LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Bhattacharya, S; Nikitas, N; Garnsey, J; Alexander, NA; Cox, J; Lombardi, D; Muir Wood, D; Nash, DFT (2013)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Monopile foundations have been commonly used to support offshore wind turbine generators (WTGs), but this type of foundation encounters economic and technical limitations for larger WTGs in water depths exceeding 30 m. Offshore wind farm projects are increasingly turning to alternative multipod foundations (for example tetrapod, jacket and tripods) supported on shallow foundations to reduce the environmental effects of piling noise. However the characteristics of these foundations under dynamic loading or long term cyclic wind turbine loading are not fully understood. This paper summarises the results from a series of small scaled tests (1:100, 1:150 and 1:200) of a complete National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) wind turbine model on three types of foundations: monopiles, symmetric tetrapod and asymmetric tripod. The test bed used consists of either kaolin clay or sand and up to 1.4 million loading cycles were applied. The results showed that the multipod foundations (symmetric or asymmetric) exhibit two closely spaced natural frequencies corresponding to the rocking modes of vibration in two principle axes. Furthermore, the corresponding two spectral peaks change with repeated cycles of loading and they converge for symmetric tetrapods but not for asymmetric tripods. From the fatigue design point of view, the two spectral peaks for multipod foundations broaden the range of frequencies that can be excited by the broadband nature of the environmental loading (wind and wave) thereby impacting the extent of motions. Thus the system lifespan (number of cycles to failure) may effectively increase for symmetric foundations as the two peaks will tend to converge. However, for asymmetric foundations the system life may continue to be affected adversely as the two peaks will not converge. In this sense, designers should prefer symmetric foundations to asymmetric foundations.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Achmus M, Kuo YS, Abdel-Rahman K. Behavior of monopile foundations under cyclic lateral load. Computers and Geotechics 2009; 36(5):725 735.
    • 2. Adhikari S, Bhattacharya S. Dynamic analysis of wind turbine towers on flexible foundations. Shock and Vibration 2012; 19:37-56.
    • 3. Adhikari S, Bhattacharya S. Vibrations of wind-turbines considering soil-structure interaction. Wind and Structures - An International Journal 2011; 14:85-112.
    • 4. Andersen L, Ibsen LB, Lingaard MA. Lumped-parameter model of a bucket foundation. In Nielsen SA, editor, Joint Research and Development: Innovative Foundation Solutions, MBD Offshore Power A/S and Aalborg University, Aalborg, 2009.
    • 5. Abramowitz M, Stegun I. Handbook of Mathematical functions, Dover, 1965.
    • 6. Bhattacharya S, Lombardi D, Muir Wood DM. Similitude relationships for physical modelling of monopile- supported offshore wind turbines. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 2011; 11(2):58-68.
    • 7. Bhattacharya S, Adhikari S. Experimental validation of soil structure interaction of offshore wind turbines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2011; 31(5- 6):805-816.
    • 8. Bhattacharya S, Cox J, Lombardi D, Muir Wood D. Dynamics of offshore wind turbines supported on two foundations. Geotechnical engineering: Proceedings of the ICE 2012; 166(2):159-169.
    • 9. Cox J, Jones C, Bhattacharya S. Long term performance of suction caisson supported offshore wind turbines. The Structural Engineer 2011; 89(19):12-13.
    • 10. Cuéllar P, Georgi S, Baeßler M, Rücker W. On the quasi-static granular convective flow and sand densification around pile foundations under cyclic lateral loading. Granular Matter 2012; 14(1):11-25.
    • 11. De Vries W. Support structure concepts for deep water sites. EU Project UpWind, final report WP 4.2, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands; 2011.
    • 12. DNV (Det Norske Veritas) 2002 Guidelines for Design of Wind Turbines, 2nd edition DNV, London, UK.
    • 13. Doherty JP, Houlsby GT, Deeks AJ. Stiffness of flexible caisson foundations embedded in non-homogeneous elastic soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2005; 131(12): 1498-1508.
    • 14. EWEA. The European offshore wind industry key 2011 trends and statistics. Brussels: 23; 2012.
    • 15. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP. Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divisions, ASCE 1972; 98(7):667-692
    • 16. M. Dynamics of offshore wind energy converters on monopile foundationsexperience from the Lely offshore wind farm. EPSRC workshop report on OWEN (Offshore Wind Energy Network) http://www.owen.org.uk/workshop_3/martin_kuehn_1.pdf ; 2000.
    • 17. Kuo Y, Achmus M, Abdel-Rahman K. Minimum embedded length of cyclic horizontally loaded monopiles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2012; 138(3):357 363.
    • 18. Lombardi D, Bhattacharya S, Muir Wood D. Dynamic soil-structure interaction of monopile supported wind turbines in cohesive soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2013; 49:165-180.
    • 19. Lombardi D. Dynamics of offshore wind turbines. MSc Thesis, University of Bristol, 2010.
    • 20. Nogami T, Novak M. Resistance of soil to a horizontally vibrating pile. International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1977; 5:249-261.
    • 21. Schaumann P, Lochte-Holtgreven S, Steppeler S. Special fatigue aspects in support structures of offshore wind turbines, Materialwissenschaft und Werkstofftechnik 2011; 42(12):1075-1081.
    • 22. Welch PD. The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 1967; 15(2):70-73.
    • 23. Zaaijer MB. Foundation models for the dynamic response of offshore wind turbines. In: International Conference on Marine Renewable Energy (MAREC), Newcastle, UK; 2002.
    • 24. Zaaijer MB. Comparison of monopile, tripod, suction bucket and gravity base design for a 6 MW turbine. In: Proceedings of the OWEMES 2003 Conference, Naples, Italy; 2003.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article