor, Nc = + 2

Sc = shape factor

ic0 = inclination factor

P0 = effective overburden stress

The shape and inclination factors, for shallow octagonal wind turbine foundations on undrained soil, can be

determined with the following equations from DNV Riso

2002.

[21]

[22]

Upon making the appropriate substitutions into the bearing capacity equation it transforms into the following.

[23]

q = sNc(1 + 0.2 beff / leff)(0.5 + 0.5[1- (H /(AeffS)] + P0)

1. Determine the bearing capacity factor, the shape factor, the inclination factor, and the effective overburden

pressure.

Bearing Capacity Factor, Nc = + 2

Shape Factor, Sc

Sc = 1 + 0.2 (beff / leff) = 1 + 0.2 [(6.45 m) / (12.8 m)] = 1.1

leff = 82.0 m [(12.1 m) / (6.1 m)] = 12.8 m

beff = [(12.8 m) / (12.1 m)] 6.1 m = 6.45 m

Inclination Factor, ic

ic = 0.5 + 0.5 (1-H'/AeffS)

ic = 0.5 + 0.5 1-(9,640.5 kN) / [(51.5 m2)(240 kPa)]

ic = 0.73

2. Determine the effective overburden pressure.

P0 = -

where:

= hsoilsoil

= hwaterwater

P0 = (2 m 18.5 kN m3) - (0.5 m 9.8 kN m3) = 32.1 kPa

3. Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil.

The ultimate bearing capacity represents the capacity at

which the soil will fail. In wind turbine foundation design,

a factor of safety equal to 2.25 is used to obtain an allowable bearing capacity.

q = sNcScic + P0

q = 240 kPa ( + 2) 1.1 0.73 + 32.1 kPa = 1023.0 kPa

qall = q / FS

[24]

where:

qall = allowable bearing capacity

q = ultimate bearing capacity

FS = factor of safety for bearing capacity, 2.25

Example 3.3.3 Design Check

Undrained Bearing Capacity

Determine the ultimate and allowable bearing capacity

for a site with an average undrained shear strength, s =

240 kPa, a soil unit weight of 18.5 kN/m3, a foundation

embedment depth of 2 m, and a water table 0.5 m above

the base of the foundation.

Is the site suitable for construction of a wind turbine with

a maximum vertical load of 18,000 kN (inclusive of foundation weight) and an equivalent dimensions, effective

area, horizontal load, and overturning moment as Example 3.2.1.

5. Check if the maximum overburden pressure is greater

than the allowable bearing capacity.

349.5 kPa < 454.7 kPa

Design Passes Bearing Capacity Check

Summary of steps to check foundation bearing capacity:

1. Determine the bearing capacity factor, the shape

factor, the inclination factor, and the effective overburden pressure

2. Determine the effective overburden pressure

3. Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil

Draft - Version 1.0

4. Determine the allowable bearing capacity of the soil

5. Determine the maximum overburden pressure

6. Check if the maximum overburden pressure is

greater than the allowable bearing capacity

3.3.4 Sliding

Due to the large horizontal wind load that is applied to

the wind turbine and tower, sliding resistance must be

investigated to ensure sliding will not occur. The frictional resisting force (Fs), must be greater than the horizontal

force by a factor of at least 1.5. This is a conservative

calculation because the later earth pressure on the sides

of the embedded foundation greatly reduces any chance

of foundation sliding.

To determine the frictional resisting force, the sum of the

vertical loads is multiplied by the frictional coefficient.

The frictional coefficient can be obtained from Equation 25. The equations to calculate the frictional resisting force and factory of safety against sliding are shown

below as Equation 26 and 27.

= tan

[25]

where:

= frictional coefficient

= interfacial friction angle of disimilar materials

[26]

where:

Fs = frictional resisting force

= frictional coefficient

Wc = weight of concrete

Ws = weight of overlying soil

Fz = vertical or axial load

FS against sliding = Fs / FH

[27]

where:

Fs = frictional resisting force

FH = horizontal wind load corrected for mechnical

torque

Example 3.3.4 Design Check Foundation sliding

Using the known parameters from the previous example

problems and an interfacial friction angle of 20 degrees,

determine the factor of safety against sliding.

FH = 509 kips

FS against sliding = 1,087.0 kips / 509 kips = 2.14

2.14 > 1.5

Foundation Design Passes Sliding Check

3.3.5 Settlement

In the case of wind turbine foundations, settlement can

occur as a result of compression of the underlying soil.

Given the magnitude of the vertical loads from the wind

turbines and the typical size of the spread footings, the

contact pressure from vertical loads is quite low; typically in the range of 50 to 75 kPa. Most soil profiles that

have adequate bearing capacity and stiffness will settle

less than 2.5 cm (Tinjum and Christensen, 2010).

Foundation Settlement Analysis

There are several methods available to calculate foundation settlement. For cohesive soils, consolidation

settlement is utilized. This type of settlement calculation

relies on laboratory test of undisturbed soil samples to

obtain the compression index (Cc) and recompression

index (CR) of the soil. The classical method of calculating consolidation settlement is described in the following

section of this design chapter. For granular soils, wind

turbine foundation settlement is often calculated using

the Schmermann at al. (1978) procedure or some other

form of elastic analysis. Elastic settlement calculations

relies on a variety of geotechnical parameters including

SPT blow counts (N), CPT tip resistance (qc), strain influence factor, Poissons ratio (v), unconfined compressive

strength (qu), constrained modulus (M), and the modulus

of elasticity (E). The Schmermann method of calculating

granular soil settlement is described later in this section.

Other than the elastic half-space analysis, the methods

are incremental, allowing the compressibility of the soil

layers within the zone of influence of the foundation to

be incorporated into the analysis. The downside of conventional settlement analysis for shallow octagonal wind

turbine foundation design, is that the size of the foundation influences the soil profile to a considerable depth,

and even small strains summed over large depths can

result in what may appear to be unacceptable settlements. Cutting off the computations at depths where

the stress increases is 10 to 20 percent of the overburden pressure generally solves the problem (Tinjum and

Christensen, 2010).

= tan

= tan20 = 0.36

Frictional Resisting Force, FRF = (Wconcrete + Wsoil + FZ)

FRF = 0.36 (1,449.0 kips + 1,073.8 kips + 497 kips)

the soil are measured at small strain, either by CPT or

surface methods. By properly reducing the small strain

values obtained by the field measurements, settlements

could be computed using elastic methods. A reduction

of the small strain values on the order of 6 percent is

Draft - Version 1.0

recommended for use in settlement calculations (Tinjum

and Christensen, 2010).

The Classical Method Lab Testing (Conduto, 2010)

The classical method of foundation settlement analysis

uses Terzaghis theory of consolidation and the compression index (Cc) and recompression index (Cr) data

from laboratory testing. In this method it is assumed that

all settlement is one-dimensional and all of the strain is

vertical. This method divides the soil beneath the footing into layers, computes the settlement of each layer,

and then sums the settlement of the all layers for the

total foundation settlement. To obtain a high degree of

accuracy, the soil layers closest to the surface are the

thinnest and progressively get thicker as they get farther

from the surface. To obtain the highest degree of accuracy, thin layers throughout the computation are used. Using computer analysis greatly simplifies the settlement

computation for numerous thin layers.

When computing settlement for a spread footing, such

as a shallow octagonal gravity base wind turbine foundation, the octagonal foundation is simplified to a circle

for calculation. Furthermore, a rigidity factor (r), must be

added into the consolidation settlement equations. The

rigidity factor used for octagonal gravity base foundations is equal to 0.85 implying a perfectly rigid spread

footing. The settlement equations for normally consolidated and overconsolidated soil with the rigidity factor

are shown as Equations 28 through 30.

Settlement equations for normally consolidated soils

('z0 'c)

For overconsolidated soil Case I ('zf < 'c)

For overconsolidated soil Case II ('z0 < 'c < 'zf)

Cr

'zf

'zf

Cc

___

____

___

c = r ____

1 + e0 Hlog ( 'z0 ) + 1 + e0 Hlog ( 'z0 ) [30]

where:

c = ultimate consolidation settlement

r = rigidity factor (0.85 for octagonal gravity

base foundations)

Cc = compression index

Cr = recompression index

e0 = initial void ratio

H = thicknes of soil layer

'z0 = initial vertical effective stress at midpoint

of soil layer

'zf = final vertical effective stress at midpoint

of soil layer

'c = preconsolidation stress at midpoint of soil layer

The compression index, recompression index, and preconsolidation stress should be provided with the soil

data in the geotechnical report and preliminary foundation design. The initial and final vertical effective stresses

can be calculated using the Equations 31 and 32.

If the compression index, recompression index, and the

preconsolidation stress are not provided in the geotechnical report, they can be acquired from the geotechnical

lab testing information and procedures described in detail in geotechnical engineering manuals and textbooks.

Initial Vertical Effective Stress

'z0 = H -

[31]

where:

= unit weight of soil stratum

H = thickness of soil stratum

= pore water pressure

Final Vertical Effective Stress

'zf = 'z0+ z

[32]

where:

'z0 = initial vertical effective stress at midpoint

of soil layer

z = induced vertical stess due to load from

foundation

Induced Vertical Effective Stress

z = I (q - 'zD)

[33]

where:

z = induced vertical stess

I = stress influence factor

q = bearing pressure along bottom of foundation

'zD = vertical effective stress at a depth D below

the ground surface

Induced Vertical Stress

The induced vertical stress for shallow foundations can

be determined several ways, either by the Boussinesq

method, the Westergaard method, or by the simplified

method which produces induced vertical stress values

within 5 percent of the Boussinesq values. Both the

Boussinesq and simplified method for determining induced vertical stress are covered in this chapter.

Boussinesq Method for Determining

Induced Vertical Stress

The bearing pressure along the bottom of the foundation

(q), reflects the vertical stress from the structure on the

foundation and the weight of the foundation. The vertical

effective stress ('zD), represents the reduction in vertical

stress from the soil removed for excavation and installation of the foundation. In the case of with turbine foun-

Draft - Version 1.0

dation design, 'zD would be determined for a depth (D),

equivalent to the embedment depth of the foundation.

The induced vertical stress (z), represents the net result of the two effects.

Immediately below the foundation, the stress influence

factor (I), is equal to 1. However, as depth beneath the

foundation increases, the vertical stress is distributed

over an increasingly large area. Because of this, the induced vertical stress (z) and stress influence factor (I)

decrease with depth.

In 1885, Joseph Valentin Boussinesq a French physicist

and mathematician developed a classic solution for the

induced vertical stress in an elastic material due to an

applied load. This classic solution was later integrated by

Nathan Mortimore Newmark in 1935 to produce equations for the stress influence factor beneath a foundation

as a function of the foundations geometry and depth to

the point of interest. These equations have been used to

create stress bulb charts to determine the stress influence factor and can be seen in Figure 17.

Simplified Method for

Determining Induced Vertical Stress

The Boussinesq equations used to create the stress bulb

charts shown in Figure 17 are tedious to solve by hand.

Because of this, the simplified method for determining

induced vertical stress has been created for use when a

quick answer is needed or when a computer is not available. For shallow octagonal wind turbine foundations

approximated to a circle, Equation 34 adapted from

Poulos and Davis 1974, offers a simplified approach to

the induced vertical stress calculation.

Davis 1974)

[ (

1

z = 1- _________

2

B

______

1+

2zf

1.5

(q -'zD )

where:

'zD = vertical effective stress at a depth D below

the ground surface

zf = vertical distance from the bottom of the

foundation to the point of interest

q = bearing pressure

B = diameter of foundation

Using the above equations, the total foundation settlement can be determined using the classical method and

Equations 28, 29, or 30. The total foundation settlement

can be compared to the allowable settlement and the

design can be checked for settlement.

Example 3.3.4 Design Check

Foundation Settlement Classical Method

The allowable settlement for the shallow octagonal

spread wind turbine foundation described in Example

3.3.1 is 1 inch. Using the classical method and a simplified soil layer division, compute the settlement of the

foundation and determine if it satisfies the allowable

settlement requirement. Information from geotechnical

report and preliminary design:

Embedment depth = 9 ft

Soil is Overconsolidated - Case I

= 115 pcf-Silty Clay

Depth to water table = 20 ft

'c (psf) = 5,000 psf

Cc / (1 + e0) = 0.11; Cr / (1 + e0) = 0.015

Boussinesqs equation for square and continuous footings

Draft - Version 1.0

Solution

Fz = 497 kips

soil, and the strain influence factor (I). The analysis can

be adapted to use other in-situ geotechnical parameters

other than CPT data including standard penetration test

(SPT), dilatometer test (DMT), and pressuremeter test

(PMT) data.

Weight of Concrete

Wc = Vc 150 lb/ft3

Wc = 9,659.8 ft3 150 lbsft3 = 1,449.0 kips

of elasticity (Es) for settlement calculation. Because the

equivalent modulus of elasticity is a linear function, it

simplifies the settlement computation when compared

to the classical method that uses the compression index

(Cc) and recompression index (CR), which are logarithmic

parameters.

WT = Wws + Ws

WT = 337.3 kips + 736.5 kips = 1073.8 kips

q = [(Fz + Wsoil + Wc) / A]

q = [(497 kips + 1,073.8 kips + 1,449.0 kips)] / (25 ft)2

q = 1,539.0 psf

'zD = D = 115 pcf 9 ft = 1,035.0 psf

'zf = 'z0 + z

'z0 = H -

[ (

1

z = 1- _________

2

______

B

1+

2zf

1.5

(q -'zD)

r

zf

___

Total Settlment c = r ____

1 + e0 Hlog ( 'z0 )

'

Layer

No.

H

(ft)

zf

(ft)

'zo

(psf)

'z

(psf)

'zf

(psf)

'c

(psf)

Case

Soil behaves with a non-linear response to stress. Because the response is non-linear (stress is not proportional to strain), the modulus of elasticity cannot be used

in computation; the equivalent modulus of elasticity

must be used. The Equivalent modulus of elasticity represents a modulus that is equivalent to an unconfined

linear material such that the computed settlement will be

the same as the actual soil settlement. The equivalent

modulus of elasticity (Es) represents the lateral stain in

the soil and thus is larger than the modulus of elasticity

(E), but smaller than the confined modulus (M).

Determining Equivalent Modulus of Elasticity (Es)

from CPT Tip Resistance

Cone penetrometer tests (CPT) provide continuous tip

resistance data for the entire depth of the CPT analysis.

Empirical correlations between the equivalent modulus

of elasticity (Es) and the cone tip resistance (qc) have

been developed. A range of recommended design values of Es / qc are shown in Figure

18 adapted from Schmertmann, et

Cc

Cr

c

al. (1978) and Robertson and Com1 + e0 1 + e0

(in)

panella (1989). When applying CPT

0.11 0.015 0.25

data to the Schmertmann method,

0.11 0.015 0.32

do not apply an overburden correc0.11 0.015 0.26

tion to the cone tip resistance (qc).

2.5

1322.5

1206.317

2528.817

NA

OC-I

10

10

2185

1108.938

3293.938

NA

OC-I

15

22.5

2904.9

726.7606

3631.661

NA

OC-I

20

40

3825.4

361.8914

4187.291

NA

OC-I

0.11

0.015

0.14

25

62.5

5008.9

174.6722

5183.572

NA

OC-I

0.11

0.015

0.07

need to compute 'c or Cc / (1 + e0).

In shallow spread footings, the

Total

0.89

greatest vertical strains do not occur immediately below the footing.

As determined by Schmertmann, the greatest strain

occurs at a depth equal to B, where B is the width

c allowable

The settlement criterion has been satisfied

The Schmertmann Method

Field Testing (Conduto, 2010)

The Schmertmann method is one of the more common

methods for calculating foundation settlement in granular soils. The method is based on a physical model that

is calibrated using empirical data. This method of settlement analysis relies primarily on CPT cone resistance

[Adapted from Schmertmann, et al. (1978)

and Robertson and Campanella (1989)]

Draft - Version 1.0

or diameter of the footing. This distribution of strain is

described by the strain influence factor (I). For shallow

octagonal wind turbine foundations, the distribution of

the strain influence factor is shown as two straight lines

in Figure 19. The peak value of the strain influence factor

(Ip) can be calculated with Equation 35.

[35]

where:

Ip = peak strain influence factor

q = bearing pressure

'zD = vertical effective stress at a depth D below

the ground surface

'zp = initial vertical effective stress at depth of

peak strain influence factor

for empirical corrections for the depth of embedment,

secondary creep in the soil, and the shape of the foundation footing. These corrections are implemented through

the factors C1, C2, and C3. The equations for the empirical corrections are shown as Equations 38 and 39.

Depth Factor C1 = (1 - 0.5)[('zD) / (q - 'zD)] [38]

Secondary Creep Factor C2 = 1 + 0.2 log(t / 0.1) [39]

Shape Factor C3 = 1 for square and circular foundations

where:

q = bearing pressure

'zD = vertical effective stress at a depth D below

the ground surface

t = time since application of load in years, t 0.1 yr

The above equations are applicable for all consistent

units with the exception that time must remain in years.

If the time since load application is unknown use t = 50

years, C2 = 1.54.

All of the previous information can be combined into

Equation 40 to determine the elastic settlement of a

shallow octagonal wind turbine foundation.

Figure 19: Distribution of strain influence factor with depth under

square and continuous footings (Adapted from Schmertmann (1978)

foundations.

The exact value of I, for square and circular foundations,

at any given depth can be determined using Equations

36 and 37. When dividing the soil strata into layers, be

sure to divide it in a manner that the depth from the bottom of the foundation to the midpoints of the layers work

for the below zf conditions and equations.

For zf = 0 to 2:

B

where:

C1 = depth factor

C2 = secondary creep factor

C3 = shape factor

q = bearing pressure

'zD = vertical effective stress at a depth D below

the ground surface

I = strain influence factor

H = thickness of soil layer

Es = equivalent modulus of elasticity

Summary of Steps for Schmertmann Method of Settlement Analysis:

1. Obtain required in-situ test data that defines the

subsurface conditions

[36]

circular footings, into zone layers and assign an

equivalent modulus of elasticity (Es) to each layer

[37]

For zf = B2 to 2B:

[40]

where:

zf = depth from bottom of foundation to midpoint

of layer

I = strain influence factor

Ip = peak influence factor

4. Calculate the strain influence factor (I), at the midpoint of each layer

5. Calculate the correction factors, C1, C2, and C3

6. Calculate the settlement

Draft - Version 1.0

Example 3.3.5 Design Check

Foundation Settlement Schmertmann Method

The allowable settlement for the shallow octagonal

spread wind turbine foundation described in Example

3.3.1 is 1 inch. Using the classical method and a simplified soil layer division, compute the settlement of the

foundation and determine if it satisfies the allowable settlement requirement.

Information from geotechnical report and preliminary design: the results of a CPT sounding performed at the location where a wind turbine is to be installed are shown

in Figure 20. The soils at this site are young, normally

consolidated sands with some interbedded silts.

Embedment depth = 9 ft

Soil is Overconsolidated - Case I

= 115 pcf - Silty Clay

Depth to water table = 20 ft

'c (psf) = 5,000 psf

Cc / (1 + e0) = 0.11

Cr / (1 + e0) = 0.015

Solution

Fz = 497.1 kips

Weight of Concrete

Wc = Vc 150 lb/ft3

Wc = 9,659.8 ft3 150 lbsft3 =1,449.0 kips

Total Soil Weight, WT

WT = Wws + Ws

WT = 337.3 kips + 736.5 kips = 1073.8 kips

q = (Fz + Wsoil + Wc) / A

q = (497 kips + 1,073.8 kips + 1,449.0 kips) / (25 ft)2

q = 1,538.0 psf

Using Es = 2.5 qc from Figure 18

Depth of influence = D + 2B = 9.0 ft + 2(41.4) = 91.8 ft

'zD = D = 115 pcf 9 ft = 1,035.0 psf

Compute 'zp at depth of D + B2 for square and circular

foundations.

'zp = (D + B2) - w (Hw)

'zp = 115 pcf (9 ft + 20.7 ft) - 62.4pcf (9 ft + 20.7 ft - 20ft)

'zp = 2,810.2 psf

Ip = 0.5 + 0.1[(q - 'zD) / 'zp]

Ip = 0.5 + 0.1 [(1,538.0 - 1,035.0) / 2,810.2 psf]

Ip = 0.57

For zf = 0 to B2:

I = 0.1 + [(zf / B)(2 Ip - 0.2)]

For zf = B2 to 2B:

I = 0.667 Ip [2 - (zf / B)]

installation location for Example 3.35 Design Check Foundation Settlement Schmertmann Method

Draft - Version 1.0

Depth Factor C1

C1 = 1 - 0.5[('zD) / (q - 'zD)]

C1 = 1 - 0.5[(1,035.0 psf) / (2,243.4 psf - 1,035.0 psf)] = 0.572

Secondary Creep Factor C2

C2 = 1 + 0.2 log(t / 0.1) = 1 + 0.2 log(50 / 0.1) = 1.54

Shape Factor C3 = 1 for square and circular foundations

= C1C2C3 (q - 'zD) (IH / Es)

= (0.572)(1.54)(1)(2,243.4 psf - 1,035.0 psf)(5.35E-03)

c allowable

The settlement criterion has been satisfied

If limited subsurface data is available or if the CPT results show a relatively uniform cone tip resistance (qc),

a constant equivalent modulus of elasticity (Es) can be

used to simplify the Schmertmann method of settlement

analysis. Equation 41 shows the simplified method of

Schmertmann settlement analysis.

where:

C1 = depth factor

C2 = secondary creep factor

C3 = shape factor

q = bearing pressure

'zD = vertical effective stress at a depth D below

the ground surface

Ip = peak influence factor

H = thickness of soil layer

Es = equivalent modulus of elasticity

Layer

No.

Depth

(ft)

zf

(ft)

qc

(psi)

Es

(psi)

Es

(psf)

H

(ft)

I H

Es

0 to 9

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

9 to 20

5.5

12.5

1800

0.224879

11

0.37E-03

20 to 40

21

14

35

5040

0.576812

20

2.29E-03

40 to 47

34.5

16

40

5760

0.443555

5.39E-04

47 to 52

40.5

22

55

7920

0.388455

2.45E-04

52 to 60

47

30

75

10800

0.328763

2.44E-04

60 to 79

60.5

18

45

6480

0.204788

19

6.00E-04

70 to 87

74

35

87.5

12600

0.080813

5.13E-05

87 to 92

80.5

40

100

14400

0.021122

7.33E-06

Sum

5.35E-03

Draft - Version 1.0

References

Conduto, D.P. Foundation Design Principles and Practices, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall. 2010.

Det Norske Veritas. Guidelines for Design of Wind Turbinse. Ris National Laboratory, Copenhagen. 2002.

International Electrotechnical Commission. Wind Turbines-Part I: Design Requirements. International Standard 61400-1, 3rd Edition. 2005.

Morgan, K. and Ntambakwa, E. Wind Turbine Foundation Behavior and Design Considerations. AWEA

WINDPOWER Conference. Garrad Hssan America, Inc. June 2008.

Tinjum, J.M. and Chrsitensen, R.W. Site Geotechnical Characterization, Civil Design, and Construction

Considerations for Wind Energy Systems. 2010.

Draft - Version 1.0

- Design of Wind Turbine Foundation SlabsUploaded byAdrian Iorgulescu
- Design of Wind Turbine Tower and FoundationUploaded byjjmartinez4356
- Wind Turbine Footing Design STAAD EJEMPLOUploaded byaagalan
- Wind Turbine FoundationsUploaded byJose Palazuelo
- Wind Turbines - Design and ComponentsUploaded bygentialbani
- Wind Turbine AccidentsUploaded bymoe146
- Wind Turbine designUploaded byKathuli Patrick
- Wind Turbine DesignUploaded byHimanshu Chaudhari
- P&H Foundation Systems 2011Uploaded byAndrei Pavel
- Wind Turbine Foundation Behavior and DesignUploaded byClaire Gregory
- Foundation LoadsUploaded byaasgroup
- NREL - Wind Turbine Design Costs and Scale ModelUploaded byMr Void
- Wind Turbines Guidelines for DesignUploaded byAlexShear
- Wind Turbine Feasibility ReportUploaded byAli
- Foundation LoadsUploaded byNanescu Liliana
- Wind TurbineUploaded byRaheel Ahmad
- Wind Blatt-On Solid FoundationsUploaded byAaron Merrill
- Wind Turbine DesignUploaded bylogicvirus
- Wind Turbine Sample Design ReportUploaded byJohn Taulo
- Wind Turbine Buyer's GuideUploaded byDennyHalim.com
- Finite Element Modelling of Horizontally Loaded Monopile Foundations for Offshore Wind Energy Converters in GermanyUploaded byJose Carril
- Guideline for the Certification of Wind Turbines Edition 2010 R0 2Uploaded byTeeBone
- Bulk Materials Handling BerthsUploaded bytheodorebayu
- Design and Analysis of Foundation for Onshore Tall Wind TurbinesUploaded byDone Nikolovski
- Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Support StructuresUploaded byGiuseppe Failla
- 56-61_AS432411995 standardSeptOct12Uploaded byspnaik
- Design and Construction of Offshore Wind Turbine FoundationsUploaded byKeith Evans
- Vertical Axis Wind TurbineUploaded bybavaji786
- ASTM -D5778-12Uploaded byRuwan Sampath Wickramathilaka
- FEA-Wind Turbine TowerUploaded byash1968

- Rolul intensitati in dezvoltarea capacitatii de efoer (En)Uploaded byRaul Nemes
- M07Uploaded byROHITCHOURASIYA
- Retail Supply Chain Management BasicsUploaded byAmit Kumar Garg
- CHAPTER 7 Combustion in SI and CI EnginesUploaded byRushabh Patel
- LS Rapiscan Detectra HX Explosives DetectionUploaded byErawan Destyana
- Toyota 4Y engine Cylinder HeadUploaded byJose Antonio Palumbo
- Optimum design of braking system for a formula 3 race cars with numeric computations and thermal analysisUploaded byIRJET Journal
- OIML R87-2004Contenido neto.pdfUploaded byanamrg2434
- The Backgrounds of UlyssesUploaded byChris Cooksley
- The Universal Treatise (Exigit Ordo) - Nicholas of AutrecourtUploaded bymcm777p
- Skierg ManualUploaded byAngel Petrov
- Promoting the Conservation and Use of Under Utilized and Neglected Crops. 02 - Yam BeanUploaded byEduardo Antonio Molinari Novoa
- Pressurization Fan Calculation - PremierUploaded byKarthy Ganesan
- Graficar Curvas de Nivel en PythonUploaded byDavid Vivas
- TextUploaded byswapnanilpt
- Structural Inorganic Chemistry - WellsUploaded byMatthew Waller
- Intro to Traffic Engineering and ManagementUploaded byjulesjusayan
- Rolls-Royce Icon(TM) Dynamic Positioning System Class 2 User ManualUploaded byCarlos Garrido
- DIPR_AlwarUploaded byShankar Chowdhury
- Douglas KlotzUploaded byscusmans
- 32286545 Macro Environment and PESTL Analysis of Ford Car Manufacturing LtdUploaded byTakauv-thiyagi Thiyagu
- 16._Chapter13_-_Johor_Bahru_City_CentreUploaded byAmar Qhuszaireen
- Thermodynamics.pdfUploaded byJaya
- ANALOG ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT LAB RECORDUploaded bySujan Chand
- Ships Monthly 2019-04.pdfUploaded byAn Car
- Static Strain Aging of Stabilized FerritUploaded byReky
- t26270enUploaded byprihartono_dias
- 15Uploaded byphysicsdocs
- Hurst Review 1Uploaded byEroll Yzobel Casapao
- Cutaneous Drug ReactionsUploaded bynicewan