Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake

Engineering
Original
An analytical model
to predict the natural
article
frequency of offshore wind turbines on
three-spring flexible foundations using
two different beam models

L. Aranya, S. Bhattacharyab, S. Adhikaric, S.J.


Hogana, J.H.G. Macdonaldd
a
b

Department of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, UK

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey,


UK
c
d

Aerospace Engineering, Swansea University, UK

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, UK

Why is frequency
important?
Complex loading
Static + Cyclic + Dynamic
loading: wind, wave, 1P, 3P
Wide frequency band
excitation close to natural
frequency [1] dynamic
amplification

Turbulent wind
load

Stochastic wave
load

Soil stiffness may


change!
[1]

L. Arany, S. Bhattacharya, J. Macdonald, and S. J. Hogan, Simplified critical mudline bending moment spectra
of offshore wind turbine support structures, Wind Energy, 2014, DOI: 10.1002/we.1812

Dynamics & Changing


Frequency

Natural frequency may change over time


[2,3,4]
Example: Hornsea met mast [5]
After 3
months
f=1.14Hz
Design
f=1.02
8Hz

Soil stiffness
may change!

Measured
initial f =
1.23Hz

[2] S. Bhattacharya and S. Adhikari, Experimental validation of soilstructure interaction of offshore wind turbines, Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 31, no. 56, pp. 805816, May 2011.
[3] S. Bhattacharya, N. Nikitas, J. Garnsey, N. A. Alexander, J. Cox, D. Lombardi, D. Muir Wood, and D. F. T. Nash,
Observed dynamic soilstructure interaction in scale testing of offshore wind turbine foundations, Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng., 2013.
[4] S. Bhattacharya, J. a. Cox, D. Lombardi, and D. M. Wood Muir Wood, Dynamics of offshore wind turbines supported on
two foundations, Proc. ICE - Geotech. Eng., vol. 166, no. 2, pp. 159169, Apr. 2013.
[5] Lowe, J. [PowerPoint presentation) Hornsea Met Mast - A Demonstration of the Twisted Jacket Design. Global

Model of an Offshore Wind


Turbine

Effects considered: - Timoshenko beam including rotary inertia and shear


deformation
- Foundation modelled with three coupled springs
- Rotor-nacelle assembly modelled as top head mass with inertia

Solution and results


Please see paper for equations. Equation
for natural frequency solved numerically
(MATLAB)
Reasonable accuracy for first estimate
using limited data about the turbine and
site
Timoshenko beam gives no significant
improvement

Lely A2:
NM41
North Hoyle
2-bladed,
Vestas V80
Wind turbine
500kW
2MW
turbine for
Industrial
study
wind turbine
purposes
Natural frequency results
Measured value - [Hz]
0.634
N/A
0.634
N/A
Present study (Euler-Bernoulli beam) - [Hz]
0.7349
0.3448 (N/A)
0.7349
(error [%])
(15.9%)
0.3448 (N/A)
Present study (Timoshenko beam) - [Hz]
0.7340
(15.9%)
0.3445 (N/A)
0.7340
(error[%])
(15.8%)
0.3445 (N/A)
(15.8%)

Irene Vorrink

Siemens SWT3.6-107
600kW
3.6MW
study
industrial
purpose wind
wind turbine
turbine
0.546
0.546
0.4563
0.4563
(16.4%)
(16.4%)
0.4560(16.5%)
0.4560(16.5%)

0.35
0.35
0.3293(5.9%)
0.3293(5.9%)
0.3290(5.9%)
0.3290(5.9%)

Frequency vs. Stiffness


Curves

Flat regions
are
safe for
changing
stiffness!

Effects of the Cross


Stiffness
Cross stiffness cannot be ignored!

Conclusion: some design


pointers
The foundation designer should choose EI
and KR such that the turbine is in the flat
region changes in stiffness cause
negligible change in natural frequency.
The rotational stiffness R is the most
important parameter.
The cross stiffness LR cannot be ignored.
Timoshenko beams complexity is not
necessary The Euler-Bernoulli model is
sufficient.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi