Seismic Analysis of a Wind Turbine Steel Tower

P Valan Arasu
Asst. Manager L& T IES

D. Sagayaraj
Manager L& T IES

J. Gowrishankar
Exectutive L& T IES

Keywords: seismic; wind turbine tower; response spectrum. Abstract

The structure of wind turbine steel tower is 76 meters in height with variable tubular cross section axially. The seismic response of steel wind turbine towers is investigated and their risk is assessed in the critical seismic environment. This topic is of concern as wind turbines are increasingly being installed in seismic areas. Dynamic analysis was carried out to evaluate its behavior under seismic excitation, to define several damage states, and to develop a framework for determining its probability of damage. RADIOSS is used to investigate the probability of reaching predetermined damage states under seismic loading.

Introduction
Tall steel towers are usually designed considering the effect of wind loads as the only source of environmental dynamic disturbances. This work depicts some critical aspects of the analyses performed during the design of an almost 76 m high steel tower supporting a 1.6 MW wind turbine with a horizontal power transmission axle. The main supporting structure of the wind turbine, as shown in Fig. 1. is assembled by thin-wall cylindrical and conical parts of varying diameters and wall thicknesses. Circular stiffeners are placed at regular intervals along the height of the structure for further stiffening against local buckling. The optimal vertical spacing between circular stiffeners with regard to the thickness and the diameter of the shell structure has been the subject of an extensive stability analysis study. Furthermore, at the base of the structure a substantial door opening is considered. The adverse influence of this opening on the overall structural behavior of the tower is partly counterbalanced by heavy reinforcement along its perimeter as shown in Fig. 2. It is also considered common practice to analyze such tower-like structures as fixed at their base with no consideration of the foundationsoil interaction. The main assumption underlying of the analyses considered in this work is that under any load combination (including any appropriate load safety factors) the material of the load bearing structural elements of the tower should remain in the linear elastic region of its stressstrain diagram. Material linearity is an essential prerequisite of all the pertinent building regulations, e.g. Germanischer Lloyd , in view of the expectation that wind turbines should survive and remain operational, during their entire life cycle (usually 20 years), against fatigue damage which remains the governing cause of failure for the tower structure. Low operational stresses provide some cushion against fatigue damage. The dynamic analyses performed in this work are based on a refined finite element model. The results of these analyses are used to check the load bearing capacity of the structure against the recommendations of widely accepted design codes, mainly the Eurocode 3 and the German Standards. The accurate and efficient determination of the dynamic characteristics and the possible seismic behavior of the tower structure were done on a fixed base.

Nacelle and rotor masses

\ Fig. 2 Circular Reinforcements Fig. 1 Turbine tower Door opening

IEC61400-1, Wind Turbines Requirements

IEC61400 specifies minimum design requirements to assure the engineering integrity of wind turbines (IEC, 2005). Earthquakes are considered as one of the "extreme other environmental conditions (IEC, 2005). In locations where seismicity may be critical, the seismic loading must be combined with a specified operational loading that occurs frequently during the turbines life time. IEC 61400 specifies that the seismic loading be based on the ground acceleration for a 475-year recurrence period and that response spectrum requirements be defined by the local building codes.

The evaluation of the seismic loads may be carried out either in the frequency-domain or in the time-domain. The minimum number of modes that must be considered is three.

Process Methodology
The 76 m vertical steel tower, as shown in Fig. 1, is assembled by thin-wall cylindrical and conical pieces, of varying diameters (3860 mm at the base to 2140 mm at the top) and wall thicknesses (40 mm at the base to 12 mm at the top), which are welded together along their perimeters. The mass and material property of the wind turbine tower is summarized in Table 1 & 2. The tower mass is computed by RADIOSS based on the geometry and a density of steel of 7.850E-9 Tonnes/mm3. The nacelle and rotor masses are added as concentrated mass elements at the hub height of 78 m. The centre of mass of the tower is at 54.5 m above the base. Components Tower Mass Nacelle Mass Rotor Mass Total Mass Masses (tonnes) RADIOSS Values 160 55 40 255

Table 1.Mass of the wind turbine tower.

Part Name

Material Name

Young's Modulus E 2.1e5 MPa

Poisson's Ratio 0.3

Limiting strength 360 MPa

Steel tower & flanges

Steel

Table 2. Material Property Details

The Base of the tower was modeled by 8 - noded solid elements and the wall was modeled by 4 - noded shell elements. The nacelle and rotor mass were represented by mass elements. The nodes at the tower were all connected to the nacelle mass. This point was then connected to rotor mass using constraint equations. A modal analysis was carried out to obtain the free vibration modes and frequencies of the turbine tower. Seismic response analysis is then performed by applying the ground motion excitations & acceleration was applied directly to the structure along the vertical direction. The modal damping for the structure is computed and applied along with the acceleration response spectra shown in fig 3.

Fig. 3 Accelerometer response spectrum

Results & Discussions

As most earthquakes have frequencies less than 33 Hz, if the resonance frequency of the wind turbine tower is less than 33 Hz, overloaded stress from resonance may happen. Table 3 below shows the natural frequency analysis results. The first mode is less than 33Hz; therefore it is necessary to conduct seismic analysis. The predominant period of typical earthquakes is approximately 0.3 sec. Figure 4 shows the first 3 modes of the structure in the horizontal direction perpendicular to the rotor.

Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Frequency 0.31 0.32 2.49 2.55 5.7 6.31 7.325 9.14 13.6 14.5

Table 3. Natural frequency and mode shapes of Wind turbine tower

Seismic Analysis Results

Fig 5. Maximum Resultant displacement on the turbine tower is 124 mm

Fig 6.Maximum Directional displacement about Y axis in the turbine tower is 31.7 mm

Fig 7.Maximum value of von Mises stress on the turbine tower at the intersection region is 393 MPa.

Fig 8.1 Tower door opening (Base Design): F.E. model & Maximum value of von Mises stress is 200 MPa.

Fig 8.2 Tower door opening (Final Design): F.E. model & Maximum value of von Mises stress is 143.2 MPa

Conclusions
This work investigated the behavior of the tubular steel wind turbine tower of a typical 1.6 MW wind turbine under seismic loading, and evaluated its seismic risk for critical seismic prone location. A finite element model was thoroughly validated and the expected failure mode was adequately captured. However, the analyses demonstrated that these structures must be designed for large safety factors against any overloading, as they are prone to collapse when the tower is excited beyond its elastic limit. As the design of wind turbine towers is quickly evolving, with a tendency for taller structures, the seismic response may become more critical. This paper outlines a methodology to carry out a thorough investigation into the probability of reaching predetermined damage states under seismic loading. Future research is required in several areas.

References
[1] Germanischer Lloyd. IV-Non-marine technology, Part 1Wind energy. Hamburg; 1993. [2] Spera DA. Fatigue design of wind turbines. In: Spera DA, editor. Wind turbine technology. New York: ASME Press; 1994. p. 547 88 [chapter 12]. [3] Eggleston DM, Stoddard FS. Wind turbine engineering design.New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1987. [4] Eurocode 3: design of steel structures-Part 1.4: general rules-supplementary rules for stainless steels, ENV 1993-1-4. Brussels; 1996.

Note: This paper was presented in Altair - 2011 HyperWorks Technology Conference held at Pune,India on 4 th&5 August 2011 in Radioss Linear Category and it was graded as the best paper and awarded first prize.

th