Dynamic stiffness of monopiles supporting offshore wind turbine generators

Bhattacharya, Subhamoy; Shadlou, Masoud

doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.04.002

Cited by 77 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These expressions can be easily transformed into a matrix form of the load response in terms of three springs ( , , ). Some of the most common methods are found in Poulos and Davis (1980) following Barber (1953)) for both rigid and slender piles; Gazetas (1984) also featured in Eurocode 8 Part 5 (European Committee for Standardization 2003) developed for slender piles; Randolph (1981) developed for slender piles in both homogeneous and linear inhomogeneous soils; Pender (1993) developed for slender piles; Carter & Kulhawy (1992) for rigid piles in rock; Higgins & Basu (2011) for rigid piles; Shadlou and Bhattacharya (2016) for both rigid and slender piles. The formulae for the foundation stiffness are summarized in Table 2 for slender piles and Table 3 for rigid piles.…”

Section: Foundation Stiffness Of Monopilesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design of monopiles for offshore wind turbines in 10 steps

Arany

Bhattacharya

Macdonald

et al. 2017

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

305

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:A simplified design procedure for foundations of offshore wind turbines is often useful as it can provide the types and sizes of foundation required to carry out financial viability analysis of a project and can also be used for tender design. This paper presents a simplified way of carrying out the design of monopiles based on necessary data (i.e. the least amount of data), namely site characteristics (wind speed at reference height, wind turbulence intensity, water depth, wave height and wave period), turbine characteristics (rated power, rated wind speed, rotor diameter, cut-in and cut-out -upper limit of the 1P frequency range -fixed base (cantilever beam) natural frequency of the tower -characteristic yield strength -gravitational constant -distance from zero shear force location to pile toe -air gap between the highest expected wave crest level and the platform -wave number 0 -equivalent stiffness of first tower mode ℎ -horizontal modulus of subgrade reaction -total structural mass, also strain accumulation exponent 0 -equivalent mass of first tower mode -mass of the pile -mass of the rotor-nacelle assembly -mass of the tower -mass of the transition piece ℎ -horizontal coefficient of subgrade reaction ℎ1 -coefficient of subgrade reaction at the first load cycle ℎ -coefficient of subgrade reaction after N load cycles -shape parameter of Weibull distribution -undrained shear strength of soil , , -time, also degradation parameters degradation model -grout thickness -pile wall thickness -tower wall thickness -wall thickness of the transition piece -transition piece wall thickness -turbulent wind speed component -extreme gust speed ,

show abstract

Section: Foundation Stiffness Of Monopilesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design of monopiles for offshore wind turbines in 10 steps

Arany

Bhattacharya

Macdonald

et al. 2017

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

305

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Poulos & Davies, 1980) provided expressions which depend on the modulus of subgrade reaction kh and pile stiffness. Recently, (Shadlou & Bhattacharya, 2016) provided charts to determine whether a pile is rigid or flexible depending on the ratio of Eso and EP. The problem with these methods is the uncertainty of their applications for multi-layered soils and the wide range of differences in results.…”

Section: Estimating Ultimate Moment Resistance Mrmentioning

confidence: 99%

A method to predict the cyclic loading profiles (one-way or two-way) for monopile supported offshore wind turbines

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…x' 3 G, ν and target natural frequency requirements. Because of the low value of the fundamental frequencies of OWTs (0.2 to 0.5 Hz), the use of static stiffness matrices is usually accurate enough for taking into account soil-structure interaction when estimating their fundamental frequency [6,7].…”

Section: (B)mentioning

confidence: 99%