Repower - Offshore Foundations For Wind Turbines - Current Trends For Jacket Substructures

Conference
Offshore Foundations for

Wind Turbines
Current trends for jacket
substructures
Dr.-Ing. Marc Seidel
REpower Systems SE
2
Advantages of jacket substructures
Last years conference .
Last years conference .
3
Project experience
Beatrice Windfarm
Demonstrator (2)
Thorntonbank
Phase 1, 2 & 3
(48 jackets)
alpha ventus (6)
Ormonde (30)
6 Projects with jackets:
- 87 jackets installed
- additional 48 in fabrication
Nordsee Ost (48)
Bremerhaven (1)
4
Project experience
22m 26m 2012 / 2013 Aker
Solutions
Nordsee Ost
15m 26m 2011 / 2012 Smulders Thorntonbank
Phase 2 & 3
18m 21m 2010 BiFab Ormonde
30m 2009 BiFab alpha ventus
Onshore 2007 Weserwind Bremerhaven
(onshore)
45m 2006 BiFab Beatrice
Water depth
(LAT)
Year of jacket
installation
Jacket
supply
Project
Project overview
Project overview
5
Project experience The very first offshore wind jacket
The Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm Demonstrator was part
of the DOWNVInD Project under the FP6 Programme of
the European Commission
The first offshore wind turbine installed on a jacket:
45m water depth
REpower 5M turbine
Jacket and turbine installed in 2006
6
Project experience Jackets for Thorntonbank Phase 2
7
Project experience Jackets for Thorntonbank Phase 2
8
Project experience Jackets for Nordsee Ost
99
Jacket fabrication
Market overview capacities and plans
Market overview capacities and plans
80 50 Emden, Germany SIAG
150 30
Hadrian Yard, Wallsend,
Tyne&Wear, UK
Offshore Group
Newcastle Limited
50 50 Aalborg, DK Bladt Industries
Company Location Capacity 2012 Capacity 2016
AMBAU GmbH Cuxhaven, Germany 0 40 - 60
Burntisland
Fabrications Limited
Burntisland, UK 80 150
Weserwind Bremerhaven, Germany 80 80
Base case:
- Jacket with footprint of 25 x 25m
- Total height: 65m
- Weight incl. secondary structures (excl. piles): 650t
Base case:
- Jacket with footprint of 25 x 25m
- Total height: 65m
- Weight incl. secondary structures (excl. piles): 650t
10
Jacket designs for large wind turbines
Influencing factors for large turbines
Influencing factors for large turbines
Rotor diameter:
impact on aerodynamic loads
increase of lever arm (longer tower)
Natural frequency requirements: Top mass, rotational speeds
Rotor diameter:
impact on aerodynamic loads
increase of lever arm (longer tower)
Natural frequency requirements: Top mass, rotational speeds
11
Impact of tower top mass
Natural frequency
Natural frequency
Some simple math
Tower top stiffness:
For a typical support structure (jacket + tower L=60m) this is:
K
top
= 210
6
N/m
Generalized tower top mass:
Rotor-Nacelle-Assembly: M
RNA
= 460.000kg
Generalized tower mass: M
twr
= 100.000kg
Total generalized mass: M = 560.000kg
Natural frequency:
Some simple math
Tower top stiffness:
For a typical support structure (jacket + tower L=60m) this is:
K
top
= 210
6
N/m
Generalized tower top mass:
Rotor-Nacelle-Assembly: M
RNA
= 460.000kg
Generalized tower mass: M
twr
= 100.000kg
Total generalized mass: M = 560.000kg
Natural frequency:
Hz f
s M
K
30 . 0
2
1
90 . 1
560000
10 2
6
= =
=
= =
12
Frequency tuning
Frequency tuning
First natural frequency shall be between 1p (rotational speed) and 3p (blade
passing frequency) excitations
For f=0.30 Hz, this is ideally fulfilled for the REpower 6M rotational speed
range, as
f
1P,max
= 12 rpm / 60s
= 0.200 Hz
f
3P,min
= 7.5rpm / 60s 3
= 0.375 Hz
First natural frequency shall be between 1p (rotational speed) and 3p (blade
passing frequency) excitations
For f=0.30 Hz, this is ideally fulfilled for the REpower 6M rotational speed
range, as
f
1P,max
= 12 rpm / 60s
= 0.200 Hz
f
3P,min
= 7.5rpm / 60s 3
= 0.375 Hz
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Frequency [Hz]
3p Range 1p Range
13
Frequency tuning
Frequency tuning
What happens for a REpower turbine, if we would have a lower top mass?
Assume: 100t less top mass, i.e. 460.000kg total generalized mass
Change in natural frequency:
A lower top mass would bring
us closer to the limits, which
would not be favourable
for the design!
What happens for a REpower turbine, if we would have a lower top mass?
Assume: 100t less top mass, i.e. 460.000kg total generalized mass
Change in natural frequency:
A lower top mass would bring
us closer to the limits, which
would not be favourable
for the design!
Hz f
s M
K
33 . 0
2
1
09 . 2
460000
10 2
6
= =
=
= =
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Frequency [Hz]
3p Range 1p Range
14
Frequency tuning
Frequency tuning
One of our competitors: M=460.000kg (generalized mass)
Rotor speed range: 5.9 14.8 rpm
Problem for low wind
speeds created
Further decrease
in top mass would
make the situation
even worse
One of our competitors: M=460.000kg (generalized mass)
Rotor speed range: 5.9 14.8 rpm
Problem for low wind
speeds created
Further decrease
in top mass would
make the situation
even worse
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Frequency [Hz]
3p Range 1p Range
15
Impact on loads / costs for the substructure
Higher mass = higher loads = higher costs?
Some simple considerations:
If the support structure is infinitely stiff, then the impact on loads depends on
the ratio of wind loads to dead weight
For the 6M at tower bottom:
Dead weight 6%
Wind load 94%
Hence, tower top weight is not significant in this case.
For a flexible system, it gets slightly more complicated
Higher mass = higher loads = higher costs?
Some simple considerations:
If the support structure is infinitely stiff, then the impact on loads depends on
the ratio of wind loads to dead weight
For the 6M at tower bottom:
Dead weight 6%
Wind load 94%
Hence, tower top weight is not significant in this case.
For a flexible system, it gets slightly more complicated
16
Response under stochastic wind loading:
1) Energy spectrum of the wind
2) Mechanical transfer function
- Natural frequency
- Damping
3) Response
Response under stochastic wind loading:
2) Mechanical transfer function
- Natural frequency
- Damping
3) Response
Energy
spectrum
Mechanical transfer function
Response
17
Loads depend on:
about 5% less
energy for
f
0
=0.33 Hz
compared to
f
0
=0.30 Hz
Loads depend on:
about 5% less
energy for
f
0
=0.33 Hz
compared to
f
0
=0.30 Hz
Kaimal spectrum
0.1000
0.0948
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
f
18
Loads depend on:
2) Transfer function
For = the transfer function just depends on the damping ratio, which
does not vary significantly for the different eigenfrequencies
3) Response
Response (and hence loads) do not vary significantly depending on tower
top mass!
Loads depend on:
2) Transfer function
For = the transfer function just depends on the damping ratio, which
does not vary significantly for the different eigenfrequencies
3) Response
Response (and hence loads) do not vary significantly depending on tower
top mass!
( )
2
2
2
2
1
1
|
\
|
+
(
(
\
|
=

m
H
19
Example calculation:
North Sea project, 40m water depth, REpower 6M on a jacket
Governing extreme load cases for jacket extreme loads: DLC 6.1
DLC 6.1:
460t tower top mass: 100%
Governing extreme load cases for jacket extreme loads: DLC 6.1
DLC 6.1:
Conclusion:
There is an effect of tower top mass on extreme loads,
but it is small to negligible.
Conclusion:
There is an effect of tower top mass on extreme loads,
but it is small to negligible.
20
Fatigue loads at tower bottom
Fatigue loads (DELs) for m=4:
Fatigue loads at tower bottom
Fatigue loads (DELs) for m=4:
Conclusion:
Fatigue loads do INCREASE with lower tower top mass!
Conclusion:
Fatigue loads do INCREASE with lower tower top mass!
21
BSH requirements
Key issues for BSH approval
Key issues for BSH approval
Static pile capacities
Requirement for dynamic pile tests
(execution, evaluation) to prove
static capacities
BSH-Storm for assessment of cyclic
loading on foundations
Assessment procedures for performance
of piles under cyclic loading
Noise reduction during pile driving
Grouted connection between jacket
and piles (Zustimmung im Einzelfall)
Static pile capacities
Requirement for dynamic pile tests
(execution, evaluation) to prove
static capacities
BSH-Storm for assessment of cyclic
loading on foundations
Assessment procedures for performance
of piles under cyclic loading
Noise reduction during pile driving
Grouted connection between jacket
and piles (Zustimmung im Einzelfall)
22
BSH requirements: 35h storm event / cyclic loading
IEC 61400-3 / BSH
IEC 61400-3 / BSH
Basis for assessment of cyclic loading for piles is the 35h-storm (adapted
from Norsok standard N-003 Action and action effects, Ed. 2, Sept. 2007)
Basis for assessment of cyclic loading for piles is the 35h-storm (adapted
from Norsok standard N-003 Action and action effects, Ed. 2, Sept. 2007)
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
-17.50 -12.50 -7.50 -2.50 2.50 7.50 12.50 17.50
Wind
Wave
Wind (stepped)
Waves (stepped)
23
Consideration of wave nonlinearity
Small waves can
be approximated
well by linear
theory (grey lines)
For higher waves
deviation from
nonlinear theory
(black lines) is
very significant
Small waves can
be approximated
well by linear
theory (grey lines)
For higher waves
deviation from
nonlinear theory
(black lines) is
very significant
24
25
Surface
elevation
Surface
elevation
Factors for wave
load at crest /
trough
Factors for wave
load at crest /
trough
Resulting time
series of
nonlinear loads
Resulting time
series of
nonlinear loads
Consideration of wave nonlinearity - Example
Consideration of wave nonlinearity - Example
26
Determine peak skin friction
(for tension or compression)
acc. to ICP method
Multiply peak skin friction
with ageing factor (if
appropriate)
Import peak skin friction in
RATZ and run cyclic loading
history
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Peak shaft friction (kPa)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Peak
-8000
-4000
0
4000
8000
12000
-0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Local pile displacement (m)
P
i
l
e

h
e
a
d

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Process time series for assessment of cyclic loading
27
Evaluate degradation of
peak skin friction
Determine pile capacity
Shaft friction degradation (kPa)
34
84
149
163
234
286
21
89
191
212
219
234
286
62
134
15
49
120
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
28
BSH requirements: Assessment of cyclic loading
Validation of proposed method against HSE Dunkirk test
Details see:
M. Seidel, M. Coronel: A new approach for assessing offshore piles
subjected to cyclic axial loading, Geotechnik 34 (2011)
Validation of proposed method against HSE Dunkirk test
Details see:
M. Seidel, M. Coronel: A new approach for assessing offshore piles
subjected to cyclic axial loading, Geotechnik 34 (2011)
29
Summary and conclusions
General
General
Jackets have emerged as the preferred substructure solution for deeper
waters and larger turbines
Significant experience with >100 jackets installed exists with REpower
turbines
Further projects are in the planning phase with >200 jackets at the moment
Jackets have emerged as the preferred substructure solution for deeper
waters and larger turbines
Significant experience with >100 jackets installed exists with REpower
turbines
Further projects are in the planning phase with >200 jackets at the moment
30
Impact of increasing turbine size
Impact of increasing turbine size
Tower top weight:
For a 6MW turbine, a weight of 450-500t is ideal to achieve a first natural
period within the required limits.
Smaller top weights can create resonance problems which require non-optimal
rotational speeds at some wind speeds.
Loads vs. top mass:
A smaller nacelle mass does not lead to smaller loads on the contrary,
governing fatigue loads do even INCREASE when top mass is reduced.
Tower top weight:
For a 6MW turbine, a weight of 450-500t is ideal to achieve a first natural
period within the required limits.
Smaller top weights can create resonance problems which require non-optimal
rotational speeds at some wind speeds.
Loads vs. top mass:
A smaller nacelle mass does not lead to smaller loads on the contrary,
governing fatigue loads do even INCREASE when top mass is reduced.
31
BSH approval process
BSH approval process
Assessment of piles:
Methods have evolved to evaluate cyclic loading, this is not the big issue any
more
Bigger problems arise with static capacities, which form the basis for the
assessment!
Proving capacities with dynamic pile tests is very problematic more details
about this later at this conference
Grouted connections are another difficult subject will also be discussed later
at this conference
Assessment of piles:
Methods have evolved to evaluate cyclic loading, this is not the big issue any
more
Bigger problems arise with static capacities, which form the basis for the
assessment!
Proving capacities with dynamic pile tests is very problematic more details
about this later at this conference
Grouted connections are another difficult subject will also be discussed later
at this conference
32
REpower Offshore Engineering

Repower - Offshore Foundations For Wind Turbines - Current Trends For Jacket Substructures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Repower - Offshore Foundations For Wind Turbines - Current Trends For Jacket Substructures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conference

Offshore Foundations for

You might also like