2011 Foundation Design For Offshore Wind

DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE
Gotechnique Lecture 2011

Foundation Design for Offshore Wind Turbines
Dr Byron Byrne
Oxford University
British Geotechnical Association
Institution of Civil Engineers
Wednesday 9th November 2011
Blades: high strength

composites
Generator
Aerodynamics of blades
Gearbox
Control of blade pitch
Dynamics of tower
Forces from
waves and current
Foundation design
Electrical connections
to shore
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 2
Water depth
Average wind speed
Helical Piles for Offshore

Wind Turbines
Source: DTI Renewable Energy Atlas
November 11, 2011

Page 3
Offshore sites
Round 1 - 2001
Round 2 - 2003
~ 1 GW
~ 7 GW
Round 3 - 2010
~ 32 GW
UK Wind Overview
Status
Onshore
Number
Onshore
Power (GW)
Offshore
Number
Offshore
Power (GW)
Operational
296
4.2
14
1.5
Construction
32
1.5
2.0
Consent
232
3.6
1.6
Planning
314
7.3
2.0
Total
874
16.6
29
7.1
96.8%
70%
3.2%
30%
Figures are rated maximum power and not average delivered power
Total UK installed generating capacity is approximately 91GW
Source: RenewableUK (bwea.com)
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 5
Offshore Wind Challenges
RenewableUK indicates plans for about 42GW of wind power

to be installed, though no time scale indicated
Government announcements : 33GW by 2020
6600 5MW turbines
Over 800 turbines per year to 2020!

*Replacement rate about 300 turbines per year indefinitely*
Nearly 500 turbines installed and operating since 2000
Total investment in region of 80bn to 100bn

Many (tens of) thousands of jobs in the supply chain
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 6
Cost Makeup
4% Development and consent

33% Turbine
15% Electrical
22% Support structure
26% Production, integration and installation
Source: Carbon Trust
Foundations and installation part of the last two categories

Opportunity to reduce costs by using alternative foundation
concepts and installation processes
as well as by improving design approaches
Costs are of the order say 3m to 3.5m per MW installed
Source UK ERC report Sept 2010

Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 7
Geotechnical Issues
A full range of geotechnical conditions can be found at the

various sites - mobile sand banks, dense sand, stiff clays,
layered materials, soft clays, rocky strata, boulder clay
Can be considerable variability over a site (turbines are

typically spaced more than 500m apart)
A site investigation is important early in the design process and

may involve CPTs, Boreholes, vane tests, geophysical surveys
There may also be element testing using samples obtained

from the site
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 8
200MN
1MN to 2MN
120
0m to
25MN
~6MN
90m
to
120m
3MN to 8MN
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 9
Loads on an Offshore Turbine Foundation

H
V
M
H
V1
(a)
H1
H2
(b)
V2
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 10
Foundation stiffness
The main excitation frequencies

are 1P (the rotational
frequency) and 3P (the bladepassing frequency)
These must be avoided
The flexibility of the foundation
reduces the natural frequency
EI
fn
1
2
1
L3
m
3EI
Dr Byron Byrne
L2
k
November 11, 2011
Page 11
Stiff-Stiff Response
DAF
1.0
1P
3P
frequency
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 12
Soft-Stiff Response
DAF
1.0
1P
3P
frequency
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 13
Effect of Foundation
DAF
1.0
1P
3P
frequency
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 14
Range of Excitation Frequencies
DAF
1.0
1P
3P
frequency
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 15
Options for Foundations

Gravity Base
Mono-Pile
Mono-Caisson
Multi-Pile
Multi-Caisson
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 16
Size and Location of Developments

40
Water depth (m)
Multiple
footings?
Most future
developments?
30
Monopods
20
10
Most past
developments
Turbine power (MW)

Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 17
Other Designs / Possibilities

TLP
Spar
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 18
Experimental Work
Most of the work presented is based on small scale model tests

in the laboratory
High quality sophisticated work carried out

Designed to build up a framework of response
Careful consideration has been given to scaling of the results
Density of sands, strength of clays
Dimensional analysis has yielded dimensionless groups

relevant to each of the problems explored
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 19
CURRENT DESIGNS
PILE FOUNDATIONS
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 20
Mono-Pile Foundations
Mono-Pile
A wind turbine monopile is at least

4m diameter and of the order of
25m long
Driving is at the limits of offshore
oil-and-gas experience which
typically involves smaller diameter
(~2m) and longer piles (~100m)
Large diameter drilling is suitable
in certain materials
Options:
drive
drill and grout
composite e.g. drive-drill-drive
Multi-Pile
L
L
s
D
D
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 21
Mono-Pile Foundations
Average ~89
hours per pile
at North Hoyle
Source http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/312104/rwe-innogy/sites/wind-offshore/in-operation/north-hoyle/construction-diary/wind-turbine-foundations/
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 22
Walney Wind Farm
Photos from Dong Energy: Christian LeBlanc Thilsted and Dan Kallehave
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 23
Pile Design Issues Wind Turbine
Stiffness is a key design criterion in addition to capacity.
Various offshore design approaches are based on much more

flexible piles and are more concerned with lateral capacity than
stiffness.
Typical offshore pile say L/D ~ 30 50 or more whilst windfarm pile L/D ~ 4 - 8.
Are the usual design approaches still appropriate?
Performance under cyclic loading is important but there is very

limited guidance for designers (if any at all)
Accumulated rotations? Stiffness response?
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 24
Idealisation of
applied forces
Structural
configuration
Soil
reactions
V
V
M = He
H
e
d
L-d
D
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 25
Static Tests
1.2
Normalised Moment
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
Normalised Horizontal Load
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 26
Cyclic loading
M
Real Loading
Idealised Loading
MR
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 27
Cyclic loading
M
Two Way
Cycling
One Way Cycling

MR
0
Min = 0
Min < Max
Min = Max
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 28
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 29
Testing Equipment
Reaction Frame
Motor
Mass
Mass
Mass
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 30
Example Cyclic Loading Results

0.12
Cycle 1500 - 1510
Cycle 0 - 10
Cycle 9050 - 9060
0.1
Normalised Moment
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
-0.02
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
Normalised Rotation
0.008
0.01
Dr Byron Byrne
0.012
November 11, 2011

Page 31
Definitions
Moment
(N)
Max
Normalised Accumulated Rotation

(N)
0
Min
Rotation
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 32
Test Results Accumulated Rotation

Normalised Accumulated Rotation
10
0.1
0.01
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Number of Cycles
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 33
(N)
Analysis of Results
= f1 x f2 x Na
f2
4
0
-1
Two Way
Loading
-0.5
0.5
One Way
Loading
Monotonic
Loading
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 34
Cyclic loading
M
Real Loading
Idealised Loading
MR
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 35
Cyclic loading
M
Idealised Loading
MR
Real Loading
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 36
Experiment Theory Comparison

0.003
Max
Theory
0.0025
Rotation (Radians)
Min
0.002
Load C
0.0015
0.001
Load B
0.0005
Load A
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Number of Cycles
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 37
Test Results Stiffness

500
450
Normalised Stiffness
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Cycle Number
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 38
Observations Mono-Pile Foundations
Framework for calculating accumulated rotation

Change in stiffness could mean a change in structural natural
frequency serious factor in the fatigue design
Scaling
Larger scale field tests or centrifuge tests

Actual field measurements from installed mono-piles
Larger number of cycles
Current tests only up to 100,000 cycles (i.e. around 7 to 10 days)

Do we need tests in the region of 100m cycles?
Effect of change in load direction
Loading is unlikely to be uni-directional

Is this more onerous?
Frequency effects / Excess pore water pressures

Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 39
**IMPORTANT**
Field Monitoring
Data needed from installed piles!
Verify design calculations

Guidance for future designs
Database for the industry?
Data and photos from Dong Energy: Christian LeBlanc Thilsted and Dan Kallehave
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 40
Measured Strains
10
15
20
25
Time [s]
Data and photos from Dong Energy: Christian LeBlanc Thilsted and Dan Kallehave
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 41
Multi-Pile Foundations
Much more like typical oil and

gas pile design
except
Any cyclic degradation of the

axial response must be well
understood
Mono-Pile
Multi-Pile
L
L
s
D
D
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 42
Alpha Ventus
Current designs
Bard Offshore 1
Beatrice
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 43
FUTURE DESIGNS?
SUCTION CAISSONS
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 44
Suction Caissons
Flow
W
Pressure differential
Flow
Source: Houlsby, G.T., Ibsen, L.B. and Byrne, B.W (2005) "Suction caissons for wind turbines",
Invited Theme Lecture, Proc. International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, Perth,
Australia, 19-21 September, Taylor and Francis, pp 75-94, ISBN 0415 39063 X
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 45
Caisson Foundations
Mono-Caisson
Multi-Caisson
Design Issues
Suction installation
Combined Loading (mono-caisson)
Vertical Loading (multi-caisson)
Research
Laboratory testing
Field scale testing
Theoretical investigations
Numerical modelling
L
D
L
D
Focus here is on work at Oxford
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 46
Installation
Theoretical calculations for design (ICE Proceedings)
Separate calculations for sand and for clay
Self weight calculation and suction installation
In sand seepage gradients are important.
Beneficial reduction of the end bearing resistance

Penetration possible in very dense sand
Guidance on the limiting aspect ratios for both cases
More recent work on installation in layered soils
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 47
Field Installation - 3m diameter

Suction (kPa)
0
10
15
20
25
30
200
Displacement (mm)
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 48
35
Statoils Sleipner T (14m diameter)

Required suction s (kPa)
0
20
40
60
80
100
1
Predicted suction
Depth h (m)
Range of measured suction
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 49
COMBINED LOADING
MONO-CAISSON STRUCTURE
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 50
Mobile met mast (Denmark, 2009)

Source: LeBlanc, C. (2009). Design of offshore wind turbine support structures; selected
topics in the field of geotechnical engineering. PhD Thesis, Aalborg University.
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 51
*Breaking News Oct 2011*

Dogger Bank Met Masts
Source: Forewind website

Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 52
Experimental equipment
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 53
Moment Loading at Low Vertical Load

100
80
Moment Load, M /2R (N)
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
Rotational Displacement, 2R
1.5
(mm)
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 54
Source: G.T. Houlsby and R. Butterfield Gotechnique Lecture 2001
Conventional approach:
effective area and inclination factors
V, M, H
Q, e,
H
e
V
B' = B - 2e
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 55
Source: G.T. Houlsby and R. Butterfield Gotechnique Lecture 2001
Hardening Plasticity Models

M
H
V
The plasticity model requires
2R
A yield surface to define

allowable load combinations
Hardening rule to define yield
surface expansion
Flow rules to define plastic
movements at yield
Elasticity expressions to define
pre-yield movements
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 56
Moment Loading at Low Vertical Load

100
80
Moment Load, M /2R (N)
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
Rotational Displacement, 2R
1.5
(mm)
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 57
Yield Points and Design Curves 1 (Sand)
Dimensionless Moment, M/( 'D4)
0.25
Range of potential designs for

monopod structures
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
Dimensionless Vertical Load, V/( 'D3)
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 58
Yield Points and Design Curves 2 (Sand)

Non-Dimensional Moment, M/( D4)
Non-Dimensional Incremental Rotation,
0.35
Range of potential
monopod designs
0.25
0.15
0.05
-0.05
-0.15
-0.25
-0.35
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
3
Non-Dimensional Horizontal Load, H/ D
Non-Dimensional Incremental Horizontal Displacement, u/D
0.3
Dr Byron Byrne
0.4
0.5
November 11, 2011

Page 59
Comparison of Theory to Experiment

100
80
Moment Load, M/2R (N)
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Rotational Displacement, 2R (mm)

Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 60
Field Testing
Bothkennar
(clay)
Luce Bay
(sand)
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 61
Field Testing
at Bothkennar
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 62
000
Moment loading
L
4200
A
W
3000
6000
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 63
Moment tests at small and large rotations

30
Small
20
Moment (kNm)
10
-10
-20
-0.000025
0.000025
0.00005
Rotation (radians)
500
400
300
Moment (kNm)
-30
-0.00005
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
Large
-500
-600
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
Rotation (Radians)
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 64
Analysis of Results (Clay)

16
14
12
G (MPa)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
(radians)
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 65
Moment Test Results (Clay)
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 66
VERTICAL LOADING
MULTI-CAISSON STRUCTURE
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 67
Multiple caissons: Draupner E platform

Source: Andersen, K.H., Jostad, H.P. and Dyvik, R. (2008) "Penetration resistance of offshore skirted foundations
and anchors in dense sand", Proc ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 134, No 1,
pp 106 - 116.
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 68
Tripod or tetrapod?
Tower
Tower
Tower
(a)
(b)
(c)
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 69
Vertical Loading Tests

(in a Pressure Vessel)
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 70
Cyclic Vertical Loading (Sand)

1400
1200
Vertical stress (kPa)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
Displacement (mm)
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 71
Compression
Vertical Loading Tests (Sand)
Tension
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 72
Capacity on tensile loading (Sand)

Displacement (mm)
150
0
-50
160
180
190
200
210
SLOW
Direction of
movement
-100
Vertical stress (kPa)
170
-150
-200
FAST
-250
-300
-350
FAST + PRESSURE
-400
-450
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 73
Observations Caisson Foundations
Significant body of work available for development of designs
Both mono-caisson and multi-caisson structures can make

contributions to offshore wind
Suitable to a range of soil conditions

but not all
Initial structures must be monitored
To enable a better understanding of the foundation performance

To understand the limitations
To reduce conservatism
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 74
Concluding Comments
Mono-piles will continue to be used in the short-term
Better understanding of long term cyclic loading needed

Better understanding of stiffness of response also needed?
Suction caissons could be used for offshore wind turbines
A new technology will help to drive down costs

No pile-driving noise to worry about!
Field monitoring of structures and foundations is essential
Instrumentation relatively inexpensive

Valuable information will lead to better design guidance
and more confidence in new and improved designs
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 75
Acknowledgements
The co-authors of the various papers covered in this lecture
Prof Guy Houlsby (Oxford University)

Dr Christian LeBlanc Thilsted (Dong Energy)
Dr Richard Kelly (Coffey Geotechnics, Australia)
John Huxtable (formerly Fugro, now at Doosan)
Dr Chris Martin collaborated on the shallow foundation work

A number of Colleagues at Oxford and elsewhere
Sponsors included EPSRC, DTI, Royal Society

Industry participants for the caisson work included SLP
Engineering, Fugro, Garrad Hassan, GE Wind, NEG Micon,
Shell Renewables, HR Wallingford.
Dong Energy for information and photos related to Walney
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 76
Gotechnique Papers
1. Response of stiff piles to random two-way lateral loading.
Gotechnique 60 9:715-721.
2. Response of stiff piles to long term cyclic loading.
Gotechnique 60 2: 79-90.
3. Transient vertical loading of model suction caissons in a pressure chamber.

4. A comparison of field and laboratory caisson tests in sand and clay.
5. Field trials of suction caissons in sand for offshore wind turbine foundations.
6. Field trials of suction caissons in clay for offshore wind turbine foundations.
Contact byron.byrne@eng.ox.ac.uk for further information.
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 77
Scroby Sands
Blyth
North Hoyle
Walney
Barrow
Source Various websites
Dr Byron Byrne
November 11, 2011

Page 78

2011 Foundation Design For Offshore Wind

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

2011 Foundation Design For Offshore Wind

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE

Gotechnique Lecture 2011

Blades: high strength

November 11, 2011

Average wind speed

Helical Piles for Offshore

Source: DTI Renewable Energy Atlas

November 11, 2011

November 11, 2011

Offshore Wind Challenges

RenewableUK indicates plans for about 42GW of wind power

6600 5MW turbines

Over 800 turbines per year to 2020!

Nearly 500 turbines installed and operating since 2000

Total investment in region of 80bn to 100bn

November 11, 2011

4% Development and consent

Source: Carbon Trust

Foundations and installation part of the last two categories

Costs are of the order say 3m to 3.5m per MW installed

Source UK ERC report Sept 2010

November 11, 2011

A full range of geotechnical conditions can be found at the

Can be considerable variability over a site (turbines are

A site investigation is important early in the design process and

There may also be element testing using samples obtained

November 11, 2011

November 11, 2011

Loads on an Offshore Turbine Foundation

November 11, 2011

The main excitation frequencies

November 11, 2011

November 11, 2011

November 11, 2011

Range of Excitation Frequencies

November 11, 2011

Options for Foundations

November 11, 2011

Size and Location of Developments

Water depth (m)

Turbine power (MW)

November 11, 2011

Other Designs / Possibilities

November 11, 2011

Most of the work presented is based on small scale model tests

High quality sophisticated work carried out

Careful consideration has been given to scaling of the results

Density of sands, strength of clays

Dimensional analysis has yielded dimensionless groups

November 11, 2011

November 11, 2011

A wind turbine monopile is at least

November 11, 2011

November 11, 2011

Walney Wind Farm

November 11, 2011

Pile Design Issues Wind Turbine

Stiffness is a key design criterion in addition to capacity.

Various offshore design approaches are based on much more

Are the usual design approaches still appropriate?

Performance under cyclic loading is important but there is very

Accumulated rotations? Stiffness response?

November 11, 2011

Breaking News Oct 2011