ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard 1 Outline of presentation  Motivation for the work.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction to RF for Accelerators
Advertisements

Wind Farm Structures Impact on Harmonic Emission and Grid Interaction Harmonics in Large Offshore Wind Farms Łukasz Kocewiak (DONG Energy) Jesper Hjerrild.
MANE 4240 & CIVL 4240 Introduction to Finite Elements
Svetlana Marmutova Laminar flow simulation around circular cylinder 11 of March 2013, Espoo Faculty of Technology.
ASME 2002, Reno, January VIBRATIONS OF A THREE-BLADED WIND TURBINE ROTOR DUE TO CLASSICAL FLUTTER Morten Hartvig Hansen Wind Energy Department Risø.
P. Venkataraman Mechanical Engineering P. Venkataraman Rochester Institute of Technology DETC2013 – 12269: Continuous Solution for Boundary Value Problems.
EEE 498/598 Overview of Electrical Engineering
ACE2008 ▪ Famagusta ▪ North Cyprus ▪ 15–17 September 2008 ▪ L. Andersen, P. Frigaard & A.H. Augustesen Outline of presentation  Introduction  A two-dimensional.
European Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition 2010 Warsaw, Poland EWEC 2010 Warsaw April 2010 Aeroelastic Analysis of Pre-Curved Rotor Blades V.A.Riziotis,S.G.Voutsinas.
THE MONOPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION Recent experience and challenges ahead Christian LeBlanc1, Kim Ahle1, Søren A. Nielsen 2, Lars B. Ibsen 3 1) DONG Energy,
Gireesh Ramachandran Amy Robertson Jason Jonkman Marco Masciola
Electromagnetic Waves
ANALYSES OF STABILITY OF CAISSON BREAKWATERS ON RUBBLE FOUNDATION EXPOSED TO IMPULSIVE WAVE LOADS Burcharth, Andersen & Lykke Andersen ICCE 2008, Hamburg,
LECTURE SERIES on STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION Thanh X. Nguyen Structural Mechanics Division National University of Civil Engineering
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Study on the Influence of Airflow Patterns on Carbon Dioxide Distribution and Emission Rate in a Scaled Livestock Building.
MANE 4240 & CIVL 4240 Introduction to Finite Elements Practical considerations in FEM modeling Prof. Suvranu De.
Back to basics…… for Foundation design of Monopile Support Structures
Nazgol Haghighat Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ir. Daniel J. Rixen
Finite Element Method in Geotechnical Engineering
Spectral Analysis of Wave Motion Dr. Chih-Peng Yu.
FE Modeling Strategy Decide on details from design Find smallest dimension of interest Pick element types – 1D Beams – 2D Plate or.
1 Residual Vectors & Error Estimation in Substructure based Model Reduction - A PPLICATION TO WIND TURBINE ENGINEERING - MSc. Presentation Bas Nortier.
Literature Review on Compatible Soil Structure Yielding by Weian Liu
Analyses of tunnel stability under dynamic loads Behdeen Oraee; Navid Hosseini; Kazem Oraee 1.
Some effects of large blade deflections on aeroelastic stability Bjarne S. Kallesøe Morten H. Hansen.
Accuracy of calculation procedures for offshore wind turbine support structures Pauline de Valk – 27 th of August 2013.
Crack propagation on highly heterogeneous composite materials Miguel Patrício.
Analytical Vs Numerical Analysis in Solid Mechanics Dr. Arturo A. Fuentes Created by: Krishna Teja Gudapati.
Formulation of a complete structural uncertainty model for robust flutter prediction Brian Danowsky Staff Engineer, Research Systems Technology, Inc.,
Identification of Eighteen Flutter Derivatives Arindam Gan Chowdhury a and Partha P. Sarkar b a Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Innovation for Our Energy FutureNational Renewable Energy Laboratory 1 Gunjit Bir National Renewable Energy Laboratory 47 th AIAA Aerospace Meetings Orlando,
Timothy Reeves: Presenter Marisa Orr, Sherrill Biggers Evaluation of the Holistic Method to Size a 3-D Wheel/Soil Model.
Sliding Mode Control of Wind Energy Generation Systems Using PMSG and Input-Output Linearization Xiangjun Li, Wei Xu, Xinghuo Yu and Yong Feng RMIT University,
IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 1/20 University of Louisville IMPACT Architecture Team Glen Prater, Jr., Associate Professor Ellen G. Brehob,
1. The flanges at the end of the two turbine shafts seen above, are bolted together to form a very rigid friction coupling 2.
Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Tsinghua University·Beijing Real-time dynamic hybrid testing coupled finite element and shaking table Jin-Ting Wang, Men-Xia Zhou & Feng Jin.
Chapter 6 Circular Motion and Other Applications of Newton’s Laws.
Workshop on Very Large Floating Structures for the Future Trondheim October 2004 Efficient Hydrodynamic Analysis of VLFS by J. N. Newman
Polynomial Preserving Gradient Recovery in Finite Element Methods Zhimin Zhang Department of Mathematics Wayne State University Detroit, MI 48202
The Governing Equations The hydrodynamic model adopted here is the one based on the hydrostatic pressure approximation and the boussinesq approximation,
11/11/20151 Trusses. 11/11/20152 Element Formulation by Virtual Work u Use virtual work to derive element stiffness matrix based on assumed displacements.
Limit Load Analysis of suction anchors for cohesive materials By Dr Amir Rahim The CRISP Consortium Ltd/South Bank University 14 th CRISP User Group Meeting.
IMPACT OF FOUNDATION MODELING ON THE ACCURACY OF RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS OF A TALL BUILDING Part II - Implementation F. Naeim, S. Tileylioglu, A. Alimoradi.
Parallel Solution of the Poisson Problem Using MPI
WAVE LOADS ON CAISSONS. DETERMINATRIOTION OF WAVE PRESSURE SAMPLING FREQUENCY IN MODEL TESTS Burcharth, Lykke Andersen & Meinert COPEDEC 7, Dubai, Feb,
HEAT TRANSFER FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION
Moment Tensor Inversion in Strongly Heterogeneous Media at Pyhasalmi Ore Mine, Finland Václav Vavryčuk (Academy of Sciences of the CR) Daniela Kühn (NORSAR)
Outline: Motivation Comparisons with: > Thick wall formula > CST Thin inserts models Tests on the Mode Matching Method Webmeeting N.Biancacci,
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS SECTION 5.
Partial Derivatives Example: Find If solution: Partial Derivatives Example: Find If solution: gradient grad(u) = gradient.
Modal Dynamics of Wind Turbines with Anisotropic Rotors Peter F
1 Feature of Energy Transport in NSTX plasma Siye Ding under instruction of Stanley Kaye 05/04/09.
S7-1 SECTION 7 FREQUENCY RESPONSE ANALYSIS. S7-2 INTRODUCTION TO FREQUENCY RESPONSE ANALYSIS n Frequency response analysis is a method used to compute.
The Mechanical Simulation Engine library An Introduction and a Tutorial G. Cella.
Davide Forcellini, Univ. of San Marino Prof. Ahmed Elgamal, Dr. Jinchi Lu, UC San Diego Prof. Kevin Mackie, Univ. of Central Florida SEISMIC ASSESSMENT.
Wake-Field in the e-Cloud Levi Schächter Department of Electrical Engineering Technion-Israel Institute of Technology Haifa 32000, ISRAEL.
1 The wave energy converter Wave Star A multi point absorber system Scale 1:40 testing at AAUScale 1:10 testing in Nissum BredningNumerical modelling Morten.
M. Khalili1, M. Larsson2, B. Müller1
The Universal Foundation Concept
NON-LINEAR OSCILLATIONS OF A FLUTTERING PLATE
Structural design and dynamic analysis of a tension leg platform wind turbine, considering elasticity in the hull NTNU supervisor: Erin Bachynski TUD.
By Dr. A. Ranjbaran, Associate Professor
Finite Element Method in Geotechnical Engineering
MANE 4240 & CIVL 4240 Introduction to Finite Elements
Christopher R. McGann, Ph.D. Student University of Washington
Chrono::FEA Validation.
Authorship: NJOMO W. Anand Natarajan Nikolay Dimitrov Thomas Buhl
Mechanical Measurements and Metrology
Master’s dissertation
Presentation transcript:

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard 1 Outline of presentation  Motivation for the work  Computational model  Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation  Example results of the coupled BE/FE model  Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation  Conclusions Impedance of Bucket Foundations: Torsional, Horizontal and Rocking Motion Lars Andersen †, Lars Bo Ibsen † & Morten Albjerg Liingaard ‡ † Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark ‡ DONG Energy A/S, Fredericia, Denmark

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard 2 Motivation for the work  A computationally efficient model of a foundation is required for the analysis of wind turbine response Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Motivation for the work  Vacuum provides the necessary penetration force  Bucket foundations are installed from a barge  Can be used on shallow and medium water depth  Prototype installed at Frederikshavn, Denmark  A 3 MW wind turbine is installed on top 3 Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Computational model  Static and dynamic stiffness of a rigid footing – non-dimensional quantities 4 Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard  Boundary elements for the subsoil  Finite elements for the bucket foundation  Boundary elements for the soil inside the bucket Computational model 5 Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Computational model  Formulation of a Finite-Element domain  Formulation of a Boundary-Element domain  Coupling in terms of nodal forces:  Finite element assembly as usual  Boundary elements are converted into macro finite elements 6 Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation  Coupled Boundary-Element/Finite-Element model is based on time-harmonic response  True static solution cannot be established with the present code  The static response is approximated by the solution at a 0 = 0.01  Comparison with Finite-Element solution from ABAQUS 7 Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation 8 Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard 9 Example results of the coupled Boundary Element/Finite Element model  Torsional motion at the frequency 2 Hz  Note: Poisson’s ratio = 0.4 ; H/D = 1 Torsion Horizontal Rocking Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard 10 Example results of the coupled Boundary Element/Finite Element model  Horizontal motion at the frequency 2 Hz  Note: Poisson’s ratio = 0.4 ; H/D = 1 Torsion Horizontal Rocking Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard 11 Example results of the coupled Boundary Element/Finite Element model  Rocking motion at the frequency 2 Hz  Note: Poisson’s ratio = 0.4 ; H/D = 1 Torsion Horizontal Rocking Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation 12  Torsional stiffness not influenced by Poisson’s ratio (only S-waves)  Like surface footing at low frequencies  Smooth variation for H/D = 1/4  Very spiky for H/D > 1  Like infinite cylinder at high frequencies Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation 13  Horizontal stiffness increases with increasing frequency  Increase is stronger than for a surface footing for all values of Poisson’s ratio  No obvious trend in change due to changing Poisson’s ratio  BE/FE model of surface footing is very accurate compared to the reference solution by Veletsos and Wei (1971)  Similar results for rocking Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation 14  Coupling stiffness looks similar to horizontal stiffness  BE/FE model fails to produce reliable results  Alternative model based on half-space Green’s function  Very accurate compared to the reference solution by Veletsos and Wei (1971) Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation 15  Rocking term increases with an increase in H/D from H/D = 1/4 to H/D = 1  No additional increase from H/D = 1 to H/D = 2  Goes toward the solution for an infinite cylinder Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation 16  Rocking term increases with an increase in H/D from H/D = 1/4 to H/D = 1  No additional increase from H/D = 1 to H/D = 2  Tips and dips coincide with those of the sliding stiffness Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation 17  Coupling term varies with H/D  No clear pattern in location of tips and dips  Very different from surface footing (alternative method) Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard 18 Conclusions  Torsional stiffness:  Independent of Poisson’s ratio and increasing almost linearly with increasing skirt length  Significant peaks observed at a 0 ≈ 4, 7 and 10 as also observed for an infinite cylinder  Static stiffness of BE/FE model within approximately 5% of the referece solution  Horizontal sliding and rocking stiffnesses:  Horizontal sliding stiffness does not increase very much with increasing skirt length  Rocking stiffness increases more than linearly with increasing skirt length  Slight increase with increasing Poisson’s ratio due to P-wave generation  Tips and dips in the dynamic stiffness are not repeated with Δa 0 = π  Significant coupling exists between horizontal sliding and rocking  Static stiffness of BE/FE model within approximately 7% of the referece solution  Coupling term is less accurate (the BE/FE model fails for a surface footing), and the coupling terms K HM and K MH do not match exactly (11% difference)  High-frequency limit of non-dimensional dynamic stiffnesses presented in the paper  Next step is to calibrate and implement lumped-parameter models in aeroelastic codes Motivation for the work Computational model Non-dimensional static stiffness of the bucket foundation Example results of the coupled BE/FE model Non-dimensional dynamic stiffness of the bucket foundation Conclusions

ECT2008 ▪ Athens ▪ Greece ▪ 2–5 September 2008 ▪ Paper 189 ▪ L. Andersen, L.B. Ibsen & M.A. Liingaard Thank you for your attention Lars Andersen: 19