Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 292–299

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Comparative life cycle assessment of tubular wind towers

and foundations – Part 2: Life cycle analysis
H. Gervásio a, C. Rebelo a,⇑, A. Moura a, M. Veljkovic b, L. Simões da Silva a
a
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3004 516 Coimbra, Portugal
b
Luleå University of Technology, University Campus, Porsön, S-97 187 Luleå, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the first part of the paper the design of tubular towers and respective onshore foundations was
Available online 20 April 2014 addressed. The considered solutions were based on steel, concrete and hybrid steel-concrete tubular tow-
ers supporting multi-megawatt turbines of 2, 3.6 and 5 MW power with hub heights of 80, 100 and 150 m
Keywords: respectively. In this second part of the paper, the life cycle analysis of the designed case studies is per-
Wind turbine formed and conclusions about their environmental impact are drawn. Two different scenarios concerning
Concrete the lifetime of the towers were established. The first scenario considers 20 years lifetime and two differ-
Steel
ent construction methods for the connection of the steel segments, the first based in current technology
Hybrid
Tower
using flange connections and the second using newly developed friction connections. Assuming equal
Foundation importance for all environmental categories in this scenario, it may be concluded that for heights up
Life cycle to 100 m hybrid towers with friction connections are the most efficient solution. For higher heights,
Environmental impact the concrete tower becomes more efficient. The second scenario considers an increased total lifetime
of 40 years, assuming the reuse of the tower after 20 years of operation. In this case, the use of friction
connections in steel towers enhances the possibility of dismantling and reusing the tower potentiating
much better performance in relation to the environmental category of global warming.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In today’s moments of change of climatic conditions, wind
energy represents a promising energy source. Being a clean energy,
inexhaustible and renewable wind power contributes effectively to
reducing dependence on fossil fuels and, consequently, contributes
to the fulfilment of targets for emission levels of acidifying gases
and greenhouse effect. Today’s Europe obtains about 20% of its
electricity needs from renewable sources, including 5.3% from
wind [22]. The plans now proposed by the European Union on
renewable energy policies is that in 2020, 34% of the total con-
sumption of energy will come from renewable sources, including
about 500 TW h from wind energy making up 14% of the total
consumption.
The increase of the power output of wind turbines requires
higher and more expensive support structures. It becomes neces-
sary to establish new standards for these structures, rethinking
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 239797209.
E-mail addresses: hger@dec.uc.pt (H. Gervásio), crebelo@dec.uc.pt (C. Rebelo),
andre.moura@dec.uc.pt (A. Moura), milan.veljkovic@ltu.se (M. Veljkovic), luisss@
dec.uc.pt (L. Simões da Silva).
existing solutions and taking into account the need for transporta-
tion of larger prefabricated elements and more complex processes
of assembling on site. A life cycle analysis considering all phases of
production, operation and decommission has to be considered in
order to have the whole picture of the energy balance and the eco-
nomic feasibility.
Life-cycle analysis (LCA) has been used by different authors in
order to compare the impacts due to the production of renewable
energy with the production of conventional energy. An extensive
review of different analyses of renewable energy generation sys-
tems is provided by Varun et al. [18].
In recent work [15,14] the life cycle environmental analysis of
the complete wind generator, including support structure, was
addressed. The conclusions reported there point out an important
influence of the components using Portland cement, penalizing the
use of concrete in the foundation. Another conclusion is also that
the support structures of the wind generator (foundations and
tower) are the components with higher environmental burdens,
when comparing with the impacts due to rotor and nacelle.
The LCA developed in the present work addresses in more detail
the support structure emphasizing the importance of the end-
of-life stage of wind towers and the recycling and reusing of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.041
0141-0296/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Gervásio et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 292–299
structural components. The research focuses on the use of different
materials, steel vs. concrete, and on the comparative analysis of
alternative supporting towers and respective foundations for the
same type of wind turbine. The environmental impact of the wind
turbine itself (rotor and nacelle) is not included in the analysis.
The structural design of the towers and respective slab founda-
tions has been performed in part one of this paper [17] where three
different tower types using tubular solutions were addressed, i.e.
(i) steel, (ii) concrete and (iii) steel-concrete hybrid towers, sup-
ported by concrete slab foundations. The hybrid solution includes
a lower half of the tower in pre-stressed concrete and the upper
half made of steel. A total of nine case studies were considered
divided by three different tower types supporting turbines at three
different hub heights as following: (i) 2 MW turbine at 80 m, (ii)
3.6 MW turbine at 100 m, (iii) 5 MW turbine at 150 m.
2. Basic assumptions for life-cycle analysis
Life-cycle analysis is a comprehensive methodology for the
quantification of potential environmental impacts of a product or
a system over its life cycle, from raw material acquisition, process-
ing, manufacturing, use and disposal in the end-of-life stage. The
general framework for life cycle analysis is provided by interna-
tional standards ISO14040 (2006) and ISO14044 (2006).
The wind energy industry is very recent and the consideration
of the end-of-life after 20 years use of wind turbine towers has
not been a priority in the past. The repowering of existing wind
farms including the dismantling of the towers and building of
new towers is a scenario already considered in some situations
[3,4]. However, the dismantling of the towers has potential high
impacts in the environment [15] and therefore it should be
included in the life cycle assessment. Also, new possibilities will
be considered in the near future including reuse of the towers on
the same spot or on different spots. Therefore, in this study three
different end-of-life scenarios are considered for the analysis, as
indicated in Table 1. In the first scenario the structure is disman-
tled and materials are recycled after the lifespan of 20 years. In
the second scenario it is considered that after the initial period of
20 years, the structures are refurbished, mainly by surface rehabil-
itation, and reused for another period of 20 years (referred in
Table 1 as scenario 40a). In the third scenario, it is considered that
after the initial period of 20 years, the structures are deconstruct-
ed, rehabilitated and reused in another place for another period
of 20 years (referred in Table 1 as scenario 40b). In both cases, after
the total period of 40 years the structures are then demolished and
sent to their final destination according to the assumptions taken
in the first scenario for each material.
Although the type of structure is similar for all case studies, i.e.
tubular cantilever with circular hollow cross section clamped on an
octagonal plate concrete foundation, the technology used to pro-
duce and assemble the tower on site varies according to the hub
height, type of tower and material used. This is decisive for LCA
results and deserves therefore particular attention.
The construction methodology depends on the type of material,
weight and dimensions of the tubular segments used to finally
assemble the tower on site. Following current technologies,
Table 1
Scenarios for life-cycle analysis of towers.
Lifetime (years)
Steel towers and steel segments in hybrid towers WFC
FrC
Concrete towers and concrete segments of hybrid towers CT
293
whenever possible, steel or concrete parts are produced in factory
and transported to the construction site.
Tubular steel segments with maximum diameter up to 4.50 m
can be easily transported by road. Therefore they are considered
to be pre-fabricated on the factory with length up to 30 m and
assembled on site. This is feasible for the 80 m steel tower using
three segments, for the steel part of the 80 m hybrid tower using
two segments and for the upper part of the 100 m hybrid and steel
towers using one segment [17]. In this case, tubular segments are
fully manufactured in factory and transported to construction site
where they are assembled by bolting together the flanges previ-
ously welded at segment extremities. This type of connection is
called welded flange connection (WFC) in Table 1.
Whenever transportation by road of complete tubular steel seg-
ments is not possible because of excessive diameter, an alternative
procedure is considered, assembling on site pre-fabricated curve
panels to make up entire tubes. This procedure can use welding
of panels, leading to a similar situation of the previous procedure,
or may use bolted connection. The latter alternative solution
avoids welding on site and is based on the use of bolted friction
connection (FrC) described by Veljkovic et al. [20,21,19] for assem-
bling prefabricated tubes and/or for assembling curved panels on
site to form circular cross-sections. This alternative connection
has been developed in recent research work [20,21,19,16,13,2,9]
and has been recognized as a competitive solution for steel towers
[5].
Concerning the concrete parts, each ring of the tower is made
up using three arc segments that have to be limited in weight
and height suitable for transportation and handling. These arc seg-
ments are assembled using pre-stressing cables to form a circular
cross-section and work monolithically.
On site, steel and concrete towers are assembled using cranes
with appropriate dimensions. The procedure to assemble hybrid
towers is more complex and includes three stages [12]. Firstly, a
small mobile crane is used to assemble, temporarily, the half steel
tower on the foundation and this same crane is used to install a
fixed crane on top of the steel tower. Afterwards, the prefabricated
concrete sections can be assembled by this fixed crane, and the
steel tower remains inside the concrete tower. Finally, the steel
tower will slide out from the concrete tower using hydraulic jacks.
Concerning the foundations two different situations are consid-
ered whether earthquake is taken into account or not in the design.
Therefore, each of the case studies in scenario 1, indicated in
Table 1, is evaluated for LCA considering two different foundations.
It should be reminded here the conclusion obtained from the
design in the first part of the paper [17] that the main difference
when considering seismic forces is in the design of the foundation.
Discussion about the influence of seismic design in the LCA of the
towers is provided for scenario 1. For scenarios 2 and 3, earthquake
was always taken into account for the design of the respective
foundations.
3. Model for life-cycle assessment
A model for the LCA of wind towers was developed, which is
illustrated in Fig. 1, in order to compare different alternative
Tower height and rated power of wind turbine
80 m/2 MW 100 m/3.6 MW 150 m/5 MW
20 40a 40b 20 40a 40b 20 40a 40b
x – – x – – x – –
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
294 H. Gervásio et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 292–299
Equipment
Production
Transport
of
materials
Site
preparation
Recycling
Landfill
Fig. 1. Life cycle analysis of a wind tower.
construction solutions for the tower supporting the wind turbine.
The life-cycle model includes the production of materials, their
transportation to the construction site, the excavation of soil for
the foundations, the erection of the structure (fuel consumed by
cranes), the maintenance, the deconstruction of the towers and
aftermost, their recycling. The fuel consumption of cranes is based
on [12] and adjusted for different powers and heights.
Moreover, it was assumed that the support structure of the
wind turbine generator does not need any maintenance work with
significant environmental impact during the service life of
20 years. When considering the life span of 40 years, some rehabil-
itation work is considered as described further down in the text.
During the deconstruction process, steel structures are disas-
sembled in the reverse order they were initially built and trans-
ported for recycling, in the first and second scenarios, or to the
new place where they are re-assembled, in the third scenario. For
the concrete tower and concrete part of the hybrid tower, the
structure is demolished and sent for recycling. Therefore, in the
third scenario, new concrete elements are produced and sent to
the new location for the assemblage of each tower. Each scenario
is further detailed in the following section.
The life cycle analysis was carried out according to international
standards ISO 14040 [10] and ISO 14044 [11] and the CML method-
ology [8]. The environmental categories selected for the analysis
are indicated in Table 2. The unit for comparison between alterna-
tive designs, the functional unit, varies according to the case study.
For instance, for the towers with 80 m height, supporting a wind
turbine of 2.0 MW, the functional unit is ‘‘the structure of a wind
tower, with a height of 80 m, designed for a service life of 20 years
(or 40 years in the second and third scenarios) and supporting a
wind turbine of 2.0 MW’’.
4. Analysis of environmental impacts for a life span of 20 years
4.1. Comparison of the life cycle results for the three towers
In the first scenario, it is considered that in the end-of-life stage,
in year 20, the structure of the supporting tower is deconstructed
Table 2
Environmental indicators for LCA.
Indicator Unit
Abiotic Depletion (ADP fossil) MJ
Acidification Potential (AP) kg SO2-Equiv.
Eutrophication Potential (EP) kg Phosphate-Equiv.
Global Warming Potential (GWP) kg CO2-Equiv.
Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP) kg R11-Equiv.
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) kg Ethene-Equiv.
Rehabilitation
Construction
Transport
Deconstruction
and materials are sent to their final destination. The scope of the
analysis comprehends the production of materials, the transporta-
tion of materials to construction site, the assemblage of the struc-
ture in the construction site, the deconstruction of the tower and
the transportation of the waste to a recycling plant or a landfill.
According to the procedure described in the previous section, all
pieces of the structure are transported to the construction site and
assembled there by the use of a crane. The consumption of diesel is
taken into account in the calculation.
During the use stage, the structure is regularly maintained in
cycles occurring two to three times per year [1], which usually
include bolt adjustments, painting and substitution of spare parts
as established by maintenance handbooks. However, most mainte-
nance actions occur in the nacelle and rotors, which are outside the
scope of the analysis; therefore the use stage (for the period of
20 years) was considered to be negligible.
For the end-of-life stage it is considered that all materials are
recycled with the following recycling rates: steel structure with a
recycling rate of 90%, steel reinforcement with a recycling rate of
70%, and concrete structure, excluding foundation, with a recycling
rate of 70%. The remaining parts are sent to a landfill of inert
materials.
The allocation of recycling materials, considered in this paper,
takes into that the use of secondary material displaces the use of
virgin material (ISO14044, 2006). Therefore, for the recycling of
steel products, the close-loop approach provided by World Steel
Association [23] is taken into account. According to this approach,
scrap recycling avoids primary production of steel and thus, credits
are provided to the system producing the recycling materials. It is
noted that credits are calculated based on the net scrap produced
in the end of the life cycle, i.e., the difference between the scrap
recovered in the end of life and the initial scrap content. Likewise,
in relation to concrete, it is considered that concrete waste is
crushed and valorised to replace aggregates, thus avoiding the
need to produce virgin material. However, before being valorised
it is assumed that concrete waste has to be treated.
The transportation distances from the production plant to the
construction site and from the demolition site to the recycling
plants were considered to be 100 km for all materials. The trans-
portation distance from the demolition site to the landfill was con-
sidered to be 20 km.
The results of the LCA for this scenario are indicated in Fig. 2 for
the environmental category of global warming. The analysis was
performed by the software GaBi 6 [6]. In addition, all environmen-
tal data needed to perform the analysis was taken from [7]. The bill
of materials for each tower was detailed in the companion paper
[17]. However, a summary of the main materials, for each case
study, is provided in Table 3.
 H. Gervásio et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 292–299 295

Fig. 2. Life cycle analysis of wind towers (1st scenario).
The global warming potential aims to quantify the emission of
greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and CH4, to the atmosphere. Due
to its major influence in climate change, the results for the life
cycle analysis, focusing on global warming, are illustrated in
Fig. 2 for the three types of towers (steel, concrete and hybrid
tower) and for the three heights (80 m, 100 m and 150 m). Further-
more, for the steel towers and steel part of hybrid towers, two
types of assemblage were considered, taking into account the
welded flange connection (WFC) and the bolted friction connection
(FrC). In all cases, earthquake design was taken into account for the
quantification of materials.
Observing the global results it is worth noting that the increase
of tower height from 80 to 150 m more than triples the amount of
CO2 emitted. This increase must obviously be balanced by the
increase in efficacy of the turbine, taking advantage of the higher
wind speed, lower wind shear and more powerful turbine.
Concerning the type of material, for the 80 m height towers, the
concrete tower has the worst performance (highest value of emis-
sions). In this case, the steel tower has a slight advantage in rela-
tion to the hybrid tower. The 100 m concrete tower has still the
worst performance when compared with the other towers,
although in this case, the difference to the steel tower with WFC
is lower. On the other hand, for the 150 m height towers, the steel
tower with WFC has the worst performance, followed by the con-
crete solution.
Focussing on the use of steel segments in the towers, the use of
bolted friction connections (FrC) has clearly an advantage in rela-
tion to the use of welded flange connections (WFC). Furthermore,
the advantage is higher, the higher is the tower. As explained in
the first part of this paper [17], the use of FrC enables to reduce
the amount of steel used in the structure. In addition, the benefit
by the use of FrC is enhanced by steel towers in comparison to
hybrid towers.
To summarize, steel towers with WFC are penalized by the
height of the tower and for the height of 150 m, the steel tower
has the worst performance. On the other side, steel towers with
FrC have the best performance in all cases and the advantage of
FrC is enhanced by higher towers.
For the remaining environmental categories indicated in Table 2
the results of the life cycle analysis are indicated in Table 4 for the
towers with a height of 80 m. The lower values in each environ-
mental category are highlighted in bold.
From Table 4, the hybrid tower gets the best performance in
three environmental categories; while, the concrete tower gets
the best performance for two. Steel towers using FrC achieve the
best performance in one category.
The benefit by the use of FrC in relation to WFC is highlighted in
Table 4 by column D, representing the reduction of emissions in
relation to the latter. The use of FrC has advantage in relation to
WFC for all impact categories. This benefit is generally higher for
the steel tower in comparison with hybrid tower.
In the case of the towers with a height of 100 m, the results of
the life cycle analysis are summarized in Table 5.
The same conclusions can be drawn from Table 5. However, in
this case, the benefits achieved by the use of FrC, given in column
D are much higher than in the previous case, both for the steel
towers and for the hybrid towers. Likewise, steel towers achieved
higher reductions in comparison with hybrid towers.
Finally, in the case of the towers with a height of 150 m, the
results of the life cycle analysis are indicated in Table 6.

Table 3
Bill of main materials for each scenario.

Scenario Steel S355 (ton) Bolts (ton) Concrete C40/50 (m3) Tendons (tons) Concrete C25/30 (m3) Steel rebars (tons)
Steel tower (80 m) WFC20 122.7 4.65 – – 359.0 30.5
FrC20 122.7 1.25
FrC40 122.7 1.25
Steel tower (100 m) WFC20 414.0 6.99 – – 729.3 53.0
FrC20 333.5 1.61
FrC40 384.7 1.66
Steel tower (150 m) WFC20 1025.0 21.43 – – 981.9 65.38
FrC20 871.9 4.24
FrC40 987.6 4.27
Hybrid tower (80 m) WFC20 44.0 2.62 233.3 16.9 373.6/295.9a 37.2/29.8a
FrC20 44.0 0.68
FrC40 44.0 0.68
Hybrid tower (100 m) WFC20 136.4 3.71 488.3 25.1 831.4/700.4a 83.5/70.9a
FrC20 120.7 0.88
FrC40 129.6 0.89
Hybrid tower (150 m) WFC20 342.5 9.41 1187.5 59.3 1324.0/1035.4a 101.3/81.1a
FrC20 284.1 1.41
FrC40 334.8 1.42
Concrete (80 m) – – 322.2 21.6 458.9/299.7a 56.74/37.9a
a
Concrete (100 m) – – 790.9 39.6 1058.6/646.6 119.7/75.3a
a
Concrete (150 m) – – 1778.9 74.2 1664.1/957.1 140.7/86.4a
a
No seismic risk.
296 H. Gervásio et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 292–299

Table 4
Environmental indicators for the towers with 80 m (1st scenario).

Environmental category Concrete Steel Hybrid

CT WFC FrC D (%) WFC FrC D (%)
ADP fossil (MJ) 3.49E+06 3.53E+06 3.48E+06 1.4 2.74E+06 2.72E+06 1.1
AP (kg SO2-Eq.) 8.00E+02 8.55E+02 8.43E+02 1.4 7.42E+02 7.35E+02 0.9
EP (kg PO4-Eq.) 1.12E+02 1.03E+02 1.02E+02 1.1 1.00E+02 9.94E+01 0.6
GWP (kg CO2-Eq.) 3.86E+05 3.04E+05 3.01E+05 1.3 3.40E+05 3.38E+05 0.6
ODP (kg R11-Eq.) 1.12E 03 6.41E 03 6.24E 03 2.6 2.97E 03 2.87E 03 3.2
POCP (kg Ethene-Eq.) 8.10E+01 1.27E+02 1.25E+02 1.5 8.82E+01 8.71E+01 1.2

Note: Minimum values for each category are in bold.

Table 5
Environmental indicators for the towers with 100 m (1st scenario).

Environmental category Concrete Steel Hybrid

CT WFC FrC D WFC FrC D
ADP fossil (MJ) 6.83E+06 9.08E+06 7.79E+06 14.1 6.34E+06 6.07E+06 4.4
AP (kg SO2-Eq.) 1.72E+03 2.34E+03 1.99E+03 14.9 1.73E+03 1.66E+03 4.3
EP (kg PO4-Eq.) 2.48E+02 2.77E+02 2.39E+02 13.7 2.31E+02 2.23E+02 3.5
GWP (kg CO2-Eq.) 8.75E+05 7.93E+05 6.92E+05 12.6 7.70E+05 7.48E+05 2.8
ODP (kg R11-Eq.) 2.29E 03 2.05E 02 1.65E 02 19.7 8.13E 03 7.26E 03 10.8
POCP (kg Ethene-Eq.) 1.68E+02 3.65E+02 3.04E+02 16.8 2.13E+02 2.00E+02 6.1

Note: Minimum values for each category are in bold.

In this case, the concrete tower achieves the best perfor-
mance in five environmental categories; while, the steel struc-
ture achieves the best performance in one environmental
category. The advantage by the use of FrC is still highlighted
for the steel tower and the hybrid tower. The benefits achieved
by the hybrid tower have slightly increased in relation to the
previous case.
4.2. Influence of seismic loading on environmental impacts
In the previous sub-section, LCA were performed taking into
account seismic loading in the design of the towers. In this sub-
section a comparison is made between the results presented previ-
ously and the results that would be obtained assuming no seismic
loading in the design of the towers.
Therefore, the influence of seismic design is observed from the
results summarized in Table 7 for the concrete tower and for the
hybrid tower, where the percentages of variation of each environ-
mental category in relation to Tables 4–6 are given. For the steel
tower no change is observed since seismic loading is not governing
the design of both the tower and the foundation.
As discussed in the first part of the paper, the seismic design
increased up to 75% the dimensions of the foundations for the con-
crete towers and about 30% for the hybrid towers. Hence, the
results of the LCA without the consideration of the seismic are nat-
urally reduced in comparison with the previous results. As
observed from Table 7, the reduction is significantly higher for
the concrete tower than for the hybrid tower. In relation to the
hybrid towers, there is no significant change between the two
types of towers (with WFC and FrC).
The higher reduction in the LCA results for the concrete tower is
explained not only by the higher reduction in materials but also by
the relative importance of the foundations in the life cycle perfor-
mance of the towers. As observed from Fig. 3a, for the concrete
tower with 100 m and assuming seismic design, the relative
importance of the foundations varies from 49% for the environ-
mental category of EP to 82% for the environmental category of
ODP. In this case, the relative importance of the tower varies from
6% for the environmental category of ODP to 31% for the environ-
mental category of GWP.
On the other hand, from Fig. 3b for the hybrid tower with 100
m, the relative importance of the foundations varies from 16% for
the environmental category of ODP to 40% for the environmental
category of EP. Hence, the relative importance of the foundations
for the concrete tower is higher than for the hybrid tower, contrib-
uting to a higher reduction of the LCA results.
In the following scenarios, seismic loading is always considered
in the design of the towers.
5. Analysis of environmental impacts for a life span of 40 years
5.1. Extension of the service life in the same location (2nd scenario)
In the second scenario, it is considered that after the initial
period of 20 years, it is decided to extend the service life of the
towers for another period of 20 years in the same wind farm. In

Table 6
Environmental indicators for the towers with 150 m (1st scenario).

Environmental category Concrete Steel Hybrid

CT WFC FrC D (%) WFC FrC D (%)
ADP fossil (MJ) 1.09E+07 1.97E+07 1.72E+07 12.9 1.29E+07 1.19E+07 7.7
AP (kg SO2-Eq.) 2.88E+03 5.11E+03 4.42E+03 13.4 3.51E+03 3.24E+03 7.6
EP (kg PO4-Eq.) 4.39E+02 5.88E+02 5.14E+02 12.6 4.72E+02 4.43E+02 6.1
GWP (kg CO2-Eq.) 1.55E+06 1.62E+06 1.42E+06 12.2 1.53E+06 1.45E+06 5.0
ODP (kg R11-Eq.) 3.12E 03 5.00E 02 4.20E 02 16.0 1.88E 02 1.57E 02 16.6
POCP (kg Ethene-Eq.) 2.64E+02 8.39E+02 7.19E+02 14.3 4.46E+02 3.99E+02 10.4

Note: Minimum values for each category are in bold.

 H. Gervásio et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 292–299 297

Table 7
Influence of seismic design for concrete and hybrid towers.

Environmental category 80 m 100 m 150 m

2.0 MW 3.6 MW 5.0 MW
Concrete Hybrid Concrete Hybrid Concrete Hybrid
CT (%) WFC (%) FrC (%) CT (%) WFC (%) FrC (%) CT (%) WFC (%) FrC (%)
ADP fossil (MJ) 15 8 9 19 6 6 18 6 6
AP (kg SO2-Eq.) 19 9 9 21 6 7 19 6 7
EP (kg PO4-Eq.) 18 9 9 20 7 7 18 7 7
GWP (kg CO2-Eq.) 19 10 10 21 7 8 19 8 8
ODP (kg R11-Eq.) 24 4 4 28 2 2 25 2 2
POCP (kg Ethene-Eq.) 19 7 7 22 5 5 19 4 5

Fig. 3. Contribution analysis of concrete tower and hybrid tower designed for seismic loading.

this scenario, only bolted friction connections (FrC) are considered

for the steel and hybrid towers.
In this scenario, the scope of the analysis comprehends the pro-
duction of materials, the transportation of materials to construc-
tion site, the erection of the tower, the rehabilitation of the
tower (in year 20), the demolition of the tower (in year 40) and
the transportation of the waste to a recycling plant or a landfill.
In order to extend the service life of the structures, the following
rehabilitation assumptions were taken: (i) complete replacement
of the coating of the steel tower and the steel part of the hybrid
tower; and (ii) rehabilitation of the surface of the concrete tower
and the concrete part of the hybrid tower.
According to this new scenario, the global warming potential for
the three types of towers (steel, concrete and hybrid tower) and for Fig. 4. Life cycle analysis of wind towers (2nd scenario).
the three heights (80 m, 100 m and 150 m) is illustrated in Fig. 4.
In this scenario, the steel tower has the most beneficial perfor-
mance (lower value of emissions), in all cases, followed by the
hybrid tower. On the other hand, the concrete structure has the
worst performance. Comparing Fig. 2 (considering only FrC) and
Fig. 3 it is noted that the results are very similar. The same conclu-
sion would be achieved when comparing the results of the remain-
ing environmental categories.
Therefore, the extension of the service life of the wind towers
does not significantly change the results obtained from the first
scenario, since the difference results from maintenance works,
which have negligible effect.

5.2. Extension of the service life in another location (3rd scenario)

Fig. 5. Life cycle analysis of wind towers (3rd scenario).

In the third scenario, it is considered that, in the end-of-life

stage (in year 20), the structure of the wind tower is deconstructed
and reused in another location for another period of 20 years. The
new location is considered to distance 50 km from the initial
location.
Likewise, in this scenario, only bolted friction connections are
considered for the steel tower and hybrid tower, which enables
the complete deconstruction of the towers.
In this case, the scope of the analysis comprehends the produc-
tion of materials, the transportation of materials to construction
site, the erection of the tower, the deconstruction of the tower
(after 20 years), the transportation of the tower to the new
location, the re-assemblage of the structure, the rehabilitation of
the tower, the demolition of the tower (after 40 years) and the
transportation of the waste to a recycling plant or a landfill.
298 H. Gervásio et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 292–299

Table 8
Environmental indicators for the three tower heights (3rd scenario).

Environmental category 80 m 100 m 150 m

2.0 MW 3.6 MW 5.0 MW
Steel Concrete Hybrid Steel Concrete Hybrid Steel Concrete Hybrid
ADP fossil (MJ) 5.15E+06 6.99E+06 4.78E+06 1.14E+07 1.37E+07 1.05E+07 2.32E+07 2.18E+07 2.03E+07
AP (kg SO2-Eq.) 1.19E+03 1.60E+03 1.29E+03 2.84E+03 3.44E+03 2.86E+03 5.79E+03 5.76E+03 5.54E+03
EP (kg PO4-Eq.) 1.50E+02 2.24E+02 1.79E+02 3.54E+02 4.97E+02 3.97E+02 6.95E+02 8.78E+02 7.84E+02
GWP (kg CO2-Eq.) 4.59E+05 7.72E+05 6.25E+05 1.06E+06 1.75E+06 1.37E+06 1.97E+06 3.09E+06 2.64E+06
ODP (kg R11-Eq.) 6.74E 03 2.25E 03 3.68E 03 1.97E 02 4.58E 03 9.28E 03 4.85E 02 6.25E 03 2.05E 02
POCP (kg Ethene-Eq.) 1.60E+02 1.62E+02 1.42E+02 4.03E+02 3.35E+02 3.19E+02 8.86E+02 5.28E+02 6.28E+02

Note: Minimum values for each category are in bold.

The three types of towers are assembled in different ways,
which affect the way they are deconstructed. Therefore, the three
types of towers have different scenarios for the deconstruction
stage and the following stages. However, in all cases it is
considered that after the first period of 20 years the foundations
are left in the underground and thus, no material is recovered for
recycling. Thus, in year 20 new foundations are built in the new
location for all types of towers.
The steel structure is entirely demountable due to the novel
bolted connection referred before, the bolted friction connection.
Therefore, the structure is transported to the new location, the
same way it was initially transported from the production plant
to the construction site.
Likewise, the steel part of the hybrid solution is demountable
and transported the same way to the new location. The concrete
tower and the concrete part of the hybrid tower are demolished
and recycled according to the recycling rates indicated in the pre-
vious sub-section.
In order to extend the service life of the structures, the steel
tower and the steel part of the hybrid tower are assumed to have
the coating system totally replaced in year 20, after re-assembling.
New elements for the concrete tower and for the concrete part
of the hybrid tower are produced in year 20 and transported to the
new location, as described in the first scenario.
According to this new scenario, the global warming potential
for the three types of towers (steel, concrete and hybrid tower)
and for the three heights (80 m, 100 m and 150 m) is illustrated
in Fig. 5.
In this scenario, the steel tower has the most beneficial perfor-
mance (lower value of emissions), in all cases, followed by the
hybrid tower. On the other hand, the concrete structure, due to
higher consumption of materials (namely cement), has the worst
performance.
The results of the life cycle analysis, taking into account the
remaining environmental categories are indicated in Table 8. The
lower values in each environmental category for the three types
of towers (80 m, 100 m and 150 m) are highlighted in bold.
From Table 8 it is observed that for towers with 80 m and
100 m, the steel tower has the best performance (lower values in
three out of the six environmental categories), followed by the
hybrid tower and in last the concrete tower.
In the case of the towers with 150 m, each tower has the best
performance in two environmental categories.
The advantage of steel towers, in case of reuse, is emphasized
by the comparison between scenario 1 and scenario 3. The reuse
of steel towers for another period of 20 years increases the envi-
ronmental impacts in less than 50%; while, for concrete towers,
the values are duplicated.
6. Conclusions
The design results of a set of tubular onshore wind towers and
respective foundations, performed in a companion paper, were
herein used to assess the life-cycle performance of nine case stud-
ies, defined by different tower heights (80 m, 100 m and 150 m)
and type of structural solution: steel, concrete and hybrid steel-
concrete.
Focussing on steel towers with bolted friction connection
(FrC) and welded flange connection (WFC), the former is clearly
more beneficial than the latter for wind towers. The save of
materials by the use of FrC enables to reduce environmental
impacts up to 16%. The reduction of impacts increases with the
height of the tower. Moreover, the use of FrC enables for the
complete dismantling of the tower and its reuse somewhere else.
The reuse of towers (partially or completely) is a strong advan-
tage of steel towers in comparison with other types of towers,
particularly in relation to the environmental category of global
warming.
The results presented in this paper are focussed on the design of
the towers considering seismic loading. In order to assess the influ-
ence of seismic design on LCA, a comparison between the design of
towers with and without the consideration of seismic loading was
performed for the first scenario. It was concluded that without
seismic design the results of LCA may be reduced up to 27%. The
reduction is more significant for concrete towers than for steel or
hybrid towers due to the higher relative importance of foundations
in the former case.
In terms of global life-cycle performance of the wind towers,
and considering equal importance for all environmental categories,
it may be concluded that for heights up to 100 m hybrid towers
with FrC are the most efficient solution. For higher heights, the
concrete tower becomes more efficient.
Transversal to all type of analyses and materials is the conclu-
sion that the increase of tower height from 80 m to 150 m multi-
plies by more than 3 times the global warming indicator. The
most penalized situations are those represented by scenario 1
and 2. The possible reuse of parts or of the entire tower, foreseen
in scenario 3 when using steel towers built with friction connec-
tions, may deem this drawback.
Acknowledgments
This study was undertaken within the HISTWIN2 project, par-
tially funded by the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFS-CT-
2010-00031).
References
[1] Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Lo Brano V. Energy performances and life cycle
assessment of an Italian wind farm. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2008;12:200–17.
[2] de Jesus A, Matos R, Fontoura B, Rebelo C, Simões da Silva L, Veljkovic M. A
comparison of the fatigue behavior between S355 and S690 steel grades. J.
Construct. Steel Res. 2012;79(2012):140–50.
[3] ENERCON Magazine for wind energy. Issue 04; 2008. <http://www.enercon.de/
p/downloads/WB-0408-en.pdf>.
[4] ENERCON Magazine for wind energy. Issue 02; 2012 <http://www.enercon.de/
p/downloads/WB_02-2012_en_web.pdf>.
 H. Gervásio et al. / Engineering Structures 74 (2014) 292–299
[5] Engström S, Lyrner T, Hassanzadeh M, Stalin T, Johansson J. Tall towers for
large wind turbines. Report from Vindforsk project V-342 Högatorn för
vindkraftverk, Elforsk rapport 10:48, Sweden, July 2010; 2010.
[6] GaBi 6. Software-system and databases for life cycle engineering. Version 5.56.
PE international AG, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany; 2012.
[7] GaBi databases. PE INTERNATIONAL GmbH, LBP-GaBi, University of Stuttgart:
GaBi Software System, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany; 2006.
[8] Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning A, et al. Handbook on
life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspec-
tive. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational annex. III: Scientific background. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. 692p. <www.cml.leiden.edu/research/
industrialecology/researchprojects/finished/new-dutch-lca-guide.html> ISBN
1-4020-0228-9.
[9] Heistermann C, Veljkovic M, Simões R, Rebelo C, Simões da Silva L. Design of
slip resistant lap joints with long open slotted holes. J Construct Steel Res
2013;82(March):223–33.
[10] ISO 14040. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles
and framework. In: International organization for standardization. Geneva,
Switzerland; 2006.
[11] ISO 14044. Environmental management – life cycle assessment –
requirements and guidelines. In: International organization for
standardization. Geneva, Switzerland; 2006.
[12] LaNier MW. LWST phase I project conceptual design study: evaluation of
design and construction approaches for economical hybrid steel/concrete
wind turbine towers. Subcontractor report NREL/SR-500-36777, Colorado;
2005.
[13] Limam M, Veljkovic M, Bernspång L, Rebelo C, Simões da Silva L. Modelling of
friction connection for wind towers using finite element methods. EUROSTEEL
2011, August 31 – September 2, 2011, Budapest, Hungary; 2011.
[14] Martínez E, Jiménez E, Blanco J, Sanz F. LCA sensitivity analysis of a multi-
megawatt wind turbine. Appl Energy 2010;87:2293–303.
299
[15] Martínez E, Sanz F, Pellegrini S, Jiménez E, Blanco J. Life cycle assessment of a
multi-megawatt wind turbine. Renew Energy 2009;34:667–73.
[16] Matos R, Fontoura B, Rebelo C, De Jesus A, Veljkovic M, Simões da Silva L.
Fatigue behaviour of steel friction connections: experimental and numerical
results. EUROSTEEL 2011, August 31 – September 2, 2011, Budapest, Hungary;
2011.
[17] Rebelo C, Moura A, Gervásio H, Veljkovic M, Simões da Silva L. Comparative life
cycle assessment of tubular wind towers and foundations – Part 1: Structural
design. Eng Struct 2014;74:283–91.
[18] Varun, Bhat I, Prakash R. LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation
systems – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(5):1067–73.
[19] Veljkovic M, Heistermann C, Husson W, Limam M, Feldmann M, Naumes J.
‘‘Final Published Report’’, HISTWIN – high-strength tower in steel for wind
turbines, grant agreement number: RFSR-CT-2006-00031, TG S8 ‘‘Steel
products and applications for buildings, construction and industry’’,
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, directorate-general for research and innovation,
research fund for coal and steel, Brussel; 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.2777/
39656.
[20] Veljkovic M, Feldmann M, Naumes J, Pak D, Rebelo C, Simões da Silva L.
Friction connection in tubular towers for a wind turbine. Stahlbau
2010;79:660–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/stab.201001365.
[21] Veljkovic M, Limam M, Heistermann T, Rebelo C, Simões da Silva L. Feasibility
study of friction connection in tubular towers for wind turbines. In: SSCS2010
– international symposium on steel structures: culture & sustainability 2010,
Istanbul, Turkey, 2010. p. 381–8. ISBN 978-975-92461-2-9.
[22] Wilkes J, Moccia J, Wilczek P, Gruet R, Radvilaitè V, Dragan M. EU energy policy
to 2050: achieving 80–95% emissions reductions. Report by the European
Wind Energy Association (EWEA); 2011.
[23] Worldsteel Association. Methodology report – life cycle inventory study for
steel products. Brussels: World Steel Association (worldsteel); 2011.