A website about wind farm construction: not only turbine erection but also balance of plant – access roads, crane pads, turbine foundations, power collection network, substation, meteorological mast and the economics behind it.
I will try to answer this question: what is the better tool to manage the information obtained on site?
There are several very useful mobile apps that can help us finding the target locations and geolocate the position of all relevant elements of the project (wind turbines, substation, roads, crane pads, etc.).
They can also help us obtaining and storing information in an efficient and organized way.
Although none of these software has been specifically created for the wind business´s needs, they offer very useful features that could make our lives easier during a site visit.
As they are mobile apps, we should make sure we have enough battery and that is why I always recommend bringing a portable charger with you.
Google Earth / Google maps
These two apps are by far the most popular. Anybody who is familiar with the desktop software will rapidly recognize their strengths integrated in a very powerful GUI.
They allow the user to load kml files with very valuable information such WTG positions or road alignments or even connect to maps edited and stored in our personal Google account
I see three main drawbacks here:
The basemap loaded in the background is limited to the basic formats: Street, Terrain, Traffic, Satellite, etc. Unfortunately they do not offer the chance to insert our customized maps as a background.
The geolocation is based on the device´s built-in GPS, but the background map data is loaded only if network is available – and this could be a big risk in remote areas.
They are not really prepared to create and store points of interests with comments and link personal photos taken in the area of study – or at least, not as I would like.
This app uses the device´s built-in GPS so that the correct positioning does not depend on the availability of the network.
One of the main advantages compared to the traditional GPS mapping apps like “Gaia gps”, “Google Maps” or “Google Earth” is that Avenza maps allows the user to import our own customized maps in different file formats such as geopdf, geotiffs.
These maps can be any kind of project drawings created with GIS tools such as QGIS or ArcMap.
This app can be used for free. With the free version we can download up to a certain number of maps at a time (usually 3). There is also is also Pro version which includes more features and increases the possibilities.
It also includes the option to create a store account. It is not required but is recommended though.
For more information about this tool, I recommend you go directly to the official web.
This is a tracking map app used mainly by hiking lovers.
Initially, it looks like a very simple app without any special charm. However, it offers similar functionalities to “Avenza maps” and I personally consider it gives a good service to the actual needs in a site visit.
The main advantages are:
We track our routes and the elevation information (longitudinal profiles) is registered as well.
The photos taken along the routes are georeferenced and can be visualized over the route.
There is the option to add “Places of interest” with comments.
We can create our customized maps either by using the app or from the desktop tool called “Maprika map designer”. See below a link with a tutorial explaining how to do it.
As a drawback, we can considerate the lack of confidentiality: any map uploaded containing relevant wind farm information would be available to any user from the server.
Furthermore, it is quite easy to upload a map to the server but deleting is not as straightforward.
I leave to the end which, from my point of view, is the most promising from all the apps listed here and, surprisingly, maybe the less popular: Road AI
The first time I heard about this tool was in a Finish project I was involved in.
One of the contractors used to work with it and it ended up being a really nice discover.
Although addressed to cover infrastructure management, it can be “recycled” to work as an information management tool for site visiting. The mobile application provides a dynamic and flexible way to collect, manage and deploy data in a user friendly environment.
The main strengths are:
The user can record videos and make photos of the construction site which will directly be stored and available in a cloud service. E.g. We can make videos using a phone holder on the windscreen to record routes and the time and the GPS location will also be saved.
Make annotations associated to the audio-visual material recorded on site.
View all of the recorded routes and sites together with the annotations and metadata using the map interface available through a normal browser application.
We can share this information with anybody inside your organization or with a client.
It also allows to use filters and requests to visualize data following a certain criteria with a similar philosophy than in a GIS environment.
Surprisingly, it is difficult to find any reference to this application out from the local Finnish market. Only a few references are found in works at UK.
This is a link to the first of a series of video tutorials explaining the way to use and take most of the system (sorry it is in Finnish):
All in all, the proposals presented here are only a sample among a big offer presented in the market. Any tool with similar properties would work well enough used in a proper way. It is just a matter of personal preference as long as an ad hoc and convincing system is deployed and released into the market. Maybe one day…
Behind every wind farm project there is a technical feasibility study, made to assess the potential for electricity generation of the selected site.
At the beginning of the wind farms era wind speed and wind direction was estimated using data from existing weather stations.
Due to large differences between predicted energy production and actual generated energy (which was usually overestimated) meteorological met mast are now designed and installed to have better estimates.
Any estimate of the Annual Energy Production (AEP) contains several uncertainties and paramethers that can vary such as:
Duration, tower setup, anemometer quality.
Long term adjustments
Selection of a long term wind data source, correlation and long term prediction methodology.
Linear model, computational fluid dynamics models, mesoscale for estimation from met mast into none measured positions.
Horizontal and vertical extrapolation
Horizontal and vertical distance from the meteorological mast(s) to each Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) position and hub height.
Wind speed to energy
Use of a wind turbine calculated/measured power curve together with the site conditions wind speed to estimate energy (if within constrain inflow angle, wind shear, etc).
Calculated losses i.e. electrical, environmental, curtailment, wake model selection.
Uncertainties and paramethers affecting wind farm energy production estimates
Giving all these project uncertainties, an AEP can be calculated with different levels of confidence in the results.
For instance, what is called a "P50" is a production expected to materialize in 50% of the cases.
It is possible to estimate more conservative energy productions, such as for example P99 (a lower production value, that should materialize in the 99% of the situations).
The wind site resource assessment is a careful identification and evaluation of different risks and uncertainties sources that are unique for each site.
In this article we will focus on two uncertanties, arising from the horizontal and vertical extrapolation of data.
For the vertical extrapolation we can identify two sources of uncertanties:
The difference between measurement height and hub height.
When using a lower met mast compared to the selected WTG hub height different methods can be used to estimate the wind speed either by extrapolating for example with a power law/log law method.
The altitude difference (flow model)
It is possible to reduce the first vertical uncertainty by installing a met mast with a top anemometer at the same hub height.
Alternatively remote sensing devices such as a Sodar/Lidar can be used on site.
It is recommended to have a wind speed measurement of at least 2/3 of hub height to keep uncertainties at an acceptable value, as any methods for hub height wind speed estimation (i.e. power law or flow model) will add uncertanty to the calculation.
A typical range for this uncertainty is in the 1 to 4% range, varying depending on the type of terrain and the total vertical distance (for example, 0.5% per every 10 meters vertical difference).
The Horizontal Extrapolation is heavily influenced by the terrain and surrounding vegetation.
One of the reasons is that certain orographic traits (plain, rolling hills, mesas, mountain ridges) and roughness (native vegetation, agricultural, forest, lakes) at the measurement position should be “similar” to the WTGs position for the flow to behave in the same manner.
A typical range for this uncertainty is from 1 to 4%.
According to Measnet the data from a met mast are representative only for few km - up to 10km for a simple terrain and around 2km for a much more complex terrain.
After the assessment of 200 projects DNV-GL identifies the horizontal and vertical extrapolation to be responsible for approximately 35% of the total energy uncertainty.
For projects with a high spatial variation (i.e. with turbines very far away from each other) the value can be as high as 51%.
Depending on the wind farm total size, terrain characteristics and mesoscales effects this values can be even higher.
It interesting to note that even if two projects have the same P50 AEP, the one with lower uncertainties and therefore a higher P99 AEP will have better chances to be built being more "bankable".
Conclusion: very early in the project, after just a few months of measurements, the Horizontal and Vertical uncertainty should be calculated and simulated in cost to benefit financial model to find out the best quantity of measurement locations to have.
A factor to consider this important topic in the initial period is to be able to carry out correlation between measurement locations and assess flow model cross-prediction errors that will further reduce project uncertainties.
Today many resources can make the engineer life´s easier helping create a renewable energy project in any spot of the world.
Powerful GIS and CAD software and an incredible amount of data available from either public or private entities make possible designs with a sufficient level of accuracy to have good cost estimations, even at early stages of the project.
However no tool is good enough to give you the amount of information a site visit can provide. This is a step that can give a boost of extra quality to the design process.
Whenever possible, doing a visit to the project area is highly recommendable.
There are many circumstances which could make it impossible, such as aggressive delivery dates, excessive travel distances or lately pandemics.
Also priorities matters: we cannot compare the preliminary work needed for a tender phase in a very early stage with the final detailed execution design of a constructive wind farm project.
In this article I collected some tips to successfully plan a Site Visit:
Hiring a 4x4 car (4 Wheel Drive or similar) is a must. Take into account that we will usually find unpaved roads in uncertain conditions or even no roads at all.
Depending on the actual state, it would be wise sometimes pulling over, park the car and go to the targeted place walking.
Furthermore, companies are already offering already internally a 4x4 off road driver training. We can find a lot of difficulties and a skilled drive behind the wheel is a blessing. See below the state of a track in a recent site visit… Yes, we were able to arrive home safe.
Food and breaks
It could be the case that the site is in the middle of nowhere without direct access to any populated village. Even if that is not the case, we will have to assess the convenience of having lunch in a restaurant or canteen with the risk of losing valuable time in the travel. Anyway, we must prepare and take with us some food (e.g. sandwich and fruit would be a good combination) and enough bottled water for the whole journey. Short breaks every 3-4 hours to have some rest and eat some snacks is also highly recommendable. A well planned visit should have account for this moments and there should not be excuses for skipping them.
Clothing and HSE
For a good feet protection, construction security boots with reinforced toe will serve well enough. If construction has not started yet, hiking boots could be another option. Waterproof resistant trousers or, alternatively, with resistant fabric are also recommended. On the other hand, we should follow some common sense rules such as taking a hiking cagoule (raincoat) if we are expecting rain or a cap, sun glasses and sun protection for hot and sunny days.
A careful study of particular conditions at the project site shall be done to avoid any surprise.
Reflective vests were needed in a visit I made to Sweden because the wind farm was in an hunting ground. Anybody without proper clothes hiking in the mountains was in danger of being shot.
Another example was a visit I recently made to Australia. It was in December and the wave of forest fires was at its peak. Of course, temperatures raised easily to 35-40ºC and the initial temptation was to use short sleeved T-shirts. The fact is that the project area was full of ticks and a complete protection of the body was required to avoid any undesired surprise. I found myself shaking some of them out of my shoulders.
To make the most of our trip, we need to carefully plan our journeys beforehand.
Here goes a proposal with some key aspects. How to organize them will depend on the particular circumstances of the project:
If a route survey has already been done, follow the route sketched from the point of discharge (usually a maritime port) of the WTG components to the wind farm site and make sure that the report matches the reality. If there is not a route survey in place, try to find alternatives on site. If there is more than one option, we can use one route to go and other route to return.
Visit to the nearest towns or villages to assess the best place to stablish central headquarters and/or employee’s accommodations. A project execution phase will normally take, in the best scenario, several months. Finding a place within a one-hour radius to the construction site with leisure offer and good services will contribute to a keep the teams spirit up. As a rule of good practice, it is recommendable talking with the locals, as they will always be able to provide valuable information.
Go to commercial quarries close to the site. It is always good to know quality and properties of the available material, unit costs and availability. In general, no appointment is required but it would be a rule of good practice calling before to know whether anybody can receive us.
If not already defined, search for possible places to stablish the site compounds.
Inspection of suitable areas that may serve as storage points for the WTG components.
Check all the WTG positions one by one. As a rule of thumb, experience says that a realistic planning should contemplate a properly assessment of a range between 10 to 15 WTG locations. Of course, it will always depend on the site conditions, the state of the existing roads and how far the positions are from the nearest driveable path.
Visit to the substation area and the point of connection to the existing electrical network.
Of course, there will be always unexpected events that we will have to handle once on site. However, taking the good habit of following these rules before travelling reduces the odds of facing undesired surprises as well as gives the engineer the chance to work in a more efficient way and even enjoy the journey.
The constant search for higher rated power, taller towers and longer blades has pushed wind turbine manufacturers in an arms race to secure a position in an extremely competitive market.
Today in the onshore market there are machines with rated power close to 6MW, hub heights in a range of 150-165m and blades longer than 80 m. Several projects are currently under development considering these massive sizes.
Lately I have had the opportunity to analyse in depth a new solution which is emerging as an alternative to the traditional lattice boom cranes: the tower cranes.
I have analysed two scenarios, one with the standard lattice boom crane and an alternative scenario with the tower crane.
Standard scenario: lattice booms crane
Lattice boom cranes such as the Liebherr LG1750 have been the standard solution for the installation of the latest generation of turbines, with a tower height in a range up to 140+m.
This type of crane can be moved fully assembled between positions under certain assumptions (such as a very low road longitudinal slope and minimum road width of more than 6m).
If the crane has to be dismantled a substantial area for the boom assembly and disassembly process will be needed (in red in the image below).
Other characteristics that can have an impact on the project are:
A mountainous landscape: in this case the boom assembly area would be even more essential. This will have a substantial impact of civil works cost.
Very high installation rates (such as 3 or 4 turbines per week). The limited stock of lattice boom cranes suitable for this hub heights worldwide create a risk: either you book the cranes two years in advance (giving up the possibility of changing the schedule) or you wait - with the risk of losing the crane availability slot.
Alternative scenario: tower cranes
The idea of using tower cranes for wind turbines installation is not new in the onshore sector.
Said that, as far as I was aware of, the use of this typology of cranes has been negligible in the last few years.
Common sense tells me that the experience turned out not to be very positive (otherwise I presume that the concept would have been replicated, while that does not seem to be the case).
More recently, new models from Krøll Cranes have been used in wind farms at the opposite side of the planet, in Thailand and Australia.
Big players like ALE are suggesting that this new concept is reliable.
One of the main references is the Theparak wind farm project in Thailand, where 60 V136-3.0 MW where installed using this crane.
Here we have a list of some of the projects installed in Thailand with tower cranes:
The main pros of the tower crane are:
Road width required: only 4.5 m (even as little as 3.5 m according some sources).
Cranes boom is only 70 m long.
Advanced crane bases allow savings in the critical path.
Lower minimum lifting radius compared to lattice boom areas.
Installation rates about 2 hours per component. An installation rate of 1 WTG every 4 days has been reached in the Thai projects.
Operational up to wind speeds of 15m/s.
On the other hand, cons would be:
Lack of experience of the operators with these new set of cranes and low offer worldwide.
Uncertainty on the actual installation rates due to insufficient track record.
Real installation costs are still unknown.
Depending on the characteristics of the project, Kroll cranes has available these models:
How would an hardstand layout adapted to both the tower crane and the new generation of turbines look like?
It seems that a tower crane could work using a standard hardstand without the boom area:
Some 3d models where created on real WTG locations to assess the actual impact on cost of this new configuration. Quantity reductions in topsoil stripping, excavation and fill material may lead to a cost reduction around 5000€ per hardstands (being conservative).
A nice image with a 3D model of the hardstand analysed is included below:
Even if potential savings in the civil works seem to be easy to achieve, a real total project cost reduction can be confirmed only considering the actual installation costs, which are not so clear at this moment.
Are tower cranes going to be a more mainstream solution in the future?
Only time will tell.
I have received this email from Jasper from Lighthouse projects. I think it can be useful to other readers.
Regarding the tower cranes in compare to Crawler crane I would like to share with you some experience.
I have worked 2 years ago at windpark Krammer which consists out of 34 Enercon E115 turbines on a dyk with no space for storage components or installation of the cranes.Therefore we have used 2 Liebherr EC1000 Tower cranes in the project to build the wind turbines.
My experience is that with the limited space on site it is easier to install the crane. Another benefit is that crane capacity because the crane can lift up to 100t we could pre assemble the rotor and generator up front and lift the generator in one lift which is efficient. In addition what we saw is that you can lift longer you can lift up to 12 m/s or more.
A disadvantage of this type of crane is that it must be extended at some point. Mast sections must then be placed in between so that the hook of the crane becomes higher.
Since some years ago almost all wind turbine manufacturers (“OEM” - I hate acronyms) have modified their tower to foundation interface.
The previous technical solution to connect tower and foundation was based on an embedded steel section (like a “ring” inside the foundation).
It did not work properly and the issues caused by this element might be easily subject of several articles, about the problems caused by the ring and on the solutions developed to fix those problems (i.e. retrofitting and repairs works necessary to ensure the necessary lifetime of the turbine foundations).
In the last years (I would say since around 2010) the embedded ring has been replaced with a pre-stressed anchor cage, as shown in the following picture:
The design methodology for this element is usually based on simplified hypothesis:
The first assumption is that the tensile/compression strength on each element is calculated assuming a uniform load distribution, usually using formulas such as:
T = 4Md / (n*D) + N/n
T = Maximum tension force on the more loaded bolt
Md = Bending moment from the tower
n = Number of anchors
D = Average diameter of the anchor cage
N = Axial force
This is usually known as the “Petersen approach”.
Petersen is a German engineer who wrote a book about steel structure design appropriately titled “Stahlbau” (“steel construction” in German) where this calculation method is presented.
The second assumption is that the tensile force is distributed between concrete and steel if there is no decompression.
If decompression happens (something that will always happen under ultimate limit state factored loads) all the tensile force will be taken by the steel.
The only problem with this approach is that the first assumption is only true in case there is no decompression.
This approach leads to conservative results, as it does not account for the force re-distribution due to the stiffness change when decompression occurs.
However, it is very easy to obtain the maximum tension the more loaded bolt or to calculate the needed number bolts or their dimensions for a given tension.
When decompression occurs the stiffness in the “compressed” side and in the “tensioned” side stops having the same value, as the concrete stops providing its stiffness (this is the magic of pre-stressing, before de-compression the concrete is somehow taking some tension, a thing that concrete rarely does).
In the compressed side we will have an area of concrete under compression and bolts in tension (due to the prestressing), that take the compression by de-tensioning.
In the tensioned side we will only have the bolts in tension.
Similarly to a hyper static structure the stiffer side (in this case the one under compression) is able to take more load.
This works like a beam supported by springs:
In the picture on the left all the springs have the same stiffness. This would be the current design model, as in the formula shown above.
In the picture on the right the tension springs (right side of the beam) have only half the stiffness.
This is just to show how stiffness affects the force distribution, in a real anchor cage the loss of stiffness when decompression occurs might be over 80% as the concrete area contribution it is much bigger than the bolts area (total stiffness would be Es*As+Ec*Ac, being Es and As the area and elastic modulus of steel, and Ec, Ac the ones from concrete).
The “softer springs” on the right take less load, that is redistributed to the more rigid area on the left.
Please note that this would not happen in an isostatic structure (with only two supports)
As the neutral axis moves, the redistribution of forces changes. This lead to a non-linear calculation.
To perform this analysis we can implement a model with a homogenized concrete-steel section, and with variable parameters depending of the location of the neutral axis. Using this type model, we would be able to obtain the maximum stress on concrete and the tensile force on the pre-stressing element.
This way the anchors size may be adjusted, and we will get a more accurate value for the concrete compression which is slightly underestimated with the current models.
I am not going more deep into this boring details about calculations but I think that it is interesting to know that there is still room for optimization in anchor cage design.
The IEC (acronym of International Electrotechnical Commission) has just released a new design code. More precisely it is a new section of an existing code, the IEC61400.
The IEC is an international organization that prepares and publishes international standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies, including energy production and distribution devices.
The IEC 61400 is a set of design requirements developed specifically for wind turbines – to be sure that they are appropriately engineered against damage from different type of hazards within the planned lifetime (currently, 20 to 30 years). If you are familiar with the wind business you will probably know that this is one of the key international standards.
The IEC 61400 has several sections.
Section 1 deals with the wind turbine loads (more precisely, “design requirements”) in most of the world. A relevant exception would be Germany and some of neighbouring countries, where DIBT is used.
The new section released is the IEC 61400-6:2020 Tower and foundation design requirements.
If you are a wind turbine foundation designer, you are already aware that there is not really and internationally accepted design reference for wind turbines: there are some national references (such as the French CFMS Recommendation, or the Chinese FD 003-2007), some guidelines from certification bodies (such as the DNV guidelines), and recommendations from associations (AWEA for example has a recommendation for foundation design, but not a specific code for wind turbine foundation).
If we assume a similar applicability of this code as the one from the IEC61400:1 my opinion is that this is going to be one the more relevant technical reference (if not the most important) in the market for the next few years.
I am not going to enter deep into the technical detail of this standards, but there are a few points I would like highlight:
The new standard specify that foundation gapping does not need to be the limiting factors for foundations in all the cases. This opens the option to reduce the foundation size importantly when the soil is good enough.
Specifies the applicable codes for concrete design and provide guidance in how to perform some calculations (for instance cracking, dynamic shear modulus, etc…)
Has a set of very interesting annexes providing specifics about seismic calculation, strut and tie modelling, rock anchors, etc…
Specifies that there should not be decompression of the tower flange under the extreme (un-factored) loads.
Provides guidance about how to apply the sub pressure and perform the equilibrium verifications (this may modify some existing practises in some countries).
There are several interesting sections in this code, and many about towers and concrete towers that I have not yet analysed deeply but it seems that we might see some changes in the way we design at the moment.
It looks somehow unusual that this code has been issues by an Electrotechnical Commission – given the subject, it looks more like a code that should have been created by an institution of civil/structural engineers.
However I also believe that this type of reference and guidance was much needed in the sector, so I am happy that the IEC had taken the initiative of releasing such code.
If you either work for a WTG manufacturer or any electric utility the situation in which you are asked to do a complete analyse of a project very quickly (like in 2 or 3 days) is very common.
You are usually asked to do this task for several reasons:
Preparation of a first rough layout with preliminary quantities.
To compare different alternative WTG layouts.
For a technical due diligences.
Until not so many years this type of assessments was done using the specialized design software: MDT, Civil 3D, Istram-Ispol, Clip, etc.
These programs are more focused on a detailed design and the processes are not easy to adapt to a different scenario, where quick results are required.
In the last years Infraworks has emerged as a powerful alternative.
It is a planning and design platform from Autodesk that has experienced an impressive development. It offers a bunch of very useful tools that can be easily adapted to the BoP design of a wind farm.
Some of the principal qualities are:
It allows engineers to quickly create a preliminary design in a realistic environment, making possible to position the point of view anywere in the wind fare and immediately be able to visualize the existing conditions.
The program supports data from multiple sources: GIS (shapefiles, geodatabases, etc), CAD, raster, and all kind of BIM-data. These data is integrated into an interactive 3D model.
Cloud technology is integrated through BIM 360. Different users from the same team can work dynamically on the same projects in remote - i.e. from any point in the planet, a feature especially useful in these "work from home" days.
Multiple alternatives called “Proposals” can be generated for the same project.
The program allows to extract quantities, create shadow analysis, analize conditions with style maps using “style rules”, etc.
It is that it is very user-friendly: it takes only a few days to learn the basics and start doing your own projects.
One of its major advantages included in the last releases is that it is possible to import detailed designs from other software such as 3Ds Max, Civil 3D or Revit.
What I like the most is the dynamic flow of work implemented in the most recent versions between Infraworks and Civil 3D. In this sense, I like to think about Infraworks as a good complement to Civil 3D. We can either:
Start the design in Civil 3D and export it to Infraworks.
Create the predesign directly in Infraworks feeding the model with data available in all kind of source formats: shapefiles, raster, etc.
The synchronization between both programs is not bidirectional: any change done in the Civil 3D model is automatically included in the Infraworks model but not the other way around.
Going more deeply in what the program can offer, here are some comments specific for the wind farm BoP items:
The software offers a quick way to obtain quantities for big construction areas such as crane hardstands.
The option “Land Areas & Grading Behaviours” allows the user to easily calculate quantities for gradings and landfills.
One point to improve is that currently there is no way to export this data to any other format: the information must be extracted "manually" to an external BoQ.
It works in a similar way as explained before with the hardstands.
For example, we can quickly model the foundation bottom pit and calculate the excavation volumes.
We can do it to analyse a certain position or, taking advantage from GIS format files and other formats, do an overall analysis of all the positions.
Infraworks has two typologies of roads, which will be used depending on the needs of both the designer and the project:
Planning roads: These are lightweight roads that use spline geometry. You can add planning roads to a model or import roadway data as planning roads. This format does not allow to extract quantities from the model.
Component roads: these are configurable roads in cross section, vertical and horizontal geometry. They provide a precise control of geometry and grades. This is the type of road we are interested in when creating a BoP design in a wind farm because they have available features such as the grading tool and the mass balance quantification.
The interesting thing about this tool is that we can have a full control of all the parameters from a 3D environment and we can export to quantities to a .csv file format.
Additionally, the intersections between roads are automatically created and very easy to handle and edit.
Hydraulics analysis and drainage calculations are hard to deliver in few hours - at least if you want to do a good job.
However, Infraworks offers a useful and easy module to deal with this matter. Some of the main available services are:
Watershed analysis: it includes point watershed creation, watershed analysis along roads and calculation of flows for a calculated watershed according to different methods (rational, regression, etc).
Culvert design analysis with automated culvert placement, culvert analysis and culvert reporting
Roadway inlet and pipe analysis, including automated inlet and pipe placement and inlet and pipe design analysis.
As a drawback, it is worth point out that drainage tools are only available in combination with a BIM 360 account.
Furthermore, depending on the kind of service required, we will need to have "cloud credits" available for certain processes such as culvert analysis.
In any case, it is difficult to find in the market a tool that gives such a powerful and interactive tool for preliminary drainage calculations.
Creation of realistic videos
Useful realistic videos or tours around the model can be created in a very easy way. They could not only look really fancy in a presentation but also are useful to assess whether there is a major mistake in the predesign. You ave an example at the beguinning of this article: the creation of this video took no more than 15 minutes from when the model was ready.
There is also the option to create advanced customized cross section profiles.
This could be of great use to model other elements linear elements such medium voltage electrical cable trench or high voltage lines.
Beyond all the great functionalities described so far, we must not lose the perspective: as it is now, Infraworks is not intended for a full detailed design. As a user you frequently feel that the program lacks "advanced capabilities" that would be highly appreciated.
Autodesk is aware that the software has a great potential and the company is working constantly to improve the product. To have a good idea of the expected developments in future releases I recommend to visit the webpage “Infraworks Public Roadmap”:
These new developments are based on the feedback given by the users. Suggestions and proposed new features are posted in the “Infraworks Idea Forum”. I have personally posted some of them myself.
I also include the link to the Youtube official channel which I consider a good audio-visual reference for those who want to crack on with the software:
In short, Infraworks is already a tool to take into consideration, not only in preliminary designs but also as a support for final designs.
It will be interesting to see whether future developments will transform in a main reference for designers - not only for wind farm projection, but also for all kind of civil works modelling.
Airborne wind power with air generated energy. Image copyright Philip Bechtle et al. - "Airborne wind energy resource analysis". Article on "Renewable Energy" 141 (2019)
Airborne wind energy is a generic name that describe various technologies that have different levels of development.
They have in common the idea of using unmanned vehicles such as planes, kites, balloons or similar solutions to produce energy from the wind. These vehicles are generally “tethered” (that is, connected to the ground).
Their main promise is to give you “more energy with less material” – because they have a lower initial cost and they consume less material. They also have several other potential advantages. For instance, they could be deployed relatively quickly in areas where there is urgent need for electricity (for instance after a disaster).
Researches on this technology started in the seventies but accelerated greatly in the last 10 to 20 years, with dozen of company developing different ideas and registering hundreds of patents.
There is still no consensus on which is the best technical solution. Therefore there are significant differences between the technologies currently being developed.
A first distinction can be made between systems that produce energy in air inside the flying unit (“on-board generation”) and those that have a generator inside a ground station.
This ground station can be fixed or move (for instance on a loop track or an horizontal track). There are different possibility to produce energy in the ground station: for instance, the tether can unroll a cable around a drum, and the rotation of the drum can be used to produce electric energy.
This mechanism remember somehow a yo-yo – you can see how it looks like in the following picture.
The system work with a two-phase cycle: a "generation phase" where energy is produced and a "recovery phase" where the rope is rolled up again changing the flight configuration (and possibly, consuming some energy using an electrical motor to rewind the rope).
Airborne wind power with ground generated energy. Image copyright Philip Bechtle et al. - "Airborne wind energy resource analysis". Article on "Renewable Energy" 141 (2019)
Several others possible categorizations are possible, for instance depending on the wing type used by the system (rigid wings vs. flexible wings), their weight (lighter vs. heavier than air) or considering the take-off mechanism used (vertical vs. horizontal).
Rigid wings have a better aerodynamic efficiency. Additionally, they usually also have a longer durability. Soft wings, on the other hand, are lighter and more effective with ground generating systems (decreasing the flying mass increase the tension on the cable).
How high will they fly?
The objective is to fly higher that the current wind turbines, to find stronger and more consistent winds (as a general rule the turbulence of the wind decrease with height).
Although it would be nice to extract energy from jet streams at 8000 meters (the strong winds blowing in the upper atmosphere that can make your airplane fly faster) there is evidence that at such altitute the cable that connect the vehicle with the ground would dissipate a significant amount of energy due to aerodynamic drag.
This could imply operating the system at a much lower altitude – probably in the 200m to 2000m range, with an optimum that will be location specific.
Investigations are also focusing on how to solve the take-off problem: as the vehicles are not propelled they will have a very low speed during take-off, and this imply less controllability of the vehicle.
The inverse problem (landing) is equally relevant: it should be possible to stop the system quickly in case of an emergency, as it is possible with a wind turbine.
To solve these problems and to maximize energy production the companies working in this niche are using algorithms to control the flight.
Another problem that the engineers are trying to solve is how to find a balance between low cost and reliability: these machines have moving parts and are supposed to have a long useful life (at least compared to the current lifespan of a wind turbine, which range from 20 to 30 years). The cost of maintenance should not offset the low initial investment cost.
Making a prediction on “social acceptancy” is much more complex (and not only because I am biased and I believe that wind turbines are beautiful).
There is some possibility that people will think that kites and balloons are more attractive than standard wind turbine. Can you imagine a wind farm made from giant helium-filled balloons? I'm sure my children would love it.
A floating wind turbine. Image copyright Altaeros Energies
However, the path towards the implementation of these solutions still seems long and complex.
A few months ago (February 2020) Google closed Makani, one of the companies more advanced in the research for airborne turbines.
Makani was a start-up founded in 2006 and acquired by Google X in 2013.
Makani made several working prototypes and was considered in pole position to find a working solution, also because their parent company has very deep pocket. Therefore their closure was a shock for the industry.
We will probably still need towers and foundations - at least for a while.