Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
2
4
1
2
1
]
+
dz'
WIND ENGINEERING VOLUME 34, NO. 1, 2010 95
4. Micro level or Detail modeling (D): this kind of models are characterized by the
highest degree of detail and used for simulating the structural behavior of specific
individual components, including connecting parts, for which a complex internal
state of stress has been previously pointed out e.g. due to the presence of
concentrated loads. Shell or even solid finite elements are used.
The features for different structural model levels are resumed in Table 1; a similar
distinction can be made regarding the specification of the external loads.
According to what said above, at the initial stage of investigation structural analyses have
been carried out with macro-level and meso-level models of the three offshore wind turbine
structure types previously described.
With reference to Figure 7 some of the developed macro-level structural models are shown
for the monopile (left part), tripod (middle) and jacket (right part) support structure.
96 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES
FROM A SYSTEM POINT OF VIEW
Table 1: Definition of the model levels
Model Level Scale Maximum Detail Level Main Adopted
Finite Elements
System level wind farm approximate shape of the BLOCK elements
structural components
Macro-level single turbine approximate shape of the BEAM elements
structural components,
correct geometry
Meso-level single turbine detailed shape of the SHELL, SOLID elements
structural components
Micro level individual detailed shape of the SHELL, SOLID elements
components connecting parts
Foundation
Transition
(a) (b) (c)
Immersed
Emergent
Y
Z
X
Figure 7: Macro-level finite element models: monopile (a), tripod (b) and jacket (c).
The effect of foundation medium should be simulated with a full non-linear model in order
to account for possible plastic effects and load time-history induced variation of the
mechanical properties. At this level of investigation, an idealized soil has been simulated by
means of both:
Linear springs: such technique has been adopted for the macro-level models.
Springs are applied at the pile surface and acts in the two coordinate horizontal
directions: the corresponding mechanical parameters have been set up on the basis
of available soil characteristic and simulates its lateral resistance at the pile
interface;
Solid elements: used for meso-level models. These three-dimensional elements
simulate the linear mechanical behavior of the soil. The extension of the foundation
medium included in the model has been selected in order to minimize boundary
effects.
Both kinds of models have been used for evaluating the modal response of the structural
system.
The decomposition of both the structural system and the performance, and the
differentiation of the model levels can be used to guide and optimize the numerical analysis
efforts in this design phase. In this sense, focusing on a certain structural component and
selecting the specific performance, the choice of both model level and type of analysis to
adopt can be done, in such a way, to give the best efficiency of the analysis (deriving from a
suitable balance between the required detail level of outputs and the computational efforts
needed).
For example, focusing the attention on the tower with a steel tubular section, the
maximum stresses for Ultimate Limit State analysis can be preliminary obtained by adopting
a macro-level model and by carrying out a static extreme analysis (characterized by extreme
values of the environmental loads). However, if the local buckling phenomena need to be
assessed, a more detailed meso-level structural model and a static incremental analysis is
required. These considerations are summarized in Table 2.
WIND ENGINEERING VOLUME 34, NO. 1, 2010 97
Table 2: Model and analysis type selection
Structural Component Performance Model Level Analysis Type
Macro
Stress safety (ULS) Static extreme
Meso
Macro
Global Buckling (ULS) Static incremental
Meso
Tower
Meso
Local Buckling (ULS) Static incremental
Micro
Macro (poor)
Fatigue (FLS) Meso Dynamic
Micro
5. NUMERICAL ANALYSES
The numerical analyses have been conducted for three different support structures:
monopile, tripod and jacket. The principal geometrical and structural features adopted for the
analyses are as follows:
hub height positioned 100 m above the mean sea level (m.s.l.);
tower with a steel tubular section, with a diameter of 5m and a thickness of 0.05 m;
water depth of 35 m;
foundations depth of 40 m;
foundation diameter of 6 m (monopile), 2.5 m (tripod and jacket).
For the tripod substructure, the tubular tripod arm diameter and thickness is respectively
of 2.5 m and 0.05 m. For the jacket substructure, the diameter (thickness) of the vertical,
horizontal and diagonal tubular members, is respectively of 1.3 m (0.026 m), 0.6 m (0.016 m)
and 0.5 m (0.016 m). Finally, the tower supports a Vestas-V90 turbine [34] with a rotor diameter
of 90 m.
5.1. Modal Analysis
The preliminary task of the dynamic analysis is to assess the natural modes of vibration in
order to avoid that non-stationary load (e.g. wind and wave induced) could cause the system
resonance when excitation and natural frequencies are closer.
Geometrical parameters of the three support structures have thus been selected with the
aim of maintaining the corresponding natural frequency far from that of the non-stationary
external forcing (wind and wave).
The finite element modal analysis provided the deformed shapes given in Figure 8, where
only odd modes are displayed since modes i and i +1 (with i 1, 3) have the same frequency but
vibration occurs in orthogonal planes, according to the axial symmetry of the tower (the
eccentric mass of the blades is neglected).
In Figure 9, the two x
-
parallel dashed lines correspond, respectively, to the mean rotor
frequency (1P) and the frequency of a single blade passing (3P), which is triple with respect to
the former one for a three bladed turbine.
These frequencies determine the sampling period of the wind turbulent eddies and, as a
consequence, the characteristics of the induced non-stationary actions. Therefore, they
98 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES
FROM A SYSTEM POINT OF VIEW
1
st
(a) (b) (c)
M0 1
st
M0 1
st M0
3
rd
M0
3
rd
M0
3
rd
M0
Z
Y
X
Z
Y
X
Figure 8: Modal analysis (macro-level models). Natural mode shapes for the monopile (a), tripod (b)
and jacket (c) support structures.
assume importance when performing dynamic analysis and are generally compared with
respect to the first natural frequency f
nat
in order to classify the structural behavior:
if f
nat
falls below 1P the structure is called soft-soft; for this type of structure the
wave load could be dominant with respect to the wind load, and the fatigue effects
can be significant;
if f
nat
is between 1P and 3P the structure is called soft-stiff; for this type of structure
the wind action frequency could be considerable higher than the one due to waves,
and the fatigue effects can be still significant;
if f
nat
is greater than 3Pthe structure is called stiff-stiff; for this type of structure the
fatigue effects in general are not significant.
From the results plotted in Figure 9 it can be seen that the structural system falls in the soft-
stiff range only if the jacket support type is adopted. In the same figure, it can be noted that for
the first couple of modes the dynamic behavior of the jacket is stiffer than the one of the other
types, but the trend inverts from the third mode on.
5.2. Static Analysis Under Extreme Loads
Steady loads have been assumed for the principal environmental actions and no functional
loads are present (parked condition). The external forcing has been characterized by
assuming prudentially a return period larger than the one prescribed by Codes and Standards.
The numerical analysis for the selected support structure types has been carried out
considering the three load cases summarized in Table 3, where:
V
hub
represents the wind velocity at the hub height;
V
eN
(with N1 or 100) represents the maximum wind velocity with a return period
T
R
equal to N years, derived from the reference wind velocity associated with the
same return period V
refN
multiplied by a certain peak factor;
V
redN
represents the reduced wind velocity with a return period T
R
equal to Nyears
and it is derived from the previous one by applying a reduction factor;
WIND ENGINEERING VOLUME 34, NO. 1, 2010 99
Figure 9: Comparison of the natural frequencies.
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1P
3P
F
r
e
q
.
[
H
z
]
Monopile
0.0
1 3 5
Mode number
Tripod Jacket
100 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES
FROM A SYSTEM POINT OF VIEW
Table 3: Load cases
Design Combination Wind Marine Load Factors
F
Situation Name Condition Condition Environmental Gravitational Inertial
6.1b V
hub
V
e100
HH
red100
1.35 1.1 1.25
Parked
(standstill 6.1c V
hub
V
red100
HH
max100
1.35 1.1 1.25
or idling) 6.3b V
hub
V
e1
HH
red100
1.35 1.1 1.25
In the same table H
maxN
and H
redN
represent respectively the design maximum wave
height and the design reduced wave height associated whit a return period T
R
equal to N
years.
Steady wind field has been assumed along with stationary and regular wave actions; both
actions have been assumed to act in the same direction.
The design wind exerts a force distribution that is dependent on the undisturbed flow
pattern: the resultant action on the rotor blades has been concentrated at the hub height while
the drag forces acting on the support are distributed along the tower and the exposed piece of
the substructure (jacket type only). The immersed part of the support structure is subject to
combined drag and inertia forces induced by the undisturbed wave and the current induced
flow field.
In Figure 10, the calculated vertical profiles of the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic actions
induced per unit length on the tower and the substructure respectively are shown for the
monopile case. The analyses carried out through macro-level models allowed for evaluation
of both the reactions at the mud line (shear and overturning moment) and the induced
displacement at the hub height.
Results obtained with macro-level models are summarized in Figure 11. The maximum
shear stress at the mud line is reached for the load case 6.1c, i.e. the one characterized by
maximum wave height and reduced wind speed (see Table 3); on the other hand, the
combination giving the maximum bending moment at the mud line corresponds to extreme
wind and reduced wave height (combination 6.1b).
From what above follows that wave and current exert much more influence on the
resultant shear force, while the wind appears to be more critical for the overturning moment,
being distributed at a higher distance from the base.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 5000 10000
Height
above
sea
level [m]
Aerodynamic
Action [N/m]
Hydrodynamic
0 100000 200000
Height
above
mud line [m]
Action [N/m]
0
10
5
15
20
25
30
35
40
Action [N/m]
0
10
5
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 100000 200000
Hydrodynamic
Height
above
mud line [m]
Comb 6.1b Comb 6.1c Comb 6.1b Comb 6.1c Comb 6.1b Comb 6.1c
Figure 10: Environmental actions (monopile type support).
WIND ENGINEERING VOLUME 34, NO. 1, 2010 101
Table 4: Applied loads and the numerical results (loads combination 6.1b)
Monopile Tripod Jacket
Actions Wind on rotor [KN] 1663 1663 1663
Wind on tower [KN] 740 740 428
Wave and current [KN] 3372 3372 3500
Overturning moment [KN*m] 350456 350456 337087
Reactions at Shear reaction at mud 5775 5775 5591
mud line line [KN]
Vertical reaction at mud 10714 10356.3 13768
line [KN] (max in pile (max in pile
15018) 9929)
Structural Maximum stress in the 286 230 151
checks tower [N/mm
2
]
Nacelle displacement [m] 4.66 3.72 1.82
Moreover, from the same figure it can be seen that the three structural types experience
approximately the same resultant shear and moment under each load combination.
Concerning the horizontal displacement at hub height, it can be seen an increasing stiffness of
the support structure moving from the monopile to the jacket type under each load
combination. Maximum displacement occurs always for load case 6.1b giving rise to the higher
overturning moment; for the jacket type it is almost one-third the one of the monopile.
In Table 4 the applied loads and the numerical results obtained for the more severe
combination (6.1b) are reported, where the maximum stress in the tower has been computed
by the combination of compression (or tension) and bending stresses.
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
[KN*m]
Monopile
6.1b
Tripod Jacket
6.1c 6.3b
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
[KN]
Monopile
6.1b
Tripod Jacket
6.1c 6.3b
5.0
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
[m]
Monopile
6.1b
Tripod Jacket
6.1c 6.3b
Figure 11: Overturning moment, total shear reaction at the mud line and hub displacements, for three
different load cases.
From the previous results, it can be deduced that the jacket support type is the best choice
for what concerns the structural response under extreme loads (above all for the maximum
stress in the tower and for the nacelle displacement).
A meso-level model has been prepared for this type of support, after the exploration of a
number of tentative models (the model is shown in detail in Figure 12).
The meso-level model of the OWT structure is shown in Figure 13 (left part), while the right
part of Figure 13 shows the foundation medium (five substrates with different mechanical
characteristics), modeled using brick finite elements.
This level of detail allows the designer to investigate the internal state of stress for critical
parts (Figure 14). The connection between the tower (shell elements) and the jacket is
modeled using rigid beams elements (middle part of Figure 14). The meso-model is subjected
to the load case referred to as 6.1b in Table 3 (most severe); the result gives a nacelle
displacement equal to 2 mand a maximum stress in the tower equal to 178 MPa (at the jacket-
tower connection). This is in good agreement with the result of the macro-level. The small
differences are probably related to the variation in the tower diameter (ranging from
5.0 meters at the tower base to 3.4 meters at the top) along the vertical direction and to the
102 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES
FROM A SYSTEM POINT OF VIEW
Figure 12: Detailed jacket support structure meso-level model.
varying thickness of the tubular member at a fixed transition section (right part of Figure 14).
These features are properly reproduced in the meso-level model, while in the macro-level
model they are set equal to their maximum values.
5.3. Buckling Analysis
Another important aspect concerns the stability problem. A static incremental analysis has
been conducted in order to assess the buckling load; in this case, the hydrodynamic actions
WIND ENGINEERING VOLUME 34, NO. 1, 2010 103
Figure 13: Meso-level structural model of the jacket and corresponding deformed shape under static
aerodynamic and hydrodynamic loads.
Figure 14: Elastic internal state of stress at critical zones, jacket-tower connection and tower
thickness transition.
have been schematized by using of single force acting on the jacket at the mean water level
(Figure 15).
The analysis gives a multiple of 1.17 for the extreme load case referred to as 6.1b in Table 3.
It is important to outline that the first buckling mode shows a local instability of the tower
tubular section, an effect that cannot be accounted for with the macro-models.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the system approach has been proposed as a conceptual method for the design
of offshore wind turbine structures. In this sense, a structural system decomposition has been
performed, with a specific view on the structural analysis and performance. The presented
considerations aim at the organization of the framework for the basis of design of offshore
wind turbines, as a support to the decision making, with specific reference to the structural
safety, serviceability and reliability for the entire lifespan. Furthermore, numerical analyses
have been performed to compare the safety performance of three different support structure
types, generally adopted for a water depth lower than 50m: monopile, tripod and jacket
support structures. Extreme loads with a recurrence period of 100-years have been applied at
this stage of investigation.
Well-known analytical formulations have been summarized for correct characterization
of both the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic actions, whose contribution is crucial for
assessing the structural behavior. An early analysis has been carried out for the investigation
of the dynamic response for each one of the three support structures. Thus, the natural modes
of vibration have been determined in relation with the principal geometrical design
parameters. This is essential for avoiding the occurrence of resonance when the frequencies
of the external forces could excite the structures natural modes. A subsequent static analysis
has been carried out simulating three different load combinations as prescribed by
International Standards: the relative influence of aerodynamic and hydrodynamic loads has
been assessed, focusing on the resultant shear force and the overturning moment at the mud
line, and on the horizontal displacement at the hub height. This step is introductory for the
selection of the jacket structure as the appropriate support type.
Moreover, the internal state of stress under the abovementioned steady extreme loads has
been evaluated by means of two different levels of detail for the numerical models (macro-
and meso-level). The analyses have confirmed that macro-level model results can predict the
basic aspects of the structural response, yet the meso-level model provides an additional and
more detailed picture of the structural behavior due both to the major capabilities of the
104 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES
FROM A SYSTEM POINT OF VIEW
Figure 15: Results of the buckling analysis.
adopted finite elements (shell and brick instead of beam elements) and to the higher
geometrical resolution of the models.
Finally, an incremental analysis has been carried out to assess the buckling load of the
examined offshore wind turbine: this occurs in the tower tubular section for a multiplier equal
to 1.17 for the more severe extreme loads.
Starting from the results presented here, future and more refined studies can take into
account for other relevant effects influencing the dynamic response of the structure (e.g.
scour, coupling with foundation medium, non-stationary loads, non-linear interactions etc.) by
performing transient analyses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present work has been developed within the Wi-POD Project (2008-2010) and other
research projects in the field of wind engineering, partially financed by the Italian Ministry for
Education, University and Research (MIUR). Fruitful discussions with Prof. Pier Giorgio
Malerba of the Politecnico di Milano, Prof. Marcello Ciampoli of the Sapienza Universit di
Roma, Professor Hui Li of the Harbin Institute of Technology and Dr. Ing. Gaetano Gaudiosi of
the OWEMES association are gratefully acknowledged. Finally, Prof. Jon McGowan is
acknowledged, for inspiring part of this work.
REFERENCES
[1] Hau, E., Wind Turbines: Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics, 2nd edn.,
Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006.
[2] Breton, S.-P. and Moe, G., Status plans and technologies for offshore wind turbines in
Europe and North America, Renewable Energy, 2009, 34 (3), 646654.
[3] Bontempi, F., Basis of Design and expected Performances for the Messina Strait Bridge,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Bridge Engineering Challenges in the
21st Century, Hong Kong, 1-3 November, 2006.
[4] NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), Systems Engineering
Handbook, 1995. Available online on 10/2009 at: www.nasa.gov.
[5] Simon, H.A, The Sciences of the Artificial, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[6] Bontempi, F., Gkoumas, K. and Arangio, S., Systemic approach for the maintenance of
complex structural systems, Structure and infrastructure engineering, 2008, 4, 7794.
[7] Snel, H., Review of Aerodynamics for Wind Turbines, Wind Energy, 2003, 6 (3), 203211.
[8] Westgate, Z.J. and DeJong, J.T., Geotechnical Considerations for Offshore Wind
Turbines, 2005, Report for MTC OTC Project, Available online on 10/2009 at:
http://www.masstech.org/IS/Owec_pdfs/GeotechOffshoreFoundations-MTC-
OWC.pdf.
[9] Ibsen, L. B. and Brincker R., Design of a New Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines,
Proceedings of the IMAC-22: A Conference on Structural Dynamics, Michigan, 2629
January, 2004.
[10] Zaaijer, M. B., Foundation modelling to assess dynamic behaviour of offshore wind
turbines, Applied Ocean Research, 2006, 28 (1), 4557.
[11] Veldkamp, D., A probabilistic approach to wind turbine fatigue design, Proceedings of
the European wind energy conference and exhibition, Milan, 710 May, 2007.
[12] Tempel, J. van der, Design of support structures for offshore wind turbines, PdD Thesis,
Technische Universiteit Delft, 2006.
WIND ENGINEERING VOLUME 34, NO. 1, 2010 105
[13] Biehl, F. and Lehmann, E., Collisions of Ships and Offshore Wind Turbines: Calculation
and Risk Evaluation, Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Hamburg, 49 June, 2006.
[14] Martnez, E., Sanz, F., Pellegrini, S., Jimnez, E. and Blanco, J., Life cycle assessment of a
multi-megawatt wind turbine, Renewable Energy, 2009, 34 (3), 667673.
[15] Weinzettel, J., Reenaas, M., Solli, C. and Hertwich, E.G., Life cycle assessment of a
floating offshore wind turbine, Renewable Energy, 2009, 34 (3), 742747.
[16] Sumur, B.M. and Fredse, J., The mechanics of scour in the marine environment, World
Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 2002.
[17] Tempel, J. van der, Zaaijer, MB. and Subroto, H., The effects of scour on the design of
offshore wind turbines, Proceedings of the 3
rd
International conference on marine
renewable energy, Blyth, July 69, 2004.
[18] Henderson, A.R. and Patel, M.H., On the modeling of a floating Offshore Wind Turbines,
Wind Energy, 2003, 6 (1), 5386.
[19] Jonkman, J.M. and Buhl Jr., M.L., Loads Analysis of a Floating Offshore Wind Turbine
Using Fully Coupled Simulation, Proceedings of the WindPower Conference and
exhibition, Los Angeles: California, June 36, 2007.
[20] API (American Petroleum Institute), Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing
and Constructing Fixed Offshore PlatformsLoad and Resistance Factor Design (RP
2A-LRFD), 1993 (suppl. 1997).
[21] BSH (Bundesamt fr Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie), Standard: Design of Offshore
Wind Turbines, 2007.
[22] DNV (Det Norske Veritas), Offshore Standard: Design of Offshore Wind Turbine
Structures (DNV-OS-J101), 2004.
[23] GL (Germanischer Lloyd) Wind Energie GmbH, Richtlinie zur Erstellung von
technischen Risikoanalysen fr Offshore-Windparks, 2002.
[24] GL (Germanischer Lloyd) Wind Energie GmbH, Guideline for the Certification of
Offshore Wind Turbines, 2005.
[25] IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission), Wind Turbine Generator Systems
part 3: Design requirements for offshore wind turbines (IEC 61400-3), 2009.
[26] Bontempi, F., Li, H., Petrini, F. and Gkoumas, K., Basis of Design of Offshore Wind
Turbines by System Decomposition, Proceedings of the 4
th
International Conference on
Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Jeju, Korea, 2628 May, 2008.
[27] Starossek, U., Progressive Collapse of Structures, Thomas Telford Publishing, London,
2009.
[28] Bontempi, F., Giuliani, L. and Gkoumas, K., Handling the exceptions: dependability of
systems and structural robustness, Proceedings of the 3
rd
International Conference on
Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation, Alphose Zingoni (Ed.), Millpress,
Rotterdam, 2007.
[29] Polnikov, V.G., Manenti S., Study of relative role of nonlinearity and depth refraction in
wave spectrum evolution in shallow water, Journal of Engineering Applications of
Computational Fluid Mechanics, 2009, 3 (1), 4255.
106 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES
FROM A SYSTEM POINT OF VIEW
[30] Bontempi, F., Li, H., Petrini, F. and Manenti, S., Numerical modeling for the analysis and
design of offshore wind turbines, Proceedings of the 4
th
International Conference on
Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Jeju, Korea, 2628 May, 2008.
[31] Petrini, F. Giuliano, F. and Bontempi, F., Comparison of time domain techniques for the
evaluation of the response and the stability in long span suspension bridges, Computer
& Structures, 2007, 85, 10321048.
[32] Van Binh, L., Ishihara, T., Van Phuc, P. and Fujino, Y., A peak factor for non-Gaussian
response analysis of wind turbine tower, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 2008, 96 (1011), 22172227.
[33] Brebbia, C.A. and Walker Newnes, S., Dynamic analysis of offshore structures,
Butterworth, London, 1979.
[34] www.vestas.com.
WIND ENGINEERING VOLUME 34, NO. 1, 2010 107