About Francesco Miceli

Hello! My name is Francesco and I'm a civil engineer specialized in EPC (that is, "turnkey") wind farms projects. I'm currently based in Hamburg, Germany and I'm developing several interesting project all around the world - southern Europe, LATAM and various other countries. If you want to contact me please don't leave a comment in the blog (I don't check them very often) - you can use the contact form. You can write me in English, Spanish and Italian. To find a (somewhat concise) description of my non-wind business activities you can visit my webpage - www.francescomiceli.com If you want to know more about my work, here you can download my CV - www.windfarmbop.com/CV_Francesco_Miceli.pdf Hope you like the blog! Francesco

BoP vs. BoS - similarities and differences

Lately I have had the pleasure to spend a lot of time with my friend Alessandro.

Alessandro is an engineer specialized in the design and construction of photovoltaic plants – basically, a "solar energy" version of mine.

We spent some time discussing similarities and differences in the BoP (“Balance of Plant”) of wind farms and the BoS (“Balance of System”) of photovoltaic plants.

As you are reading this blog you will probably know that BoP and BoS basically mean “everything but the wind turbines (or the panels, in the case of BoS)”

Both can have quite an impact on the economics of the project. For wind farm is usually in the 20% to 30% range of the CAPEX while for solar plants it is typically much more – even above 50% of the investment total.

I have made a quick number with some projects currently under development in Southern Italy and I see that for medium size projects (10 to 20 MW) the cost of the modules is only 40%.

This could sound counterintuitive but is a consequence of the unstoppable reduction of the price of the solar modules. At the current rate the price is decreasing 75% every 10 years and this trend does not seem to change.

As a consequence, the BoS becomes every year more relevant (because it is not decreasing at the same rate, so its relative weight keep increasing).

Let's take a look at similarities and differences between BoP and BoS.

In both cases you will need internal roads and probably a substation to connect to the grid (unless the project is very small – for projects of few MW sometimes it is possible to connect directly to the grid in medium voltage).

Additionally, sometime the panels have a shallow foundation (“ballast”) that reminds somehow the shallow foundation of wind turbines on a much smaller scale.

Furthermore the engineering works to be done (geotechnical survey, topography, electrical and civil design, etc.) are very similar.

And this is more or less where the similarities end.

The differences are much more remarkable. For instance, a substantial amount of the BoS budget comes from the support structure of the panels, inverters and trackers.

Inverters are the elements that convert the electricity produced by the solar modules for DC to AC

Trackers are used to rotate the panels in order to have them always in the best position to maximize energy production. They are optional, but they are used frequently because they are generally a cost effective technology.

It is also very unlikely that you will see a solar plant on a steep terrain (with a strong inclination), while this situation is frequent in wind farms (many of them are placed on mountain ridges).

This happen because there is a limit to the height difference that can be absorbed changing the length of the elements that sustain the panels. Additionally, excessive height differences can make the work of the trackers more burdensome with an increased risk of failures.

For these reasons the usual maximum slope in a solar plant is usually around 5% or 6% - and therefore earthworks are limited and less expensive (at least compared to some projects that I have seen on top of mountains where a lot of blasting was needed).

For the foundations I mentioned before the shallow “ballasted” solution. This is basically a block of concrete holding the modules in place.

However the use of piles is usually more cost effective. Several alternatives are available depending on the geotechnical characteristics of the soil (helical piles where cohesion is low, driven piles when the soil is more dense, etc.) and in addition to the monetary advantage they are also usually faster to install and easier to decommission at the end of the life of the project.

Nabrawind Transition Foundation

Some days ago I have been contacted by Miguel, Sales And Marketing Manager at Nabrawind.

Nabrawind is a Spanish company working at several interesting breakthrough concepts – including a modular blade that I will try to describe in another article in the future, a self erecting tower and the innovative “Transition Foundation”.

Miguel asked me if I was interested in receiving material about the Transition Foundation solution they have developed.
I was obviously very happy to accept his offer and share with you what I have learned.

This alternative foundation use a 20 meters tall transition element in steel and cast iron in the lower section, at the bottom of the tower.

A detail of the transition element

The transition element is connected to the ground through three “feet” that allow different technical alternatives for the foundation: the standard solution (“shallow” or “gravitational”) plus two cheaper options – piled foundations (for standard soils) and rock anchors (when bedrock is very near to the surface).

The three alternatives solutions for the Nabrawind foundation - shallow, piled and with rock anchors

For a 4MW wind turbine the piles are expected to have a diameter of 1.5 meters with a depth in the 15 to 20 meters range.

A 15 meters pile would need approximately 80 m3 of concrete and 21 Ton of steel in total (that is, for the three piles).

This figure indicate very substantial potential savings in the amount of concrete and important reductions in the quantity of steel as well.

The piles are connected to the transition element via anchor cages (obviously smaller than the normal anchor cage used with standard solution).

In addition to the savings in the quantities the other main benefit of the solution is the speed. You will need only one or two days to drill the hole for the pile, and the installation of the reinforcement bars and concrete pouring is very quick as well (both operation should last between 2 and 4 hours in total).

The anchor cage variant promise to be even faster, needing only three concrete blocks (one for each “foot”) to level the surface and distribute the loads and 6 post-tensioned rock anchors with a length in the 15 meters range.

The Transition Foundation is more than a concept – the first foundations using this solution have been built in a wind farm in Morocco for a 3.6MW wind turbine on a 144m tower.

The have 24 meters long piles with a 1.2 meters diameter, for a total of only 81 m3 of concrete and 25 Ton of steel – a remarkable result.

How the foundation looks like (notice the 3 elements)

In the last picture you can see a detail of the completed works for the foundation.

How the completed foundation look like

Lift me up: the braced foundation

The braced foundation is a partially precast foundation that lift the wind turbine some additional meters above the ground.

Developed and patented by Esteyco (a Spanish engineering firm) is a technical solution validated, certified and used in several wind farms worldwide.

This solution increase the hub height up to 5 meters, which usually results in a significant increase of the annual energy production.

The “braces” are elements of precast concrete – basically double beams with a rectangular section transmitting the loads from the tower and stiffening the foundation.

They are on top of a cast in situ circular concrete slab that transmit the loads to the ground. This slab has a circular edge beam below, whose function is to absorb bending moments and contribute to the overall stiffness.

In the middle there is a central ring, while the tower rest on a smaller upper slab.

The main benefit of this solution is the increase of energy production – 5 meters of additional hub height can bring an annual increase in the 1% to 2% range depending on local wind condition.

Although this could look like a small number, compounded over 25 to 30 years it can really make a difference for the economics of the investment.

You first question could be something like “why not to use an higher tower”?

Generally, towers are designed, manufactured and sold with specific heights. Each wind turbine manufacturer has a portfolio that include only some heights (e.g. 90m, 100m, 110m, etc.).

Therefore you could find yourself in a position where the project could theoretically use a different hub height not offered by the wind turbine manufacturer.

Although every now and then project specific tower are designed and built this is not the standard and it has several implication in terms of time, cost, etc. Therefore it could be better to go for an off the shelf solution that gives you those additional few meters that your project need.

According to Esteyco this solution is also quicker to execute, at least in big wind farms. I do not have real world feedback to comment on this, although my impression is that the number of precast or partially precast foundation solutions used in the market is increasing.

This solution as a certain versatility because it can be used with different soil condition, including difficult geotechnical situation that needs piles.

It also use less material due to its geometry. I do not have actual figures to comment on the final cost, however my impression is that the real benefit will come from the additional production and that the saving in materials will be offset by the increased manufacturing complexity.

This solution has already a certain track record. I see that it has been used in Italy, Mexico, India, China and Saudi Arabia (in Dumat Al Jandal, a wind farm that I tendered 8 or 9 years ago – this gives you an idea of how long it may takes for a project to materialise).

It has also been certified by DNV-GL and TUV, undoubtedly a strong plus.

All the pictures are stolen from the presentation that Esteyco has given at India Windergy 2017.

Medium voltage power cables in wind farms: an introduction

This post is an extension of the previous short article I wrote some years ago on the characteristics of wind farms medium voltage system.

I wrote it with the help of my friend and colleague Kamran, who spent more than an hour answering my questions on the subject. Thank you Kamran!

The medium voltage network is one of the elements that compose a wind farm project, the other being foundations, earthworks, substation and high voltage line.

Some elements could be missing: I have seen several projects without substation, for instance in France where  small wind farms were connected to the grid directly at medium voltage level. However, you will never see a project without at least several hundred meters of medium voltage cables.

Wind turbines generally produce energy with a voltage around 600V – 700V. Subsequently the voltage is raised by a transformer that can be located in the nacelle, at the base of the tower or less frequently externally in a small box near the tower.

The objective is to minimize the electrical losses, and several voltage level are theoretically possible - I have seen projects with MV levels varying from 12kV to 33kV and higher.

The objective to achieve working at the design of the medium voltage system is obviously finding the sweet spot that optimize Capex (what you pay for cables and transformers cost) and Opex (mainly the electrical losses that you will have in the cables), selecting a rated voltage compliant with local regulations and cable types that are commonly used in the country where the wind farm is located.

Cables are rated by their effective cross sectional area in mm2 – the greater the section, the greater the amount of current they can transport.

Standard sections frequently used in wind farms are 70, 95, 120, 150, 185, 240, 300, 400, 500 and 630 mm. Greater sections are commercially available but already the 400 to 630mm sections are hard to use in construction due to their weight and bending radius.

The bending radius is usually expressed as a function of the diameter. For instance, “10x D” would mean that the minimum bending radius is 10 times the diameter of the cable. This parameter is significant because you will probably need some narrow bends in your cable, for instance at the bottom of the foundation if the transformer is inside the turbine. Large binding radius can make the work at the construction site very hard.

The cables are made of several layers with different functions – many technical alternatives and constructive techniques are available in the market but in general you will find (from the centre to the most external layer):

  • A conductor core made of copper or aluminium
  • An insulation layer, usually made of cross linked Polyethylene (XLPE)
  • A metallic screen to stop the electric field
  • An external sheath, protecting the cables from corrosion, humidity and mechanical stress. In some projects this most external layer is selected to have special properties such as for instance enhanced resistance to fire or protection from aggressive chemicals or even termites (I have seen this last feature in Australia)

Different medium voltage cable layers. Copyright image Yuzh cable

Cables will be delivered to the wind farm in cable drums made of wood.

The standard design strategy is trying to minimize the number of cable drums because making the joints between different sections of cables is an expensive and highly specialized task.

There are however limits to the size of drums – basically both its weight and dimension must allow safe transport and manipulation.

The amount of meters of cable that can be transported on a drums depend on the cable type and diameter – for wind farms you will usually receive some hundreds of meters in each drum.

Single core vs. three core cables

There are two main typologies of MV cables commercially available, single core and three core.

In single core cables each comes with his own screen while in three core cables the three phases share a common metallic screen. If you select the single core technology you will need to use three different cables, one for each phase.

Aluminium vs. Copper cables

The material used for the conductor of the cables for wind farms is always almost always aluminium.

Theoretically, copper cables are available and copper has several desirable characteristics - for instance it is a more efficient electrical current conductor and requires a smaller cross section to carry the same amount of power as an aluminium conductor.

However, with the current relative prices of copper and aluminium, copper cables are simply too expensive so they are never used for the reticulation of wind farms – you will probably see them inside the substations, where distances are shorter.

The cost of raw materials such as aluminium represent a relevant percentage of the final cost of the cable. For this reason I tend to see the MV cables almost as a commodity.

Overhead vs. Buried cables

In the majority of countries, the cables are directly buried in a sand bed in the bottom of the trenches (or in very rare cases, inside a duct).

Every now and then, I see a project with an overhead medium voltage line, for instance in India or South Africa. However, they tend to be more the exception then the rule.

 

Crane hardstands for installation of wind turbines: a handbook

Crane pads engineering and construction handbook. Copyright STOWA

Due to the pandemic this year we have been forced to go on vacation by car – the majority of flights from Germany to southern Italy have been cancelled, so we are making a 2000+ Km car trip with our three kids.

While my wife was driving I searched something to read and I have found something unexpected and extremely interesting: a 121 pages handbook only on wind farm crane pads!

The owner of the document is a bit unusual – STOWA, the Dutch knowledge centre of the regional water managers. However it makes sense if you consider that many projects in the Netherlands are on reclaimed lands and water authorities and municipalities are involved in the permitting process.

Behind the document there is a supervisory committee composed by the very best wind companies in the country, such as Fugro, ABT, H4A, Tencate and many others.

They will give you a very detailed view on the topic: after an introductory section describing the standard wind turbines and cranes now in the market the handbook describe in detail the process, from the geotechnical investigations to the design to the execution, operation and maintenance.

I have worked personally with some of the authors and I can guarantee you that they are very experienced professionals, so this is an extremely valuable document.

Once More, with Feeling: Timber Towers

Modvion laminated wood tower. Image copyright Modvion

Approximately one year ago I wrote a post about a full scale prototype of a wind turbine tower made of wood.

It has been built in 2012, but after that the idea seemed to have stalled without progress: one of the companies involved in the construction, TimberTower GmbH, disappeared from the radar shutting down their website and I suspect they went out of business.

However, I see that someone else has taken up the challenge: Modvion, a Swedish start-up.

They could be more successful in moving from the prototyping phase to the industrialization for at least two reasons: they are coming from Sweden, a country with an extensive know how and network of companies active in wood construction, and they successfully went through a round of Venture Capitalists, Business Angels and European Union founding.

They target is to be ready to market in 2022 cross laminated timber towers in the 100 – 150 meters range. This means that they want to enter in the 4 to 5 MW segment, the current standard for utility scale WTGs. The prototype that they have just installed is 30 meters high.

Such tower could have several benefits – solve the current transportation problems (steel towers with diameters over 4 meters have huge transportation challenges due to bridges, cables, etc.), lowering the carbon footprint and possibly even be cost competitive against the current technologies (steel, concrete and hybrid).

I have no idea of the behavior of this solution from the resonance point of view although I suspect that the increased diameter at the base improve the situation. I also ignore how this tower would behave in case of fire: I have personally seen a fire very near to the wind turbines some years ago in Portugal.

Unfortunately their website does not share many technical details. I understand that it is a modular solution, with the total number of modules obviously depending on the tower height being a standard solution in the 30 - 40 modules range.

The tower section is circular, unlike the TimberTower solution that was octagonal.

Among the materials used for the tower I see glued laminated timber and laminated veneer lumber - basically a mix of wood and adhesives, with superior technical properties and more uniform characteristics as it is produced in a controlled environment.

The modules are joined together using double-treaded fasteners, preassembling on site 4 or more tower sections with a bottom diameter of 6+ meters (that is, more than a standard steel tower).

This concept is similar to some concrete modular tower solution with a key difference – the modules are assembled horizontally, so I guess that the need of big crane support is limited.

I also understand that the internals of the towers would be similar to the ones currently built (with elevator, ladder, space for transformer, etc.).

Printable 3D concrete wind turbine towers

Yes, you're reading right – you can print your concrete tower.

I have discussed in many previous articles how I see some evidence that we are reaching the maximum size for steel towers, mainly because of transportation issues.

For higher towers concrete towers could help solving the problem, as they can be transported in pieces and assembled on site.

Among the different technologies available for concrete I have just discovered this exiting evolution: a Danish company specialized in 3D concrete printing, COBOD, partnered with GE Renewable and LafargeHolcim to develop a large printable tower.

COBOD already printed some years ago a full scale building, a small but beautiful 50 m2 office with curved walls.

For this interesting evolution they already made a prototype about 10 meters tall.

The concrete is extruded by the machine in a sort of ribbon, and the internal and external sides of the tower are reinforced by a “wavy” central section.

Currently the solution that they are targeting is a hybrid tower (that is, with the top section made of steel) with an on-site printed base.

Dancing in the wind

I have discussed in other post the phenomenal growth of the dimensions of wind turbines in the last 2 decades. Bigger rotors, taller towers and more MW has been the industry trend year after year.

There is some evidence that we are reaching the limit – blades of more than 50m length pose significant logistic challenges, while steel tower more than 100 meters tall can be subject to strong vibrations and dangerous oscillations under certain circumstances.

Such vibrations can be induced by several external sources such as an unbalanced rotor, an earthquake or the wind itself.

They are dangerous because they can damage the turbine due to fatigue loading (the weakening of materials due to cyclical loads). Some type of foundation can also partially lose stiffness – for instance monopile foundations.

Additionally, these vibrations can also trigger resonance phenomenons in the tower – you can follow this link to see of how “soft soft” and “stiff” tower are designed based on the blade passing frequency.

You can see a good full scale example of this problem in the video above and read here more about wind turbine vibrations.

There are several technical solutions currently being studied to dampen the tower reducing the vibrations.

Among the most interesting concept that I have seen I would mention tuned mass dampers – basically an auxiliary mass connected to the structure with spring and dashpots (viscous friction dampers), friction plates or similar energy dissipating elements.

These dumpers are called “tuned” because they have been designed keeping in mind the natural oscillation frequencies of the structure they have to protect. The two main parameters are the spring constant and the damping ratio: by varying them it is possible to damp harmonic vibrations.

I do not know if tuned mass dampers that can work with the first fundamental frequency of  industrial size wind turbines (below 1 Hz) are currently available – however I have found quite a lot of  studies on the topic.

A similar technological solution is the tuned liquid column damper. In this case a liquid inside an U shaped tank. By varying the geometry of the tank and the depth of the liquid different damping frequencies can be achieved.

The main benefits of this solution are the geometrical flexibility (you have to put the dumper somewhere inside the tower or the nacelle – I can assure you that the space there is very reduces) and low cost.

Another variant is the pendulum damper. In this solution, the length of the pendulum is calculated to match the fundamental frequency of the WTG.

Mass Damper (a) and Pendulum Damper (b)
Copyright O. Altay, C. Butenweg, S. Klinkel, F. Taddei
Vibration Mitigation of Wind Turbine Towers by Tuned Liquid Column Dampers
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

Where have all the wind turbine gone? Foldable towers

Perima foldable wind turbine tower - folded. Copyright Pantano et al., Springer

In previous post some years ago I have described two alternative solution for the wind turbine tower that should help solving the problem of the huge cranes that are currently needed for the erection of the wind turbines components.

One is the self-lifting precast tower developed by Esteyco, a Spanish engineering company that developed several interesting technical solution.

The other is the Nabrawind solution – again, a Spanish company that developed a self-erecting tower. They also have another interesting product, modular blades that can be assembled.

Some days ago, I have discovered another technical solution that share some similarities with these two concept but with an interesting twist: a group of Italian engineers has developed a “retractable” tower, basically a telescopic mechanism that can be folded bringing the blades down to the ground without using cranes or other equipment.

Theoretically it could be operated from a remote location, even if I guess that some kind of supervision during the operation is advisable.

Why should you want to make your wind turbine disappear?

The authors mention several reasons, for instance minimization of the visual impact (you can make your WTG almost invisible during the day and having it work at night).

I can also think at other uses – minimization of bird impact (folding the tower during the migration period) or increased safety during extreme wind (for instance during the monsoon season in south east Asia).

The idea is not only a concept –a working prototype has already been built in southern Italy.

Perima foldable wind turbine tower - erected. Copyright Pantano et al., Springer

It is a small wind turbine (55 kW), at least for what is today the standard in utility scale projects (3 to 5 MW). Additionally it has only 2 blades, which I think can help when you retract the tower.

However the hub height is 30 meters, quite a reasonable figure.

It is interesting to observe that this technical solution needs a deep foundation, basically with a depth equivalent to the hub height.

It is mentioned the possibility to modify the concept to use the foundation hole as a well to extract water. Quite an interesting side benefit I would say.

The authors are not sharing the cost of the tower and the ancillary elements, although I suspect they could be several time the cost of the standard, non-retractile  tubular steel tower.

Finally, it would be interesting to know the applicability of this solution to WTGs in the MW class.

The authors mention a dimensioning bending moment of around 300 kNm. Such value is two orders of magnitude lower of the values that are common in industrial size turbines, so it is not immediately evident that the idea can be scaled without major modification.

An additional problem would be the length of the foundation pit.  Reaching depths of 50 meters and below, although not impossible, introduce new issues – for instance the need of very specialized drilling equipment.

Perima foldable wind turbine tower - technical details. Copyright Pantano et al., Springer

Wind turbine blade damage detection systems

Wind turbine blades damages. B.F. Sørensen, E. Jørgensen, C.P. Debel, H.M. Jensen, T.K. Jacobsen, K. Halling, et al., Improved design of large wind turbine blade of fibre composites based on studies of scale effects (phase 1). summary report.

Wind turbine blades are rarely subject to catastrophic failures, although you can find a bunch of videos on YouTube with blades flying away or falling into pieces.

They are however subject to several problems, such as cracks, debonding of the various layers, internal delamination, etc.

As an order of magnitude blade failures are accountable for approximately one fifth of the problems usually seen during the operational life of the wind farm.

Such problems have a direct impact on the profitability of the plant and can be extremely expensive to fix.

Some issues can be fixed leaving the blade attached to the rotor. However not all problems can be solved without dismantling the blade, and the fee associated with the cranes needed for the dismantling can be very high.

In the worst case scenario a blade substitution will be needed, and the transportation cost will add up.

A certain number of failure is attributable to design error (insufficient material strength under fatigue or extreme loads) or manufacturing problems.

However the overwhelming majority of issues seem to be attributable to extreme weather – basically strong winds, thunderstorm (including lightning strikes), ice, pollutants, etc.

The effect of ice accumulation is especially dangerous in case of asymmetrical accumulation, because it can create unbalanced loads in the rotor.

Pollutants, usually in the form of airborne particles (e.g. sand) can shorten the life of the blades accelerating the erosion of the superficial layer. A gel coat usually cover the outside of the blade to protect it from ultraviolet degradation, water, etc.

Therefore the erosion of the external layer may have two impacts: lower the efficiency of the blade (this will have a direct impact on energy production, and ultimately on money) and accelerating the degradation of the blade.

Some areas of the blades are more prone to damage: tip, root and joints accumulate the majority of reported damages. The distribution of failures has however a typical pattern: erosion is more frequent in the tip side (due to the higher local speed) while cracks are more frequent toward the root.

Blades crack and erosion regions. Zhang, H., 2016. Reducing Uncertainty in Wind Turbine Blade Health Inspection with Image Processing Techniques. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

A variety of methods has been developed to detect and monitor damage. There is a consensus on the fact that early detection of a problem mean usually lower maintenance costs.

The “perfect”, ideal method should be able to assess the full scale of the blade without contact, allowing for continuous remote monitoring.

Unfortunately such methods does not exist yet. Among the most promising techniques it is worth mentioning:

The use of strain sensors, either embedded in the blade or on the surface. It is the same type of fibre-optic called “fibre Bragg gratings” (FBGs) that I have described in another post. As each sensor measure only direct strain and shear strain only in one point of the blades many sensors will be needed to have the full picture. Another problem is that the sensor can give a "false positive" result if it fails due to creep, fatigue, etc.

Measuring the acoustic emissions of the blade is another extremely interesting method to find damages. Unfortunately it is a complex system that need many sensors and physical contact with the blade of many sensors – something that could be difficult to achieve in operational wind farms. Sensors operate on an extended frequency range (50 kHz to 1 MHz) and as in the case of the strain sensor are used not only for the blades but also for the other components (gearbox, bearings, etc.)

Ultrasound is an extremely common non-destructive technique, that basically analyse the ultrasound waves reflected by the different layers of materials and by discontinuities in the materials. The main problem of ultrasound detection is that usually physical surface contact is needed. On top of that, there is also usually time consuming (and it can be hard to process the signal). It can however be extremely useful for an in depth analysis of the situation of the blade.

Thermography is a technique that use infrared cameras to assess the temperature distribution. If there is a defect in the structure the flow of the heat will be disrupted, causing temperature gradients. Thermography comes in two types, passive (made from the ground using the “natural” temperature) and active (heating the surface).

The last method, and possibly one of the most promising giving the quick evolution of computer computational power, is Machine Vision. One or more cameras are used to capture images of the blades subsequently analysed with image processing algorithms.

There are several interesting studies on machine learning – basically using two set of image, one of blades with known failures and the other of blades without problems, to “train” the algorithm to detect issues.