Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Danny Bonnett (2005) Wind Turbine Foundations - Loading, Dynamics and Design

    Uploaded by

    Bob
    17 views5 pages

    Original Title

    Danny Bonnett (2005) Wind turbine foundations - loading, dynamics and design

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    17 views5 pages

    Danny Bonnett (2005) Wind Turbine Foundations - Loading, Dynamics and Design

    Uploaded by

    Bob

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5
    Evening meeting: paper isto be presented on 17 February 2008 at IStructé, 11 Upper Belgrave Street, London SWIX BH at 18,00h Wind turbine foundations - loading, dynamics and design Synopsis Horizontal axis wind turbines are dynamic structures, The Foundations available to support these machines are varied, and the choice of foundation type has several influencing factors, The loading transmitted to the foundation is dependant on the power regulation philosophy of the turbine, the wind climate of the region where the turbine is to be installed, and the physical characteristis of the machine. The relationship between the frequently occurring loads and the extreme loads Is discussed, with an explanation of how this bears on foundation design. Foundation design may also be impacted by addtional factors such as no uplift criteria, {ground sensitivity to eyelicloading and foundation stifiness requirements. The stiffness of deep water offshore foundations is investigated, with reference to study data. ‘The paper concludes by comparing ULS and ALS load factors recommended by design codes, Introduction "The modern horizontal axis wind turbine hus existed in its ceurrent form for about 20 years. During that period, power ‘output and losding have inereased by an order of magnitude. "These dynamic races generate a complex loading rime that should be understocd by the foundation designes: This ‘paper will discuss the main fctorsaffcting the design and ‘constriction of wind turbine foendations ‘Turbine foundation types Fg 1 shows the more oommen onshore and ofkhore foundation types, which will be diseuseed in the ret of the paper There are many variations availahe on cach thome shown here, and also many more possibilities not shown at all The pre-stressed ‘onerete cinder is based on a patented desiga by Patrick and Henderson Ine, of California USA ‘UK practice onshore haa favoured the gravity base (Ry 2), whereas across Europe a pled foundation is more common. ‘The regions where wind lurbines were first installed in numbers are largely responsible for setting up one foundation typo as traditional. In mainland Europe this was the Law Counties in the north, whore daep sediments aro common. In ‘the UK this was high ground in Cornwall and Ireland, where rock is common. The prestressed vertical eoncret cylinder can ‘be an efficlontsolatin i ground conditions suit, and has been particularly successful across the USA. It is simple to construct, giving a cost-compotitive foundation, A Patrick & “Henderson foundation under contraction is shownin Fig 3. In ‘areas where very strong tock is present close tothe surface (og ‘parts of Scandinavia) a reek ane foundation is ikoly to be hosen, onan r tt Danny Bonnett MA, CEng, MICE Dai Cet gine, RES Ge, Bani hort Bat rm bane, ‘ae ater Heron 9 Fig 1. (Left) Common onshore and offshore foundation types 1 February 2005 ~ the Siruetural Engineer|41 ‘rexied today have one of taree main power regulation pileso ‘hies, In simplistic arms, these can be described as passive stall regulation + active stall regulation * pitch regulation, ‘Typos 1 and 2 can be grouped together as stall regulated sachines, Typos 2 and 8 are both elassed ae active regulation ‘machines Blade pitch angles relevant to the fllowing text fare shown in Passive stall, ‘A passive stall regulated turbine has blades that have a feed ‘angle relative to the turbine hub. As the wind speed increases assuming a fixed rotor speed, the angle of attack of the appar~ Fig 2. (Above) ‘ent wind onthe blade moves steadily towards the front of the Gravity base turbina, When the angle of attack reaches «eritieal value foundation under | (around 14°) the rotor blades start to ‘stall increasing the construction in drag significant. This increase in drag limits the power Scotland Dvutput ofthe wind turbine. The advantages of passive stall ig 3. (Left) ‘regulation are that this savory simple regulation moths, and Patrick & Handerson | consequently the technology is very robust and durable: The prestressed vertical | turbina is stopped using aerodynamic tip brakes in eombina- ‘linder foundation | tion with a mechanical bake. The thrust loading ofa passive Top: Corrugated | stall egulated turbine tends to nerease up tothe cut-out wind metal pipe in position as Teseve alall serie stab} teh Kenated permanent 7 Tormwork (CMP) Middle: Bolt cage boeing lowered into position between Inner and outer CMs Bottom: Foundation 3 awaiting concrete < pour; bolt template Visible ia Steg aes Blade pitching for alifferent turbine power regulation Philosophies Fig 5. (Below) Power curves for stall, activestall and || ve appar wins pitch regulation Breeton turbines ih | ‘Ofishore foundations have generally beon divided between ‘| samiscnlueriytaneUR bone erage otters || "| ontycn nutes ite ponerngsapawar tel ||, | SiRalpesiucien mth domes nc angetan ||} igo cpteaion nti sac hot || 4 Saad Nhe preset te my fate dy my oace |||" aa Thecnleef tuna ope epatecn petting || rund enn prea pevrnce genes seofdagn cole ner dite no Or Saanisesntdeecticceoeemmcyenie || ,] en iow! insatn Wind turbine operational modes 7 7 ‘Modern horizontal axis wind turbines typieal of those being savor 42 |The Structural Engineer ~ 1 Febrwary 2005 ‘spood. The frontal area of the wind tarbina is constant. The ‘rotors likely to have one or two fixed rotaticnal speeds, se0- Gated with the grid frequency and the generator geming. Active stall ‘Active tall vses a combination ofacredynamie tall and pita alle blades tha can be used to induce stall This allows the turbine power generation to increase upto the rated level with the blade in one orientation. Onee at rated power, the angle of the blade ie adjust to contol the balance betwoon lit nd ‘drag, and maintain rate power preduction asthe wind veloc- ity inereases. This continues up to the cut-out wind speed ‘where the blades are thon pitched (trailing edge into wind) to stop the turbine, The thrust loading is similar to the passive stall trbine. Plteh regulation Ditch regulation is similar to active stall although the blades fre moved to reduco the angle of attsek and msintain the tated power by reducing liftyather than increasing drag. AS a consequence the thrust loading tends to reduce above rated power. In eombination with variable speed, pitch regulation ‘offers the grestast degre f lexbility to contral the output and lading ofthe wind tatbine A piteh regulated wind turbine will ‘generally produce lower foundation loads than a comparable stall regulated machine. Indicative power caves for similarly sized wind turbines are shown in Fig 5. You will note that there is ite to choose in terms of power prodetion between the active stall and piteh rojgulation machines, such that other fetors. ar likely to have ‘significant nflusnce on turbine choies. Note how the passive tall machine typically overshoots rated power boforocotling back down, whereas the active stall machine controls this tran sition carefully. Fig hows indientive load versus wind sped earves for the thiee power regulation philosophies, Note that no units are siven as this graph may be applied toa xange of turbine sive. ‘The parked (wind turbine non-aperational) loading curves {ollow a simple squared relationship with wind speed with the diffrence hetween the curves dependant on drag and frontal area, The active elation machine has a smaller frontal aoa ‘when parked (blades are pitched), compared ton passive ru- Tation machine, accounting for the difference inthe two curves. "The deviation inthe operational Inading curves for piteh and stall regulation betwoon 15s and 26mis demonstrates the ability of pitch regulation to maintain rated power production ‘whilst shedding loa. "The two important points to take avay frum this are: «+ ‘The dynamic nature of the wind turbine means that wind Joads during operation osn greatly excood those generated, Dy astatic structure ofthe same frontal area, + ‘The turbine regulation philosophy has a significant impact ‘on wind londs particularly in the 15 to 25mis range ofwind- spocds. Generation of loads for wind turbine foundations Foundation designers for a wind turbine are in an enviable position, Boeause ofthe nature of the structuro that they are ‘supporting, a walt of loading data is available for them to ‘draw an during the design process. Loading data forthe wind turbine design are generated through running a large number ‘of computer simulations of the wind turbine operating, and parked ia a turbulent wind field, Because of the complex rnatute ofthe fui flo different soe to initats the analysis ‘wil ponerate a differing set of forces for any 10-minute simu Jation. Thus.# nomber of simulations arerun foreach load ease ‘under consideration, and a statistical approach is taken to determine the actual frees to be considered, dapandanton the ede being used, and the safety factors to be applied. This rigoraus approach to the wind generated loading applies to the entire wind speed spectrum, not just the extreme loads. Design ‘ofmany ofthe wind turbine components is governed hy fatigue, such aa the tawar and tho blades, o fatigue loading data are 16 14 12 08 | 06 04 0.2 “Tower Base Moment (no units) Fig 6. (Above) Loading curves for stall and pitch regulated turbines 1.8 725m) Eaves sac? 1 Ener mcr) 20 30 ‘10 Minute Moan Wind Speed (mis) 40 «50 readily availabe for the foundation. This can bo particularly ‘uefol for analysia behaviour during oporational conditions. Itisimportanttonote that despite thishigh level ef modelling cffort, wind loads are variable, and there is always a probabil- ity that dasign loads will be exceeded. This is addressed through the application of load factors fr structural design, Extreme versus recurring loads Under some circumstances, itean be significant how the lads that oceuron a daily, weld or monthly basis compare to those loads expected only onco during the lifetime of the wind turbine ‘An example can be used to iustrate the point.A pitch rogu- lated wind turbine experiences a 10 minute mean wind speed of 2en/t on a monthly basis, in an area whore the oxireme 1 jn 60 year mean wind speed is around SOmvs, With reference to Pig 6, this generates an extzeme load of 12 and a monthly load of 0.12 (note that the load at 15ms is higher than at 20m). The monthly load is 60% of the extreme load. The parked loading eurve provides « means of comparison with a State structure of comparable aren/drag, in the same loation. With reference tothe ‘Active Parke! eutve, the extreme lead ‘would also bo 1.2, but the lod corresponding to 20nv6 i only 0.19 (16% of extveme) A passive stall regulated torbine haa greater parked frontal area. The loads generated ean be ‘eompared in Table 1 ‘Operating versus parked loads Geography and therefore wind climate pay a significant ole in thie relationship as well a turbine operation parameters. ‘An active stall wind turbine in Northern Ireland wil end to {generate maximum operational loads around 80% of the ‘Parked, Lin 60 year extromo gust loads (-65mi6). Ares with ‘more continental climates, auch ae the cantyal areas of tho UBA, have lower extreme gust wind speeds (-80m/s). This means thatthe operational load might be 00% to 110% of the ‘parked 1 in 60 year gust load. Thus, the extreme load may tocar under aperating conditions, and will ba @ particular combination of an operating wind speed and high tarbulonco ‘Two particular cases where this comparability between xecurving and extreme loads becomes important are 1 Where design codes require a diflerirg approach to infre- quent and froquent loading avente. 11 Where the ground might show susceptibility t degradation under eylic loading Table 1: Wind loads generated ‘Wind Toad at 250i — Windioadat Gomis oy oad ae (monty 10min” (YinS0 yearn poreaage of _mian wind pone) ean wi year oad w | ‘oro 12 1 ear os az iT | 1 Fobruary 2005 The structural Engineer | 43 Table 2. Offhore monoples— Impact of tower head weight on system natural quency for an 80m hub height ~ (Results of Modeling ard Analysis by Arup) The ———‘Tiwerboad mass Pe fiameer ‘Wal hess ‘ler dept Pie enoinent ap Fundaneisl stem bi tt ) (om) () ‘) ata uae) Ea 75 a 100. a 30 025 Canes 154 si i EB 50 ast ‘sts Veo cy oo Toe 3 a ‘ant Further geotechnical considerations In addition to cyclic loading, another geotechnical eansidera- tion which impaets on foundation design is strain limitation. Loess has been encountered on many sites across the USA. ‘This wind blown sediment is weakly comented, with a vory : porous structure. Ital stand up vertically within an excava- ‘SketMlay | | tion, yet when subjected to a particular critical strain, the structure eellapees suddenly, and all foundation support is Jost, Thie is a real conoorn for foundation perfrmance, and is analogous to sudden failure in an ovee-einforeed RC bea, IP ‘hedretcis present within 2-3m of the surface, it is possible to ‘ute a pre-atressed eonerete cylinder foundation to maximise lateral restraint from the bedrock, and to minimise requirad on| | support from the lous. I bedreck snot present itis possible a tnawersize a gravity base to kep stresses low, an muintsin ae ee tn sdoquae nfety rari tothe strain limit ofthe materia L__frantrinvorostiteeirte__]| Natural frequency and stiffness T-Code requirements Fig 7. (Above) Fora 60m dlameter wind turbine with abubhight of 0m the 1a France, design in acordance with BABL 91, incades a | Turbine and fundamental natural fequency when coupod to an idealized requirement for no loss of contact pressure beneath the foun. | foundation natural | rigid base val be around 0.6Hz Tho system natural frequency dation under a feequently ocursngoadcas, endfor ao more | frequency (tower and foundation combined) should he kapt clear of tho han 25% ofthe base are to uplift rarely occarsing oad principal excitation fequencos, such asthe blade passing ‘ace, A frequently oecirring loadente defined a 100% dead frequency Cand mulipls tere, and typical wave fequen Toad + 20% lveloperatinal oad nd a rarely esurringload- cies or ofihore structures ‘coe defined ws 100% deed lod + 100% livloperational load. “This clause within the eae is simed at achieving acceptable ‘Onshore foundation stiffness sorviceabilty behaviour in building stractanes, but 18 not 1s common fr trbine manufacturers to specify miienara Particularly relevant to rind turbines. An overall factor of foundation rffes inorder to ensure thatthe overall eysiem bafety against overturning, and salient foundation aiffass natural frequency stays above the main excitation loads A ‘would be mare relevant properties to enntzl. cheek on typical requirement fr turbine in tho 1 to 1.75MW zange Faring presses and eytie degradation shonld be eartied ‘might fr foundation stiffness in excess of 200m. Tis cut within the dasign, lt fend recomimondations are too ‘sensly exceed by a cnerete gravity base foundation on rod. Festive IL als highlight potential dfclty in using the ‘where stiffer of 10GNm/rad would ot be unasual. Other Inlding codes for wand turbine foundation design, as actively Toundation type or formation materials might no yield uch senerated wind loads are not expliily vere, high sie t 20GNv/ad ia til achievable in most casos, Fig 7 shows how foundation stiffness affets overall systema ML-Gylie round loading ‘natural fequenc. This graph has been drawn Tor atypical Sites in areas whore the cile might degrade under eyeli megawatt elas turbine, with bx diflorng set of operational loading require careful consideration of operational hearing pparametora Itcan be eeen that by adopting foundation si tress. Detaled site investigation is required ta determine ‘nos of 20GNmead, as opposed to the idealised rigid founda {ny strin dnothols, and perbsps to simulate the inst tion, the system natural fequeney might change fom O46 ‘bohaviowr of ols under varying loads. Iti dfel, bt dsi to Ost. Uso of a 20GNm/ad limit is a conservative abl loestimate the permissible number of eyes fora pati- approach, ond equies very Iie justiation on bal ofthe Ula strata, Thereafter the structure can be optimised to ‘manufacturer to demonstrate that fatigue if willbe accept ‘prevent uplit unde, for example the annual oad, o to init thle (his is typically he foundation sizessasiomed in the the bearing sess nescated witha parenar loedeas. In turbine ftgut simulations) rule of thumb for avoidance of these craimstaness the wealth of avilable ftiguo lading fatigue problems isto keep dhe aystem natural frequency et data canbe particularly sel. loest 10% away Sam principal excitation Sequency. So for ‘Under sme conins t may be particlacy the presence example ithe blade passing frequency ie He, the roto spood water that poses avsk to the integrity of the femation {fora thre bladed singlespeed turbine) is O.3Fs, soa system ‘ateil I thats might blogieal to maintain a positive nataral equeney in exes of 0.3 7Hz would be aceptable. It ‘contac presnite under all operations conditions oF atleast o lows hats foundation siffess of Nad would stil give ‘eign fr fl eontact under the annually ocurring oad'The an acoptabe fatigue for tho wind turbine although wuld trac design citeia il depen on the sscepili to degra ‘equie detailed analysis to justify In the estimation of foun- dation, Some clays and ealearenus mudstones might safer dation sities at the design stage, slice allowance should undereye loading, either through loss of strength from Iyemade or ground variability aeros the site Increased pore wator pressure (pumping), or fom break down By adopting «general raquirement fr @ minimum stiff cf de matrix because of water ingress. ess, poseibly applied over a ccmplete turbine modal rang, orcs the world, its easy for Che manufacturer to chedk i Tale 3 Design Toad Tacos recommended by design codes ‘nd eel be weg Hove uation coee ee eT ae signer shold appreciate thatthe requirements are, in | tesnesia cor stoner ‘main, conservativ, eich that foundation opimisain is possic een i ‘ota dhe potetil benefit of al parties. ss ei 188 Offshore foundation stifiness ec 3 19 COfshere project ada have tended to stick tothe shallower 44 |The Structural Engineer - 1 February 2005 ‘waters (5-10m depth) that provide the chespest way of ‘constructing olshore t has been anticipated thatthe highly favoured monopile foundation would find its limits in poor ‘ground and deep water, where practical limits on ple diame: tar and wall thickness wonld mean that the manopile would fall short of the required stiffness. Arup recently undertook 8 foaiblity study on wind turbines in water dopth up to 95m, ‘The study focussed on the GE3.GMW turbine at 80m above ‘moan sea Tevel which has. tower head weight of 295, As this is heavy for turbines available in this generation range, the results wil alzo have relevance ta turbines inthe next gener ‘tion siza catogory (SMW). Azcumed ground conditions wore interbedded sands and clays, to depth, with no bedrock encountered. Thus lateral restraint provided to sub-seabed foundations was Himited. "The study looked initially at eeversl foundation options in 116m and 26m water depths, inlading a monopile gravity bave and ipod, The preliminary assessment concluded that although a monopile could be made to work at 16m water

    You might also like