s O E I NNASA

A S NTM-82804
20320-39

I
\
Effect of Rotor Configuration on Guyed
I Tower and Foundation Designs and
6 Estimated Costs for Intermediate Size
Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines
b
\
1 \
z
c
a-
W
0
<
13-
V3
C

G. R. Frederick
University of Toledo

and

J. R. Winemiller and J. M. Savino

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Lewis Research Center

25 JUN1932
MCDONNiL!. Ltl3'-;t.S
RE5EAfiCH & E!.1Cltti .i:ING LIBRARY
ST. L C U I S

March 1982

Prepared for
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Conservation and Renewable Energy
Division of Wind Energy Systems
 NOTICE

This r e p o r t was p n p u e d t o document work sponsored by

the United S t a t e s Government. Neither t h e United S t a t e s
nor its agent, t h e United S t a t e r Department of Energy,
nor m y Federal employees, nor any of t h e i r c o n t r a c t o r s ,
s u b c o n t r a c t o r s o r t h e i r employees, makes any warranty,
e x p r e r s o r implied, o r assumes any l e g a l l i a b i l i t y o r
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e accuracy, completaness, o r w e f u l -
n e s s of any information, a p p a r a t u r , product o r process
d i s c l o s e d , o r r e p r e s e n t s t h a t i t s use would n o t i n f r i n q e
privately m a d rights.
 DOEINASAl20320-39
NASA TM-82804

Effect of Rotor Configuration on Guyed

Tower and Foundation Designs and
Estimated Costs for Intermediate Size
Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine

G. R. Frederick
University of Toledo
Toledo, Ohio

and

J. R. Winemiller and J. M. Savino

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 441 35

March 1982

Work performed for

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Conservation and Renewable Energy
Division of Wind Energy Systems
Washington, D.C. 20545
Under l nteragency Agreement DE-A101-76ET20320
Page intentionally left blank

Page intentionally left blank

 CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY ............................... 1
.............................
INTRODUCT I O N 1
CONCEPT SELECTION.......................... 2
DESIGN LOADS AND REQUIREMENTS .................... 4
DESIGNAPPROACH ........................... 5
DESIGNRESULTS ............................ 8
COSTMETHODOLOGY ........................... 9
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10
11
APPENDIX A: V a r i a t i o n o f guy tension w i t h d i r e c t i o n o f wind
-- no preload i n guys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
APPENDIX B: V a r i a t i o n o f guy tension w i t h d i r e c t i o n o f wind

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1195
-- preload i n guys
 EFFECT OF ROTOR CONFIGURATIObJ ON GUYED TOWER AND FOUNDATION
DESIGNS AND ESTIMATED COSTS FOR INTERMEDIATE S I Z E
HORIZONTAL AXIS WIND TURBINES

G . R. Frederick*, J. R. Winemiller**,
and J. M. Savino**

SUMMARY

Three designs o f a guyed c y l i n d r i c a l tower and i t s foundation f o r an

i n t e r m e d i a t e s i z e h o r i z o n t a l a x i s wind t u r b i n e generator are discussed. The
p r i m a r y d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e t h r e e designs i s t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f t h e r o t o r .
Two c o n f i g u r a t i o n s are two-blade r o t o r s w i t h t e e t e r i n g hubs - one w i t h f u l l
span p i t c h a b l e blades, t h e o t h e r w i t h f i x e d p i t c h blades. The t h i r d configu-
r a t i o n i s a three-bladed r o t o r w i t h a r i g i d hub and f i x e d p i t c h blades. I n
a l l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s t h e diameter o f t h e r o t o r i s 38 meters and t h e a x i s o f
r o t a t i o n i s 30.4 meters above grade, and t h e power output i s 200 kW and 400
kW. F o r each c o n f i g u r a t i o n t h e design i s based upon f o r t h e most severe
l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n - e i t h e r o p e r a t i n g wind o r hurricane c o n d i t i o n s .
The diameter o f t h e tower i s selected t o be 1.5 meters ( s i n c e i t was
determined t h a t t h i s would p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t space f o r access ladders w i t h i n
t h e tower) w i t h guy rods attached a t 10.7 meters above grade. Completing a
design r e q u i r e s s e l e c t i n g t h e r e q u i r e d thicknesses o f t h e various c y l i n d r i c a l
segments, t h e number and diameter o f t h e guy rods, t h e number and s i z e o f s o i l
anchors, and t h e s i z e o f t h e c e n t r a l foundation. The lower n a t u r a l frequen-
c i e s of v i b r a t i o n are determined f o r each design t o ensure t h a t o p e r a t i o n near
resonance does n o t occur. F i n a l l y , a c o s t estimate i s prepared f o r each
design.
A p r e l i m i n a r y design and c o s t estimate o f a c a n t i l e v e r tower ( c y l i n d r i c a l
and n o t guyed) and i t s foundation i s a l s o presented f o r each o f t h e t h r e e
c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . The estimated c o s t s o f t h e guyed towers and t h e c a n t i l e v e r
towers a r e compared w i t h t h e i n s t a l l e d c o s t s o f t r u s s type towers and founda-
t i o n s ' o f t h e 200 kW Mod-OA wind t u r b i n e s a t Block I s l a n d and Culebra.

INTRODUCTION

E i g h t DOEINASA h o r i z o n t a l a x i s wind t u r b i n e generators have been i n s t a l l e d

t o date i n u t i l i t y networks a t v a r i o u s l o c a t i o n s throughout t h e country: f o u r
i n t e r m e d i a t e s i z e wind turbines, t h e 38 meter diameter 200 kW Mod-OA's; one
l a r g e wind t u r b i n e , t h e 6 1 meter diameter 2000 kW Mod-1; and t h r e e o t h e r l a r g e
wind t u r b i n e s , t h e 9 1 meter diameter 2500 kW Mod-2's. The f o u r Mod-OA's and
t h e Mod-1 each have a s t e e l t r u s s t y p e tower and a l a r g e concrete spread
foundation. These are f i r s t generation experimental wind t u r b i n e s t h a t were
designed w i t h a s t i f f supporting s t r u c t u r e and, therefore, were q u i t e expen-
sive. They were b u i l t and i n s t a l l e d i n u t i l i t y networks p r i m a r i l y t o g a i n
e a r l y o p e r a t i n g experience. The Mod-2, on t h e o t h e r hand, was conceived and
developed from t h e o u t s e t t o be a c o s t e f f e c t i v e source o f e l e c t r i c i t y when
mass produced. The Mod-2 has a s t e e l t u b u l a r c a n t i l e v e r tower ( a f l e x i b l e
s u p p o r t i n g s t r u c t u r e ) w i t h an anchored concrete

* U n i v e r s i t y o f Toledo, Department o f C i v i l Engineering, Toledo, Ohio 43606

**NASA-Lewi s Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 44135
foundation which utilizes grouted rock anchors to assist in resisting over-
turning moments. The use of grouted anchors resulted in a foundation that
is'significantly smaller and less expensive than a conventional spread
foundation.
The foundations for these eight wind turbines were constructed with
ready-mix concrete. The tower, nacelle, and rotor of each Mod-OA and the
Mod-1 were assembled with the aid of large mobile cranes. A large gin
pole-type hoist was used for assembly of the Mod-2's.
Three of the Mod-OA's were installed in somewhat remote locations: two
on the off-shore islands of Block Island, Rhode Island and Culebra, Puerto
Rico; and one at Clayton, New Mexico which is about 150 miles from Amarillo,
Texas, the closest large city. The fourth Mod-OA is on Hawaii where ready-
mix concrete and large cranes are readily available. Therefore, it can be
seen that wind turbine generators have usually been sited where it is expen-
sive to have ready-mix concrete and large cranes.
It is anticipated that many intermediate size wind turbines will be used
at remote sites in small utility networks or in stand-alone applications,
such as in villages. The NASA experience with installation of the Mod-OA's
at Block Island, Clayton, and Culebra suggests that the installed costs of
intermediate size wind turbines (and, perhaps, large ones) could be signif i-
cantly reduced if the costs of the tower, foundation, and field assembly can
be reduced by employing more cost effective concepts.
In an effort to reduce costs of intermediate size wind turbines, NASA
has undertaken a conceptual design study of a wind turbine having a 38 meter
(125 ft.) diameter rotor, and a hub height of 30.4 meters (100 ft.). Three
rotor configurations and two generator sizes were studied:
Configuration No. 1 -
2-blade rotor with full span pitchable blades
in a teetered hub and a 200 kW generator
-
Configuration No. 2 2-blade rotor with fixed pitch blades in a
teetered hub and a 400 kW generator
Configuration No. 3 - 3-blade rotor with fixed pitch blades in a
rigid hub and a 400 kW generator
Included in this study were evaluations of several different tower con-
cepts, foundation designs, and erection methods. In this report, a guyed
tower and foundation design for each of the above three configurations is
presented as well as its estimated cost. For reference, a preliminary
design of a cylindrical cantilever tower on a spread foundation has been
completed for each configuration. A cost estimate for each of these is also
included.
CONCEPT SELECTION
The first step taken in the development of low cost towers and founda-
tions was to review the fabrication and erection costs of the Mod-OA towers
and foundations. The tower fabrication costs were 879,000 each, F.O.B. the
manufacturer's plant. The crane rental costs were approximately 830,000 at
Culebra to erect the tower and to lift the nacelle and rotor atop the tower;
these include barge charges and costs of an erection crew. At Block Island
the tower was erected using small cranes which were on the island. However,
it was necessary to barge a large crane to the island to lift the nacelle
and rotor. The associated crane costs were approximately $71,000. The
foundation costs, including excavation, backfill and other site preparations
 were $35,000. These c o s t s ( i n 1980 d o l l a r s ) f o r t h e foundation, tower and
i n s t a l l a t i o n were judged t o be h i g h and, t h e r e f o r e , these items were
selected as candidates f o r replacement w i t h lower c o s t concepts. Shipping
c o s t s f o r t h e tower are n o t included i n t h i s study because they v c r i e d so
widely.
A number of tower, foundation and assembly concepts were i n v e s t i g a t e d .
The tower and f o u n d a t i o n concept selected f o r d e t a i l e d e v a l u a t i o n i s shown
s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n f i g u r e 1. This concept u t i l i z e s a guyed c y l i n d r i c a l s t e e l
tower on a p r e c a s t spread foundation; t h e guy rods are attached t o grouted
s o i 1 anchors.
A c y l i n d r i c a l tower was chosen because i t reduces t h e number o f pieces
t h a t must be assembled a t t h e s i t e compared t o a truss-type tower. A l l
welding r e q u i r e d t o f a b r i c a t e t h e tower s e c t i o n s i s done i n t h e f a b r i c a t o r ' s
shop. Then, t h e f a b r i c a t e d tower sections are j o i n e d a t t h e s i t e by b o l t -
ing. No f i e l d welding i s required.
The tower diameter was selected t o accommodate an access ladder, p l a t -
forms, and t h e e l e c t r i c a l cables associated w i t h a wind t u r b i n e generator.
The w a l l thicknesses were chosen t o p r o v i d e t h e r e q u i r e d f l e x u r a l s t r e n g t h
and s t i f f n e s s , and t o p l a c e t h e tower n a t u r a l frequencies w i t h i n acceptable
ranges.
A p r e c a s t spread foundation was chosen t o e l i m i n a t e t h e need f o r ready-
mix concrete. The r e s u l t i n g foundation design proved t o be t o o l a r g e t o
s h i p economically as a s i n g l e u n i t . Therefore, t h e foundation was designed
u t i l i z i n g t h r e e smaller precast components w i t h p r o v i s i o n s f o r j o i n i n g a t
t h e s i t e . Two components are inter-connected t o form t h e f o o t i n g and t h e
pedestal i s then b o l t e d t o t h e f o o t i n g ( f i g . 2). This foundation i s assem-
b l e d i n a c a r e f u l l y formed excavation t o i n s u r e u n i f o r m bearing between t h e
s o i l and foundation. I t may be d e s i r a b l e t o use g r a n u l a r bedding t o achieve
t h i s u n i f o r m bearing.
Both s t e e l cables and s o l i d s t e e l rods were considered f o r use as guys.
A p r e l i m i n a r y c o s t comparison, based on i n f o r m a l discussions w i t h vendors,
suggested t h a t rods would be more c o s t e f f e c t i v e than cables. For t h i s
study, rods were chosen. However, i f a guyed tower i s t o be b u i l t , i t i s
recommended t h a t t h e question o f whether t o use cables o r rods be evaluated
i n greater detail.
By u s i n g guy rods t o s t a b i l i z e t h e tower, t h e r e q u i r e d tower foundation
can be made smaller than would be r e q u i r e d i f a spread foundation alone were
designed t o r e s i s t t h e o v e r t u r n i n g moments. Also, t h e use of guy rods
reduces t h e r e q u i r e d tower w a l l thicknesses below t h e guy attachment r i n g .
To avoid t i l t i n g t h e r o t o r a x i s and t o minimize t h e r o t o r t o tower overhang
distance, t h e attachment r i n g f o r t h e guy rods was located a s h o r t d i s t a n c e
below t h e t i p s o f t h e blades, but as h i g h as p o s s i b l e above the base o f t h e
tower t o reduce t h e guy r o d t e n s i o n needed t o r e s i s t t h e h o r i z o n t a l loads.
A d i s t a n c e o f 10.7 meters (35 f t ) above t h e tower base was selected.
Three groups o f guy rods, w i t h t h e groups spaced a t 120°, were
s e l e c t e d t o a l l o w easy access t o t h e tower base f o r t r u c k s d e l i v e r i n g t h e
r o t o r and d r i v e t r a i n components. W i t h i n a group o f guy rods t h e r e a r e
t h r e e rods. T h i s arrangement was selected t o keep t h e diameter o f t h e rods
from becoming very large. Groups o f rods a l s o o f f e r an advantage w i t h
respect t o safety; i f one r o d f a i l s , c o l l a p s e o f t h e tower i s n o t imminent.
The l o c a t i o n o f t h e guy anchors a t ground l e v e l was chosen a t a r a d i u s o f
9.1 meters (30 f t ) from t h e tower c e n t e r l i n e .
A number o f methods were evaluated f o r anchoring t h e guy rods. Two of
t h e most c o s t e f f e c t i v e were grouted anchors and screw anchors. A grouted
 anchor i s c o n s t r u c t e d by b o r i n g a h o l e ( 4 i n . o r l a r g e r i n diameter) i n t o
t h e ground. The depth o f t h e h o l e i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e d e s i r e d load capa-
c i t y , p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e s o i l , and t h e h o l e diameter. A f t e r t h e h o l e has
been bored, a guy r o d tie-down and tendons a r e i n s e r t e d and t h e h o l e i s
p r e s s u r e grouted w i t h P o r t l a n d cement grout. A grouted anchor i s shown
s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n f i g u r e 3. An advantage o f grouted anchors i s t h a t they are
s u i t e d t o a wide v a r i e t y o f s o i l s , rocks, and s o i l s w i t h rock fragments. I t
i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t o p r e s t r e s s these anchors so t h a t t h e y a r e n o t subject t o
f a t i g u e l o a d i n g associated w i t h v a r i a b l e winds.
A screw anchor i s shown s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n f i g u r e 4. It consists o f
h e l i c a l f l i g h t s welded t o a s h a f t w i t h a guy r o d tie-down. A screw anchor
i s i n s t a l l e d by "screwingn i t i n t o t h e ground. The r e q u i r e d l e n g t h o f a
screw anchor i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e d e s i r e d load capacity, p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e
s o i l , and t h e diameter o f t h e f l i g h t s . By t h e i r very nature, screw anchors
a r e l i m i t e d t o rock-free s o i l s . T h e i r advantage i s t h a t t h e y do n o t use
g r o u t o r concrete. F o r t h i s study, however, grouted anchors were chosen
because o f t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o a wider range o f s o i l c o n d i t i o n s .
The i n s t a l l a t i o n procedure selected f o r t h i s study u t i l i z e s a 45,000 kg
(50 t o n ) mobile crane t o l i f t t h e two tower segments i n t o p o s i t i o n . (An
a n a l y s i s by an experienced NASA e r e c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r showed t h a t t h i s was t h e
most economical method f o r t h e Mod-0 s i t e a t Plum Brook, Sandusky, Ohio.)
A f t e r t h e s i t e has been c l e a r e d and rough-graded, and t h e excavation formed,
a mobile crane would remove t h e f o u n d a t i o n components from t h e shipping
t r u c k s and p l a c e them i n t h e excavation. Then, t h e components would be
grouted and b o l t e d t o g e t h e r t o form t h e spread foundation. The tower, s o i l
anchors and guy.rods would then be i n s t a l l e d .

DESIGN LOADS AND REQUIREMENTS

F o r t h i s conceptual design study t h e loads imposed on t h e s t r u c t u r e were

dead loads, wind loads, o p e r a t i n g t h r u s t loads and/or h u r r i c a n e t h r u s t loads
as shown i n f i g u r e s 5(a), ( b ) , and ( c ) . The l a r g e r value o f t h e operating
o r h u r r i c a n e l o a d was used f o r each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g r o t o r configurations:

Configuration No. o f Pitch Max. Rotor Wind Dead

No. Blades Capability Thrust Speed Loads

1 2 F u l l span 7,700 kg 17.9mps 20,000kg

pitchable (17,000 l b ) (40mph) (44,0001b)

2 2 Fixed 12,250 kg 53.6 mps 20,000 kg

pitch (27,000 l b ) (120 mph) (44,000 I b )

3 3 Fixed 18,400 kg 53.6 mps 20,000 kg

pitch (40,500 I b ) (120 mph) (44,000 l b )

The o p e r a t i n g t h r u s t load f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 1 was obtained using t h e

MOSTAB computer code a t c u t o u t wind speed o f 40 mph and 40 rpm r o t o r speed.
The 120 mph wind speed i s a h u r r i c a n e loading case used on a s t a t i o n a r y r o t o r
f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n s No. 2 and No. 3. Hurricane design loads a p p l i e d t o t h e
n a c e l l e a r e assumed t o occur w i t h t h e yaw d r i v e disengaged and t h e blades
u n r e s t r a i n e d a g a i n s t r o t a t i o n . I n t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n t h e bedplate i s f r e e , t o
r o t a t e about t h e tower c e n t e r l i n e (yaw) and t h e blades are f r e e t o r o t a t e
about t h e a x i s o f t h e r o t o r . The estimated combined weight o f t h e r o t o r ,
generator, gearbox, bedplate, and miscellaneous equipment i s 20,000 kg
(44,000 l b ) .
The s o i l c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h i s study were chosen t o be those o f t h e Mod-0
s i t e i n Sandusky, Ohio. This s i t e has a stratum o f medium s i l t y c l a y , about 7
meters (22 f t ) t h i c k , u n d e r l a i n by shale rock. An allowable s o i l bearing
pressure o f 2500 pounds p e r square f o o t on t h e s i l t y c l a y was used f o r t h e
tower foundation design.
An a n a l y s i s f o r t h r e e groups o f guys spaced a t 120°, presented i n appen-
d i x A, i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e maximum guy r o d t e n s i o n due t o wind occurs when t h e
wind d i r e c t i o n i s a t an angle o f 30° w i t h one of t h e rods. ( I n t h i s analy-
s i s , t h e guy rods are n o t pretensioned and some o f t h e guy rods may become
slack.) For t h i s present system o f t h r e e e q u a l l y spaced groups o f guy rods as
shown i n f i g u r e s 6(a) t o ( c ) , t h e maximum h o r i z o n t a l component of guy r o d ten-
s i o n due t o t h e wind i s 1.155 times t h e r e s u l t a n t wind f o r c e a t t h e e l e v a t i o n
o f t h e guy r i n g . The a n a l y s i s a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e maximum compressive
f o r c e exerted on t h e tower due t o t h e wind occurs when t h e wind d i r e c t i o n
c o i n c i d e s w i t h one group o f guy rods. A t t h i s time, two o f t h e groups have
t h e same t e n s i l e f o r c e and t h e rods of t h e t h i r d group have zero force. The
h o r i z o n t a l component o f t h e guy r o d t e n s i o n f o r each group i s equal t o t h e
r e s u l t a n t wind f o r c e a t t h e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e guy r i n g . Accordingly, t h e ver-
t i c a l component i s associated w i t h a h o r i z o n t a l component t h a t i s t w i c e t h e
r e s u l t a n t wind force. T h i s a n a l y s i s i s used f o r t h e h u r r i c a n e loading case
when t h e c a l c u l a t e d r o d t e n s i o n exceeds t h e preload i n t h e rod.
Another analysis, presented i n appendix B, i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t i n appendix A
except t h a t t h e guy rods a r e pretensioned so t h a t none o f t h e guy rods become
s l a c k as t h e wind d i r e c t i o n changes. I n t h i s analysis, t h e r e q u i r e d guy r o d
preload i s c a l c u l a t e d as w e l l as t h e maximum guy r o d f o r c e . This a n a l y s i s i s
used f o r t h e o p e r a t i n g load cases.
Using t h e appropriate analysis, i t was determined t h a t a r o d preloaded t o
13,600 kg (30,000 I b ) , 40,800 kg (90,000 l b ) p e r group of guy rods, would be
s u f f i c i e n t t o prevent any guy r o d f r o m becoming slack d u r i n g operating condi-
t i o n s . This value o f preload i s 140 percent o f t h e c a l c u l a t e d value and pro-
v i d e s an allowance f o r p o s s i b l e creep i n t h e s o i l anchors as w e l l as p o s s i b l e
e r r o r s i n i n i t i a l tensioning. The a n a l y s i s a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e rods o f
one o r two groups may become slack f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 2 and C o n f i g u r a t i o n
No. 3 d u r i n g h u r r i c a n e l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n s .

DESIGN APPROACH

The tower and foundation systems were designed f o r t h e c r i t i c a l wind load

c o n d i t i o n p l u s dead load and guy r o d preload. The f i r s t step i n t h e design
process was t o determine t h e a p p l i c a b l e loads f o r t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n under
i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Then, t h e bending moment diagram was constructed f o r t h e tower
and t h e w a l l thicknesses selected t o p r o v i d e t h e r e q u i r e d s e c t i o n moduli.
Next, t h e guy r o d diameter was selected based upon t h e c a l c u l a t e d preload so
t h a t a r o d would n o t become slack d u r i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f design o p e r a t i n g
loads and t h e associated v a r i a t i o n i n t e n s i o n due t o changing wind d i r e c t i o n .
F i n a l l y , t h e c e n t r a l f o u n d a t i o n was designed and t h e number o f s o i l anchors
selected. F o l l o w i n g these steps, t h e tower s t r u c t u r a l s t a b i l i t y was i n v e s t i -
gated, a f a t i g u e a n a l y s i s ( o f t h e tower, guy rods and s o i l anchors) was per-
formed and a dynamic a n a l y s i s was undertaken. These s t u d i e s are described
briefly.
The tower s h e l l was i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r s t r u c t u r a l s t a b i l i t y ( b u c k l i n g ) . I n
t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n two c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are important; o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r a l
s t a b i l i t y of t h e tower and l o c a l buckling. The design procedure i n t h e e i g h t h
e d i t i o n (1980) o f t h e - A I S C Manual -- o f Steel C o n t r u c t i o n was followed. The
o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r a l s t a b i l i t y was i n v e s t i g a t e d by determining t h e e f f e c t i v e
slenderness r a t i o and computing t h e allowable compressive s t r e s s . Whenever
t h e r a t i o of t h e o u t s i d e diameter t o t h e w a l l thickness exceeds 3300lF ,
l o c a l b u c k l i n g must be i n v e s t i g a t e d . When t h e r a t i o o f o u t s i d e diametgr t o
w a l l t h i c k n e s s i s between t h e l i m i t s of 3300/Fy and 13,000/Fy, t h e allow-
a b l e compressive s t r e s s i s given by

The design a l l o w a b l e compressive s t r e s s i s t h e s m a l l e r o f t h e values given by

t h e preceding e q u a t i o n and t h a t associated w i t h t h e e f f e c t i v e slenderness
r a t i o . The a l l o w a b l e bending s t r e s s i s 0.66 Fy when D / t - < 3300/Fy and i s
0.6 F when D / t > 3300/Fy.
TK~ A I S C i n t e r a c t i o n equations are then used t o determine i f t h e proposed
c r o s s s e c t i o n i s adequate. I n these equations, t h e r i g h t hand side was
increased f r o m 1.0 t o 1.33 t o r e f l e c t t h a t wind l o a d i n g i s included:

fa f b < 1.33, when + L 0.15

5 5-
+

< 1.33 and fa +

fb Cmf b fa
D fa q + 5- a
,
( 1 - fa/Fe)Fb
-
< 1.33, when F > 0.15
a

The n o t a t i o n used here i s t h e standard AISC n o t a t i o n .

A f a t i g u e a n a l y s i s was performed on the tower f o r t h e 2-blade r o t o r w i t h
v a r i a b l e p i t c h blades. The procedure i n t h e 1980 e d i t i o n o f t h e - AISC Manual
o
--f S t e e l C o n s t r u c t i o n was f o l l o w e d f o r two c o n d i t i o n s :

a) s t a r t - u p t o r a t e d power and r a t e d power t o shut-down

b) o p e r a t i o n a t r a t e d power

The c r i t i c a l design c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e towers o f t h e 2-blade r o t o r w i t h

f i x e d p i t c h blades and t h e 3-blade r o t o r w i t h f i x e d p i t c h blades was h u r r i c a n e
loading. Since t h e number o f load a p p l i c a t i o n s o f h u r r i c a n e loading i s low, a
f a t i g u e a n a l y s i s was n o t required. Fatigue analyses o f these two confiugur-
a t i o n s . w e r e a l s o performed f o r t h e above two c o n d i t i o n s t o v e r i f y t h a t they
a r e n o t c r i t i c a l when f a t i g u e i s considered.
The AISC procedure i s described i n appendix B o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . I t
i n v o l v e s s e l e c t i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t r e s s category based upon t h e type of mem-
b e r and weld d e t a i l . I n t h i s a n a l y s i s s t r e s s category C was selected f o r t h e
groove welds and adjacent base metal a t changes i n w a l l thickness. The pro-
cedure f u r t h e r i n v o l v e s s e l e c t i n g a loading c o n d i t i o n based upon t h e number o f
expected load cycles. For s t a r t - u p o r shut-down cycles, loading c o n d i t i o n 1
(20,000 t o 100,000 c y c l e s ) was selected. For c y c l e s a t r a t e d power, loading
c o n d i t i o n 4 ( o v e r 2,000,000 c y c l e s ) was selected. Since i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d
 t h a t a wind t u r b i n e w i l l experience fewer t h a n 20,000 h u r r i c a n e l o a d i n g s dur-
i n g i t s l i f e t i m e , f a t i g u e need n o t be considered f o r t h i s l o a d i n g case.
A f t e r s e l e c t i n g t h e s t r e s s category and l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n , t h e a l l o w a b l e
range o f s t r e s s i s read from t a b l e 63. The a c t u a l range o f s t r e s s cannot
exceed t h i s value; also, t h e maximum s t r e s s cannot exceed t h e a p p l i c a b l e
allowable stress.
A f a t i g u e a n a l y s i s of t h e guy rods and s o i l anchors was a l s o undertaken.
To e l i m i n a t e f a t i g u e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n t h e s o i l anchors, pre-tensioned s o i l
anchors were selected. The value o f t h e p r e t e n s i o n was selected t o be 36,400
kg (80,000 l b ) f o r each s o i l anchor. T h i s value i s s u f f i c i e n t t o prevent a
s o i l anchor f r o m experiencing f l u c t u a t i n g f o r c e s f o r a l l loading c o n d i t i o n s i n
a l l t h r e e concepts.
A f a t i g u e a n a l y s i s f o r t h e guy r o d s o f C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 1 was performed
f o r t h e o p e r a t i n g l o a d case s i n c e t h i s case i s associated w i t h h i g h e r loads
t h a n t h e h u r r i c a n e l o a d i n g case as a consequence o f t h e f u l l span p i t c h a b l e
blades. T h i s f a t i g u e a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d o u t u s i n g t h e r e s i d u a l s t r e s s
method as o u t l i n e d i n Engineering Considerations o f Stress, S t r a i n and
S t r e n t h by R. C. J u v i n a l l . This a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h r e e 5.1 cm
& diameter guy rods ( o f A I S I 4140 h a t t r e a t e d a l l o y s t e e l w i t h an
h
u l t i m a t e t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h of 10,760 kglcm (153,000 p s i ) ) i n each o f t h e
t h r e e groups and pretensioned t o 13,600 k g (30,000 l b ) each would be asso-
c i a t e d w i t h a f a c t o r o f s a f e t y o f 3.4 based upon t h e u l t i m a t e strength.
F o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 2 and C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 3 t h e loads associated w i t h
t h e h u r r i c a n e l o a d i n g case a r e c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r than those associated w i t h
t h e o p e r a t i n g l o a d case. Since t h e a n t i c i p a t e d number o f r e p e t i t i o n s o f hur-
r i c a n e l o a d i n g d u r i n g t h e l i f e o f a wind t u r b i n e w i l l be small, these loads
are t r e a t e d as s t a t i c . The o p e r a t i n g loads f o r these concepts a r e n o t
expected t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than those f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 1.
Hence, guy r o d s as o u t l i n e d f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 1 are judged t o be s a t i s -
f a c t o r y . The a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t d u r i n g h u r r i c a n e winds one o r two groups
o f guy r o d s w i l l become slack. There a r e no d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t s t h a t are
a n t i c i p a t e d t o be associated w i t h t h i s . The f a c t o r s o f s a f e t y f o r Configura-
t i o n No. 2 and C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 3 a r e 6.0 and 4.3, r e s p e c t i v e l y , based upon
ultimate strength (during hurricane loading conditions).
The design o f t h e grouted s o i l anchors was developed by DRC Consultants,
Inc. o f New York C i t y . T h e i r recommendation was t o use 3.5 cm (1-318 i n . )
diameter Dywidag threadbars w i t h an u l t i m a t e t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h o f 10,550
kglcm (150,000 p s i ) t h a t are prestressed t o 36,400 kg (80,000 l b ) , and t o
use one threadbar p e r each guy rod. By p r e s t r e s s i n g t h e threadbars t o 80,000
l b , t h e r e w i l l be no f l u c t u a t i o n o f f o r c e i n t h e threadbars and f a t i g u e need
n o t be considered. F o r t h i s design, t h e g r o u t b u l b i s 10 cm (4 i n . ) i n
diameter by 7.3 meter (20 f t ) long and i s l o c a t e d i n rock. The s t r e s s i n g
l e n g t h o f t h e threadbar i s 15.6 meter (43 f t ) . Each threadbar i s p r e s t r e s s e d
by u s i n g a 1.8 meter ( 5 f t ) square concrete pad. A s o i l anchor i s shown i n
f i g u r e 7.
The dynamic a n a l y s i s was performed by R. C h r i s t i e *, u s i n g t h e procedure
i n an Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y r e p o r t "Modeling t h e Response o f Wind Turbines

* " V i b r a t i o n A n a l y s i s o f Three Guyed Tower Designs f o r I n t e r m e d i a t e S i z e

Wind Turbines," W. L. Tanksley and Associates, September, 1981, (Technical
Memorandum Report f o r Task Orders 228-1 and 346-1, NASA Contract NAS 3-21900).
t o Atmospheric Turbulence" by R. W. Thresher e t al, r e f e r e n c e 1. T h i s method
i s a f i n i t e element technique based upon an energy method. Here t h e tower i s
t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e f i n i t e element and f o u r n a t u r a l frequencies are determined.
Two o f t h e modes a r e f o r motion i n t h e plane of t h e tower and a x i s o f r o t a t i o n ,
and two o f t h e modes are i n a v e r t i c a l plane normal t o t h e f i r s t plane. The
r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s a r e approximate since changes i n w a l l thickness cannot
be i n c o r p o r a t e d d i r e c t l y u s i n g a s i n g l e f i n i t e element.

DESIGN RESULTS

The recommended designs of t h e tower and foundation systems f o r t h e t h r e e

c o n f i g u r a t i o n s i n v e s t i g a t e d are summarized i n f i g u r e 6 ( a ) t o ( f ) . The cen-
t r a l foundation f o r Configuration No. 3, which i s a l s o t y p i c a l f o r Configura-
t i o n No. 1 and C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 2, i s d e t a i l e d i n f i g u r e 2.
I n f i g u r e s 6 ( a ) t o ( c ) t h e i n d i c a t e d l o c a t i o n s o f changes i n w a l l t h i c k -
ness a r e e s s e n t i a l l y t h e t h e o r e t i c a l l o c a t i o n s f o r these changes. No t e r m i n a l
d i s t a n c e has been used i n t h i s conceptual design study. Also, t h e w a l l t h i c k -
ness i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e guy r i n g i s greater than i n d i c a t e d on these f i g -
ures. A f t e r t h e upper tower s e c t i o n i s l i f t e d i n t o p o s i t i o n , t h e sections are
b o l t e d t o g e t h e r w i t h s i x t e e n (16) ASTM A-325 b o l t s . The s t e e l i n t h e tower
conforms t o ASTM A-572.
The guy r o d attachments t o t h e tower are located beneath t h e guy r i n g o f
t h e lower tower section. Attachment p l a t e s are welded t o t h e lower f l a n g e o f
t h e guy r i n g as i n d i c a t e d i n f i g u r e 6 ( d ) f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 2. A c l e v i s
connects each guy r o d t o t h e attachment p l a t e . The guy r o d m a t e r i a l i s AISI

s t r e n g t h o f 10,760 kg/c a
4140 a l l o y s t e e l t h a t ha been heat t r e a t e d t o achieve an u l t i m a t e t e n s i l e
(153,000 p s i ) . The guy rods are 5.1 cm ( 2 in.) i n
diameter and c o n t a i n a t u r n b u c k l e t o f a c i l i t a t e pretensioning. The design
u t i l i z e d here p r o v i d e s one s o i l anchor connected d i r e c t l y t o each guy rod.
The base o f t h e tower was designed t o simulate a hinged c o n d i t i o n y e t pro-
v i d e t o r s i o n a l r e s t r a i n t . The v e r t i c a l loads are t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e founda-
t i o n through a "Fabreeka" pad (Fabreeka i s t h e tradename o f a f i b e r and rubber
composite m a t e r i a1 t h a t possesses a r e 1a t i v e l y low modulus). The t o r s i o n a l
r e s t r a i n t i s p r o v i d e d by t w e l v e (12) 1-112 i n c h diameter dowels. The design
o f t h e tower base f o r Configuration No. 3 i s shown i n f i g u r e 6 ( e ) . The use o f
a "Fabreeka" pad ensures t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f v e r t i c a l stresses i s essen-
t i a l l y u n i f o r m even though t h e s t r a i n d i s t r i b u t i o n throughout t h e "Fabreeka"
i s non-uniform. The dowels serve t o t r a n s m i t t h e yaw moments through t h e cen-
t r a l f o u n d a t i o n i n t o t h e s o i l . Here t h e t o r s i o n a l r e s t r a i n t provided by t h e
h o r i z o n t a l components o f t h e t e n s i o n i n t h e guy rods as t h e tower r o t a t e s
( s 1 i g h t l y ) has been neglected.
The design o f t h e c e n t r a l f o u n d a t i o n f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 3 i s summarized
i n f i g u r e 2. As mentioned e a r l i e r , t h i s foundation i s c o n s t r u c t e d from t h r e e
p r e c a s t sections, two r e c t a n g u l a r s l a b sections and a c y l i n d r i c a l pedestal.
The two s l a b s e c t i o n s are b o l t e d t o g e t h e r t o form t h e f o o t i n g . A seam o f
g r o u t i s placed between them, p r i o r t o b o l t i n g , t o i n s u r e u n i f o r m c o n t a c t
between them. Anchor b o l t s f o r t h e pedestal have been c a s t i n t h e s l a b sec-
t i o n s . The c e n t r a l foundation was designed t o withstand a c o n c e n t r i c load due
t o dead loads and t h e v e r t i c a l components o f t h e guy r o d t e n s i o n as w e l l as a
h o r i z o n t a l shear f o r c e due t o e c c e n t r i c i t y o f dead loads w i t h respect t o t h e
tower c e n t e r l i n e and due t o wind loading. A f t e r t h e f o o t i n g s i z e was deter-
mined so t h a t t h e induced s o i l bearing pressure d i d n o t exceed t h e allowable
s o i l b e a r i n g capacity, t h e f o u n d a t i o n was checked f o r r e s i s t a n c e t o s l i d i n g
due t o h o r i z o n t a l shear. F i n a l l y , t h e s i z e o f t h e foundation was checked t o
ensure t h a t t h e surrounding s o i l c o u l d r e s i s t t h e yaw moments.
 The g r o u t e d s o i l anchors a r e p r e s t r e s s e d t o a l o a d o f 36,400 k g (80,000
l b ) . A f t e r i n s t a l l a t i o n , each anchor i s p r o o f - t e s t e d t o a t l e a s t 125 p r e c e n t
o f i t s d e s i g n load. W i t h i n a group o f s o i l anchors, i t w i l l be necessary t o
space t h e anchors such t h a t t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l l o a d c a p a c i t i e s a r e n o t a d v e r s e l y
a f f e c t e d . F o r t h i s conceptual design study, a s o i l anchor spacing o f f o u r t o
f i v e f e e t was considered acceptable.
Personnel access t o t h e n a c e l l e i s t h r o u g h l a d d e r s i n s i d e t h e tower. A
p o s s i b l e l a d d e r arrangement i s shown i n f i g u r e 6 ( f ) .
F o r t h e tower des'gns summarized e a r l i e r and a s o i l anchor s t i f f n e s s o f
2 . 2 3 ~ 1 0 kglcm
~ 8
(15x10 l b l f t ) , t h e r e s u l t s of t h e dynamic a n a l y s i s i n d i -
c a t e d t h a t o p e r a t i o n a t 40 rpm does n o t c o i n c i d e w i t h resonance. F o r Con-
f i g u r a t i o n No. 1 a n a t u r a l frequency occurs a t approximately 3.4 P, f o r Con-
f i g u r a t i o n No. 2 a t 3.6 P, and f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 3 a t 3.7 P. The s t i f f -
ness o f a guy r o d - s o i l anchor system i s o b t a i n e d by combining t h e s t i f f n e s s o f
a guy r o d i n s e r i e s w i t h t h e s t i f f n e s s of a s o i l anchor. For C o n f i g u r a t i o n
No. 1, t h e e f f e c t i v e h o r i z o n t a l s t i f f n e s s of a guy r o d - s o i l anchor system i s
approximately 4 . 5 2 ~ 1 0 ~ kglcm ( 3 . 0 4 ~ 1 0 ~1b l f t ) *. T h i s s t i f f n e s s i s r a t h e r
h i g h and leads t o a s t i f f tower design. The s t i f f n e s s i s h i g h p r i m a r i l y due
t o two f e a t u r e s

(a) the grout bulb i s located i n rock

(b) t h e s o i 1 anchor i s p r e s t r e s s e d

F o r comparison,! a conceptual design o f a c y l i n d r i c a l c a n t i l e v e r (nonguyed)

was developed f o r each o f t h e t h r e e r o t o r c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . These a r e shown i n
f i g u r e 8. These designs were completed f o r t h e same loads as t h e guyed
towers. The s t e p s i n t h e design procedure a r e t h e same as f o r t h e guyed
towers except t h e guys and s o i l anchors a r e eliminated,'and t h e spread founda-
t i o n s must r e s i s t t h e o v e r t u r n i n g moments. The n a t u r a l , f r e q u e n c i e s o f v i b r a -
t i o n a r e somewhat lower t h a n f o r t h e guyed towers and a r e i n t h e range o f 0.91
P f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 1 t o 1.23 P f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n NO. 3.

COST METHODOLOGY

Costs were developed f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g items o n l y : t h e tower f a b r i c a t i o n ,

t h e p r e c a s t c o n c r e t e foundation, t h e guy r o d s and f i t t i n g s , t h e g r o u t e d s o i l
anchors, and f i e l d assembly. I n a l l cases, t h e c o s t estimates were made by
vendors who s p e c i a l i z e i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r item. Whenever p o s s i b l e , l a y o u t
drawings o f each tower concept and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s were sent o u t t o more t h a n
one vendor t o o b t a i n f a b r i c a t i o n costs. The c o s t s f o r t h e guy r o d s and f i t -
t i n g s were q u o t a t i o n s o b t a i n e d f r o m s u p p l i e r s o f t h e s e components. A f a b r i -
c a t o r o f p r e c a s t c o n c r e t e p r o d u c t s quoted t h e c o s t o f t h e p r e c a s t tower founda-
t i o n s e c t i o n s . These c o s t s d i d n o t i n c l u d e t h e c o s t s o f t h e forms r e q u i r e d t o
c a s t t h e s e c t i o n s . To o b t a i n a design and t h e i n s t a l l e d c o s t s o f t h e g r o u t e d
s o i l anchors, a s m a l l c o n t r a c t was awarded t o a major vendor and i n s t a l l e r o f
g r o u t e d anchors. The tower i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s were made by a NASA c o n t r a c t o r
who has been p r o v i d i n g e r e c t i o n s e r v i c e s f o r t h e Mod-0 t e s t s i t e a t Sandusky,
Ohio.
The i t e m i z e d e s t i m a t e d c o s t s a r e shown i n t a b l e s 1 t o 3. The c o s t o f t h e
tower i n c l u d e s t h e tower s h e l l , f l a n g e s , guy r i n g , base and manway. The c o s t s
r e f l e c t t h e c o s t s o f m a t e r i a l s and f a b r i c a t i o n , and o f i n s t a l l a t i o n a t t h e
s i t e . The c o s t o f t h e guys i n c l u d e s t h e guy rods, t h e i r f i t t i n g s and i n s t a l l -
a t i o n . The c o s t o f t h e s o i l anchors i n c l u d e s t h e i r i n s t a l l a t i o n and p r o o f -

* Ibid.
t e s t i n g . The c o s t o f t h e foundations i s the F.O.B. cost, and t h e r e f o r e , does
n o t i n c l u d e s h i p p i n g charges. The above p r i c e s do n o t i n c l u d e t h e c o s t s asso-
c i a t e d w i t h p r o v i d i n g access t o t h e t o p o f t h e tower, n o r do t h e y i n c l u d e t h e
c o s t s f o r any o f t h e equipment (such as t h e yaw bearing, nacelle, d r i v e t r a i n ,
r o t o r etc.) t h a t i s l a t e r i n s t a l l e d on t h e tower. Access c o u l d be provided by
ladders and p l a t f o r m s i n s i d e t h e tower. Corten . s t e e l was s e l e c t e d f o r t h e
tower m a t e r i a l t o e l i m i n a t e t h e c o s t o f p a i n t i n g .

DISCUSSION

I n t h i s conceptual design study t h e e f f e c t o f t h e c r i t i c a l r o t o r t h r u s t

l o a d on t h e c o s t o f t h e tower and foundations was i n v e s t i g a t e d . From t h e
summary of estimated c o s t s presented i n t a b l e s 1 t o 3, i t can be seen t h a t t h e
minimum c o s t i s f o r a tower and f o u n d a t i o n t h a t i s associated w i t h t h e two
blade r o t o r w i t h f u l l span p i t c h a b l e blades and t h a t t h e maximum c o s t i s f o r
t h e t h r e e blade r o t o r w i t h f i x e d p i t c h blades. The r o t o r w i t h f u l l span
p i t c h a b l e blades i s designed t o have t h e blades f e a t h e r e d i n h i g h winds which
s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduces t h e wind t h r u s t on the r o t o r . Accordingly, t h e t h r u s t
a t o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h i s r o t o r exceeds t h e wind t h r u s t on t h e r o t o r i n
h i g h winds. For r o t o r s w i t h f i x e d p i t c h blades t h e wind t h r u s t i n h i g h winds
exceeds t h e wind t h r u s t on t h e r o t o r d u r i n g o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . As a
r e s u l t , t h e loads t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e tower f o r a r o t o r w i t h f i x e d p i t c h blades
exceed those f o r a r o t o r w i t h f u l l span p i t c h a b l e blades. Obviously, t h e
loads t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e tower f r o m t h e t h r e e blade r o t o r exceed those f o r t h e
two blade r o t o r .
When h i g h e r loads are t r a n s m i t t e d t o a tower o f f i x e d diameter and height,
t h e w a l l t h i c k n e s s o f t h e v a r i o u s tower segments must be increased; thereby
i n c r e a s i n g t h e tower weight and cost. Increased t e n s i o n i n t h e guy rods does
n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e t h a t l a r g e r guy rods be used. For r o t o r s w i t h f u l l
span p i t c h a b l e blades, t h e c r i t i c a l design case i s associated w i t h operating
loads, f o r r o t o r s w i t h f i x e d p i t c h blades, the c r i t i c a l design case i s asso-
c i a t e d w i t h h u r r i c a n e winds. Since t h e number o f load r e p e t i t i o n s associated
w i t h o p e r a t i n g loads i s high, f a t i g u e must be considered. The number o f load
r e p e t i t i o n s associated w i t h h u r r i c a n e winds i s low enough t h a t these loads can
be considered as s t a t i c . Accordingly, f o r the c o n f i g u r a t i o n s i n v e s t i g a t e d
here, t h e same arrangement o f guy r o d s can be used f o r r o t o r s w i t h f u l l span
p i t c h a b l e blades and f i x e d p i t c h blades.
I n s e l e c t i n g t h e optimum tower and foundation c o n f i g u r a t i o n , i t i s obvi-
o u s l y necessary t o consider f a c t o r s o t h e r than t h e c o s t o f t h e tower and
foundation. These f a c t o r s i n c l u d e t h e number o f blades, t h e need f o r a p i t c h
c o n t r o l mechanism, t h e need f o r t e e t e r i n g , etc. F o r example, t h e two blade
r o t o r w i t h f u l l span p i t c h a b l e blades i s associated w i t h t h e minimum tower and
f o u n d a t i o n costs. However, t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t a p i t c h change
mechanism be i n c l u d e d i n t h e r o t o r . T h i s mechanism increases t h e f i r s t c o s t
as w e l l as maintenance c o s t s which o f f s e t s some, i f n o t a l l , o f t h e savings
achieved i n t h e tower and foundation. On t h e o t h e r hand, a two blade r o t o r
w i t h f i x e d p i t c h blades i s l e s s expensive t o f a b r i c a t e and maintain, b u t
r e s u l t s i n a more c o s t l y tower and foundation. A t h r e e blade r o t o r w i t h f i x e d
p i t c h blades e l i m i n a t e s both t h e t e e t e r e d hub and t h e p i t c h change mechanism,
b u t i t r e q u i r e s a more expensive tower and foundation. These items are n o t
addressed i n t h i s study. The importance o f these f a c t o r s i s p o i n t e d out here
so t h a t t h e reader becomes aware o f t h e i r existence and t h e need t o consider
t h e wind t u r b i n e as a complete system.
 The major c o s t i t e m f o r each c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t e d was t h e tower
s h e l l . I t i s associated w i t h more than 60 percent of t h e t o t a l estimated c o s t
f o r t h e tower and foundation. Hence, t o o b t a i n a s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n i n t h e
c o s t o f t h e tower and foundation, t h e c o s t of t h e tower s h e l l would need t o be
reduced.
I n t h i s study, r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e components were u t i l i z e d wherever possi-
b l e r a t h e r t h a n components designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r a wind t u r b i n e system.
An attempt was made t o use "low c o s t " items as w e l l ; f o r example, s t e e l p l a t e
was used f o r t h e tower, guy rods were used r a t h e r than s t r u t s , and s o i l
anchors were used r a t h e r than massive foundations. F u r t h e r , an attempt was
made t o reduce t h e number o f operations r e q u i r e d i n t h e f a b r i c a t i o n shop and
t o reduce t h e number o f p i e c e s r e q u i r i n g assembly i n t h e f i e l d . An example o f
t h i s i s t h e use o f a c y l i n d r i c a l tower r a t h e r than a l a t t i c e tower.
The estimated c o s t f o r t h e t h r e e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a r e now compared t o t h e
a c t u a l c o s t s f o r t h e Mod-OA s t e e l t r u s s t y p e towers and t o estimated c o s t s f o r
c a n t i l e v e r towers on spread foundations ( w i t h o u t s o i 1 anchors). The c o s t s f o r
t h e Mod-OA towers a t Culebra and Block I s l a n d were 8144,000 and 8185,000
r e s p e c t i v e l y . The estimated c o s t s f o r t h r e e c a n t i l e v e r tower designs are:

Configuration Estimated Costs

No. 1: 2 blades, f u l l span p i t c h a b l e $ 89,100

No. 2: 2 blades, f i x e d p i t c h $ 107,600
No. 3: 3 blades, f i x e d p i t c h $123,400

I t i s seen, f r o m a comparison o f these c o s t s w i t h those o f t a b l e s 1 t o 3,

t h a t t h e guyed towers are c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s expsnsive t h a n t h e Mod-OA t r u s s
t y p e towers. However, t h e guyed tower has a modest c o s t advantage over o n l y
t h e c a n t i l e v e r tower f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 3 and i s s l i g h t l y more expensive
t h a n t h e c a n t i l e v e r tower f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n s No. 1 and No. 2. The reason t h e
c a n t i l e v e r tower f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 3 i s more expensive than t h e guyed
tower i s t h a t t h e tower and f o u n d a t i o n must be heavy t o w i t h s t a n d t h e h i g h
h u r r i c a n e f o r c e on t h e 3-blade r o t o r .

CONCLUSION

I n t h i s study t h e e f f e c t s o f t h r e e d i f f e r e n t r o t o r c o n f i g u r a t i o n s on t h e
c o s t s o f t h e tower and i t s f o u n d a t i o n f o r a h o r i z o n t a l a x i s wind t u r b i n e have
been i n v e s t i g a t e d and are compared w i t h those o f t h e Mod-OA's. The a x i s o f
t h e r o t o r was placed 30.5 meters (100 f t ) above grade and was supported on a
1.45 meter ( 4 f t - 9 i n . ) diameter c y l i n d r i c a l tower. The tower i s guyed 10.7
meters (35 f t ) above grade. The r o t o r c o n f i g u r a t i o n s and r a t e d power o u t p u t
were

(a) two blade r o t o r w i t h f u l l span p i t c h a b l e blades i n a t e e t e r e d hub and

a 200 kW generator
(b) two blade r o t o r w i t h f i x e d p i t c h blades i n a t e e t e r e d hub and a 400 kW
generator
(c) t h r e e blade r o t o r w i t h f i x e d p i t c h blades i n a r i g i d hub and a 400 kW
generator
 The concept of guying t h e tower was also i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study. The
use o f guy rods reduces t h e s i z e o f t h e spread f o u n d a t i o n base f o r t h e tower
and a l s o reduces t h e tower weight. Grouted s o i l anchors and screw anchors
were considered f o r anchoring t h e guy rods. Unless t h e u n d e r l y i n g s o i l con-
t a i n s r o c k fragments o r unless r o c k i s c l o s e t o t h e ground surface, e i t h e r
t y p e o f anchor appears t o be acceptable. When t h e r e are rock fragments, o r
when r o c k i s c l o s e t o t h e surface, grouted anchors a r e recommended. The t h i r d
concept i n v e s t i g a t e d was t h e e f f e c t o f using f i x e d p i t c h blades r a t h e r than
v a r i a b l e p i t c h blades on t h e requirements o f t h e tower and foundation. I t was
t h e n p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n incremental c o s t s f o r t h e tower and foundation when
f i x e d p i t c h blades were used, and when t h r e e blades were used instead o f
two.
The estimated c o s t s o f t h e guyed c y l i n d r i c a l tower and p r e f a b r i c a t e d
f o u n d a t i o n f o r each o f t h e t h r e e cases are

Rotor C o n f i g u r a t i o n Estimated Cost

2 blades, f u l l span p i t c h a b l e 5 92,800
2 blades, f i x e d p i t c h 102,800
3 blades, f i x e d p i t c h 108,800

Hence, t h e c o s t o f t h e tower and f o u n d a t i o n i s increased by $10,000 i f t h e

p i t c h change mechanism i s n o t used i n t h e r o t o r . This c o s t i s increased by an
a d d i t i o n a l $6,000 i f t h r e e blades are u t i l i z e d r a t h e r than two and i f t h e
t e e t e r mechanism i s e l i m i n a t e d .

Designs and c o s t s were a1 so developed f o r c a n t i l e v e r (non-guyed) c y l i n d r i -

c a l s t e e l towers w i t h poured spread foundations (no s o i l anchors). The e s t i -
mated c o s t s f o r these c a n t i l e v e r tower designs a r e

Rotor C o n f i g u r a t i o n Estimated Cost

2 blades. f u l l span p i t c h a b l e 8 89.100
2 blades; f i x e d p i t c h
3 blades, f i x e d p i t c h

When t h e guyed tower c o s t s a r e compared w i t h t h e c a n t i l e v e r tower costs,

i t i s seen t h a t t h e guyed towers a r e 4 percent more, 5 percent less, and 13.4
p e r c e n t l e s s f o r Rotor Configurations No. 1, 2, and 3 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The
h i g h e r c o s t o f t h e c a n t i l e v e r tower f o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n No. 3 i s due t o t h e
heavy tower and l a r g e foundation necessary t o w i t h s t a n d t h e h i g h hurricane
wind f o r c e on t h e 3-blade r o t o r .
The c o s t s f o r t h e 38 meter diameter, 200 kW Mod-OA t r u s s t y p e towers a t
Culebra and a t Block I s l a n d were 8144,000 and 8185,000 r e s p e c t i v e l y . These
Mod-OA wind t u r b i n e s had f u l l y p i t c h a b l e blades.
Therefore, t h i s conceptual design study has shown t h a t a guyed c y l i n d r i c a l
tower f o r Rotor Configuration No. 1 i s approximately 36 percent and 50 percent
l e s s expensive than t h e s t e e l t r u s s tower f o r t h e Mod-OA a t Culebra and Block
Island respectively.
 APPENDIX A

VARIATION OF GUY TENSION WITH DIRECTION OF WIND--NO PRELOAD I N GUYS

F o r t h e case w i t h o u t p r e l o a d i n t h e guys one o r two groups o f t h e guys may

become slack; t h a t i s , t h e f o r c e i n these guys may go t o zero. I n i t i a l l y ,
t h e r e i s no f o r c e i n t h e guys; t h e guys a r e i n s t a l l e d i n a snug c o n d i t i o n t o
p r e v e n t wobble o f t h e tower.
I n t h i s d e r i v a t i o n , t h e groups o f guys are represented by OA, OB, and OC,
t h e e q u i v a l e n t wind f o r c e a t t h e attachment o f t h e guys i s represented by W,
and t h e wind d i r e c t i o n i s represented by t ( a s i n d i c a t e d f i g . A-1). By
observation, t h e f o l l o w i n g can be w r i t t e n

a) for O0 < t < 120° guys OA and OB r e s i s t t h e wind f o r c e and

the f o r c e i n guy OC i s zero.
b) for 120° < t < 240° guys OB and OC r e s i s t t h e wind f o r c e
and t h e f o r c e i n guy OA i s zero.
c) for 240° < t < 360° guys OC and OA r e s i s t t h e wind f o r c e
and t h e f o r c e i n guy OB i s zero.

F o r O0 < 4 < 120°, t h e f o r c e diagram ( u s i n g h o r i z o n t a l components)

shown i n f i g u r e A-2 may be drawn. I n t h i s diagram HA i s t h e h o r i z o n t a l
component o f t h e t e n s i o n i n guy OA and HB i s t h a t i n guy OB.
To m a i n t a i n e q u i l i b r i u m , t h e f o l l o w i n g must be s a t i s f i e d .

HB = W s i n t l c o s 30 0

HA = W(cos t + s i n 4 t a n 30')

F o r 120° < t < 2400 t h e e q u i l i b r i u m equations can be w r i t t e n as

f o l l o w s , where a = 4 -1200 ( r e f e r r i n g t o f i g . A-3).

0
HC = W s i n a1 cos 30

HB = W(cos a + s i n a t a n 30')

S i m i l a r l y f o r 2400 < < 3600 t h e e q u i l i b r i u m equations can be

w r i t t e n as f o l l o w s , where y = @ -2400.

0
HA = W s i n y/cos 30

HC = W(cos y + sin y t a n 30')

 The r e s u l t s o f t h e above s i x equations are p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e A-4. From
t h i s f i g u r e i t can be seen t h a t t h e maximum h o r i z o n t a l component o f t h e ten-
s i o n i n a group o f guys i s 1.155 W. I t occurs when t h e wind d i r e c t i o n ' f o r m s
an angle o f 30° w i t h a group of guys.
The compressive f o r c e i n t h e tower due t o t h e t e n s i o n i n t h e guys i s
denoted b y CT. An expression f o r CT can be obtained b y u s i n g sumnation
of v e r t i c a l f o r c e s ; t h e r e s u l t i s

where t h e V's a r e t h e v e r t i c a l components of t h e t e n s i o n i n t h e guys. Relat-

i n g t h e V ' s t o t h e H's, t h e expression becomes
= H~ t a n B + HB t a n B + HC t a n B ( A-7
C~
Using t h e values f r o m f i g u r e A-4, equation (A-7) can be evaluated and t h e
r e s u l t s are p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e A-5. From t h i s f i g u r e t h e maximum value o f t h e
compressive f o r c e i n t h e tower due t o t h e t e n s i o n i n t h e guys i s 2W/tan 8. I t
occurs when t h e wind d i r e c t i o n c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e guy t h a t i s slack.
 APPENDIX B

VARIATION OF GUY TENSION WITH DIRECTION OF WIND--PRELOAD I N GUYS

F o r t h e case w i t h p r e l o a d i n t h e guys t h e p r e l o a d i s c a l c u l a t e d so t h a t no
guy w i l l become slack. I n t h i s a n a l y s i s i t i s acceptable f o r t h e f o r c e i n a
guy t o approach zero as t h e design value of t h e wind f o r c e i s reached.
I n t h i s d e r i v a t i o n , t h e groups o f guy r o d s a r e represented by OA, OB, and
OC, t h e e q u i v a l e n t wind f o r c e a t t h e attachment o f t h e guys i s represented by
W, and t h e wind d i r e c t i o n i s represented by 4 (as i n d i c a t e d i n f i g . B-1).
The f o r c e s i n t h e gu s a t an t i m e a r e represented by GA, GB and
Gc. The i n i t i a l f o r c e s fpreloadf i n t h e guys are represented by GA, iy
Gayi and GC,i and t h e changes i n t e n s i o n due t o h o r i z o n t a l motion a t
t e guy r i n g are represented by AGA, AGB and AGC.
Also, A i s t h e h o r i z o n t a l displacement o f t h e guy r i n g i n t h e d i r e c t i o n
o f t h e wind. I t can be shown t h a t , f o r a tower w i t h t h r e e e q u a l l y spaced guys
o f equal s t i f f n e s s , t h e r e s u l t a n t s t i f f n e s s i s t h e same i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s .
Therefore, t h e displacement w i l l be i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e a p p l i e d f o r c e as
i f none of t h e guys become slack.
The changes i n l e n g t h o f t h e guys a r e represented by AA, AB and
AC; t h e h o r i z o n t a l components o f these are represented by AHA, AHB and
AHC. The cross-sectional area o f a guy, i t s l e n g t h and Young's modulus o f
t h e guy m a t e r i a l are represented by A, L and E r e s p e c t i v e l y . Here, a l l guys
have t h e same values f o r A, L and E.
R e f e r r i n g t o f i g u r e B-2, t h e displacements can be r e l a t e d by

,A,* = A COS 4

and

A~ A =HA cos $

A B = AHB C O S B

R e l a t i n g t h e change i n f o r c e i n a guy t o i t s elongation, t h e f o l l o w i n g expres-

s i o n s can be w r i t t e n
 bGA = A cos B cos 4

AG 6
r
= A A E C O S B C O S ( ~ ~$1
O ~ -

Now t h e t o t a l f o r c e s i n t h e guys can be w r i t t e n as

W r i t i n g t h e e q u i l i b r i u m equations,

C FX = 0

[GA - G B cos 60' - Gc cos 60'1 cos B = W cos 4

CF = 0
Y

[G6 s i n 60' - GC s i n 60'1 cos 6 = W s i n 4

Since a l l guys w i l l be preloaded w i t h t h e same tension,

Using t h i s i n equation (8-61, the result i s

sin 4
A G ~- A G =
~ W
cos e s i n 60'

n = ~ / cos
J 2ss s i n 600
Substituting into equation (8-5), the result is

Using the conditions for Configuration No. 1 in equation (B-7) and equation
(8-8), the results are summarized in figure 8-3. The values used were
6
P = 58,880 lb E = 29x10 psi

L = 540 in. A = 3 n in2 (3-2 in. diameter rods)

Increasing the maximum value of the calculated pretension by 40 percent, the

design preload at each group of guy rods is 90,000 lbs. This then leads to a
maximum tension of 154,300 lbs in a group of guy rods and a displacement
A = 0.21 inches.
 TABLE 1. - TOWER AND FOUNDATION ESTIMATED QUANTITIES AND COSTS
[Rotor Configuration No. 1 : Two-blade rotor, full span pitchable ]
Quantity Unit Description Unit Cost
37,400 lb Structural steel 8 1.30 847,000
9 ea Guy rod and fitting assembly 600.00 5,400
9 ea Soil anchor assembly 2100.00 18,900
1 ea Central foundation 6000.00 6,000
1 ump Foundation installation and tower 15,500
erection

Not included: shipping costs

TABLE 2. - TOWER AND FOUNDATION ESTIMATED QUANTITIES AND COSTS

[Rotor Configuration No. 2 Two-blade rotor, fixed pitch blades]
Quantity Unit Description Unit Cost
44,000 1b Structural steel 8 1.30 855,000
9 ea Guy rod and fitting assembly 600.00 5,400
9 ea Soi 1 anchor assembly 2100.00 18,900
1 ea Central foundation 8000.00 8,000
1ump Foundation installation and tower 15,500
erecti on

Not included: shipping costs

TABLE 3. - TOWER AND FOUNDATION ESTIMATED QUANTITIES AND COSTS

[Rotor Configuration No. 3 Three-bl ade rotor, fixed pitch blades]
Quantity Unit Description Unit Cost
47,200 lb Structural steel $ 1.30 860,000
9 ea Guy rod and fitting assembly 600.00 5,400
9 ea Soi 1 anchor assembly 2,100.00 18,900
1 ea Central foundation 9,000.00 9,000
1 ump Foundation installation and tower 15,500
erection

Not included: shipping costs

 REFERENCES

1. T h r e s h e r , R. W.; e t a l . : M o d e l i n g t h e Response o f Wind T u r b i n e s t o

A t m o s p h e r i c Turbulence. Rep. No. KL012227-8112, Oregon S t a t e Univ.,
1981.
 7-
6R +- '-Rolor centerlint elevator. 100 n

Figure 1. - lawn and foundation concept for an intermidiate size (200 to #K) lavl wind turbine.
 ,-1-112in.-diam required

3-114 in.

1-112 in.

Grout ., li :3 R long.
12 in. diam rod
I LO:*l oi 9 1 11 tjr:~.~lo reinforcing
6 R lory
~ 1 112
2 in. diam rod

Figure 2.
- II

- Central foundation - Configuration 3.

- 3 in. diam
pipe sleeve

Force exerted bv \
rod
Force exerted

anchor

anchor

Figure 3. - Schematic of grouted soil anchor. Figure 4. - Schematic of screw anchor.

 L!
(a) Operating laad case for Configuration 1.
Figure 5. - Design loads.
 27 000 I b
Wind 0

3
Ib) Hurricane load case for Configuration 2.
Figure 5. - Continued.
 =weight platform, bedplate,
equipment, rotor, blades

//
//
/I

(cl Hurricane load case for Configuration 3.

Figure 5. - Concluded.
 Elevation. in.
1122 -

Elevations, in. Wall thickness in.

010 300 5116
300 to 720 518
720 to 1122 9 16

Item Weight, Ib
Tower 37 400
Guys and 4600
fittings
Foundation 55 300

r 2-in. diam guy rod

la) Tower and foundation design - Configuration 1.

Figure 6. - Details of tower design.
 Elevation. in.
1122 -
Elevations. in. Wall thickness. in.
Oto 144 916
144 to 216 518
216 to 336 112
336 to 552 5f 8
552 to 780 U2
78010 924 38
924 to lin 5116
Weight. Ib
Twer 44m
Guys and 4600
fittings
Foundation

,/y 15 It x 15 f t ' f w t i n g d C
Elevation \\\\\
- 2.
(b) Twer and foundation design Conf~gurat~on
Figure 6. - Continued.
 Elevation, in.
1122 -

Elevation. in. Wall thickness, in.

Oto 144 5116
144 to 240 7116
240 to 336 9116
336 to 516 34
516 to 696 518
6% to 888 112
888 to 996 38
996 to 1122 5116

Weight, Ib
Tower 47 200
Guys and 4 600
fittfngs
Foundation

Guy ring-

336 -

// Manwav, I I I \\\\\\.

(c) Tower and foundation design - Conf~gurat~on

3.
Figure 6. - Continued.
 \
~2 in. diam guy rod

ld) Guy rod attachment detail.

Figure 6. - Continued.

r 57 in. 0.d. tmver

/

,-24 in. diam schedule 40

pipe 1.688 wall)
5116 in.wall

r 1-112 in. diam d w l

I
t
I

PLY(m
7 :
,,,,,,,,, ~ i ~ c (%
/
~, - ,,,,,,, I'
I
't

-
112 in.
reference
1
Fabreeka pad
24 in. diam x 1-112 in. thick A i n t r a l I foundation\\\\\,

\-~abreeka pad
24 in. diam x 1-112 in. thick
(e) Tower base detail - Configuration 3.
Figure 6. - Continued.
 m -Top of t w e r elevation 1122 in.

elevation

1 in. grating
platform --'--
I
Plan vlew at
elevation 213 in.

- Platform elevation 420 in.

Floor elevation 9 in.

6 in, Bottom of tower elevation 6 in.
Ifl Ladder and platform detail.
Figure 6. - Concluded.

,-2 in. diam guy rod

Figure 7. - Grouted soil anchor.

 Axis of rotation
Elevation 1122.0

Configuration 1
Wall
Elevation. in. thickness, in.
Oto 60 98
6010 540 112
54010 780 38
780 to 1122 9 16
Depth = 6 fl
Foundation size = 23 f l x 23 R x 3 R

Configuration 2
Wall
Elevation, in. thickness, in.
0 to 132 718
132 10 336 34
336 to 540 98
54010 780 112
780 10 924 38
924 to 1122 5116
.
Depth 8 fl
-
Foundation size 26 fl x 26 R x 4 fl

Configuration 3
Wall
Elevation, in. thickness, in.
Oto 168 1 U4
168 to 288 1
288 to 420 718
420 to 564 34
564 to 720 518
720 to 924 112
924 to lOe0 38
0 lln
1 ~ 2 to 5116
Depth * 10 R
Foundation size = 30 ft x 30 ft x 5 R
7-fl diam pedestal

,-
Figure 8.
h
h
- Details of designs - cantilever towers and foundations.
 Plan

Figure A-I. - Coordinate system for guy rod force analysis.

Figure A-2. - F a c e system for g y rod force analysis - @ < O < l2@.

Figure A-3. - F a c e system for guy rod lorce analysis - 12@ < @ < 240'.
 Q Guy OA Q Guy 0 8 4 Guy OC
r GUY OA GUY OC 7 r GUY OA
/-
/ \ /

"\
1 \

I I I'\ \

i \/
\ \
I
I \
I I \
\ \
Ir 'I
1200 2400
Wind direction 0, deg
Figure A-4. - Variation of guy rod tension with direction of wind.

-P
m
C
1.0
C
U

00 1200 24c0 w
Wind direction @, deg
Figure A-5. - Compressive force i n t w e r due to tension i n guy rods.
 Plan

Elevation
Figure 0-1. - Coordinate system for guy rod f a c e analysis.
 rod
-x

F~qure8-2. - D~splacementgeometry for guy rod lorce analysis.

la,

1800 3700
Wind direction 8 , deg

Flgure 8-3. - Variation of guy rod tension with direction of wind.

 1 Repat No 2. Goarnmms Accaston No. 3. Recipcnt's C.talog No
NASA TM- 82804
' T1'leandSub'ltle EFFECTOF ROTORCONFIGURATIONONCiUYED.
Rcwr'D.te

TOWER AND FOUNDATION DESIGNS AND ESTTMA TED COSTS

FOR INTERMEDIATE SIZE HORl'd3NTAL AXIS WIND TURBINES
,,March 1982
PnfaminO Orwn12atlm COdc
776-33-41
7. Author(s1 8. Performing Orwn~zrtionReport No
G. R. Frederick, University of Toledo, and J. R. Winemiller
E- 1136
and J. M. Savino, Lewis Research Center 10. Work Unit NO.
9. Rrforrn~npOrwnization Name nd Addreu

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 11. Contract a Gnnt No.

Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135 13. Type of Repon md Period covered
12. Sponsorinp Apmcv Name m d Address
. U.S. Department of Energy Technical Memorandum
Division of Wind Energy Systems 14. SPO~UUI~QA ~ C ~Vo d c

Washington, D. C. 20545 DOE/NASA/20320- 39

15. Supplementary N o t o

Final report. Prepared under Interagency Agreement DE-Al01-76ET20320.

16. Abstract
Th?:ee designs of a guyed cylindrical tower and its foundation for an intermediate size horizontal
axis wind turbine generator a r e discussed. The p A n l a ~ difference in the three designs is the
configuration of the rotor. Two configurations a r e two-biatk rotors with teetering hubs one -
with full span pitchable blades, the other with fixed pitch blades. The third configuration i s a
three-bladed rotor with a rigid hub and fixed pitch blades. In all configurations the diameter of
the rotor is 38 meters and the axis of rotation is 30.4 meters above grade, and the power output
is 200 k W and 400 kW. F o r each configuration the design i s based upon for the most severe
-
loading condition either operating wind o r hurricane conditions. The diameter of the tower is
selected to be 1.5 meters (since it was determined that this would provide sufficient space for
access ladders within the tower) with guy rods attached at 10.7 meters above grade. Completing
a design requires selecting the required thicknesses of the various cylindrical segments, the
number and diameter of the guy rods, the number and size of soil anchors, and the size of the
central foundation. The lower natural frequencies of vibration a r e determined for each design to
ensure that operation near resonance does not occur. Finally, a cost estimate is prepared for
each design. A preliminary design and cost estimate of a cantilever tower (cylindrical and not
guyed) and i t s foundation is also p r e s e n t 4 for each of the three configurations. The estimated
costs of.the guyed towers and the cantilever towers a r e compared with the Installed costs of
t r u s s type towers and foundations of the 200 kW Mod-OA wind turbines at Block Island and Culebra.
17. Key Words (Sugpcrtcd bv Author(sl) 18. Distribution Sutemeqt
Wind turbine towers -
Unclaestfied unlimited
Guyed towers STAR Category 44
DOE Category UC-60

10. S r u r ~ t vOassif (of th~sr r w t l 20. b i t y a s s i f . (of this ~ g c ) 21. No. of Paqm 22. Rice'
Unclassified Unclassified
I

' For sale by the N a t 1 0 ~Techn~cal

l lnformatlonServce, Spr~ngf~eld.
Vlrglnla 22161