You are on page 1of 7
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Energy Procedia 24 ( 2012 ) 371 – 377 DeepWind, 19-20

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Energy Procedia 24 ( 2012 ) 371 – 377 DeepWind, 19-20 January

Energy Procedia 24 ( 2012 ) 371 – 377

Energy Procedia 24 ( 2012 ) 371 – 377 DeepWind, 19-20 January 2012, Trondheim, Norway The

DeepWind, 19-20 January 2012, Trondheim, Norway

The full-height lattice tower concept

Michael Muskulus

Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Høgskoleringen 7a, 7491 Trondheim, Norway

Abstract

An alternative support structure for oshore wind turbines is presented that removes the need for an expensive transition piece and allows for significant savings in steel weight. The concept is based on replacing both the traditional wind turbine tower and the usual support structure with a single lattice tower that extends from the sea bottom to the rotor- nacelle-assembly. An overview is given of studies performed and results obtained for this design so far, of its advantages and disadvantages, and of future plans for improved automatic optimization of the design. Although it is dicult to show the economic viability of the full-height lattice tower concept, due to the general problem of reliably quantifying fabrication and installation costs, the major reduction in steel weight makes this an attractive concept that should be given further consideration, especially for future oshore projects in deep waters.

c 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS.

Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords: oshore wind energy, lattice tower, cost reduction, alternative concepts, engineering, optimization PACS: 88.50.-k, 89.20.Kk 2000 MSC: 74Hxx, 90Cxx

1. An alternative support structure for oshore wind turbines

The full-height lattice tower is an alternative support structure for bottom-fixed wind turbines. Especially for oshore wind turbines, the support structure contributes a significant amount to the total capital cost, and one of the key challenges for oshore wind energy in the coming years is to reduce this cost as much as possible [1]. With regard to future large-scale developments, e.g., the UK Round 3 projects, this need has been recognized and the Oshore Wind Accelerator (OWA) initiative has aimed for reducing the cost of energy by at least 10 percent. A global competition was run in 2009 to identify possible alternative support structure concepts for deep water (30-60 m) oshore wind energy, and four innovative projects were selected and are currently under development 1 . Traditional support structures for oshore wind turbines include

Corresponding author. Tel.: +47-735-93113; Fax: +47-735-97021 Email address: michael.muskulus@ntnu.no (Michael Muskulus) URL: http://www.ntnu.edu/employees/michael.muskulus (Michael Muskulus) 1 http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/emerging-technologies/current-focus-areas/offshore-wind/pages/ foundation-design.aspx

1876-6102 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS.

Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.06.120

372

Michael Muskulus / Energy Procedia 24 (2012) 371 – 377

monopiles, gravity-based solutions, and various space-frame concepts. The latter are hybrid designs, in which a transition piece connects the support structure to a wind turbine with a traditional tubular tower, and consist of tripod, tri-pile and jacket solutions. The OWA initiative has potentially enlarged this list by suction bucket monopiles, a “twisted” jacket, a concrete “monopod” and a “tri-bucket” concept. All of these concepts were developed as a hybrid design with a transition piece and a tubular wind turbine tower atop the substructure. Independently of these eorts, a more radical alternative has been studied at our institute, in which the tubular tower of the wind turbine is abandoned completely (Fig. 1). This results in the so-called full-height lattice tower concept, where the lattice structure continues up to the rotor-nacelle assembly, in contrast to hybrid “half-height” lattice designs (commonly called jacket support structures) with a transition to a tubular tower slightly above mean seawater level. This note summarizes the present state of this alternative concept.

1.1. History of the full-height lattice tower concept Full-height lattice towers were quite common in the early history of land-based wind energy. A famous example is the Smith-Putnam 1.25 MW two-bladed ma- chine that was installed in Vermont in the late 1930s [2]. Up to the mid-1980s free- standing lattice towers were the predom- inant support structure concept for wind turbines, and were then slowly superseded by the tubular towers that are so character- istic for wind turbines nowadays. Onshore lattice towers were typically bolted steel frames, which were relatively easy and cost-ecient to produce. Tubular wind turbine towers then quickly gained in es- teem, because of at least three distinct ad- vantages:

tubular towers are mostly welded and do not use many bolts, improv- ing the eciency of the sections. Welding leads to more rigid struc- tures, places no restriction on joint capacity and results in less stress concentration.

The inner volume of the tower of- fers an protected area for access and equipment.

The shape of the tower is thought to be more aesthetically pleasing.

of the tower is thought to be more aesthetically pleasing. Fig. 1. An illustration of the

Fig. 1. An illustration of the full-height lattice tower alternative support structure concept. Blue: legs and waterplane. Red: braces.

It should be noted, however, that the tower shadow eect was thought to be a problematic issue [3]. Whereas lattice towers are relatively transparent to the ambient air flow, a large diameter tubular tower significantly influences the flowfield. Although this eect is much stronger downwind of the tower, also upwind of the tower a mean velocity deficit exists that results in a periodic impact-like loading on a passing rotor. It testifies for the many advantages of monopiles that this disadvantage did not stop the further spreading of wind turbines on tubular towers. Most oshore wind turbines have been built with monopiles so far. A major issue in the oshore en- vironment is corrosion, which necessitates the use of tubular steel pipes for oshore lattice structures, and

Michael Muskulus / Energy Procedia 24 ( 2012 ) 371 – 377

373

makes it also necessary to weld the connections, thereby removing some of the most important advantages of onshore lattice structures. Especially the time needed for welding is critical with regard to the cost, since lattice structures include a large number of joints. Nevertheless, the Opti-OWECS project [4] considered, among other concepts, a gravity-lattice-tower for an oshore site with 25 m water depth: with a hub height of 59 m, this 3-legged structure was designed for a 3 MW WTS 80 wind turbine [5, p. 187]. More re- cently the full-height lattice tower concept has been given consideration in the UpWind European project [6, ch. 4.2], and seems to also have been chosen by a Dutch company for further commercial development 2 .

1.2. Summary of related studies at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology

When the first jacket support structures were installed for the Beatrice wind farm demonstrator project [7], the idea of a full-height lattice tower was reconsidered at the Department of Civil and Transport Engi- neering at NTNU in the group of Prof. Geir Moe. A tower was designed conceptually for a 5 MW machine, resulting in one of the first publications on the full-height lattice tower concept [8]. The tower was designed with a total height of 87.6 m and resulted in a reduction of steel weight of around 50 percent compared to a tubular tower of the same height, but was only analyzed statically and for buckling, not with respect to fatigue. Further work consisted in automatic optimization of the design for the ULS analysis [9]. To keep the computational cost within reasonable limits, at first only constant legs and braces were considered, i.e., all legs and all braces were taken to be the same in terms of pipe diameter and wall thickness. Together with a fixed tower top spacing and assuming a constant-height of the sections, this resulted in five parameters (two for the braces, two for the legs, and additionally the bottom leg spacing) that could be varied. This design was considered for 35 m water depth and optimized for an extreme wind speed of 50 m/s and a 50 year return period sea state, with respect to joint capacity and both column and local buckling. The results show that the design is limited by two distinct eects: Whereas the bottom members need to be designed to resist mostly the wave loads, the dimensions of the members at the top is governed by torsion. If member sizes are kept constant along the tower (but separately for braces and legs), this results in relatively heavy towers with a weight of about 400 tons, comparable to that of a tubular tower. Assuming that individual members can be sized independently, a local optimization algorithm has been conceived that resizes members individually by the values of their utilization, i.e., proportional to their actual strength. For simplicity, the ratio between member diameter and thickness was kept constant, so then the cross-sectional area was increased according to the utilization. This again resulted in a significant reduction in tower mass of about 50 percent compared to an equivalent tubular tower [9]. For the FLS analysis, a simplified model was considered in the frequency-domain. Starting from the ULS design, the member thicknesses were set to a very small value and then increased where necessary. The simplified fatigue assessment pioneered by Kuhn¨ [5] was used, with the Dirlik method and using hot spot stress concentration factors. The design was analyzed for 19 lumped wind speeds and typical associated sea states. The tower mass is again comparable to a tubular tower. However, only the fatigue lifetime of the hotspots at the joints is critical, so members are oversized along their span. Therefore, the eect of joint cans / stubs was studied, which finally resulted in a tower mass of around 300 tons, i.e., in a reduction of 25 percent relative to a tubular tower [10]. Unfortunately, the joint detailing will also increase the production cost of the tower. These studies do not indicate that the full-height lattice tower is clearly a better alternative than a tradi- tional tubular tower. However, it should be noted that the comparison is based on the tubular tower only. The weight of the large-diameter monopile below the transition piece was not considered, whereas the above fig- ures for the full-height lattice tower include the parts of the structure below the sea level. On the other hand, the full-height lattice tower will incur additional costs related to the four piles, that are likewise neglected here.

2 http://www.2-benergy.com/

374

Michael Muskulus / Energy Procedia 24 (2012) 371 – 377

1.3. Additional aspects relevant for full-height lattice towers

This work was followed up by considering a downwind rotor configuration mounted on a full-height lattice tower. This will in principle allow for lighter blades and a simpler design of the turbine, which could allow for further reduction in cost. Of particular concern for a downwind machine are the tower shadow eects, and numerical simulations of the flow field were performed [11, 12]. First results about the influence of the tower shadow on the fatigue of the blades show that a downwind rotor on a full-height lattice tower will incur slightly higher damage-equivalent loads than for an upwind configuration, but fewer than for a tubular tower downwind (unpublished). Additionally, although a full-height lattice tower removes the need for an expensive transition piece at the mid section, the connection with the yaw bearing at the tower top has to be designed carefully. Such a connector has been designed in a preliminary study and satisfactory results could be achieved with a 3 m “transition piece” that weighs 75-95 tons [13].

2. Comparison with monopile and hybrid tower concepts

A realistic comparison of the full-height lattice tower with other support structure concepts is dicult. Many factors are influencing the choice of support structure concept, designs are quite sensitive to site conditions, and many types of costs are dicult to estimate or assess. Ultimately, a comparison should be based on total life-cycle costs, but even assessing capital investment costs is challenging. The full-height lattice tower can be optimized for dierent site conditions, but the many parameters result in practical limitations. The above mentioned studies therefore introduced certain simplifications, and leave some space for further improvement. Fabrication costs are dicult to assess, not the least since no generally accepted model for estimating welding costs (including set-up times) exists. Therefore at present the main indicator of performance available is the total steel weight of the structure. Dierences between monopiles and jackets with regard to the design process, especially for deeper wa- ters, have been recently summarized. According to Seidel [14], the relatively stijacket structure prevents the excitation of global vibrations, whereas these are of major concern for monopiles. Therefore also the eect of wave-wind misalignment is much more dramatic for monopiles (with little aerodynamic damping in the direction transversal to the airflow) than for lattice structures. The secondary structure further compli- cates the design of monopiles, whereas its influence on lattice tower design is significantly less. Although soil uncertainty is also an issue for lattice tower support structures, its eect for lattice towers is thought to be of relatively minor importance, whereas reliable soil data is one of the key parameters for the design of monopiles. An interesting consequence of these considerations is that fatigue loads for monopiles are often higher for idling turbines, such that reduced availability must be considered in FLS analysis, whereas for lattice towers and jackets 100 percent availability is thought to be conservative [14]. Whereas the critical loading for monopiles is mostly in bending, lattice support structures (including lattice towers and jackets) mostly exhibit significant axial load transfers. Instead of a detailed soil study and careful tuning of eigenfrequencies for monopiles, the main design issue for lattice support structures are lo- cal joint lifetimes. Global vibrations of braces can potentially be excited by higher rotor modes [15], which complicates the design process (requiring fully-coupled time-domain simulations, at least for final analysis and certification). A certain flexibility of the design, i.e., the possibility to adjust a given lattice support structure to a dierent site with minimal changes, exists, but is limited because of such local phenomena. Typically, softening a lattice structure by extending the legs (pile stick-up) leads to strongly increased vibra- tion amplitudes and reduced fatigue lifetime due to excitation from hydrodynamic loads [16]. Regarding production and installation, the main issue for monopiles is the large diameter needed for deep waters. Beyond 25 m of water depth, typical monopiles for turbines with a rated power of 5 MW and more will exhibit diameters above 7 m and are both dicult to manufacture and to install, leading to relatively high costs. Installation of jackets is relatively straightforward, although not cost-ecient yet without specialized installation vessels, but for the full-height lattice tower the increased size is a drawback and might make it necessary to study sectioned designs where the tower is produced, transported, and installed in two or more pieces that are connected on-site.

Michael Muskulus / Energy Procedia 24 ( 2012 ) 371 – 377

375

Additional issues with the full-height lattice tower are related to access and maintenance. Whereas tubu- lar towers oer a protected space for access, the full-height lattice tower needs to provide access externally, e.g., by an elevator and additional ladders along at least one of the legs. It has not been studied yet how such access systems can be suciently protected in the oshore environment, i.e., for what cost. A boat landing and support platform is needed slightly above mean seawater level, that additionally increases the cost, and

a crane needs to be provided in the center of the tower. The inclination of the lattice tower leads to less margins for tower clearance, and a slight additional coning or tilting of the rotor might be necessary, depending on the hub height and turbine type. This will lead to a small loss of production due to reduced rotor eciency. The grouted connection between tubular tower and monopiles has been an issue of serious concern recently. It is hypothesized that the periodic, fluctuating lateral loads due to thrust from the wind can lead to ovalization and local wear of the grout. Due to the changing wind direction this process is able to aect the total circumference of the monopile, leading to a loss of stability and sliding down of wind turbines. This problem has been investigated and has led to revised guidelines [17]. Although lattice support structures typically use grouted connections between support structure and piles, loads in these connections are mostly axial and are thought not to aect the strength of the grout significantly. To summarize, compared to tubular towers and monopiles, lattice support structures oer the following relative advantages:

For deep waters the large diameter of monopiles poses problems for fabrication and pile-driving that are avoided for lattice support structures.

The recently discovered problems with the grouted connection do not seem to be a significant issue for lattice support structures.

Global vibrations are typically not an issue for lattice support structures.

Soil uncertainty is a key factor that complicates monopile design, but not the design of a lattice tower.

Secondary structures and wind-wave misalignment complicate monopile design, but are less critical for lattice support structures.

For the full-height lattice tower, the expensive transition piece is replaced by a more economical transition structure at the tower top.

Significant savings in weight can be achieved, especially for the full-height lattice tower.

In contrast, the following disadvantages of lattice support structures can be identified:

Structures are larger, which complicates fabrication and installation, especially for the full-height lattice tower concept.

Many members and welded joints increase the production cost significantly.

Local vibrations of braces can be excited and can cause problems for joint lifetimes.

Due to the large number of parameters, optimization of structures for site-specific conditions is time- consuming and not straightforward.

For the full-height lattice tower, access and maintenance is not as straightforward and economical as for tubular towers.

3. Optimization of lattice towers

One major issue with lattice support structures is the large number of members and elements, which

complicates optimization of the design — both conceptually, as well as for site-specific conditions. Such a large number of parameters and the computationally expensive analysis for fatigue lifetimes of joints pose

a major challenge for “optimal” structural optimization. Present work of our group is concerned with developing better methods and tools for the automatic optimization of lattice tower designs. Three key issues need to be addressed here:

376

Michael Muskulus / Energy Procedia 24 (2012) 371 – 377

A fast code for the analysis of designs is needed — it might even be worth the eort to implement a new special-purpose flexible multibody analysis code dedicated for fast wind turbine analysis.

New methods for ecient, but still relatively accurate simplified fatigue estimation for wind turbine support structures are needed, since the current number of load cases renders it impossible to use stan- dard time-domain simulation techniques for lifetime fatigue assessment for optimization purposes.

An ecient optimization algorithm is needed that optimally uses the information obtained by the previous analyses in design space, and that therefore uses significantly fewer iterations than current standard techniques.

Standard techniques from structural optimization [18] are not directly applicable to the optimization of wind turbine support structures, since they were mainly developed for static loads. Standard general optimization algorithms, e.g., gradient search, use too many analyses to obtain gradient information to be useful. However, both the simultaneous perturbation search algorithm [19] and response-surface methods [20] are promising possibilities that will be investigated. Furthermore, first results presented at this conference suggest that local optimization is possible for the full-height lattice tower: re-sizing members proportional to their utilization seems to allow for quickly “zooming in” on an optimal design [21]. Although this pilot study was conducted with only one power- production loadcase, a very small number of iterations (around 20) led to a competitive design for the full-height lattice tower. Incorporating such sensitivities into the design phase can significantly speed up the automatic optimization of the design.

4. Discussion

This short note has summarized some of the key findings and issues related to the full-height lattice tower support structure for oshore wind turbines. Although it is dicult to judge the economic viability of this concept — mainly due to the many unknowns in the cost equations — the large saving in steel weight makes this an attractive concept. The weight reduction is achieved both by replacing the large diameter tubular wind turbine tower with a more transparent lattice structure, and by removing the need for a heavy transition piece. A few issues with this concept remain, mostly related to access and installation, and will hopefully be addressed in the course of a current NOWITECH joint initiative on a 10 MW reference wind turbine [22].

References

[1] Carbon Trust, Oshore wind power: big challenge, big opportunity, Report CTC743, The Carbon Trust Ltd, London, UK, available from www.carbontrust.co.uk (2008).

[2]

P. C. Putnam, Power from the wind, Van Nostran, New York, 1948.

[3]

S. Powles, The eects of tower shadow on the dynamics of a horizontal-axis wind turbine, Wind Engng 7 (1983) 26–42.

[4] M. Kuhn,¨ W. A. A. M. Bierbooms, G. J. W. van Bussel, T. T. Cockerill, R. Harrison, et al., Towards a mature oshore wind

energy technology — guidelines from the Opti-OWECS project, Wind Energy 2 (1999) 25–58.

[5] M. Kuhn,¨ Dynamics and design optimisation of oshore wind energy conversion systems, Phd thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, The Netherlands (2001).

[6]

T. Fischer, W. de Vries, Project UpWind — Final report Task 4.1, Technical report, Endowed Chair of Wind Energy, Universitat¨ Stuttgart, Germany, available from http://www.upwind.eu/ (2011).

[7]

M. Seidel, D. Gosch, Technical challenges and their solution for the Beatrice windfarm demonstrator project in 45m water depth, in: Conference Proceedings DEWEK 2006, Wilhelmshaven, Germany, 2006.

[8] G. Moe, J. M. Niedzwecki, H. Long, R. Lubbad, S.-P. Breton, Technology for oshore wind turbines, in: S. K. Chakrabarti,

C. A. Brebbia (Eds.), Fluid structure interaction and moving boundary problems IV, Vol. 92 of WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, WIT Press, 2007, pp. 95–108. H. Long, G. Moe, T. Fischer, Lattice towers for bottom-fixed oshore wind turbines in the ultimate limit state: variation of some

geometric parameters, J OMAE 134 (2012) 021202. [10] H. Long, G. Moe, Preliminary design of bottom-fixed lattice oshore wind turbine towers in the fatigue limit state by the fre- quency domain method, J OMAE, in press.

[11] T. Hagen, M. Reiso, M. Muskulus, Numerical analysis of turbulent flow past a truss tower for oshore downwind turbines, in:

Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Oshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE2011), Maui, Hawaii, USA, 2011, pp. 319–326.

[9]

Michael Muskulus / Energy Procedia 24 ( 2012 ) 371 – 377

377

T. Hagen, M. Reiso, M. Muskulus, Numerical tower shadow modeling for a downwind wind turbine truss tower, in: Proceedings of the ASME 2011 30th International Conference on Ocean, Oshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2011), Vol. V, Rotterdam,

The Netherlands, 2011, pp. 859–870. [13] W. Gong, Lattice tower design of oshore wind turbine support structures, Master’s thesis, Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, Norwegian Unviversity of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway (2011).

M. Seidel, Advanced design methods for monopiles of large wind turbines in deeper waters, in: Proceedings of EWEA Oshore

2011, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011. [15] C. Boker,¨ Load simulation and local dynamics of support structures for oshore wind turbines, Phd thesis, Leibniz Universitat¨ Hannover, Germany, published by Shaker-Verlag, Aachen (2010). [16] M. Muskulus, Influence of scour on the dynamics of jacket substructures for oshore wind turbines, in: Proceedings of EWEA Oshore 2011, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011.

[14]

[12]

[17]

DNV, Design of oshore wind turbine structures, Oshore standard DNV-OS-J101, Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway (2011).

[18]

R. T. Haftka, Z. Gurdal,¨ Elements of structural optimization, Springer, 1991.

[19] J. C. Spall, Implementation of the simultaneous perturbation algorithm for stochastic optimization, IEEE Trans Aero Electr Sys 34 (1998) 817–823.

[20]

[21] D. Zwick, M. Muskulus, G. Moe, Iterative optimization approach for the design of full-height lattice towers for oshore wind

turbines, Energy Procedia, in press. O. G. Dahlhaug, M. Muskulus, NOWITECH introduces a new support structure concept, in: NOWITECH Newsletter, December Edition, Norwegian Research Centre for Oshore Wind Technology, 2011, p. 2, available from http://www.sintef.no/ projectweb/nowitech/.

[22]

A. I. Khuri, J. A. Cornell, Response surfaces, CRC Press, 1996.