WIND ENERGY Wind Energ. (2010) Published online. DOI: 10.1002/we.

386

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Low-cost mounting arrangements for building-integrated wind turbines

David Udell1, David Ineld2 and Simon Watson3
1 PDL Solutions (Europe), 1 Tanners Yard, Hexham, NE46 3NY, UK 2 University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G1 1XW, UK 3 Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK

ABSTRACT
Micro-generation is being widely promoted as a way for householders in the UK and elsewhere to take part in the Green Revolution. Building-integrated wind turbines (BIWTs) provide a way to do this, enabling people to reduce their contribution to the problems of both climate change and decreasing fossil fuel availability. Although energy yields from BIWTs for many householders have been shown to be low, there are still situations where such turbines can make a useful contribution to electricity generation, e.g. in windier areas and for isolated detached buildings. The standards for the installation of BIWTs are still being developed including those for the safe mounting of turbines on domestic buildings. This paper investigates the current trend for mounting small wind turbines on the walls of domestic premises and compares this with an approach which uses roof timbers. It identies the main characteristics of building construction which affect the integrity of such installations. European and British standards have been used to calculate wind and gravitational loads. Finite element models are used to derive working stresses and, hence, some basic principles of good design. The likely costs of wall and roof mounting are then compared. Installation and health and safety issues are also examined briey. Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEYWORDS building-integrated wind turbine; wind loads; nite element modelling Correspondence S. Watson, Centre for Renewable Energy Systems Technology, Electronic and Electrical Engineering Department, Loughborough University, Ashby Road, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK. E-mail: s.j.watson@lboro.ac.uk Received 23 March 2009; Revised 26 November 2009; Accepted 29 November 2009

1. INTRODUCTION
Micro-generation is being promoted by politicians, media and commercial organizations alike as a way for householders in the UK and elsewhere to take part in the Green Revolution. Building-integrated wind turbines (BIWTs) provide a way to do this, enabling people to reduce their contribution to the problems of both climate change and decreasing fossil fuel availability. Recent trials of BIWTs have indicated that energy yields have been disappointing1 and simulations of expected yields in urban areas have predicted low capacity factors.2 Nonetheless, there are
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

situations where such turbines have made a reasonable contribution to on-site electricity generation, e.g. on isolated detached buildings in high wind speed areas and on high-rise buildings. A number of commercial organizations in the UK already sell small wind turbines designed for wall mounting. These installations are best suited to gable end attachment, although this approach is not universally available for domestic housing. There are concerns that not enough has been done to assess the structural integrity of such installations. This paper aims to address some of these concerns and to examine alternative mounting arrangements. In particular, it looks at using the

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

timbers of pitched roofs. Horizontal axis machines rated between 400 W and 1.5 kW are considered in the context of UK wind conditions.

2. METHODOLOGY
The approach adopted here was rstly to understand the loads which buildings and small wind turbines are normally subject to. A datum building geometry was dened and has been used throughout the work; in addition, the effects of changing some of the geometric parameters have been evaluated. Then an understanding of material capabilities was developed in order to assess how close to the limits building stresses are with and without a turbine attached. And nally, nite element (FE) analysis has been used to assess different mounting arrangements and to set practical limits on wind turbine size and mounting position.

with estimated swept areas of 6 and 1.9 m2, respectively, the loads were estimated to be 1600 N and 600 N, respectively. These areas were estimated from a survey of small wind turbine swept areas versus thrust conducted by the New and Renewable Energy Centre (NaREC) in the UK. However, the thrust calculated for a machine operating at a wind speed of 15 m s-1 exceeds that for a parked machine at design speed 2. For the large and small wind turbines, the peak loads were thus estimated to be 800 N and 300 N, respectively. These loads were used for the Preston location. Drag loads due to the support pole and attachment structure were also estimated using BS EN 61400-24 and included in the FE modelling. Note that the thrust on the rotor, Trotor, was calculated using equation (1): Trotor = ACTU 2 (1)

2.1. Typical building loads A selection of European and British standards were used to calculate the main loads: 2.1.1. Wind loads BS 6399-23 describes the methods for calculating wind loads on buildings and BS EN 61400-24 denes the wind speed that should be used for the design of small wind turbines. BS EN 61400-2 states that an extreme wind speed of 35 m s-1 should be used but combines this with a gust factor of 1.4 to give a design wind speed of 49 m s-1. By selecting particular parameters, it is also possible to calculate a speed of 49 m s-1 using BS 6399-23 which is desirable in that it gives consistency between the two standards. The value of 49 m s-1 will be referred to as design speed 1. However, this wind speed, according to BS 63992,3 can only occur in exposed coastal regions of the UK where there are no upstream obstructions and where, in addition, the local topography causes speed-up effects. This is not typical of an urban environment in the UK or elsewhere in Europe, so, a second design speed has also been considered. This has been taken as an urban location in Preston, Lancashire, UK. The speed as calculated in BS 6399-23 is dependent on the height of the building. For the geometry dened in Section 2.2 for the datum building, the resulting wind speed is 26.4 m s-1. If, in addition, the wind turbine hub is assumed to be 2 m above the ridge of the roof, the wind speed increases to 28.6 m s-1. This is taken to be design speed 2. Both of these wind speeds are consistent with a 50-year return period. Both these design wind speeds exceed those at which most small wind turbines cut out, these being typically around 15 m s-1. For design speed 1, this means that the highest thrust experienced by the turbine is when it is in its parked position. For the 1.5 kW and 400 W machines,

where A is the area of the rotor, U is the wind speed, is the air density and CT is the thrust coefcient. Trotor was calculated for two cases: (i) parked, where CT was assumed to be 0.18 for a large machine and 0.21 for a small machine; and (ii) operating, where CT was assumed to be 1.0 for both a large and small machine. The thrust on the pole, Tpole, was calculated assuming that the pole was cylindrical with a drag coefcient, CD, of 1.3, as specied in BS EN 61400-24, and using equation (2): Tpole = AfrontalCDU 2 (2)

where Afrontal is the frontal area of the pole given by the product of the pole diameter and pole height. Wind loads perpendicular to the gable end and perpendicular to the non-gable wall were calculated for design speeds 1 and 2 (see Figure 4 for denitions of gable end and non-gable wall). The pressures were applied to the whole area of the walls even though, in an urban environment, this may not be realistic due to upstream obstructions. This approach ensures the calculations remain conservative. For a detached house, BS 6399-23 was used to calculate the loads on the walls parallel to the wind direction. These side loads on the building were shown to have a minimal effect on the stresses in the walls facing the wind and so were not considered further. Wind loads on the lee side of the building are less than those on the windward side so the former were not considered further. For masonry structures designed using BS 5628-1,5 a partial safety factor (PSF), for loads, of 1.4 should be applied. BS 1995-1-1-6 gives the main calculations for designing timber structures but does not contain a PSF for loads. However, a value of 1.4 is given in BS 19907, matching the gure for masonry structures. The focus thus far has been on extreme wind speeds. However, fatigue and gyroscopic loads also need to be considered. Average urban wind speeds in the UK, at a height of 10 m above ground, are estimated to be less than 5.5 ms-1 8 or even less than 4.0 ms-1 9. Because the thrust
Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

loads are proportional to the square of the wind speed, the turbine load at 6 m s-1 is only 5% of what it is at 28.6 m s-1. For a more conservative approach, BS EN 16400-24 recommends that cycling loads should be estimated on the basis of the wind speed varying between 0.5 and 1.5 times rated speed. Since rated speeds are typically up to 12 m s-1, this is equivalent to varying the speed between 6 and 18 m s-1. Even at 18 m s-1, the thrust is less than 40% of what it is at 28.6 m s-1. Provided the material fatigue capabilities exceed 40% of their ultimate capabilities, fatigue should not be a major inuence on the design (see Section 2.4). The gyroscopic yaw moment was shown, using BS EN 61400-24, to cause reactions an order of magnitude lower than those caused by the thrust loading. 2.1.2. Dead loads and imposed loads BS 6399-110 describes the calculation of roof, oor and ceiling loads. The main concern in buildings is the avoidance of tensile stresses because these are not well resisted by mortar joints (see Section 2.3). Wind loads tend to cause tensile bending stresses at the bottom of the wall which may not be overcome by the compressive stresses due to gravity. Wind turbines induce localized tensile stresses around their support attachments. For wall-mounted turbines, in order to be conservative, oor, roof and ceiling loadings were calculated at their minimum and snow loads were assumed to be zero. However, for roof-mounted turbines, larger ceiling and roof loads were considered, as this gives the more conservative case. In designing a timber roof structure, BS5268311 recommends combining the wind load calculated in

Section 2.1.1 with a ceiling load (for a loft used for storage only) of 0.55 kN/m2 and half of the maximum imposed load calculated in BS 6399-3,12 which accounts for snow loads. 2.2. Datum building geometry A small building with internal dimensions 5 m 5 m 5 m, excluding the roof, has been selected since it is the largest practical size where a close couple roof (i.e. one that does not require purlins) can be made using readily available timbers,13 and hence, the timber stresses are relatively high. The foundations were modelled by extending the walls to 0.5 m below ground level. To keep the model simple, no windows or doors were included. This is not unreasonable as apertures are generally remote from the highly stressed regions. Each wall used a cavity construction with two leaves 100 mm thick, separated by a 50 mm gap. These dimensions were chosen because of their common use.13 The leaves are assumed to be joined by wall ties spaced as recommended in BS 5628-1,5 i.e. 2.5 ties per square metre. Using guidance from Foster,13 the ceiling joists and rafters were spaced 0.5 m apart and measured 100 mm deep by 50 mm thick. The ceiling joists were joined by a binder of section 75 mm 50 mm which was joined to a ridge board of section 175 mm 32 mm by hangers of section 50 mm 38 mm (see Figure 1). Note the noggings (green), which attach the end rafters to the gable ends via steel straps12 and the wind turbine support (cyan).

Wind Turbine Pole

Ridge Board

Hanger Binder Ceiling Joist Rafter Wall Plate, (underside fixed to the inside skin of the non-gable wall)

Figure 1. Roof construction with cladding suppressed.

Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

This roof model represents the style of construction used before trussed rafters became the norm. Most of the analysis work was carried out using this kind of roof, but trussed rafter construction is considered in Section 3.2.3. In common with most domestic buildings,14 roof loads are transmitted to the inner leaf of the wall cavity only. This makes the outer leaf more susceptible to tensile stresses so it is tied to the roof structure to minimize this. A roof pitch angle of 30o was chosen as this is typical of UK construction.

their often highly variable densities, stiffnesses and strengths. In this work, typical densities and stiffnesses and minimum reasonable strengths were assumed. 2.4.1. Wall materials Wall and roof material densities were obtained from either BS 64815 or Illston and Domone.16 The compressive stiffness of walling materials is well documented, but it is the exural stiffness which is the main concern here. In Illston and Domone,16 the modulus of elasticity for such materials is estimated to be 1 to 2 GPa so this range of values was investigated. The exural strength of masonry made with clay bricks with medium water absorption and type (iii) mortar is given in BS 5628-15 as 0.4 MPa. However, BS 5628-15 recommends applying a PSF for material strength of 3, giving a design limit of 0.13 MPa. Masonry fatigue stress limits are not given in BS 5628-1.5 However, concrete seems to perform well in fatigue, at least up to 106 cycles. A survey in Lee and Barr17 shows a number of data sets where the 106 strength for plain concrete is around 65% of its ultimate strength, while Singh et al.18 records a 2 106 strength of 58% of the same. Hence, for masonry materials, following the argument of Section 2.1.1, fatigue loading from a wind turbine is expected to be signicantly less severe than that caused by the extreme once in 50 years wind. 2.4.2. Roof and oor materials The roof timbers were considered to be made from UKgrown Douglas Fir as this is the weakest of the wood types given in BS EN 338.19 The strength grade is C14 and its density is 350 kg m-3. The characteristic bending strength for short-term loading of a 100 mm deep beam, parallel to the grain, is 16.7 MPa. A PSF of 1.3 was applied to bring the limit to 12.8 MPa. The equivalent strength across the

2.3. FE meshing detail The full house FE mesh used 20 node brick elements of side length 100 mm. This was sufcient to assess the bulk effects of wind and gravity. Loads and displacements from this model were applied to a more nely meshed submodel which was used to assess the local stresses due to the thrust and weight of the wind turbine around the attachment points. Bolt xing loads were applied at the midheight of the bricks causing localized peak stresses there. However, the region of interest is the mortar line where the greatest material weakness exists. This location was two elements away from the point load so that stresses should be accurately predicted there. In assessing the stress around a particular attachment point, an average value along the length of the brick (215 mm) was calculated, before comparing against the known material limits (see Figure 2).

2.4. Material properties Many kinds of brick, mortar and timber are used in the construction of buildings. This is further complicated by

Figure 2. Fine mesh showing brick and mortar outline.

Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

grain is only around 0.65 MPa, so any signicant loading in this direction should be avoided. Timber fatigue stress limits are not given in BS EN 338.19 However, timber also performs well in fatigue, with a 107 strength of 60% of the ultimate strength recorded in Illston and Domone.16 This is largely species independent. Hence, for timber too, fatigue loading from a wind turbine is a less severe load case than that due to the 50-year gust. The ground oor is normally supported by sleeper walls built up from the foundations and does not interface with the walls. The rst oor was modelled with 225 50 mm timber joists at 0.5 m centres.

the support poles were made of hollow steel tubing of diameters as follows: 100 and 62.5 mm for the non-gablemounted large and small turbines, respectively, and 80 and 50 mm for the gable-mounted large and small turbines, respectively. 2.5.1. Wall mounting Wall mounting is the current state of the art but is most suited to gable end attachment as the support pole length can be minimized. Non-gable wall attachment was also evaluated. There are currently three main types of attachment. These are depicted in Figure 3 and described below.

2.5. Wind turbine installations To begin with, the stresses in buildings without wind turbines were investigated. Vertical tensile stresses were found to be the main issue because of mortars weakness under this regime. Next, loads deriving from typical wind turbine installations were assessed. As already mentioned, the initial height chosen for the hub was 2 m above the ridge of the roof. This is slightly arbitrary as there are many opinions on the subject. Renewable Devices20 advise a minimum roof-to-blade height of 0.5 m for their 1.5 kW rated machine, while Martin8 recommends 10 m (see Section 4). For a hub height of 2 m above the ridge, the attachment point reactions due to the support pole drag loads represented around 20% of those caused by the 1.5 kW turbine itself. It was also estimated that the weight of the support pole and brackets would be around 1.5 to 2 times the weight of the turbine. Obviously, much depends on the chosen materials, but for this research, it was assumed that

Poles supported using two or three tripods. The feet of a tripod are xed to the wall, while its head supports the pole. One tripod supports the lowest point on the pole, while a second is located as high up the wall as possible to minimize the length of unsupported pole. Other tripods can be added in between. The height of the tripod (in the horizontal plane) is set such that the support pole avoids the roof overhang. The effects of varying the distances between the pole and the wall and the distance between the tripods were considered. Two tripod arrangements can be seen in Figures 3 and 4 showing a typical installation. Poles supported using three or four C-shaped brackets attached directly to the wall such that the pole breaks through the roof overhang. In Figure 3, these brackets are represented by short cross beams. Poles supported at two positions using at H-shaped structures which are close to the wall. Once again, the support pole has to break through the roof overhang.

4 off C, Brackets

2 off H, Brackets

Dual Tripod,

Triple Tripod

0.9m 1.2m 1.3m

Figure 3. Support arrangements for wall mounting.

Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

Gable End Wall

Non-Gable Wall

Figure 4. Stress distribution due to wind and gravity.

An important aspect in the mounting of wind turbines on buildings is the minimization of structure-borne vibration. The congurations detailed above are those most commonly used and vibration isolation devices such as rubber strips are often used to minimize the transmission of vibrations to a building. The majority of domestic installations have not experienced major problems with structure-borne vibrations using the above types of mounting arrangements, but there was noted to be a vibration problem for 29% of the installations which formed part of the UK Energy Savings Trusts domestic scale wind trial.21 There has been very little work to date in this area and a proper study of structure-borne vibration is outside the scope of this paper. This paper does not deal with the possible transmission of vibrations to a domestic building, but it is noted that measures must be taken to minimize this potential problem. In this paper, the emphasis is on static loading in order to make the analysis tractable. 2.5.2. Roof mounting Mounting from the ridge board and an additional horizontal member supported by two rafters are discussed in detail. Figure 1 shows the mounting close to the gable wall, but the same mounting was also considered for a mid-roof position because gable end access may be restricted by a chimney or television aerial.

3. RESULTS
3.1. Wall mounting Unless otherwise stated, stress refers to the vertical tensile stress. The results for the wall mounting arrange-

ments are summarized in Table I, at the end of Section 3.1.2. For design speed 2 with the wind load applied to the non-gable wall, the peak stress in the lower wall was 0.165 MPa after gravity effects were accounted for. For the wind load applied to the gable wall, the equivalent stress was 0.235 MPa, as shown in Figure 4. These exceed the limit given in Section 2.4.1 suggesting that the PSF for material strength given in BS 5628-15 is rather pessimistic and perhaps not strictly adhered to in practice. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, non-gable and gable limits of 0.165 and 0.235 MPa were set, respectively, for design speed 2. Provided the stresses in the wall due to the wind turbine pole support feet do not exceed these values, then the wall will not experience stresses higher than it would if there were no wind turbine. Note that the stress due to gravity at the top of the wall is virtually zero, while the stress in the lower wall due to the turbine supports is virtually zero. Therefore, the stresses induced by the turbine are effectively independent of what is going on at the bottom of the wall. This means that provided the local stresses due to the pole supports are less than those in the bottom of the wall (under the same wind conditions), the former must be acceptable. The limits of 0.165 and 0.235 MPa can be said to be relative because they depend on what the peak stress in the wall is without the wind turbine present. For design speed 1, tensile stresses due to the wind increase in proportion to the wind speed squared. The tensile stresses due to the wind are offset by the effect of gravity which is clearly greater at the bottom of the wall than it is at the top. Relative to design speed 2, the effect of gravity is reduced which means that wall local stresses
Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

Table I. Wall mounting assessments for design speed 2. Turbine power (kW) 1.5 1.5 0.4 1.5 1.5 0.4 0.4 1.5 0.4 1.5 0.4 Height above ridge (m) 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 Description Support spacing (m) 0.75 0.6 0.75 0.75 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.3 Wall Stress for Perpdr wind (MPa) 0.58 0.52 0.16 0.34 0.21 0.11 0.37 0.84 0.16 0.82 0.23 Stress for parallel wind (MPa) 0.68 0.57 0.31 0.36 0.32 0.14 0.46 0.85 0.36 0.59 0.23 Acceptable?

Tripods 2 Tripods 3 Tripods 2 Tripods 2 Tripods 2 Tripods 2 Tripods 2 C Brakt 4 C Brakt 4 H Brakt 2 H Brakt 2

Non-gable Non-gable Non-gable Gable Gable Gable Gable Gable Gable Gable Gable

No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes

Figure 5. Sub-model stresses for dual tripod mount excluding bulk effects of wind and gravity.

due to the pole support feet increase by a smaller amount than stresses in the lower wall. Therefore, because relative limits are being used for the wall mounting studies, design speed 2 gives similar but slightly more conservative limits than design speed 1, so, only results for the former are detailed. At this point, it is worth noting the importance of wall ties and oor bracing. If the rst oor were removed, the stress at the bottom of the non-gable wall would increase from 0.165 to 0.20 MPa, and if there were no wall ties, it would be 0.42 MPa. These results are for equal leaf stiffnesses of 2 GPa, but if the outer leaf stiffness was half that of the inner leaf, the stress at the bottom of the wall would decrease by around 30%. These results emphasize the importance of obtaining a detailed understanding of the building construction in assessing its suitability for a wind turbine installation.
Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we

3.1.1. Non-gable wall attachment The rst option considered was the dual tripod with the supports 750 mm apart and with the support pole 450 mm from the wall. For the large turbine with the wind acting perpendicular to the outside surface of the wall, the average mortar line stress across the worst brick was 0.58 MPa which is well in excess of the limit and cracking is predicted at four of the six attachment points. With the wind applied parallel to the wall, the worst brick stress was 0.68 MPa with cracking at three other attachment points also likely (see Figure 5). When the distance of the support pole to the wall was decreased to 250 mm, the peak stress increased by about 5%. When three tripods were used instead of two, spaced at 600 mm, the worst brick stresses for perpendicular and parallel winds were 0.52 and 0.57 MPa, respectively, not much lower than with twin tripods.

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

For the small (400 Watt) turbine installation, with two supports, the worst brick stresses reduced to 0.16 and 0.31 MPa for the perpendicular and parallel winds, respectively. For the latter case, four attachment points failed the criterion. Only the tripod mounting systems have been considered here because, as the next section shows, the other systems cause higher stresses. This means that none of the mounting systems provides an acceptable solution for attachment to the non-gable wall. 3.1.2. Gable wall attachment. 3.1.2.1. Tripod type attachment. For the large (1.5 kW) turbine supported by dual tripods 750 mm apart and with the support pole 450 mm from the wall, the worst brick stresses were 0.34 and 0.36 MPa for the perpendicular and parallel winds, respectively. When the distance between the tripods was increased to 1200 mm, the worst brick stresses were 0.21 and 0.32 MPa for the perpendicular and parallel winds, respectively, with cracking predicted at two points. For the small turbine installation, the worst brick stresses reduced to 0.11 and 0.14 MPa for the perpendicular and parallel winds, respectively. Using the widely spaced supports and a hub height of 5 m above the ridge, loads from the small machine gave worst brick stresses of 0.37 and 0.46 MPa for the perpendicular and parallel winds respectively. It is estimated that the small turbine installation would be acceptable at hub heights up to 3.2 m above the ridge. 3.1.2.2. Close to wall C bracket-type attachment. For the large turbine supported by four brackets 0.9 m apart and with the turbine hub height 2.6 m above the top bracket, the worst brick stresses were 0.84 and 0.85 MPa for the perpendicular and parallel winds, respectively. For the small turbine, these stresses reduced to 0.16 and 0.36 MPa, respectively, with two attachment points predicted to crack in this latter case. 3.1.2.3. Close to wall H-type attachment. For the large turbine supported by brackets 1.3 m apart and with the turbine hub height 2.6 m above the top bracket, the worst brick stresses were 0.82 and 0.59 MPa for the per-

pendicular and parallel winds, respectively. For the small turbine installation, both these stresses reduced to 0.23 MPa, this being marginally acceptable from a structural point of view. For the large turbine supported by brackets 1.3 m apart and with the turbine hub height 2.6 m above the top bracket, the worst brick stresses were 0.82 and 0.59 MPa for the perpendicular and parallel winds, respectively. For the small turbine installation, both these stresses reduced to 0.23 MPa, this being marginally acceptable from a structural point of view.

3.2. Roof timber attachment For a roof without a turbine, the stresses due to wind and gravity were found to be well below the limits given in Section 2.4.2. Absolute stress limits could therefore be used here rather than relative stress limits which had to be used for the brick wall mounting (see Section 3.1). The results for the roof timber mounting arrangements are summarized in Table II, at the end of Section 3.2.3. Mounting from the ridge board and ceiling joists might be desirable in that it minimizes the amount of support required, and thus the potential cost. However, any vibration would be transmitted directly to the ceiling which would be unacceptable to the occupants, particularly at night. All options, therefore, have the bottom of the pole supported by an additional horizontal beam (see Figure 1) itself supported by rafters.

3.2.1. Assessment at design speed 2 With the wind approaching the non-gable end, the arrangement in Figure 1, with the large turbine, gave a peak bending stress of 5.8 MPa in the ridge board (see Figure 6). This was the average stress across the ridge board and includes both an allowance for the bolt hole and the PSF for loads of 1.4. The nal stress was well below the 12.8 MPa target. For a turbine mounted at the roof mid-span, the peak stress for the non-gable wind increased by around 10% due to the lack of support from the gable end wall. Repeating the assessment with the small turbine mounted 5 m above the ridge line gave a peak stress of

Table II. Roof mounting assessments for design speeds 1 and 2. Roof description Turbine power (kW) 1.5 0.4 1.5 0.4 1.5 0.4 1.5 Height above ridge (m) 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 Wind direction Approx peak stress (MPa) 5.8 7.9 4.4 6.1 12 17 34 Design speed Acceptable?

Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Modern

Non-gable Non-gable Gable Gable Non-gable Non-gable Gable

1 1 1 1 2 2 1

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

Figure 6. Uncorrected ridge board bending stresses for design speed 2.

7.9 MPa. Note that 30% of this stress was due to the aerodynamic drag on the support pole. With the wind approaching the gable end, the peak stress occurred in the rafters at the attachment points (see Figure 7). When the bolt hole and the PSF of 1.4 were accounted for, a realistic peak stress of 4.4 MPa was calculated for the large machine mounted 2 m above the ridge line. Repeating the assessment with the small turbine mounted 5 m above the ridge gave a peak stress of 6.1 MPa. This is approximate only as much depends on the diameter of the support pole. The stresses have so far been assessed against the limit parallel to the grain. This is reasonable at the ridge board, but the rafters are at such an angle that cross grain stresses become more important and these would increase as the pitch angle of the roof increased. It is, therefore, recommended that some rig testing is carried out to establish accurate limits. Alternatively, a signicant reduction in rafter stresses can be obtained by adding an additional angled brace from the bottom of the support pole to a position on the ridge board between the 3rd and 4th rafters. This ensures that the non-gable wind is the limiting case. This additional brace also markedly decreases the deection of the wind turbine and thereby keeps the axis of blade rotation closer to the horizontal giving better yawing behaviour. For the same heights above the ridge line, the roof is capable of supporting turbines around twice the sizes of the ones considered above. It is estimated that the large machine could be mounted up to 4.2 m above the ridge
Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we

line with acceptable stresses. For the pole, this would necessitate the use of either a stronger material or a larger diameter: the former increasing cost and the latter drag. FE models were created with both fully xed and pinned joints at the rafter-to-ridge board and rafter-to-wall plate connections. The models with pinned connections gave stresses about 19% higher. As the real joints are considered to be somewhere between the two, average stresses are given here. 3.2.2. Assessment at design speed 1 Design speed 1 gives stresses just over twice those for design speed 2. This means that the large machine at 2 m and the small machine at 5 m produce peak stresses of 12 and 17 MPa, respectively, for wind approaching the nongable end. So, because relative stresses were used for the brick wall limits, the roof capability could be said to be only a little better than for the wall. However, this only applies to extremely exposed and windy locations where dwellings may well suffer damage on a once in 50-year basis. If so, this would invalidate the use of relative stress limits. In any case, design speed 1 is not realistic for urban locations, so, the superiority of roof mounting is clear. 3.2.3. Modern trussed rafter roofs Unfortunately, because modern roofs do not usually have a ridge board, the arrangement in Figure 1 is not possible. It is not even possible to add supports between trusses, at ridge level, because the timber close to the ridge level is hidden by the nail plates used to join the various

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

Figure 7. Unmodied end rafter bending stresses for design speed 2.

parts of the truss (Figure 8). The trusses are attached to each other using braces at ceiling height and below the ridge. The braces are typically fairly thin at 100 mm 25 mm but butt up against the brick walls where available, for extra support. None of these bracing elements provides the necessary vertical face, and, if they were used (in conjunction with wedges to create a vertical face), signicant cross grain stresses could be induced. The trussed rafter alone would, therefore, need to provide all of the support. Unfortunately, trussed rafters tend to have smaller sections. For a roof of the size considered here, sections 72 mm 35 mm are typical. The bending and shear stresses, therefore, tend to be greater than in the traditional roof, and the effect of the bolt holes is more marked. However, this is partly offset by the strength of the timber. The wood used for the truss is grade TR26 which is similar to grade C27 and much stronger than C14, in particular, the bending stress limit along the grain is 24.7 MPa rather than 12.8 MPa. For the large machine mounted at 2 m from the ridge, wind approaching the gable end and design speed 2, the arrangement in Figure 8 gives a peak stress over 40 MPa when all effects are accounted for (18.5 MPa for turbine loading alone, excluding the effect of the bolt hole). Including an additional angled brace drops this peak stress to 34 MPa and moves the peak stress position to the apex of the truss. This suggests that for a turbine mounted 2 m

above the roof line, the size limit is around 2/3 of the large machine, i.e. a swept area of 4 m2.

4. DISCUSSION
Computational uid dynamics modelling from Renewable Devices, cited in Renewable Devices,20 predicts the wind speed over a 4 m pitched roof building where the pitch angle is around 15o and the wind approaches perpendicular to the building. This shows a maximum speed-up effect of approximately 2 m s-1 but also high wind shear for 2 m above the ridge height. However, it should be noted from Encraft 20091 that this speed-up effect is reduced if the building is within an urban area as opposed to an isolated location. High wind shear generates high cyclic stresses which reduce component life and this is in addition to turbulence effects. As the pitch of the roof increases, wind shear effects and turbulence are likely to increase, but more work is required to quantify these effects. All that can be said here is that to maximize energy capture and turbine life, turbines should be mounted well above the ridge. Manufacturers recommend that wind turbines be mounted greater than 1 m above the roof line and the height of 2 m used in this paper is commonly used. The energy that can be captured will increase as the turbine is mounted further above the ridgeline, but there are often
Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

Figure 8. Modern trussed rafter construction: peak stress position due to turbine load only.

planning restrictions to limit the mounting height to minimize visual impact. For brickwork, the PSFs of 3 for material strength and 1.4 for load give a total safety factor of 4.2, which is rather conservative. In aerospace applications, where the loads and material properties are well understood, equivalent factors might be 1.2 and 1.1 giving a total of just 1.3. It would, therefore, be prudent, given the large potential energy resource, for the wind and construction industries to undertake further testing so that more accurate limits can be established.

4.1. Comparison of mounting arrangements Mounting the turbine on the non-gable wall did not produce a workable solution. The peak stress was almost twice that for the equivalent gable end mounting. Gable wall mounting only produced solutions for the small 400 Watt turbine. The best arrangement was the wide-spaced dual tripod gable mounting. It would be possible to reduce the mortar line stresses by mounting the turbine closer to the corner of the building rather than at the mid-span of the wall, but then, windows and drain pipes would have to be accounted for. This would also require a longer pole to maintain sufcient height above the ridge line for the purposes of maintaining energy yield. It would be worth giving some further consideration to the design wind speeds used. For a house, a 50-year return
Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we

period seems entirely reasonable as excessive stresses could destabilize an entire wall. However, for a wind turbine, only mortar line cracking around a few bricks may result, requiring some re-pointing after a heavy storm. All the arrangements considered here had multiple attachment points which should prevent the mounting arrangement from failing completely. It may then be considered acceptable to use a shorter return period of, say, 20 years. BS 6399-23 then shows that the basic wind speed for Preston would be reduced by 17% in this case, which would reduce the loads by about one-third. However, it would be difcult to build this into a standard because of the multitude of possible mounting arrangements which would have to be considered. It is worth noting that the wall integrity test carried out by Windsave (http://www.windsave.comDecember 200722), using a point load of 4 kN perpendicular to the wall, is a good test for assessing the capability of a wall as it introduces an average vertical tensile stress of 0.61 MPa across a brick. This exceeds the stresses for gable end tripod-type installations (see Section 3.1) for design speed 2. Unless cleverer ways of wall mounting are developed, it seems that there is more potential in roof mounting. It may be slightly more expensive in the rst place (see Section 5), but it offers both the potential of capturing more energy and shorter payback times. For design speed 2, the capability of the conventional roof was estimated to exceed that of the wall by a factor of around 4. The capability of the trussed rafter mounting was much less than that of the conventional roof and only a little

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

better than the best of the wall mountings. However, because the trussed rafter is a single self-contained unit, it would be possible to design a special truss capable of withstanding the turbine loads and to brace this to the standard trusses in order to spread the load. As the UK government intends to build 3 million new homes over the next 20 years, one could envisage a relatively cheap mass-produced trussed rafter designed to mount BIWTs.

6. CONCLUSIONS
From the research presented, a number of conclusions can be drawn:

4.2. Health and safety and installation issues Wall-mounted turbines are reasonably well insulated from the internal space of a house. Their only connection to the inside wall is via wall ties and any vibration in these may be damped, to some extent, by cavity wall insulation. Roof-mounted machines have a more direct connection with the inner wall via the rafters and wall plates. However, between the turbine and the inner skin of the wall, there are a large number of timber-to-timber and timberto-masonry joints which will provide damping. Wood also has more internal damping capability than most other construction materials because of its multicellular construction and this limits the transmission of vibration energy. Hornbostel23 quotes noise reduction coefcients for brick as 0.02 to 0.05 and wood as 0.11 to 0.28. Some kind of anti-vibration mounting is still likely to be required, but this could be of a similar specication for roof-mounted and wall-mounted machines alike. A disadvantage of the roof-mounted machine is that installation is likely to be more difcult, certainly for retrots. Internal and external access to the roof will be required and some form of scaffolding to do the necessary roof modications. Clearly, the wall-mounted machines do not break through the external skin of the house and it may be possible to install, at least the small machine, without the use of scaffolding.

Both the 400 W and the 1.5k W wall-mounted turbines, mounted 2 m above the ridge line, cause mortar stresses in excess of those suggested by BS5628,5 but so do wind alone loads calculated by BS6399.3 Of the various wall mountings considered, the dual widely spaced tripod arrangement was the best but gave an acceptable solution for the small (1.9 m2 swept area) turbine only. It could support the small machine to a maximum height of 3.2 m above the ridge line. A traditional close couple roof was shown to be four times as capable of absorbing the loads as the brick wall. It could support the large (6 m2 swept area) turbine at 4.2 m above the ridge. A typical trussed rafter roof was capable of supporting a machine with a 4 m2 swept area 2 m above the ridge. However, it would be possible to design a special truss capable of supporting larger machines and x this to standard trusses in the usual way. More work is needed to understand the wind strength above domestic housing, but mounting from roof timbers is both viable and, at a small extra initial cost, likely to provide solutions with more structural integrity and shorter payback times than those using brick walls.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express his gratitude to Mr A. Wilson of NaREC for his helpful advice. Thanks also to Mr J. Gardiner of J G Design Services for his development of the FE code throughout the project.

REFERENCES 5. WALL AND ROOF MOUNTING RELATIVE COSTS

Most of the support structure for a roof-mounted machine is internal so, compared to a wall mounting, appearance and corrosion are less important issues. For the supports, much use could be made of conventional scaffolding. Besides being relatively cheap and readily available, the mechanical integrity of scaffolding tubes and couplings is covered by BS1139-1.124 and BS1139-2.2.25 Overall costs for roof and wall mounting are expected to be similar. The main difference will be in the roof modications which involve the cost of replacing a ridge tile with a ridge vent.26 This is likely to add only 510% to the total cost of installation of a roof-mounted turbine compared to a wall-mounted device. 1. Encraft 2009. Warwick wind trials nal report. [Online]. Available: http://www.warwickwindtrials. org.uk/resources/Interim+Report+August+2008.pdf. (Accessed 2 December 2009). 2. Heath MA, Walshe JD, Watson SJ. Estimating the potential yield of small building-mounted wind turbines. Wind Energy 2007; 10: 271287. 3. BS 6399-2. Loading for buildingsPart 2: code of practice for wind loads. 1997. 4. BS EN 61400-2. Wind turbine generator systems Part 2: safety of small wind turbines. 1996. 5. BS 5628-1. Code of practice for the use of masonry Part 1: structural use of unreinforced masonry. 2005. 6. BS 1995-1-1. Eurocode 5Design of timber structures. 2004.
Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we

D. Udell, D. Ineld and S. Watson

Mounting of building-integrated wind turbines

7. BS 1990. EurocodeBasis of structural design. 2002. 8. Martin N. Can we harvest useful wind energy from the roofs of our buildings? Building for a Future; Winter 2005: 4652. 9. Dutton AG, Halliday JA, Blanch MJ. The Feasibility of Building-Mounted/Integrated Wind Turbines (BUWTs): Achieving their potential for carbon emission reductions. Energy Research Unit, CCLRC, May 2005, nal report on a project part-funded by the Carbon Trust (2002-07-028-1-6), 118 pp. 10. BS 6399-1. Loading for buildingsPart 1: code of practice for dead and imposed loads. 1996. 11. BS 5268-3. Structural use of timberPart 3: code of practice for trussed rafter roofs. 2006. 12. BS 6399-3. Loading for buildingsPart 3: code of practice for imposed roof loads. 1988. 13. Foster JS. Mitchells Structure and Fabric Part 1 (6th edn). Longman: Harlow, Essex, UK, 2000; 78153. 14. Emmitt S, Gorse C. Barrys Introduction to Construction of Buildings. Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2005; 6187. 15. BS 624. Schedule of weights of building materials. 1964. 16. Illston JM, Domone PLJ. Construction Materials: Their Nature and Behaviour. Spon Press: London, UK, 2001; 281510. 17. Lee MK, Barr BIG. An overview of the fatigue behaviour of plain and bre reinforced concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites 2004; 26: 299305.

18. Singh SP, Mohammadi Y, Madan SK. Flexural fatigue strength of steel brous concrete containing mixed steel bres. Journal of Zhejiang UniversityScience A, 2006; 7: 13291335. 19. BS EN 338. Structural timberStrength classes. 2003. 20. Renewable Devices. Swift rooftop wind energy system. Technical and Planning InformationRev F1, 2005. 21. Energy Saving Trust 2009. Location, location, location. Domestic small-scale wind eld trial report. [Online]. Available: http://www.energysavingtrust. org.uk/cym/Global-Data/Publications/Locationlocation-location-The-Energy-Saving-Trust-s-fieldtrial-report-on-domestic-wind-turbines. (Accessed 8 April 2009). 22. Wind Save 2007. Wall strength testing. [Online]. Available: http://www.windsave.com. (Accessed December 2007). 23. Hornbostel C. Construction Materials: Types, Uses and Applications. Wiley-IEEE: New York, USA, 1991, 910. 24. BS1139-1.1. Metal scaffoldingPart 1: tubes Section 1.1 Specication for steel tube. 1990. 25. BS1139-2.2. Metal scaffoldingPart 2: couplers Specication for couplers, ttings and accessories for use in tubular scaffolding. 1991. 26. BCIS. The Property Makeover Price Guide. RICS: London, UK, 2007, 72.

Wind Energ. (2010) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/we