Presentation to

Universal Foundation
Seminar Hamburg
25-26 February 2014


Grontmij Universal Foundation
Loads from large Rotors
Ambient Vibration Tests
In the period October - November 2012 a total of 100 ambient vibration tests were investigated.
Cross-wind damping of the lowest eigenmode is determined using:

The Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition (EFDD) technique.
The Stochastic Subspace Identification (SSI) technique with an Unweighted Principal Component (UPC) and a
Weighted Principal Component (PC) algorithm.

2 hours measurements with low variation of the blade pitch angle, the wind speed and the rotor
speed.


















3
Study content
The results presented are carried out by Grontmij through support by
Vestas under the Carbon Trust OWA study for large rotors.

The conclusions are made by Grontmij by means of simplified modelling.

They do not represent the point of views of the partners in OWA.

Further modelling is required for FEED





4
Model basis
MODEL BASIS FOR TURBINE/WAVE SIMULATION
Turbine 8 MW selected
FLS: Fatigue loads based on min 5 rotor D distance (turbulence 11% instead
of 15 % at 15 m/s means reduced fatigue loads compared to IEC standard
conditions)
Water depths: 45m
(Soil conditions (propose selected = 37 deg, cu > 80 kpa))
Metocean conditions (propose selected Exposed: IEC IB for turbines, Hs =
9.4m, Tp = 14.2s)
INITIAL SIMPLIFIED STRUCTURAL MODEL:
Monopile D = 6.5 m restrained 8 m below seabed
Stiffness adjusted to obtain f0 = 0.20, 0.23 and 0.26 Hz
FINAL MODEL: 45 m structure supported on stiffness matrix a mudline


5
Universal foundation geometries
.
6
Mudline stiffness matrix


7
First and second frequencies for UF
Concerns:
Wave/wind interaction due to frequencies close to 0.2 Hz
Effect of misalignment as 0.2 Hz is corresponding to Tp,wave = 5 sec
Effect of fore-aft frequency down to 0.9 Hz

8
Design Basis
FLS:
Fatigue wind loads lower than standard IEC design by account to 5-7 D rotor
diameter turbulence. This is included in the design of the leading turbine
producers.
This reduces the fatigue loads relative to EIC 61.400-1 by say 20 to 25%.
All slimmer steel structures benefit from this.
9
Design Basis
ULS:
ULS load case 6.1 to be combined with Hmax wave load
ULS load case 6.2 to be combined with 1.3Hs wave load
The Turbine producers do not agree on ULS loads. Some consider only load
case 6.1
load case 6.2 (part. coeff. on wind load 1.1), which can be combined with
1.3Hs instead of with H
max
wave/current load (usually 1.86Hs), which
reduces the design ULS load
10
Modelling
Vestas modeling:
Simple model with 3 monopiles with different 1. mode frequency made it
possible to quantify wave/wind interaction versus 1. mode frequency
Further, the modelling showed that it is important to model the dynamics due to
the effect of 2. mode fore-aft bending frequency (f1) being say 0.9 Hz as it
increases the fatigue loads in the bottom of the foundation significantly.
Even though it was possible to obtain a safe design if f1 approximately equal to
0.9 Hz to account for the dynamic amplification due to 2. mode fore-aft bending
by a limited number af simulations.
In addition it was also possible to calibrate a misalignment correction model for
Universal Foundation
11
Model basis: Only 13 load cases are
considered (11 load cases for fatigue)
SIMPLIFIED CORRORATION WIND AND WAVES

Table1.1 Correlated waves and wind
Average


Unacelle Probability Hs Tp
m/s delta p m s
5 0,073 0,61 3,5
7 0,130 0,93 4,3
9 0,158 1,30 5,1
11 0,156 1,72 5,9
13 0,132 2,18 6,7
15 0,098 2,70 7,4
17 0,065 3,26 8,1
19 0,039 3,87 8,8
21 0,021 4,52 9,6
23 0,010 5,23 10,3
25 0,004 5,98 11,0
44 3h/5y 8,5 13,5
50 3h/50y 9,4 14,2

12
Generic 164 m rotor
Conceptual turbine 164 m rotor
Based on average of several large rotors

Preliminary estimates of design loads

IEC1B Average 10 m/s

tip speed

U(3s,max) 50 m/s

90 m/s
Water depth
(m)
Number of
blades
Diameter
D (m)
Tower
bottom
elevation
(m)
Tower
length (m)
Minimum
f0 (Hz)
-20 3 164 20 88 0,19
Generic turbine assumptions
13
Generic average 164 m rotor wind loads
excl. all dynamic amplifications (not
Vestas loads)
.
Minimum sim with MULS IEC1B turbulence Rotor distance 5x7 D
Water depth f0 FULS MULS TULS Fe Me Te Fe Me Te
m Hz MN MNm MNm MN MNm MNm MN MNm MNm
-20 0,19 2,8 242 11 0,8 56 17 0,7 45 13
55 2,8 449 11 0,8 119 17 0,7 96 13
14
Required input from Designers to roughly
evaluate the structures
1. mode frequency and shape
Mode frequency and shape corresponding to angle rotation of turbine axis in the
vertical plane (bending fore-aft)
Lowest torsional mode (frequency and shape)

Deformations in the foundation for each of the following 3 specific static loads:
Shear force in el +20 m: 1 MN
Overturning moment in el +20: 50 MNm
Torsial moment in el +20m: 6 MNm)



15
Required input from Designers to further
evaluate the structures
Final simulations
Vestas is able to run some simulation on the individual foundation types in order
to investigate the spectrum of the WTG loading being transferred to the
foundation to verify the load assumption and eventually produce time series
load input and to update integrated design loads.

All that this will require is for the foundation designers to supply generalized
(6x6) foundation mass and stiffness matrices at the tower/foundation interface
(fx. via Guyan reduction) and appropriate damping levels for the 1st natural
frequency of the complete support structure (WTG+foundation).


16
Universal foundation wave loads
Max wave height used for ULS.
Boussinesq non-linear time series used for fatigue loads (FLS).
Waves + C Incl 1,35 Incl 1,1
Depth m 45 45 45
MULS MULS Me
Mudline Mmax MNm 394 264 115
Mudline Fmax MN 14 9 4
17
Key findings and conclusions
For fatigue loads it is required only to include a dynamic amplification factor
(DLF) on wave load input to obtain the dynamic effect of the wave load.

This is depending upon the first mode frequency f0.

The dynamic factors are smaller than originally feared.

Maximum values occur for the lowest frequency.

The DLF for Fe is lower than for Me.


18
Key findings and conclusions

The combined fatigue load for structures with f0 >0.23 Hz, where there is no
significant misalignment is:

Meq(wind+wave) = (Meq(wind)^2+(DLF*Meq(wave))^2)^0.5
Feq(wind+wave) = (Feq(wind)^2+(DLF*Feq(wave))^2)^0.5

For Universal Foundation (f0 around 0.2 Hz) above equations needs the
misalignment effects to be added.

19
Key findings and conclusions
For monopile like structures with f0 = say 0.20 Hz the effect of misalignment has
to be included in terms of that the wind loads in the interface has to be
multiplied by a factor depending upon the actual misalignment and the ratio of
the wave load to the wind load.

This is actual for Universal Foundation

Misalignment is no problem for the slimmer structures like jackets with higher f0.

20
Key findings and conclusions too general
Vestas has found some dynamic amplification on the 2
nd
fore-aft structure mode
due to coincidence with mainly the 6P frequency.
So it is required to set up a modelling (pure wind) to analyse the dynamic effects
from 2 mode fore-aft.
The consequences are depending upon:
- Fore-aft bending frequency
- Type of structure
- Water depth (effects are increased with water depth)
For Universal Foundation the specific analysis showed increasing the fatigue
loads in the bottom of the foundation, depending upon the frequency.
The good thing is that it is only wind simulations on a structure with
representative characteristics, which is required to quantify the effect of the 2
mode fore-aft dynamics.








.



21
Key findings and conclusions
Options to solve design problems due to 2 Mode fore-aft:
Two rather different options exist to improve a structure to absorb the increased
fatigue loads:
a) Find an optimal configuration with 2. mode bending fore-aft frequency
above a certain frequency by stiffening the upper part of the structure
b) Absorb the increased loads by a stronger lower part of the structure

The 9P frequencies should not cause significant problems because of the
relatively low energy content.

A further stiffening/strengthening was not required for Universal Foundation
because the conceptual fatigue design was conservative by taking no account
to the directional spreading of wind and waves





22
Key findings and conclusions
Account to Misalignment :
The simple explanation for that misalignment is of importance:
Wave loads initiate oscillations parallel to the rotor plane due to the low
damping in this direction.

The general experience is that the effect of misalignment is a problem for
monopole-like structures utilizing the minimum allowed first mode frequency,
which in our case is say 0.20 Hz correponding to T(wave) = 5 sec.
.
23
Key findings and conclusions
Misalignment : Results from the modeling (f0 = 0.20 Hz)

III I
24
Key findings and conclusions
Misalignment : Results from the modeling (f0 = 0.20 Hz)

25
Misalignment Area 3


Misalignment
Average
misalignm. Factor 1 1,06 1,17
U prob(<15deg) prob(15 to 45 deg) prob(>45 deg Weighted
m/s

Factor
5,5 0,22 0,31 0,47 1,10
6,5 0,27 0,35 0,38 1,09
7,5 0,29 0,39 0,32 1,08
8,5 0,36 0,39 0,25 1,07
9,5 0,39 0,4 0,21 1,06
10,5 0,43 0,42 0,15 1,05
11,5 0,48 0,4 0,12 1,05
12,5 0,51 0,4 0,09 1,04
13,5 0,54 0,39 0,07 1,04
14,5 0,58 0,37 0,05 1,03
15,5 0,62 0,34 0,04 1,03
16,5 0,62 0,35 0,03 1,03
17,5 0,65 0,32 0,03 1,03
18,5 0,68 0,3 0,02 1,02
19,5 0,7 0,29 0,01 1,02
20,5 0,74 0,26 0 1,02
21,5 0,75 0,25 0 1,02
22,5 0,77 0,23 0 1,02
23,5 0,72 0,28 0 1,02
24,5 0,78 0,22 0 1,02

26
Example of misalignment calculation for
an area in UK (45 m)
:


45m

Corrected

U Prob Mres,eq M*p^0,25 (M*p^0,25)^2 Misalignment Mres,eq M*p^0,25 (M*p^0,25)^2
m/s delta p MNm

Factor MNm

11 0,156 31,3 19,7 387 1,06 33,1 20,8 434
13 0,132 33,4 20,1 405 1,05 35,0 21,1 446
15 0,098 37,6 21,0 443 1,04 39,1 21,9 480

sum 3097

sum 3397

sum^0.5 56

sum^0.5 58
factor 1,047
4,7%
Dominant wind velocities
Estimated increase of wind load due to misalignment for Me(waves)/Me(wind) = 0.80
27
Final generic fatigue loads to Universal
Foundation
Final:
Example 45 m:
At mudline
Wind: Me(wind) = (Me +(20+45) Fe)(1+x)(1+y) MNm
1+x = effect of misalignment
1+y = effect of f2 second mode bending fore-aft lower than specified limit (only
wind)
Wave: Me = 112 (1+z) MNm (dynamic interaction wave-wind)
1+z = effect of f0 = 0.2 Hz
Total: Me(total) = (Me(wind))^2 + Me(wave))^0.5
No account to directional distribution in above estimate

Through detailed but still simlified simulations (detailed turbine model) it
is possible to determine x, y and z and then a safe design is obtained
28
Conclusions 164m turbine on Universal
Foundation
UF is well suited for the V164-8.0 in a large range of water depth from 25-
55m

For UF in deep (45-55 m) water the structure may be subject to significant
dynamic amplification of the 2nd mode (fore-aft bending). Through
detailed simulations it is possible to quantify the effect and obtain a safe
design.

UF is exposed to wind/wave misalignment due to low first natural
frequency (around 0.20 Hz). Through detailed simulations it is possible to
quantify the effect and obtain a safe design.

29
Conclusions 164m turbine on Universal
Foundation
The study come from simplified design basis, thus cannot be 100% trustable.
A complete FEED would be required to conclude that UF fits properly with
V164.
The study has taken place in the Carbon Trust OWA framework
The conclusions achieved are from Grontmij.
The conclusions do not represent the views from Partners in OWA.