0 Suka0 Tidak suka

10 tayangan18 halamandesign load

Aug 27, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

design load

© All Rights Reserved

10 tayangan

design load

© All Rights Reserved

- Site Analysis Example
- Labone Office Complex Structural Design Report Rev.01
- Quiz
- ME 2013 04 Design Vertical Wind Turbine Power LED Street Lights
- SCM Truncated Gaussian Algorithm Petrel 2010
- 19Lecture - Central Limit Theorem
- Probability & Statistics Lab_Toss of Coin (1)
- Normal
- ISI_MStat_04
- Electronics and Communication Ece Formula Book for Gate Ies and Psu
- Mxt Manual
- 9709_s04_qp_7
- Operations Management
- Kuliah 4 Model Statistik
- Fusion and Kalman Filters
- Central Limit Theorem Estimation Summary
- birmingham ready mix concrete
- ODOT LRFR Manual November2015
- entropy-16-05838
- Scaffold-english-1.pdf

Anda di halaman 1dari 18

Claus F. Christensen and Torben Arnbjerg-Nielsen

RAMBLL, Bredevej 2, DK-2830 Virum

Abstract: In order to reduce the CO2 emissions the focus on renewable energy from

wind turbines has increased in the last years. Due to the size of the wind turbines and

the large area a wind turbine park requires it is reasonable to place the parks at sea.

Building offshore wind farms generates needs for new knowledge about the

environmental conditions and how the different loads should be combined.

The present paper describes an approach for obtaining the environmental condition that

corresponds to the maximal response for given return period. The environmental

conditions are here the mean wind velocity and the significant wave height, but the

described procedure is general and can easily be expanded. Moreover the corresponding

partial safety factor is obtained for the operation design case and the extreme design

case.

1. Introduction

Design of offshore wind turbines is in general based on simulations of the response

corresponding to predefined time series. The present paper describes an approach for

the determination of these time series of the external environmental loads to be applied

in the calculation of the offshore wind turbine response.

The approach is a very general approach and it is illustrated by examples with two

correlated environmental parameters, i.e. mean wind velocity and significant wave

height for two different directions which corresponds to two different correlation levels.

The approach is based on inverse FORM. By means of inverse FORM environmental

contours can be determined independent of the structural response. Contours

representing extreme environmental conditions, e.g. 50-year return period can be

examined and the corresponding maximum structural response can be obtained.

The scope of the present paper is to establish the return period for the different

environmental loads that corresponds to an e.g. 50-year return period for the response

and the corresponding partial safety factor.

2. Code format

The proposed code format for the determination of the extreme response is illustrated in

Figure 1. The external loads are given in terms of combinations of time series for a

number of individual loads, e.g. wind, wave, current, etc. For each of these combined

time series of environmental loads the maximum response is determined.

The simulations are carried out for a number of time series, and the extreme response is

defined as the average value of the obtained extreme values for the various time

simulations.

Static and dynamic loads

F(t) = Fi(t)

Response

Max{R(t)}

Design extreme

Rd = f E[Max{R(t)}]

Resistance

Mc/m

Figure 1:

Design Extreme

Mc/m > Rd

The time series of the external loads are to be defined so that the average value of the

extreme response found by the simulation is an estimate of the characteristic value of

the response (50-year return period). The design value is found by multiplying the

characteristic response with the partial safety factor and it is required to be larger than

the design value of the carrying capacity.

In the following sections an approach is outlined for the determination of the

environmental condition which leads to the 50-years return period of the response.

Further the corresponding partial safety factor f is estimated.

3. Contours of environmental parameters

Contours of environmental parameters are contours along which specified extreme

fractiles lie, ref. /1/. The contours are independent of the structure under consideration,

making the contours a general and practical way of illustration extreme combinations of

environmental parameters.

The approach is based on first-order reliability method (FORM), or in fact inverse

FORM in the sense that the environmental contours are identified corresponding to

hyperspheres with a given radius in the normalised space, ref. /1/ and /2/.

The extreme response of a given return period is then identified as the maximum

response along the contour for the corresponding to the required return period. In

addition the point on the contour corresponding to the maximum response, identifies the

combination of the environmental parameter, which yields the maximum response for

the wanted return period.

The basis for the evaluation of the environmental contour is the instantaneous

distributions for the stochastic environmental parameters.

In the present case two parameters are considered, wind and waves, but the approach is

applicable for higher dimensions as well. The instantaneous distributions are given as

the distribution of the mean wind velocity V and the significant wave height Hs

conditioned on the mean wind velocity

FV (v) and FHs V (h v)

(1)

The mean wind velocity and wave height may also depend on the direction and the

distributions could therefore also be conditioned on direction. Especially the significant

wave height is sensitive to the fetch length and water depth and may therefore vary a lot

with the direction.

Utilising inverse FORM, ref. /1/, the basis is the reliability index , corresponding to

the required return period. The following relationship exists between the reliability

index , the probability pf, and the required return period Tr

= 1 (1 p f ) = 1 (1

TSS

)

365 24Tr

(2)

where TSS in hours is the duration of the environmental conditions, e.g. mean wind

periods or seastates and Tr is the return period in years.

In the standard normal space the interesting combinations are thus located on a

hypersphere of radius corresponding to the required return period Tr, described by

U 12 + U 22 =

(3)

where U1 and U2 are the coordinates in the standard normal space, from which the

physical environmental parameters are found from transformation, see ref. /3/,

V = FV1 ( (U 1 ))

Hs = FHs1V ( (U 2 ))

(4)

In case an n-years return period is required for a 10-minute environmental condition,

e.g. mean wind velocity, the corresponding effective period TSS must be obtained. Due

to the large correlation between two subsequent mean wind velocities this period is not

10 minutes.

Based on a time series of 17 year containing the 10 minutes mean wind velocity

measured 45 m above ground, ref. /9/, the correlation function is estimated to

(t ) = exp( t / T )

where T = 20.16 hours.

Based on the given correlation function the effective number of observations nef in a

time series containing n, successive 10 minutes wind velocities can be found as, ref. /8/

1 2

nef = + 2

n n

(n j ) j

j =1

n 1

(5)

where j is the correlation between to mean wind periods with the distance j times 10

minutes.

The value of Tss is then obtained as 10 minutes times n divided by nef, which yields a Tss

of about 40 hours or 241 periods of 10 minutes.

In case a 50-year return period is required for the environmental condition the

corresponding reliability index reads

= 1 (1 p f ) = 1 (1

40

) = 3.74

50 365 24

(6)

For other return periods the corresponding reliability index is shown in Table 1 for the

considered environmental condition.

Return period Reliability index

(year)

()

5

3.12

10

3.32

50

3.74

100

3.91

200

4,08

500

4,28

1000

4,44

10000

4,91

Probability

(pf)

9.1310-4

4.5710-4

9.1310-5

4.5710-5

2.2810-5

9.1310-6

4.5710-6

4.5710-7

Table 1: Return period and corresponding reliability index and probability for the

considered environmental condition.

The distribution at Horns Rev is based on 3 month of measurements covering all

directions. The significant wave height is measured every hour and the 10 minutes mean

wind velocity is measured once each hour.

The mean wind velocity V in a height of 60 meters is assumed to follow a twoparameter Weibull distribution given as

v

FV (v) = 1 exp(( ) k )

a

(7)

where the parameters a is 11 m/s and k is 1.8. The distribution is used independent of

direction and is in general found to fit well to the Danish wind climate.

The used distribution for the significant wave height conditioned on the mean wind

velocity is based on approximately two months data. The 10 minutes average wind

velocity is measured once each hour together with the significant wave height measured

every hour. The distribution is obtained from two directions. The first direction Case 1

covers the angle space 240 to 320, where north corresponds to 0. The other

direction Case 2 corresponds to the angle space 40 to 110. Due to the very limited

data only the obtained distribution for case 1 is reasonable, whereas the distribution for

case 2 is very uncertain and serves only for illustrative purpose.

The significant wave height Hs, conditioned on the mean wind velocity, V, is assumed

to follow a Gaussian distribution with the parameters given in Table 2 below

Hs conditioned on V

Case 1 (240 to 320)

Case 2 (40 to 110)

Mean Value

0.13V

0.07V

Standard Deviation

0.24 m

0.50 m

Table 2: Mean and standard deviation for the Gaussian distributed significant wave

height HS conditioned on the mean wind velocity in meter per second.

Based on the assumed distributions the correlation between the mean wind velocity and

the significant wave height can be calculated theoretically to 0.95 for case 1 and 0.62

for case 2, respectively.

It is noted that the Gaussian distribution for the significant wave height includes

negative values for small mean wind velocities. However as the present analysis

addresses extreme values this is of no importance.

In the standard normal space the environmental condition along the contours

represented by

U 12 + U 22 =

(8)

can be transformed into contours in the physical space utilising the above equations and

the following transformations

V = FV1 ( (U 1 )) = a( Ln(1 (U 1 ))1 / k

(9)

Hs = FHs1V ( (U 2 )) = U 2 + V

where and are (0.13; 0.24) for case 1 and (0.07; 0.50) for case 2, and a is 11 m/s

and k is 1.8.

The obtained contours for the two cases are shown in Figure 2 and the correlation

between the environmental loads is clearly reflected in the shape of the contour.

6,0

4,0

Return period 10 year

Return period 50 year

Return period 200 year

Return period 1000 year

5,0

3,5

3,0

4,0

2,5

3,0

2,0

1,5

2,0

Return period 5 year

Return period 10 year

Return period 50 year

Return period 200 year

Return period 1000 year

1,0

1,0

0,5

0,0

0,0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 2: Environmental contours Horns Rev. Left: Case 1: direction WNW with high

correlation. Right: Case 2: direction E with low correlation.

Studies of joint distributions for significant wave height and wind velocity has been

reported in ref. /4/, based on an analysis of the environmental conditions at Rdsand.

In ref. /4/ the significant wave height is taken as the unconditioned parameter and the

mean wind velocity is then conditioned on the wave height. The significant wave

height, Hs, in an arbitrary sea state is assumed to follow a two-parameter Weibull

distribution

FH S (h) = 1 exp((

h h

) )

h0

(10)

where h0 = 0.863 m and h= 1.817. The 10-minute mean wind velocity V conditioned on

the significant wave height is assumed to be log-normal

40

45

ln(v) u

FV (v H S ) =

u

(11)

D[V ] 2

) + 1) and u = ln( E[V ]) 0.5 u2

E[V ]

(12)

(13)

u = ln((

with

where Hs is the significant wave height in meters and z denotes the height in meters

above sea level and a0 and a1 is given as

a 0 = 0.368 ln z + 1.7582 and a1 = 1.0667 ln z + 5.771

In ref. /4/ it is stated that the auto-correlation function for the significant wave height

can be adequately represented by a two-parameter exponential decay model as

a

(t ) = exp( at ) (cosh(bt ) + sinh(bt ))

b

where the parameters a and b are estimated to 0.837 and 0.793, respectively.

Based on the estimated correlation function and the formula given in equation (5) the

effective number of 1 hour sea-states in a time series with n observation can be

obtained. The duration between two independent 1 hour sea-states is then obtained to 46

hours.

= 1 (1 p f ) = 1 (1

46

)

Tr 365 24

(14)

where Tr is the return period. For a 50-year return period the target is 3.71.

Using the transformation given in equation (3) and (4) the environmental condition for

Rdsand can be obtained. The contours are given in Figure 3 for z equal to 70 m. It is

seen from the figure that the correlation between the mean wind velocity and the

significant wave height at Rdsand is high. Moreover it is seen that the environmental

parameters in general are somewhat smaller at Rdsand than at Horns Rev.

3,5

Return period 5 year

Return period 10 year

Return period 50 year

Return period 200 year

Return period 1000 year

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 3: Environmental contours for mean wind velocity and significant wave height

at Rdsand

In the previous section the relevant combinations of environmental parameters

corresponding to a given return period are identified. These combinations are to be

combined with the response of the structure under consideration in order to determine

where on the contour the extreme value lays for the given return period. This point will

further more define the combination of external environmental parameters to be applied

in the deterministic design approach.

The used response model is described in ref. /5/. The model calculates the mean value,

r, standard deviation, r, and the standard deviation on the response velocity, r ,

based on given wave and wind spectra. The spactra depend on the mean wind velocity

and significant waveheight.

The extreme value of the response is modelled by a filtered Poisson process, i.e.

Fmax (r , t ) = exp( t (1 F (r ))

(15)

where is the intensity of the Poisson process, t the time period over which the extreme

is considered and F(r) is the distribution of the pulses in the response process.

For a normal distributed response r as in ref. /5/ with the mean value and standard

deviation ( r, r) the expected number of up-crossings of the level is given by Rices

formula as

1

r

( ) = 0 exp

2 r

(16)

where 0 denotes the expected number of up crossings of the mean level r per unit of

the time t given by

0 =

1 r

2 r

(17)

Having the response given as a Gaussian process described by the normal distribution

function as stated above and by assuming that each up crossing of the level is

independent, the distribution for the extreme in the period t can be approximated by

1 r 2

Fmax ( ) = exp 0 t exp( (

) )

2 r

(18)

The median value of the maximum response, which is slightly lower than the average

value, in the period t is thus given as

ln(2)

+ r

= r 2 ln

0 t

(19)

The considered wind turbine used together with the environmental contours for Horns

Rev is an active stall-regulated turbine with a hub height of 63.5 m, placed on a water

depth of 9 m. The lowest natural frequency of the structure is 0.401 Hz and the rotor

disc are is around 3160 m2.

The sea roughness is put to 0.004 m and the turbulence intensity is assumed constant

with a value of 10.34 %. The waves are assumed to follow a Pierson-Moskowitz

spectrum where the peak period is a function of the significant wave height given as

T p = 190 H s / g

(20)

where g is the gravity. The response model is described in details in ref. /5/.

The design response for a wind turbine in operation is typically in the same range as the

design response for a parked turbine under extreme conditions. The established model

for the wind turbine response takes this automatically into account by changing the

wind load when the mean wind velocity becomes larger than the so-called cut-out mean

wind velocity, which in this case is put to 25 m/s. For larger mean wind velocities the

wind turbine will be parked and the wind response will hereby reduced. The considered

response is the overturning moment and the shear force at the seabed and the calculated

response is seen in Figure 4 where the change in response at V=25 m/s also is very

distinct.

Figure 4: Response for maximum expected shear force (left) and maximum expected

overturning moment (right).

From the figures it is seen that the mean wind velocity governs the overturning moment,

whereas the influence of the significant wave height is very limited. The shear force is

most sensitive to the significant wave height, but both environmental parameters are

important when the shear force is considered.

The maximal response for a given return period is then obtained by searching on the

contours shown in Figure 2. For the operation design case the mean wind velocity is

limited at 25 m/s and only the significant wave height increases when the return period

increases. The maximal shear force and overturning moment are in all cases obtained

for the same combination of wind and wave load. The results are given in Table 3 and

Table 4.

Operation situation (25 m/s) Extreme situation

Return Response Hs [m] Return pe- Response Hs [m]

period [MN]

riod for Hs [MN]

5

1.22

3.78

1

1.21

4.31

10

1.24

3.86

1.5

1.25

4.52

50

1.26

3.99

2

1.38

5.00

100

1.27

4.05

2.5

1.44

5.21

200

1.27

4.10

3

1.49

5.41

500

1.28

4.15

3.5

1.56

5.66

1000

1.29

4.20

4

1.61

5.84

32.67

5

5

33.94

10

10

37.83

40

47

39.37

67

93

40.89

104

188

42.77

145

461

44.18

174

922

Table 3: Characteristic shear force response and return periods for the individual

environmental loads for the different response return periods for Horns Rev

case 1 (large correlation).

10

Extreme situation

Return Response Hs [m] Return pe- Response Hs [m]

period [MNm]

riod for Hs [MNm]

5

34.2

3.78

1.0

25.0

4.31

10

34.2

3.86

1.5

27.0

4.50

50

34.3

3.99

2.0

33.0

5.00

100

34.3

4.05

2.5

35.6

5.21

200

34.3

4.10

3.0

38.4

5.41

500

34.4

4.15

3.5

41.9

5.66

1000

34.4

4.20

4.0

44.7

5.84

32.67

5

5

34.05

9

10

37.83

40

47

39.37

67

93

40.89

104

188

42.77

145

461

44.18

174

922

Table 4: Characteristic overturning moment and return periods for the individual

environmental loads for the different response return periods for Horns Rev

case 1 (large correlation).

From Table 3 and Table 4 it is seen that the characteristic overturning moment is largest

in the operation situation for return periods up to 50 years, whereas the characteristic

shear force in the operation situation is largest up to a return period of 10 years.

Moreover it is seen that when the correlation between the loads is high, the return period

for the loads in the extreme situation is close to the return period for the response. In the

operation situation the wave height is limited due to the high correlation and becomes

almost constant for any return period. This emphasises that two design situation are to

be considered operation and extreme environmental conditions.

Results for case 2 with low correlation are given in Table 5 and Table 6.

Operation situation (25 m/s) Extreme situation

Return Response Hs [m] Return pe- Response Hs [m]

period [MN]

riod for Hs [MN]

5

1.07

2.83

5

0.91

2.71

10

1.09

2.97

9

0.96

2.85

50

1.14

3.25

32

1.07

3.13

100

1.16

3.35

48

1.12

3.25

200

1.17

3.45

67

1.17

3.36

500

1.19

3.57

102

1.23

3.47

1000

1.21

3.66

123

1.27

3.59

30.48

3

2

32.31

5

5

36.22

19

23

37.81

32

47

39.40

50

95

41.51

74

252

42.86

107

482

Table 5: Characteristic shear force response and return periods for the individual

environmental loads for the different response return periods for Horns Rev

case 2 (low correlation).

11

Extreme situation

Return Response Hs [m] Return pe- Response Hs [m]

period [MNm]

riod for Hs [MNm]

5

33.8

2.83

5

23.4

2.40

10

33.8

2.97

9

25.9

2.53

50

34.0

3.25

32

32.0

2.82

100

34.0

3.35

48

34.7

2.93

200

34.0

3.45

67

37.4

3.04

500

34.1

3.57

102

41.0

3.19

1000

34.1

3.66

123

43.8

3.29

32.31

1

5

34.05

1.4

9.5

37.83

5

47

39.37

8

93

40.89

13

188

42.77

24

461

44.18

37

922

Table 6: Characteristic overturning moment and return periods for the individual

environmental loads for the different response return periods for Horns Rev

case 2 (low correlation).

In the second case where the correlation between the loads is more limited, it is seen

that the operation situation is governing the design for return periods up to around 50 to

100 years. Moreover it is seen that for the shear force response, which is slightly wave

dominated the return periods for the environmental loads are only about half of the

return period for the response. For the overturning moment, which is dominated by the

wind load due to the long internal arm, the reduction in return period is not that

significant. It is also seen that when the correlation between the loads is limited the

significant wave height increases in the operation situation for increased return periods.

4,0

6,0

Max response

Return period 5 year

Return period 10 year

Return period 50 year

Return period 200 year

Return period 1000 year

5,0

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

Operation

Extreme

2,0

3,0

1,5

2,0

1,0

1,0

0,5

Max overturning moment

Return period 5 year

Return period 10 year

Return period 50 year

Return period 200 year

Return period 1000 year

0,0

0,0

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10

15

20

25

30

35

from Figure 3. Left: Horns Rev case 1: direction WNW with high correlation.

Right: Horns Rev case 2: direction E with low correlation.

From Figure 5 it is seen that if the correlation between the loads is low, the load

combination causing the maximum response is not obvious and the combination may

depend on the type of response. Figure 5 right, shows that the maximum expected shear

force (the full black circles) will occur for a larger significant wave height than the

overturning moment (the stars), which is dominated by the wind load.

12

40

45

In order to evaluate the benefit of the given procedure, the response is calculated for the

50-year return period for both environmental loads for the extreme situation, and a 50year return period for the significant wave height together with a mean wind velocity of

25 m/s for the operation situation. The 50-year return period corresponds to a mean

wind velocity of 38.29 m/s and significant wave height of 5.09 m for the first case with

large correlation and 3.36 m for the case with low correlation.

Operation situation

Correlation Hs [m] V [m/s] Shear force Return period Overturning

Return period

V [MN]

for V

moment M [MNm]

for M

Large

5.09

25.0

1.41

990,000

34.80

2,800,000

Low

3.36

25.0

1.16

79

34.00

86

Table 7: Extreme responses for a 50 year return period for both environmental loads.

Extreme situation

Correlation Hs [m] V [m/s] Shear force Return period Overturning

Return period

V [MN]

for V

moment M [MNm]

for M

Large

5.09 37.97

1.40

70

33.26

68

Low

3.36 37.97

1.14

128

32.48

58

Table 8: Operation responses for a 50 year return period for the significant wave height

and a mean wind velocity of 25 m/s.

From Table 7 and Table 8 it appears that if the correlation is large in the operation

situation a 50-years significant wave height is extremely conservative. The 25 m/s

corresponds to a very low return period (approximately 0.37) and due to the strong

correlation the significant wave height will be in the range of return period. In the

extreme situation and when the correlation is low the benefit is more limited, but though

still considerable.

It should be noted that the given procedure assumes that the maximal response cannot

occur for a lower return period than the considered, which is a non-conservative

assumption. There is a minor probability of that the largest response can occur for a load

combination that corresponds to a lower return period, but this probability is minor and

will decrease with the length of the considered period.

In most codes it is the individual environmental loads that are multiplied by a partial

safety factor and not the response as suggested in this case. For an offshore wind turbine

the relation between the environmental loads and the response is non linear in some

cases and the suggested procedure is therefore be more suitable.

According to the code format, see Section 2, the maximal expected response should be

multiplied by the partial safety factor, and the safety factor does therefore depend on the

coefficient of variation of the extreme response.

13

The total coefficient of variation for the structural response contains the following

contributions. A contribution due to the statistical uncertainty caused by the random

nature of the load process, a contribution covering the physical uncertainty in how the

flow converts into load on the structure (for the wind load this term is around 25 %

according to ref. /7/) and finally a contribution covering the model uncertainty. The

coefficient of variation for the model uncertainty for the wind is according to ref. /7/

around 14 %.

The variation of the extreme response obtained by the procedure described in Section 4

can be established by determining the maximal response for different return periods, i.e.

different fractiles in the upper tail of the response distribution.

Using the obtained response values for the chosen fractiles an extreme value distribution

can be fitted to these values. In this case a Gumbel distribution is fitted by use of a least

square fit, and the Gumbel distribution seems to fit very well to the obtained values. The

Gumble distribution fits very well because the dependence between the response and the

Weibull distributed mean wind is almost linear, especially for the case with large

correlation. Knowing the parameters in the distribution fitted to the upper tail the

coefficient of variation of the responds can be calculated.

In Figure 6 the fitted Gumble distribution is shown together with the calculated values

for the extreme situation and large correlation between the environmental loads.

0,98

0,98

0,94

0,94

0,90

0,90

0,86

0,86

0,82

Emperical

0,82

Emperical

F-Gumbel

0,78

F-Gumbel

0,78

1,2

1,3

1,4

1,5

1,6

24,0

28,0

32,0

36,0

40,0

44,0

Figure 6: Empirical and fitted extreme distribution for the extreme situation with

large correlation between the environmental loads.

The corresponding figures for the operation situation for the case with large correlation

is given in Figure 7.

14

0,98

0,98

0,94

0,94

0,90

0,90

0,86

0,86

0,82

0,82

Emperical

Emperical

F-Gumbel

F-Gumbel

0,78

0,78

1,20

1,22

1,24

1,26

1,28

1,30

34,10

34,15

34,20

34,25

34,30

34,35

34,40

34,45

Figure 7: Empirical and fitted extreme distribution for the operation situation with

large correlation between the environmental loads.

For the operation situation the extreme distribution fit is not unique, but the coefficient

of variation on the operation response is very low because the mean wind velocity is

constant (25 m/s) and only the significant wave height increases when the return period

increases. The obtained coefficient of variation on the response in the different

situations is given in Table 9.

Correlation

Large

Low

Operation situation

Extreme situation

C.o.V. Shear

C.o.V. Moment C.o.V. Shear

C.o.V. Moment

1.6 %

0.2 %

8.3 %

19.0 %

4.1 %

0.3 %

10.8 %

24.6 %

For an offshore wind turbine the physical uncertainty may be lower than stated in ref.

/7/ which covers normal land structures, because the external pressure coefficient, the

terrain topography and roughness is well determined. Moreover the uncertainty in the

load transformation from the waves may be lower than the wind and a contribution

around 18 to 20 % instead of the 25 % may be more realistic. (The 25 % reduce to 18 %

if the uncertainty contribution from the terrain topography and roughness is neglected).

The total uncertainty used to determine the safety factor is then calculated as shown in

the following example taken from ref. /7/.

Considering a structure only exposed to wind load the total coefficient of variation can

be calculated as

(1 + Vtot2 ) = (1 + Vq2 )(1 + Vc2e )(1 + Vc2p )(1 + V J2 )

(21)

where Vq , Vce , Vc p and VJ are the coefficients of variation of the extreme wind, exposure

coefficient, external pressure coefficient and the model uncertainty.

The partial safety factor is then a function of the obtained total coefficient of variation

Vtot for the wind load.

15

34,50

The safety factors in the Danish code DS 409 ref. /6/ for environmental loads are

obtained by calibration at two values of the coefficient of variation i.e. 20 % and 40 %

where the corresponding safety factors are found to be 1.3 and 1.5. Assuming a linear

variation around and between these to values the connection between the total

coefficient of variation and the partial safety factor is obtained and shown in Figure 8.

1,6

1,5

1,4

= C.o.V. + 1,1

1,3

1,2

1,1

10%

Figure 8:

20%

30%

40%

Total coefficient of variation

50%

In order to use the relationship shown in Figure 8 the coefficient of variation for the

response must be obtained and the contributions form the uncertainty in the

environmental parameters, transformation from flow (wind and wave) to pressure and

the model uncertainty must be included.

In the purposed code format the total coefficient of variation is obtained as

(1 + Vtot2 ) = (1 + Vq2 )(1 + Vc2 )(1 + V J2 )

(22)

where Vc is the total uncertainty for the transformation of the loads to response

approximately around 18 to 20 %.

The obtained partial safety factors for the operation and extreme situation are given in

Table 10 for the two environmental cases obtained for Horns Rev.

Variable

Shear

Moment

Shear

Moment

Shear

Moment

Shear

Moment

Response formation

Extreme

Large

8.3%

20.0%

Extreme

Large

19.0%

20.0%

Extreme

Low

10.8%

20.0%

Extreme

Low

24.6%

20.0%

Operation

Large

1.6%

20.0%

Operation

Large

0.2%

20.0%

Operation

Low

4.1%

20.0%

Operation

Low

0.3%

20.0%

CoV.

Model

14.0%

14.0%

14.0%

14.0%

14.0%

14.0%

14.0%

14.0%

CoV.

Total

26.0%

31.4%

27.0%

35.3%

24.6%

24.6%

24.9%

24.6%

Safety

factor

1.36

1.41

1.37

1.45

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

16

From Table 10 it is seen that the partial safety factor for the operation situation should

be lower than in the extreme situation. Moreover the variation in the extreme situation is

larger than in the operation situation where the governing uncertainty is the model

uncertainty and the physical uncertainty. These two uncertainty contributions can be

reduced when a precise and accurate load model is used and when the knowledge about

the load process is increased.

Applying the safety factors in Table 10 together with the obtained characteristic

response given in Table 3 to Table 6 the design loads shown in Table 11 can be

obtained.

Response variable

Shear force

Overturning moment

Shear force

Overturning moment

Shear force

Overturning moment

Shear force

Overturning moment

Situation

factor

response

Extreme

Large

1.36

1.38 MN

Extreme

Large

1.41

33.0 MNm

Extreme

Low

1.37

1.07 MN

Extreme

Low

1.45

32.0 MNm

Operation

Large

1.35

1.26 MN

Operation

Large

1.35

34.3 MNm

Operation

Low

1.35

1.14 MN

Operation

Low

1.35

34.0 MNm

Design

response

1.88 MN

46.7 MNm

1.47 MN

46.5 MNm

1.69 MN

46.1 MNm

1.54 MN

45.7 MNm

Table 11: Design loads for the operation and extreme situation for the case with large

correlation and low correlation between the environmental loads.

From Table 11 it is seen that for the case with large correlation the largest design load is

obtained for the extreme situation, where as for the case with low correlation the

operation situation is governing the design shear force and the overturning moment is

governing by the extreme situation. The variation in the design loads is though limited.

6. Conclusions

The environmental contours for the mean wind velocity and significant wave height are

established and the maximal structural response is obtained for the operation situation

and the extreme situation. Moreover it is found that the auto-correlation is important in

order to estimate the effective number of environmental conditions for the considered

return period.

Furthermore the correlation between the environmental loads are important. It is found

that in case of large correlation the benefit of the described procedure is very large for

the operation situation and limited for the extreme situation. For a low correlation

between the loads the benefit is in general more limited, but still considerable.

Based on the calculated maximal response for different return periods an extreme

distribution is estimated and the partial safety factor can be obtained. The obtained

safety factors for the extreme design situations are in general in the same range as the

partial safety factors given in the Eurocode and the Danish code, ref. /6/ and /10/. The

partial safety factors obtained for the operation situation are a bit lower due to the

17

limited uncertainty, and it seams reasonably to use smaller partial safety factors for the

design operation situation.

7. Acknowledgements

The paper form part of EFP J.nr. 1363/99-0007 Designgrundlag for vindmlleparker

p havet (Design Regulations For Offshore Windfarms) which is financial supported

by the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy and the power supply companies

ELSAM and SEAS.

8. References

/1/

for extreme response: Inverse form with omission factors, Structural Safety &

Reliability, 1994 Balkerna, Rotterdam.

/2/

/3/

/4/

Clay in Cyclic Loading, EFP99, December 2000.

/5/

Tarp-Johansen, N. J., Frandsen, S.: A Simple Offshore Wind Turbine Model for

Foundation Design, EFP99, December 2000.

/6/

/7/

STRUCTURES Proposals for Modification of Partial Safety Factors in

Eurocodes.

/8/

Conradsen, K., Nielsen, L. B. and Prahm, I. P.: Review of Weibull Statistics for

Estimation of Wind Speed Distributions, Journal of Climate and applied

Meteorology, Vol. 23, No., 8, August 1984.

/9/

Kristensen, L., Jensen, G., Hansen, A. and Kirkegaard, P.: Field Calibration of

Cup Anemometers, Ris National Laboratory, January 2001.

/10/ Draft prEN 1990, Basis of Design, European Standard, September 2000.

18

- Site Analysis ExampleDiunggah olehTalisa Dwiyani
- Labone Office Complex Structural Design Report Rev.01Diunggah olehPatrick Oppong
- QuizDiunggah olehNassir Ceellaabe
- ME 2013 04 Design Vertical Wind Turbine Power LED Street LightsDiunggah olehanamika singh
- SCM Truncated Gaussian Algorithm Petrel 2010Diunggah olehMary Beach
- 19Lecture - Central Limit TheoremDiunggah olehsaidasa
- Probability & Statistics Lab_Toss of Coin (1)Diunggah olehAnnPanda
- NormalDiunggah olehDenys Rivera Guevara
- ISI_MStat_04Diunggah olehapi-26401608
- Electronics and Communication Ece Formula Book for Gate Ies and PsuDiunggah olehAlberto Manhua
- Mxt ManualDiunggah olehAbdullah Ansari
- 9709_s04_qp_7Diunggah olehtess_15
- Operations ManagementDiunggah olehLheam C Vilog
- Kuliah 4 Model StatistikDiunggah olehLidya Monica
- Fusion and Kalman FiltersDiunggah olehvshssvs7
- Central Limit Theorem Estimation SummaryDiunggah olehFaisal Rao
- birmingham ready mix concreteDiunggah olehcentral readymix
- ODOT LRFR Manual November2015Diunggah olehnelsonsainz
- entropy-16-05838Diunggah olehBibin Francis
- Scaffold-english-1.pdfDiunggah olehCris Suyam
- outcome4t2Diunggah olehnjenns
- A Simple Method for Bounding WillingnessDiunggah olehKhalid Joia
- CHAPTER 4-5.docDiunggah olehIswadi Idris
- stat100b_gamma_chi_t_f.pdfDiunggah olehsumanta1234
- xx-x-xxxx-xx-xxxx-REV-xx-Civil-Structural-Design-Basis.pdfDiunggah olehBharath Reddy ChinthiReddy
- N-CR-001 1st 1996 Common Requirements - Structural design.pdfDiunggah olehhadi
- DB Dubai+Wind+Code22Diunggah olehAnil Mahadik
- WindDiunggah olehTarun Verma
- GATE-2016-2018-Mechanical-Engineering-Question-Paper-and-Answer-Key.pdfDiunggah olehananda narayanan
- Analysis and Design of Steel Truss BridgesDiunggah olehDayah Mahadi

- Ansys Workbench ScriptingDiunggah olehIhab El Sawi
- energies-12-02158Diunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- Carneiro Dl Tm 15Diunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- Corrosion.pdfDiunggah olehMehdi Ghoddosi
- 2014_JPE_BruschiDiunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- 2014_JPE_BruschiDiunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- 1502530_PasqualeAvanDijk_MasterThesisDiunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- ufc_4_023_03 july 2009.pdfDiunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- Technip in NorwayDiunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- allegato_H.pdfDiunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- A Mathematical Trick to Identify the New Spoolpiece Lifting Points! _ Mohamed Hermas, MSc CEng MIMechE _ Pulse _ LinkedInDiunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- WholeJournal v21 InteractiveDiunggah olehmuhammed salih
- water-07-05910Diunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- JL-80-July-August Construction Techniques for Segmental Concrete Bridges.pdfDiunggah olehMazaya Btari
- Guide to Design Criteria for Bolts and Riveted JointsDiunggah olehHomero Silva
- 10.0000@Www.onepetro.org@Conference Paper@ISOPE I 00 142Diunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- Liu 2015Diunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- Heavy FloatoverDiunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- The5thingstodobeforeshowinganyoneyourfearesults Slideshareversion 141002142258 Phpapp02Diunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- 7 Abaqus Conv GuidelinesDiunggah olehFerhan Öztürk
- Ae4131 Abaqus Lecture 3Diunggah olehSatyasapath Roy
- SMAW PowerpointDiunggah olehShankar Gurusamy
- 582Diunggah olehMehdiGhoddosi
- Abaqus ScriptingDiunggah olehHarun Alrasyid
- 1370-StripTheory-03Diunggah olehHuidong Zhang

- Smoke Management in High-Rise Structures - Fire EngineeringDiunggah olehtachet
- Cla PansDiunggah olehTeguh Raharjo
- 26gk-tcyDiunggah olehVisakh Nair
- Bar Soap Finishing - Luis Spitz 4-5-2006Diunggah olehGabriela Zubieta
- 1000Diunggah olehShine ON
- Improving Pig Trap DesignDiunggah olehpirsiavash
- Manual for Solar IcemakerDiunggah olehsjdarkman1930
- Webasto Air Top 3500 Workshop ManualDiunggah olehDavid Butler
- Transmissor de Nivel Tipo Radar Sitrans Lr400 Siemens 1Diunggah olehJulianodeLima
- lec_18Diunggah olehAnonymous rn2qoBPjKy
- Modern Electronic & InstrumentationDiunggah olehsandeep khandai
- Atlas St1030lpDiunggah olehJhon Co
- 941114-001_Parts_Q310_rev1.pdfDiunggah olehSebin Kv
- 5157765Diunggah olehkvhkrishnan
- kidapawan-north cotabatoDiunggah olehapi-19731397
- UNIT-IDiunggah olehadityarajchikkala
- Viscosity Specific Heat of Oils With TempDiunggah olehlokeshsharma4433
- 500 Series Pavers All 552 and 562 Models Manual 23030Diunggah olehDiego Orlando Santos Buitrago
- (ONICON) Flow Straightener Catalog Sheet 0112Diunggah olehairsnow
- Camshaft mech dissectionDiunggah olehEva Dewsbury
- OnScreen Inter Quiz 3ADiunggah olehAnonymous ArJ8VYlJ7l
- a04_431Diunggah olehjaime
- PEGP7801-06 2011 Cat Batteries Cross Reference GuideDiunggah olehСергей Шевченко
- 86.IJMPERDDEC201886Diunggah olehTJPRC Publications
- ChokesDiunggah olehNaief Javaheri
- API Co2 ReportDiunggah olehsimonlopez2012
- btpDiunggah olehdeshraj
- Argus for Asia Sae Ue Ms Cu WeDiunggah olehAA
- Fagerhult Lighting Guide Car ShowroomsDiunggah olehSneha Patel
- IMQDiunggah olehkkkprot

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.