Delft University of Technology

OE44120 − Offshore wind farms design

The Zephyr Wind Farm

Thomas Frateur − 4303555

Mohamed Hanafy − 4626672
Ilin Jonoski − 4325222
Vincent van ‘t Laar − 4144481
Antonios Mandrampazakis − 4744225
Bose Sumantraa Rathakrishna − 4774302

Date of delivery: March 30, 2018

 Abstract

Wind farms have been build both on-shore as off-shore in the past few years. However, the design of an
offshore wind farm remains a complicated process. Offshore wind farms make it possible to capture the
benefits from higher wind speeds in the offshore environment compared to those on land. This makes
it crucial to determine a correct location for a wind farm. Combining legal requirements with optimal
wind conditions, lowest environmental impact and cheapest investment costs. After the site location,
the best fitting turbine and support structure for that environment and site conditions should be picked.
After this initial decision process, the actual engineering part starts with the design of the site specific
support structures and other needed infrastructure. To finalise, the installation procedures and operating
procedures should be determined. All of this with regard to the highest possible energy yield for the lowest
possible price.

In this report, a preliminary assessment is made for a new wind farm off the coast of the Netherlands. All
important factors in the design of an offshore wind farm are taken into account to get an understanding
of the complexity of this process. Several simplifications and assumptions are made to enable the design
process within a ten week timespan. The result is an initial assessment of the economic and energy
potential of Zephyr wind farm in the coastal area 30km out of the port of Rotterdam. The wind farm
is presented as a five by seven array of Siemens SWT-4000-130 turbines with infrastructure and energy
yield based on different load cases for a five and fifty year return period.
Table of Contents

Abstract i

1 Site selection 2
1.1 Dutch exclusive economic zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Multi criteria analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Data processing 5
2.1 Wind data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Development and planning 7

4 Turbine selection 10
4.1 Wind turbine models examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2 Evaluation process of different wind turbine models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3 Final turbine selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5 Support structure design 14

5.1 Natural frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.1 Natural frequency range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.2 Monopile design: natural frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2 Foundation stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3 Stress check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

6 Layout design 19
6.1 Wind direction and available area in Zephyr wind farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2 Estimation of wake effects and farm efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3 Final layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

7 Environmental impact assessment 23

8 Grid connection 25
8.1 Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.2 Offshore Substation/Transmission system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.3 Onshore Substation/Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

9 Installation 27
9.1 Port of Rotterdam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.2 Installation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

10 Operation and maintenance 30

10.1 Offshore logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.2 Back office, administration and operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.3 Onshore logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.4 Export Cable and Grid connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.5 Maintenance of foundation, turbines and array cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

11 Economics 32
11.1 Levelized Cost of Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

i
 11.2 ICC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11.3 IRR and Pay-out time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11.4 Sensitivity analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

12 Conclusion 34

Reference List 35

ii
Introduction

With the ever more evident effects of climate change, the value of clean energy is increasing in the eyes
of the public. The Netherlands is trying to increase the amount to green energy generated within the
country to move towards a more sustainable future and meeting the emission goals of the Paris agreement.
Due to the overwhelming abundance of wind in the low-lands, wind energy is an obvious candidate. This
report goes over the necessary multidisciplinary steps to design a profitable wind farm (the Zephyr) off
the shores of the Netherlands.

Choosing a site is heavily dependant on the availability made by the Dutch government. Factors such as
sea depth, distance to shore/harbours and the type of soil are very important economical driving factors
for the manufacturing, maintainance and transport elements of the project and the farm life. With a
multi-criteria analysis the multitude of factors playing a role in the design and building of the farm the
best location can be selected.

From the chosen sites weather data is obtained from the Agross database and is processed to obtain the
probability density functions of the relevant parameters (wind speed, wind direction, wave height, wave
frequency, ect.). With the resulting Weibull distributions and the wind roses all the energy estimations
can be made.

The development and planning of the wind farm comes down to organising the manufacturing and
assembly of all the turbine components, installing the turbines on location, maintaining them throughout
their lifetime and finally decommissioning. Taking the environment into account throughout these steps
is fundamental as not to harm the ecosystem.

The selection of the turbine is done on the basis of cost investment, in other words, producing the most
energy with the lowest input costs and high reliability. Comparison of the power curves and the annual
energy production (AEP) is a good indication for which turbine to choose based on the known cut-in and
cut-out wind speeds of the turbines and the previously evaluated wind PDF.

Once the turbine and location are known, it is possible to make load cases based on the environmental
data and vibrational analysis. The aerodynamic and hydrodynamic loads on the structure need to be
withstood, also in the critical loads caused by one in 50 years wind speeds or wave heights. These extreme
loads introduce critical stresses which determine the minimum tower thickness. The combination of the
most critical cases dictates the final structural and foundation design of the wind turbine.

The layout of the farm is mainly determined by the wake effects occurring in the most occurring wind
directions and the spacing of the turbines. Finding the optimal positioning of the turbines within the
given space is essential to the return investment and thus the entire project. With the use of the Jensen
model and the knowledge of the wake effects and wind data a layout was fixed.

In the final parts of the report the grid connections to be made, the installation procedure, environmental
considerations, general economics and operations and maintenance are discussed along with a general
conclusion.

1
Chapter 1

Site selection

The first step in the design and realization of an offshore wind farm project is to determine the best
possible location to install the wind farm. The available space for a new wind farm is governed by a
few different factors such as wind and wave condition, but also by governmental legislation and client
specification. For this specific project, the Dutch Exclusive Economic zone was taken as the reference
area in which to look for a specific site location.

1.1 Dutch exclusive economic zone

Within the Dutch Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), governmental regulation describes which regions
are reserved for wind farm installation. The allocation of different regions can be seen in figure 1.1.
Approximately nine regions within the EEZ are allocated for wind energy [1]. To narrow down the search
area, those regions can be compared on parameters such as distance to shore, average wind speed, water
depth and distance to nearest power grid connection.

Ideally, the perfect windfarm location would combine a short distance to shore and power grid connection,
together with shallow water depths and high average wind speeds. In reality, average wind speed increases
farther from shore, hence a compromise should be made.

Figure 1.1: Wind farm allocation in EEZ

An initial assessment from the nine available regions was made with rough data from the different Dutch
coastal areas. From this assessment, three regions stood-out. The first two regions, NL3 (site 1) and NL7
(site 2), were selected based on their ease of access from both Rotterdam and Ijmuiden harbours. Due
to multiple onshore power grid connections in this coastal region, easy grid connection is assured. Since
these regions are not too far out in open water, also the relative shallow water depth allows for lower cost
support structure designs. The third region, Borssele 1&2 (site 3), was selected to take advantage of the
higher average wind speed in the Dutch south coastal region. Being farther away from the nearest harbour
and grid connection points means longer cables and an increase in overall installation costs. Whether

2
the gain in average wind speed is worth the additional losses and costs related to a larger distance from
connection points should be calculated to be able to compare possible wind farm sites. The three initial
possible sites can be seen in figure 1.2, together with their properties in figure 1.3.

Figure 1.2: Possible offshore wind sites Figure 1.3: Possible locations within the EEZ

1.2 Multi criteria analysis

From the three pre-selected site, one site had to be picked as the final wind farm location. To be able
to asses all three locations on the relevant parameters, a multi criteria analysis is performed. In this
analysis, a few weighted criteria are compared to get an indication of the value of each location. All three
sites are compared on the following criteria; Current conditions, Distance to ports, Distance to power
grid connection, Wave conditions, Wind speed conditions, Sea depth and Soil type.

Current conditions are an important factor in both the support structure design as in the assessment of
scour. However, as the current conditions in a large part of the north sea coastal regions are comparable,
current conditions is only weighted with a 10 percent value.

Distance to ports is important for the logistics part of a wind farm. Being close to a port makes for an
easy installation process with short travel time over the water with all components. Once in operation,
being close to the shore ensures maintenance crews are able to get to the wind farm fast and secure. This
determines for a large part operation costs of the wind farm. As such, the weighting of this criteria is set
at 20 percent.

Distance to power grid connections determines in the first instance the needed cable length to connect the
windfarm to the onshore power grid. Since electrical cable is quite expensive, distance to the power grid
determines for a considerable part the total installation costs. Furthermore, a longer cable also results in
higher loses between the wind farm and the onshore electrical station. Both effects result in a weighting
of 15 percent.

Wave conditions affect the support structures of the wind turbines. Mild wave conditions allow for less
heavy support structure designs and therefore reduce the fabrication costs of the support structures. On
the other hand are wave conditions also important for installation methods. Not all installation techniques
can be applied in high seas. Therefore wave conditions are also affecting installation costs and installation
time. Especially regarding the installation costs, this parameter is weighted at 20 percent.

Wind speed conditions play a major role in the power generation performance of a wind farm. The higher
the wind speeds, the higher the generated power can be. However, higher wind speeds also imply higher
loads on the support structure and turbine. Since wind speed directly impacts energy production, is is
weighted at 20 percent. Wind speeds above 9.5m/s are given a 5, below 7m/s a 1.

Sea depth determines in a large part the needed support structure type. In general, the deeper the sea
is, the heavier and more expensive the support structures become. Secondly, sea depth also determines
how the wind farm can be installed and what infrastructure is needed to do this. Sea depth is marked

3
with a relatively low weighting (10 percent) since variations in sea depths within the Dutch EEZ are
minor.

Soil type is an important factor in the determination of the bottom foundation type, but also in the choice
of installation procedure. Hard soils are in general harder for installation of a wind farm compared to soft
soils. On the other hand is the bearing capacity for harder soils higher than for lower soils. In general,
the soils which allows for the cheapest foundation structure gets the highest ranking. Since soil data is
scares and generally similar in the North sea, this parameter was only weighted at 5 percent.

The multi criteria analysis for the three initial sites can be found in figure 1.4. In this analysis, site 2
(NL7) scores a little higher compared to both other sites. It is important to note that no political or
company influences play a role in this analysis, which would certainly be the case for a real project. For
this project, the results from the multi criteria analysis are leading, and therefore the NL7 site is chosen
as the location for Zephyr wind farm.

Figure 1.4: Multi criteria analysis

4
Chapter 2

Data processing

The Agross database has been used to obtain the environmental data for all three locations. The timeline
series provides a data record every three hours of the past 25 years (January 1st 1990 December 31st 2016).
The output .CVS file provides a 73056 x 21 dataset where the rows hold the three hour average value of
the corresponding column variable (windspeed, direction, wave height, etc.). This chapter elaborates on
how the data from the Agross database was processed into useable wind and wave data with the use of
MatLab.

2.1 Wind data

The raw wind data from the Agross database was recorded at 10 meters altitude. The three hour average
interval and the respective wind direction are recorded into an array. The objective is to evaluate the
wind speed at the hub heights of the turbines and estimate the most occurring wind direction for each
candidate location.

The first step in processing the wind data is converting it to the meso-height (60 meters) with the
logarithmic profile. With the meso altitude as a reference altitude href the logarithmic profile equation is
used for h altitudes up to the meso-height, while the power law use used for h altitudes above the meso-
height as indicated in the following equation as suggested by the introduction to wind energy course. As
an additional note, z0 is the surface roughness length and α is a power coefficient which on open water
are equal to 0.0002 and 0.11 respectively.
!
ln zh0
U (h) = U (href ) h
h ≤ 60m (2.1)
ln zref
0

 α
h
U (h) = U (href ) h > 60m (2.2)
href
The Weibull distributions (figure 2.1) and wind roses (figure 2.2) in the report have been evaluated at
an altitude of 87 meters since the Simens turbine was eventually chosen, however the code has been
written in such a way that the turbine hub height was used for the respective power calculations. Before
the Weibull function in MatLab can be used, the wind speed array had to be sorted (with the sort
command) and the zero values replaced with the lowest positive non-zero value. This will not change the
results of the Weibull distribution as 0 m/s and 0.2 m/s fall in the same 1 m/s bin width. The obtained
shape parameter k and scale parameter a are reported in table 2.1 as well as the average wind speed
(independent of direction). By choosing the unique wind speeds U with the MatLab ‘unique’ function
the probability density function can be evaluated as follows:
 k−1
k U U k
f (U ) = e−( a ) (2.3)
a a
For each location the sites, the 5 and 50 year wind speed and wave height extremes were calculated (figures
2.3 and 2.4 respectively for the 50 year extreme) with the provided ‘extremesGumbelCalc’ MatLab
function. The results are shown in table 2.1. For the layout of the wind farm the individual PDF have

5
to be known for 8 sections of the rose. By using the array IDs of the directionality of the wind a Weibull
distribution can be made containing only wind speeds in specific direction range.

Table 2.1: Relevant processed data (at 87 meters)

Parameter Units Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Average wind speed [m/s] 8.60 8.97 8.89
Dominant wind direction [deg◦ ] 230 220 230
Shape parameter, k [−] 2.08 2.18 2.14
Scale parameter, a [−] 9.71 10.14 10.04
5 year wind [m/s] 28.64 29.97 29.38
50 year wind [m/s] 33.45 36.30 35.04
5 year wave [m] 5.03 4.90 4.46
50 year wave [m] 6.21 6.11 5.59

Figure 2.1: Wind speed Histogram and Weibull

Figure 2.2: Wind occurrence rose
distribution

Figure 2.3: Gumbel 50yr wind extreme Figure 2.4: Gumbel 50yr wave extreme

6
Chapter 3

Development and planning

There is no one way to develop and operate a wind farm, countless directions exist. However, one
common thread running through several methods of developing an offshore wind farm lies in planning for
contingencies. The level of planning involved for such a project directly depends on the number of systems
and components being handled. Before starting any project of huge scale (usually more than 100 MW),
it is highly important to think through all the future steps and create a blueprint of the project from day
1 to final day of decommissioning. This is metaphorically referred to as the eagle eyes view. This one
step will help identify the project developers possible areas of failure and plan for contingencies.

A good practice for planning should include the following items,

- To carry out thorough screening & planning before designating areas for offshore wind turbines.
- Take Wind conditions, sea depths, grid connection issues, seabed conditions, marine life into con-
sideration when screening for suitable sites for offshore wind farms.
- Consult all relevant authorities with interest at sea, in-order to avoid future conflicting interests.
Establishing mutual grounds is more important than others.
- Consider competing interests such as shipping routes, environmentally sensitive sites, fishing areas,
resources and extraction up front in the planning.
- Consider setting up a general framework of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before the
start of the project.

The main systems include the rotor, tower, and, electrical systems. There are several components under
each system. The balance of plant, includes all components of the wind farm outside the scope of
turbine. These constitute around 30% of the wind farm capital costs. Some stages of the development of
wind farm are more important than the others. Identifying crucial stages of the entire project will help
reduce the lead-time. Reducing lead-time alone will save millions of euros and help the project become
more financially lucrative. Identifying reliable suppliers will avoid unnecessary time waste with arrival
of components to the site. A method to identify reliable suppliers includes strict evaluation criterias for
selecting a supplier based on ISO certifications & quality control certificates.

A typical offshore wind project consists of six steps as shown below (figure 3.1). The lifecycle can
extend up to 30years, with the operation & maintenance part lasting 25years. The initial planning stages
consists of feasibility studies, siting, and environmental studies. The design, contracting, project finance
and engineering and construction comes under the development stage. This includes manufacturing
and assembly of turbine components- turbine, nacelle, blades, castings and forgings, drive train and
tower. The balance of plant includes subsea array cables, subsea export cables, offshore and onshore
sub stations, turbine foundations. This is done in the installation and commissioning stage. Operations
and Maintenance includes, day to day operations, regular inspections, preventative and unscheduled
maintenance of turbines, replacement of equipment, conditioning monitoring. The last stage includes
removal of turbines after its lifetime, support structure and cables.

7
 Figure 3.1: % of Lifetime spent in an Offshore Wind Farm Development

One of the most crucial stages of the project include Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Critical
issues to be considered under EIA include pile driving noise on marine mammals, displacement of seabirds,
collision risk on birds, and effect on fisheries. Possible mitigation plans for above mentioned issues could
be:

• Pile driving noise on marine life:

- Non-piling foundations
- Noise regulations- threshold
- Deterrent devices
- Soft start of hammer
• Displacement of seabirds:
- Sizing and location of wind farm
• Collision risk with birds:
- Seasonal restriction in operation of windfarms
- Windfarm layout (corridors & orientation)
• Effect on fisheries:
- Financial compensation
- Planning and communication during construction to reduce interference

8
Project Kickoff 01/05/2018
Zephyr wind farm- Project Timeline
Screening & 01/05/2018-10/11/2018
Planning
Detailed Project
Planning 10/11/2018-10/05/2019

Construction &
10/05/2019-10/11/2021
Development
Repowering
Operations & 10/11/2021-10/11/2041
Maintenance

Repowering 10/11/2041-10/11/2051

Decommissioning 11/11/2051

Construction & Development Decommissioning

Project Kickoff Operations & Maintenance

Screening &
Planning
Site Investigation
Detailed Tendering Process
planning

2018 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037 2040 2043 2046 2049 2051
Today
Environmental Assessment

Stakeholder's Meeting

Site Assessment
Chapter 4

Turbine selection

In this chapter the wind turbine selection process is described. In chapter 4.1 an overview of the wind
turbine models selected for examination is given alongside the reasons why those models were chosen for
the initial assessment. In chapter 4.2 the evaluation process is described and finally in chapter 4.3 the
final turbine selection is decided explaining the reason which led to such a decision.

4.1 Wind turbine models examined

When designing any wind farm, the characteristics of the chosen wind turbine play a very important role
for the total wind farm performance. Many aspects need to be taken into account in order to choose a
turbine which will have not only the highest energy production, but also a low cost and high reliability.
In order to choose the best turbine for an offshore site a lot of factors need to be taken into account such
as the type of the drive train (geared or direct) and the generator, resistance of the blades and other
equipment to erosion caused by humidity and salt, power electronics configuration, etc [2].

For this project all of the previous mentioned aspects were not taken into account since it would greatly
increase the complexity. As of this project, the main factors which were considered were the rated power
and cut-in, rated and cut-out speed alongside the reliability of the manufacturer. This was done to ensure
that models with different power outputs would be considered and the one with the best performance
would be chosen. For the Zephyr offshore wind farm firstly the wind characteristics were taken into
account. In the area where Zephyr offshore wind farm would be constructed the average wind speed has
been 9.11 m/s (at a height of 100m) in the past 24 years according to data obtained and scaled by the
ARGOSS database. In addition, it was observed that wind speeds of 25 m/s are hardly ever exceeded.
Taking the wind characteristics into account, turbines which would have their rated power output a bit
above 10 m/s and cut-out around 25 m/s were examined. Another very important aspect which needs
to be taken into account when designing any wind farm and especially an offshore wind farm is the
turbine reliability of the manufacturer. This is because in an offshore wind farm the accessibility strongly
depends on weather conditions and also it is relatively expensive to access the wind farm when problems
occur. These facts make wind turbines with high reliability essential. Taking all of those aspects into
account, only the most trustworthy manufactures with a good reputation and excellent track records were
chosen.

Finally, the last criterion for choosing different turbines to examine was the availability of the data. In
order to collect all the relevant data and to ensure their reliability the WindPro 3.1 software was used in
combination with the brochures of each turbine provided by the manufacturer. The combination of the
WindPro 3.1 software and the manufactures brochures provided a very long database and comprehensive
description of the available turbines in the market. That way the power curve of each turbine was
obtained alongside other relevant information such as power and thrust coefficient, blade diameter, RPM
range, top mass etc.

The chosen turbines for the initial assessment and their relevant characteristics are summarized in figure
4.1. All of the turbines mentioned are turbines which are designed for offshore applications.

10
 Figure 4.1: Wind turbine models

As it can be observed from the table above, the manufactures chosen were Siemens and Vestas since they
are considered the most reliable at this moment. In addition, the power output range is between 3 and
8 MW so that a comparison between different sizes can be made. It is worth mentioning at this point,
that only turbines for which all the available characteristics were available, were chosen for comparison
in order to avoid assumptions as much as possible. Finally, one turbine of each manufacturer is chosen
at the 4 MW range in order to check which one performs better.

The power output of each turbine in relation to the wind speed is illustrated in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Wind turbine power curves

4.2 Evaluation process of different wind turbine models

In order to determine the wind turbine model which would have the best performance in the Zephyr
offshore wind farm firstly the Annual Energy Production (AEP) was calculated. Considering the fact
that each turbine had a different default hub height given by the manufacturer there was once more a
conversion of the wind speeds at the default hub height of each turbine, following the same procedure as
in Chapter 2, resulting in a different Weibull distribution for each wind turbine model. In the next step,
the Weibull distribution of each wind turbine model was combined with the power curve of the specific
model through the Matlab software in order to obtain the AEP. The AEP of each turbine is illustrated
in figure 4.3.

11
 Figure 4.3: Wind turbine models

As it was expected the biggest turbine Vestas V164-8000 has the highest AEP. Comparing the Vestas
V117-4200 and Siemens SWT-130-4000 it is obvious that even though the Siemens model has a lower rated
power it has a higher AEP than the Vestas model. This could be explained by the fact that the Siemens
model has a higher power output at lower wind speeds and also taking into consideration the higher
probability of occurrence of these lower wind speeds compared to the probability of occurrence of the
higher wind speeds. Finally, the smallest model Vestas V90-3000 has the lowest AEP as expected.

For the final turbine selection AEP alone is not enough. For this reason, the capacity factor of each
model was calculated in order to get an estimation of the performance of each turbine. The capacity
factor (Cf) has been calculated according to the following formula:

AEP
Cf = (4.1)
Prated × 8760
Where the 8760 is the number of hours in a year. Lastly, the economic factor could not be ignored.
Since the actual cost of each model was not available by the manufacturer a simplified cost estimation
was performed for this part. After literature research the initial cost of the turbine was taken to be 1400
$/kW [3]. Furthermore, during the lifetime of the wind farm O&M costs would be also a significant part
of the total costs, they were taken into consideration and evaluated to be in the range of 0.0375$/kWh
[3]. Finally, a discount rate of 8% was chosen and the annuity factor was also calculated through the
discount rate. Having set all the parameters for this first economic analysis and taking a lifetime of 20
years the LCOE was calculated for each turbine. It is important to mention that this economic analysis
is not fully accurate but it can give a good estimation for this initial economic assessment.

4.3 Final turbine selection

After combining all of the information gathered in section 4.2, figure 4.4 was obtained which included all
the relevant data needed for the final turbine selection.

Figure 4.4: Wind turbine performance characteristics

12
According to figure 4.4 the two leading turbines are the Siemens SWT-4000-130 with the lowest LCOE
and the second highest AEP and the Vestas V164-8000 with the highest AEP. According to common
investment decision making, the turbine which has the lowest LCOE would be the best possible choice.
On the other hand, as mentioned before the LCOE analysis was performed based on a lot of assumptions
and estimations and since all the LCOE were so close, further analysis was performed in order to ensure
the reliability of the choice. As a second criterion, the performance of each turbine was examined. As
it is obvious, if AEP is considered, the largest turbine Vestas V164-8000 has the highest AEP, but again
the Siemens SWT-4000-130 seems to have a better performance since it has the highest capacity factor
and the second highest AEP. In addition, choosing the Vestas V164-8000 over the Siemens turbine based
solely on AEP would mean that initial investment costs would be much higher since a quite larger turbine
would be used, something which could possibly pose an economic constraint. Finally, the Vestas turbine
is a rather new turbine while the Siemens turbine is a turbine which has already been used before in other
offshore wind farms with an excellent track record and good experience on the specific turbine. Taking
all of the facts in consideration, it was decided to indeed proceed with the Siemens SWT-4000-130 wind
turbine.

13
Chapter 5

Support structure design

Missing chapter paragraph

5.1 Natural frequencies

A first step in designing an offshore turbine support structure is the assessment of the natural occurring
frequencies and the calculation of the needed diameter and wall thickness of the monopole design to avoid
dynamic unstable constructions. The main natural frequencies occurring in the support structure are
caused by the turning rotor (blades) and waves. Therefore, turbine and site specific data is needed to
design a dynamically stable structure.

Turbine specific data for the SWT-4000-130 is needed to calculate both the natural occurring frequencies
of the rotor(blades) and the natural frequency of the final monopole design. Turbine specific data is
obtained from manufacturer specs [4] and can be found in table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Technical data

Nacelle mass 140 tonnes
Blade mass 100 tonnes
Min RPM 5 RPM
Max RPM 14 RPM
Hub height 87 m

Site specific data is needed to determine the height of the support structure and natural occurring
frequencies due to wave motion. The Lowest astronomical tide was retrieved from 4coffshore.com [5]
and is determined to be 25m from the seabed. Tidal ranges were taken from the time series data of the
selected region [6], these resulted in 6.04 m above LAT for a 50 year return period. The highest wave
elevation above still water in its turn was found to be 6.1m for a 50 year return period. The air gap height
was fixed at 1.5m as to comply to the minimum requirement of 20% of the max wave height for a 50 year
return period [7]. The platform construction height and storm surge data is chosen arbitrary for this
initial assessment as this data was not available for the chosen site. Both height are chosen at respectively
0.5 and 1 m. These heights result in an interface level of 40.14 m above the seabed. Combined with the
hub height from manufacturing specifications, this results in a 127.14 m high support and tower structure
measured from the sea bottom.

5.1.1 Natural frequency range

The range of natural frequencies which can occur in the turbine are largely determined by the 1P and
3P frequencies of the turning rotor. The 1P frequency range can be determined by taking the minimum
RPM of the turbine and the maximum RPM of the turbine. These RPM values where obtained from the
manufacturer specifications. This results in a frequency range of 0.08Hz to 0.23Hz.

The 3P frequency comes from the three rotor blades passing the tower. The 3P frequency range can
therefore be calculated by multiplying the 1P range by 3. This results in a range between 0.25Hz and

14
0.7 Hz. Both the 1P and 3P frequencies can be seen in figure 5.1.1. The red line in this image represents
the design frequency for the monopole right in between the 1P and 3P frequency ranges.

Figure 5.1: 1P and 3P frequency range Source?

The design frequency is chosen as to permit the cheapest possible design which does not interfere with
the natural frequencies. The frequencies below 0.08 Hz (bottom 1P range) are the natural frequencies
occurring due to wave motion and therefore cant be used as a successful design frequency. Picking a design
frequency above 0.7Hz (top 3P range) results in an extremely stiff and expensive construction. Designing
between the P1 and P3 frequencies therefore results in the cheapest support structure design.

5.1.2 Monopile design: natural frequency

For the monopile design, two major different options are available. Either a fixed diameter monopile, or
a stepped diameter monopile. A stepped diameter monopile enables material reduction, but often results
in higher production costs. For this preliminary design, a fixed diameter monopile was selected to get an
initial assessment of needed diameter.

Another simplification in the support structure design is the elimination of the transition piece. This
means the monopole is modelled up till the interface level as a continuous diameter cylinder. Next the
tower is added directly on top of the monopile, starting with the same diameter as the monopile and
slowly tapering towards the top diameter of 3 m. The support-tower structure model can be seen in
figure 5.2.

To calculate the first natural frequency of the monopile, Rayleigh’s method was used. The diame-
ter/thickness ratio was set at 90 for the preliminary assessment as a common value found in literature
[8]. Steel properties were fixed at a density of 7850 kg/m3 with an E-modulus of 2.1e11. Calculation
steps were set at 150 to get an accurate representation of the taper in the tower section. Inputting
above modelling parameters together with the turbine specification and design frequency of 0.24 Hz in
the Rayleigh model results in a pile diameter of 5.125 m with a wall thickness of 0.057 m.

15
 Figure 5.2: Monopile-tower structure model Figure 5.3: Monopile foundation

5.2 Foundation stability

The objective is to design a foundation that can withstand the largest axial force and bending moment
as given in the table below. The monopile structure is a relatively simple design by which the tower is
supported by the monopile, either directly or through a transition piece. We have assumed in this project
the tower is directly connected. The structure is made up of a cylindrical steel tube. The pile penetration
depth is adjustable to suit the actual environmental and seabed conditions. A limiting condition of this
type of structure is the overall deflection (lateral movement along the monopile) and vibration, and are
subjected to large cyclic, lateral loads and bending moments (due to currents and wave loads) in addition
to axial force. This type of structure was chosen because of its suitability to water depth less than 30m.
The load cases taken into account in the design can be seen in figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4: Load cases [8]

The analysis for the x-deflection and y-rotation were carried out using the foundational analysis MatLab
tool. It is observed that the deflections do not exceed 120 mm and the rotation is limited to well below
0.5 degrees for all the load cases as shown in figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5: Load Cases- Monopile Deflection, Rotation

A pile diameter and length of 5.125 m and 11.65 m fit for all load cases were found to be ideal based on the
maximum criteria for deflection and rotation. The main parameter which will determine the application
range of a support structure (monopile, truss, tripod) is the stiffness of the foundation/ soil system.
The complete wind turbine and monopile can be viewed as a laterally loaded pile which is embedded in

16
the soil. The lateral load consists of wind, waves and current and must be in equilibrium with the soil
resistance.

The length of the foundation pile that satisfies the deflection criteria was estimated via an iterative
process to be 11.65 m in total. Figure 5.6 shows the lengths and thicknesses of the foundation pile per
section.

Figure 5.6: Foundation Pile Specifications

Further, ultimate limit state and buckling checks will be carried out to make sure the monopile is able
to withstand all the environmental loads. It is also concluded that fatigue will not be a concern for the
monopile, as D/t ratio is well below the threshold value of 120 above which fatigue will have to be taken
into consideration.

Figure 5.7: Monopile Deflection in X-direction Figure 5.8: Monopile Rotation

5.3 Stress check

The designed foundation should be able to withstand all the environmental loads. Two important criteria
to determine the stability of the foundation are the yield stress check and buckling check. The yield stress
check is calculated on the foundation from:
γpN γeMy γeMx
σz = + + ≤ Fyield (5.1)
A Wy Wx

Where A is the cross-sectional area of the monopile and Wx is the section modulus of the hollow steel
structure. This simplified model considers environmental loads only in the x-direction and hence My = 0.
The axial force N , is due to the self-weight of the tower, rotor, and monopile. The axial force is calculated
by multiplying the total self-weight (table 5.2) with acceleration due to gravity, g. The monopile is
considered as a hollow cylindrical steel tower with a wall thicknesses.

17
 Table 5.2: Tower component masses
Component Mass (tonnes)
Rotor + Nacelle 240
Tower 619
Monopile 75.77
Total 934.77

The largest moment due to wind and waves are considered for the analysis, as this would be the worst
case possible and designing for extreme conditions will make sure it is able to withstand other conditions
below extreme maxima’s. It is observed that for the load case 3, the total moment is the largest, with a
value of 88039.92 kNm. γp, is a permanent load factor of 1.25, is applied to the weight of the structure
and γe, is an environmental load factor of 1.35, is applied to the over-turning moment. The total stress
for the structure was found to be 120.29 MPa which is far less than the yield-stress of steel at 335 MPa.
Hence, the structure has passed the yield stress check.

18
Chapter 6

Layout design

In this chapter the layout design of the Zephyr offshore wind farm is described. In chapter 6.1 an overview
of the site is given including information regarding wind speed direction and available area. In chapter
6.2 an estimation of the wake effect within the wind farm is performed alongside the calculation of the
farms efficiency. Finally, in chapter 6.3 the final layout design is given.

6.1 Wind direction and available area in Zephyr wind farm

In order to decide on the wind farm layout, all the relevant area data were examined. The most crucial
factors for the layout of a wind farm are the available space in combination with the wake effect and the
predominant wind direction. The available space in combination with the wake effect, determines how
many turbines will be used and also the distance between each turbine. On the other hand, wind farm
orientation is strongly dependent on the predominant wind direction.

Firstly, the wind direction was examined. After having processed the ARGOSS data, the wind rose
containing all the wind directions was obtained. This wind rose, in order to have a somewhat high
accuracy for the wind speed direction was divided in 12 bins. As it is obvious from the wind rose
illustrated in figure 6.1 the predominant wind direction is at 230 degrees. In order to achieve the highest
possible efficiency, the wind turbines should be placed facing the same direction.

Figure 6.1: Wind rose for the Zephyr wind farm

As mentioned already in Chapter 1 the area of the offshore wind farm was selected through the ‘4coffshore’

19
website [5]. More specifically, the exact area was chosen to be the most southern part of the area which
is called ‘Hollandse Kust Zuid Holland III and IV’ on the website. This specific site, which is available
for offshore wind farms, has an area of approximately 40 km2 . Taking into account this area limit the
wind farm layout design continued. It is worth mentioning at this point that this area had an odd shape
which would later increase the wake calculations load significantly, thus a simplified version of the actual
area was considered as of this project. The simplified area consisted of a rectangle with each side being
5.7 and 7 km respectively, resulting in a total area of 39.9 km2 , which is only 0.1 km2 smaller than the
actual area. The actual and the simplified area are illustrated in figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2: Comparison between actual and simplified area

The combination of the information gathered through the wind rose and the available area is illustrated
in Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.3: Area and wind direction in Zephyr wind farm

6.2 Estimation of wake effects and farm efficiency

The next step is to estimate the wake effect and the efficiency of the wind farm for different spacing
between the turbines. In literature it is mentioned that the spacing between turbines in a wind farm
should be larger than 6 diameters in order for the wind farm to not suffer from really intense wake effects.
After following this guideline, a spacing between 6-10D was examined. For the wake effect estimation,
the Jensen model provided was used, although it is considered a rather conservative model.

In order to calculate the wake effect through the Jensen wake model the wind rose was divided in 8 sections
and for each of those 8 sections the Weibull distribution of the wind speeds was obtained. By combining
those information, the probability of having a certain wind speed coming from a certain direction was
obtained.

In the Jensen wake model the wake expansion coefficient k was set at 0.04 and the air density at 1.25
kg/m3 . After setting the ambient wind speed and the spacing between the turbines the farm efficiency
was obtained. At this point, the farm efficiency obtained through the Jensen model does not take into
account the probability of having a specific wind speed nor the probability of the wind speed direction. In
order to tackle this, the efficiency obtained through the Jensen model was multiplied with the probability

20
of having a certain wind direction and a certain wind speed. That would enable us, to get the actual
efficiency for each wind direction and each wind speed (wind speed, direction). Part of these calculations,
only for a wind direction between 0◦ and 45◦ can be seen in Figure 6.4.

Figure 6.4: Calculations for actual efficiency

As it is obvious through that process the actual efficiency for a certain wind speed coming from a certain
direction was calculated η (wind speed U , direction θ). In the next step, the total efficiency for each
wind speed η(U ) was obtained by adding up all the efficiencies of a particular wind speed coming from
all directions.
η(U ) = Ση(U, θ) (6.1)
Finally, since the Jensen wake model efficiency shows the power output at a certain wind speed including
wake effects in comparison to the power output if wake effects are neglected, the η(U ) was multiplied
with the power output at that specific wind speed P (U ) to get the ‘actual power’. Continuing the ‘actual
power’ was multiplied with the 8760 hours/year and number of turbines for each spacing in order to get
the AEP (in GWh). Part of those calculations, only for the 10D spacing are shown in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5: AEP for 10D spacing

21
After following this quite extensive procedure, the AEP for each spacing was obtained accurately taking
into account not just the wake efficiency obtained through the Jensen wake model but also the probability
of having each wind speed from every direction. In Figure 6.6 the AEP for each spacing is illustrated. As
expected, and taking into consideration the fact of a fixed space area, the higher the spacing the lower
the AEP since less turbines are used. This holds true for a spacing up to 6-7D since after that point
the wake effects are so intense that the actual AEP starts to decrease. It is important to mention at
this point that there is a sudden decrease between 8 and 8.5D spacing and that is because for these two
spacing the area constrain fitted the same amount turbines for both spacings. This led in a higher AEP
for the 8.5D spacing compared to the 8D spacing of course, since same amount of turbines are used but
with greater distance between them.

Figure 6.6: AEP for each spacing Figure 6.7: Efficiency for different spacing

6.3 Final layout

After combining all of the information discussed in the previous chapters and some economic analysis
which is discussed further in Chapter 11, the final spacing was decided to be 8.5D or 1105m, which
translates to 35 turbines in total.

For the final layout the following constraints were taken into account:

- Total area of the ‘Zephyr’ offshore wind farm is set to 39.9 km2 .
- Orientation of the wind farm is towards the predominant wind direction (230◦ )
- Turbine spacing is 8.5D or 1105m
- 35 wind turbines in total

The final layout is illustrated in Figure 6.8

Figure 6.8: Layout of ‘Zephyr’ offshore wind farm

22
Chapter 7

Environmental impact assessment

Throughout the construction and operational phases of the farms life a direct interaction with the envi-
ronment occurs. This contact with the environment happens in the form of noise, disturbance and the
introduction of foreign objects in an already established ecosystem. Animals such as purpoises rely on
ultrasound to hunt and are therefore mostly affected by the noise of the construction and it was in fact
found that they actually avoid hammering sites by a 20km radius [9]. Figure 7.1 shows the signal of a
monopile hammer blow (pile driving).

Figure 7.1: Monopile blow signal

On the one hand, many animals would be negatively affected by wither the construction noise, the
physical presence of the tower and the rotor in the sky. On the other hand some animals might take
advantage of the change in environment after the termination of construction. Marine biologists have
studied that every species reacts differently to the presence of turbines, under which some tend to stay
away, others don’t mind while other even take advantage of the new structures [9].

An interesting idea was proposed in a lecture discussion: using the turbine towers to delimit fisheries
which cultivate fish for consumption. Since the farm area cannot be used by freighter ships and many
fish do not willingly habit the area, and artificial colony can be placed to relief the seas from the current
status of fishing, allowing the natural population to replenish and favour the local ecosystem. The natural
balance of fish is also important to seasonal long travelling sea mammals which are currently suffering a
harsh decline due to overfishing.

The study of impact on the ecosystem is very hard because of variability of animals present and the

23
impossibility of taking into consideration possible alternative motivations for them to stay or leave the
wind farm. In general tagging gives an idea of the population behaviour of a certain species, but the
scatter caused by the individuality of every sample can make the data very unreliable. Nevertheless a
general idea can be given regarding the average behaviour of a specific species within a wind farm.

Birds face a more interesting problem. Being hit and killed by the blades is a serious threat. It has been
observed that bird strikes are common on land than at sea, and this is thought to be mainly due to the
lower amount of landscape distractions at sea. Nevertheless birds are struck and killed by blades at sea.
Some statistics can be seen in figure 7.2, while figure 7.3 shows the general sensitivity of sea-birds to wind
turbines. The location of the Zephyr will e in region of medium concern w.r.t. sea-birds. Unfortunately
with the many limitations already set on site selection, taking the natural habitat into account can result
into expensive alternatives which will not win the project.

Figure 7.2: Bird strikes [9] Figure 7.3: Sea-bird sensitivity [9]

If a natural site goes at the cost of a wind farm, the wind farm itself can be used to create a new haven
for marine animals or by using the space within the farm more efficiently as shipping routes cannot go
through it. Protected areas, aquaculture and fisheries can be installed within the perimeter of a farm
to try and mitigate the negative environmental effects the construction and operation of the Zephyr has
caused.

24
Chapter 8

Grid connection

The grid connection entails transmitting the power produced from the wind farm to the grid at minimum
losses, having matched up the wind turbine voltage to that of the grid. The voltage is stepped up from
generator level (3 kV) to grid connection level (220 kV) over 3 stages for optimum electrical and economic
efficiency. The 3 stages include a collection system (36 kV), an offshore substation/transmission system
(220 kV) and an onshore substation/transmission system (380 kV). The following sections elaborate on
the components and design of all the pre-mentioned systems.

8.1 Collection System

Power collection system consists of various types of converters, transformers and cables. VSC converters
will be used to control the generators’ voltage input to the transformers. One transformer is then used
per turbine to step up the internal voltage from 3.4 kV to 36 kV, resulting in a total of 35 transformers. It
should be noted that the transformer power losses have a significant effect on the calculated power. These
losses turn into heat and must be dissipated through the cooling system. For cabling, the wind farm is
divided into 4 arrays of 1 × 10 (Array 1), 1 × 10 (Array 2), 1 × 10 (Array 3), and 1 × 5 turbines (Array
4). For power transmission to the onshore substation, one cable would be used per array, in order to
keep the number of cables to a minimal. For optimum cost efficiency, based on current carrying capacity
requirements (calculated using equation 8.1), cables used for Arrays 1-3 would have the same specifications
(table 8.1), while a different cable is used for Array 4 (full specifications of selected cables shown in table
8.2). Cables will have to be buried in order to reduce the risk of damage due to fishing equipment,
anchors, etc. Since the distance from the offshore wind farm to the onshore station is approximately
20km, AC transmission is cheaper than DC. Please note that the distance to the offshore substation is
assumed to be 10km.
P
I=√ (8.1)
3V cos θ

Table 8.1: Technical specifications of Arrays 1-3 cables [10]

Cable Selection Triple Core XLPE Armoured
Cross-section 300 [mm2 ]
Imax 650 [A]
Vmax 36 [kV]
Length 60 [km]
Resistance 0.166 [Ωkm]
Power losses 4.2 [MW]

25
 Table 8.2: Technical specifications of Arrays 4 cables [10]
Cable Selection Triple Core XLPE Armoured
Cross-section 120 [mm2 ]
Imax 360 [A]
Vmax 36 [kV]
Length 15 [km]
Resistance 0.184 [Ωkm]
Power losses 0.4 [MW]

Total power losses through the collection system is estimated to be 4.6MW using equation 8.2.
2
Ploss = Iphase Rcable (8.2)

8.2 Offshore Substation/Transmission system

AC transmission remains the feasible choice. The offshore substation sets up the voltage to a voltage of
220kV. For this stage, 3 XLPE single-core cables are required to transmit the 3 phases to the onshore
transformer (full specifications in table 8.3). The required current carrying capacity per cable was esti-
mated at 200 A. Distance to onshore substation is assumed to be 10km. Total losses were estimated to
be 0.1MW.

Table 8.3: technical specifications of offshore substation system cables [10]

Cable Selection Triple Core XLPE Armoured
Cross-section 400 [mm2 ]
Imax 519 [A]
Vmax 220 [kV]
Length 15 [km]
Resistance 0.078 [Ωkm]
Power losses 32 [kW]

8.3 Onshore Substation/Transmission System

Finally, the onshore station transformer steps up the voltage from 220 kV to 380 kV. A bank of capacitors
is an essential component at this stage for reactive power compensation. Considering the AC transmission
of approximately 20 km at 220 kV, a compensation of reactive power of 14 MVA is required.

26
Chapter 9

Installation

The first step of installation of the Zephyr wind farm is choosing a convenient port nearby for assembly,
transport and maintenance. As the wind farm is located just off the coast of Zuid-Holland in the Dutch
EEZ, the straightforward choice is the Port of Rotterdam.

9.1 Port of Rotterdam

In Figure 9.1 the location of the port of Rotterdam can be seen. As was stated before, the distance
from the wind farm to the harbour is 28.3 km. However, not only the location of Rotterdam port is
advantageous: As offshore wind and decommissioning of oil and gas rigs has developed significantly
over the last decade, Rotterdam Port started developing the so-called Offshore Center Rotterdam in
2017.

Figure 9.1: Port of Rotterdam location with respect to the Zephyr wind farm [11]

The Offshore Center in Rotterdam is a 74-acre artificially created site within the Maasvlakte 2 for
offshore needs. The goal of this center is to have all offshore companies and assembly in one central hub
in Rotterdam, resulting in a higher efficiency in installation, operations and maintenance of offshore wind
farms and decommissioning. The first companies are expected to become operational mid-2019.

The centre has a total quay will have a heavy load deep sea quay of 600 meters, making it possible for
all offshore installation vessels to dock. The exact location and possible layout of the Offshore Center in
Rotterdam, are depicted in Figure 9.2 and 9.3.

27
 Figure 9.2: Offshore Center Rotterdam [12] Figure 9.3: Finished offshore center [12]

9.2 Installation process

The installation of the wind farm usually consists of the following parts:

- Monopile foundation
- Transition piece
- Turbine (Tower + Nacelle + Rotor)
- Cables

The vessel that is suitable for the installation of the Siemens SWT 4.0-130 is the Aeolus from Van Oord.
For the Gemini Wind Farm, which uses the same wind turbines as Zephyr, the Aeolus installed 77 of the
150 total turbines [13].

The Aeolus is equipped to operate in waters up to 40 meters deep, has a 1600 tonnes crane and its transit
speed is 10.5 knots. This means that the vessel is well-equipped to install the Zephyr wind farm and can
reach the farm from Rotterdam Port in 90 minutes. The Aeolus can be seen in figure 9.4

Figure 9.4: The offshore installation vessel Aeolus [14]

To make an estimate in how long the installation of the turbines will take the time it took the Aeolus
to install the turbines for Gemini is depicted in figure 9.5 [13] and based on the number of turbines and
travel time the installation time was scaled for Zephyr.

Figure 9.5: Comparison between installation with Aeolus for Gemini and Zephyr wind farm [13]

All in all, the installation time for Gemini was a year and a half, including platforms and substations.
Based on this, the installation time for Zephyr should not take more than a year. Of course, using a big
vessel like the Aeolus speeds up the process, but increases the expenses as well. It may be useful to look
at the option of using a smaller installation vessel for a longer period of installation time.

28
The cable installation should be relatively simple for Zephyr due to the small number of turbines and
the close by grid connection. The interior cables will take approximately one month to install, while the
exporting cable will take approximately 3 months. These estimations were again made by scaling the
costs of Gemini wind farm [13].

29
Chapter 10

Operation and maintenance

In this chapter it will be analysed what maintenance is necessary to keep Zephyr wind farm operational
as long as possible. As stated in figure (% of lifetime spent), the most time in the lifetime of an offshore
wind farm is during operation and maintenance (O&M) and naturally this leads to a significant O&M
expenditure as well, mostly due to maintenance.

In Figure 10.1, the main aspects of O&M for an offshore wind farm are summarized:

- Offshore Logistics
- Back office, administration and operations
- Onshore logistics
- Export cable and grid connection
- Turbine Maintenance
- Array Cable maintenance
- Foundation maintenance

Figure 10.1: O&M for an offshore wind farm [15]

For the Zephyr wind farm, it will be briefly discussed how O&M will be handled in every category.

10.1 Offshore logistics

As Figure 10.1 shows, for wind farms close to shore (less than 12 Nautical miles = 23km), workboats
are sufficient for the maintenance of the wind farm. Zephyr wind farm is located 24 km offshore and 28
km from Rotterdam Port, which is still in proximity for the vessels. Helicopters will only be used for
emergencies and not be a part of the scheduled maintenance. The turbines can thus be accessed by both
tender vessels, catamaran landings or in rough weather by a flexible gangway. This makes crew changes
relatively cheap.

10.2 Back office, administration and operations

This is only for management purposes, it is not restricted to being close to shore. However, as the
Offshore Center Rotterdam is planned for 2019 the company responsible for administration and finances

30
for Zephyr can locate in the area.

10.3 Onshore logistics

Rotterdam Port is easily accessible for all maintenance crew. Due to the Offshore Center the port is
now developing, the Zephyr wind farm will not require additional onshore infrastructure or logistics. The
location of the Offshore Center also decreases travel time significantly.

10.4 Export Cable and Grid connection

Damaged export cables cause the highest financial losses for the wind farm as the entire farm suffers in
availability at the same time. Cables will have to be checked regularly. The construction of the offshore
hub in Rotterdam will be very useful in case of cable damage as repairs will be quicker and in high
proximity to the grid connection.

10.5 Maintenance of foundation, turbines and array cables

Visits for the turbines, array cables and marine growth cleaning count up to around 2000 every year [16].
If the offshore hub in Rotterdam reaches its purpose, maintenance for the turbines, foundation and cables
can be combined into one visit when companies agree to share equipment and vessels. This will reduce
the number of crew transfers and therefore the costs as well.

31
Chapter 11

Economics

11.1 Levelized Cost of Electricity

The economic analysis of the designed wind farm was based on the most recent International Renewable
Energy Analysis (IRENA) report. IRENA relies on both market and modelled data to maintain an
up-to-date understanding of wind generation cost trends and drivers. According to (IRENA, 2017),
total investment costs of offshore wind farms were estimated to be around 4250$/kW. Wind energy
annual O&M costs are as much as 0.038$/kWh. Capital costs include turbine capital cost (development,
engineering management, substructure and foundation, site access, electrical infrastructure, installation,
and plant commissioning) and balance of system (insurance, decommissioning, and contingency). As
for O&M costs, these include labor, vessels, equipment, maintenance, land-based support, and project
administration.

Figure 11.1: Breakdown of Offshore Wind Farm Capex [17]

According to [18]: “Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is often cited as a convenient summary measure
of the overall competitiveness of different generating technologies. It represents the per-kilowatthour cost
(in discounted real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and
duty cycle”. All capital costs are assumed to be paid in Year 0. LCOE was calculated to be 0.12$/kWh
using equation 11.1.
cinvest CO&M Cdecom (1 + r)−T
LCOE = + + (11.1)
aEy Ey aEy

Where a is the total energy produced in a whole year (633GWh), Cinvest is the investment cost paid at the
beginning of the project (US$490m), CO&M is the yearly cost of operation and maintenance (US$13m),
T is the lifetime of the project in years (20 years), Cdecom is the decommissioning cost which is the cost
that has to be paid for dismantling the facilities (included in capital costs), and a represents the annuity
factor which describes the behaviour of the money through the lifetime of the project and is calculated

32
by equation: "  T #
1 1
a= 1− (11.2)
r 1+r

11.2 ICC
The initial capital cost is the sum of the turbine and tower cost and the balance of station cost. ICC is
calculated to be US$490m

11.3 IRR and Pay-out time

IRR and pay-out time after tax was estimated to be 1.6% and 11years respectively, using an Excel tool
given by the course instructor and based on the economic assumptions below:

- Power Price: in line with market prices, it was assumed equal to 14 eurocent/kWh for the first 15
years and 6 eurocent/kWh thereafter.
- Inflation rate of 2% (Dutch Central Bank, 2018)
- Corporate tax rate of 25%
- Depreciation of 10%

11.4 Sensitivity analysis

Figure 11.2 below shows the effect of varying different project parameters on the IRR. All parameters
were varied in range of -30% to +30% relevant to the design base case, one factor at a time while keep
all other parameters constant. Results show that the IRR of the project is most sensitive to load factor,
power price, capex, and opex, respectively. The Highest IRR of 6.4% was achieved at a load factor of
67.08%, while the lowest IRR (-6.9%) was achieved at a load factor of 36.12%. Thus, it can be concluded
that efforts should be more focused on enhancing turbine availability, fixing power price for the whole
duration of the project (14cents/kWh flat or higher), or for the collective offshore wind industry to lobby
for a subsidized power price.

Figure 11.2: Economic Sensitivities

33
Chapter 12

Conclusion

This project aimed at designing the Zephyr offshore wind farm (offshore Netherlands). Three locations
in the Dutch Exclusive Economic zone were prudently considered for the project. Multi-criteria analysis
was applied to rank the three locations based on the following elements: Wind resource, wave conditions,
distance to ports, distance to power, sea depth, currents, and soil type. As a result, site NL7 was
chosen. The Agross database was then used to collect and process the environmental data for the selected
location, so as to create a MATLAB model capable of predicting the wind speeds and their probability
of occurrence, estimating AEP and capacity factor. Using that model, 4 wind turbine models including
(V164-8MW, V117-4.2MW, V90-3MW, SWT130-4MW) were examined. Siemens SWT130-4MW was
then selected since it had the highest capacity factor the second highest AEP, and lowest LCOE. Moreover,
SWT130-4MW has a further proven track record and considerably lower initial investment costs compared
to the highest AEP producing turbine (V164-8MW).

Following that, the support structure for the selected turbine was designed. For this preliminary design, a
fixed diameter monopile was selected to get an initial assessment of needed diameter. The transition piece
was eliminated for simplification. The tower is to be added directly on top of the monopile, starting with
the same diameter as the monopile and slowly tapering towards the top diameter of 3m. For calculation
of monopiles natural frequency, Rayleighs method was used. Calculation steps were set at 150 to get an
accurate representation of the taper in the tower section. Inputting above modelling parameters together
with the turbine specification and design frequency of 0.24Hz resulted in a pile diameter of 5.125m with a
wall thickness of 0.057m. For foundation stability assessment, the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic loads
on the support structure were analysed for a cylindrical steel tube (suitable for 30m water depth). Based
on the design criteria for X-deflection and Y-rotation, and the stiffness of the foundation/soil system,
a design pile diameter and length of 5.125 m and 11.65 m, respectively, were concluded in an iterative
process via the foundational analysis MATLAB tool. Furthermore, ultimate limit state and buckling
checks were carried out to ensure the monopile is capable of withstanding all the environmental loads.
It was also concluded that fatigue will not be a concern for the monopile, as D/t ratio is well below the
threshold value of 120 above which fatigue will have to be taken into consideration. It was observed that
for the load case 3, the total moment is the largest, with a value of 88039.92 kNm. p, is a permanent
load factor of 1.25, was applied to the weight of the structure and e, was a environmental load factor of
1.35, was applied to the over-turning moment. The total stress for the structure was found to be 120.29
MPa which is far less than the yield-stress of steel at 335 MPa. Hence, the structure has passed the yield
stress check.

The next step was the optimization of the layout design by considering the available space in combination
with the wake effect, and the predominant wind direction. It is worth mentioning at this point that
this area had an odd shape which would later increase the wake calculations load significantly, thus a
simplified version of the actual area was considered as of this project. Row efficiencies were calculated
considering the wind speed, wind direction, and various spacings (6-10D). It was concluded that efficiency
increases as spacing between turbines increases. Based on optimum combination of AEP, cost and power
efficiencies, a spacing of 8.5D was selected. This resulted in a total of 35 wind turbines oriented towards
the predominant wind direction (230◦ ).

34
Using the farm layout, a grid connection was proposed. The voltage is to be stepped up from generator
level (3 kV) to grid connection level (220 kV) over 3 stages for optimum electrical and economic efficiency.
The 3 stages included a collection system (36 kV), an offshore substation/transmission system (220 kV)
and an onshore substation/transmission system (380 kV). Zephyr wind farm was divided into 4 arrays
of 110 (Array 1), 110 (Array 2), 10 (Array 3), and 15 turbines (Array 4). For power transmission to the
onshore substation, one cable would be used per array based on the required current carrying capacity,
in order to keep the number of cables to a minimal. Different cables and losses (total of 4.7MW) were
also calculated for the subsequent stages.

The economic analysis of the designed wind farm was based on both market and modeled IRENA data of
wind generation cost trends. LCOE was calculated to be 0.12$/kWh based on annual energy production
of 633GWh, total capital costs of US$490m (includes decommissioning), annual O&M costs of US$13m,
a project lifetime 20 years). The IRR and pay-out time after tax were estimated to be 1.6% and 11years
respectively, using a provided offshore wind economics excel tool. An economic sensitivity analysis showed
that the IRR of the project is most sensitive to load factor, power price, capex, and opex, respectively.
The Highest IRR of 6.4% was achieved at a load factor of 67.08%, while the lowest IRR (-6.9%) was
achieved at a load factor of 36.12%. Thus, it can be concluded that efforts should be more focused on
enhancing turbine availability, fixing power price for the whole duration of the project (14cents/kWh flat
or higher), or for the collective offshore wind industry to lobby for a subsidized power price.

Based on the stated finding and design assumptions, the Zephyr wind farm project (offshore The Nether-
lands) is both technically and economically viable. Having presented a complete development plan, taking
into account the EIA, it can be concluded that the objective of the project was met.

35
Reference List

[1] The Hague: Noordzeeloket.nl. The dutch ministry of infrastructure and the environment, the dutch
ministry of economic affairs. Policy Document on the North Sea 2016-2021. 2015.
[2] Offshore wind technologies market report. Energy, U. D. (2016). 2016.
[3] Christopher M. H. Mone. Cost of wind energy review. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
2015.
[4] Christopher M. H. Mone. Offshore geared wind turbine swt-4.0-130 and 4.0-120. Siemens AG-
WIND. 2016. url: https://www.siemens.com/global/en/home/markets/wind/turbines-and-
services/swt-4-0-130.html.
[5] Global offshore wind farms database. 4coffshore.com. 2018. url: www.4coffshore.com/offshorewind.
[6] Han Lindeboom. Wave climate-argoss. BMT ARGOSS. 2017. url: http://www.waveclimate.com.
[7] DNV. Offshore standard dnv-os-j101. DET NORSKE VERITAS AS. 2014.
[8] Pim van der Male. Owfd 2018 lecture 6 - support structure design. Delft University of Technology:
Lecture Slide. 2018.
[9] Han Lindeboom. Wind energy from the north sea: environmental impacts and future developments.
Wageningen University & Research: Lecture Slide. 2018.
[10] Universal Cable. Xlpe insulated power cables. 2018.
[11] Google Maps. Rotterdam. Google Inc. 2018.
[12] Port of rotterdam. Press release. 2017.
[13] 4c offshore. retrieved from vessels working on gemini. 4coffshore.com. 2017. url: http : / / www .
4coffshore.com/windfarms/vessels-on-gemini-nl18.html.
[14] Retrieved from van oord buys bilfinger offshore wind. Breakbulk. 2016. url: https : / / www .
breakbulk.com/van-oord-buys-bilfinger-offshore-wind/.
[15] GL Gerrard Hassan. A guide to uk offshore wind. The Crown Estate and The Scottish Enterprise.
2013.
[16] S. L. Christine Rockmann. Operation and maintenance costs of offshore wind farms and potential
multi-use platforms in the dutch north sea. in b. h. langan, aquaculture perspective of multi-use
sites in the open ocean. Springer. 2017.
[17] Cost of wind energy review. NREL. 2014.
[18] Renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series - wind power. IRENA. 2017.

36