Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Dynamic analysis of wind turbines including soilstructure interaction
M. Harte ^{a} , B. Basu ^{a} ^{,} ^{⇑} , S.R.K. Nielsen ^{b}
^{a} Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland ^{b} Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark
article info
Article history:
Received 20 March 2012 Revised 1 June 2012 Accepted 27 June 2012 Available online 18 August 2012
Keywords:
Soilstructure interaction Wind turbines Cone model Blade element momentum theory Kaimal spectrum
abstract
This paper investigates the alongwind forced vibration response of an onshore wind turbine. The study includes the dynamic interaction effects between the foundation and the underlying soil, as softer soils can inﬂuence the dynamic response of wind turbines. A MultiDegreeofFreedom (MDOF) horizontal axes onshore wind turbine model is developed for dynamic analysis using an Euler–Lagrangian approach. The model is comprised of a rotor blade system, a nacelle and a ﬂexible tower connected to a foundation system using a substructuring approach. The rotor blade system consists of three rotating blades and includes the effect of centrifugal stiffening due to rotation. The foundation of the structure is modeled as a rigid gravity based foundation with two DOF whose movement is related to the surrounding soil by means of complex impedance functions generated using cone model. Transfer functions for displace ment of the turbine system are obtained and the modal frequencies of the combined turbinefoundation system are estimated. Simulations are presented for the MDOF turbine structure subjected to wind load ing for different soil stiffness conditions. Steady state and turbulent wind loading, developed using blade element momentum theory and the Kaimal spectrum, have been considered. Soil stiffness and damping properties acquired from DNV/Risø standards are used as a comparison. The soilstructure interaction is shown to affect the response of the wind turbine. This is examined in terms of the turbine structural dis placement and also the base shear and bending moment in the tower and the foundation. The frequency domain response of the bending moment and shear force in the foundation and the tower base, for stiffer soil condition, is shown to be characterized by peaks at multiples of the wind turbine rotational speed (3P effects). The effect of dynamic soilstructure interaction on the rotation of the foundation has also been investigated.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
It is widely recognized that the dynamic response of a structure on soft soil may be different from the response of a similarly ex cited structure supported on ﬁrm soil [1] . This ﬁnding has been conﬁrmed in numerous studies on the effects of soilstructure interaction (SSI), a full review of the development of SSI can be found in [2] . Luco [3] in the study on the seismic response of tall chimneys showed that SSI had an effect only for softer soils (shear wave velocity lower than 750 m/s) and could lead to reductions or in creases in response, depending on the characteristics of the chim ney and the seismic excitation. This has been conﬁrmed in a recent study by Moghaddasi et al. [4] in which a Monte Carlo simulation was carried out for a range of SDOF structures and soil conditions excited by a series of seismic excitations.
⇑ Corresponding author. Email addresses: hartemi@tcd.ie (M. Harte), basub@tcd.ie (B. Basu), srkn@civil. aau.dk (S.R.K. Nielsen).
01410296/$  see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The use of SSI in design is usually restricted to buildings in seis mic zones, however wind turbines contain moving parts and must sustain continuous vibrationinduced forces throughout their operational life. Novak and Hifnawy [5,6] showed that the re sponse of a structure when subject to a dynamic wind loading can be affected by SSI. The literature to date on the dynamic inter action of wind turbines taking into account SSI has been somewhat sparse. Wind turbines have increased tremendously in both size and performance in recent years. In order to reduce the costs, the over all weight of components is minimized; this results in a more ﬂex ible wind turbine sensitive to dynamic excitation even at low frequencies [7] . Modern wind turbines are typically installed with variable speed systems, so rotational speed of the rotor varies from 10–20 rpm. Therefore the ﬁrst excitation frequency interval is around 0.17–0.33 Hz and is referred to as the 1P frequency inter val. Since the ﬁrst resonance frequency of a modern three bladed wind turbine is often placed between 1P and 3P, it is important to be able to evaluate the resonance frequencies of the wind tur bine structure accurately [8] .
510
M. Harte et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 509–518
Veletsos and Verbic [9] showed the presence of ﬂexible soil underneath the foundation of a structure increases the damping capacity of the foundation and reduces the structure’s natural fre quency. The same was also observed in a report by Stewart et al. [10] , that SSI usually has the effect of lengthening the vibration periods of structures, which may be of concern in wind engineering due to the localization of windinduced spectral energy at low frequencies. Currently wind turbine foundations are modeled simply by beam elements or static springs which means that the foundation stiffness is frequency independent. These idealized assumptions of ﬁxity at the base of the tower are conservative and could poten tially lead to overestimation of stiffness and thus the system’s nat ural frequency. Consequently, unless the separation between the operational and natural frequencies is large, these assumptions of ﬁxity should not be used and SSI needs to be considered in design [11] . Therefore it is key to know the structure’s overall natural fre quency to allow sufﬁcient separation of the structural system’s natural frequency from the turbine operational frequencies, to avoid potentially catastrophic failures [12] . The soilstructure model adopted in this study is composed of a multidegreeoffreedom (MDOF) wind turbine model located on an embedded rigid gravity based foundation with two DOF, sized using DNV/Risø design practice [13] . The foundation is assumed to be resting on a homogeneous linear elastic halfspace. The idealized soilfoundationstructure is modeled using cone model. The origi nal cone model was developed by Ehlers [14] to represent a surface disk under translational motions. An improved model, developed by Wolf and Deeks [15] , is used here to generate the complex impedance functions. The impedance functions for the embedded foundation was used as boundary conditions for the foundationsoil domain in a complete MDOF wind turbine model. A wind turbine model composed of ﬂexible elements is devel oped deriving the equations of motion from the Euler–Lagrange stationary conditions of the action integral in Hamiltonian mechanics. The horizontal axis wind turbine model is comprised of a rotor blade system, a nacelle and a ﬂexible tower connected to a rigid gravity based foundation using a substructuring ap proach. The rotor blade system consists of three rotating blades and includes the effects of centrifugal stiffening due to rotation. Only vibrations in the ﬂapwise directions are considered and the local deformations of each blade is modeled by a truncated modal expansion. Model parameters for the wind turbine are taken from the NREL [16] for their standard 1.5MW wind turbine. The model is exposed to both a steady state and a random wind loading excita tion, generated using the Kaimal spectrum [17] to model a homo geneous isotropic turbulence ﬁeld. The wind load has been developed in accordance with the Beam Element Momentum The ory [18] and therefore depends on the blade geometry, rotational speed and wind speed. Simulations are presented for the MDOF wind turbine model subjected to wind loading resting on a layered soil proﬁle for range of soil stiffness values. Transfer functions for displacement of the nacelle and foundation are obtained and the modal frequencies of the system estimated. Fully ﬁxed conditions are used as a reference and soil modeling parameters from DNV/Risø standards are used to validate cone model for a simple uniform soil proﬁle. The response in terms of base shear, bending moments, structural displacement and rotation of foundation are examined with regard to SSI.
2. MDOF wind turbine structure
Using a substructure methodology, the structure and the soil stratum can be modeled separately and then combined. The MDOF superstructure model is formulated using the Euler–Lagrange equations, as expressed below
d
d T ^{} _{} dT
dq _{i}
dt d
q
i
_
þ
d
V
d
q _{i}
¼ F _{i}
ð 1Þ
where T is the kinetic energy and V is the potential energy of the conservative forces in the system, q _{i} is the displacement and F _{i} is the generalized loading for degree of freedom i . Fig. 1 shows the model along with all the generalized degrees of freedom. The model was developed for horizontal motion corresponding to ﬂapwise (longitudinal) blade vibrations, ﬂapwise vibrations oc cur out of the rotor plane. Thus the nacelle is free to translate in this outofplane direction. The foundation, resting on ﬂexible soil, was modeled by the introduction of two DOF allowing it to trans late and rotate. The absolute motion of the rotor blade number i can be de scribed by a truncated modal expansion,
N
u _{b}_{;}_{i} ð t ; zÞ ¼ ^{X} _{b}_{;} _{i} ð t Þ U _{n} ðzÞ þ q _{n}_{a}_{c} ð t Þ þ q _{F} ðt Þ þ hh _{F} ð t Þ
q
^{n}
n¼1
ð
2Þ
where q ^{n} _{i} is the modal blade coordinates describing the motion of blade i for the n ^{t}^{h} mode relative to the hub. The notation N indicates the number of modes, U _{n} (z ) is the mode shape function and z is a position vector along the blade. The term q _{n}_{a}_{c} represents the dis placement of the nacelle relative to the foundation, q _{F} and h _{F} are the horizontal translation and rotation of the foundation. The kinetic and potential energies of the model can be written
as,
b
;
T
¼
V ¼
3
X
i¼1
1 Z R
2
0
m _{b} ð zÞð v _{b}_{;} _{i} Þ ^{2} dz þ
1 _{2} M nac ð
_
q nac þ
þ
1
2
1
2 ^{M} ^{F}
2
4
1
2 ^{I} ^{F}
3
X
i¼1
F ^{þ}
Z R
0
_
q
2
_
h
2
_{F}
EI ðzÞ ^{d} 2
d
u
b; i
z ^{2}
!
2
3
dz þ V _{c} _{s} _{;} _{i} 5 þ
1
2
q _ _{F} þ h h _{F} Þ ^{2}
_
K nac q ^{2} nac
ð 3Þ
^{ð} ^{4}^{Þ}
Fig. 1. Wind turbine model.
M. Harte et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 509–518
511
where,
d
^{2}
u
b; i
dz ^{2}
!
N
¼ ^{X}
n¼1
_{U}
00
_{n} ðzÞ q _{b}_{;} ^{n} _{i} ðt Þ
ð 5Þ
In Eqs. (3) and (4), m _{b} (z ) is the mass per unit length of the entire bladeroothub assembly, R is the length of the blade, EI ( z) is the ﬂexural rigidity of the rotor blades, h is the tower height, _{v} _{b} _{,} _{i} is the velocity of the rotor blade and u _{b} _{;} _{i} is the relative motion of the blade. The terms M _{n}_{a}_{c} and M _{F} are the total mass of the nacelle and the foundation respectively. The term K _{n}_{a}_{c} is the stiffness of the nacelle and I _{F} is the mass moment of inertias of the foundation about the tilt axes of rotation. The overdots represent differentia tion with respect to time and the primes represent differentiation with respect to position. For accuracy, a centrifugal stiffening term, V _{c} _{s} , was added into the blade stiffness matrix, resulting in the stiffness of the blades increasing with the rotational speed, _{X} _{b} . Considering inﬁnitesimal elements along the blade of length dz and integrating over the length, the tensile force in the blade due to centrifugal body forces on blade i, acting at the point f is expressed as,
F _{c}_{i} ¼ X ^{2}
b
^{Z} R
f
m _{b} ðzÞ zdz
ð 6Þ
The resulting potential energy due to centrifugal stiffening of blade i is given by
V c _{s} ; i ¼
"
1
2 ^{X} 2
b
Z R
0
N
X
n
¼1
q
^{n}
b; i
d
U _{n}
dz
^{} 2 ^{!} Z R
f
m _{b} ð zÞzdz #
ð 7Þ
The effect of gravity on the vibration of the blades in the ﬂapwise direction is negligible and therefore not included in the study. The reaction forces due to the foundationsoil interaction H ( t ) and M ( t ) are nonconservative and cannot be included in Eq. (4) , as a potential energy does not exist. The effect of the reaction forces is therefore introduced in the formulation as nonconserva tive forces in the time domain and can be written in terms of the following convolution integral,
ð t Þ
H
M
ð t Þ
t
¼ Z
1
½ kð t sÞ
q _{F} ð t Þ h _{F} ð t Þ
_{d}_{s}
ð 8Þ
where the impulse matrix function k ( t) represents the memory af fect and the coupling between the horizontal translation and the rotational DOF of the foundation. Eqs. (3) and (4) can be substituted back into Eq. (1) and the equations of motion derived for ﬂapwise motion, expressed in standard form as,
½ M f qð t Þg þ ½ C f qð t Þg þ ½ K fqðt Þg ¼ f F ðt Þg
€
_
ð
9Þ
where [ M ], [ C ] and [ K ] are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the system respectively, the stiffness matrix includes stiffness components from the three blades and the nacelle. The terms
f q ð t Þg; f q ðt Þg and {q ( t)} are the acceleration, velocity and displace
ment vectors and { F(t )} is the generalized loading derived in a fol lowing section. The Lagrangian formulation does not account for damping, thus structural and aeroelastic damping are added separately. The effect of the dynamic interaction with the foundation given in Eq. (8) will be accounted for in the analysis by using the coupled horizontal translation and rotation impedance matrix. This will be achieved by carrying out the analysis in frequency domain (i.e. by Fourier transforming the equations of motion and incorporating the frequency dependent impedance matrix). The impedance ma trix is obtained by a Fourier transform of Eq. (8) . The response in the time domain will then be obtained by applying an inverse Fourier transform.
€
_
3. Impedance functions
The foundation of the wind turbine is modeled as an embedded, rigid circular foundation resting on homogeneous elastic half space whose movement is related to the surrounding soil by means of complex impedance functions obtained from cone model. Rigorous procedures for calculating foundation dynamic stiffness exist, including ﬁnite element and boundary elements methods. How ever, these methods require signiﬁcant computational time and experience, while cone model [15] is simple to use and provides physical insight with conceptual clarity, all within acceptable engi neering accuracy. The only approximations made are that of the 1 dimensional strength of materials based on wave propagation in cones. The use of cone models does lead to some loss of precision compared to rigorous methods based on 3D elastodynamics. How ever the accuracy of any analysis is limited anyway because of the many uncertainties some of which can never be eliminated (soil properties). In the frequency domain, the dynamic behavior of the founda tion can be described by the dynamicimpedance matrix,
0
½ K _{i}_{;} _{j} ð xÞ ¼ K _{i}_{;} _{j} ½ k _{i}_{;} _{j} ð a _{o} Þ þ ia _{o} c _{i}_{;} _{j} ða _{o} Þ
ð 10Þ
where a _{o} is the dimensionless frequency coefﬁcient, K _{;} _{j} is the static stiffness component, k _{i} _{,} _{j} ( a _{o} ) is the dimensionless spring coefﬁcient which governs the force that is in phase or counter phase with the displacement and c _{i} _{,} _{j} ( a _{o} ) is the dimensionless damping or dash pot coefﬁcient that describes the force that is 90 ^{0} out of phase. In cone model the effective damping is a summation of two
sources: radiation damping (transmitted by the structure to the soil) and hysteretic (material) damping of the soil. For each degree of freedom, at frequency x , the force amplitude can be related to the displacement amplitude through the equation (Fourier trans form of Eq. (8) ),
0
i
(
b
H
b
M
ð xÞ
ð xÞ
)
¼ ½K _{i}_{;} _{j} ðxÞ
(
^
q _{F} ð xÞ
^
h _{F} ð xÞ
)
ð 11Þ
where,
½ K _{i}_{;} _{j} ð xÞ ¼
K _{H}_{H} ð xÞ
K _{M}_{H} ð xÞ
K _{H}_{M} ð xÞ K _{M}_{M} ð xÞ
ð 12Þ
The terms K _{H}_{H} and K _{M}_{M} are the horizontal translational and rota tional impedance functions, K _{H}_{M} and K _{M}_{H} are the off diagonal cou pling terms, such that the impedance matrix satisﬁes
T
½ K _{i}_{;} _{j} ð xÞ ¼ ½ K _{i}_{;} _{j} ð xÞ
and
h
½ K _{i}_{;} _{j} ð xÞ ¼ K
i; j ^{ð} ^{x}^{Þ}
i
ð
ð
13Þ
14Þ
where the superscripts T and ⁄ represent the matrix operations transpose and conjugate respectively. The vertical vibration of embedded footings is not signiﬁcant for windinduced structural responses and therefore are not consid ered in this paper.
4. Bending moment and shear forces
The shear force and bending moment in the foundation and in the base of the wind turbine tower including SSI effects can be evaluated by isolating the foundation [19] . Once the response
^
quantities q _{F} ð x Þ and h _{F} ð x Þ are solved for in the frequency domain,
the Fourier transformed shear force and bending moment in the foundation may be evaluated by solving Eq. (11) . Using these, the
^
512
M. Harte et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 509–518
Fourier transformed shear force and bending moment in the wind turbine tower (at the base) can be given as,
b 
b 

^ 
ð15Þ 

H _{T} ðxÞ¼ x ^{2} m _{F} q _{F} ð xÞ þ H ð xÞ and b ^ b 

M 
_{T} ð xÞ¼ x ^{2} I _{F} h _{F} ð xÞ þ M ðxÞ 
ð16Þ 
Solving and inverting back into the time domain the time history re sponse of shear force and bending moment can be evaluated.
5. Aerodynamic load calculation
Modal wind drag force timehistories are simulated in accor dance with the classical Blade Element Momentum (BEM) theory which couples the momentum theory with local events taking place at the actual blades. BEM is currently the most popular tool for the determination of aerodynamic loads on a rotating rotor [20] , as satisfactory results can be obtained given good aerofoil data. Here a corrected BEM model, accounting for Glauert correc tion and Prandtl’s tip loss factor, is used. The dynamic loads are cal culated by a quasistatic aerodynamic assumption so changes in the effective angle of attack a are instantly felt in the aerodynamic loads. This means that the time scale for adjustment of the non stationary ﬂow is assumed to be small compared to the fundamen tal eigenperiod of the blade. With the BEM method it is possible to calculate steady wind loads and thus the thrust and power with re spect to wind speed, rotational speed, pitch angle, number of blades and actual geometry of the aerofoil (in terms of blade pro ﬁle, twist and chord distribution). The wind loads are calculated following an approach given by Hansen [18] , which assumes all sections are independent along the rotor, so that the aerofoil can be divided into several elements and ﬂow at each element calcu lated separately. Due to changes in the mean wind velocity with height, as the blade rotates the mean velocity component on the blades experi ences a sinusoidal variation in magnitude, the frequency of this sinusoid is equal to the rotational frequency. Therefore the instan taneous wind speed may be expressed as
V _{i} ð t Þ ¼ v ðH Þ þ Dv
r
R
cosðX _{b} t þ h _{i} Þ
ð17Þ
where H is the nacelle height, v ð H Þ is the mean wind speed at hub height, r is the position along the blade and _{D} v is the change in wind speed between the hub and the top of the blade in an upright position. The scaling factor (r / R ) is used to calculate the required amplitude at each point along the blade in order to represent the sinusoidally varying wind velocity above and below the hub. The term t is the time and h _{i} is the phase difference between the tur bines blades. The relative wind speed, with respect to each blade element for each blade, V _{r} _{,} _{i} ( r ,t ), is given as,
V _{r} _{;} _{i} ðr ; t Þ ¼
q
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
½ V _{i} ðt Þð1 aÞ þ v ^{w} ð t Þ ^{2} þ ½ X _{b} r ð 1 þ a ^{0} Þ ^{2}
ð18Þ
where a and a ^{0} are the axial and tangential induction factors which are calculated by means of the classical BEM method with correc tions. The instantaneous wind speed apparent at the blade, V _{i} (t )(1 a ), incorporates the mean wind speed which varies sinusoi dal due to the effect of the wind shear and blade rotation. Turbu lence is included only in the normal direction. The wind loading on any structural member maybe decom posed into a quasistatic mean wind velocity V _{i} ( t ), and a ﬂuctuating turbulent component v ^{w} ( t ). The generation of this ﬂuctuating tur bulent component v ^{w} ( t ) on the rotor plane, is the basis of any aero dynamic simulation and may be obtained through the use of a power spectral density function (PSDF). Nodal ﬂuctuating velocity timehistories can be simulated by virtue of the fact that an
arbitrary timehistory, with zero mean, may be represented by a DFT with a discretized version of a continuous frequency content as,
1
1
v ^{w} ðt Þ ¼ ^{X} a _{k} cosðx _{k} t Þ þ ^{X} b _{k} sinðx _{k} t Þ
k¼1
k¼1
ð 19Þ
where a _{k} and b _{k} are the Fourier coefﬁcients, x _{k} is the discredited circular frequency and t is the time instant. This ﬂuctuating velocity timehistory is generated in conjunction with a wind velocity PSDF. Timehistories were simulated using Eq. (20), a modiﬁed version of the spectrum offered by Kaimal et al. [17], expressed as,
S _{v} ðH ; xÞ _{¼}
100c
r
2
v
_{3}_{x}_{ð} 1 þ 50c Þ ^{5}^{=}^{3}
^{ð}^{2}^{0}^{Þ}
where S _{v} ( H ,x ) is the one sided PSDF of the ﬂuctuating wind velocity as a function of the hub elevation and circular frequency (x ), _{r} _{v} ^{2} is the variance (related to the turbulence intensity) and c is known as the Monin coordinate. The latter term may be obtained from the expressions,
c
¼ ^{x}^{H} _{ð}_{H} _{Þ}
2p
v
v ð H Þ ¼ ^{1} _{k} v _{} ln ^{H}
z
o
ð
ð
21Þ
22Þ
where k is Von Karman’s constant (typically around 0.4), z _{o} is the roughness length and v _{⁄} is the friction velocity. The above formula tion was used to generate an isotropic, homogeneous turbulence at the hub height to represent the turbulence across the rotor ﬁeld. Due to the rotation of the blades the turbulence spectra will be nonhomogeneous in nature leading to a rotation sampled spectra. However the focus of this paper is the effect of SSI in wind turbines and thus the assumed simpliﬁed turbulence ﬁeld is adequate. The wind load is taken only in the normal/ﬂapping direction as only ﬂapwise vibrations are considered. The normal force per unit length of the blade [18] can be expressed as,
^{p} N ; i ^{¼}
1
_{2}
pV ^{2} _{;}_{i} ð r ; t Þ C _{N} ð aÞ c ðr Þ
r
ð 23Þ
where p is the density of air, c (r ) is the chord length, C _{N} (a ) is the normal coefﬁcient which is dependent on the lift and drag coefﬁ cients (which are calculated from tables based on the blade aerofoil properties and angle of attack). Integrating over the entire rotor blade length R , the generalized wind load on blade i can be given by,
F
_{i} ð t Þ ¼ Z R p _{N} _{;}_{i} ð x; t Þ/ _{n} ðxÞ dx
0
6. Numerical examples
ð
24Þ
Some numerical examples are now presented in order to illus trate the effects of SSI on the response of the MDOF wind turbine model. Transfer functions for the system are obtained and dis cussed, as this type of analysis is essential in understanding the re sponse of the structure due to more complex random excitations. Aerodynamic wind load, developed form BEM theory with turbu lence generated using the Kaimal spectrum, is then applied to the structure and the response computed. The analysis is carried out for different soil stiffness conditions, while a fully ﬁxed condi tion is used as a reference. Soil damping and stiffness properties obtained from the DNV/Risø design standards are used as a com parison to validate the cone model coefﬁcients.
M. Harte et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 509–518
513
6.1. Model properties
Model properties for the blades, nacelle and tower were taken from an NREL 1.5MW 3bladed wind turbine. Considering (in Eq. (2) ) the ﬁrst mode of blade vibration only, the equations of motion were developed for the coupled foundation/nacelle/blade 6 DOF wind turbine model. The foundation is assumed to be embedded in rigid soil and designed for a constant vertical gravity load and the maximum over turning moment experienced by the turbine during normal operation at near cutout wind speed. The size of the foundation is designed based on the bearing capacity of the soil medium. The vertical bearing capacity is calculated using a con stant soil density and friction angle. Details of the foundation and the soil proﬁle are given in the Table 1 and Fig. 2 . Two soil proﬁles are modeled for a range of shear wave velocity
values. The soil loss factor (soil material damping) is assumed to be constant for all frequencies i.e. hysteretic damping is assumed. Site
A is chosen due to the fact that it can be modeled by analytically
derived formulas given by DNV/Risø standards in the form of static springs (stiffness) and damping coefﬁcients, and therefore can be used as a comparison to validate the frequency dependent stiffness and damping coefﬁcient given by cone model. Site B is chosen as a more realistic soil proﬁle (one with multiple layers) and is modeled
solely by cone model. The wind load is generated in accordance with the parameters shown in Table 2 , note also that as BEM theory is applied blade geometry and characteristics also inﬂuence the wind load. The Lagrangian formulation does not account for damping. Modal damping was assumed for the structural damping in the tower and in the blades. The modal damping ratio was taken as 5% and 20% for tower bending and ﬂap blade bending (ﬁrst mode)
respectively. A high damping ratio for the blade bending mode was assumed due to the known large effects of aerodynamic damping
in this mode [20] .
6.2. Response calculation
The dynamic model must be solved in the frequency domain due to the presence of complex frequency dependent impedance functions in the equation of motions. Transforming Eq. (9) to the frequency domain and incorporating the foundation impedance matrix due to SSI gives,
x ^{2} ½M f qð xÞg þ ix½ C f qðxÞg þ ½ KsðxÞ f qðxÞg ¼ f F ^{b} ðxÞg
^
^
^
ð25Þ
where Ks(x ) is the frequency dependent complex stiffness matrix (including the foundation impedance matrix). Rearranging Eq. (25) the inputoutput relationship is given by,
f qð xÞg ¼ ½H ð xÞ : f F
^
^{b} ð xÞg
The transfer matrix can be expanded as,
½ H ð xÞ ¼ ½ x ^{2} ½ M þ½Ks ðxÞ þ ix½ C ^{} ^{1}
Table 1 Foundation and soil properties.
ð26Þ
ð27Þ
Properties 
Values 

Foundation 
radius ( R ) 
5.1 m 
Foundation embedment depth ( D ) Depth to bedrock ( H ) Soil loss factor ( n _{s} ) Shear wave velocity ( V _{s} ) range Poisson’s ratio ( _{v} _{s} ) Mass density ( p _{s} ) Friction angle ( / ^{0} ) 
3m 

2 0m 

0.05 

40–500 m/s 

0.3 

1750 kg/m ^{3} 3 5 
For numerical calculations using discrete frequencies the transfer matrix is given as,
½ H ðx _{j} Þ ¼
(
½ x ½ M þ½ Ksðx _{j} Þ þ ix _{j} ½ C ^{} ^{1} ½H ^{} ð x _{N} _{} _{j} Þ
2
j
for j
for j
6 N =2 > N =2
ð
28Þ
where N is the number of sample points taken and x _{j} (= jD x ) is the
discrete circular frequency at each step, noting _{D} _{x} = 2 _{p} / T _{p} . An in verse Fourier transform can be employed to transform the response
^
f q ð x Þg back to the time domain, yielding the complete time history response { q (t)}. For solving the problem, the time span must be se lected so that period T _{p} is considerably longer than the duration of excitation [21] , thus resulting in an interval of zero excitation be fore and following the wind excitation load. This is a necessary requirement so that the free vibration response during the intervals of zero excitation will dampen out almost completely. Otherwise, the assumed zero initial conditions at the start of the excitation will not be sufﬁciently satisﬁed.
6.3. Transfer functions
Transfer functions of different response quantities are deter mined for a series of soil stiffness conditions, a fully ﬁxed condition is used as a reference. The transfer functions were obtained by con sidering the output response of the relevant DOF. To obtain the transfer functions with respect to the input at the nacelle, the Fou rier spectrum of the loads applied to the different DOF were nor malized by the Fourier spectrum amplitude of the load at the nacelle. The fundamental modal frequency of the coupled wind turbine system was determined by examination of the displacement trans fer function, as resonance of a structure when subjected to a har monic load can be observed as local peaks in the magnitude of the nodal displacements [8] . Thus, fundamental modal frequencies as a function of soil shear wave velocity were generated for site A. This was done modeling the soil using DNV standards and cone model, the results of which are plotted in Fig. 3 . Fig. 3 validates the cone model for the uniform soil proﬁle. With validation established cone model is used to model the more com plex layered site B proﬁle, transfer functions for which are pre sented in Fig. 4 . Only the low frequency range of the transfer
functions for Site B are shown as most of the energy is concen trated in this region. The ﬁrst peak range is between 1–3 rad/s for the given soil conditions and contains the fundamental modal frequency of the system. From Fig. 4 it is evident that as the shear wave velocity of the soil decreases the fundamental modal fre quency of the system drops, while for higher values the fundamen tal modal frequency of the system tends towards a fully ﬁxed structural response. Therefore SSI has the effect of lengthening the vibration period of the wind turbine, a fact shown before in other SSI studies [1,22]. When the ground consists of layered stra ta, as in Site B, the waves transmitted from the structure are re ﬂected at the layer interfaces and are returned to the structure. As a result the radiation damping normally decreases compared to uniform site (Site A) with similar ground stiffness, however as Site B’s underlying layers have a lower stiffness than the top layer ( Fig. 2 ) this effect cannot be seen here. SSI generally has the effect of increasing damping in the system as energy is dissipated by radiation into the soil and hence should reduce the relative displacement response. However the relative displacement of the nacelle response shows only a slight reduction in peak response as shear wave velocity drops, this can be seen in the transfer function Fig. 4 a. This is due to the fact the wind turbine has a relatively large foundation compared to the vertical load, as the foundation is sized based on the large over turning moment.
514
M. Harte et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 509–518
Fig. 2. Soil proﬁles.
Table 2 Turbine properties and operational data.
Properties 
Values 

Minimum rotor speed 
9.5 rpm 

Rated 
rotational speed ( _{X} _{b} ) 
20 rpm 

Blade 
length 
35 m 

Blade 
natural frequency 
8.23 rad/s 

Tower height 
82m 

Tower 
natural frequency 
2.58 rad/s 

^ Rated wind speed, at hub ð v ð H ÞÞ 
12 m/s 1.225 kg/m ^{3} 0.005 

Air density ( p _{w} ) Roughness ( z _{o} ) Turbulence intensity 

10% 
Shear wave velocity (m/s)
Fig. 3. Structural fundamental modal frequency versus shear wave velocity, Site A.
Total nacelle displacement includes horizontal foundation dis placement, lateral displacement due to foundation rotation and relative displacement of the nacelle. Fig. 4 b shows the total dis placement of the nacelle increases as shear wave velocity drops, especially for lower shear wave velocity values. This detrimental effect of SSI has been shown before in previous studies for tall slender structures [3,4] and is caused due to the rocking of the
foundation which for tall structures increases the acceleration of the mass and the associated inertia force, this whipping effect can lead to a corresponding increase in response [1] . However total displacements compared to relative displacements do not have the same effect on stresses and deformations within the superstruc ture [4] and therefore are not as critical. Total displacements are still an important design criteria as the motion of the nacelle must be limited for obvious reasons. To avoid resonance the fundamental modal frequency of the wind turbine system should not coincide with the rotor speed range (1P) and blade passing speed range (3P for three blade tur bines). The 1P and 3P areas are plotted in Fig. 5 to visualize the zones in which the structural natural frequency should not lie to prevent dynamic interaction [23] . In Fig. 5 P _{M} and P _{R} represent the rotor speed at cut in and rated conditions respectively for the variable speed 1.5MW wind turbine. Overlaid upon this is the range of wind turbine fundamental modal frequencies as a func tion of shear wave velocity, V _{s} = 40–500 m/s. The wind turbine should be designed such that the fundamental modal period lies in between the 1P and 3P range, and for stiff soil conditions this is shown to be true. However for soft soil the fundamental modal period slips down into the 1P range which may lead to undesirable dynamic interaction.
6.4. Wind excitation response
To illustrate the effects of SSI on the wind turbine system some time histories for the displacement response of the blades, nacelle and foundation are shown in Fig. 6 . These were generated under a turbulent wind excitation for rated conditions of rotation and wind speed. The nacelle relative displacement is shown in Fig. 6 a and illus trates the neutral effect of SSI on the relative vibration response. Fig. 6 b shows the total displacement response of the nacelle, and as expected there is a large increase in response as the shear wave velocity of the soil drops, caused by the rotation of the foundation increasing the displacement of the nacelle. Fig. 6 c shows the rela tive displacement of a blade. The effect of the ﬂexible soil on the blade relative displacement is negligible which is to be expected as the interaction with the foundation is dampened out (ﬁltered) through the superstructure. The foundation rotation is shown in Fig. 6 d for a soil with a shear wave velocity V _{s} = 100 m/s. An aver age rotation of around 0.0014 rad is observed, for a 82 m hub height and a foundation depth of 3 m. This corresponds to a hori zontal translation of around 119 mm at the nacelle.
M. Harte et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 509–518
515
Fig. 4. Transfer functions: (a) Nacelle relative displacement, (b) Nacelle total displacement, (c) foundation horizontal translation and (d) foundation rotation.
Fig. 5. Frequency range of 1P and 3P, with structural fundamental modal frequency range due to SSI.
To examine the effects of SSI on the base shear and bending moment in the wind turbine, the model was exposed to a steady wind load for rated conditions of rotational and wind speed. Re sults are presented in the frequency domain and are shown in Fig. 7 . It is observed from Fig. 7 that the major peaks occur around 1–3 rad/s and at around 3P depending on soil stiffness. Other peaks occur roughly at multiples of 3P. These peaks are dampened out for soft soil conditions and are only prominent in stiffer soil conditions. The peaks in the range 1–3 rad/s are prevalent for soft er soils and are affected by SSI, as the shear wave velocity de creases there is a corresponding drop in frequency at which the peaks occurs. Sample time histories for base shear and bending moment are presented in Fig. 8 . The time histories show that although the peak
shear/moment are very similar regardless of soil stiffness, the fre quencies of vibration present are highly dependent on soil stiff ness. For a shear wave velocity of 70 m/s compared to 500 m/s the frequency of a peak occurrence is quartered. This will have a signiﬁcant effect on the fatigue analysis of the tower. The rotation of a wind turbine foundation must be minimized in order to prevent failure and other serviceability issues concerning wind turbine operations. The maximum rotation yielded from the proposed model for different soil stiffness conditions is shown in Fig. 9 . DNV/Risø standards specify, for serviceability limit state, the maximum allowable tilt of the foundation as 0.0087 rad off the vertical. It can be seen from Fig. 9 that at very low soil stiffness this condition is violated and a maximum tilt of 0.015 rad off the vertical is reached.
516
M. Harte et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 509–518
(a)
(c)
Time (s)
Time (s)
(b)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Fig. 6. Response timehistories: (a) Nacelle relative displacement response, (b) Nacelle total displacement response, (c) blade relative displacement r esponse and (d) foundation rotation response.
Frequency (rad/s)
Frequency (rad/s)
Frequency (rad/s)
Frequency (rad/s)
Fig. 7. Transfer functions: (a) foundation shear force, (b) foundation bending moment, (c) tower base shear force and (d) tower base bending moment.
7. Conclusions
An alongwind forced vibration analysis of an onshore wind tur bine has been carried out including the effects of soil ﬂexibility underneath the foundation. A MDOF wind turbine model was developed using an Euler–Lagrangian approach. The soilfounda tion interaction was modeled by complex impedance functions
generated using cone model and included in the overall model using a substructuring approach. The equations of motion were solved in the frequency domain due to the frequency dependent impedance matrix. Two soil proﬁles were examined in this study, a uniform proﬁle used to validate the cone model by comparison with the DNV/Risø standards and a more complex soil proﬁle with multiple soil layers
M. Harte et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 509–518
517
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Fig. 8. Response timehistories: (a) foundation shear force, (b) foundation bending moment, (c) tower base shear force and (d) tower base bending moment.
Shear wave velocity (m/s)
Fig. 9. Rotation of the foundation versus shear wave velocity.
of different stiffness. Fundamental modal frequencies of the wind turbine system were calculated and SSI was shown to lengthen the vibration period of the wind turbine. The fundamental modal frequency of the wind turbine system, located on the multilayered Site B, was shown to dip into the 1P range for softer soil conditions, which should be avoided as it may lead to dangerous dynamic interaction. SSI is generally considered to have a positive effect on structural vibrations as it adds damping to the system. However the relative displacement of the nacelle showed only a slight reduction in re sponse for the soil conditions considered, while SSI was found to have a detrimental effect on the total displacement of the nacelle, especially for softer soils. This detrimental effect is due to the tall
slender nature of the wind turbine structure. The base shear and bending moment at the base of the tower and in the foundation were computed. No signiﬁcant difference between the shear and moment in the foundation and tower base was found, as the foun dation inertia was found to be negligible. Peaks in the frequency response were found to occur at multiples of 3P (three times the rotation speed) for stiffer soil conditions. SSI was shown to have lit tle effect on the peak bending moment or the peak shear force in the foundation. However the frequency content in the response time history was signiﬁcantly affected due to SSI. This could have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the fatigue of the wind turbine founda tion system. The rotation of the foundation was shown to increase signiﬁcantly with decreasing soil stiffness and violated prescribed limit state of DNV/Risø standards for lower soil stiffness conditions.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Irish Research Council for Sci ence Engineering and Technology (IRCSET) and the EU under FP7 Marie Curie ITN project SYSWIND (Grant No. 238325).
References
[1] Veletsos AS, Meek JW. Dynamic behaviour of buildingfoundation systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1974;3:121–38. [2] Kausel E. Early history of soilstructure interaction, Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 2010;30:822–32 [Special Issue in honour of Prof. Anestis Veletsos]. [3] Luco J. Soilstructure interaction effects on the seismic response of tall chimneys. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 1986;5:170–7. [4] Moghaddasi M, Cubrinovski M, Chase J, Pampanin S, Carr A. Effects of soil foundationstructure interaction on seismic structural response via robust Monte Carlo simulation. Eng Struct 2011;33:1338–47. [5] Novak M, Hifnawy LE. Damping of structures due to soilstructure interaction. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodynam 1983;11:295–306. [6] Novak M, Hifnawy LE. Structural response to wind with soilstructure interaction. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodynam 1988;28:329–38. [7] Liingaard M, Andersen L, Ibsen LB. Impedance of ﬂexible suction caissons. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2007;36:2249–71.
518
M. Harte et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 509–518
[8] Liingaard M. Dynamic behaviour of suction caissons. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark; 2006. [9] Veletsos AS, Verbic B. Vibration of viscoelastic foundations. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1973;2:87–102. [10] Stewart JP, Seed RB, Fenves GL. Empirical evaluation of inertial soilstructure interaction effects. 11 ed. California, USA: Dunod, Berkeley; 1998. [11] Satari M, Hussain S. Vibration based wind turbine tower foundation design utilizing soilfoundationstructure interaction. In: Santini A, Moraci N, editors. 2008 Seismic engineering conference commemorating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria earthquake. American Institute of physics conference series, vol. 1020. p. 577–84. [12] Hamaydeh MA, Hussain S. Optimized frequencybased foundation design for wind turbine towers utilizing soilstructure interaction. J Franklin Inst 2011;348:1470–87 [The third international conference on modeling, simulation, and applied optimization]. [13] DNV. Guidelines for design of wind turbines. Technical report ISBN 87550 28705, DNV/Risø in technical cooperation, Det Norske Veritas, Copenhagen and Wind Energy Department, Risø National Laboratory; 2001. [14] Ehlers G. The effect of soil ﬂexibility on vibration systems. Beton Ehlers
1942;41(21/22):197–203.
[15] Wolf JP, Deeks AJ. Foundation vibration analysis: a strengthofmaterials approach. 1st ed. Elsevier; 2004. [16] Jonkman JM, Buhl Jr. ML. FAST user’s guide. Technical report NREL/EL500
38230, NREL, Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2005. [17] Kaimal JC, Wyngaard JC, Izumi Y, Cote OR. Spectral characteristics of surface layer turbulence. Quart J Royal Meteorol Soc 1972;98:563–89. [18] Hansen M. Aerodynamics of wind turbines. 1st ed. Earthscan Publications Ltd;
2001.
[19] Veletsos AS, Tang Y. Soilstructure interaction effects for laterally excited liquid storage tanks. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1990;19:473–96. [20] Hansen M, Sørensen J, Voutsinas S, Sørensen N, Madsen H. State of the art in wind turbine aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerosp Sci
2006;42:285–330.
[21] Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures. 3rd ed. USA: Computers & Structures Inc.; 1995. [22] Jennings PC, Bielak J. Dynamics of buildingsoil interaction. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1973;63:9–48. [23] Tong W, editor. Wind power generation and wind turbine design. Boston, USA: WIT Press Southampton; 2010.
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.