22.12.2012 Views

Final report for WP4.3: Enhancement of design methods ... - Upwind

Final report for WP4.3: Enhancement of design methods ... - Upwind

Final report for WP4.3: Enhancement of design methods ... - Upwind

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Table 5.3 shows annual reliability indices <strong>for</strong> different FDF values. FDF = 10 is used <strong>for</strong> fatigue critical details<br />

which cannot be inspected. The annual reliability index is seen to be 4.3 corresponding to an annual<br />

probability <strong>of</strong> failure equal to 10 -5 . This reliability level corresponds to that generally required <strong>for</strong> fatigue<br />

critical details with large consequences <strong>of</strong> failure.<br />

Table 5.3: Annual reliability index <strong>for</strong> different FDF values.<br />

FDF 1 2 3 5 10<br />

β<br />

∆ 2.39 2.84 3.16 3.63 4.32<br />

Steel substructure <strong>for</strong> <strong>of</strong>fshore wind turbines – wave load<br />

In Table 5.4 is shown examples <strong>of</strong> how to model the uncertainty related to estimation <strong>of</strong> stress concentration<br />

factors, XSCF (partly based on [38]). Five values <strong>of</strong> COVSCF are used to model different levels <strong>of</strong> analysis<br />

and complexity.<br />

Table 5.4: Examples <strong>of</strong> COVSCF.<br />

COVSCF Fatigue critical detail<br />

0.00 Statically determinate systems with simple fatigue critical details (e.g. girth welds)<br />

where FEM analyses are per<strong>for</strong>med<br />

0.05 Statically determinate systems with complex fatigue critical details (e.g. multiplanar<br />

joints) where FEM analyses are per<strong>for</strong>med<br />

0.10 Statically in-determinate systems with complex fatigue critical details (e.g. doubler<br />

plates) where FEM analyses are per<strong>for</strong>med<br />

0.15 2 dimensional tubular joints using SCF parametric equations<br />

0.20 Tubular joints in structures where tubular stiffness is modeled by Local Joint<br />

Flexibility (LJF) models and SCF parametric equations are used<br />

Basically it is assumed that COVSCF = 0.10 and COVWave = 0.10. If the response is quasi-static then the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> stress cycles is typically ν = 5.10 6 . It is assumed that the <strong>design</strong> lifetime is TL = 20 year.<br />

For <strong>of</strong>fshore wind turbines where the consequences <strong>of</strong> failure is typically less serious compared to <strong>of</strong>fshore<br />

oil & gas structures the maximum acceptable annual probability <strong>of</strong> failure is in the range ∆PF,max =<br />

10 -4 - 10 -3 , corresponding to the reliability level <strong>for</strong> an unmanned fixed <strong>of</strong>fshore structure, see above.<br />

If a linear SN-curve with m = 3 is used then Table 5.5 shows the required FDF values <strong>for</strong> ∆PF,max = 10 -4 , 2<br />

10 -4 , 10 -3 and <strong>for</strong> P(COL|FAT) = 1.0, 0.5, 0.1 and 0.01. In brackets is shown the corresponding values <strong>of</strong><br />

the product <strong>of</strong> the load and material partial safety factors γf γm. The importance <strong>of</strong> using m = 5 is shown<br />

below.<br />

Table 5.5: Required FDF and corresponding partial safety factors γf γm in ( ) <strong>for</strong> given ∆βmin,FAT (∆PF,max,FAT). (–)<br />

indicates that FDF ≤ 1.<br />

P(COL|FAT) 3,1 (10 -3 ) 3,5 (2 10 -4 ) 3,8 (10 -4 )<br />

1.0 2.40 (1.34) 3.38 (1.50) 4.32 (1.63)<br />

0.5 1.98 (1.26) 2.88 (1.42) 3.73 (1.55)<br />

0.1 1.11 (1.03) 1.87 (1.23) 2.60 (1.37)<br />

0.01 (-) (-) 1.26 (1.08)<br />

42

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!