See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326580137

Geotechnical desgin consideration for onshore wind turbine shallow

foundations

Conference Paper · July 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 6,335

6 authors, including:

Eric Ntambakwa Carlos Guzmán

Det Norske Veritas universidad técnica equinoccial
12 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   256 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eric Ntambakwa on 17 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geotechnical Design Considerations for Onshore Wind Turbine Shallow Foundations

Eric Ntambakwa1, P.E., M.ASCE, Hao Yu2, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, Carlos Guzman3 P.E., M.ASCE,
Matthew Rogers4, P.E., M.ASCE
1
Principal Civil/Geotechnical Engineer, DNV GL, 9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 435, San
Diego, CA 92123, USA PH +1-858-836-3370; email: eric.ntambakwa@dnvgl.com
2
Civil/Geotechnical Engineer, DNV GL, 1601 Rio Grande St, Suite 400, Austin, TX 78701,
USA PH +1-512-469-6096; email: chris.yu@dnvgl.com
3
Civil/Geotechnical Engineer, DNV GL, 1601 Rio Grande St, Suite 400, Austin, TX 78701,
USA PH +1-512-469-6096; email: carlos.guzman@dnvgl.com
4
Global Head of Practice, Civil Engineering, DNV GL, 9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 435, San
Diego, CA 92123, USA PH +1-858-836-3370; email: matthew.rogers@dnvgl.com
Abstract

Electricity generated from wind power continues to grow rapidly as an important part of the
energy mix in many regions throughout the world. Advances in technology have led to a rapid
increase in wind turbine capacity with the average wind turbine installed in the United States in
2014 being capable of generating about 2 MW of electricity, reflecting an 8-fold increase since
1990. The industry has also seen taller towers being utilized to harness wind resource at higher
elevations to take advantage of higher wind speeds and reduced turbulence. Taller towers
typically require larger or more robust foundations to support the wind turbine systems and
typically translate to higher capital costs for the projects. Balance of Plant (infrastructure and
foundation) construction costs make up about 30 percent of capital costs for typical utility scale
wind power projects and although there has been a reduction in wind turbine costs over the years,
construction costs remain relatively high. Optimized foundation designs contribute to overall
reduction in capital costs and would contribute to advancement of renewable energy generation.

Geotechnical design is an essential component for the design, planning and construction
execution of utility scale wind power developments. Wind turbine foundations have specific
design requirements which have to be taken into account to ensure reliable operation of the
turbines over a typical design life of 20 to 25 years. It is also important for the geotechnical and
structural design aspects to be adequately synchronized in order to develop efficient designs
taking into account site specific geotechnical conditions and potential constraints.

This paper presents a discussion of important considerations for geotechnical investigations and
design for utility scale wind turbine shallow foundations including global stability, bearing
capacity, differential settlement, rotational stiffness and cyclic degradation considerations. The
paper includes detailed discussion of geotechnical design requirements and design approaches
which can be utilized to optimize geotechnical aspects of wind turbine foundations. Merits and
limitations of typical approaches such as allowable stress design compared to limit state design
for bearing capacity will be discussed.
Introduction

Electricity generation from onshore wind power, due to its clean, safe and sustainable nature,
continues to gain popularity among various energy resources as costs of energy generation from
wind power continue to fall. Over the past few decades, a large number of onshore wind power
plants have been developed in the US with typical installation capacity greater than 150 MW per
plant. Advances in technology have led to a rapid increase in wind turbine capacity with the
average wind turbine installed in the United States in 2014 being capable of generating about 2
MW of electricity. With the increase of wind turbine capacity and consequently tower height,
more robust foundations are required to support the wind turbine systems. Taking economic
considerations into account and optimization while maintaining or improving reliability should
be a key component of the design process.
Gravity base or spread foundations, due to their simplicity, are considered as one of the preferred
foundations for utility scale onshore wind turbines. Gravity base foundations generally consist of
a cylindrical pedestal mounted onto a large reinforced concrete base, with a circular or octagonal
shape. Typical spread or mat foundation widths are on the order of 15 m to 20 m with a 4.5 m to
5.5 m diameter central pedestal for the foundation connection to the tower. The foundations are
typically 2 m to 3 m thick in the central portions and taper to 1.0 m or less at the edges. Figure 1
shows general configurations of typical wind turbine shallow spread/mat foundations.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1: Typical Wind Turbine Foundation Configurations: (a) Octagonal; (b) Circular; (c)
Circular modular/segmented

The foundation bases are typically supported at depths ranging from about 1 to 3 m below
finished ground elevation and backfilled with specified material. This type of foundation relies
primarily on massive self-weight and soil overburden/backfill to provide stability against the
loads transferred from the turbine tower.

This paper presents a discussion of important considerations for geotechnical investigations,

geological hazards evaluations as well as design for utility scale wind turbine spread foundations.
The American Wind Energy Association estimates that construction costs account for about 30
percent of capital costs for typical utility scale wind power projects. Unsatisfactory operational
performance or failure of wind turbine foundations due to geotechnical deficiencies could result
in high economic losses which can easily be prevented with a well-executed geotechnical design
supported by sufficient exploration and testing.
Geotechnical Investigation Requirements

Utility scale onshore wind power plants in the US often consist of more than a hundred wind
turbine generators and cover large areas. During the project planning phase, a preliminary
geotechnical investigation, including geologic reconnaissance, soil borings, geophysical surveys
and laboratory testing, is typically performed across the project site to identify significant
geotechnical risks and evaluate geotechnical feasibility of the proposed development. The results
of preliminary explorations can be utilized to identify potential foundation types and to refine the
scope for the final geotechnical investigation as well as to help with micrositing of turbine
positions. During the engineering design phase, a complete geotechnical site investigation is
required to finalize the design and provide the necessary geotechnical properties for detailed
design of the foundation at each specific turbine position. In-situ and laboratory tests which are
widely used in geotechnical investigations of onshore wind turbine foundations include the
following:

Soil Borings: Geotechnical exploration typically includes soil borings to obtain subsurface
information for project sites. At least one soil boring at each turbine position is required to a
minimum depth of one footing diameter below the base of the foundation (DNV/RISØ 2002).
Soil sampling primarily consists of utilizing split spoon samplers (e.g. SPT or Modified
California) and thin wall tube samplers. Where bedrock is encountered, conventional rock coring
techniques are utilized to obtain rock core samples. If bedrock in encountered at a depth of less
than 5 m below the bottom of the projected foundation depth, the authors consider it good
practice for rock coring to extend a minimum of 3 to 5 m into the rock formation for
confirmation that the encountered material is indeed bedrock and not an obstruction such as a
large boulder. Additional exploration (e.g. multiple borings or CPTs at a turbine location) may
also be required at the discretion of the Geotechnical Engineer if initial data indicates a high
potential for variability in subsurface conditions.

Cone Penetration Testing: CPT soundings are commonly used either as a primary exploration
method or to supplement traditional borings. The CPT soundings should ideally be supplemented
with soil borings in order to collect samples for laboratory testing as well as for validation of the
information obtained from the soundings.

Geophysical Surveys: Seismic exploration testing such as Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves
(SASW), Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW), Refraction MicroTremor (ReMi)
and downhole methods such as Seismic Cone Penetrometer Testing (SCPT) should be performed
at a minimum of 10% to 20% of the turbine sites to obtain shear and compression wave velocity
profiles of subsurface materials. The measured results are important for evaluating subsurface
material properties and characterizing deformation properties (primarily shear modulus) of soils
and confirming foundation settlement and dynamic stiffness requirements.
In-Situ Measurements: In addition to cone penetration testing, other exploration and testing
methods such as flat plate dilatometer, pressuremeter and vane shear testing are also utilized in
wind power plant geotechnical exploration for characterization of strength and deformation
properties of the subsurface deposits. The flat plate dilatometer has been historically shown to
provide reliable estimates of short and long term settlement of soil deposits (Marchetti 2001) and
can be a useful tool for evaluation of differential settlement which is another important design
requirement for wind turbine foundations.

Groundwater Measurements: Characterization of groundwater conditions is an important part

of design for all geotechnical structures including wind turbine shallow foundations. High
groundwater levels could have adverse impacts on the global stability of turbine foundations and
an understanding of long term groundwater conditions at each particular site is therefore an
important design consideration. The effects of buoyancy should be incorporated into the design
of shallow foundations if the groundwater table is close to or above the base of the foundation
and may have implications for structural design and the amount of reinforcement required for the
foundations. The groundwater level is typically measured by observation during soil borings,
installation of piezometers/monitoring wells or performing pore pressure dissipation testing
during CPT soundings. Depending on the complexity of the groundwater regime for a given area,
relatively long term monitoring of groundwater levels over several months may be necessary.

Laboratory Testing: Appropriate laboratory testing of collected soil samples should be

performed to provide reliable estimates of the geotechnical soil parameters for shallow
foundation design. A non-exhaustive list of laboratory tests that are recommended to facilitate
foundation design is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Typical Laboratory Tests for Wind Turbine Foundation Design

Laboratory Tests Soil Properties Measured

Particle size distribution; Moisture content; Unit
Soil Index Tests weight; Atterberg limits; Expansion/shrinkage index

Coefficient of consolidation; Max past pressure;

Consolidation Tests Compression/Swelling index

Optimal moisture content;

Proctor Compaction Tests Maximum dry density of backfill material

Direct shear tests Cohesion and friction angle of granular soils;

Triaxial Compression Tests Undrained shear strength

Soil Chemical Tests Soil pH; Soluble chloride and soluble sulfate

Geotechnical investigations also typically include of CBR (California Bearing Ratio) testing (for
access road design) and thermal and electrical resistivity testing (for electrical collection and
grounding system design) which are also important aspects of wind power plant design.

Geological/Geotechnical Hazards Evaluation

Geologic hazards are extreme natural conditions that may lead to damage or risk to life and
property (i.e. earthquake, karst, flooding, etc.). Geotechnical hazards include those conditions in
which the physical and mechanical properties of soil/rock are particularly affected by dramatic
changes of their environment (i.e. liquefaction, collapsible soils, etc.).

The most common types of geological and geotechnical hazards and their adverse influence on
foundation stability are presented in Table 2:

Table 2: Typical Geologic Hazards Considered for Wind power plant Developments

Hazard Typical Effects Potential Mitigation Measures

Seismic Activity Strong ground shaking Evaluate and take into account for turbine
tower and foundation design

Liquefaction Evaluate and incorporate into design; ground

Lateral spreading/cyclic improvement; deep foundations, relocate
mobility turbines
Landslides/Slope Loss of foundation support Evaluate slope stability/pre-existing landslides;
Instability Erosion install retaining walls, re-grade slopes

Flooding Backfill erosion/Scour Evaluate and incorporate into design; utilize

Buoyancy/global stability erosion control measures; install scour
Inundation/infiltration protection, relocate turbines, include adequate
drainage provisions
Difficult Soils Expansive Evaluate and incorporate into design; ground
Collapsible improvement; deep foundations, relocate
Low strength turbines, geotextiles
High compressibility
Constructability issues
Karst Soluble rock Appropriate investigation; electrical imaging,
Cavity formation review regional geologic maps; grouting,
Caverns ground improvement; deep foundations,
Sinkholes relocate turbines

Both geological and geotechnical hazards depend on the region and subsurface conditions of
each project site. Convenient information can be obtained from publicly available resources
found in government agencies at county, state and federal levels. However, site specific
information is required to be collected for an adequate design evaluation of geological and
geotechnical risks at each turbine location.
Foundation Design Criteria

The selection and design of a wind turbine foundation is largely dependent on the soil conditions
prevailing at the proposed turbine site. A concrete gravity foundation is typically preferred when
the soil layers at shallow depths exhibit competent strength and deformation capacity to resist the
loads transferred from the turbine tower.

A thorough subsurface investigation provides reliable geotechnical parameter values for shallow
foundation design including the determination of foundation base dimensions, foundation
embedment depth and achievable soil unit weight for backfill and spring constants (subgrade
modulus) for structural design. As discussed below, the geotechnical parameters would also be
used in evaluating essential foundation design criteria.

Global Stability
For shallow depth gravity foundations, it is necessary to perform global stability analyses under
design loading conditions provided by the turbine manufacturer since the consequences of failure
would be catastrophic. For geotechnical work in the US, global stability of turbine foundations is
evaluated in an Allowable Stress Design (ASD) framework to confirm adequate factors of safety
for resistance to overturning and horizontal sliding. The minimum acceptable factor of safety
against overturning and sliding under extreme loading conditions is considered to be 1.5 (AWEA
2011).

Minimum Foundation Stiffness

The minimum foundation stiffness, including rotational and translational stiffness, is one of the
most important design specifications provided by turbine manufactures as it forms the basis for
estimating the dynamic response of a wind turbine. Overall foundation stiffness is dependent on
the soil stiffness and soil-foundation-structure interaction between the concrete footing and
subgrade. Considering the finite stiffness of subgrade soil, the foundation stiffness for a shallow
foundation is calculated by assuming a rigid footing on elastic half-space or a continuum
representing the subgrade. The dynamic stiffness of the foundation system is typically evaluated
based on strain-corrected dynamic shear modulus values which can be estimated from shear
wave velocity measurements and appropriate modulus reduction factors under operational
loading conditions, while the static stiffness is evaluated using a shear modulus value derived
from higher strain levels under extreme loading conditions. Commonly used procedures for
evaluation of foundation stiffness are presented in DNV/RISØ (2002).

It should be noted that for foundation designs with relatively thin bases or where deformation of
the base or pedestal is expected to be high (e.g. Segmented foundation in Figure 1c), foundation
rotational stiffness computations should also consider additional displacement due to
deformation of the concrete.
Soil Bearing Capacity
For shallow foundation design, it is essential to determine the ultimate and allowable bearing
capacity of the foundation support materials within the depth of influence. The evaluation of
bearing capacity in US practice is usually performed using allowable stress (or working stress)
design approaches. The ultimate bearing capacity of the soil supporting a spread footing is
usually determined using closed form solutions such as the commonly known Terzaghi-
Meyerhof equation with bearing capacity factors based on soil properties derived from results of
a geotechnical investigation. The allowable soil bearing capacity is then obtained by dividing the
ultimate bearing capacity by an appropriate factor of safety. The minimum factor of safety
recommended by Bowles (1996) and used in common practice is 3.0 at service loads and 2.26 at
extreme loads.

Given that the foundations are subjected to high overturning moments, considerations for load
eccentricity have to be incorporated into the bearing capacity evaluations for wind turbine spread
foundations. Figure 2 is a general representation of triangular bearing pressure distribution with
applied moments and the effects of eccentric loading on foundation contact pressure which
should be accounted for in the geotechnical design for wind turbine foundations. Procedures for
incorporating load eccentricity effects for shallow foundations are provided in DNV/RISØ
(2002).

Figure 2: Eccentric Loading Effects on Foundation Bearing Pressure

Allowable Settlement/Differential Settlement

Shallow foundation design should incorporate evaluation of both short-term (elastic) and long-
term (plastic) settlements. Total settlement is typically calculated for granular soils based on the
application of extreme loads, while elastic and long-term consolidation settlement for cohesive
soils is calculated under operational (long-term) loading conditions. The assessment of
foundation settlement can be based on the results of various in-situ tests (e.g. flat plate
dilatometer, CPT) and laboratory tests (e.g. consolidation testing). Total and differential
settlement should be kept at an acceptable level and the recommended maximum allowable
differential settlement is on the order of 3 mm/m to 4.5 mm/m and is an important requirement
specified by the turbine manufacturer.

Allowable foundation uplift/gapping

A typical requirement for wind turbine foundation design is that the foundation should remain in
full contact with the subgrade materials during normal operation. The no gapping requirement
ensures adequate foundation stiffness and limits load cycling which could contribute to cyclic
degradation of foundation support soils. As specified in the GL guideline (2010), foundation
gapping is allowed under extreme loading conditions (infrequent high loads) but should extend
no further than the center of the spread foundation width for stability considerations.

Durability
Foundations should be designed with adequate resistance to the deleterious effects of the
environment. Soil chemical testing, consisting of measuring soil pH, soluble chlorides and
soluble sulfates, should be performed as part of the geotechnical investigation in order to
determine potential for concrete sulfate attack and corrosion risk to buried metal. The results of
the testing should be appropriately incorporated into the development of the concrete mix design
per ACI 318 recommendations.

Limit State Design Considerations

Typical practice for US geotechnical design takes an allowable stress approach employing global
factors of safety as opposed to an Ultimate Limit State (ULS) design approach using load and
resistance or material factors. As noted in the literature, allowable stress design (ASD)
approaches have historically been shown to be reliable but the source of the inherent safety
factors and their reliability are not well known and may not be economical to implement
(Paikowsky, et. al. 2010). A noted limitation of the ASD approach is that although there is
recognition that there are various sources of uncertainty in the selected material properties as
well as the design loads, the uncertainty is all lumped together in a single factor of safety.

ULS and Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) approaches are well established and
widely used for structural design aspects of most structures. The load and resistance factors in
these frameworks account for uncertainties related to the design loads, the load combinations,
material strength variability and limitations in design methods and analysis (Paikowsky, et. al.
2010). Limit State approaches are have been adopted for design of highway structures at a faster
rate than other structures perhaps driven by the understanding of the conspicuous nature and life-
safety consequences of failure for such structures. Similar performance requirements may be
attached to structures such as wind turbines which may not have high life-safety implications of
failure but represent high economic and social losses for owners, investors and the public.
A ULS approach provides a framework within which the various sources and levels of
uncertainty for both design loads and material strengths can be quantified separately in a
probability-based framework to meet a prescribed reliability level or safety. Utilizing a ULS
framework for design of the geotechnical components of a wind turbine foundation would ensure
a consistent design between the structural and geotechnical components and provide a consistent
understanding of the reliability level of the structure.

Load and Geotechnical Resistance Factors

Geotechnical design principles using Limit State design approaches are well established for some
areas globally including Europe where structural and geotechnical design is based on the
Eurocodes and Canada through the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) and Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM). Since most utility scale wind turbines are certified by
European entities, it is informative to review the geotechnical design approach recommended by
Eurocode 7 compared to typical ASD approaches utilized in the US. Load factors for wind
turbine foundation design are based on international guidelines (e.g. IEC 61400-1, GL 2010) and
although geotechnical resistance factors are not specified, reference is made to DIN 1054 for the
applicable resistance factors.

The basic inequality that should be satisfied in a ULS framework is that the factored load effects
should be less than the factored geotechnical resistance as summarized below:

≤∅

Where γL is the load factor, is the characteristic load, ∅ is the geotechnical resistance factor
and is the nominal (ultimate) geotechnical capacity. It should be noted that some design codes
specify the geotechnical resistance in terms of a material factor which is equivalent to the inverse
of the geotechnical resistance factor. Typical geotechnical resistance factors for ULS bearing
capacity evaluations recommended by various codes are summarized below:

Table 3: Comparison of Bearing Capacity Resistance Factors

DIN 1054 Eurocode 7 AASHTO NBCC/CFEM

Resistance Factor 0.7 0.7 0.45 to 0.55 0.5

It’s important to note that the resistance factors summarized above are based on specific
considerations for determining the nominal bearing resistances (ultimate bearing capacity) and
the applicable load factors for the design loads. With regard to typical utility scale wind turbines
certified under IEC 64100-1 or GL 2010, the DIN 1054/Eurocode 7 resistance factors noted
above for ultimate bearing capacity would be applicable.

It is important to note that the load and resistance factors are code specific and are calibrated and
adjusted through their use in practice and intended to meet a prescribed reliability level. It is
therefore important that appropriate load and resistance factors for a particular code are
consistently applied in order to achieve the prescribed reliability level. Mixing load and
resistance factors from different codes should therefore not be encouraged without understanding
the underpinning statistical basis and intended reliability level.

Example ULS and ASD Bearing Capacity Evaluation

The following example is intended to demonstrate the difference in approach and perceived
safety level between a ULS based bearing capacity evaluation and an ASD approach for different
applied overturning moments. The example is based on assuming an octagonal 16 m wide
foundation supported on a cohesive soil with an ultimate bearing capacity of 575 kPa. The total
dead load of the wind turbine plus the foundation and soil backfill is assumed to be 15,300 kN.

It can be seen from the graphs that if the bearing capacity evaluation was performed in an ASD
framework, the factor of safety for a characteristic normal extreme overturning moment of
50,000 kNm would be estimated to be between 3.2 and 3.6 for a triangular and uniform bearing
pressure distribution, respectively. The bearing capacity safety factors would therefore be
considered to be acceptable since they exceed the typical value of 3.0. However, if the evaluation
was performed in a ULS framework, the characteristic load would be factored by a load factor of
1.35 per IEC 61400-1 and the corresponding bearing pressure would exceed the ULS bearing
resistance of 410 kPa (i.e. bearing capacity utilization ratio greater than 1.0). The ASD approach
would therefore not yield a design with the same level of reliability as the ULS approach in this
example. It is also important to note the strong non-linearity between the applied overturning
moment and bearing pressure which becomes more pronounced once foundation uplift occurs
(i.e. when the resultant reaction force is outside the middle third of the foundation or when
“gapping” occurs).

800 Factored Loads (Uniform Distribution) 8.0 Characteristic Loads (Uniform 1.80

ULS Bearing Capacity Utilization Ratio

Characteristic Loads (Uniform Distribution) Distribution)
1.60
Bearing Capacity Factor of Safety

700 7.0 Characteristic Loads (Triangular

Characteristic Loads (Triangular Distribution) Distribution)
ULS Bearing Resistance Factored Loads (Uniform 1.40
Bearing Pressure (kPa)

600 ASD Bearing Resistance

6.0 Distribution)
1.20
500 5.0
1.00
400 4.0
0.80
300 3.0
0.60
200 2.0 0.40
100 1.0 0.20
0 0.0 0.00
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 10,000 30,000 50,000 70,000
Overturning Moment (kNm) Overturning Moment (kNm)

Figure 3: Comparison of Bearing Pressures for ULS and ASD Evaluations

The authors note that the discussion of ULS and ASD approaches herein is general in nature and
is not intended to be a rigorous treatment of the subject. The intent of the discussion is simply to
facilitate dialogue on different design approaches to foster a better understanding of the
frameworks and open a channel for incorporating reliability-based approaches for geotechnical
design of wind turbine foundations. For more rigorous discussion of reliability-based design for
shallow foundations and reliability theory, the reader is referred to Paikowsky (2010) and
Baecher and Christian (2001). Duncan (2001) also presents practical procedures for
implementing statistical-based approaches for geotechnical design which are a good first step in
understanding and incorporating reliability-based approaches in typical design problems such as
evaluations of bearing capacity. Statistical procedures for evaluating soil data are also presented
in DNV-RP-C207 (Det Norske Veritas, 2007). These procedures should be given strong
consideration for implementation in geotechnical design of wind turbine spread foundations.

Geotechnical and Structural Design Collaboration

Because foundations contain both critical geotechnical and structural components, interaction
and collaboration between the disciplines is therefore important. Simply providing a geotechnical
report to the structural designer does not provide the necessary interaction required to be able to
understand structural and geotechnical design requirements and to facilitate the most efficient
and economical foundation design for specific site conditions. Ideally, the geotechnical
consultant should have interaction with the structural designer prior to execution of the
geotechnical exploration to ensure that the investigation accounts for all design requirements. A
good understanding of the design requirements by both the structural and geotechnical
consultants also helps to facilitate resolution of issues that may arise during construction due to
installation issues or variability in material properties.

In addition to basic geotechnical design recommendations normally provided to the structural

designer (e.g. allowable bearing capacity, settlement, subgrade modulus, backfill unit weight,
soil chemistry) interaction with the geotechnical designer provides valuable feedback on the
variability in each of the recommended values which may be required for optimization of the
design. Interaction between the geotechnical and structural consultants should continue
throughout the design and construction phases of the project and the geotechnical consultant
should also have the opportunity to review the final design drawings in order to verify that all
recommendations are appropriately incorporated.

Construction Considerations

Construction specifications typically include both geotechnical and structural requirements

within the foundation design drawings. It is imperative that the project owner, contractor and
subcontractors maintain continuous communication with the geotechnical engineer and
foundation designer in order to review conditions encountered during foundation construction
and update recommendations for conditions that may differ from those assumed during the
design phase of the project.
Construction observation is necessary by both the geotechnical and structural consultants to
confirm that construction execution, quality and material strengths meet project design
specifications. Geotechnical observations, construction design changes, and verification of
material parameter values must be carefully documented during construction to ensure that
conditions encountered during construction are within expected design parameters. Successful
wind energy projects will typically have a uniform process for construction documentation
including consistent policies and procedures, forms, schedules and hold points for all critical
phases of construction. It is not uncommon for utility scale wind power plants to have a change
in ownership over the typical operation life of 20 to 25 years and appropriate documentation of
the construction process helps to streamline the due diligence review process typically required
for the corresponding financial transactions.

Conclusion

This paper has presented a discussion on important geotechnical design considerations for utility
scale wind turbine spread foundations including geological hazards evaluations as well as design
and construction aspects. Wind power plants require high capital investment and require
dependable production and manageable operation costs. As a result, the high value assets should
be supported on robust foundations from both a geotechnical and structural standpoint. Adoption
of reliability design approaches for the geotechnical design aspects should result in developing
more efficient and economical designs with statistically quantifiable reliability consistent with
structural design aspects.

A thorough geotechnical investigation is necessary to adequately characterize subsurface

conditions to facilitate an efficient and economical foundation design. Interaction between the
geotechnical and structural consultants is also essential to ensure a consistent understanding of
the design requirements and helps to facilitate resolution of issues that may arise during
construction. Construction processes should also be adequately documented to streamline
financial transactions in case of a future change in ownership for the wind power plant.

References

Ambraseys, N. N. (1988), “Engineering Seismology,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics, Vol. 17, pp. 1-105.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2012), AASHTO Guide
Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, AASHTO.
American Concrete Institute (2011), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-11).
American Wind Energy Association (2011), “ASCE/AWEA Recommended practice for
compliance of large land-based wind turbine support structures (ASCE/AWEA RP2011).”
American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE/AWEA RP2011.
Baecher, G.B., Christian, J.T. (2003), Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical Engineering,
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 Bowles, J.E. (1996), “Foundation analysis and design.” McGraw-Hill, Fifth Edition.
Canadian Geotechnical Society (2006), Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition.
Christian, J.T. (2007), LRFD for Geotechnical Applications, Structures Magazine .
DIN 1054 (2003): Subsoil – Verification of the Safety of Earthworks and Foundations
DNV/RISØ (2002), “Guidelines for design of wind turbines” Second Edition.
Duncan, J.M. (2000), Factors of Safety and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126(4), 307–316.
Det Norske Veritas (2007), Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C207, Statistical Representation of
Soil Data.
European Committee for Standardization (2004), Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part 1:
General Rules, EN 1997-1.
Germanischer Lloyd Wind Energie GmbH (2010), "Rules and Guidelines, IV–Industrial Services,
Part 1–Wind Energy, Guideline for the Certification of Wind Turbines", Hamburg,
Germany.
Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2008). “Soil liquefaction during earthquakes.” Monograph
MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261 pp.
International Code Council (2012), International Building Code, Country Club Hills, Ill: ICC.
International Electrotechnical Commission (2005), IEC 61400-1 Ed.3: Wind Turbines – Part 1:
Design Requirements.
Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Totani, G., Calabrese, M. (2001), The Flat Dilatometer Test (DMT) in
soil investigations, A report by the ISSMGE Committee TC16 on Ground Property
Characterisation from In-situ Testing.
Morgan, K. and Ntambakwa, E. (2008). “Wind turbine foundation behavior and design
considerations.” AWEA WINDPOWER Conference, Houston:1-14.
National Research Council of Canada (2005), Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes,
National Building Code of Canada.
Paikowsky, S.G., Canniff, M.C., Lesney, K., Kisse, A., Amtya, S., Muganga, R. (2010), LRFD
Design and Construction of Shallow Foundations for Highway Bridge Structures,
Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 651.
Samtani, N.C., LRFD for Substructures, Limit States and Interaction between Structural and
Geotechnical Specialists, NCS Article #: 01-0507-R0.
Scott, B., Kim, B.J., Salgado, R. (2003), Assessment of Current Load Factors for Use in
Geotechnical Load and Resistance Factor Design, ASCE, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
129(4), 287–295.
Tegen, S., Lantz, E., Hand, M., Maples, B., Smith, A., Schwabe, P. (2013), 2011 Cost of Wind
Energy Review, NREL Technical Report TP-5000-56266.
Youd, T., Idriss, I., Andrus, R., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J., Dobry, R., Finn, W., Harder,
L., Jr., Hynes, M., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson, W., III, Martin, G.,
Mitchell, J., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M., Robertson, P., Seed, R., and Stokoe, K., II (2001).
“Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 127(10), 817–833.

View publication stats