Scribd
Upload
131 views15 pages

1103 Spar Concrete

Uploaded by

ahmad fakhruddin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
131 views15 pages

1103 Spar Concrete

Uploaded by

ahmad fakhruddin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
ae Procedngs of he stun af ct Enghees Maritime Engineering Presnell oni i ‘Volume 169 Issue Pages 49-63 https dos org/10.168Cyimaen 2004 24 ‘spar concrete monolithic design for Paper 201426 shore wind turbines Nea Mratianiaale Campos, Molins, ella and Trubat Keywords: concrete structurevotshore enginegringtenewable on ee : ro CER M19 ere zs eitrsloniatels Spar concrete monolithic design for offshore: wind. turbines ‘Alexis Campos MSc Xavier Gironella PhD Cal EngineerPhD candidate, Department of Civ and Environmental Civil Engineer, LIMUPC, Maritime Eng, Laboratry, Universitat Politécnica Engineering, Universitat Politénica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain (corresponding author: alexi campos@upc edu) pai Trulia KS 60 years (FIB, 1986, 1996). For the specific case of floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTS), two main significant factors relating to the use of concrete allow a reduction of the cost of energy produetion. The first directly affects the operation and maintenance cost, which is reduced drastically compared with steel solutions. Concrete produces structures with a high degree of reliability against the marine environment, mi 18 in situ inspections and maintenance and, thus, reducing costs during its lifetime the so-called Opex (operation expenditure). ‘The second factor is the extension of lifetime, This exten allows the reuse of these floating structures when the wind turbine lifetime is exhausted, increasing the profitability of off= shore wind farms in the long term by reducing the capital expenditure Since the early 1990s, concrete has been considered for bottomfixed offshore wind farms, the Nysted wind farm being. the one with lowest foundation cost among existing offshore wind farms (Volund, 2005). However, in most. current publicly available prototypes for FOWTs, the selected material for platforms is steel. Only a few platform designs consider the use of concrete Normally, these few prototypes limit the use of concrete to the floater, such as the Ideol prototype and AquaVentus Project. 2.2. Advantages of a single member design Concrete has been proven to be a cheaper solution for bottom- fixed and floating foundations (floater). However, durability and fatigue problems have been detected in the transition ‘ones between the steel of the tower and the conerete of the foundation in several bottom-fixed offshore wind farms (Reddy and Swamidas, 2013). Also, in the particular case of monopile foundations, the grouted joint between the driven pile and the tower is a critical connection that frequently pre- sents damage (Negro et a., 2014). ‘The absence of joints in a monolithic concrete member increases the durability of the concrete against the environ- ‘ment, minimising the penetration of chlorides, water and so ‘on, and preventing damage such as that detected in the tran- sitions zones of mixed concrete and steel structures. Another advantage of a monolithic design is the easy imple- mentation of a high standard of quality ‘control of the onstruction process, which has to be done in dry dock. Spar concrete monolithic design for offshore wind turbines Campos, Molin, Gironellaand Trubat 23 Basic requirements For the conceptual design, three main diferent types of eriteria have been adopted. The first is related to the basic shape of the structure, consisting of a cylindrical floater with a smooth transition between the tower and the eylinder diameter. Assuming the usual draft of spar structures to be around 100 m, a maximum diameter of 20 m is assumed to be feasible without the need of internal stiffeners and, thus, with reduced construction costs. ‘The second type of criterion is related to marine hydro- dynamics. The typical range of wave periods is set below 30 (Chakrabarti, 2005). Since the main important motions of a spar platform due to sea waves are the pitch/roll and heave, the prototype has been designed to have an eigenperiod larger than 30 s in both degrees of freedom, ‘The third type of criterion is related to the operation of the wind turbine. A. compromise solution has to be found for the platform pitch/roll stiffness, Css. It is important to maintain the rotor plane as vertical as possible to minimise the losses of energy production. On the other hand, the stiffer the platform is, the lower the pitch/oll eigenpetiod. As a design criterion, ss is adjusted for a maximum tilt of 5° when subjected to the mean rotor thrust force. If the NREL 5 MW turbine (Jonkman ef al., 2009) is adopted as a reference, this mean force is about 580 KN. ‘The ballast specific weight is set to 25 kNim*, corresponding to black slag from electrical furnaces. 2.4 — Main sizes of the design ‘The larger the draft, the lower the material cost and the smaller the pitch/roll eigenperiod. A compromise solution ‘between the draft and the final cost has been adopted. The prototype was finally designed to operate at water depths greater than 150m, A sketch of the prototype main sizes is shown in Figure | ‘The tower height above mean sea level (MSL) is selected to be the same as in the OC3 NREL prototype (lonkman, 2010). ‘The top of the tower is finally set at 87-6 m above MSL, with an external diameter of 4 m. The free gap between the lowest position of the wind turbine blades and the MSL is around 25m. The diameter at the base of the tower is set to 10m, Combined with the rest of the sizes and weights, this allows a heave eigenperiod of 30 s while stresses during the operational and survival situations are resisted. The thickness of the tower is set to 40 cm, with a 10 em conerete screed on the lowest zone of the tower. 51 Maritime Engineering Volume 169 Issue MA2 876m RGS-RSO 210.0 m4-—we} oom F6S— 130.0 m cM. L Figure 1. Prototype main sizes ‘The transition between the tower and the floater is 10 m long and connects the tower and the floater. This transition is designed to minimise the curvature of the geometry changes, 52 Spar concrete monoii offshore wind turbines Campos, Molins, Gironela and Trubat ic design for where the losses and deviat ‘more significant, 1 forces of post-tensioning are ‘The eylinder is 113-5 m long and its diameter is 13 m. The thick- ness of both the cylinder and the transition partis 5O em, The base of the floater presents a hemispheric shape, with the same diameter as the cylinder. ‘This shape is completely favourable in structural terms, distributing the hydrostatic pressures in a compression field around the base, while the post-tensioning steel tendons have continuity along the whole structure, In terms of hydrodynamic properties, the hemi- spheric shape presents a smaller damping than a flat base. Since the spar structure does not present significant heave exci- tations, the structural advantages of the hemispheric bottom against the flat bottom tips the scale to the former. ‘The total draft of the system, including the ballast is set to 130 m, 2.5 Structural relevant details To ensure a complete compression state along the whole struc- ture, continuity of the post-tensioning steel tendons is necessary. ‘The design includes a hemispheric bottom, which permits conti- nuity of the tendons with the smoothest possible curvature. Other solutions imply large curvatures with a great amount of losses or even the impossibility of assuring continuity, and require additional active and passive post-tensioning anchors ‘At the same time, the hemispheric curvature improves the stress distribution along the base, minimising local bending while the tendons are acting in the same way. “Taking advantage of post-ensioning anchors placed at the top of the tower, a specific stel plate has been designed for the connec- tion between the rotor and nacelle assembly (RNA) and the structure. This round steel plate presents a U-shaped cross- section, which acts as a stiff baseplate for the steel tendons, par tially or completely closed by an additional upper steel plate, to increase the stiffness of the crown further, with the addition of a small flap in the outer or inner ~ as required ~ side of the crown, ‘where the connection bolts are placed (Figure 2) This solution assures a good connéction between the concrete structure and the RNA, reducing fatigue damage in the con- crete induced by the vibrations and forces exerted by the wind turbine over the connection. 2.6 Hydrostatic properties ‘The main hydrostatic parameters are summarised in Table 1. Both the centre of mass (CM) and the centre of buoyancy (CB) fare measured from the bottom of the structure. The heave, Maritime Engineering Yyolume 169 sue MA2 Scien gin conectonele\, ‘waiucieaseayeae murat | Siew \ ij / be] y Figure 2. Steel crown detail, wth outer flaps roll and pitch stifMnesses (Css, Cus, Css) are measured about the CM. The hydrostatic mass matrix my is presented in Equation 1, where i and j correspond to the associated degrees of freedom (I: surge, 2: sway, 3: heave, 4: roll, 5: pitch, 6: yaw), Spar concrete monolithic design for offshore wind turbines Campos, Molin, Gironella and Trubat Property Value Displaced volume: m? 1-69 x 104 Draft: m 1300 Concrete mass: kg 871 x 10° Ballast mass: kg 8:34 x 108 Wind turbine mass: kg 3-50x 10° cM m 53:34 cB:m 63.97 Metacentric height: m 1057 Table 1. Hydrostatic properties, % 2955 Ts 3555 Ts 355s ‘Table 2. Eigenperiods without added mass Since the added mass matrix may is dependent on the angular frequency «, the computation of this matrix has been per formed using the open-source boundary element method (BEM) code Nemoh (LHEEA, 2014). The results of the while the hydrostati stifiness matrix isin Equation 2 added mass and radiation damping. variation along the 174x10" 0 0 0 0 0 0 17ax10? 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 174x107 oo 0 0 0 0 0 574x100 0 0 0 0 0 574x100 0 0 0 0 0 421x108 oo. 0 0 7] angular frequency, as well as the response amplitude operator 00 0 0 0 9 { (RAO) for heave and pitehroll, are shown in Figure 3. The 00 70x 0 0 | _ Sigenfrequencies of the heave and pitch/roll motions including 2 00 o” ateto? 0B] the added mass contributions are specified in Table 3 oo 0 01-7110 0} The potential theory to compute the hydrodynamic coefficients ov @ 0 0 OJ does not account for the viscous terms. To consider such terms, which are significant for damping, a drag force is adopted acconting to Equation 4 for the dynamic computations 2.7 Hydrodynamic properties A first approach to eigenperiods can be analytically computed according to Equation 3, which takes into account the mass and stiffhess matrices of the prototype itself, without any added ‘mass. The computed eigenperiods are presented in Table 2 1 4 F=5CuAn bral where F is the viscous force, Cy is the drag coefficient, Ary is the exposed area and yi is the relative velocity between the structure and the water particles, A drag coefficient of 06 is adopted according to Chakrabarti (2005), 53 Maritime Engineering ‘Volume 168 issue MA2 Spar concrete monolithic design for offshore wind turbines ‘Campos, Molin, Gironella and Trubat 1 02 03 04 O05 06 O07 Angular frequency, a rads (a) 64 Heave added mass: x 10° kg O02 03 O04 O05 06 OF Angular frequency, at rad's © 26 25 24 CY ‘Angular frequency, at ad's @ Rol and pitch added mass» 10"° kg/m? Figure 3. Heave and pitevioll RAOs (a) and added mass and radiation damping for heave (b) and rollpitch (¢) 40 = *=Heave RAO © Pthvol KAO 30 20 of 091 = + Added mass] h- Damp = 4 08 09 «10 Pitetvell RAO: mim eave radiation damping: x 10% kgis nd pitch radiation Rol damping: x 10% kg-meis 54 Maritime Engineering ‘Volume 169 ssue MA2 h 314s te 43.95 h 439s Table 3. Heave and pitctvtoll eigenperiods including added mass 2.8 Structural assessment ‘To confirm the structural capacity of this new design, a first approach (o structural dimensioning was performed. A single survival load case is selected, corresponding to a regular sea state of 25m height and 23 s period, and an average wind vel- ocity of y=35 mis. The wind tirbine is assumed to rest at the idle position Considering the dimensions and the thickness of each element described in Section 2.4, a dytiamic analysis was computed by using a Matlab code developed ‘at the UPC, obtaining the internal forces along the total length of the structure, which is considered as a rigid body. ‘The material properties and the safety load factors are chosen from Eurocode 2 (EN 1992-1-1 (BSI, 2004)). Tables 4 and 5 summarise the material properties and the load safety factors considered in the structural verifications. ‘The serviceability limit state (SLS) envelopes for the bending, ‘moment, the shear force and the axial force are shown in Figure 4. As the main critical internal force is the bending ‘moment, the envelopes of the shear and axial force correspond to the concomitant force for the maximum bending moment at each section, For dimensioning purposes, three control sections have been established along the structure, Those sections are selected in order to check the structural capacity of the floater (SI), the tower base (S2) and mid-tower ($3). Table 6 presents the properties of each section, where @ is the external dia- meter, ¢ is the thickness, A, is the sectional area and J,y is the second moment of area around the local x-axis of the section, ‘The longitudinal internal forees at each section and the result- ing stresses are summarised in Table 7, where M is the ‘maximum bending moment, Np is the concomitant axial Force, nin i the minimum stress in the section and dmx is the ‘maximum stress (negative for compression). The passive steel reinforcement is composed of two layers with rebars of 16 mm dia, at 150 mm along the external and ‘internal faces of the structure, in both the longitudinal and cir- ‘cumferential directions. Spar concrete monolithic design for offshore wind turbines Campos, Molins, Gitonela and Trubat Material fi MPa tm E:GPa Concrete 80 15 a2 Post-tensioning ste! 1860 115 190 Reinforcement stee! 500 1415 200 Table 4, Material properties: characteristic strength, material safety factor and Young's modulus Limit state * sis 1-00 uLs 135 Table 5. Partial safety factors for loads ‘The amount of post-tensioning steel is obtained by preventing Jongitudinal decompression in all sections. As a first approacl 20% of deferred losses are assumed for the post-tensioning forces ‘The required post-tensioning force Fy as well as the maximum and minimum peak stresses before losses, are summarised in Table 8. For the ultimate limit state (ULS) checks, the intemal forces are computed with the corresponding load safety factor from ‘Table 5 and compared with the ultimate moment resisted in ceach control section. Such ultimate bending moments are com= puted assuming a parabola-rectangle diagram (Equation 5), where 2=025%, Gy =026%, n= 1-4, fo=533 MPa and ‘is the conerete strain, For the reinforcement steel, a bilinear diagram has been adopted (Equation 6), where £, is the steel Young's modulus, fot 24348 MPa, f,= 521-7 MPa, 6) =0-25%, ay =2-5% and 4, is the strain of the steel fall (1-8) ] ose Ma st 9:36 x 10° 1-08 x 10% v 2 629x107 780x108 v 3 227% 10° 290x 10° v Table 9. ULS bending moment and ultimate moment Property Value Number of elements 675 Concrete Young's modulus: MPa 42.000 Concrete density: kyl? 2500 WrcMt: m 220 WT mass*: kg 35x 10° WT inertia: kgm? 27x 10° Ballast CM: m 1674 Ballast mass: kg 83369 x 10° Ballast inertia: kg-m? 679 x 10° ‘Added mass (sway): kg 47397 x10? ‘Added mass (heave): kg 625 x 10° ‘Added mas inertia: kgm? 237x 10 ‘Sway spring stifness: kN 205 Heave spring stiffness: kNim 805 Pitch spring stifness: kN-mvdegees 31.470 Total mass: kg 41-7394. 107 "WT refers to the nacelle-+rotor CM Table 10. Model properties for the modal analysis Comparing the first eigenperiod with the NREL 5 MW Campbell's diagram (ABS, 2011), shown in Figure 5, it is outside of the gap between the rotor frequency (IP) and the blade passing frequency (3P) for the operating range of the rotor speed. Construction and installation From the point of view of a conerete design, the spar structure is probably the easiest concept to build, because its geometry is very simple and allows the use of simple formworks. Due to its simplicity, the reinforcements can be added in an efficient ‘way if compared with other solutions with sharp corners and abrupt geometrical shapes. ‘An overview of the construction and installation process (Molins ef al, 2011) is detailed in the following sections, covering the construction, sea launching and towing, erection of the platform, turbine installation and emersion of the structure, Eigenfrequency: Hz Eigenperiod: s Mode 1 0.0040 25275 Mode 2 0-0236 42:33 Mode 3 0-036 29:72 Mode 4 o-7t21 1-40 Mode 5 16989 059 Mode 6 21374 0-47 Mode 7 49327 0:20 Mode 8 73567 O14 Mode 9 8.3208 oz Mode 10 9.6141 o-10 Table 11. Modal analysis eigenfrequencies Fist structural eigenfrequency. 08 Saami] 07 [epg HH 06 |]. citinctre | | £ g5[e=tatmerne || £ 04 { £03 02 o4 Rotor speed: rpm Figure 5. NREL 5 MW Campbell's diagram (ABS, 2011) 57 Maritime Engineering Volume 169 Issue MA2 Spar concrete monolithic design for offshore wind turbines Campos, Molins, Gironela and Trubat 3.1 Construction Considering the inherent constraints of monolithic structures, such as heavy weight and large dimensions, construction is, expected to be done in a dry dock or similar facility, from where it is possible to launch the structure directly to the sea. The structure is designed to be built in a horizontal position by using 4 slipform, The use of slipforms avoids the presence of concret= ing joints, allowing the construction of the structure in a contin ous way, Around the world there are some places where it would be possible to build such a member in a vertical position ~ such as in a Norwegian fjord where deep, calm waters exist close to the shore ~ and this could result in an easier process. ‘The absence of joints improves the durability of the structure, hindering the penetration of water and chlorides into the con- crete mixture. “The selected facility should have, at leas, total Iength of 250 m and a (otal width of 25 m, in order to have the necessary man- ‘oeuvring space around the structure for the construction and safely equipment for one platform, In the case of using a dry dock, the minimum required draft is around hall the diameter of the floater, which is 6:5 m, without considering the extra guard Sea launching and towing ig on the construction facility, the sea launching can be done in two different ways. Inthe case of using a dry dock, the flotation of the structure is the only solution since its weight makes it impossible to lift or move the structure inside the construction facility. In the case of construction done without a dry dock, a possible solution is the use of sliding guides or wheel skates to slip the structure into the sea, In both cases, the construction site has to be located a few meties from the coast and, for the second, the vertical profile of the guiding ramp should be smooth enough to allow safe transport to the sea. ‘The towing process to the installation zone can be done by ing a simple towing ship, available in the majority of com- mercial harbours, 3.3 Erection of the platform ‘Once the structure is in its final position, it has to be flooded in a controlled manner to be erected, When considering a con- crete monolithic design, some specific tasks should be carefully designed and controlled to define an appropriate and optimal positioning process. In this case, one of the best options to reduce the maximum bending moment on the tower while erecting the structure is partially to sink the whole structure in such a manner that when it becomes vertical, only a portion of the tower protrudes above MSL. The process is schematically shown in Figure 6. During flooding of the structure there exists a singular equili- brium point at around S-10° of tit where it becomes unstable Figure 6. Erection process 58 ‘Maritime Engineering Volume 169 sue MAZ tand tends suddenly to the vertical position, It is important to rote the importance of flooding control, as well as the necessity of using a vertical cable to restrain'the dynamic motion of the structure during this phase, avoiding any dynamic effect that ‘may result in structural damage or even, collapse. During this process, itis important to keep around 90% of the structure submerged, which offers Some advantages. The ‘maximum tower bending moment is reduced and the installa- tion of the wind turbine can be done without heavy floating cranes, as detailed in the next section, 3.4 Wind turbine installation Assuming that 90% of the structure is submerged after the first slage of the erection, the top of the tower is placed below 20 m height above MSL. In this situation, the installation of the wind turbine can be done using a catamaran or an equivalent, to which the structure can be attached, ‘The installation of the wind turbine has to be done before bal~ lasting the structure with aggregates, maintaining the water ballast, as depicted in Figure 7. With this procedure, there is hho need for the use of heavy floating cranes, reducing the com- plexity of the offshore tasks and the installation costs. MSL Spar concrete monolithic design for offshore wind turbines Campos, Molins, Gionella and Trubat 3.5 Emergence of the structure ‘The last phase of the installation starts after the wind turbine installation. The structure is taken out by pumping out water (Figure 8(@)), maintaining stability with the water ballast. The most critical situation occurs once the structure reaches the required level above MSL, where the hydrostatic slffness is enough to maintain the structure in a vertical position but the restoring moments are significantly reduced if compared with the final design. Then, the aggregates can be introduced inside the floater by way of a lateral opening, which can be the defi- nitive maintenance door, using conveyor belts from an outside ‘moored to the structure (Figure 8(6). ‘The replacement of the water ballast by the aggregates increases the hydrostatic stiffness while the draft is maintained, Finishing the spar installation process. 4, Comparison between concrete and steel designs ‘A comparison between the conerete spar structure and an equivalent steel design is presented, The comparison was done in terms of the material cost. This cost does not include the cost of the installation, the transportation, the wind turbine or the mooring lines, These other offshore tasks or elements are J" ‘igure 7. Wind turbine installation 30m ‘Maritime Engineering Volume 169 sue MA2 ‘Spar concrete monolithic design for offshore wind turbines ‘Campos, Molin, Gironella and Trubat Figure 8. Structure emerging (a) and structure ballasting (b) assumed to have similar cost magnitude in both designs. The selected scenario is based on large-scale production, where the cost of the construction site is considered to be marginal for ceach single structure. 4.1. Basis of the comparison To compare each solution as objectively as possible, the material cost estimation was made on the basis of the necessary amount of each of the main materials. As both designs involve similar costs of the mooring system, the anchors and other offshore tasks, these costs are not included in the cost estimation. For the same reason, neither the costs of the wind turbine nor of the electrical equipment are included. ‘The unitary prices used in this comparison were taken from Spanish market prices, based on the authors’ experience and other studies regarding the costs of offshore floating wind cenergy. They can be slightly different for other locations. ‘The concrete price includes a high-resistance concrete (260 MPa) with silica fame or other admixtures at €120/m°. It also includes the proportional part of the formworks, which is estimated as €30/m'. However, the material price might be considered slightly higher than those of common coneretes. ‘The special requirements and control for building this structure are taken into account by increasing the material price from 00m’, corresponding to a high-resistance concrete with 60 additives, to €120/m’ for this one. The final considered price, including formwork, is €150/m’. Steel reinforcement is divided into two categories, passive and active reinforcement, which basically means mild steel rein- forcement and post-tensioning steel. For passive reinforcement fully placed, a cost of €1-S/kg has been considered, which includes the possible use of epoxy-coated rebars For active steel, a cost of €3:6/kg has been considered, which includes the high-yield steel strands, the pods, the anchorages and the tensioning process. As a ballast, aggregates with a bulk specific weight of 25 kN/m* are considered. These aggregates can be black slag from electrical furnaces, which are a by-product of the steet industry. Considering the cost at origin, its processing and its transport onshore and offshore, the final cost has been est mated to be €35/t. Heavier aggregates also can be used ~ such as magnetite with a specific weight of 35 kNim’ ~ however, they are much more expensive. * The cost of structural steel is strongly dependent on the struc- ture type and complexity, varying from €2/kg for wind turbines with simple monopile foundations, up to €6/kg for jacket and tripod foundations (Borgen, 2010). Since the spar-type structure ‘might be considered as a simple structure, formed by large stan- dard curved plates without complex elements, compared with other steel solutions, a cost of €3/kg is considered. ‘Maritime Engineering Volume 169 isue MAZ 240m 87-6 m ahoome 290m. cM. 115.0 m ® Figure 9, Steel (a) and concrete (b) designs Spar concrete monolithic design for offshore wind turbines Campos, Malins, Gionela and Trubat 240 m4 87.6 m: | hod 430.0 m. o130m+S 4 cM. (bo) 61 ‘Maritime Engineering Volume 169 issue MA2 Spar concrete monolithic design for offshore wind turbines Campos, Molins, Gionella and Tubat 4.2 Steel design ‘The steel structure is designed in order to fulfil the eriteria pre- sented in Section 2 in terms of eigenperiods and mean static tlt, The steel spar has the same tower height, with a smaller base diameter to fit the heave eigenperiod, the total draft is 15 m shorter and the floater diameter is 30% smaller, The thickness is set to 60 mm for the floater and transition parts and 40 mm for the tower. A comparison sketch of both solutions, including their main dimensions, is shown in Figute 9. The main proper- ties of the steel design are presented in Table 12. 4.3. Cost comparison ‘The total amounts of materials are summarised in Tables 13, and 14, ‘The total costs of each material unit as well as the total cost for each solution are presented in Table 15. The total material Property Value Displaced volume: m? 7156 Draft: m 1150 Steel mass: kg 1-98 x 10° Ballast mass: kg 5:00 x 10° Wind turbine mass: kg 3-50 x 10° cM: m aan Bim 5689 Metacentric height: m 4420 Heave eigenperiod: 5 3041 Pitchfroll eigenperiod: s 353 Table 12. Steel spar main properties Quantity Unitary cost Concrete 3484 m? €150/m? Ballast 7944 t €35t Passive steel 344 630 kg €1-5kg Active steel 260 388 kg €36/kg ‘Table 13. Concrete spar material quantities, Quantity Unitary cost Structural steel 1-98 x 10° kg €3hkg Ballast 5001 t e235 Table 14, Steel spar costs 62 Cost: 000€ Concrete Steel Structural stee! - 5910 Concrete 5226 ~ Passive steel 5169 - Active steel 937-4 - Ballast 2780 1750 Total cost 22549 61150 Table 15. Cost comparison ‘cost of the conerete spar platform is around €2:3 million while the total cost of the stee! solution is around €6+1 million. As can be observed, the total cost of the concrete solution is 37% of the cost of the steel one, 5. Conclusions The main advantages of the concept presented here are a high resistance to the marine environment, an almost com- plete absence of maintenance, a lifetime of over 60 years and ower material costs, The floating natural periods are out of the typical range of wave periods, with eigenperiods over 35 s for pitchroll and 30 s for heave motion. In addition, the struc- tural first natural frequency is out of the range of rotor dynamics. ‘The simplified structural assessment reveals the feasibility of the structure, assuming that it is completely post-tensioned to prevent the decompression limit state, even for survival con- ditions. The peak stresses under regular waves of 25 m height and a period of 23 s, in combination with an average wind of 35 mis and the rotor set to idle position, are around ~30 MPa, 37% of the concrete strength (fox = 80 MPa), ‘The construction and installation processes have been designed to minimise offshore tasks, The installation of wind turbines does not require the use of heavy lifting cranes, ‘A cost comparison has been performed between concrete and equivalent steel spar buoys It was revealed that the concrete ‘monolithic design is more than’ 60% cheaper in terms of material costs, Also, the Opex, in terms of structural mainten- ‘ance, is cheaper for the concrete solution, Acknowledgement Some of the resulls presented in this paper were obtained during the KIC Innoenergy (EIT) project AFOSP (Alternative Floating Offshore Support Platform), the financial support of which is greatly appreciate. Maritime Engineering Volume 169 sue MAZ REFERENCES ‘Abs (American Bureau of Shipping) (2011) Design Standards for Offshore Wind Farms. American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX, USA. fi ‘Autodesk (2012) Autodesk Robot™ Structural Analysis Professional 2012 User's Guide. Autodesk, San Rafe, CA, USA. See http: help autodesk com/view/RSAPRO! 2015/ENUPguid=GUID-4A734308-B2F3-4147-A310- BD47CASEDEDI (accessed 28103/2016), Borgen E (2010) Floating wind power in deep water competitive with shallow-water wind farms? Modern Energy Review 2): 49-53, 851 (2004) EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures, British Standards Institution, London, UK. Chakrabarti § (2005) Handbook of Offshore Engineering Elsevier, Plainfield, IL, USA, vols 1 and 2. FiB (International Federation for Structural Concrete) (1986) Design and Construction of Concrete Ships. FIB, London, UK. Fi (1996) Durability of Concrete Structures in the North Sea FIB, London, UK. Jory © (2009) Durability Design of Concrete Structures in ‘Severe Environments. Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, USA. Holand |, Gudmestad © and Jersin € (2003) Design of Offshore Concrete Structures. Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, USA. Hughes P (2013) The efects of power washing on concrete durability. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers ~ Maritime Engineering 166(3): 109-112, httpufdx.doi.ong/10.1680/maen.2011.45, Spar concrete monolithic design for offshore wind turbines ‘Campos, Molins, Gironella and Trubat Jonkman } (2010) Definition of the Floating System for Phase IV of OC3. NREL, Golden, CO, USA, p.31- Jonkman J, Butterfield, Musial W and Scott G (2009) Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System Development. NREL, Golden, CO, USA, pp. 1-75. LHEEA (Laboratoire de recherche en Hydrodynamique, Energétique et Environnement Atmosphérique) (2014) Nemoh. Ecole Central de Nantes, Nantes, France. See http:ftheea.cc-nantes frdoku.php/emofnemohistart? &etinemoh (accessed 15/03/2016). Molins C, Campos A and Rebollo (2011) Floating Precast- Concrete Structure for Supporting a Wind Turbine. Patent 'WO2013093160, Dec. Molins C, Campos A and Rebollo J (2012) Method for the Installation and Maintenance of a Monolithic Floating Strucsure for Supporting a Wind Turbine. Patent WO2013117796, Feb. Negro V, Lopez-Gutiéerez JS, Esteban MD and Matutano C (2014) Uncertainties in the design of support structures and foundations for offshore wind turbines. Renewable Energy 68: 125-132, ard T 2014) Tension-leg-buoy platforms for offshore wind turbines, ZERA DeepWind' 2014: the 11th Deep Sea Offshore Wind R&D Conference, Trondheim, Norway. See btziwwwsintefno/globalassets/projectideepwind2014/ presentations/e/nygaard._ift:pa. Reddy D and Swamidas A (2013) Essentials of Offshore ‘Structures: Framed and Gravity Platforms. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. \Volund P (2005) Concrete is the future for offshore foundations. Wind Engineering 29(6): 531-539. var 00 You TH? To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as discussion in a future issue of the journal. Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu dents. Papers should be 2000-5000 words long (briefing papers should be 1000-2000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can submit your paper online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find detailed author guidelines. 63

You might also like