QUICK MONOPILE DESIGN

W.E. de Vries, J.van der Tempel

Duwind, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology
Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands
Tel.: +31 15 27 87568, E-mail: [email protected]

SUMMARY

In the preliminary stages of an offshore wind farm development, when few resources are available, a reliable
estimate of the dimensions of a support structure is important as the impact on eventual costs is significant.
Therefore a quick design approach is desirable. Key to designing a monopile is the diameter of the monopile,
which is adjusted until the desired natural frequency is reached. Subsequently, the penetration depth and the
wall thickness, based on requirements for strength, stability and fatigue are determined. With the approach
described in this paper a preliminary design for a monopile support structure can be rapidly generated.

Keywords: Monopile, support structure, design

1 INTRODUCTION
Although several support structure concepts for offshore wind turbines have been developed over the years, the
monopile still remains the most popular. In the preliminary stages of an offshore wind farm development, being able
to make a reliable estimate of the dimensions of a support structure is important as the impact on eventual costs is
significant. However, in this phase not many resources are available. Therefore a quick design approach, resulting in
the main dimensions of the support structure with a reasonable degree of accuracy, is desirable. Such an approach can
be used to help make decisions regarding the general dimensionsof the support structure in an early stage.

Key to designing a monopile is determining the desired natural frequency and tuning the design to attain this natural
frequency. Subsequently, the penetration depth must be determined. Finally, the wall thickness should be determined
based on requirements for strength, stability and fatigue. The aim of this paper is to describe such a design approach,
which can be used to rapidly generate a preliminary design for a monopile support structure.
A discussion of this design approach is followed by a design case. This design case is based on a location selected for
the Upwind project, together with a 5.0 MW reference turbine designed for the project by NREL. The results of the
design case will be summarized to give an impression of the level of detail that can be achieved using this approach.

2 QUICK MONOPILE DESIGN APPROACH

The design approach is shown in Figure 1. Using the turbine data and the environmental data associated with the
chosen site, the design levels, or key elevations can be determined. Based on the turbine data the required natural
frequency can be found. The preliminary geometry established using a fixed ratio between the diameter and the wall
thickness, while taking the natural frequency requirements and the design levels into account.

Figure 1: General design process for the preliminary design of monopile support structures

The turbine data serves as input for determining the maximum load on the turbine whereas the hydrodynamic loads
on the pile are calculated using the pile diameter and the environmental data and site conditions as input. Using both

1
the extreme aerodynamic and hydrodynamic loads, the required penetration depth of the foundation pile into the soil
can be determined. Again using the extreme loads, it is checked whether the support structure will resist failure due to
buckling or yielding. Subsequently, a fatigue check is performed in the frequency domain. This check requires wave
climate data, as the fatigue due to hydrodynamic loading is incorporated, but does not require wind input as the
turbine is assumed to be idling in this analysis. If the extreme load checks and the fatigue check indicate that the wall
thickness is insufficient, the wall thickness must be increased. If both checks show that the wall thickness is
significantly larger than required, the wall thickness should be reduced and the buckling and fatigue damage should
be re-assessed. After optimizing the wall thickness, the natural frequency of the support structure should be re-
assessed. It is also recommended to perform a fatigue check in the time domain, including both wind and wave
contributions. Depending on the level of accuracy required the number of environmental states and the duration of
each simulation can be set.

Required data
In order to apply this design approach, the following data should be known:

Environmental data Turbine data Site data

• 50 yr maximum wave • Thrust force as • Water depth

height function of wind speed • Soil profile
• 50 yr maximum • Rotational velocity as
current velocity function of wind speed
• Tidal range • Rotor diameter
• Storm surge • Turbine mass

Furthermore, in order to perform a time domain check as recommended for the final stage of this design approach, the
climate data should be known. This can be obtained from 3 dimensional scatter diagrams in which environmental
states are expressed as combinations of significant wave height Hs, zero-crossing period Tz and wind speed Vw. Also a
turbine model should be available that can be used in a time domain simulation program.

Determining the design levels

The first step in the preliminary design process is the determination of design levels for the platform and the hub
height. The platform level is of importance as it is located at the top of the transition piece and it is the location of the
flange connection between the transition piece and the turbine tower. The hub height should be known as the wind
loads are calculated at that level. Furthermore, the location of the centre of gravity of the nacelle mass is dependent
on the hub height. This parameter has a large impact on the natural frequency. Figure 2 indicates the various design
levels for a monopile support structure.

Hub height

Platform level

Top monopile
Bottom transition piece

Pile toe level

Figure 2: Design levels for a monopile offshore wind turbine

The reference level used for the preliminary design of the monopile is Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT). The top of
the monopile is set at LAT + 0.5 m. The required platform level can be found by adhering to:

z platform = LAT + ∆ztide + ∆zsurge + ∆zair + ξ *

With:

2
zplatform = Platform level
∆ztide = Tidal range
∆zsurge = Storm surge
∆zair = Air gap
ζ* = Highest wave elevation above still water level

The highest wave elevation can be found with ζ* = δ·HD in which HD is the design wave height and δ is the wave
elevation coefficient. The design wave height is equal to the maximum wave height with a 50-year return period
Hmax,50. However, HD cannot exceed the wave breaking limit HB, which has been determined empirically at 0.78 times
the local water depth. For δ a value of 0.68 will be maintained [1].

The hub height can easily be determined using the previously defined platform level as a starting-point. The hub
height is determined by the platform level, a blade clearance ∆zclearance and the rotor diameter Drotor.

zhub = z platform + ∆zclearance + 0.5 ⋅ Drotor

The blade clearance is the distance between the blade tip in its lowest position and the platform. This distance should
be sufficient to allow safe access to the platform for personnel and equipment. A blade clearance of 5 m is considered
sufficient.

Determining the required natural frequency

The first natural frequency of the support structure is a very important parameter as it determines the dynamic
behaviour of the offshore wind turbine. If the frequency of excitation is near the natural frequency, resonance occurs
and the resulting response will be larger than in the quasi-static case. This leads to higher stresses in the support
structure and, more importantly to higher stress ranges, an unfavourable situation with respect to the fatigue life of
the offshore wind turbine. Therefore it is important to ensure that the excitation frequencies with high energy levels
do not coincide with the natural frequency of the support structure. In the case of an offshore wind turbine excitation
is due to both wind and waves. For fatigue considerations sea states with a high frequency of occurrence have the
largest effect. These are generally relatively short waves with a significant wave height Hs of around 1 m to 1.5 m and
a zero-crossing period Tz of around 4 s to 5 s. The wind excitation frequencies that should be avoided are those that
coincide with the range of rotational frequencies of the rotor. This interval is indicated with 1P. Furthermore, the
blade-passing frequency interval should also be avoided. This interval, indicated with 3P for a triple bladed turbine is
equal to the rotational frequency interval times the number of blades. These regions are indicated in Figure 3. The
natural frequency can be chosen in the range between the 1P and 3P regions.

1P 3P

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
f1
Frequency [Hz]

Figure 3: Determining the allowed natural frequency

Determining preliminary geometry

Using the selected natural frequency as a target, the dimensions of the tubular elements of the support structure are
adjusted. In the case of the monopile the diameter of the pile is varied. The diameter of the transition piece
subsequently depends on the diameter of the monopile following:

DTP = DMP + 2(tTP + t grout )

Where

DTP = Diameter of transition piece

DMP = Diameter of monopile
tTP = Wall thickness of transition piece
tgrout = Thickness of grout connection

3
The grout thickness is taken as 50 mm. A generally accepted rule for grout length is Lgrout/Dgrout ≈ 1.5, where Lgrout is
the grout length and Dgrout is diameter of the grout connection [1] [2]. Dgrout is taken equal to the diameter of the
monopile, DMP.

The wall thickness of the monopile and transition piece is initially determined by taking a fixed ratio of 1:80 to the
diameter of the monopile. The wall thickness is taken constant over the entire length of monopile and transition piece.
The wall thickness will be optimized with respect to buckling in a later stage.

To incorporate the tower into the design of the support structure a scaling method has been adopted to which the
original geometry of the Vestas V90 tower is subjected. The diameter of the tower is scaled such that the diameter at
the tower top is equal to 2.5 m, while the diameter at the tower base is set equal to the diameter of the transition piece.
The wall thickness is scaled by the same factor. Furthermore the length of the tower is scaled to fit the previously
determined hub height.

Determining extreme loads

The maximum wind load on the turbine is approximated by determining the thrust on the rotor at the rated wind
speed and taking increased load due to occurrence of a gust into account by multiplying the thrust by 1.5. At the rated
wind speed the turbine reaches rated power. If the wind speed increases, the blade pitch will be adjusted to maintain
constant rotor speed and thereby constant power output. Although the power output remains constant the thrust on the
rotor drops. However, if a gust occurs at the rated wind speed, the control system will not be able to react
instantaneously and the blades will not pitch immediately. This causes a temporary increase of the thrust by 50%.
This generally gives a reliable estimate of the maximum wind load that can be expected to act on the turbine [3]. The
thrust on the rotor as a function of wind speed is calculated using the matlab Based simulation tool RECAL [4]. This
graph is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Axial force in rotor shaft as function of wind speed

To determine the maximum wave loads, linear Airy wave theory with Wheeler stretching is used. Although non-
linear wave theories describe the waves better for extreme waves, Airy waves give a reasonable approximation. Its
simplicity allows for quick evaluation of the wave loads on a monopile support structure. Table 5 lists the basic load
cases which are to be assessed at least [1] [2].

Table 1: Basic load cases

Load Combination Water Level Wind Ice Waves Current
1 50 years 50 years 5 years 5 years
2 50 years 5 years 50 years 5 years
3 50 years 5 years 5 years 50 years
4 MWL 5 years 50 years 5 years 5 years
5 MWL 50 years 50 years 5 years

However, as surface ice is not expected to occur at the selected location, the 5th load case can be dropped and the ice
load is disregarded in the 4th load case. A load factor of 1.35 is to be adopted for environmental loads [1] [2].
Furthermore wind and waves will be assumed to come from the same direction.

Determining penetration depth

The penetration depth must be sufficient to provide both axial and lateral stability. For a monopile support structure,
the lateral stability is generally governing. The pile-soil interaction can be modelled in a finite element program using
non-linear soil springs in the form of p-y curves. The extreme loads are applied to the structure and the horizontal
displacement at the mudline is determined. The penetration depth is determined by assuming an initial pile toe level
and subsequently shortening the pile until one of the criteria is no longer met. The criteria used for the optimization of
the penetration depth are as follows:

4
 • The horizontal displacement at mudline: 0.12 m
• The horizontal displacement at pile toe level: 0.02 m

Note that these criteria are based on past practical experiences with the design of offshore monopile support
structures. They are not yet scientifically substantiated, but seem to be a practical assumption. Furthermore, the axial
stability of the pile foundation should normally be verified. However, as the lateral stability is generally governing for
monopile support structures for offshore wind turbines, this verification will not be given here.

Performing buckling checks

The support structure is to be checked for overall and local buckling [2]. To this end the extreme loads are applied to
the finite element model. The mudline bending moment and normal forces are recorded. These loads serve as input
for the buckling check. If the unity check exceeds 1.0 the wall thickness must be increased and the check must be
repeated. If the unity check is below 1.0 the wall thickness is reduced until a value as close as possible to 1.0 is
reached.

Bar buckling
When a structural element is subjected to an axial compression force and a bending moment, the proof of buckling
strength is to be carried out using the following formula:

Nd βm M d
+ + ∆n ≤ 1.0
κNp Mp
In this equation:

Nd = design axial compression force [N]

Md = design bending moment [Nm]
κ = reduction factor for flexural buckling [-]
βm = moment coefficient [-]
Np = plastic compression resistance [N]
Mp = plastic resistance moment [Nm]

Nd and Md are the factored loads for the element under consideration. Np, Mp, κ and βm have been determined
following the Germanischer Lloyd guidelines [2]

Shell buckling
For the buckling check of long unstiffened cylindrical shells under combined axial compressive loading and
circumferential stresses due to external pressure, the following check must be satisfied:

1.25
σ
1.25
 σx  
  + ϕ  ≤ 1.0
σ
 σ xu   ϕu 

In this equation:

σx = axial compressive stress [N/m2]

σxu = ultimate buckling stress for axial compressive stress [N/m2]
σφ = circumferential stress due to external pressure [N/m2]
σφu = ultimate buckling stress for circumferential stress [N/m2]

σφ and σφu have been determined following the Germanischer Lloyd guidelines [2].

Performing fatigue assessment

When an offshore wind turbine is excited by a wave and the rotor is in motion, the relative wind velocity increases
when the rotor moves towards the wind and decreases when the rotor moves away from the wind. If the relative wind
increases the rotor blades experience a stronger opposing force and vice versa for a decrease of the relative wind
velocity. This means that the eventual deflection will not be as large as it would be without this effect. This
effectively reduces the bending stresses in the support structure, which is beneficial to the fatigue life of an offshore
wind turbine. If the turbine is not operating the aerodynamic damping is virtually absent. This results in higher
fatigue damage for periods when the turbine is not producing energy [5].

The phenomenon described above can be used to obtain a quick indication of the fatigue damage a monopile support
structure incurs during its lifetime. If it is assumed that the offshore wind turbine is not operating during its entire
lifetime, the aerodynamic damping can be disregarded and an upper limit for the fatigue damage of the wind turbine
can be found. By modelling the support structure in a program capable of carrying out frequency domain fatigue

5
assessments, the fatigue damage can be found within minutes. While the result is a crude approximation only it can
be very useful in the first wall thickness optimisation loop.

If a higher level of detail is required, the fatigue damage can be assessed in more detail by performing a time domain
analysis. The support structure should then be modelled in a time domain simulation package together with a model
of the turbine. For each environmental state a 10 minute simulation can be carried out. Wind and wave loads are
assumed co-linear. If the results show that the wall thickness is significantly larger than required, it may be reduced.
However, this means that the time domain analysis of the fatigue damage must be repeated for the new geometry.

3 DESIGN CASE
For this paper a preliminary design for a monopile support structure has been performed using the aforementioned
approach. To this end data has been gathered as used in the UpWind project [6]. The most important turbine data and
environmental data are listed here. The selected site is situated in the Dutch part of the North Sea at approximately
53º39’N, 3º57’E. The actual water depth at the selected location is approximately 35 m. The tidal range is 1.6m and a
storm surge value of 2.0 m may be adopted. For this study it is assumed that scour protection will prevent the
occurrence of scour. Therefore scour will not be considered.

Table 2: Maximum wind, wave & current data

Treturn [yr] Hs [m] Hmax [m] Uc [m/s] Vw, [m/s]

5 9.03 16.80 0.80 37.99
Selected location 50 10.91 20.29 0.94 43.92

800

700
Thrust force [kN]

600

500
Table 3: Key parameters for the NREL 5.0MW turbine
400

Power rating 5.0 MW 300

Turbine mass 350 ton

200
Rotor diameter 126 m
Nominal rotor speed 12.1 rpm 100
Rotational interval 4.6-12.1 rpm
0
Cut-in windspeed 4 m/s 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Nominal windspeed 11 m/s Hub wind speed [m/s]
Cut-out windspeed 25 m/s
Figure 5: Thrust force on turbine shaft as function of wind
speed

4 DESIGN RESULTS
Design levels are shown in Figure 6. The allowable natural frequency range lies between 0.2 Hz and 0.35 Hz. To stay
clear of the wave frequencies with high energy content, a natural frequency of 0.29 Hz is selected. This value can be
attained using the preliminary geometry presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Preliminary geometry

D [m] WT [mm]
Foundation pile 7.000 87.5
Transition piece 7.275 87.5
Tower - top 3.870 19.0
Tower - bottom 6.000 27.0

The extreme wind loads have been derived from Figure 5. The maximum force in the turbine shaft, including gust
factor and material factor is 1418 kN. The hydrodynamic loads and the bending moments at the sea bed can be
viewed in Error! Reference source not found. for the load cases presented in Table 1. In this approach, the
maximum wind load depends on the rated wind speed and not on the maximum wind speed. Therefore the wind loads
in Table 1 are the same for each load case

6
 Blade Tip 132.0 m + LAT
Table 5: Loads at sea bed

Load Waves & Current Wind Total

Combination F [kN] M [kNm] F [kN] M [kNm] F [kN] M [kNm]
1 7967 244863 1418 127575 9385 372438
Hub Height 87.0 m + LAT
2 9272 298308 1418 127575 10690 425883
3 8105 249755 1418 127575 9523 377330
4 1268 37770 1418 127575 2686 165345

The final penetration depth is LAT -81 m. The horizontal deflections at

the mudline and the pile toe under the extreme loads (Load Case 2) are
shown below:
• The horizontal displacement at mudline: 1.00·10-1 m
• The horizontal displacement at pile toe level: -1.92·10-2 m Platform Level 19.0 m + LAT

Buckling results will be presented here only for the segment located Sea Level 0.0 m + LAT

nearest the sea bed. This is shown in Table 6. TP Bottom -10.0 m + LAT

Table 6: Buckling check results

D wt Unity Check Seabed Level -35.0 m + LAT

[m] [m] Bar Shell

Before optimization 7.000 0.088 0.643 0.661
After optimization 7.000 0.068 0.795 0.999
Pile Toe Level
Using the direct fatigue approach the fatigue damage for the element
nearest to the sea bed is 0.5. This corresponds to a fatigue life of 20 years.
Figure 6: Design levels
5 CONCLUSIONS & OUTLOOK
The presented approach for the design of monopile support structures for offshore wind turbines follows a well
defined sequence of steps to come to a preliminary design of such a structure. While the results obtained with this
method have lower accuracy than required for a final design, the results give a good indication of the amount of
primary steel that is required for the given site conditions and for the selected turbine. While some of the procedures
used in this method yield approximations of the sought values only, applying them saves time when compared to
more accurate, but elaborate procedures. The quick monopile design approach lends itself well to research purposes
for a number of reasons. First of all, the speed with which it can be applied makes it suitable for parameter studies.
Secondly, applying the same approach each time allows for fair comparison of the results of such studies.
Furthermore, despite the approximations, the outcomes will be realistic, as in essence the sequence of steps is
followed in practice as well. For this reason, the proposed method can be used in the preliminary design process as
the first step in the iterative process involved in designing offshore wind turbine support structures. As this method
can be executed in a matter of days it is particularly suited for the preliminary stages of an offshore wind farm
development, when choices have to be made of which location to select and which turbine type to use. The quick
monopile design approach can help to show the impact on the costs of the support structures that these choices have.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Ph.D. project of which this work is part is funded by the Commission of the
European Communities, Research Directorate-General within the scope of the Integrated
Project “UpWind – Integrated Wind Turbine Design”

REFERENCES

[1] Det Norske Veritas Offshore Standard DNV-OS-J101, Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures. 2004
[2] Germanischer Lloyd Rules and Regulations; IV Industrial Servces; 2 Guidelines for the Certification of
Offshore Wind Turbines, Final draft. 2004
[3] Storm, R Re-Use of Obsolete Jacket Structures for Carrying an Offshore Wind Turbine. MSc thesis report.
Delft University of Technology. 2004.
[4] Cerda Salzmann, DJ Dynamic Response Calculations of Offshore Wind Turbine Support Structures. MSc
thesis report. Delft University of Technology. 2004
[5] de Vries, WE Implementing a Frequency Domain Approach for the Fatigue Analysis of Offshore Wind
Turbine Support Structures. MSc thesis report. Delft University of Technology. 2006
[6] de Vries, WE et al, Assessment of bottom-mounted support structure types with conventional design
stiffness and installation techniques for typical deep water sites. Delft University of Technology. 2007