Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
MASTER'S THESIS
Pekka Maunu
Pekka Maunu
Acknowledgements
This thesis, submitted for the Degree of Master of Science at Lule University of
Technology, is carried out at the Institute of Concrete Structures at Hamburg University
of Technology.
I would like express my utmost gratitude to my supervisor Prof G. Rombach for all the
help and good will, and for providing me the opportunity to prepare the thesis at the
Institute. My sincere thanks also go to Mr S. Latte for his invaluable guidance and
expertise in the field of reinforced concrete; the same goes for the examiner of the
thesis, Prof J.-E. Jonasson from Lule University of Technology.
I would also like to direct special thanks to Prof L. Bernspng for always being there to
guide me through my studies in Lule. Thanks also for the comments regarding this
work!
Finally, thanks to my family and friends for making all this possible and even
enjoyable!
Hamburg, 23.5.2008
ii
Abstract
In this study the structural behaviour of wind turbine foundation slabs is analysed with
various numerical and analytical models. The studied methods include models suitable
for hand-calculations, finite element models with plate elements resting on springs as
well as three dimensional models of both the foundation slab and the soil. Linear elastic
as well as nonlinear behaviour including cracking of concrete and the complex load
transfer from the tower into the foundation through a steel ring is considered in the
study.
The elastic analyses show, for example, that whereas in a concentrically loaded
foundation slab a significant part of the load is carried through diagonal compression
struts thus resulting in less flexure than what was found with the FE-models, the largest
section forces and moments in a slab subjected to large overturning moment are
obtained with a three-dimensional FE-model of both the slab and the underlying soil;
i.e. the section forces increase together with the accuracy of the model.
An important issue when designing members according to nonlinear analyses is to
consider proper choice of material parameters. The results of a nonlinear plate element
analysis verify the assumption that considerable redistribution of the section forces
takes place due to flexural cracking of concrete. However, because of the large amount
of simplifications of a simple plate element model no major conclusions of the
structural behaviour should be made.
A three-dimensional elastic analysis of a typical wind turbine foundation slab
considering the complex load transfer through a steel ring reveals that the global
flexural behaviour of the structure can be modelled sufficiently well by simpler models.
This model, however, yields the largest section forces and moments; this has to be
considered when simplifications are made. Additionally, the high local stress
concentrations and the relative movement of the steel ring anchorage have to be taken
into consideration when designing the reinforcement. A complete, three-dimensional
nonlinear analysis of the foundation slab shows that the steel ring anchorage in the slab
is the most critical part of the structure.
iii
Contents
Chapter 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General.................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objective of Study .................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Scope of Thesis....................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2
Background ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Wind turbine foundation slabs................................................................................ 4
2.2 Structural design principles for foundation slabs ................................................... 6
2.2.1 Soil structure interaction............................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Limit state verifications ................................................................................... 9
Chapter 3
Elastic analysis of foundation slab .............................................................................. 12
3.1 Foundation slab subjected to concentric load....................................................... 12
3.1.1 Analysis assuming uniform soil pressure distribution................................... 13
3.1.2 Finite element analysis with plate elements .................................................. 16
3.1.3 Design with strut and tie models ................................................................. 20
3.2 Foundation slab subjected to large overturning moment...................................... 22
3.2.1 Analysis assuming linear soil pressure distribution ...................................... 22
3.2.3 Finite element analysis with plate elements .................................................. 27
3.2.4 Three-dimensional finite element analysis .................................................... 29
3.2.5 Summary of results........................................................................................ 35
3.3 Summary of Chapter 3.......................................................................................... 36
Chapter 4
(onlinear behaviour of reinforced concrete .............................................................. 37
4.1 Material model for reinforced concrete ................................................................ 37
4.1.1 Concrete......................................................................................................... 37
4.1.2 Reinforcement steel ....................................................................................... 39
4.1.3 Model verification ......................................................................................... 40
4.2 Design methods to nonlinear analyses.................................................................. 43
iv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 General
The utilisation of wind as an energy resource has been gaining popularity among
decision makers for the last years not least due to the ever growing demand of
sustainable development. Over the past decade wind energy was the second largest
contributor to new power capacity in the EU; this translates into some 30% share of the
net increase in capacity. /14/
As with all developing technologies, also wind turbines have gone a long road up until
now regarding nominal capacity and consequently the size of the facility itself. (fig. 1)
From a structural point of view this means that the acting loads on the system have
increased in par thus requiring more thought in how the required structural safety can be
provided. It is, naturally, most likely that this development will continue still.
Figure 1. Development of wind turbine size and nominal capacity from 1980 to
2005. /15/
Wind turbines are subjected to loads and stresses of very specific nature. On one hand,
the wind itself acts in an unpredictable and varying manner thereby creating an
environment prone to material fatigue. This applies also to wave loads induced by swell,
ice loads etc. for off-shore wind turbines. On the other hand, as the facilities grow larger
they also become more affected by a complex aeroelastic interplay involving vibrations
and resonances creating large dynamic load components on the structure. /20/ From this
load spectrum develops also the problematic of designing the foundation structure of a
wind turbine. Hub heights of more than 100 metres, say, transfer a major eccentric load
to the foundation due to a massive overturning moment and in relation a small vertical
force (as the most common type of turbine tower is a light-weight steel tube).
On-shore wind turbines are typically founded on massive cast-in-situ reinforced
concrete slabs, in which the present study is concentrated, or alternatively, in the case of
poor soil conditions, on combined slab and pile systems. For off-shore facilities the
aforementioned additional load cases due to wave and ice forces, for example, place
even harder requirements for the foundation structure. Common foundation types for
off-shore wind turbines are the so called Monopile (steel tube driven into the ground),
the gravity foundation made primarily of reinforced concrete, and the Tripod foundation
whose three legs support the tower, as the name implies. /15/; /23/
Chapter 2
Background
2.1 Wind turbine foundation slabs
Slab foundations for wind turbines are usually rectangular, circular or octagonal in
form. The advantage of circular or octagonal slabs comes from the design of main
flexural reinforcement; at least four reinforcement layers in the bottom surface can be
provided which follow the principal bending moments better than an orthogonal
reinforcement mesh. A downside is the more involved construction including many
reinforcement positions and complex formwork. Therefore it is often found more
economic to build a simple rectangular slab. Figure 2 shows such a wind turbine
foundation slab in construction stage.
The global dimensions of a wind turbine foundation slab are above all governed by
normative regulations regarding safety against overturning /15/; as a rule, the
foundation slabs are always subjected to extremely eccentric loading and have to be
designed as such. Other soil stability related issues, such as substantial pore water
pressure under the foundation, can also emerge as governing factors regarding the
dimensions of the slab. Figure 3 presents a case where the rapidly increasing soil
contact pressure due to the eccentric loading has resulted in subgrade failure and
consequently in overturning of the whole facility.
anchor bolt cage. A steel flange is embedded in the slab before concreting, and on top of
the foundation another ring-shaped T-girder is placed; the bolts are then stressed against
both flanges. Fastening of the steel tower follows in the same manner as with the
previous variants.
Careful execution of construction of the tower foundation joint has to be carried out;
the joint has to provide the assumed fixity in horizontal and rotational directions used in
the tower calculations. This means that relatively small allowable construction
tolerances are to be used.
Figure 4. Typical construction variants for the load transfer from tower into
foundation. /15/
a)
b)
0 min/ max = V / A M / W ) results in a linear soil pressure distribution that depends only
on the magnitude of the applied loads and on the surface area of the foundation. (fig. 6a)
For smaller and in proportion somewhat stiff foundations (e.g. ordinary column
footings) this method is nevertheless a rather good approximation. For larger, flexible
foundations under concentrated loads the linear soil pressure distribution leads to a
conservative design, as the soil pressure concentrations under loads (and therefore the
smaller resulting internal forces) are neglected. On the other hand, the linearity can also
be on the dangerous side regarding design, for instance in the case of rigid, deep
founded slabs and some continuous slab systems. /3/; /8/; /23/
V
V
M
0min
0max
a)
b)
subgrade reaction is not something that is purely determined by soil properties but
depends on the whole system: magnitude and type of loading, dimensions of the
foundation, stiffness of the soil etc. /23/ Therefore one can never fundamentally state a
certain value for the modulus of subgrade reaction for a given type of soil.
All the previous considered, problematic is then the determination of the modulus of
subgrade reaction itself. The choice of the soil stiffness is a factor of importance in the
design of a foundation; it is obvious, for example, that the bending moments resulting in
a centrically loaded flexible slab resting on stiff springs can be considerably smaller
than when softer springs had been evaluated, thus resulting in unsafe design. Anyhow,
there exists numerous formulae in the literature (see e.g. /4/) for approximating the
modulus of subgrade reaction; they are usually based on the stiffness modulus of the
soil medium in question and the dimensions of the foundation.
DISCRETE MODELLING OF SOIL BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
The finite element method provides a means to model the behaviour of soil more
accurately than the two previous models; instead of just issuing a one-dimensional
stiffness for the soil, the soil medium itself can be modelled with discrete elements.
Even if just elastic, isotropic soil behaviour is assumed (the parameters thus being the
Youngs modulus and the Poissons ratio which, on the contrary to the bedding
modulus, can be considered as soil characteristics) the structure soil interaction can
be described more realistically than with the modulus of subgrade reaction. For
instance, a foundation slab under a uniform load will not result in any member forces
with an above introduced spring foundation, as the deformation of each individual
spring will be the same; however a soil layer modelled with finite elements will take the
continuity of the soil medium into consideration and consequently resulting in nonuniform deformation behaviour.
to an extremely cyclic load spectrum. /20/ This repetitive nature of loading may increase
the damage induced in a structure by accelerating crack propagation or the degradation
of stiffness. /31/ Fatigue in reinforced concrete is a relatively new topic, and therefore
not yet anchored in the practice. /24/ The research on fatigue has nevertheless been
gaining interest in recent years, and one can only expect that fatigue assessment will
become a standard verification in the near future.
The most essential detail verifications in the ULS are
Of these the limitation of crack width is usually most problematic to verify, as the
magnitude of stresses induced by restraint due to hydration, for example, is relatively
large for massive foundation slabs hence requiring often uneconomic amounts of
supplementary reinforcement.
Besides the pure limit state verifications, detailed design of reinforcement with
corresponding reinforcement layouts is in many cases the most time consuming part of
the design. Here a multitude of different issues have to be considered. These include
adequate lap lengths and proper anchorage of the reinforcement (including shear
reinforcement), consideration of allowable bends in the case of thick bars, as well as a
10
11
Chapter 3
Elastic analysis of foundation slab
The aim of the present chapter is to compare various conventional analytical and
numerical methods to calculate member forces in typical wind turbine foundation slabs.
This analysis is based on linear elastic behaviour of construction materials and soil.
At first the foundation slabs loaded only with a concentric normal force are inspected;
this serves to establish the various methods of analysis, as well as pointing out some
fundamental assumptions. After that, the actual problem of a large overturning moment
in comparison to the magnitude of the normal force is introduced.
Nk = 4025 kN
Concrete
Ecm = 29 GPa; v = 0,20
da vg
b = 17,7 m
12
Lateral distribution of the bending moment can be done with a strip method of choice
(see e.g. /18/) keeping in mind that the moment is concentrated mostly under the
column region; for example, the maximum bending moment per unit width in this case
will be 978 kNm/m.
It must be noted that the above calculation does not take into account the fact that a
significant portion of the applied normal force is carried at the corners of a rectangular
column (or at the perimeter of a circular one) (/13/) hence resulting in a smaller acting
bending moment.
SHEAR ANALYSIS
A foundation slab supporting a concentrically placed column can theoretically fail like a
wide beam (i.e. the critical section extends in a plane across the entire width of the slab)
as well as through punching out a cone around the column. /26/ The so called beamaction shear failure is seldom governing the design; nevertheless it should be checked.
Punching, on the other hand, is a complex phenomenon and the mechanism of failure is
not involving merely shear transfer. Depending of loading and construction the failure
can, apart from the tension strength of concrete being exceeded, develop from a failure
of the compression zone, from a local bond failure in the flexural reinforcement or
13
v Ed ,h =3,5;shear =
d
5434
(b / 2 c / 2 d avg ) =
(17,7 / 2 4 / 2 3,42) = 59,5 kN/m,
A
17,7 2
5434
(17,7 / 2 4 / 2 2,52) = 75,1 kN/m.
17,7 2
The shear force to represent punching is calculated at a peripheral section 1,5d away
from the face of the column (u1,5d), with a subtraction of 50% of the upward soil
pressure acting in the area within the perimeter (A1,5d) as prescribed in the German code
DIN1045-1 (2001) /11/: (fig. yyy)
5434
d
180,76
A1,5 d 5434 0,5
17,7 2
A
=
= 80,2 kN/m;
u1,5 d
48,23
d 0,5
5434
121,37
17,7 2
= 110,2 kN/m.
39,75
5434 0,5
v Ed ,h = 2, 6; punching ;1,5 d =
14
v Ed ,h =3,5; punching =
d
5434
d
107,5
A1,0 d 5434
17,7 2
A
=
= 95,2 kN/m;
u1,0 d
37,49
5434
v Ed ,h = 2, 6; punching =
5434
76,3
17,7 2
= 129,1 kN/m.
31,83
A 1,5d
1,0d
1,5d
u1 ,5 d
u1 ,0 d
33,7 45
15
a)
b)
c)
d)
16
load distribution to the mid-plane of the slab reduces the bending moment even more.
The coupling model situates in between the two load distribution methods. Regarding
shear, the differences between the various load transfer models are somewhat
negligible.
On the contrary to the beam theory the finite element method produces different
member forces for the two slabs due to differences in bending stiffness. For example,
the peak bending moment with 4 m x 4 m pressure load is about 6% smaller in the 2,6
m thick slab (775 kNm/m) than in the 3,5 m thick slab (822 kNm/m). This means that
because the flexural stresses in the thinner slab can carry a smaller amount of the
applied load a greater amount is led directly into the supporting soil springs at the
column region; i.e. the soil pressure distribution will be more concentrated under the
column region. (fig. 10) The tendency is the same with the coupling model even though
the peak values are equal in both slabs. These peaks are but singularities occurring at the
corner nodes of the loaded area and in general should not be considered in design.
0
8,85
17,7
10,0
h=2,6 m
h=3,5 m
15,0
Uniform distribution
17,3
20,0
23,2
25,0
30,0
29,0
Figure 10. Soil pressure distribution (kPa) resulting from the column load under a
cut along the slabs (4 x 4 m distributed load).
17
8,85
17,7
200
400
493
520
600
589
589
775
800
822
Point load
Loaded area 4x4 m
1000
1200
1400
a)
140
130,5
124,1
120
100
120,7
96,8
93,3
92,4
80
Point load
60
40
20
0
0
8,85
17,7
b)
Figure 11. a) Bending moment distribution (k(m/m) near the column; b) principal
shear force (k(/m) across a section 1,0d from the face of the column.
18
The loaded area in the mid-plane of the slab under 45 is naturally smaller when the
slab is thinner; thus the pressure and consequently the bending moment with the
associated model will be larger (11%).
SHEAR ANALYSIS
While the hand calculation method assumes a constant shear force along a lateral
section, the FE-analysis gives considerably higher local values in the middle of the
section, whereas close to the edges the shear is almost negligible. (fig. 11b) This
implicates evidently that the shear is not carried only by one-way action, but is
distributed in a ring around the column; see fig. 12b. The distribution of principal
compression stresses in the top surface is analogous to the shear force; there exists a
compression ring around the column. (fig. 12a) It is obvious that the slabs would fail in
punching rather than as a wide one-way spanning beam. Designing the slabs for beamaction shear (considering the slabs as a series of narrower strips of arbitrary width)
against the local shear force peaks resulting from a FE-analysis, therefore, can not be
recommended.
A summary of results from the different analyses is presented in table 1.
a)
b)
19
mEd [kNm/m]
vEd;1,0d [kN/m]
Calculation by hand
978 (126%)
129,1 (99%)
Point load
1900 (245%)
130,6 (100%)
775 (100%)
130,5 (100%)
520 (67%)
124,1 (95%)
Coupling of elements
589 (76%)
120,7 (92%)
Calculation by hand
978 (119%)
95,2 (98%)
Point load
1950 (237%)
96,5 (100%)
822 (100%)
96,8 (100%)
493 (60%)
92,4 (95%)
Coupling of elements
589 (72%)
93,3 (96%)
Method
h = 2,6 m
h = 3,5 m
20
through compression struts at varying (to some extent arbitrary) angles. It follows then
that the resultant tensile force in the bottom reinforcement in one direction in the
column region equals to
Ft =
5434 1
1
1
1
+
+
+
= 1727 kN.
3 3 tan 40 tan 50 tan 65 tan 70
Assuming an effective width of beff = c + 2d for the slabs, the tensile forces per unit
length in one reinforcement direction will be 159 kNm/m and 191 kNm/m, respectively
for the 3,5 m- and 2,6 m-thick slab.
Nd/3
40 50 65
70
21
Nk = 4025 kN
My,k = 93345 kNm
Concrete
Ecm = 29 GPa; v = 0,20
davg = 342 cm (252 cm)
h = 3,5 m
(2,6 m)
da vg
y
x
b = 17,7 m
Figure 14. System for the analysis large uniaxial overturning moment.
22
FLEXURAL ANALYSIS
The bending moments mEd,x can be calculated by treating separately the symmetric load
case, which is the column normal force creating a uniform soil pressure distribution
under the foundation slab, and the asymmetric load case, which is the overturning
moment resulting in a fictitious, trapezoidal soil pressure distribution. /33/ The bending
moments from the symmetric part can be calculated as presented in Ch. 3.1.1; that is
M SYMM = 1,35 4025 17,7 / 8 = 12023 kNm.
Because of the asymmetry of the second load case there exists a line of zero moment
(i.e. hinge) in the centre of the slab. (Fig. 15) Therefore the overturning moment must
be led equally to both halves of the foundation:
M ASYMM = 1,35 93345 / 2 = 63008 kNm.
After adding the bending moments resulting from the two load cases there will appear a
positive as well as a negative bending moment; the latter is needed to resist the fictitious
tension created between the soil and the foundation.
M EG = 63008 + 12023 = 50985 kNm;
M POS = 63008 + 12023 = 75031 kNm.
M
Line of zero moment
23
moment; for instance, considering the 2,6 m thick slab, the moment caused by its self
weight resisting the uplift is
24
SHEAR ANALYSIS
When such a large moment is being transferred from the column into the slab it is
questionable if punching as presented in the case of concentrically loaded foundation
slab is something that is worth looking into. There exists no more a continuous
compression ring around the column as is the case with smaller eccentrities of the
applied loads; therefore also the multi-axial stress conditions resulting in a higher
resistance to failure are missing. Based on this statement it seems reasonable to design
the foundation slabs against beam action shear and not against punching.
Firstly, the design shear force acting along a section at a distance 1,0d from the face of
the column could be calculated analogously to Ch. 3.1.1 keeping in mind that now the
soil pressure distribution is trapezoidal (see fig. 8); i.e. this model would assume that the
shear force distributes uniformly across the breadth of the slab.
This assumption results in a design shear force of 522 kN/m in the 2,6 m thick slab and
437 kN/m in the 3,5 m thick slab. The shear resistance vRd,ct of a cross section without
shear reinforcement according to DIN1045-1 would be around 530 kN/m and 700 kN/m
for the 2,6 m and 3,5 m thick slabs, respectively, for a C30/37 concrete and for a
longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 0,15%. There would thus be no need for shear
reinforcement in the slabs.
mEd,x,max [kNm/m]
mEd,x,min [kNm/m]
vEd [kN/m]
h = 2,6 m
8956
-5632
802
h = 3,5 m
6922
-6373
590
Table 2. Member forces in the slabs assuming linearly varying soil pressure
distribution.
Alternatively a so-called sector model can be used for the shear design of foundation
slabs. /12/; /13/; /29/ In such a model it is assumed that the shear force occurring in the
most stressed sector of the slab governs the failure mechanism; i.e. it is assumed that the
shear force is not uniform across the breadth of the slab. (fig. 15)
25
1,0d
45
ma x
u,c rit
Figure 15. Sector model for punching shear analysis after /13/.
Critical shear force according to the sector model as in fig. 15 is calculated exemplarily
for the 2,6 m thick slab in the following.
Length of the critical section ucrit:
u crit = 2 (2 + 2,52) = 9,0 m
Soil pressure resulting from the applied loads at different sections (see fig. 15):
26
= 7215 kN
4
6
4
6
Shear force acting along the critical section:
v Ed = 7215 / 9,0 = 802 kN/m
With analogous calculations for the 3,5 m thick slab the shear force equals to 590 kN/m.
Compared with the uniform distribution of shear force across the whole breadth of the
slabs it is clear that now the thinner slab would require some amount of transversal
reinforcement. However, the 3,5 m thick slab could still be verified without
reinforcement, although the sector model results in some 35% larger design shear force.
Loaded area
27
FLEXURAL ANALYSIS
The resulting bending moments along the slabs are shown in figure 17. Differences
between the two slabs are somewhat small; the 2,6 m thick slab tends to gather a
slightly larger maximum moment than the 3,5 m thick slab, with consequently smaller
minimum bending moment peak. The exception are the models where it is assumed that
the acting loads spread to the mid-plane of the slabs, with which also the minimum
moment is greater in the thinner slab. This is explained by the smaller area of the
pressure trapezoid.
-8000
Coupling of elements; h=2,6 m
Pressure trapezoid 4x4 m; h=2,6 m
-6000
-5495
-5185
-4172
-3674
-4000
Coupling of elements
Pressure trapezoid 4x4 m
-2566
-2328
-2000
8,85
17,7
2000
3312
4000
4102
5540
5673
6000
7039
7188
8000
28
bend also in the perpendicular direction. Largest shear forces are obtained with the 4 x 4
m pressure trapezoid and lowest when the loading is spread into the mid-plane of the
slabs.
The critical shear forces according to the FE-models are up to 60% higher than what
was obtained with the sector model in the previous chapter; therefore a design using the
FE-results would certainly be more conservative.
1400
1279
1200
1163
1095
1000
868
827
759
800
600
400
200
0
0
8,85
17,7
Figure 18. Principal shear force (k(/m) across a lateral section 1,0d away from the
face of the column.
29
With a Youngs modulus of 200 MPa and a Poissons ratio of 0,30 the elastic soil halfspace results in settlements similar in magnitude as the previous soil spring model; these
elasticity parameters are also reasonable regarding the previous assumption of dense
sand forming the primary layer of soil. It is thus safe to assume that the system is
comparable to the soil spring model. A schematic illustration of the model geometry
with the FE-mesh is shown in fig. 19. Due to symmetry only half of the system needs to
be modelled, thus saving computational time.
2,5b
b=17,7m
10 m
5b
30
The first thing to be observed with a volumetric soil model is the difference in soil
pressure distribution compared with the soil spring model. (fig. 20a and b) The elastic
soil half space results in pressure concentrations at the edges of the slab (see also Ch.
2.2). Furthermore, as the neighbouring soil elements interact with each other in all
directions as opposed to the spring model, the soil outside the slab boundaries is also
being affected by the settlement depression. Figure 21 shows the deformed mesh of the
system.
a)
-2,00
17,70
0
50
100
150
200
Soil as volume elements; h=3,5 m
250
300
b)
Figure 20. a) Distribution of soil pressure beneath the 3,5 m thick slab according to
soil spring model (left) and volumetric soil model (right). b) Soil pressure
distributions (kPa) under a cut along the slabs.
31
mx =
zdz .
h z0
Along the slab a bending moment curve as shown in fig. 23a is then obtained. The
maximum bending moment resulting from this model is mEd,x,max = 7568 kNm/m, and
the minimum mEd,x,min = -5043 kNm/m. These values agree surprisingly well with
bending moments from the plate element model using the same method of load transfer
(i.e. 4 m x 4 m pressure trapezoid); differences are less than 10% (mEd,x,max = 7039
kNm/m and mEd,x,min = -5495 kNm/m).
Greatest underestimation of the member forces clearly results when assuming that the
column normal force and the overturning moment act through a pressure trapezoid
distributed to the mid-plane of a plate element model; the bending moments are less
than half of the ones obtained with this three-dimensional analysis. Load spread to the
mid-plane should therefore not be used for designing a foundation slab subjected to a
32
large overturning moment even though for concentric loading it seems to best reflect the
true behaviour.
SHEAR ANALYSIS
Analogously to the bending moments, also the shear force is obtained through an
integration of the principal shear stress over a cross section height:
0
v = xz2 + yz2 dz .
h
Across the width of the slab at a distance 1,0d away from the edge of the loaded area a
shear force distribution as presented in fig. 23b is then found. The resulting peak of vEd
= 958 kN/m is again best represented by the plate element model with 4 m x 4 m loaded
area for the pressure trapezoid (vEd = 868 kN/m). The difference is also this time
approximately 10%. Load transfer model with a pressure trapezoid spread further to the
mid-plane of a plate element model underestimates the maximum shear force almost
25%.
228
-245
540
-1050
5400
-6670
-1740
-1270
2830
1980
-644
683
Figure 22. Principal stress field and distribution of horizontal stresses (with top
and bottom surface stresses in kPa) in the foundation slab.
33
-6000
-5043
-4000
-2000
0
8,85
17,7
2000
4000
3D; h=3,5 m
6000
7568
8000
a)
1200
1000
958
800
600
400
3D; h=3,5 m
200
0
0
8,85
b)
Figure 23. a) Bending moment mx (k(m/m) and b) principal shear force (k(/m)
across a lateral section 1,0d away from the face of the column in the 3,5 m thick
slab. (Three-dimensional modelling of structure and soil)
34
It can thus be concluded that the more realistic representation of the soil structure
interaction and the nonlinearity of the stress and strain distributions in a thick
foundation slab can be approximated sufficiently well with a plate element model
resting on a compression-only surface spring support. Considering practical design, the
differences between a soil behaviour idealised by springs and by volumetric elements
do not seem to be large enough as to judge the greater computation and modelling effort
to be acceptable. Same applies for plate elements versus three-dimensional solid
elements; with an appropriate loading model the time-consuming stress integrations can
be avoided, as the differences in member forces will be minor.
mEd,x,min [kNm/m]
vEd [kN/m]
Calculation by hand
8956 (125%)
-5632 (109%)
802 (63%)
7188 (100%)
-5185 (100%)
1279 (100%)
4102 (57%)
-2566 (49%)
1095 (86%)
Coupling of elements;
Soil as springs
5673 (79%)
-3674 (71%)
1163 (91%)
Calculation by hand
6922 (98%)
-6373 (116%)
590 (68%)
7039 (100%)
-5495 (100%)
868 (100%)
3312 (47%)
-2328 (42%)
759 (87%)
Coupling of elements;
Soil as springs
5540 (79%)
-4172 (76%)
827 (95%)
Method
h = 2,6 m
h = 3,5 m
35
36
Chapter 4
(onlinear behaviour of reinforced concrete
In this chapter the effects of nonlinear behaviour of reinforced concrete on the resulting
member forces in the foundation slabs are studied. This nonlinearity is caused primarily
by cracking of the concrete in tension and yielding of the reinforcement steel or
crushing of the concrete in compression. Furthermore, factors such as dowel-action of
reinforcement over a crack, concrete aggregate interlocking and the bond conditions
between reinforcement and intact concrete, as well as time-dependent effects of creep
and shrinkage contribute to the nonlinear response of a member.
This chapter starts with defining and verifying a material model for reinforced concrete,
after which it is used in analysing the foundation slabs presented in the previous
chapter.
As the aim of this analysis is to estimate the resulting member forces in a slab, a finite
element analysis with plate elements is considered. The nonlinearity in this analysis is
thereby caused solely by flexural cracking of the slabs.
37
continue to grow slowly. /25/ Under biaxial compression the concrete exhibits increased
ultimate strength; here a typical assumption of 1,16fc is used.
A more versatile, parabolic stress strain curve (e.g. /11/; /27/) is not needed in this
study, as flexural cracking dominates the structural behaviour of the models at design
loading and in typical massive slabs in bending the compressive stresses stay by far in
the elastic region.
c
fc
0,85f c
0,60f c
c1
0,0035
There exists a cohesive force in plain concrete in a region in front of a stress-free crack
(in the so called Fracture Process Zone); as a result, a discontinuity in displacements is
present, but not in the stresses, whose magnitude is dependent of the crack opening (or
the tensile strain, for that matter). /31/ In numerical simulations the post peak softening
behaviour is usually calibrated to follow a trend obtained by experimental results. This
poses a problem for practical design purposes, as many reinforced concrete structures
are unique regarding reinforcement configuration, dimensions etc.; there is not
necessarily experimental research done to act as reference.
38
Two models for the strain softening branch in tension are used. These are the linear
fracture energy based model used with the smeared cracking model of
Abaqus/Standard, and the bilinear fracture energy based model used with the damaged
plasticity model. (fig. 25)
The fracture energy required to propagate a tensile crack of unit area is calculated from
the linear relation (/33/ )
G F = 0,0307 f ct .
[ Nmm/mm2 ]
This equation gives somewhat higher values than the one found in CEB/FIP Model
Code 90, (/16/) for example. This is however justified in the sense that the resulting
increase in stiffness can be used to describe the so called tension stiffening effect: the
intact concrete between cracks continues to carry tension transferred through the
reinforcing bars.
t
fct
fct
Gf
Gf
1/3fct
a)
u0
2/9u0
b)
u0
39
s
ft
fy
0,025
46 cm
51 cm
3,66 m
40
fy = 310 MPa;
Ec = 26,2 GPa;
Es = 203 GPa;
= 0,99%.
Two models with different tension softening branches are done using four-node plane
stress elements for the concrete part and two-node truss elements for the reinforcement.
The load deflection behaviour of the numerical models is very satisfactory with regard
to the measured results: both models predict the yielding load quite accurately. (fig.
29a) The somewhat stiffer response can be attributed to many things; e.g. bond slip,
mesh sensitivity and the idealisation of the tension softening behaviour. Considering
structural design using the established material model, however, the stiffer response
does not necessarily mean that an unsafe design would be obtained. When the design is
based on member forces resulting from a non-linear analysis, a greater stiffness of a
statically indeterminate reinforced concrete structure means less ductility and
consequently less stress redistribution; hence the resulting maximal member forces will
be greater in magnitude and the design on the safe side.
Fig. 29b shows the stress in reinforcement at mid-span of the beam in relation to the
deflection. Rapid increase in the stress is observed as cracking advances, and ultimately
the steel yields as the failure load is achieved. Finally, figures 28a and b illustrate the
cracking of the beam at two load levels. The behaviour is characterised by diagonal
flexural cracking, as expected.
a)
b)
Figure 28. Principal cracking strains in beam J-4 under a total load of a) 64 k(
and b) 128 k(. (Bilinear tension softening model)
41
175
150
Load kN
125
100
75
Measured
Bilinear tension softening
50
25
0
0
4
6
Deflection mm
a)
300
Stress MPa
250
200
150
Bilinear tension softening
100
Linear tension softening
50
0
0
4
6
Deflection mm
b)
42
Rk
= Rd .
This works quite well for typical static systems in building construction, such as flat
floor slabs. /17/ Even though the superposition of different load cases is no more
allowed due to the dependence of the calculations on the stiffness of the system, it is
still sufficient to analyse such systems with the total load on all spans: the load carrying
capacity will be more or less completely utilised both at supports and at spans through
moment redistribution as the flexural cracking forms plastic hinges at the supports.
In the case of the foundation slabs studied in this work, on the other hand, the above
mentioned procedure is not so straightforward to use. The dimensions of such
foundation slabs are above all governed by normative requirements of sufficient safety
against overturning and other stability related issues. Therefore a maximum structural
capacity load is difficult to evaluate as the system would have to be changed when the
loading would increase too much in relation to the stability requirements.
As a result the concept of unified safety factor can be used to apply it to each and every
material parameter, after which the capacity of the chosen system configuration against
design loading can be checked. Alternatively the nonlinear analysis can be used for
finding out the member forces at a prescribed design load level, and then design the
critical cross sections as usual. Using the latter procedure, it would make sense to use
43
unfactored mean values of the material parameters in the analysis to find out the
member forces according to realistic deformation behaviour of the system; the design of
the critical cross sections is anyhow performed with the required safety (see e.g. /30/ for
related discussion).
Due to the direct linkage of the amount of reinforcement and the stiffness of a system,
the nonlinear design process has to be carried iteratively. (fig. 30) For each
reinforcement configuration there is a unique maximum capacity load, which is,
according to DIN1045-1, defined when one or more of certain critical states is reached:
c 3,5 mm/m
s 25 mm/m
There are generally two ways to proceed with the design of the structure. First option is
to perform a linear elastic analysis and use the resulting reinforcement as a first guess in
a nonlinear analysis, and iteratively find the configuration with which the ultimate limit
state still can be verified; the other possibility is to start with a minimum reinforcement
governed by allowable crack width etc. and from that way iteratively arrive to the
required capacity.
Member Forces
Stiffness
Section Design
Reinforcement
44
where is generally to be taken as 0,85. For a C30/37 used in the foundation slabs
would hence result fcR = 21,7 MPa. As the aim of this analysis is to study the member
forces in the slabs due to nonlinear behaviour of reinforced concrete, the mean value fctm
= 38 MPa is used instead. As explained in the previous chapter, the required structural
safety can be applied afterwards when designing the reinforcement for the member
forces obtained from a nonlinear analysis.
The tensional cracking strength of concrete is a subject where other reasoning has to be
thought of. The use of the mean value fctm would probably be too optimistic especially
when considering massive structures, where various restraint effects (e.g. uneven
temperature gradient due to hydration) induce cracking before the structure is even
loaded. /30/ On the other hand, no tensional strength at all generally results in numerical
problems, which consequently leads to uneconomical design as the amount of
reinforcement has to be increased in order to provide the stabilising stiffness. This
analysis is therefore done assuming f ct = 0,5 f ctm , which equals to 1,45 MPa for a
C30/37. The contribution of concrete in tension between the cracks (tension stiffening
effect) is modelled with a linear stress strain relation for the tension softening branch
45
of the concrete: the cracking strain at which the tensile strength of concrete is
completely exhausted is taken as 10-times the maximum elastic strain.
The material strengths used in the analysis are summarised in the following:
f c = f cm = 38 MPa;
f ct = 0,5 f ctm = 0,5 2,9 = 1,45 MPa;
f yd =
f ck
= 0,85 30 / 1,5 = 17,0 MPa;
c
f yk
(C30/37)
(BSt500)
Bottom layer:
m Ed
7188 10 3
=
= 0,0666 ;
f cd d 2 17,0 100 252 2
= 1 1 2 = 1 1 2 0,0666 = 0,069 ;
a s ,rqd = df cd / f yd = 0,069 100 252 17,0 / 435 = 67,95 cm2/m.
Top layer:
5185 10 3
= 0,0480 ; = 0,049 ;
17,0 100 252 2
46
47
-6000
-5495
-5399
-5185
-4785
-4000
-2000
0
8,85
17,7
2000
Linear; h=2,6 m
Nonlinear; h=2,6 m
4000
Linear; h=3,5 m
Nonlinear; h=3,5 m
5668
5730
6000
7039
7188
8000
1400
1279
1200
1097
1000
868
800
802
600
Linear; h=2,6 m
400
Nonlinear; h=2,6 m
Linear; h=3,5 m
200
Nonlinear; h=3,5 m
0
0
8,85
17,7
Figure 31. a) Design bending moment mx along the slabs. b) Principal shear force
across a section 1,0d away from the column.
48
a)
b)
Figure 32. Principal cracking strains in the bottom surface of the foundation slabs.
a) h = 2,6 m; b) h = 3,5 m.
a)
b)
49
50
Chapter 5
Three-dimensional analysis and design of a
typical wind turbine foundation slab
The present chapter deals with a three-dimensional modelling of a real wind turbine
foundation slab. The flow of forces in the slab is analysed with elastic models, and a
design proposal is made from the results.
Questions intended to be answered with the help of three-dimensional models are the
load transfer through a massive steel ring and the related problematic with anchorage of
the forces in the uplift-case, as well as the validity of the previous model assumptions
regarding practical design of such structures.
51
D=440
11
190
5,2
350
11
Soft layer
50
160
52
adhesive bond would certainly be destroyed already in early stages of the loading
history.
The frictional behaviour is modelled through the basic Coulomb friction model, where
the shear stress carried across the interface before slipping occurs (so called sticking
region) is defined as a fraction of the contact pressure at the interface (i.e. crit = p).
(fig. 35a) There is, however, some elastic slip allowance made in the stick region (fig.
35b); this helps the solver to find a converging solution. /1/ An ideal behaviour is
assumed for the friction slip rate relation regarding static and kinetic friction (i.e. the
friction coefficient that opposes the initiation of slipping is the same as the friction
Shear stress
Shear stress
cri t
Slipping friction
cri t
Stick region
Sticking friction
Total slip
Contact pressure
a)
b)
53
= 0,7
= 0
= 2,75
54
By integrating the horizontal tension stresses a tensional force of about 164 kN/m is
obtained, which agrees well with the strut and tie model. A considerable portion of the
applied load is hence transferred through diagonal compression in addition to flexure.
-118 kPa
-165 kPa
-151 kPa
210 kPa
x=0
1,50 m
-33 kPa
209 kPa
109 kPa
3,00 m
28 kPa
5,00 m
Figure 37. Principal stress field and distribution of horizontal stresses in the
concrete slab.
55
4,4 m
Nd
d 342 cm
Figure 38. Strut and tie model for a rotation symmetric system.
Contact opening
Concrete
Soft layer
56
The soil pressure distribution resulting from the 3D-axisymmetric analysis differs
slightly from a corresponding analysis with a plate element model. (Fig. 40) The
disagreement in soil pressure under the centre of the slab is approximately 5%. A plate
element model thereby underestimates the true stiffness of the structure to some extent.
0
8,85
10,0
12,0
14,0
3D axisymmetric
Plate elements
16,0
Uniform
18,0
20,0
22,0
24,0
Figure 40. Soil pressure distribution (kPa) resulting from the applied normal force.
57
The discretization of the structure is done with linear 8-noded volumetric elements.
Total number of elements in the model is 47 753 with 165 984 degrees of freedom.
For a realistic representation of the loads which the wind turbine tower transfers into the
foundation slab a two meter tall segment of the tubular steel tower is modelled with
shell elements. The shell elements are then coupled to the solid elements of the ring.
(Fig. 41b)
a)
b)
Figure 41. a) Three-dimensional model of the foundation slab. b) Mesh of the steel
ring and part of the tower.
58
Figure 42. Reference point, coupled with the tower section, through which the
loading is applied.
Loading is applied through a reference point which is coupled with the tower section, as
shown in fig. 42. The studied load combination considers the factored applied design
loads for verification of the ultimate limit state, which are, as in the previous analyses
59
60
8,85
17,7
50
100
150
3D
200
Plate elements
250
61
the flange contact pressure; although the friction effect is largely reduced by the fact
that contact is almost completely lost on one side of the web. (Fig. 45) A simple check
using standard principles of mechanics of elasticity, i.e. considering a hollow circular
cross
section
subjected
to
combined
bending
and
normal
force,
as
per
max = / A M / W , results in this case in a peak uplifting force of around 7800 kN/m
along the flange. Thereby some 35% of the overturning moment is transferred by the
horizontal contact forces.
Additionally, radial reinforcement bars will be required on the top surface of the slab in
order to provide doweling in the heel of the slab and the concrete inside the steel ring:
the hanging of the heel due to the loss of contact, as previously mentioned, will
induce massive problems regarding local stresses resulting from the uplifting pressure
once cracking of concrete is taken into account in the analysis, and consequently a part
of the slab tries to punch out. The radial reinforcement has to be fully anchored in the
concrete inside the steel ring; practically, this means that holes have to be provided in
the steel ring.
62
Suspension reinforcement
Inclined crack surface in concrete
> lb
63
predicted in the plate element analysis with a simplified load transfer model (mx,max =
7039 kNm/m; plate element model with 4 m x 4 m loaded area). The difference with
respect to the three-dimensional analysis with a simplified load transfer model, on the
other hand, is only around 5% (mx,max 7568 kNm/m). However, the trend is clearly
moving towards a considerably larger elastic sagging bending moment as the accuracy
of the model increases (three-dimensional modelling of soil; realistic modelling of the
load transfer behaviour).
a)
b)
64
a)
b)
c)
Figure 48. Principal stress field as seen from a vertical section in the centre of the
slab (a) and in the top (b) and bottom (c) surfaces.
65
m in kNm/m
v in kN/m
-5000
-4060 kNm/m
-3000
-1000 0
-8,85
8,85
1000
3000
4080 kN/m
mtan
mx
5000
v
7000
7990 kNm/m
9000
66
Regarding shear force, the critical maximum at approximately a distance of 1,0d away
from the steel ring in x-direction is found to be vEd 1010 kN/m. Again, this value is
considerably higher than what the plate element analysis suggested (vEd = 868 kN/m;
difference 17%). The design shear force obtained with the three-dimensional analysis
with a simplified load transfer model agrees better with the current analysis. (vEd = 958
kN/m; difference 5%). It seems that also here the same trend applies as with the sagging
bending moment: as the accuracy of the model increases, so do the design member
forces.
67
loaded column footing DF2 as experimented by Hegger et al. /22/ will be recalculated in the following.
t
fctm=2,9 MPa
0,5fctm
pl,0 = 2 mm/m
Figure 50. Model for concrete (C30/37) in tension used for the wind turbine
foundation slab.
Parameters used for the damaged plasticity model of concrete are the same as the ones
used for analysis of the wind turbine foundation slab later on. The material strengths
and elastic parameters, as told in /22/, are:
fc = 22,0 MPa;
fct = 1,76 MPa;
fy = 552 MPa;
Ec = 22,6 GPa;
Es = 200 GPa (an assumed value).
Figure 51 shows the FE-mesh of the footing, where the double symmetry is utilised in
order to reduce computational time. The real structure was a rectangular, 20 cm thick
foundation slab with a side length of 90 cm. Flexural reinforcement consisted of 14
mm bars at a spacing of 10 cm in two orthogonal directions (with an average effective
depth of 15 cm); in the FE-model the reinforcement is built discretely with truss
elements. Column geometry of 15 cm x 15 cm results in a shear span of a/d = 2,5.
68
69
Figure 52. Principal cracking strains in column footing DF2 immediately prior to
failure (above); Stresses in flexural reinforcement (below).
70
davg
[kNm/m]
[cm]
Bottom;
x-direction
7990
Bottom;
y-direction
Top;
tangential
as,rqd
as,prvd [cm2/m];
[cm2/m]
Reinf. configuration
0,041
54,80
56,6; 30-12,5
0,040
0,041
54,80
56,6; 30-12,5
0,021
0,022
28,72
32,7; 25-15
[-]
[-]
342
0,040
7990
342
-4060
334
Table 4. Main flexural reinforcement according to elastic section moments with fcd
= 17,0 MPa and fyd = 435 MPa.
Shear design of the foundation slab is carried out against the critical shear force of 1010
kN/m obtained from the elastic analysis. The capacity without shear reinforcement,
calculated as
v Rd ,ct = 0,10 (100 l f ck )1 / 3 d = 0,10 1,24 (100 0,00165 30)1 / 3 3420 = 722 kN/m
71
the fact that the design action can occur in each direction, as for the flexural
reinforcement.
For a section with shear reinforcement the shear force carrying capacity of concrete is
defined according to clause 10.3.4 (3) of DIN1045-1 as
v Rd ,c = 0,24 f ck
1/ 3
i.e. for the given case the capacity is significantly larger than the design shear force. It
is, therefore, sufficient to design the reinforcement according to the minimum allowed
compression strut inclination (cot = 3,0). Thereby the required amount of transversal
reinforcement is
a sw,rqd =
v Ed
1010 10 3
=
= 2,51 cm2/m/m.
f yd z cot 435 0,9 342 3,0
72
5.4.3 Results
As can be seen from figures 54a and b, the structural behaviour of the system is
completely different once cracking of the concrete is taken into account. Whereas a
maximum compression stress of 23 MPa was obtained in the elastic analysis, now the
stresses exceed 30 MPa; maximum uniaxial pressure is approximately 28 MPa where
the bottom flange of the steel ring tries to push out from its position. Figure 55 shows
the minimum principal plastic strains in the concrete. Along a part of the bottom flange
of the steel ring the inclined crushing strains reach around 4,6 mm/m; this very local
crushing started when approximately 85% of the design overturning moment was
applied. It is a consequence of a failure in a local compression zone due to the reverse
punching-like behaviour and implies the critical nature of the anchorage of the steel
ring.
The initiation of flexural cracking in the top and bottom surfaces has limited the
tensional stresses in concrete but nevertheless the crack widths are yet relatively small
so that the tension carrying capacity is not at all exhausted. Hence the main flexure is
still carried mostly by the concrete. Extremely wide cracks, on the other hand, occur due
to the uplift of the steel ring, as predicted in the elastic analysis. (Fig. 56) Noteworthy is
73
also that the main crack surfaces are inclined towards the top surface of the slab, as
expected. Here the tension carrying capacity of concrete is almost totally exhausted;
consequently the most stressed reinforcement is the vertical suspension reinforcement
together with the radial top surface reinforcement. (Fig. 57) As a remark, this is the
reinforcement that does not get attention at all in traditional bending and shear analyses
of foundation slabs. Furthermore, considering the dynamic real-life loading of a wind
turbine facility and thereby the fatigue limit state, one can expect this special
reinforcement to become even more critical.
a)
b)
74
Figure 56. Principal cracking strains. Isometric contour view (top); top surface
(below, left); bottom surface (below, right).
No signs of global shear cracking can be seen; neither does the shear reinforcement
get activated significantly. It seems, therefore, that the beam-action shear design is well
on the conservative side.
75
Regarding section forces the greatest difference with respect to the elastic analysis is
obtained with the negative tangential moment; the nonlinear analysis results in mtan,min
-3300 kNm/m (difference -19%). The tangential reinforcement in the top surface can
therefore be provided with 25 mm bars at 20 cm spacing, for example. This represents
about 25% less provided reinforcement than according to the elastic analysis (as,prvd =
24,5 cm2/m). For the bottom surface the nonlinear analysis yields an mx,max 7450
kNm/m (difference -7%). A corresponding configuration of reinforcement could be
76
a)
b)
77
20-10
d1 = 3,5+2+1 = 6,5 cm
k c = 0,4 1 +
= 0,46 .
2 / 3 1,34
Thus the force to be carried by the reinforcement will be
Fs = 0,46 1,34 1,94 / 2 = 0,60 MN/m,
78
s =
0,60 10 4
= 191 MPa.
31,4
Special consideration has to be given when determining the depth of the effective
reinforcement zone heff; for thicker members this will be larger than 2,5d1, which is
prescribed in the code. /9/ According to /11/ for the given structure (h/d1 = 3,5/0,065
54) a suitable value will be heff = 4,75d1 31 cm, so that the effective percentage of
reinforcement equals to eff = 31,4/31/100 = 0,010.
Maximum crack spacing is calculated as
s r ,max =
d
ds
20
191 20
=
= 555 < s s =
= 792 ,
3,6 eff 3,6 0,010
3,6 Cr 3,6 1,34
and the difference in mean strains between concrete and reinforcement (with the ratio of
Youngs modules taken as e = 7,3) as
s 0,6
sm cm =
> 0,4
Cr
(1 + e eff )
eff
Es
s
Es
= 0,4
191 0,6
=
1,34
(1 + 7,3 0,010)
0,010
= 5,24 10 4
200000
191
= 3,82 10 4 .
200000
It must be noted that the above formula differs slightly from the one in the code (Eq.
136). Instead of the factor 0,4 in the original equation, which takes into account an
approximately 70% reduction in bond stiffness due to creep, here a factor 0,6 is used
(0,4/0,7 = 0,6) as the early-age restraint is not a continuous, long-time effect. /5/
Correspondingly the factor 0,4 is brought to the threshold value.
Finally, the calculated crack width is obtained as
wk = s r ,max ( sm cm ) = 555 5,24 10 4 = 0,29 mm.
Thus the requirement is satisfied. It is noteworthy that the amount of surface
reinforcement required is relatively large for this massive foundation slab; the design
should therefore not be overlooked.
79
80
no unified regulations are anchored to the building codes so far. Additionally, the
composition of a massive foundation slab can differ from a laboratory-tested small-scale
specimen due to numerous issues, including residual stresses, restraints, etc. The results
of the plate element analysis verify the assumption that considerable redistribution of
the section forces takes place due to flexural cracking of concrete. However, because of
the large amount of simplifications of a simple plate element model no major
conclusions of the structural behaviour should be made.
A three-dimensional elastic analysis of a typical wind turbine foundation slab
considering the complex load transfer through a steel ring reveals that the global
flexural behaviour of the structure can be modelled sufficiently well by simpler models.
This model, however, yields the largest section forces and moments; this has to be
considered when simplifications are made. Additionally, the high local stress
concentrations and the relative movement of the steel ring anchorage have to be taken
into consideration when designing the reinforcement. A complete, three-dimensional
nonlinear analysis of the foundation slab shows that the steel ring anchorage in the slab
is the most critical part of the structure. Massive inclined cracking is encountered under
design load; consequently the provided suspension reinforcement is highly stressed.
Only minor flexural cracking occurs in the top and bottom surfaces and thus little stress
redistribution takes place. Absolutely no signs of global shear cracking are witnessed; it
is thereby concluded that the carried verification against a beam-action shear failure is
well on the safe side for this type of structure. Any definitive conclusions can
nevertheless only be made when the obtained, theoretical behaviour is verified by
experiments with real structures.
81
References
/1/
/2/
/3/
/4/
Bindseil, P.
Massivbau: Bemessung im Stahlbetonbau; 3. Aufl.
Vieweg, Braunschweig, 2002
/5/
/6/
/7/
Daniel, L.
Application des potentiels ltude de lquilibre et du mouvement des solides lastique
Imprimrie, Lille, 1885
/8/
Dehne, E.
Flchengrndungen: Berechnung, Ausfhrung, Beispiele
Bauverl., Wiesbaden, 1982
/9/
/10/
DAfStb-Richtlinie
Massige Bauteile aus Beton
Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, Berlin, 2003
/11/
82
DIN 1045: Tragwerke aus Beton und Stahlbeton: Teil 1: Bemessung und Konstruktion:
Kommentierte Kurzfassung; 2. Aufl.
Beuth-Verl., Berlin, 2005
/12/
/13/
/14/
/15/
/16/
/17/
Findeiss, R.
Nichtlineare Berechnung von Stahlbetontragwerken nach DIN 1045-1; 2. Teil
Nichtlineare Berechnungsverfahren in der Praxis, Seminar der Ingenieurakademie
Bayern, 20.3.2002
/18/
/19/
/20/
Hau, E.
Wind Turbines: Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics; 2nd Ed.
83
/22/
Hettler, A.
Grndung von Hochbauten
Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 2000
/23/
Holttinen, H. et al.
Offshore-tuulivoima permeren jolosuhteissa
VTT Julkaisuja Publikationer 828, Espoo, 1998
/24/
Klose, M.
Design of Concrete Structures for Offshore Wind Turbines
RECOFF (Recommendations for Design of Offshore Wind Turbines), Doc.no. 50, 2004
/25/
/26/
/27/
Malm, R.
Shear cracks in concrete structures subjected to in-plane stresses
Doctoral Thesis, Stockholm, 2006
/28/
/29/
/30/
Rombach, G.
Anwendung der Finite-Elemente-Methode im Betonbau: Fehlerquellen und ihre
Vermeidung; 2. Aufl.
Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 2007
/31/
84
/33/
Timm, M.
Durchstanzen von Bodenplatten unter rotationssymmetrischer Belastung
Dissertation, Braunschweig, 2003
/34/
85