Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Wind Turbine
Foundation Design
Contents
Wind Turbine Foundation Design Chapter for Civil Wind Energy Design and Construction
2
1.0 Introduction 2
1.1 Foundation Types 2
1.1.1 Shallow Octagonal Gravity Base Foundation
2
1.1.2 Shallow Rock Socketed, Rock Anchor, and Short Pier Foundations
2
1.1.3 Deep Pile and Cap Foundations 2
1.1.4. Patrick and Henderson Patented Foundations
3
1.2 What Makes Wind Turbine Foundation Design Unique?
3
1.3 Wind Turbine Driving Forces 3
2.0 Wind Turbine Foundation Design Path 4
2.1 Turbine Specific Load Document and Design Requirements
4
2.2 Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Report
4
2.2.1 Ground Improvement Recommendations 4
3.0 Wind Turbine Foundation Design and Analysis 5
3.1 Preliminary Design 5
3.2 Pre-Design Check Calculations 5
3.2.1 Eccentricity 5
3.2.2 Wind Turbine Foundation Effective Area
6
3.2.3 Horizontal Wind Force Correction for Mechanical Torque
7
3.3 Wind Turbine Foundation Design Checks 7
3.3.1 Foundation Overturning 7
3.3.2 Rotational Stiffness 9
3.3.3 Bearing Capacity 13
3.3.4 Sliding 15
3.3.5 Settlement 20
References 22
1.0 Introduction
Wind turbine foundation design is unique due to untraditional loading conditions and large site and geotechnical
variance. When designing a wind turbine foundation, the
foundation engineer has several foundation options to
choose from including shallow octagonal gravity base,
rock anchors, pier-type foundations, and deep piles.
Design parameters are dependent on wind turbine size,
turbine and site specific loading conditions, and site
specific geotechnical conditions. Furthermore, there are
a series of design checks to ensure the foundation type,
size, and placement is capable of withstanding the extreme loading conditions.
1.1 Foundation Types
There are several options available for wind turbine generator foundation design. Depending on the localized
geotechnical and the turbine specific load conditions,
the best fit foundation option is chosen by the foundation design engineer for a wind turbine and wind farm
project. Foundation size and type may vary throughout
a wind farm.
The foundations options include both shallow foundations and deep foundations. The shallow foundations
include octagonal gravity base, rock socketed, rock anchor, and short pier foundations. The deep foundations
include pile and cap foundations, and the patented Patrick and Henderson Tensionless Pier, Rock Anchor and
Pile Anchor foundations. The deep foundations are often
chosen for poor soil conditions. Mono-pile foundations
are another deep foundation type that is most commonly
utilized for offshore applications.
1.1.1 Shallow Octagonal Gravity Base Foundation
Octagonal gravity base foundations are the most common non-proprietary foundation type used for landbased wind turbines and will be the focus of this foundation design chapter. These foundations are applicable in
a broad range of soil conditions. In general, this type of
foundation is a large octagonal mass of concrete and
steel rebar reinforcement. Typically, octagonal gravity
base foundations are 12 to 18 m in diameter, approximately 0.7 m thick at the edge, 2.5 to 3.5 meters thick at
the center, contain 140 to 460 cubic meters of concrete,
125 to 360 kN of reinforcing steel, and cost $100,000
to $250,000 per foundation. This foundation type relies
on the weight of the concrete and steel as well as the
overburden soil to resist the overturning moment from
the horizontal wind load on the turbine structure. These
foundations are typically embedded 2.4 to 3 m beneath
the finish grade of overlying soil. The size of these foundations is usually dictated by either the maximum allowable edge pressure or overturning due to a high groundwater table (Tinjum and Christensen, 2010). Figure 1
depicts geometry of this type of foundation and Figure 2
is an example of a shallow octagonal foundation before
the overlying soil is backfilled.
3.2.1 Eccentricity
Before the foundations effective area is calculated, the
eccentricity of the wind turbine structure and system
needs to be determined. Due to the large horizontal wind
loads on the wind turbine and tower, the foundation load
center is offset from the center of the foundation by a
distance referred to as the eccentricity (e). This distance
can be calculated with Equation 1 if the design overturning moment and design vertical forces are known. Figure 6 shows a diagram of eccentric loading on a wind
turbine foundation. It is important to note that the ec-
Example 3.2.1
If an extreme overturning moment is given as 52,500
kNm and a design vertical load of 11,800 kN the eccentricity is calculated below in meters.
Md
e = ___
Vd
e = 52,500 kNm
11,800 kN
e = 4.45 m from center of wind turbine structure
[2]
where:
Aeff = effective foundation area
R = radius of inscribed circle of polygon
e = eccentricity
The major axes of the approximated ellipse can be calculated with Equations 3 and 4.
be = 2(R - e)
[3]
le = 2R1-(1- 2Rb )2
[4]
where:
be = width of ellipse
le = length of ellipse
leff
beff = ___
be
le
[5]
leff = Aeff
[6]
le
be
Aeff = 51.5 m2
where:
beff = width of rectangle
leff = length of rectangle
Aeff = effective foundation area
A diagram of the octagonal foundation footprint, ellipse
approximation, and rectangular approximation is shown
in Figure 7.
be = 2(R - e)
be = 2(7.5m - 4.45m)
be = 6.1 m
le = 2R1-(1- 2Rb )2
6.1m 2
le = 2(7.5m)1-(1- 2(7.5m)
)
le = 12.1 m
The dimensions of the rectangle approximated
from the ellipse.
leff = Aeff
le
be
H1 = 9,640.5 kN
Ieff = 10.1 m
leff
beff = ___ be
le
10.1 m 6.1m
beff = _______
12.1 m
beff = 5.09 m
H1 =
2M z
leff
+ H2 + (
2Mz
leff
[7]
H1 =
2(27,000 kNm)
10.1 m
2Mz
leff
+ H2 + (
2Mz
leff
+ (900kN)2 + (
2(27,000 kNm)
10.1 m
2. Calculate the total volume (Vc) and weight of concrete (Wc) in the foundation.
3. Calculate the soil dead load (WT). The soil dead
load is the weight of the soil that is above the octagonal foundation.
where:
H1 = adjusted horizontal force
Mz = mechanical torque
leff = length of approximated rectangle of
octagonal foundation
H1 =
1. Determine the foundation geometry, soil properties, concrete properties and the extreme factored
turbine loads. The foundation geometry will come
from the preliminary design. The soil properties can
be found in the geotechnical report. The concrete
properties will come from the concrete supplier for
the specific concrete that is to be used. Lastly, the
extreme factored turbine loads can be found in the
manufacturer supplied load document.
4. Calculate the total resisting moment (MR). The total resisting moment is a function of the weight of
the concrete, the weight of the soil, and the vertical
or axial forces of the turbine structure. The combination of these weights and forces are multiplied by the
foundation radius to obtain the total resisting moment.
5. Calculate the total overturning moment for the
extreme conditions (MOE). The total overturning moment is the combination of the existing overturning
moment at the base of the wind turbine tower cou-
Foundation Geometry
hp = 4.0 ft
hc = 3.75 ft
hb = 1.83 ft
hg = 3.5 ft
R = 27.1 ft
R1 = 25 ft
R2 = 8.5 ft
X1 = 13.0 ft
B = 20.7 ft
Pedestal Volume
VP = AP hP
VP = 227.0 ft2 4.0 ft = 907.9 ft3
Total Concrete Volume
Vc = Vo - VW + VP
Vc = 11,557 ft3 - 2810.8 ft3 + 907.9 ft3 = 9,659.8 ft3
or 357.8 YD3
Concrete Properties
Weight = 150 lb/ft3
f'c = 5000 psi
Taper rate = 0.256
Weight of Concrete
Wc = Vc 150 lb/ft3
Wc = 9,659.8 ft3 150 lbsft3 = 1,449.0 kips
Soil Properties
Weight = 120 lb/ft3
Allowable Bearing = 5440 psf
Extreme Allowable Bearing = 6400 psf
Friction Coefficient, = 0.35
Water table height = 20 ft
Buoyancy Calculation
Two changes take place when the water table is above
the base of the foundation. First, an uplift force from the
water pressure occurs at the base of the foundation.
Second, if the water table is above the upper edge of the
foundation base, the soil above the foundation, below
the water table, becomes saturated.
The uplift force due to the water pressure can be calculated with Equation 8.
FH2O = w hw Afoundation
[8]
where:
FH O = uplift force due to water pressure
2
w = unit weight of water
hw = height of water above foundation base
Afoundation = area of foundation footprint
The moment the uplift force creates about the edge of
the foundation must be subtracted from the total resisting moment (MR) previously calculated.
In the scenario that the water table is above the upper
edge of the foundation base, the weight of the overlying
soil must be recalculated using the saturated unit weight.
3.3.2 Rotational Stiffness
There are several types of foundation stiffness checks.
However, rotational stiffness is almost always the design
controlling stiffness parameter, and is often the overall
design controlling parameter. Vertical, horizontal, and
torsional stiffness rarely control the design. The turbine
manufacture provides a nominal minimum value of rotational stiffness that is required in the foundation design.
Foundation rotational stiffness is defined as the ratio of
the applied moment to the foundations angular rotation
in radians as shown below.
k M/
where:
k = rotational stiffness
M = applied moment
= rotation in radians
For a rigid circular foundation resting on an elastic halfspace and subjected to rocking motion, Richart et al.
(1978) provides Equation 9 for rotational stiffness.
k = 8GR3 / 3(1-v) = M/
[9]
where:
G = shear modulus
R = foundation radius
v = Poisson's ratio
It is important to note there are two key soil parameters
needed for a stiffness check, Poissons ratio (v), and
shear modulus (G). Poissons ratio is usually estimated
based on the type of soil and details in the geotechnical report. Figure 10 from Tinjum and Christensen, 2010
shows commonly used values for Poissons ratio. In unsaturated soils, Poissons ratio can be determined from
equation:
v = [0.5(Vp Vs) -1] / [(Vp Vs) - 1]
where
Vp = compression wave velocity
Vs = shear wave velocity
v = poisson's ratio
There are empirical correlations in
DNV Riso, 2002 from
which you can obtain shear modulus
(G) values. However,
in current US based
practice the shear
modulus is often determined from testing such as cone Figure 10: Commonly used values for
penetrometer testing
Poisson's Ration by soil type from
(CPT), seismic testTinjum and Christensen, 2010
ing, or surface geophysical testing. Through these test, the shear wave velocity (Vs) can be obtained. Once the shear wave velocity
is obtained, the maximum shear modulus (Gmax) can be
calculated with the following equation.
where:
G = reduced shear modulus
Gmax = nonreduced modulus
Figure 12 shows the
variation of modulus
reduction factors for
normally
consolidated soil based on
plasticity index (PI)
and granular soil as
a function of cyclic
shear strain (after
Sykora et al. 1992
and Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
It is recommended
Figure 11: Common values for shear
by DNV Riso, 2002
wave velocity (Vs) are shown in Figure
to assume a cyclic 3.6 from Tinjum and Christensen, 2010
shear strain value of
0.1% for wind turbine foundation stiffness calculations.
DNV Riso, 2002 also gives recommended cyclic shear
strain values for rotating machines, wind and ocean
waves, and earthquakes. These ranges can be seen
shaded on Figure 12.
The reduced shear modulus obtained from Figure 12 is
to be used in the rotational stiffness calculation.
[10]
where:
= soil density
Vs = shear wave velocity
E = modulus of elasticity
Common values for shear wave velocity (Vs) are shown in
Figure 11 from Tinjum and Christensen, 2010.
Because soil behaves with a non-linear response to
stress, the shear modulus obtained from the previous
equation needs to be reduced by a reduction factor. The
modulus reduction factor is a function of cyclic shear
strain (c), and can be defined as the ratio of the reduced
shear modulus to the unreduced maximum shear modulus as shown below.
= M / k
[12]
where:
k = rotational stiffness
M = applied moment
= rotation in radians
Using geometry the maximum deflection of the edge of
the foundation can be determined.
H = 200 ft
D = 8.0 ft
K M /
Gmax = Vs
where:
K = rotational stiffness
M = applied moment
= rotation in radians
= M / K
= (45,000 ft kips) / (24,519,286 kip ftrad)
= 0.001835 radians
Once the maximum rotation is known, the maximum vertical displacement of the out edge of the foundation can
be determined.
vert disp = R sin
vert disp = 24 ft sin (0.001835 rad) = 0.044 ft or 0.528 in
Summary of steps to check foundation stiffness:
1. Select appropriate approach.
2. Estimate Poissons ratio based off of the soil description and soil profile.
(DNV Riso 2002). Although there are additional calculations to evaluate the stability of a system with extreme
eccentricity, other design checks will often show that the
size of the foundation needs to be increased to a point
that extreme eccentricity no longer exist.
Fully Drained Bearing Capacity
Assuming that the wind turbine foundation is not extremely eccentric and the potential failure would occur
along rupture 1 in Figure 16, Equation 13 can be used to
evaluate the drained bearing capacity. Equation 13 is the
general form of the ultimate bearing capacity equation
with a few adjustments for the shape and inclination of a
shallow octagonal wind turbine foundation.
q = ' beff N S i + Nq Sq iq Po + cd Nc Sc ic [13]
where:
q = ultimate foundation bearing capcity
' = effective (submerged) unit weight of soil
beff = width of rectangle
N, Nq, Nc = bearing capacity factors,which depend
on the soil effective friction angle
S, Sq, Sc = shape influence factors
i, iq, ic = inclination influence factors
cd = effective cohesion of supporting soil
The three terms on the right hand side of Equation 13
represent the contribution to soil weight, overburden
pressure, and cohesion. The bearing capacity factors
may be found in charts or tables in text books or manuals or may be computed by a variety of equations or
charts in foundation engineering textbooks or manuals.
In practice, Equation 13 is rarely applied in its complete
form (Tinjum and Christensen, 2010). The more commonly used forms are:
For Granular Soil:
q = ' beff N S i + Nq Sq iq Po
[14]
q = cd Nc Sc ic + Po
[15]
The shape and inclination factors, for shallow octagonal wind turbine foundations on fully drained soil, can be
determined with the following equations from DNV Riso
2002.
[16]
[17]
i = iq2
[19]
q = s NcScic0 + P0
[20]
where:
q = ultimate foundation bearing capcity
s = undrained shear strength
Nc = shear strength bearing capacity factor, Nc = + 2
Sc = shape factor
ic0 = inclination factor
P0 = effective overburden stress
The shape and inclination factors, for shallow octagonal wind turbine foundations on undrained soil, can be
determined with the following equations from DNV Riso
2002.
[21]
[22]
Upon making the appropriate substitutions into the bearing capacity equation it transforms into the following.
[23]
q = sNc(1 + 0.2 beff / leff)(0.5 + 0.5[1- (H /(AeffS)] + P0)
1. Determine the bearing capacity factor, the shape factor, the inclination factor, and the effective overburden
pressure.
Bearing Capacity Factor, Nc = + 2
Shape Factor, Sc
Sc = 1 + 0.2 (beff / leff) = 1 + 0.2 [(6.45 m) / (12.8 m)] = 1.1
leff = 82.0 m [(12.1 m) / (6.1 m)] = 12.8 m
beff = [(12.8 m) / (12.1 m)] 6.1 m = 6.45 m
Inclination Factor, ic
ic = 0.5 + 0.5 (1-H'/AeffS)
ic = 0.5 + 0.5 1-(9,640.5 kN) / [(51.5 m2)(240 kPa)]
ic = 0.73
2. Determine the effective overburden pressure.
P0 = -
where:
= hsoilsoil
= hwaterwater
P0 = (2 m 18.5 kN m3) - (0.5 m 9.8 kN m3) = 32.1 kPa
3. Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil.
q = sNcScic + P0
q = 240 kPa ( + 2) 1.1 0.73 + 32.1 kPa = 1023.0 kPa
qall = q / FS
[24]
where:
qall = allowable bearing capacity
q = ultimate bearing capacity
FS = factor of safety for bearing capacity, 2.25
Example 3.3.3 Design Check
Undrained Bearing Capacity
Determine the ultimate and allowable bearing capacity
for a site with an average undrained shear strength, s =
240 kPa, a soil unit weight of 18.5 kN/m3, a foundation
embedment depth of 2 m, and a water table 0.5 m above
the base of the foundation.
Is the site suitable for construction of a wind turbine with
a maximum vertical load of 18,000 kN (inclusive of foundation weight) and an equivalent dimensions, effective
area, horizontal load, and overturning moment as Example 3.2.1.
= tan
[25]
where:
= frictional coefficient
= interfacial friction angle of disimilar materials
[26]
where:
Fs = frictional resisting force
= frictional coefficient
Wc = weight of concrete
Ws = weight of overlying soil
Fz = vertical or axial load
FS against sliding = Fs / FH
[27]
where:
Fs = frictional resisting force
FH = horizontal wind load corrected for mechnical
torque
Example 3.3.4 Design Check Foundation sliding
Using the known parameters from the previous example
problems and an interfacial friction angle of 20 degrees,
determine the factor of safety against sliding.
= tan
= tan20 = 0.36
Frictional Resisting Force, FRF = (Wconcrete + Wsoil + FZ)
FRF = 0.36 (1,449.0 kips + 1,073.8 kips + 497 kips)
Cr
'zf
'zf
Cc
___
____
___
c = r ____
1 + e0 Hlog ( 'z0 ) + 1 + e0 Hlog ( 'z0 ) [30]
where:
c = ultimate consolidation settlement
r = rigidity factor (0.85 for octagonal gravity
base foundations)
Cc = compression index
Cr = recompression index
e0 = initial void ratio
H = thicknes of soil layer
'z0 = initial vertical effective stress at midpoint
of soil layer
'zf = final vertical effective stress at midpoint
of soil layer
'c = preconsolidation stress at midpoint of soil layer
The compression index, recompression index, and preconsolidation stress should be provided with the soil
data in the geotechnical report and preliminary foundation design. The initial and final vertical effective stresses
can be calculated using the Equations 31 and 32.
If the compression index, recompression index, and the
preconsolidation stress are not provided in the geotechnical report, they can be acquired from the geotechnical
lab testing information and procedures described in detail in geotechnical engineering manuals and textbooks.
Initial Vertical Effective Stress
'z0 = H -
[31]
where:
= unit weight of soil stratum
H = thickness of soil stratum
= pore water pressure
Final Vertical Effective Stress
'zf = 'z0+ z
[32]
where:
'z0 = initial vertical effective stress at midpoint
of soil layer
z = induced vertical stess due to load from
foundation
Induced Vertical Effective Stress
z = I (q - 'zD)
[33]
where:
z = induced vertical stess
I = stress influence factor
q = bearing pressure along bottom of foundation
'zD = vertical effective stress at a depth D below
the ground surface
Induced Vertical Stress
The induced vertical stress for shallow foundations can
be determined several ways, either by the Boussinesq
method, the Westergaard method, or by the simplified
method which produces induced vertical stress values
within 5 percent of the Boussinesq values. Both the
Boussinesq and simplified method for determining induced vertical stress are covered in this chapter.
Boussinesq Method for Determining
Induced Vertical Stress
The bearing pressure along the bottom of the foundation
(q), reflects the vertical stress from the structure on the
foundation and the weight of the foundation. The vertical
effective stress ('zD), represents the reduction in vertical
stress from the soil removed for excavation and installation of the foundation. In the case of with turbine foun-
[ (
1
z = 1- _________
2
B
______
1+
2zf
1.5
(q -'zD )
where:
'zD = vertical effective stress at a depth D below
the ground surface
zf = vertical distance from the bottom of the
foundation to the point of interest
q = bearing pressure
B = diameter of foundation
Using the above equations, the total foundation settlement can be determined using the classical method and
Equations 28, 29, or 30. The total foundation settlement
can be compared to the allowable settlement and the
design can be checked for settlement.
Example 3.3.4 Design Check
Foundation Settlement Classical Method
The allowable settlement for the shallow octagonal
spread wind turbine foundation described in Example
3.3.1 is 1 inch. Using the classical method and a simplified soil layer division, compute the settlement of the
foundation and determine if it satisfies the allowable
settlement requirement. Information from geotechnical
report and preliminary design:
Embedment depth = 9 ft
Soil is Overconsolidated - Case I
= 115 pcf-Silty Clay
Depth to water table = 20 ft
'c (psf) = 5,000 psf
Cc / (1 + e0) = 0.11; Cr / (1 + e0) = 0.015
Weight of Concrete
Wc = Vc 150 lb/ft3
Wc = 9,659.8 ft3 150 lbsft3 = 1,449.0 kips
[ (
1
z = 1- _________
2
______
B
1+
2zf
1.5
(q -'zD)
r
zf
___
Total Settlment c = r ____
1 + e0 Hlog ( 'z0 )
'
Layer
No.
H
(ft)
zf
(ft)
'zo
(psf)
'z
(psf)
'zf
(psf)
'c
(psf)
Case
Soil behaves with a non-linear response to stress. Because the response is non-linear (stress is not proportional to strain), the modulus of elasticity cannot be used
in computation; the equivalent modulus of elasticity
must be used. The Equivalent modulus of elasticity represents a modulus that is equivalent to an unconfined
linear material such that the computed settlement will be
the same as the actual soil settlement. The equivalent
modulus of elasticity (Es) represents the lateral stain in
the soil and thus is larger than the modulus of elasticity
(E), but smaller than the confined modulus (M).
Determining Equivalent Modulus of Elasticity (Es)
from CPT Tip Resistance
Cone penetrometer tests (CPT) provide continuous tip
resistance data for the entire depth of the CPT analysis.
Empirical correlations between the equivalent modulus
of elasticity (Es) and the cone tip resistance (qc) have
been developed. A range of recommended design values of Es / qc are shown in Figure
18 adapted from Schmertmann, et
Cc
Cr
c
al. (1978) and Robertson and Com1 + e0 1 + e0
(in)
panella (1989). When applying CPT
0.11 0.015 0.25
data to the Schmertmann method,
0.11 0.015 0.32
do not apply an overburden correc0.11 0.015 0.26
tion to the cone tip resistance (qc).
2.5
1322.5
1206.317
2528.817
NA
OC-I
10
10
2185
1108.938
3293.938
NA
OC-I
15
22.5
2904.9
726.7606
3631.661
NA
OC-I
20
40
3825.4
361.8914
4187.291
NA
OC-I
0.11
0.015
0.14
25
62.5
5008.9
174.6722
5183.572
NA
OC-I
0.11
0.015
0.07
c allowable
The settlement criterion has been satisfied
The Schmertmann Method
Field Testing (Conduto, 2010)
The Schmertmann method is one of the more common
methods for calculating foundation settlement in granular soils. The method is based on a physical model that
is calibrated using empirical data. This method of settlement analysis relies primarily on CPT cone resistance
[35]
where:
Ip = peak strain influence factor
q = bearing pressure
'zD = vertical effective stress at a depth D below
the ground surface
'zp = initial vertical effective stress at depth of
peak strain influence factor
where:
C1 = depth factor
C2 = secondary creep factor
C3 = shape factor
q = bearing pressure
'zD = vertical effective stress at a depth D below
the ground surface
I = strain influence factor
H = thickness of soil layer
Es = equivalent modulus of elasticity
Summary of Steps for Schmertmann Method of Settlement Analysis:
1. Obtain required in-situ test data that defines the
subsurface conditions
[36]
[37]
For zf = B2 to 2B:
[40]
where:
zf = depth from bottom of foundation to midpoint
of layer
I = strain influence factor
Ip = peak influence factor
4. Calculate the strain influence factor (I), at the midpoint of each layer
5. Calculate the correction factors, C1, C2, and C3
6. Calculate the settlement
Solution
Fz = 497.1 kips
Weight of Concrete
Wc = Vc 150 lb/ft3
Wc = 9,659.8 ft3 150 lbsft3 =1,449.0 kips
Total Soil Weight, WT
WT = Wws + Ws
WT = 337.3 kips + 736.5 kips = 1073.8 kips
q = (Fz + Wsoil + Wc) / A
q = (497 kips + 1,073.8 kips + 1,449.0 kips) / (25 ft)2
q = 1,538.0 psf
Using Es = 2.5 qc from Figure 18
Depth of influence = D + 2B = 9.0 ft + 2(41.4) = 91.8 ft
'zD = D = 115 pcf 9 ft = 1,035.0 psf
Compute 'zp at depth of D + B2 for square and circular
foundations.
'zp = (D + B2) - w (Hw)
'zp = 115 pcf (9 ft + 20.7 ft) - 62.4pcf (9 ft + 20.7 ft - 20ft)
'zp = 2,810.2 psf
Ip = 0.5 + 0.1[(q - 'zD) / 'zp]
Ip = 0.5 + 0.1 [(1,538.0 - 1,035.0) / 2,810.2 psf]
Ip = 0.57
For zf = 0 to B2:
I = 0.1 + [(zf / B)(2 Ip - 0.2)]
For zf = B2 to 2B:
I = 0.667 Ip [2 - (zf / B)]
where:
C1 = depth factor
C2 = secondary creep factor
C3 = shape factor
q = bearing pressure
'zD = vertical effective stress at a depth D below
the ground surface
Ip = peak influence factor
H = thickness of soil layer
Es = equivalent modulus of elasticity
Layer
No.
Depth
(ft)
zf
(ft)
qc
(psi)
Es
(psi)
Es
(psf)
H
(ft)
I H
Es
0 to 9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9 to 20
5.5
12.5
1800
0.224879
11
0.37E-03
20 to 40
21
14
35
5040
0.576812
20
2.29E-03
40 to 47
34.5
16
40
5760
0.443555
5.39E-04
47 to 52
40.5
22
55
7920
0.388455
2.45E-04
52 to 60
47
30
75
10800
0.328763
2.44E-04
60 to 79
60.5
18
45
6480
0.204788
19
6.00E-04
70 to 87
74
35
87.5
12600
0.080813
5.13E-05
87 to 92
80.5
40
100
14400
0.021122
7.33E-06
Sum
5.35E-03
References
Conduto, D.P. Foundation Design Principles and Practices, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall. 2010.
Det Norske Veritas. Guidelines for Design of Wind Turbinse. Ris National Laboratory, Copenhagen. 2002.
International Electrotechnical Commission. Wind Turbines-Part I: Design Requirements. International Standard 61400-1, 3rd Edition. 2005.
Morgan, K. and Ntambakwa, E. Wind Turbine Foundation Behavior and Design Considerations. AWEA
WINDPOWER Conference. Garrad Hssan America, Inc. June 2008.
Tinjum, J.M. and Chrsitensen, R.W. Site Geotechnical Characterization, Civil Design, and Construction
Considerations for Wind Energy Systems. 2010.