IEC 61400-6-Wind Turbine Foundation - 1

ID: 12830
IEC TC88 – 61400-6

Tower and Foundation design
Internationell norm för dimensionering av torn och
fundament till vindkraftverk
Karl Lundstedt - Skanska

2015-11-12
FÖRORD
Skanska önskar att tackar SBUF för bidrag till genomförandet av rubricerat projekt.
I referensgruppen har följande personer ingått:

- Lars Andersson, Jemtska
- Hans Svensson, Rabbalshede
- Hans Heglund, Svevia
- Ola Daleke, NCC och Staffan Hintze, NCC
Malmö 2015-11-12
Karl Lundstedt från Skanska Teknik
1
SAMMANFATTNING
Arbetet har bestått i att medverka i IEC:s arbetsgrupp 61400-6 ”Tower and Foundation design”.
Målet för arbetsgruppen är att skriva en ny internationell norm för projektering av torn och
fundament till vindkraftverk.
Vi har nu kommit fram till ett första utkast till norm, ”Committee draft”, se bilaga 2.
Arbetsgruppen har bestått av personer från Europa (Tyskland, Danmark, England, Spanien,
Holland och Sverige), USA, Japan och Kina.
Personerna i arbetsgruppen har kommit från många olika delar av näringslivet och universitet
såsom :
• Turbinleverantörer : Vestas, Siemens, Senvion och Gamesa
• Certifierings organ : DNV-GL, TUV Nord, TUV SUD
• Contractors : RES, Skanska
• Universitys : Åalborg, Illinois
Sverige har bidragit till framtagandet av kapitlet om grundläggning i den nya standarden IEC
61400-6.
2
INNEHÅLL
1 IEC OCH TC88 ................................................................................................................................... 4
2 TC88 61400-6, TOWER AND FOUNDATION DESIGN .............................................................. 4
3 BAKGRUND ....................................................................................................................................... 4
4 SYFTET MED ARBETET................................................................................................................. 5
5 ARBETSGRUPP ................................................................................................................................ 5
5.1 ARBETSGRUPPENS STRUKTUR ........................................................................................................ 5
6 MÖTEN I ARBETSGRUPPEN ........................................................................................................ 6
7 INDIVIDUELLT ARBETE ............................................................................................................... 7
8 NY STANDARD 61400-6 ................................................................................................................... 7
9 NÄSTA STEG ..................................................................................................................................... 7
10 SLUTSATSER ................................................................................................................................. 7
11 LITTERATURFÖRTECKNING .................................................................................................. 7
BILAGOR:
Bilaga 1 : Medlemmar i arbetsgruppen
Bilaga 2 : Committee draft of 61400-6 Tower and Foundation Design
3
1 IEC OCH TC88
IEC står för International Electrotechnical Commission är en kommission vars främsta syfte är att
arbeta fram och fastställa internationella standarder inom elektroteknik och elektronik.
Medlemmarna i IEC består av över 60 olika länder.
IEC TC88 är den tekniska kommitté inom IEC som behandlar frågor om vindkraft.
Svensk medlem i IEC är SEK svensk elstandard. Den svenska arbetsgruppen TK 88 leds av Bengt
Göransson från Pöry. Vi har regelbundet möte för att samordna arbetet i de olika arbetsgrupperna
samt bevaka svenska frågor inom IEC. Arbetet i TK88 är idag försvårat på grund av
finansieringsproblem från branchen.
2 TC88 61400-6, TOWER AND FOUNDATION DESIGN

TC88 61400-6 är en ny internationell standard för dimensionering av torn och fundament till
vindkraftverk.
I bakgrunden till 61400-6 ligger standarden 61400-1 som behandlar laster m.m. för vindkraftverk.
3 BAKGRUND
I Sverige saknas normer för hur torn och fundament till vindkraftverk skall dimensioneras.
Vi har i Sverige en stark utbyggnad av vindkraftverk varför behovet av regler och normer är stort.
Det som skiljer dimensionering av vindkraftverk från många andra konstruktioner är:
• Mycket stor excentrisk last vilket ger upphov till speciella fenomen.
• Vid grundtrycksbrott med allmänna bärighetsekvationen kan det uppstå en brottmod med
motvänd glidyta.
• Krav på rotationsstyvhet vilket är beroende på markens skjuvmodul (G) och kontaktytan
mot marken.
• Utmattningen dimensionerar ofta stål, betong och armering. Utmattningslaster definieras
ofta med ett ”Rain flow count” eller ”Markov matrix”.
• Genomstansning för ett fundament till vindkraftverk fungerar inte på samma sätt som ett
traditionella hus konstruktion eller broar.
• Dimensionering av stora kontakttryck i betong med prägling är inte definierat för
utmatningslast i vanliga normer.
• Infästningen av tornet i fundamentet kan utföras med olika tekniker såsom traditionella
bultar eller ingjuten stålring. Denna infästning är central för vindkraftverkets funktion.
Lösningen med ingjutna stålringar har gett upphov till ett flertal skador i branschen. För
lösningen med bultar är det mycket viktigt att förspänningslasten uppnår ett korrekt värde
med avseende på förluster (relaxation, krympning, krypning), inget glapp uppstår mellan
torn och undergjutning samt för utmattningskontrollen av bultarna.
IEC normer 61400-1 är inte komplett för att användas i samband med dimensionering av torn och
fundament.
4
I många andra länder har man krav på certifiering eller 3.e parts granskning av projekteringen för
torn och fundament till vindkraftverk. I Sverige saknas nationella krav på certifiering eller 3.e parts
granskning varför det är upp till beställaren och finansiärerna att besluta om detta.
Erfarenheten visar att det är mycket varierad kvalité på projekteringen av fundament till
vindkraftverk i Sverige vilket beror på:
• Normer och standarder saknas
• Bristande förfrågningsunderlag eftersom det saknas hänvisning till vilka standarder och
normer som gäller tillsammans med AMA Anläggning, EKS , Eurokod m.m.
• Saknas ofta certifiering eller 3:e parts granskning
• Speciella problemställningar för denna konstruktions typ samt brist av erfarenhet
Ovanstående gör att nya standarden 61400-6 kan fylla ett konkret behov och användas i Sverige
tillsammans med Eurokoden och aktuell EKS från Boverket.
4 SYFTET MED ARBETET

Syftet med detta arbete har varit att:
• Representera Sverige i arbetet med att arbeta fram den nya standarden 61400-6
• Tillvarata svenska intressen inom vindkraftsindustrin såsom bergförankrade fundament
• Skapa internationella kontakter
• Öka vår kompetens inområdet
• Ta lärdom från andra länders erfarenheter
• Utveckla en ny standard som kan användas i Sverige
5 ARBETSGRUPP
Arbetsgruppen har bestått av många personer från olika delar i världen och representerat olika
delar inom vindkraftsindustrin och universitetsinstitutioner.
Convener : John Dalsgaard Sörensen, University of Åalborg

Sekreterare : Steve Gilkes, Lloyd´s Register
Se medlemmar i arbetsgruppen 61400-6 i bilaga 1.
5.1 Arbetsgruppens struktur

Arbetet i IEC TC88 61400-6 arbetsgruppen har varit strukturerat i mindre sub-grupper.
Uppdelningen har varit:

• Stålgrupp (torn)
• Betonggrupp (torn och fundament)
• Geoteknik och grundläggning
Svenska representanten via Skanska har medverkat i sub-gruppen Geoteknik och grundläggning.
5
6 MÖTEN I ARBETSGRUPPEN
Vi har genomfört tio stycken fysiska möten i arbetsgruppen under tre års tid.
Nr Plats Datum Kommentar

1 Köpenhamn DS-Danish Standard, 2012-09-24--25
Charlottenlund
2 Hamburg TUV Nord 2013-01-31
3 Denver - USA National Renewable Energy 2013-05-02--03
Laboratory (NREL)
4 Tokyo - Japan JEMA 2013-09-27--28
5 London RES - Renewable Energy 2014-02-05--06
Systems Ltd
6 Orlando - USA Siemens 2014-05-15--16
7 Malmö Skanska 2014-09-09--10
8 Tokyo - Japan JEMA 2014-12-02--03
9 Hamburg DNV-GL 2015-03-12--13
10 Århus Vestas 2015-06-01--02
Svenska representanten från Skanska har medverkat på nio stycken av dessa möte och varit värld i
Malmö på ett av mötena.
Arbetet har också bedrivits via telefonmöten.
Foto från vårt möte i Malmö.
6
7 INDIVIDUELLT ARBETE
Skanskas bidrag till texten i den nya standarden gäller följande delar:
• Kapitel 8, Foundation – geotechnical design
• Kapitel 8.7, Rock Anchored Foundation
• ANNEX L, Guidance on selection of soil modulus and foundation rotational stiffness
• ANNEX M, Guidance for rock anchored foundation design
Merparten (90%) av arbetet i kapitel 8 har utförts av gruppledaren Vince Morgan, RES och Karl
Lundstedt, Skanska.
8 NY STANDARD 61400-6
Arbetet har nu resulterat i en ”Committee draft” somskall skickas ut till medlemsländerna på
remiss. Se bilaga 2 som visar denna upplaga av nya standarden 61400-6.
9 NÄSTA STEG
När nya normen varit på remiss återstår ett arbete med att revidera standarden efter
medlemsländernas synpunkter. Efter att en ny version framtagits kommer det att ske en omröstning
inom IEC för att fastställa den nya normen.
10 SLUTSATSER
Arbetet med TC88 61400-6 har resulterat i ett konkret förslag till standard där Sverige har bidragit
med flera delar. Förhoppningsvis kommer det resultera i att en ny standard kommer ut inom några
år som kan hjälpa arbetet med projektering av torn och fundament till vindkraftverk både i Sverige
och övriga delar av världen
Kapitel 8 angående geoteknik anser vi vara välarbetat liksom kapitel 6 för ståltorn.
Kapitel 7 angående betong skulle behövas kompletteras med några delar:

- Utmattningskontroll för tryckkrafter i samband med prägling
- Genomstansning
- ”Strut and Tie” modellen behöver belysas med konkreta exempel och gränser
- Kriterier i bruksstadiet för dimensionering av ankarbultar som kopplar samman torn och
fundament
11 LITTERATURFÖRTECKNING
- IEC 61400-1, Third Edition 2005, Wind Turbines – Part 1 : Design requirements
- SS-EN 1537-1999, Execution of special geotechnical work - Ground anchors
- SS-EN 1537:2013, Execution of special geotechnical work - Ground anchors
- PTI DC35.1-14, Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors
- DNV Guidelines for Design of Wind Turbines – DNV/Risö
- EN 1997-1, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1
- EN 1997-2, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 2
- DIBt, Richlinie fur Windenergieanlagen, 2012
- Empfehlungen des Arbetskreises Baugrunddynamik
7
SBUF Rapport 12830 IEC TC88 - 61400-6, BILAGA 1 Sida 1 av 1
Members PT 61400-6 ’Wind turbines: Tower and foundation design’
1 Member Mr Stefan Baars DE DNV-GL

2 Member Mr André Frank DE
3 Member Mr Bernd Frost DE Senvion
4 Member Mr Marcus Klose DE DNV-GL
5 Member Mr Frithjof Marten DE Senvion
6 Member Mr Panos Papadopoulos DE PE Concepts
7 Member Mr Ingo Paura DE
8 Member Mr Stefan Voss DE
9 Member Mr Wayne White DE Enercon
10 Member Mr Morten Søgaard Andersen DK DNV-GL
11 Member Mr Dariusz Eichler DK
12 Member Mr Christer Eriksson DK DNV-GL
13 Project Leader Mr John Dalsgaard Sørensen DK Åarhus Univ.
14 Member Mr Javier Alonso Gainza ES Gamesa
15 Member Mr Miguel Coelho ES
16 Secretary Mr Steve Gilkes GB DNV-GL
17 Member Mr Vince Morgan GB RES
18 Member Mr 石山卓弘 Takahiro Ishiyama JP Jema
19 Member Mr Yasuyuki Oguro JP Jema
20 Member Mr Atsushi Yamaguchi JP
21 Member Mr Frans Brughuis NL
22 Member Mr Karl Lundstedt SE Skanska
23 Member Mr Jomaa Ben Hassine US RES
24 Member Mr Anders Nygård Rasmusen DE Siemens
25 Member Mr Luis Carbonell US Siemens
26 Member Mr Simon Huges UK DNV-GL
27 Member Mr Ongo Jongschlager DE DNV-GL
28 Member Mr Karsten Dal DK Vestas
29 Member Mr Dan Kuchma US Illinio Univ.
30 Member Mr Michael Lange DE Tuev Nord
31 Member Mr Alexander Kupzok DE Tuev Sud
32 Member Mrs Marion Rauch DE Tuev Sud
33 Member Mr Patrick Roycroft DE Tuev Nord
34 Member Mr Tomohisa Saito JP Eurus Energy
35 Member 杨洪源 Yanghy CN CGC
36 Member Mr Yehy CN China Windey
37 Member Mr Zhangqiang CN SHTSP
38 Member Mr Eric Ntambakwa US DNV-GL
39 Member Mr Matthew Rogers US DNV-GL
40 Member Mrs Liv Hamre NO DNV-GL

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 –1–
2
–2– 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
3 CONTENTS
4
5 FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................... 5
6 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 7
7 1 Scope .............................................................................................................................. 9
8 2 Normative references .................................................................................................... 10
9 3 Terms and definitions .................................................................................................... 11
10 4 Symbols and Abbreviated terms .................................................................................... 15
11 4.1 Symbols ................................................................................................................ 15
12 4.2 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 17
13 5 Design basis including Loading ..................................................................................... 18
14 5.1 Scope ................................................................................................................... 18
15 5.2 Basis of Design ..................................................................................................... 18
16 5.3 Materials ............................................................................................................... 19
17 5.4 Loads ................................................................................................................... 20
18 5.5 Load data and interface reporting requirements .................................................... 23
19 5.6 General structural design requirements ................................................................. 25
20 5.7 Delivery documentation ......................................................................................... 25
21 6 Steel Towers ................................................................................................................. 26
22 6.1 Scope ................................................................................................................... 26
23 6.2 Basis of Design ..................................................................................................... 26
24 6.3 Materials ............................................................................................................... 26
25 6.4 Ultimate strength analysis for towers and openings ............................................... 28
26 6.5 Stability ................................................................................................................ 31
27 6.6 Fatigue limit state ................................................................................................. 33
28 6.7 Ring flange connections ........................................................................................ 34
29 7 Concrete Towers and Foundations ................................................................................ 38
30 7.1 Scope ................................................................................................................... 38
31 7.2 Basis of Design ..................................................................................................... 38
32 7.3 Materials ............................................................................................................... 40
33 7.4 Durability .............................................................................................................. 41
34 7.5 Structural Analysis ................................................................................................ 41
35 7.6 Concrete to concrete joints ................................................................................... 42
36 7.7 Ultimate Limit State............................................................................................... 43
37 7.8 Fatigue Limit State ................................................................................................ 43
38 7.9 Serviceability Limit State ....................................................................................... 44
39 7.10 Execution .............................................................................................................. 45
40 8 Foundations – geotechnical design ................................................................................ 47
41 8.1 Scope ................................................................................................................... 47
42 8.2 Basis of design ..................................................................................................... 47
43 8.3 Geotechnical data ................................................................................................. 48
44 8.4 Supervision, Monitoring and Maintenance of Construction .................................... 50
45 8.5 Gravity Base Foundations ..................................................................................... 51
46 8.6 Piled foundations .................................................................................................. 56
47 8.7 Rock Anchored Foundations ................................................................................. 59
48 9 Operation, Service and Maintenance Requirements ....................................................... 65
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 –3–
49 9.1 Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring ................................................................ 65

50 9.2 Periodic Structural Inspections .............................................................................. 65
51 9.3 Embedded Steel Form Inspections ........................................................................ 65
52 9.4 Bolt Tension Maintenance ..................................................................................... 65
53 9.5 Structural Health Monitoring .................................................................................. 65
54 Annex A List of suitable design codes in regards to the calculation basis .............................. 67
55 A.1 General ................................................................................................................. 67
56 Annex B List of material for structural steel ........................................................................... 68
57 B.1 General ................................................................................................................. 68
58 B.2 Structural steel ..................................................................................................... 68
59 Annex C Bolts ....................................................................................................................... 69
60 Annex D Z-values for structural steel .................................................................................... 70
61 D.1 Definition of Z-value acc. to Eurocode................................................................... 70
62 Annex E Simplified Buckling verification for openings in tubular steel towers ........................ 71
63 Annex F Fatigue verification ................................................................................................. 74
64 Annex G Methods for ring flange verification ......................................................................... 75
65 G.1 Method of Petersen / Seidel .................................................................................. 75
66 G.2 Method according to Schmidt / Neuper.................................................................. 78
67 Annex H Crack Control- Guidance on 7.9.4 ........................................................................... 81
68 H.1 Europe - Crack width limitation based on Eurocode 2 ........................................... 81
69 H.2 Japan – Crack width limitation based on Japanese Standard ................................ 81
70 H.3 USA - Crack width limitation based on ACI 318 ..................................................... 82
71 Annex I Finite Element Analysis for concrete ........................................................................ 83
72 I.1 Objectives of the Analysis: .................................................................................... 83
73 I.2 Order and Type of Elements: ................................................................................ 83
74 I.3 Constitutive Modelling: .......................................................................................... 83
75 I.4 Solution Methods: ................................................................................................. 84
76 I.5 Implicit Approach: ................................................................................................. 84
77 I.6 Steps in Conduct of a Finite Element Analysis: ..................................................... 84
78 I.7 Checking Results: ................................................................................................. 85
79 I.8 References ........................................................................................................... 85
80 Annex J Tower-foundation anchorage ................................................................................... 86
81 J.1 Embedded anchorages ......................................................................................... 86
82 J.2 Bolted anchorages ................................................................................................ 86
83 J.3 Grout .................................................................................................................... 87
84 J.4 Anchor bolts.......................................................................................................... 87
85 J.5 Embedded ring ..................................................................................................... 87
86 J.6 Anchorage load transfer ........................................................................................ 87
87 Annex K Strut-and-Tie Section .............................................................................................. 88
88 K.1 General ................................................................................................................. 88
89 K.2 Selected Codes and Standards for Design using the Strut-and-Tie Method ........... 91
90 K.3 Selected Key STM Reference Documents ............................................................. 92
91 Annex L Guidance on selection of soil modulus and foundation rotational stiffness ............... 93
92 L.1 Soil Model ............................................................................................................. 93
93 L.2 Dynamic rotational stiffness .................................................................................. 95
94 L.3 Static Rotational Stiffness ..................................................................................... 96
95 Annex M Guidance for rock anchored foundation design ....................................................... 98
–4– 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
96 M.1 General ................................................................................................................. 98

97 M.2 Corrosion protection ............................................................................................. 98
98 M.3 Product approval ................................................................................................. 100
99 M.4 Rock anchor design ............................................................................................ 100
100 M.5 Grout design ....................................................................................................... 100
101 M.6 Testing and execution ......................................................................................... 101
102 M.7 Suitability/Performance test ................................................................................ 101
103 M.8 Acceptance/Proof test ......................................................................................... 101
104 M.9 Supplementary Extended Creep Tests ................................................................ 101
105 Annex N Internal loads ........................................................................................................ 102
106 N.1 General ............................................................................................................... 102
107
108 Figure 1 – Flange notations as an example of an L-flange .................................................... 28

109 Figure 2 – Door opening geometry ........................................................................................ 34
110 Figure 3 – Flange gaps k in the area of the tower wall .......................................................... 36
111 Figure 4 – Bolt force as a function of wall force ..................................................................... 38
112 Figure 5 – S-n curve for Detail Category 36 .......................................................................... 38
113 Figure 6 – Thermal effects around tower cross-section ......................................................... 40
114 Figure 7 – Examples of rock anchored foundations ............................................................... 61
115 Figure 8 – Illustration of rock anchor length .......................................................................... 65
116 Figure 9 – Circumferentially edge-stiffened opening .............................................................. 73
117 Figure 10 – Definition of W s and t s according to JSCE........................................................... 74
118 Figure 11 – Simplification of system to segment model ......................................................... 76
119 Figure 12 – Locations of plastic hinges for different failure modes ........................................ 77
120 Figure 13 – Geometric parameters ........................................................................................ 77
121 Figure 14 – The modification factor 𝛌𝛌 for different 𝜶𝜶 [1] ......................................................... 79
122 Figure 15 – Tri-linear approximation of the non-linear relation between bolt force and
123 tension force of the bolted connection ................................................................................... 80
124 Figure 16 – Example for the Design of a Deep Beam using the Strut-and-Tie Method ........... 89
125 Figure 17 – Simple Shapes of Strut-and-Tie Models ............................................................. 89
126 Figure 18 – Five Examples for Carrying Load in a Deep Beam .............................................. 90
127 Figure 19 – Strut-and-Tie Models for a Rock-Anchor Foundation .......................................... 91
128 Figure 20 – Top Tie Reinforcement in a Rock-Anchor Foundation ......................................... 92
129 Figure 21 – Example stress-strain relationship for soil .......................................................... 94
130 Figure 22 – Loading and unloading behaviour of soil ............................................................ 95
131 Figure 23 – Variation of shear modulus with soil strain ......................................................... 96
132 Figure 24 – Reduction in rotational stiffness due to load eccentricity .................................... 97
133 Figure 25 – Illustrative example of reduction in foundation rotational stiffness due to
134 increasing load eccentricity ................................................................................................... 98
135 Figure 26 – Section through rock and anchor ........................................................................ 99
136 Figure 27 – Typical anchor configuration with corrosion protection ..................................... 100
137
138 Table 1 – Damping coefficients ............................................................................................. 23

139 Table 2 – Flange gap limits ................................................................................................... 36
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 –5–
140 Table 3 - Summary of geotechnical limit states ..................................................................... 49

141 Table 4 – Minimum partial safety factors on for the equilibrium limit state ............................. 53
142 Table 5 – Minimum partial safety factors on material and resistance for the bearing
143 resistance limit state ............................................................................................................. 54
144 Table 6 – Minimum partial safety factors on material and resistance for the sliding
145 resistance limit state ............................................................................................................. 55
146 Table 7 – Minimum partial safety factors on material and resistance for the overall
147 stability limit state ................................................................................................................. 56
148 Table 8 – Comparison of Bolt material in ISO898-1, JIS B1186 and ASTM A490M ................ 70
149 Table 9 – Coefficients for equation E2 .................................................................................. 73
[1]
150 Table 10 – Limit value of crack width based on Japanese Standard .................................. 82
151
152
–6– 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
153 INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSION

154 ____________
155
156 WIND TURBINES –

157
158 Part 6: Tower and Foundation Design requirements

159
160
161
162 FOREWORD
163 1) The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is a worldwide organization for standardization comprising
164 all national electrotechnical committees (IEC National Committees). The object of IEC is to promote
165 international co-operation on all questions concerning standardization in the electrical and electronic fields. To
166 this end and in addition to other activities, IEC publishes International Standards, Technical Specifications,
167 Technical Reports, Publicly Available Specifications (PAS) and Guides (hereafter referred to as “IEC
168 Publication(s)”). Their preparation is entrusted to technical committees; any IEC National Committee interested
169 in the subject dealt with may participate in this preparatory work. International, governmental and non-
170 governmental organizations liaising with the IEC also participate in this preparation. IEC collaborates closely
171 with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in accordance with conditions determined by
172 agreement between the two organizations.
173 2) The formal decisions or agreements of IEC on technical matters express, as nearly as possible, an international
174 consensus of opinion on the relevant subjects since each technical committee has representation from all
175 interested IEC National Committees.
176 3) IEC Publications have the form of recommendations for international use and are accepted by IEC National
177 Committees in that sense. While all reasonable efforts are made to ensure that the technical content of IEC
178 Publications is accurate, IEC cannot be held responsible for the way in which they are used or for any
179 misinterpretation by any end user.
180 4) In order to promote international uniformity, IEC National Committees undertake to apply IEC Publications
181 transparently to the maximum extent possible in their national and regional publications. Any divergence
182 between any IEC Publication and the corresponding national or regional publication shall be clearly indicated in
183 the latter.
184 5) IEC itself does not provide any attestation of conformity. Independent certification bodies provide conformity
185 assessment services and, in some areas, access to IEC marks of conformity. IEC is not responsible for any
186 services carried out by independent certification bodies.
187 6) All users should ensure that they have the latest edition of this publication.
188 7) No liability shall attach to IEC or its directors, employees, servants or agents including individual experts and
189 members of its technical committees and IEC National Committees for any personal injury, property damage or
190 other damage of any nature whatsoever, whether direct or indirect, or for costs (including legal fees) and
191 expenses arising out of the publication, use of, or reliance upon, this IEC Publication or any other IEC
192 Publications.
193 8) Attention is drawn to the normative references cited in this publication. Use of the referenced publications is
194 indispensable for the correct application of this publication.
195 9) Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this IEC Publication may be the subject of
196 patent rights. IEC shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
197 International Standard IEC 61400-6 has been prepared by subcommittee PT06, of IEC
198 technical committee TC88.
199 This is the first edition.

200
201 This document is related to the IEC 61400 series of parts, particularly parts 1, 2 and 3.
202
203
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 –7–
204 The National Committees are requested to note that for this publication the stability date
205 is 20XX.
206 THIS TEXT IS INCLUDED FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES AND WILL BE DELETED
207 AT THE PUBLICATION STAGE .
208
–8– 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
209 INTRODUCTION
210 This standard has been developed for the design of onshore wind turbine towers and
211 foundations that will build on and complement the IEC 61400-1 Design Criteria and provide a
212 complete set of technical requirements for the structural and geotechnical design. The
213 requirements are also applicable to wind turbines covered by IEC 61400-2. It is envisaged
214 that the proposed work shall be followed by the development of another part, directed towards
215 the design of offshore support structures, thus also complementing IEC 61400-3.
216 Civil engineering practices associated with the scope of the standard have regional variations.
217 It is not the intention of this standard to conflict with those practices but to supplement them
218 particularly in ensuring that all important features of typical wind turbine towers and
219 foundations are fully and correctly considered. To this end, the relevant parts in existing
220 standards for design of steel and concrete structures and for geotechnical design have been
221 identified for participating countries and regions.
222
223 This standard will include the evaluation and calibration of partial safety factors for material
224 strengths to be used together with the safety elements in IEC 61400-1 and IEC 61400-2 for
225 loads and for verification of static equilibrium.
226 Where this standard refers to a section in another standard, the title of the section is quoted
227 and takes precedence over the section number.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 –9–
228 WIND TURBINES –

229
230 Part 6: Tower and Foundation Design requirements

231
232
233
– 10 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
234 1 Scope
235 This International Standard specifies requirements and general principles to be used in
236 assessing the structural integrity of onshore wind turbine support structures (includes
237 foundations). The scope includes the geotechnical assessment of the soil for generic or site
238 specific purposes. The strength of any flange and connection system connected to the rotor
239 nacelle assembly (including connection to the yaw bearing) shall be designed and
240 documented according to this standard or according to IEC 61400-1. The scope includes all
241 life cycle issues that may affect the structural integrity such as assembly and maintenance.
242 The assessment assumes that load data has been derived as defined in IEC 61400-1 or -2
243 and using the reliability level and partial safety factors for loads.
244 The principles included in this edition may be applied to offshore fixed structure. However, a
245 later edition will consider offshore fixed structures more specifically.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 11 –
246 2 Normative references

247 The following documents, in whole or in part, are normatively referenced in this document and
248 are indispensable for its application. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
249 undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any
250 amendments) applies
251 - IEC 61400-1

252 - IEC 61400-2
253 - IEC 61400-3
254 - ISO 9001
255 - ISO 2394
256 - ISO 19903
257 - ISO 22965-1
258 - ISO 22965-2
259 - ISO 22966
260 - ISO 6934
261 - ISO 6965
262 - ISO 12944
263 - MC1990 “CEB-FIP Model Code 1990”
264 - IIW document IIW-1823-07, ex XIII-2151r4-07/XV-1254r4-07,December 2008
265
– 12 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
266 3 Terms and definitions

267 For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in IEC 61400-1, IEC
268 61400-2 and the following apply.
269 3.1
270 Accidental load
271 Action, usually of short duration but of significant magnitude, that is unlikely to occur on a
272 given structure during the design working life (from ISO2394).
273 3.2
274 Assessment
275 Total set of activities performed in order to find out if the reliability of a structure is acceptable
276 or not.
277 3.3
278 Characteristic load
279 The load accounting for required exceedence probability level and without partial safety factor
280 for loads
281 3.4
282 Characteristic reference resistance
283 Characteristic reference resistance ratio (used with subscripts to identify the basis): defined
284 as the ratio (FRk / FEd).
285 3.5
286 Component class
287 Classification of the wind turbine structural components according to redundancy and safety
288 requirements, refer to IEC 61400-1.
289 3.6
290 Component temperature
291 The local temperature which will affect the material properties of a component. The
292 temperature shall be taken to be the ambient temperature unless protective or active means
293 are provided to change the temperature.
294 3.7
295 Design load (force)
296 The load (force) used in the action vs resistance equation for a limit state accounting for the
297 required exceedance probability level and partial safety factor for loads
298 3.8
299 Design resistance
300 The load used in the action vs resistance equation for a limit state accounting for the required
301 exceedance probability level and partial safety factor for loads
302 3.9
303 Design Situations
304 Sets of physical conditions representing the real conditions occurring during a certain time
305 interval for which the design will demonstrate that relevant limit states are not exceeded.
306 3.10
307 Dynamic stiffness (Foundation)
308 The tangent to the plot of linear or angular displacement of the foundation against force or
309 moment applied to the foundation at zero. Normally, this is calculated for the effect of the soil
310 mechanics alone with no effect from the foundation but sometimes specifications for required
311 values of dynamic stiffness include the foundation
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 13 –
312 3.11
313 Effect of action
314 effect of actions (or action effect) on structural members, (e.g. internal force, moment, stress,
315 strain) or on the whole structure (e.g. deflection, rotation)
316 3.12
317 Fatigue Limit State
318 A state associated with collapse, or with other similar forms of structural failure due to
319 damage accumulation under action of repeated loading.
320 3.13
321 Internal loads
322 The 3 orthogonal forces and 3 orthogonal moments that are reacted on an arbitrary plane cut
323 through the structure, often the arbitrary plane is aligned with some physical interface or with
324 a two axes of a local axis system. The singular internal load would be one of the 6 forces or
325 moments. See also Section 5.4.6.
326 3.14
327 Nominal concrete cover
328 The layer of concrete between the concrete surface and the closest reinforcement surface
329 including the specified tolerance for placing of reinforcement. The nominal concrete cover
330 shall be calculated as the minimum concrete cover plus the specified tolerance
331 3.15
332 Nominal ratio
333 Ratio of values that are fixed on non-statistical bases, for instance on acquired experience or
334 on physical conditions.
335 3.16
336 Nominal value
337 Value fixed on non-statistical bases, for instance on acquired experience or on physical
338 conditions
339 3.17
340 Plastic limit load
341 Determined assuming the idealized conditions of rigid-plastic material behavior, perfect
342 geometry, perfect load application, perfect support and material isotropy (modelled using
343 MNA analysis).
344 3.18
345 Plastic reference resistance
346 The plastic limit load, determined assuming the idealised conditions of rigid-plastic material
347 behaviour, perfect load application, perfect support and material isotropy (modelled using
348 MNA analysis).
349 3.19
350 Post-tensioned concrete: Prestressing of the structure has been achieved by tensioning the
351 tendons after casting of the concrete. Tendons can be either bonded to the concrete or un-
352 bonded.
353 3.20
354 Prestressed concrete: Concrete structure which are prestressed before they are taken into
355 operation. Prestressing is applied by steel tendons and the tendons may be pre-tensioned
356 (before casting) or post-tensioned (after casting).
357 3.21
358 Pre-tensioned concrete: Prestressing of the structure has been achieved by tensioning the
359 tendons prior to casting of the concrete. Tendons are bonded to the concrete.
– 14 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
360 3.22
361 Primary structure
362 The structural elements which are designed for the purpose of carrying the loads due to the
363 rotor nacelle assembly.
364 3.23
365 Reference Standard
366 A document presenting co-ordinated design analysis methods with actions and resistance
367 characteristic values and safety factors, published by a credible expert private, regional,
368 national or international body.
369 3.24
370 Rotor nacelle assembly (RNA)
371 Part of a wind turbine carried by the support structure.
372 3.25
373 Secondary structure
374 Structural elements which are designed to carry the loads due to equipment such as access
375 systems, cables, cabinets, internal devices e.g. dampers.
376 3.26
377 Series of Standard
378 A co-ordinated series of documents presenting design analysis methods with action and
379 resistance characteristic values and safety factors published by a credible expert private,
380 regional, national or international body.
381 3.27
382 Site specific
383 The meaning is identical to IEC 61400-1.
384 3.28
385 SLS characteristic load, S1
386 The serviceability limit state load level for lifetime actions, which relate to continued correct
387 operation of the wind turbine such as clearance of components, engineering fluid levels, etc.
388 3.29
389 SLS permanent load case, S2
390 The serviceability limit state load level for permanent actions, which relate to fracture
391 toughness, corrosion, and bonds in prestressed concrete..
392 3.30
393 SLS quasi- permanent load case, S3
394 The serviceability limit state load level for the equivalent to permanent actions, which relate to
395 concrete cracking stiffness checks, cracking control, foundation stiffness, inclination and
396 settlement, ground gapping, and pile tension limits.
397 3.31
398 Serviceability
399 Ability of a structure or structural element to perform adequately for normal use under all
400 expected actions.
401 3.32
402 Serviceability limit state
403 A state which corresponds to conditions beyond which specified service requirements for a
404 structure or structural element are no longer met.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 15 –
405 3.33
406 Static stiffness (foundation)
407 The secant of the point on the plot of linear or angular deflection of the foundation against
408 force or moment applied. Normally this is calculated for the effect of the soil mechanics alone
409 with no effect from the foundation but sometimes specifications for required values of static
410 stiffness include the foundation.
411 3.34
412 Support structure
413 Part of a wind turbine consisting of the tower, sub-structure and foundation, see Figure 1 of
414 IEC 61400-3
415 3.35
416 Tower section
417 The unit of a tower that can be transported from a factory to the installation site, especially of
418 a steel tubular tower made of a number of permanently connected smaller steel tubes with
419 bolted connections for on-site assembly at the upper and lower ends.
420 3.36
421 Ultimate limit state
422 A state associated with collapse, or with other similar forms of structural failure due to
423 extreme or accidental loading conditions, except fatigue.
424 NOTE — This generally corresponds to the maximum load-carrying resistance of a structure
425 or structural element but in some cases to the maximum applicable strain or deformation.
426 3.37
427 Partial safety factor for material
428 A Factor for increasing a characteristic value of resistance to a design value.
429 3.38
430 Wind Turbine Specification
431 The document and associated materials containing information relating to the full turbine
432 system and the RNA enabling the tower and foundation design, and identifying the wind
433 turbine that can be used with the tower and/or foundation.
434
– 16 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
435 4 Symbols and Abbreviated terms

436 4.1 Symbols
437 A1 Red uction factor parameter
438 As Effective stress cross section
439 A’ Effective foundation area around the line of action of the resultant force for F zd .
440 b Weld neck thickness (normally equal to the thickness of the connected tower
441 shell)
442 b tot Flange width
443 B1 Reduction factor parameter
444 c Flank height of the weld preparation
445 C1 Reduction factor for the influence of the opening.
446 D Ed Damage sum
447 e Eccentricity, generally of loading.
448 f bd Design value of bond strength between rock and cement grout
449 f ck Characteristic compressive concrete cylinder strength
450 fc,r Meridional design buckling stress
451 f pk Characteristic tensile strength of prestressing reinforcement steel”
452 f p0.1k Characteristic 0,1 % proof-stress of pre stressing steel
453 f pk Characteristic tensile stress of pre-stressing steel
454 f yk Characteristic reinforcement yield strength

455 Fd Ultimate design load
456 Fd Design value of destabilising action including unfavourable partial safety factor for
457 load
Fp ,C*
458 : Preload bolt force used in the design calculations.
Fp , C
459 : Preload bolt force given in the relevant design code or technical approval.
460 F zd Design value of vertical force acting on the soil formation
461 G Shear modulus of the soil reduced from G o to account for non-zero soil strain
462 Go Small-strain shear modulus of the soil
463 K R,dyn Dynamic rotational stiffness of the foundation subjected to overturning moments
464 K R,stat Static rotational stiffness of the foundation subjected to overturning moments
465 l Distance from transition radius to weld preparation
466 L anchor Full length of an anchor
467 L fixed Bonded length of an anchor
468 L free Free length of an anchor
Lf
469 : Factor for loss of preload, which is not considered in the applied design code.
470 M d,overturning Design value of destabilizing moment from wind load and other loads
471 M d,stabilizing Design value of stabilizing moment from gravity load and backfill
472 n: Number of force transmitting interfaces in the connection.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 17 –
473 n (Δs i ) Number of load cycles for a given range Δs i

474 N (Δs i ) Number of load cycles at failure for the Range Δs i .
475 Pk Characteristic tensile strength of pre-stressing steel
476 P lock-off , Lock off load for rock anchor

477 P o, P lock-off Load transferred to the foundation by the rock anchor after completion of stressing
478 operation (after locking the wedges).
479 Pp Anchor Proof Load
480 P p0.1k Anchor yield strength
481 q Ed Plastic (uniform) ground pressure based on eccentricity calculation
482 q Rd Design values of bearing capacity of soil in ultimate limit state
483 r Transition radius

484 R Foundation radius in contact with the subgrade
485 Ra Surface roughness parameter, .
486 Rd Design value of stabilising action comprising gravity and soil resistance
487 tf Flange thickness
488 t tot Total flange thickness including weld neck
489 T extreme,min/max Extreme temperature range
490 T erection,min/max Allowable temperature range to be defined for the erection of the tower
491 ∆T k Characteristic temperature action on concrete towers
492 ∆T 1 Uniform temperature difference in concrete towers with respect to the temperature
493 at the time of erection
494 ∆T 2 Cosine shaped temperature difference on concrete towers caused by solar
495 irradiation
496 ∆T 3 Temperature difference for concrete towers between inside and outside wall
497 surfaces
498 α Ratio of moduli of elasticity for reinforcement steel and concrete
499 γ f,Temp Partial safety factor for temperature actions on concrete towers
500 γ inf Partial safety factor for favourable prestress
501 γM Partial safety factor for Material
502 γ M3 Partial safety factor for rock anchor bond strength
503 γ sup Partial safety factor for unfavourable prestress
504 δ Opening angle along the girth of the door opening
505 ε max Maximum allowable linear strain
506 θ Diameter of bore hole
507
µ: Friction coefficient.
508 ν Poisson’s Ratio (of the soil)
509 σ nom Nominal stress in cross-sectional area
510 σ max Maximum allowable Stress incl. partial safey factor for material
511 ∆σ R -N Fatigue strength represented by “S-N-curves” (Woehler curves
512 σx,R,d-EC Meridional design buckling stress according to EN 1993-1-6
– 18 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
513 4.2 Abbreviations

514 DLC Design Load Case
515 FLS Fatigue Limit State
516 GIR Ground Investigation Report
517 GMNIA Geometrically and materially nonlinear numerical buckling analysis with
518 imperfections included
519 IEC International Electro-technical Committee
520 ISO International Standards Organisation
521 Psfl partial safety factor for loads
522 Psfm partial safety factor for materials
523 RNA Rotor Nacelle Assembly
524 SI Geotechnical Site Investigation
525 SLS Serviceability Limit State
526 ULS Ultimate Limit State

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 19 –
527 5 Design basis including Loading

528 5.1 Scope
529 The section is intended to cover the engineering design basis needed for the major
530 engineering disciplines to establish support structures for onshore wind turbines.
531 In order to provide a standard that will be useful to the industry, a comprehensive treatment of
532 some topics is provided where there is currently no relevant international reference. For well-
533 known topics for the design of structural members, this section is intended to be used in
534 conjunction with suitable Reference Standards for support structure design. It is allowable to
535 use suitable national or regional design standards that provide the required level of safety as
536 specified in IEC 61400-1 or -2. Only other IEC and ISO documents will be referenced directly
537 in the text.
538 5.2 Basis of Design
539 5.2.1 Basic principles
540 The structure shall be dimensioned in such a way that it withstands the applied actions during
541 erection and the planned lifetime. In general, a consideration of all load cases given in IEC
542 61400-1 or 61400-2 is sufficient for dimensioning. However, the additional loads due to
543 inclination of the tower and the foundation as well as influences from vortex induced
544 vibrations shall be taken into account. A consideration of additional actions according to local
545 standards may also be necessary.
546 The design of the structure shall be in accordance with a selected recognized Series of
547 Standards or a Reference Standard. The Series of Standards or Reference Standards shall
548 appropriately cover the necessary areas of the design of wind turbine support structures and
549 where necessary be supplemented with additional requirements as specified in this
550 International Standard. In particular, the verification methods have to correctly account for the
551 execution standards of this series to ensure a consistent design. The combination of
552 standards from different series shall only be permitted if it has been verified that the
553 combination does not reduce the reliability level.
554 The Series of Standards or Reference Standard shall comply with IEC 61400-1 or -2,
555 wherever necessary, for instance, reliability levels, environmental conditions. Annex A
556 includes information regarding specific regional requirements.
557 Minimum values of partial safety factors for materials may be taken from the selected Series
558 of Standards or Reference Standard unless specified in the following sections and as long as
559 it is verified that these fulfil the required reliability level stated in IEC 61400-1 or -2 in
560 combination with the given characteristic loads.
561 In the Annex A, some standards are listed that fulfil the requirements above. The application
562 of other standards not listed in the annex is possible under the condition that the required
563 reliability index stated in IEC 61400-1 or -2 is met.
564 The defined resistances in the selected recognized design codes are only valid if the material
565 requirements according to Section 6.1 and Section 7.3 are fulfilled.
566 5.2.2 Durability
567 The support structure shall be dimensioned in such a way that time dependent changes of
568 characteristics do not affect the behaviour of the support structure unexpectedly over the
569 planned lifetime. This includes also sufficient dimensioning against fatigue and, if applicable,
570 earthquakes.
571 Depending on the design assumptions and environmental conditions, an appropriate corrosion
572 protection shall be considered for the whole support structure. If the corrosion protection is
573 done by a coating, it shall be chosen and applied according to ISO 12944 or an equivalent
574 standard.
575 Furthermore, the service and maintenance intervals according to section 9 shall be observed.
– 20 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
576 5.2.3 Principles of limit state design

577 Conditions that concern human safety or the integrity of the steel structure are considered as
578 ultimate or fatigue limit states. As a simplification, the conditions before component failures
579 may be treated as limit states.
580 In general, verifications for the following limit states shall be carried out for steel structures:
581 • Failures due to excessive deformations or due to the transfer of the entire steel
582 structure or of its components to a kinematic state or rupture or an unstable condition.
583 (Ultimate limit state)
584 • Failure of the entire steel structure or its components due to fatigue or other time-
585 depending effects. (Fatigue limit state)
586 • Limit states that consider the function of the structure or one of its components under
587 normal service conditions or the appearance of the structure (Serviceability limit
588 state). For tubular steel towers, this may be neglected.
589 .The ultimate and fatigue limit states shall be verified for the design situations. Verifications
590 for the fatigue limit state shall be referred to the planned lifetime of the structure.
591 5.2.4 Structural analysis
592 The dimensioning shall be carried out with appropriate models of the structural system in
593 respect of the limit states.
594 It shall be verified that the ultimate and fatigue limit states are not exceeded, if the
595 appropriate design values are used for the following:
596 • the loads,
597 • the material properties,
598 • the component properties and
599 • the geometric dimensions in the calculation models
600 The verifications shall be carried out for all decisive design situations and load cases. Where
601 necessary, imperfections and deformations of the structure shall be included.
602 The verification shall also include the assessment of damping and frequency of the system as
603 specified in the design requirements.
604 5.2.5 Assessments by tests
605 The design and calculation of the structure may also be carried out in combination with tests
606 as described in ISO 2394 and IEC 61400-1 (Ed. 4) Annex K “Calibration of structural material
607 safety factors and structural design assisted by testing”. Laboratories carrying out the tests
608 shall have accreditation to ISO 17025 or follow comparable procedures.
609 In respect of values of resistance in principle, the derivation of both characteristic or design
610 values from tests is possible. The tests shall be carried out in a way that the required
611 reliability level for the design situation according to IEC 61400-1 or -2 is met in the verification
612 (see also section 7.6.2.2 in IEC 61400-1).
613 If the Series of Standards or Reference Standard used for the verification of the structure
614 provides rules for assessments by tests, these shall also be considered.
615 5.3 Materials
616 Specific requirements are given for each type of material in Sections 6.1and 7.3.
617 All material shall be treated in accordance with relevant standards in regards to quality
618 requirements and test conditions.
619 Characteristic values of the material properties shall be taken from corresponding standards
620 unless sufficient test data is available to reach the required reliability level stated in IEC
621 61400-1.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 21 –
622 5.4 Loads

623 5.4.1 Use of IEC 61400-1 or -2 load cases and psfl
624 The loads used to assess the Ultimate Limit State and Fatigue Limit State of towers and
625 foundations according to this standard shall be derived according to IEC 61400-1 or -2 and
626 shall use the safety factors specified in IEC 61400-1 or -2 unless otherwise specified in this
627 standard. The tower may be designed for alternative environmental conditions, i.e. conditions
628 that differ from those used in the rotor nacelle assembly verification. Additionally, the site
629 specific loads may be distributed around the tower to take account of the wind direction, e.g.
630 fatigue loads on any one point on the tower or foundation may be reduced by accounting for
631 wind direction; the position of openings may be arranged to reduce extreme stresses. This
632 shall only be applied in the case of towers or foundations for a specific site.
633 The dynamic analysis methods for internal load calculation shall use the soil/foundation
634 dynamic stiffness for all load levels.
635 In regions, where seismic activity may possibly affect the loading, the seismic load cases
636 shall also be calculated as specified in accordance with IEC61400-1 or -2 and the appropriate
637 regional seismic standards.
638 5.4.2 Superseding of IEC 61400-1 or -2 partial safety factors for materials
639 The partial safety factors for materials given in this document supersede requirements in IEC
640 61400-1 or -2 for onshore wind turbine tower, foundation and geotechnical design.
641 5.4.3 Serviceability load levels

642 These load levels are to be used for the serviceability limit states, that is, according to ISO
643 2394 “A limit state concerning criteria governing function in normal use”.
644 Wind turbine towers differ from most civil engineering structures in that they have a very small
645 ratio of static loads to dynamic loads. Therefore, for design of wind turbine towers SLS loads
646 according to ISO 2394 are modified such that the SLS load levels S1, S2 and S3 are applied,
647 corresponding to the characteristic, frequent and quasi-permanent load levels.
648 In case of Serviceability Limit State analyses, the same load simulations shall be used as
649 above but the partial safety factor for load specified in IEC 61400-1 or -2 shall be replaced by
650 γ serviceability , where:
651 γ serviceability = 1.0
652 Note that there are multiple load levels used for SLS analyses. Some of these load levels are
653 directly specified in IEC 61400-1 or -2. However others are derived from the same load
654 simulations using the specifications below.
655 5.4.3.1 S1 Characteristic value of Normal and Transport cases

656 The values are equal to extreme values from the complete set of cases denoted by use of
657 Normal psfl. This SLS load level shall normally be represented by time history data in an
658 orthogonal system at relevant points in the system, which may then be used to generate time
659 histories of the stresses through linear and non-linear models. It is allowed to represent this
660 SLS load level by a matrix of orthogonal loads at critical points in the structure if the
661 combination of loads will give a conservative stress.
662 The psfl for SLS as required by this standard shall be applied.
663 5.4.3.2 S2 p=10^-4 from F spectrum

664 The values are equal to 0.01 percentile values from the complete set of cases denoted by use
665 of F psfl. For each structural component, a probability distribution shall be created for the load
666 in the direction that produces the highest stresses. Alternatively the following simplifications
667 may be applied.
668 For the foundation, the loads in the cross wind direction may be ignored.
– 22 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
669 For the tower, the required percentile value may be derived from a probability distribution of
670 the resultant load at each tower location.
671 Note: p=10^-4 implies a period of exposure to higher loads of 0.87 hours per year.
672 5.4.3.3 S3 p = 10^-2 from F spectrum

673 This is derived as for S2 above, but the 1 percentile values are used.
674 Note: p=10^-2 implies a period of exposure to higher loads of 87 hours per year.
675 5.4.4 Load combinations in ULS

676 5.4.4.1 Prestressing in concrete
677 Prestressing shall be classified as a permanent action. Prestress in most situations is
678 intended to be favourable and, for the ultimate limit state verification, the partial safety factor
679 for loads γ f , prestress shall be used.
680 γf, prestress, favourable = 0.9
681 If the prestress is unfavourable then the minimum partial factor for global and local analysis
682 shall be as follows.
683 γf, prestress. unfavourable = 1.1
684
685 5.4.4.2 Seismic loading

686 Seismic loading shall be superposed with operational loading, see IEC 61400-1 or -2, clause
687 11.6. The partial safety factor for load for all load components shall be as follows.
688 γf, Seismic = 1.0
689 5.4.4.3 Other climatic loads such as snow loads
690 In site specific cases where it is relevant to consider climatic loads not covered explicitly by
691 IEC 61400-1 or -2 such as snow loads, a serviceability limit state load, S1, with a partial
692 safety factor for load as follows.
693 γf, climatic action = 1.0
694 5.4.4.4 Temperature effects
695 Thermally induced stresses shall be checked in the presence of serviceability limit state load,
696 S1, in combination with the temperature effect with partial safety factor for load as follows,
697 when temperature effects are the dominating load.
698 γf, temperature action = 1.35
699 Load combinations with other loads shall be found in Section 7.2.3.1 for concrete structures.
700 5.4.5 Structural damping values to be used in load calculations
701 To comply with this standard, it shall be verified that the tower and foundation modal damping
702 values used in the derivation of loads described in section 5.4.1 were equivalent to no more
703 than the values in Table 1 unless an appropriate justification is provided. Verification may be
704 by reference to the data required in section 5.5.2.
705
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 23 –
706
Material Relative damping Log decrement

coefficient
steel tubular towers 0.0025 0,015
prestressed concrete 0.0065 0,04

towers
707 Table 1 – Damping coefficients
708 The damping shall be calculated conservatively accounting for geometry, materials and mode
709 shapes in the case of towers consisting of a combination of concrete, steel tubular, lattice or
710 other structural sections.
711 Note that the above values for damping do not include the following sources:
712 • Aerodynamics of the structure
713 • The control actions, either aerodynamic or electro-mechanical.
714 • Mechanical dampers
715 • Soil damping
716 5.4.6 Definitions and methods for use of internal loads

717 The loads provided by the methods in IEC 61400-1 or -2 are referred to as internal loads.
718 They are the loads between internal sections and interfaces such as flanges. They are not the
719 loads applied to the external surfaces of the structure. The methods of structural analysis
720 shall take account of this. This is a particular issue for use of loads with finite element
721 modelling where it is necessary to ensure that internal loads are represented correctly at the
722 relevant interface but cannot be applied directly as the interface cannot be a free edge or
723 must be constrained correctly. See also Annex N Internal loads.
724 5.4.7 Definition of required load data for Fatigue
725 Fatigue analysis method shall use rain flow cycle counting (refer to IEC61400-1 or -2).
726 The data shall be presented as Markov matrices which give the number of cycles of load for
727 each bin of load mean combined with each bin of load cycles. Analyses shall always use the
728 most severe value of the bin range to ensure conservatism. There is no limit to how large or
729 small the bin ranges may be. The load shall be appropriate to the structural component under
730 analysis.
731 The fatigue loads shall be available as time history data in an orthogonal system at relevant
732 points in the system, which may be used to generate the stresses at critical locations through
733 linear and non-linear models.
734 Other forms of fatigue load representation are allowed to be used for appropriate purposes.
735 The use of range cycles without means is allowed for certain structural details e.g. welding, or
736 where a conservative mean load assumption is made. Damage equivalent loads are only
737 allowed to be used in very limited situations, and with selection of Sn curve slope and
738 reference number of cycles, where it has been clearly proven that this is a conservative
739 assumption.
740 5.4.8 Definition of required load data for extreme load level
741 The extreme load level shall be represented by a table of design loads (3 forces and 3
742 moments for a defined orthogonal axis system) at critical points in the structure if the
– 24 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
743 combination of loads will give a conservative stress. This table provides the extreme value in
744 each load component and the contemporaneous values in the other load components.
745 For clarity in some strength calculation methods, the table of orthogonal characteristic loads
746 shall also be provided, that is, without the application of psfl.
747 The use of contemporaneous loads in the strength assessment shall follow IEC 61400-1 or -2.
748 5.4.9 Vortex induced vibration

749 Lateral oscillations forced by flow instability due to the local tower aerodynamics, especially at
750 the tower modal frequencies, commonly known as vortex induced vibrations, shall be
751 considered in the calculation of fatigue life and extreme loading. 1
752 5.4.10 Loads due to geometric tolerances and elastic deflections in tower verticality
753 The loading effect of displacement of the tower and rotor-nacelle assembly away from the
754 designed undeflected vertical position shall be included in the loads as defined in IEC 61400-
755 1 or -2 or shall be separately calculated as a requirement of this standard.
756 The following influences shall be considered:
757 - horizontal displacement due to elastic deflection
758 - difference between static and dynamic rotational stiffness of the foundation
759 - Imperfections,
760 - Loadings due to differential settlement
761 - Temperature, including differential heating affects
762 - Non-linear deflections due to cracked cross-sections of concrete towers
763 The load calculation methods required by IEC 61400-1 or -2 include the loading effect of
764 gravitational loads due to elastic deflections of the structures from initial positions, including
765 the apparent stiffness reduction.
766 The allowable tolerances in tower verticality 2 shall be stated in the design documentation and
767 shall include initial effects during assembly and installation, short term effects due to thermal
768 expansions and long term effects due to permanent soil subsidence. The effect of tower
769 verticality on gravitational loads shall be taken into account separately during the structural
770 analysis of tower and foundation.
771 Additional loads due to second order effects shall be considered in the tower and foundation
772 calculation for ultimate limit state analysis. As a simplification, they may be assumed to have
nd
773 negligible influence on the stiffness of the structure. Accordingly, 2 order effects may be
774 included as additional quasi-static loads (predominantly bending loads due to vertical forces
775 and horizontal displacements of the tower).
776 Note that many state of the art aero-elastic load simulation software include the above
777 mentioned second order effects so additional quasi-static analysis above may not be required.
778 This shall be made clear in the Loading document.
779 5.5 Load data and interface reporting requirements
780 5.5.1 Purpose
781 A tower or foundation shall only be shown to be compliant with this standard if the design has
782 been based on certain data which is specific to the wind turbine rotor nacelle assembly to be
783 used with that tower and foundation. The interface document may relate to a tower and
784 foundation combination, or a foundation only.
—————————
1 Procedure 2 in EN 1991-1-4, annex E may be used to estimate the amplitude of vortex induced vibrations and the
corresponding inertia force per unit length.
2 The wind industry has specified typical limits of 5 mm lateral displacement per metre of height for the installation,
manufacturing and thermal effects, and 3mm/m for uneven subsidence.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 25 –
785 5.5.2 Wind Turbine Specification

786 The load data and interface reporting shall present certain cardinal information for the wind
787 turbine to ensure unambiguous association with a specific wind turbine rotor nacelle assembly
788 configuration. This data shall include at least the following:
789 • Model designation
790 • RNA Design Wind class or Class S environmental conditions (see section below in
791 case of alternative environmental conditions)
792 • In case of alternative environmental conditions for the tower design, these conditions
793 shall also be specified.
794 • Top flange height above ground level
795 • Assumed foundation inertial parameters, (may be stated to be negligible)
796 • The allowable tolerances, including verticality due to build and settlement
797 • Foundation and geotechnical allowable stiffness level, rotational and lateral
798 The following information is only required if the data is intended for a tower design:
799 • Assumed system first mode frequency range
800 • Damping values using in load derivation, including justification if not compliant with
801 Section 5.4.5
802 • Assumed tower external geometry
803 • Tower top flange configuration
804 • Other tower constraints; e.g. cables, dampers
805 The following information is only required if the data is intended for a foundation design:
806 • Tower – foundation interface details
807 • Foundation interfaces for electrical and other services, including limits on settlement
808 • Also note requirements relating to piles in Section 8.6.1.
809 The following parameters are not mandatory but may assist in the association of the data to
810 the turbine type:
811 • Rotor blade designation
812 • Rated power
813 • Undeflected Rotor diameter
814 • Control Software and parameter identification
815 If the inclusion of a tower second mode increases any critical load by more than 3%, the
816 assumed range for the second mode shall be provided.
817 In the case that the tower top flange design is provided separately, sufficient information shall
818 be provided to reproduce this design and to ensure a correct geometric, functional and
819 structural interface.
820 5.5.3 Time history data

821 All relevant loading data shall be made available in time history form.
– 26 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
822 5.5.4 Load origins

823 It shall be ensured that data is available at all critical points. It is suggested that at least the
824 following critical points, known as Origins, are considered; Tower top, tower bottom, and at
825 relevant levels (e.g. connection points for tower sections secured with fasteners) in the tower.
826 5.5.5 Load components

827 Load data shall be presented in 6 component form as internal loads at the required origins on
828 a specified cross section; forces in three orthogonal right-handed axes and moments about
829 those axes, where one axis is normal to the cross section.
830 5.6 General structural design requirements

831 5.6.1 Secondary structural influence
832 The effect of secondary structural elements on the strength or fatigue life of the primary
833 structure shall be included in the analyses.
834 5.6.2 Fatigue analysis

835 The calculated fatigue damage due to different range levels shall be summed in the fatigue
836 verification according to the Palmgren-Miner-Rule. The damage sum D Ed that results from the
837 critical fatigue loading shall satisfy the following condition:
838
839 D Ed = Σ[n(Δsi)/ N(Δsi)] < 1,0

840
841 Where
842 n (Δs i ) the number of load cycles for a given range Δs i
843 N (Δs i ) the number of load cycles at failure for the Range Δs i accounting for mean stress
844 when appropriate and for the partial safety for materials and loads.
845 The damage sum limits shall be lower than 1.0 if specified in the Reference Standard.
846 5.7 Delivery documentation
847 The documentation shall be consistent with IEC 61400-1 Section 12.6 “Documentation”.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 27 –
848 6 Steel Towers

849 6.1 Scope
850 Steel design principles are mostly well defined and documented in the literature, including
851 local, national and international standards. This Section provides additional or more detailed
852 rules and guidance that are specific to onshore wind turbine towers and complement the more
853 general requirements of existing standards.
854 This section provides requirements in the form of general statements and analytical methods.
855 Guidance on acceptable calculation methods which are considered to comply with the
856 requirements are presented in the Annex B to Annex G.
858 The basis of design requirements are given in Section 5.1.
859 6.3 Materials

860 6.3.1 General
861 In this section, the requirements for structural steels and bolt material are specified. Other
862 materials may be used if their material properties (e.g. ductility) comply with the verification
863 method assumptions.
864 6.3.2 Structural steels
865 Only structural steel that meets the following requirements regarding the ductility, fracture
866 toughness and weldability shall be used.
867 Note: A list of structural steels that fulfil the requirements regarding ductility and fracture
868 toughness are given in Annex B List of material for structural steel.
869 6.3.2.1 Ductility
870 Nominal ratio of tensile strength to yield strength shall be equal to or greater than 1.10.
871 Elongation at failure shall be greater than or equal to 15%.
872 6.3.2.2 Fracture Toughness
873 The fracture toughness is defined in the fashion “minimum impact energy to be absorbed at
874 test temperature” for standard size V-shape probes according to ISO 148-1. Regarding the
875 probe cutting direction of welded specimens ISO 9016:2012 shall be considered.
876 The required fracture toughness shall be determined considering
877 o The lowest ambient temperature (radiation losses included)
878 o The part thicknesses
879 o The critical stress level in regard to the yield strength (depending on the plate
880 thickness)
881 o hot dip galvanization if applicable
882 The determination of the required fracture toughness of the material shall be done according
883 to the Reference Standard or by fracture mechanic methods.
884 The critical stress level shall be determined as nominal stresses in the critical cross-sections
885 and structural parts at the location of the expected crack propagation (e.g. at circumferential
886 collar stiffeners or flanges).
887 Note: Within the acknowledged state of the art, stress concentrations at openings, the
888 tower top or other structural details do not need to be considered.
889 The lowest component temperature shall correspond with the critical stresses that shall be
890 determined at load level S2 (see section 5.4.3.2).
891 For Normal Climate Conditions, a lowest component temperature of -30°C shall be applied for
892 the steel grade selection. For Cold Climate Conditions, the temperature for steel grade
– 28 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
893 selection shall be 10 degrees lower than the lowest component temperature during operation.
894 Effects of cold forming and increased strain rates may then be neglected.
895 As an alternative to the above, the lowest component temperature may also be determined by
896 using the actual lowest temperature in the Normal Temperature range. In that case, effects of
897 cold forming and increased strain rate shall be taken into account.
898 The fracture toughness of the material shall be verified by destructive testing. The results of
899 the toughness tests shall be listed in material certificates. Here, pass-fail criteria of the
900 Charpy tests may be taken from applicable national codes.
901 Regarding the fracture toughness of ring flange connections the decisive material thickness
902 may be chosen under the following conditions:
903 For ring flanges with a weld neck the decisive material thickness correlates to the connecting
904 tower shell thickness (b according to Figure 1) under the following conditions:
905 • The distance between the circumferential weld seam toe and the finished product
906 (upper side of the flange surface) shall satisfy equation below (parameters r and l
907 according to Figure 1). Otherwise the flange is to be evaluated as "without weld neck".
908
909 𝑟𝑟 + 𝑙𝑙 ≥ max (𝑟𝑟, 10𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)
910
911 • If no weld preparation is specified, a double V butt weld preparation with a bevel angle
912 of 45° (to both sides) may be assumed for calculating the effective distance, c.
913 c = b/2
914
915 Note: The location of the weld toe may be coincident with the end of the weld preparation
916 Conservatively, the whole flange thickness (t tot according to Figure 1) may also be taken
917 into account for the verification of sufficient material fracture toughness.
918 For ring flanges without a weld neck:
919 • The decisive material thickness correlates to flange thickness (t f according to Figure
920 1) of the ring flange.
921
c
l
r
t tot
tf
b tot
922
923 Figure 1 – Flange notations as an example of an L-flange
924 tf Flange thickness

925 t tot Total flange thickness including weld neck
926 b tot Flange width
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 29 –
927 r Transition radius

928 c Flank height of the weld preparation
929 b Weld neck thickness (normally equal to the thickness of the connected tower
930 shell)
931 l Distance from transition radius to weld preparation (= t tot - t f - r - c)
932 6.3.2.3 Through-thickness properties
933 The requirement of a necessary through thickness property for the material arise from
934 welding, when shrinkage of welds is restrained locally or globally in through thickness
935 direction, and needs compensation by local plastic through thickness strains. Therefore, for
936 plates that are loaded perpendicular to the rolling direction required properties according to a
937 selected recognized standard shall be verified.
938 For flanges with weld necks produced from plates, (plate thickness is the same as flange
939 height t tot according to Figure 1) the neck height may only be added to favourably improve the
940 results if the distance from the weld transition to the end of the fillet radius (l according to
941 Figure 1) corresponds to at least the half of the neck thickness (b according to Figure 1).
942 For flanges produced from plates that are loaded longitudinally to the rolling direction (plate
943 thickness is the same as the flange width b tot according to Figure 1), and for flanges that are
944 produced from a seamlessly rolled ring or from a bar rolled on all sides, a through thickness
945 properties need not to be verified.
946 In Annex D, a method a verification method of the through-thickness property is provided.
947 6.3.2.4 Weldability
948 The chemical composition of the steel shall be suitable for welding according to the execution
949 standards on which the design is based.
950 Semi-killed (deoxidation method FN) steels may be used for impact test temperatures greater
951 than or equal to 0° C; fully-killed (deoxidation method FF) steels shall be used for impact test
952 temperatures less than 0° C.
953 6.3.2.5 Freedom from lamination
954 Sufficient degree of freedom from lamination for plates loaded perpendicular to the rolling
955 direction shall be guaranteed (e.g. by UT-testing).
956 6.3.3 Bolts
957 The bolt material shall comply with the requirements stated in ISO 898 or equivalent. Bolts
958 bigger than those covered by ISO898 (M39) shall be derived rationally from those covered in
959 the Standard. For the bolts in the ring flange connections, only class 8.8 and 10.9 are
960 allowed.
961 Bolts of grade 12.9 may be used if compliant with the recognized design code. Such bolts
962 shall not be hot dip galvanized. An alternative coating system as well as the mechanical
963 properties in combination with the procedure for applying the pretension to the bolts shall be
964 evaluated in this case.
965 The applicable temperature range of the bolt material shall correspond to the climate
966 conditions of the Wind Turbine Specification.
967 A comparison of local standards and usage of best practice can be found in 70Annex C.
968 6.4 Ultimate strength analysis for towers and openings
969 6.4.1 General
970 The verifications shall be carried out with the requirements for ultimate strength analysis
971 according to Section 7.6.2 “Ultimate Strength Analysis” of IEC 61400-1.
972 6.4.2 Partial safety factors
973 Partial safety factors must be chosen based on the applied standard. Minimum safety factors
974 for ULS are defined in IEC 61400-1 or -2.
– 30 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
975 Towers for wind turbines consist of generally non-damage tolerant structural components
976 resulting in component class 2.
977 6.4.3 Verification of ultimate strength
978 The verifications shall be carried out with the most unfavourable of all design load cases of
979 gravitational loads, resulting bending moment, torsion moment and resulting shear force.
980 6.4.4 Tower assessment
981 In cylindrical and conical tubular steel towers, the stresses required for the safety verification
982 may be determined according to shell membrane theory. That means for example, for the
983 transfer of wind loads, the elementary pipe bending theory may be applied. Shell bending
984 moments due to irregular wind pressure around the perimeter or restraint stresses due to
985 edge disturbances at flanges or stiffeners may be neglected. At transitions with varying
986 conicity, which are not supported by ring stiffeners or flanges, the local circumferential
987 membrane stresses and shell bending moments due to the force deviation are to be
988 considered.
989 For tower areas weakened by openings and other specific detail assessments, see section
990 6.4.5.
991 6.4.5 Detail assessments
992 6.4.5.1 Openings
993 For openings in tubular steel towers, the stress concentration at the opening edge shall on
994 principle be considered in respect of the stress analysis.
995 6.4.5.2 Tower top flange
996 In the stress analysis, stress concentrations shall be considered for the radius and the
997 circumferential weld seam.
998 Non-linear effects shall be considered in the load transfer from the yaw bearing, which
999 requires detailed information from the Wind Turbine Specification. A flange design may be
1000 presented in the Wind Turbine Specification for use on any tower design given that the flange
1001 design load envelope equals or exceeds the design load envelope for the tower.
1002 6.4.5.3 Dealing with local plastifications
1003 Local plastifications shall be limited to small regions. If the von-Mises-stress exceeds the
1004 yield strength, the plastic strain may be calculated with the Neuber-rule:
1005 ε max = (σ nom )² /(σ max * E)*100 ≤ 0.01
1006 No plastifications are allowed for maximum absolute fatigue load as determined in table 2,
1007 section 7.4 “Design situations and load cases” in IEC 61400-1.
1008 Here, residual stresses from welding and imperfections may be neglected.
1009 6.4.6 Bolted connections resisting shear through friction
1010 6.4.6.1 General requirements
1011 Bolted connections in connections and splices of building elements of the main structure shall
1012 be designed for Ultimate Limit State (Ultimate Slip resistance) and Fatigue Limit State (Slip
1013 resistance for long term fatigue load conditions).
1014 For the Ultimate Limit State, it shall be verified that for each bolt in the connection the
1015 maximum force acting at the shear joint does not exceed the limiting slip force. In addition to
1016 calculating the Ultimate Limit State (Ultimate Slip resistance), the following verifications shall
1017 be performed:
1018 • the maximum design force acting on a bolt in a shear joint shall not exceed the limiting
1019 hole bearing design resistance.
1020 • the maximum design force acting on a bolt in a shear joint shall not exceed the limiting
1021 elastic design resistance of the net cross-section at bolt holes for the ultimate limit
1022 state.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 31 –
1023 • the maximum design force acting on a bolt in a shear joint shall not exceed the shear
1024 design resistance per shear plane.
1025 • the maximum force acting on a bolt in a combined tension and shear joint does not
1026 exceed the limiting slipping design resistance for the ultimate limit state.
1027 • the plate materials that are connected by the friction connection shall have sufficient
1028 design resistance for fatigue loads, especially considering local stress increase due to
1029 holes (including considerations due to manufacturing of holes) and any eccentricities
1030 for ultimate and fatigue limit state.
1031 Fatigue verifications of the plates and bolts, both shearing and bearing, shall be use S-N
1032 curves from a Reference Standard or relevant fatigue tests of the connections, ensuring that
1033 maximum and minimum distances between bolts are not exceeded.
1034 The actual bolt preload shall exceed the preload assumptions in design throughout the design
1035 life. The connection may be designed on the assumption of prescribed maintenance of the
1036 bolts or without and the preload assumption shall account for this. The maintenance shall be
1037 clearly indicated in the delivery documentation. Minimum requirements for maintenance for
1038 design without test are given in Section 6.4.6.3.
1039 In connections with risk of contact corrosion between bolt and hole, special corrosion
1040 protection measures shall be made when using hot-dipped galvanized building elements.
1041 6.4.6.2 Test-assisted design
1042 A maintenance free connection can be achieved by a test assisted design as follows:
1043 • For the Fatigue Limit State, it shall be verified that the friction utilization for maximum
1044 load in the fatigue load cases does not exceed the friction utilization for maximum
1045 applied loads in testing.
1046 • The design shear resistance force of the friction connection shall be calculated
1047 according to the following formula:
n⋅µ
Fs ,Rd = ⋅F
γ M p ,C*
1048 where:
1049
1050 Fp ,C* = L f ⋅ Fp ,C
1051
Fp ,C*
1052 : The preload bolt force used in the design calculations.
Fp , C
1053 : The preload bolt force given in the relevant design code or technical
1054 approval.
Lf
1055 : Factor for loss of preload, which is not considered in the applied design
1056 code.
1057
µ: Friction coefficient.
1058 n: Number of force transmitting interfaces in the connection.
1059 γ M: Partial safety factor for materials.
1060 The preloading force F p,C* shall account for the loss of preload in the bolt connection by the
1061 means of the factor L f or by introducing a measurement campaign and a maintenance
1062 program based on the results of the measurement campaign.
1063 For determining L f , two approaches are possible:
– 32 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1064 1. Testing of representative samples of the friction connection to determine a

1065 maintenance free connection.
1066 The test specimens shall resemble the joint used in the actual tower design. This
1067 means at least the following parameters shall be considered:
1068 • clamp length
1069 • surface preparation, condition and layer thickness
1070 • bolt set type, size, length, grade, quality, contact surface of bolt, nut and
1071 washers
1072 • pre-tension force
1073 • quality of the base material
1074 • temperature ranges
1075 • geometry of the connection (e.g. eccentricities, number of bolts in load
1076 direction, distance of bolts, thickness of clamped parts)
1077 • size and manufacturing of holes
1078 • expected maximum load levels for ULS and FLS
1079 • installation method
1080 2. Assume a value for L f in the design phase and validate by an appropriate
1081 measurement campaign on the friction connection that the assumption for L f is
1082 conservative.
1083 The measurement campaign shall start directly after the pretension process. The
1084 measurement equipment shall not change the relevant parameters compared to the used
1085 bolted connections in the tower.
1086 If necessary, a maintenance program shall be defined on the basis on the results of the
1087 measurement campaign.
1088 Tests, measurements and interpretation of results shall be conducted according to a
1089 recognized standard and be evaluated according to IEC 61400-1 Annex K.
1090 For a maintenance free test based design, the friction coefficient µ shall be tested in
1091 combination with the determination of the L f factor.
1092 For a design with a measurement campaign and a maintenance program, the friction
1093 coefficient shall be tested according to a recognized standard while taking into account the
1094 geometry of the connection, the detailed surface conditions at the real tower and the level of
1095 pretension force.
1096 This shall be in compliance with recognized design standards and IEC 61400-1 ed.4. The
1097 following value of γ M is recommended.
1098 γ M = 1.25
1099 6.4.6.3 Design without test
1100 For a non-test assisted design, the following applies:
1101 - The ultimate slip resistance of the connection shall be designed according to the
1102 Reference Standard.
1103 - The pre-stressing force shall be checked by inspection and, if necessary, ensured by
1104 retightening, within the first six months of installation, albeit not immediately after
1105 commissioning.
1106 6.5 Stability
1107 6.5.1 General
1108 Stability analysis of steel towers shall be performed considering the relevant failure modes for
1109 the specific type of structure, i.e. shell buckling for tubular towers or beam buckling of lattice
1110 towers.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 33 –
1111 Stability analysis for steel tube towers may be carried out from flange to flange if the flanges
1112 are either L- or T-flanges. For other concepts, it shall be verified that the section connections
1113 will provide the necessary boundary conditions to only calculate section wise, otherwise the
1114 full tower height shall be used.
1115 The verifications shall be carried out with the most unfavourable of all load case combinations
1116 of dead loads, resulting bending moment, torsion moment and resulting shear force.
1117 6.5.2 Partial Safety factor
1118 Partial safety factors shall be chosen based on the applied method. Minimum safety factors
1119 for buckling verifications are defined in Section5.4.
1120 6.5.3 Assessment
1121 The buckling safety verification for the wall of a tubular steel tower shall be carried out with
1122 either of the following techniques:
1123 • Analytical verification according to recognized procedures
1124 • Numerically assisted buckling safety verification. Different degrees of consideration of
1125 non-linearities of material, geometry (MNA, GMNA) as well as imperfections (GMNIA)
1126 are described in literature, for details see e.g. references in Annex A.
1127 In principle, plastification has to be strictly limited to small regions as defined in
1128 Section 6.3.5. For this reason if numerically assisted buckling safety verification is
1129 used, the plastic reference resistance [R Rpl ] has to be substituted by the characteristic
1130 reference resistance [R Rk (characteristic value)] assuming that the material is still
1131 within elastic limit.
1132 The imperfections considered in the design shall cover the potential imperfections that
1133 are expected to occur during fabrication and installation.
1134 6.5.4 Door frames / stiffeners
1135 The buckling safety verification for openings with or without stiffeners in a tubular steel tower
1136 shall be carried out with one of the following techniques:
1137 - a geometrically and materially nonlinear numerical buckling analysis with
1138 imperfections included (GMNIA)
1139 - An analytical verification according to the methods suggested by Velickov [see
1140 Annex E]. For openings with stiffeners, the cross section of the stiffener shall be
1141 centred to the tower shell in the three and nine o’clock position of the stiffener, see
1142 Figure 2. A misalignment from the centre is allowed in the range up to the
1143 centralization of the stiffener to the tower shell in the 12 o’clock position of the
1144 stiffener.
1145 - Alternative methods from literature including modifications, simplifications or
1146 extensions of above mentioned approaches may be considered if they lead to a
1147 comparable safety level.
1148
– 34 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1149
1150 Figure 2 – Door opening geometry
1151
1152
1153 6.6 Fatigue limit state

1154 6.6.1 General
1155 The verifications shall be carried out with the fatigue load combinations according to Section
1156 5.4. Every fatigue load bearing component shall be verified.
1157 For tubular towers, the usage of the dominant (fore-aft or side-side) bending moment can be
1158 considered as sufficient for the fatigue verification but only at regions without discontinuities,
1159 e.g. not in the area of the door.
1160 In case of guyed structures, additional fatigue load requirements (e.g. galloping) shall be
1161 considered.
1162 6.6.2 Partial safety factor for materials
1163 Towers for wind turbines contain generally non-damage-tolerant structural components
1164 resulting in component class 2 according to IEC 61400-1.
1165 The use of component class 1 instead of component class 2 for specific details of a
1166 component needs to be investigated by additional verifications, e.g. fracture mechanics, to
1167 show that local failure does not lead to a failure chain with severe consequences.
1168 Methodologies for determining the partial safety factors shall be chosen under consideration
1169 of Annex K of IEC 61400-1 ed. 4 to reach the intended reliability level.
1170 Elements defined in Annex K of IEC 61400-1 ed. 4 as "accessible for inspection" include
1171 circumferential and longitudinal and other (e.g. door; attachments) welding seams of tubular
1172 steel towers. These elements are to be examined as part of the periodic inspections.
1173 The frequency of inspection shall be evaluated and determined against the selecting details,
1174 materials and stress levels and the provisions made according to the damage tolerant
1175 method.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 35 –
1176 6.6.3 Assessment

1177 Verifications may be carried out by different approaches. Reference to details of applicable
1178 methodologies is made in Annex F Fatigue verification. The method selected shall include
1179 effects of geometrical and structural imperfections from material production and execution
1180 (e.g. the effect of tolerances and residual stresses from welding).
1181 A cut-off limit of fatigue strength in the S/N curves for any number of load cycles shall not be
1182 applied.
1183 In general applicable methods include, but are not limited to, ∆σ R -N, notch strain and fracture
1184 mechanics methods, taking into account post fabrication treatment. A consideration of post
1185 fabrication treatment is only valid if it is included in the Reference Standard or verified by
1186 tests under consideration of Annex K from IEC 61400-1 ed. 4.
1187 When using the ∆σ R -N approach and stress components, every relevant stress component
1188 (σ ‖ ,σ ┴ ,τ) has to be included in the fatigue calculation. If using principal stresses, the applied
1189 S/N curve shall be consistent with the direction of principal stress.
1190 Signed Equivalent (von-Mises) stress shall not be used for the fatigue assessment.
1191 Independent of the method or Reference Standard followed, the reliability level shall not be
1192 less than those intended by IEC 61400-1 or -2.
1193 6.6.4 Details
1194 Welded attachments or drilled holes shall be assessed for the effect of local stress
1195 concentrations. Further information can be found in Annex F.
1196 The required structural stress for the fatigue calculation of the weld seam of the door stiffener,
1197 shall be assessed by one of the following approaches:
1198 1) modelling the door stiffener with weld seam
1199 2) modelling the door stiffener without weld seam and extrapolation to the hot-spot stress
1200 according to IIW 3
1201 3) other comparable methods
1202 6.7 Ring flange connections
1203 The regulations stated in this section are valid for both L- and T-flange connections.
1204 6.7.1 Design Assumptions and Requirements, Execution of ring flanges
1205 Ring flange connections shall be tightened in a controlled manner in several steps according
1206 to a Reference Standard and/or approved procedures.
1207 The design pretension force of the bolt shall be limited to 70% of the yield strength of one
1208 bolt. Otherwise it shall be proven that the tensioning system is able to prestress the bolts in a
1209 way that the pretension force is reached but the bolt is not overstressed.
1210 All flange gaps k in the area of the tower wall result in increased fatigue loading of the bolts
1211 (Figure 3 – Flange gaps k in the area of the tower wallFigure 3), particularly when they extend
1212 only over a part of the circumference. The damage influence grows with decreasing spanning
1213 length l k over the circumference.
1214 The tolerances shall be stated in the drawings or working documents.
—————————
3 IIW document IIW-1823-07, ex XIII-2151r4-07/XV-1254r4-07,December 2008
– 36 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1215 Figure 3 – Flange gaps k in the area of the tower wall
1216 Following completion of the production of the individual tower sections, the flatness deviation
1217 per flange Taper to the inside of the connecting surface of each flange (see Figure 3 case 2 &
1218 3) shall be checked and should not exceed the values in Table 2 noting that the region near to
1219 the tower wall is decisive. Outside taper is not allowed in general.
Characteristic Limiting value
Flatness deviation per flange around the entire circumference 2.0 mm
Flatness deviation per flange over a segment of 30° max. 1.0 mm
Taper to the inside of the connecting surface of each flange 0.0 to 0.7°
Outer flange surfaces limit before using taper washers 2°
1220 Table 2 – Flange gap limits
1221 If larger flatness deviations are assumed in the design, the fatigue limit state analysis shall
1222 include the effect of these larger flatness deviations (e.g. possible opening of the flange for
1223 the calculation of axial and bending bolt forces). Additionally, the design pretension level
1224 assumed in the bolt calculation shall be reduced by the value of preloading required to close
1225 the flange gaps in the area of the tower wall.
1226 It shall be guaranteed that sufficient local compressive preload of the flange contact areas is
1227 achieved from the preloading force of each individual bolt through accurate production of the
1228 flanges and their welded connections, including accurate preloading.
1229 In case the contact surfaces of the flanges are not in full contact at the tower outside after
1230 preloading, suitable measures shall be taken. Suitable measures may e.g. include reworking,
1231 shimming or filling out the damage-relevant gaps in the absence of applied preloading.
1232 The shims or filler material shall have sufficient E-modulus and compressive strength (yield
1233 point under compression) to replicate the effect of the parent flange material. The gap-filling
1234 should be executed such that contact is produced prior to the preloading process, but contact
1235 shall be achieved after applying 10 % of the preload, either in the direct vicinity of each bolt or
1236 in the area between each individual bolt and the tower wall (including the area directly under
1237 the tower wall itself).
1238 If, after the preloading, the remaining inclination α S of the outer flange surfaces (see Figure 3)
1239 exceeds the limiting value of 2°, suitable taper washers with sufficient hardness shall be used
1240 instead of the normal washers.
1241 The welded connection of the flange to the tower wall may be assumed to be unaffected by
1242 edge distortion of the tower shell, if:
1243 • Radius between flange surface and welding neck is at least 10mm.
1244 • The distance between the circumferential weld seam toe and the finished product
1245 (upper side of the flange surface) shall satisfy requirements in Section 6.3.2.2.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 37 –
1246 • The weld toe to flange surface distance requirement apply to production and repair
1247 welding.
1248 • Inside Taper per flange is limited to 0.7°
1249 In case these requirements above are met, only the flange bolts and the circumferential weld
1250 seams have to be verified for fatigue limit state.
1251 In case these requirements above are not met, detailed analysis for ultimate and fatigue limit
1252 state need to be performed for the flange, the welding between flange and tower shell and the
1253 tower shell in the proximity of the welding. In addition, the detail category for the weld shall be
1254 chosen as for a flange connection without a welding neck.
1255 6.7.2 Ultimate limit state analysis of flange and bolted connection
1256 In the ultimate limit state analysis of the flange connections, the preloading force of the bolts
1257 need not be considered, i.e. the ultimate limit state analysis may be performed as for a non-
1258 preloaded bolted connection.
1259 A simplified calculation method according to Petersen / Seidel or Tobinaga (see Annex G
1260 Methods ) may be used if it covers flange gaps of the magnitude tolerated in execution of the
1261 work.
1262 The calculation method needs to consider at least the following three failure modes:
1263 1. Failure of bolt due to rupture
1264 2. Failure of bolt due to rupture combined with yield hinge in tower shell and/or flange
1265 material
1266 3. Yield hinges in tower shell and/or in flange material
1267 The influence of the axial load in the tower shell shall be considered when calculating the
1268 yield bending strength of the tower shell and/or the flange material.
1269 Favourable loads (reducing the load on the bolted connection, e.g. weight), if included, shall
1270 use the partial safety factor for loads for favourable loads.
1271 6.7.3 Fatigue limit state analysis of bolted connection
1272 In the fatigue safety analysis of the flange connection, the fatigue loading of the bolts may be
1273 determined with consideration of the compressive preloading of the flanges, provided the
1274 following conditions are met.
1275 For the fatigue calculation, the pretension force of the bolts may be applied with a maximum
1276 of 90% of the design pretension force F p,C , providing that the design pretension force in the
1277 bolts is ensured by checking the pretension force and, if necessary, retightening the bolts
1278 after initial relaxation of the bolted connection. The inspection (and if necessary retightening)
1279 shall be done after 240 power production hours but, in any case, not later than six months
1280 after commissioning. Otherwise 70% of the design pretension force F p,C shall be used for the
1281 fatigue calculation.
1282 The fatigue safety verification shall be based on the non-linear bolt force function F S = f(Z)
1283 from which the fatigue range of the bolt force F S can be read off for a given range of the tower
1284 shell force Z (see Figure 4).
1285 The non-linear bolt force function may be derived from a simplified calculation method
1286 according to Petersen / Seidel or Tobinaga (see Annex G Methods ) if it covers flange gaps of
1287 the magnitude tolerated in execution of the work.
1288 In the determination of the bolt force function with the aid of an ideal calculation method (e.g.
1289 FEM using contact or spring elements), the flange gaps tolerated in the production shall be
1290 considered as imperfections. If the bolt force function is determined without imperfections with
1291 the aid of such an ideal calculation method, the flange gaps tolerated in the execution of the
1292 work may be taken into account by a suitable increase in the initial gradient of the bolt force
1293 function based on studies into the effect of imperfections, e.g. see Figure 4.
1294
– 38 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1295 Figure 4 – Bolt force as a function of wall force
1296 When using calculation methods which do not consider the influence of the bending moment
1297 on the bolt (e.g. simplified calculation method from Schmidt / Neuper, see Annex G), the
1298 fatigue safety of the bolt shall be determined using detail category 36*, as presented in Figure
1299 5.
1300 For bolts larger than M30, a reduction of the S/N curve by the factor k s with
0,25
1301 k s = (30mm/d) shall be taken into account, where d is the nominal diameter of the
1302 bolt
1303 Figure 5 – S-n curve for Detail Category 36

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 39 –
1304 7 Concrete Towers and Foundations

1305 7.1 Scope
1306 Concrete design principles are mostly well defined and documented in the literature, including
1307 local, national and international standards. This Section provides additional or more detailed
1308 rules and guidance that are specific to onshore wind turbine foundations and complement the
1309 more general requirements of existing standards.
1312 requirements are presented in the Annex H to Annex K.
1314 7.2.1 Reference Standard for Concrete Design
1315 The Reference Standard shall comply with the basic principles of IEC 61400-1 or -2 and
1316 should be in compliance with ISO 19338. The Reference Standard shall give the principles
1317 required for the design against fatigue for all possible failure modes.
1318 7.2.2 Partial Safety Factors
1319 The more conservative factors from the IEC standards and the Reference Standard shall be
1320 applied. The partial safety factors given in IEC 61400-1, IEC 61400-2 and in Section 5.4 of
1321 this standard, the following factors shall be applied for design of concrete structures and the
1322 safety factors from the selected Reference Standard shall be considered.
1323 For the general verifications at the SLS, the partial safety factor for the materials can in
1324 general be taken as γ M = 1.0.
1325 In the case of prestressed concrete, the prestress losses and possible variations in the
1326 prestress are to be considered. The variations shall be considered by applying the least
1327 favourable of the factors γ sup and γ inf .
1328 When measures are taken to secure a negligible uncertainty on the prestress load, the factors
1329 can be taken as γ sup = γ inf = 1.0. While a high accuracy of the tensioning devices may improve
1330 the accuracy of the initial level of prestress, the remaining uncertainty with respect to the
1331 losses of prestress shall also be considered if γ sup and γ inf are to be modified.
1332 In the ULS, the recommended factors to be used are γ sup = 1.10 and γ inf = 0.90. In the FLS
1333 and the SLS, the recommended factors to be used for post-tensioning with bonded tendons
1334 are γ sup = 1.10 and γ inf = 0.90, but the recommended factors for post-tensioning with unbonded
1335 tendons and for pre-tensioning are γ sup = 1.05 and γ inf = 0.95.
1336 Where high resistance of a member is unfavourable, an upper value of the characteristic
1337 resistance shall be used in order to give a low probability of failure of the adjoining structure.
1338 The upper value shall be chosen with the same level of probability of exceedence as the
1339 probability of lower values being underscored. In such cases, the partial safety factor for
1340 material shall be 1.0 for calculating the resistance that is used when actions are applied on
1341 adjoining members.
– 40 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1342 7.2.3 Basic Variables

1343 7.2.3.1 Thermal Actions
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
1344
1345 Figure 6 – Thermal effects around tower cross-section
1346 7.2.3.1.1 General requirements

1347 Concrete towers are subject to the induced stress effect of temperature variations with
1348 respect to the temperature at the time of erection as well as to temperature gradients within
1349 the tower cross-section as shown in Figure 6. These characteristic temperature actions shall
1350 be considered in the design as explained in the following:
1351 a) ∆T 1 is a uniform temperature difference with respect to the temperature at the time of
1352 erection (constant temperature along circumference and across wall thickness). ∆T 1
1353 shall be taken as the least favourable of
1354
1355 • T extreme,max - T erection,min
1356 • T extreme,min – T erection,max
1357
1358 where
1359
1360 T extreme,min/max is the extreme temperature range as defined in IEC 61400-1, Section
1361 6.4.2.1 “Temperature”.
1362
1363 T erection,min/max is the allowable temperature range to be defined for the erection of the
1364 tower.
1365
1366 This temperature action may generally be neglected provided the tower does not
1367 incorporate or is not restrained by materials of differing thermal expansion
1368 coefficients. On the basis of ∆T 1, a reasonable assumption shall be made for the
1369 temperature difference between the tower and foundation which may cause tension
1370 due to restraint.
1371
1372 b) ∆T 2 = ±15 K is a cosine shaped temperature difference caused by solar irradiation on
1373 one side of the tower (constant temperature across wall thickness and cosine shaped
1374 along the circumference).
1375
Additional 2 order loads (P-∆ effect) resulting from the deflection due to ∆T 2 may be
nd
1376
1377 neglected if a tower misalignment of at least 5 mm/m lateral deflection per m height is
1378 applied as the geometric tolerance in the structural design of the tower (differential
1379 settlement of the foundation shall be considered separately as per Section 8.5.3.3).
1380
1381 Furthermore it may be assumed that restraint caused by ∆T 2 is covered by ∆T 3 if the
1382 bending moment in the wall caused by ∆T 3 is calculated based on linear analysis
1383 (uncracked cross section, linear stress-strain relationship and mean value of the
1384 modulus of elasticity).
1385
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 41 –
1386 c) ∆T 3 = ±15 K is a temperature difference between inside and outside wall surfaces
1387 (constant temperature along the circumference, varying linearly across the wall
1388 thickness). The value of ±15 K is intended to cover environmental temperature
1389 changes, ∆T 3 may need to be increased if significant other heat sources are to be
1390 placed in or near the wind turbine tower.
1391
1392 Effects caused by the release of hydration heat in in-situ concrete towers are not included in
1393 ∆T 1-3 and shall be taken into account separately.
1394 The abovementioned temperature actions generally cover the normal environmental
1395 conditions defined in IEC 61400-1 or -2. Special regional climatic conditions outside the
1396 normal environmental conditions shall be taken in to account when applying temperature
1397 actions.
1398 The different temperature components shall be superimposed so that the characteristic
1399 temperature action ∆T k shall be taken as the least favourable of:
1400 • ∆T 1 + ∆T 2
1401 • ∆T 3
1402 • (∆T 1 + ∆T 2 ) + 0.75∆T 3
1403 • 0.35(∆T 1 + ∆T 2 ) + ∆T 3
1404 7.2.3.1.2 Ultimate limit state requirements
1405 In the ULS, temperature actions shall be superimposed with the ultimate design loads, F d . The
1406 partial safety factor for temperature actions shall be taken as γ f,Temp = 1.35* so that ∆T d =
1407 γ f,Temp ∆T k 4. The least favourable of the following combinations shall be considered in the
1408 design.
1409 • F d +0.6∆T d
1410 • 0.6F d +∆T d
1411 The psfm, γ f,Temp may be reduced to 1.0 if the effects are determined based on linear elastic
1412 analysis.
1413 7.2.3.1.3 Serviceability limit state requirements
1414 In the SLS, temperature actions shall be superimposed with F SLS , the load value of the
1415 applicable SLS load cases as defined in Annex H Crack Control- Guidance on 7.9.4. The least
1416 favourable of F SLS +0.6∆T k or 0.6F SLS +∆T k shall be considered in the design.
1417 7.2.3.2 Prestress
1418 The prestress of concrete structures considered in this section is applied by tendons made of
1419 high-strength steel (wires, strands or bars) or high-strength bolts.
1420 Tendons and bolts may be embedded in the concrete. They may be pre-tensioned and
1421 bonded or post-tensioned and bonded or unbonded.
1422 Tendons may also be external to the structure with points of contact occurring at deviators
1423 and anchorages.
1424 7.3 Materials
1425 The concrete structure materials shall be in accordance with ISO 22965-1 and ISO 22965-2
1426 for concrete and ISO 6934 and ISO 6965 for reinforcement unless requirements in the
1427 selected Reference Standards are more critical. In either case, the requirements of this
1428 standard will supercede.
—————————
4 γ f,Temp = 1.0 if F d is derived from an abnormal design load case “A” as defined in table 2 of IEC 61400-1.
– 42 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1429 7.4 Durability

1430 In order to achieve the required design working life of the structure, adequate measures shall
1431 be taken to protect each structural element against the relevant environmental actions. The
1432 requirements defined in the Reference Standard concerning durability shall be fulfilled.
1433 The requirements for durability shall be included when considering the following:
1434 • Structural conception,
1435 • Material selection,
1436 • Construction details,
1437 • Execution,
1438 • Quality Control,
1439 • Inspection,
1440 • Verifications,
1441 • Special measures (e.g. use of stainless steel, coatings, and cathodic protection).
1442 7.4.1 Exposure Classes
1443 If not specified in the Reference Standard, the Exposure Classes as defined in ISO 22965-1
1444 may be used.
1445 7.4.2 Concrete Cover
1446 The concrete cover requirements shall include the Exposure Class, the quality of the concrete
1447 and the lifetime of the structure. Other parameters may be of importance in specific cases.
1448 The nominal concrete cover shall be specified on the construction drawings or specifications.
1449 7.5 Structural Analysis
1450 7.5.1 Finite Element Analysis
1451 A finite element model shall be suitable for the purposes of the investigation. The following
1452 items shall be considered if they are expected to affect the relevant results of the analysis to
1453 a significant extent:
1454 • The structure shall be in equilibrium with the applied loading and boundary conditions.
1455 • The order and type of each element shall be sufficient to capture the expected
1456 patterns of deformations.
1457 • A mesh sensitivity study is usually required to assess if the model is adequately
1458 predicting the deformation of the structure, and thereby the load-distribution within the
1459 structure.
1460 • Second order deformations and three-dimensional effect shall be considered when
1461 important.
1462 • The compatibility of deformations shall be considered, including strain offsets between
1463 materials types, and the decomposition of strain. Load-path dependency may also
1464 need to be considered.
1465 • The inelastic response of materials, including cracking of concrete and yield of
1466 reinforcements, shall be considered when necessary. Since the principle of
1467 superimposition does not apply when materials exhibit an inelastic response, a
1468 separate analysis is required for each factored load combination.
1469 • The degradation of resistance mechanisms, such as bond, slip resistance along
1470 cracks, spalling, and other factors that affect the stiffness and strength of structural
1471 components shall be considered when necessary.
1472 • Time-dependent effects, such as creep of concrete and relaxation of prestressing,
1473 shall be considered when the effects are significant.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 43 –
1474 More detailed guidance on finite element analysis can be found in Annex I Finite Element
1475 Analysis for concrete.
1476 7.5.2 Foundation Slabs
1477 Solid foundation slabs subjected to two-dimensional bending shall be analysed with one or
1478 more of the following methods:
1479 • Analysis based on linear elasticity
1480 This method is based on the theory of elasticity adopting a linear moment-curvature
1481 relationship. It may be used for serviceability, fatigue, and ultimate limit states.
1482 • Analysis according to linear elasticity with limited redistribution of bending
1483 moments
1484 Linear analysis with limited redistribution of the moments may be applied to the
1485 analysis of foundation slabs for the verification at the ultimate limit state only. The
1486 reduction of the moment shall be performed assuming the average value for an
1487 appropriate width, providing that the average moments for the same width at the
1488 corresponding section are adjusted to satisfy equilibrium. The rotation capacity needs
1489 to be checked.
1490 • Plastic analysis
1491 Statically admissible plastic moment fields which satisfy the equilibrium condition may
1492 be found directly (e.g. by applying the strip method) or by starting from a linear
1493 analysis. This method may be used for the ultimate limit state only.
1494 • Non-linear analysis
1495 The nonlinear analysis covers ULS, FLS, and SLS; provided that equilibrium and
1496 compatibility are satisfied and adequate nonlinear behaviour for materials is assumed.
1497 7.5.3 Regions with Discontinuity in Geometry or Loads
1498 Discontinuity Regions shall be assessed with force models which have validated with test
1499 results and theoretical considerations. These models may be strut-and-tie model systems,
1500 stress fields, or similar, that satisfy equilibrium conditions.
1501 If there is no recognized calculation model for the member in question, the geometry of the
1502 model may be determined from the stress condition for a homogeneous un-cracked structure
1503 in accordance with the theory of elasticity.
1504 Methods for determining the strength of a load-resisting truss (consisting of struts, ties, and
1505 joints (or nodes))shall be follow the Reference Standards including maximum concrete stress
1506 capacities for struts and nodal regions, and rules for determining the dimensions of struts,
1507 ties, and nodal regions.
1508 The shape of the load resisting truss is not prescribed by this standard.
1509 For the design of discontinuity regions in which a complex and likely indeterminate strut-and-
1510 tie model is used, extra caution shall be taken to ensure that the members can obtain and
1511 maintain their capacity until the formation of a plastic truss mechanism.
1512 More guidance regarding strut-and-tie modelling can be found in Annex K Strut-and-Tie
1513 Section. See also the normative Annex J Tower-foundation anchorage regarding connections
1514 between concrete foundations and steel towers.
1515 7.5.4 Cast in anchor bolt arrangements
1516 Bolts and anchor flanges cast into the concrete for anchorage of a steel tower or similar shall
1517 be designed according to Section 6 where appropriate. The impact on the concrete shall be
1518 considered similar to impact from prestressing tendons.
1519 7.6 Concrete to concrete joints
1520 Concrete to concrete joints are considered either interfaces between reinforced concrete cast
1521 in situ with significant delay or joints between prefabricated pieces (typically secured by
1522 means of post-tensioned reinforcement) with or without grout.
– 44 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1523 Concrete to concrete joints shall be considered at the ULS, FLS and SLS verifications, for all
1524 concrete support structures.
1525 Shear strength shall be verified in the joint, which is largely affected by the concrete
1526 coefficient of friction across the joint, reinforcing across a cast in situ joint and level of post-
1527 tensioning force across precast element joints. The coefficient of friction is a function of the
1528 surface roughness, which is commonly described by the surface roughness parameter, R a.
1529 The coefficient of friction shall be verified according to the Reference Standard.
1530 Due to the variable cyclic loading of the wind turbine, the risk of a reduction of the joint
1531 capacity in shear shall be considered.
1532 The compressive load capacity of the grout and the adjacent members shall be verified
1533 considering the stiffness of the grout and the geometry of the joint. The induced transverse
1534 stresses shall be covered by reinforcement.
1535 Non-linear analysis (load dependent stiffness) is generally required with reduced stiffness
1536 consideration of the joint (at ULS, it shall be assumed that opening or cracking can occur,
1537 unless the design is verified to avoid it).
1538 Special attention shall be applied in those zones subjected to stress concentration effects,
1539 such as pre-stressing anchorages, non-uniform contact areas and geometrical and/or material
1540 discontinuities.
1541 Tension capacity through the joint can be provided by post-tensioned bars, post-tensioned
1542 strand or passive reinforcement as if there were no concrete joint. When there is no
1543 requirement for structural reinforcement, a minimum quantity shall be provided.
1544 Tolerances at joints shall be defined in accordance with the execution requirements as stated
1545 in Section 7.10.
1546 Tolerances at joints shall be such as to allow parts to fit together as intended.
1547 7.7 Ultimate Limit State
1548 7.7.1 General
1549 In general, the selected Reference Standard shall be followed for ULS design.
1550 7.7.2 Shear
1551 The minimum amount of shear reinforcement required in National Codes should be used even
1552 when it is not required to satisfy ULS requirements. This reinforcement will mitigate size
1553 effects in large members, and also help address the detrimental effects of cyclic shear
1554 actions. The spacing of this reinforcement should not be less than one-half of the depth of the
1555 member.
1556 7.8 Fatigue Limit State
1557 7.8.1 General
1558 In towers and foundations of prestressed and reinforced concrete, fatigue safety verifications
1559 are to be carried out for the concrete, reinforcing steel, prestressing steel, cast joints etc.
1560 Linear elastic models may generally be used, and reinforced concrete in tension is considered
1561 to be cracked. The ratio of moduli of elasticity for steel and concrete may be taken as α=10.
1562 The Reference Standard provides the principles required for the design against fatigue for all
1563 possible failure modes. This includes, e.g. concrete in compression/compression or
1564 compression/tension; transverse shear considering both shear tension and shear
1565 compression; reinforcement considering both main bars and stirrups including bond failure;
1566 and prestressing reinforcement. Material standards can include certain fatigue-related
1567 requirements; these are often not adequate for wind turbine applications. The fatigue
1568 properties for wind turbine applications can be significantly different, also for materials that
1569 pass such general material requirements for fatigue. SN-curves representing the 5 % quantile
1570 shall be used for the design of reinforcement, and in particular for items that have stress
1571 concentrations such as couplers, end anchors and T-heads.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 45 –
1572 In general, it is recommended to avoid welding of reinforcement bars in wind turbine concrete
1573 structures. However, if this cannot be avoided, the SN-curve shall account for the effect of
1574 welding on the reinforcement properties. 5
1575 The methods for fatigue safety verifications described in the following sections will result in a
1576 design which meets the target reliability level of this Standard. These methods shall be
1577 applied if no detailed methods exist in the Reference Standard or if methods in the Reference
1578 Standard are optional.
1579 7.8.2 Reinforcement and prestressing steel fatigue failure
1580 When a detailed calculation over time is not carried out, the fatigue verifications for
1581 prestressing structures are to be carried out for the prestressing force immediately after
1582 removal of the stressing jack and for the prestressing force following creep, shrinkage and
1583 relaxation. The worst impact from creep, shrinkage and relaxation shall be considered.
1584 For the verification of reinforcing and prestressing steel, the fatigue strength SN curves
1585 according to MC1990 may be applied, in which case, appropriate manufacturing standards
1586 shall be used.
1587 7.8.3 Concrete fatigue failure
1588 For the verification of concrete, the methods according to MC1990 may be applied together
1589 with the minimum partial safety factors specified in IEC 61400-1 or -2 in which case
1590 appropriate manufacturing standards shall be used.
1591 7.9 Serviceability Limit State
1592 7.9.1 Partial safety factors
1593 7.9.2 Load dependent stiffness reduction
1594 For towers of reinforced and prestressed concrete, load dependent stiffness reduction due to
1595 cracking shall be taken into account for the calculation of the natural frequencies of the tower.
1596 For this calculation, stabilized cracking conditions shall be assumed for the complete tower.
1597 Moment curvature diagrams shall be provided.
1598 The load dependent stiffness reduction may be omitted for the calculation of the natural
1599 frequencies if decompression is verified for the load level S3 (see Section 5.4.3 definition of
1600 SLS load cases).
1601 Nevertheless load dependent stiffness reduction shall be considered in the ULS for the
1602 calculation of bending moments using second order theory (P-∆ effect), see Section 5.4.10.
1603 7.9.3 Stress limitation
1604 In towers and foundations of prestressed and reinforced concrete, the compressive stresses
1605 in concrete and the tensile stresses in the reinforcement (including prestressing steel) shall
1606 be limited in order to ensure the function and durability of the structure. The following limits
1607 shall be applied.
1608 The compressive stress in the concrete shall be limited to 0.6 f ck for the characteristic
1609 combination of loads S1 see Section 5.4.3.1).This is necessary in order to limit the formation
1610 of longitudinal cracks which may lead to a reduction of durability.
1611 Creep shall be accounted for. If the compressive stress in the concrete is limited to 0.45 f ck for
1612 the permanent actions due to gravity load and prestress, linear creep may be assumed.
1613 Above this limit non-linear creep shall be considered.
1614 Tensile stresses in the reinforcement (including prestressing steel) shall be limited in order to
1615 avoid inelastic strain, unacceptable cracking or deformation.
1616 Under the characteristic load combination S1 (see Section 5.4.3.1), the tensile stress in the
1617 reinforcement shall not exceed 0.9 f yk . Where the stress is caused by an imposed deformation
—————————
5 Materials are often fatigue tested at 10 6 or 2×10 6 cycles for a given stress range. Wind turbine structures will
typically experience 10 8 load cycles or more at strongly varying stress ranges, consequently some fatigue
testing of materials will not be adequate for all situations.
– 46 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1618 (e.g. restraint due to temperature), the limit may be extended to 1.0 f yk . Under the
1619 characteristic load combination S1 (see Section 5.4.3.1), the mean stress (i.e. γ sup = γ inf = 1.0)
1620 in the prestressing tendons after immediate losses shall not exceed 0.75 f pk .
1621 7.9.4 Crack Control
1622 Cracking of concrete structures for wind turbines shall be limited to an extent that will not
1623 impair the proper functioning or durability of the structure or cause its appearance to be
1624 unacceptable.
1625 Adequate measures to limit crack widths shall be chosen in accordance with the Reference
1626 Standard. Concrete design standards generally do not specifically take into account the effect
1627 of highly dynamic loading, as prevalent in wind turbines, on the behaviour of cracks in
1628 concrete. Therefore the methods proposed in the Reference Standard may need to be
1629 modified. Further guidance on crack control for certain countries and regions is given in
1630 Annex H. Unless a higher load level is defined in the Reference Standard(s) or in Annex H,
1631 the load level for crack control calculations shall be taken as the load level S3 defined in
1632 Section 5.4.3.3. In addition to loads resulting from wind turbine operation, the temperature
1633 actions defined in Section 7.2.3.1 shall be considered for crack control, especially in parts of
1634 the structure where temperature may be a design driving action, e.g. for the horizontal
1635 reinforcement in towers.
1636 In addition to limiting crack widths, decompression (i.e. vertical tensile stresses in the
1637 concrete) shall be prevented entirely in the following cases:
1638 a) In towers of prestressed concrete with bonded tendons for the load level S3 (see
1639 Section 5.4.3.3).
1640 b) If the tower with bonded tendons is exposed to environmental conditions with corrosion
1641 induced by chlorides (e.g. saline air near to the coast) the verification shall be carried out for
1642 the load level S2 (see Section 5.4.3.2).
1643 The verification of decompression is recommended generally for all concrete tower types in
1644 order to avoid a reduced stiffness beyond the load level S3 (see Section 5.4.3.3). Otherwise
1645 the impact on the tower Eigen frequency shall be considered (i.e. refer to Section 7.9.2).
1646 7.9.5 Deformations
1647 Unless special requirements arise from the operation of the wind turbine, a limitation of
1648 deformations is not required.
1649 7.10 Execution
1650 7.10.1 Scope
1651 This section provides requirements related to the execution (fabrication, construction,
1652 erection, etc.) of concrete structures used to support wind turbines and applies to reinforced
1653 concrete structures and foundations including cast-in-place or pre-fabricated schemes
1654 comprised of non-pre-stressed or pre-stressed concrete. This includes material testing,
1655 formwork, reinforcement, concrete production, concrete coating, pre-tensioning, post-
1656 tensioning systems and repairs during construction of concrete structures.
1657 7.10.2 Normative References
1658 Unless other requirements prevail in the Reference Standard, the concrete structure shall be
1659 constructed in accordance with ISO 22966. However, it shall be ensured that the below
1660 requirements are met.
1661 7.10.3 Inspection of Materials and Products
1662 Inspection of materials and products shall be carried out in accordance with Execution Class
1663 2 in ISO 22966 or equivalent.
1664 7.10.4 Falsework and Formwork
1665 Falsework and formwork shall be carried out in accordance with ISO 22966.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 47 –
1666 7.10.5 Reinforcement and Embedded Steel

1667 Reinforcement and embedded steel shall be carried out in accordance with ISO 22966. No
1668 welding on reinforcement is allowed if this is not specifically considered in the design.
1669 7.10.6 Pre-stressing
1670 Bonded pre-tensioned strands shall be clean of all coatings and lubricants and be properly
1671 secured during stressing to restrain movement in the concrete prior to curing. The maximum
1672 permissible stress placed into the strands. Alternative stress limits defined by the designer or
1673 in the applicable material standard (or type approval) for pretensioning steel may apply.
1674 Unbonded tendons placed inside the concrete section shall be adequately sealed prior to
1675 grouting of the tendon ducts and their anchorages. Unbonded tendons installed external to
1676 the concrete section shall be adequately sealed against the penetration of moisture along
1677 their lengths. Methods to achieve this corrosion protection shall be achieved through a
1678 protective coating of the strands. Alternative protection may be considered for evaluation
1679 using an internal environment that is dehumidified. All unbonded tendon anchorages shall be
1680 sealed with grout and capped to seal the tendon against humidity and corrosive environment.
1681 The prestressing instructions defined by the designer as well as any requirements stated in
1682 the standards or type approval for a specific prestressing system shall be followed.
1683 The prestressing operations shall be documented in a protocol.
1684 The corrosion protection substance chosen for the tendons shall be suitable for the vertical
1685 installation in wind turbines, i.e. they shall not begin to flow or drip due to the impact of gravity
1686 and temperature.
1687 7.10.7 Precast Concrete Elements
1688 Precast elements shall be cast using the appropriate level of vibration of the concrete during
1689 the casting operations to limit the possibility of honeycombing and achieve proper
1690 consolidation. Where joining of the precast elements exists through the use of a closure pour,
1691 the concrete strength and reinforcing in the closure shall be designed to carry the full strength
1692 of the precast cross section adjacent to the closure joint. Where a closure pour does not exist
1693 between precast elements, sufficient contact area between the joints shall be achieved to
1694 transfer all required axial, bending and shear stresses. The surface area shall not induce
1695 localized stress concentrations that exceed the permissible design concrete strength. Any
1696 requirements for the execution of joints defined by the designer shall be implemented.
1697 7.10.8 Geometrical Tolerances
1698 Precast tolerances shall be in compliance with the Reference Standard. For precast elements
1699 the tolerance values for joint surface levelness and allowable offset between joint surfaces
1700 shall be defined in agreement with the designer and governing national
1701 recommendations/guidelines.
– 48 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1702 8 Foundations – geotechnical design

1703 8.1 Scope
1704 Geotechnical design relies on the application of sound engineering principles, most of which
1705 are well defined and documented in the literature, including local, national and international
1706 standards. This Section provides additional or more detailed rules and guidance that are
1707 specific to onshore wind turbine foundations and complement the more general geotechnical
1708 requirements of existing standards.
1709 The foundation types considered cover the majority of foundation types employed for wind
1710 turbine foundations:
1711 (1) Gravity base
1712 (2) Piled
1713 (3) Rock anchored
1716 requirements are presented in Annex L to Annex M.
1717 8.2 Basis of design
1718 8.2.1 General
1719 The general basis of design requirements are given in Section 5.1.
1720 If using limit state design principles, the partial safety factor for loads shall be consistent with
1721 the manner in which wind turbine foundation loads are derived as defined in Section 5.
1722 Alternative practice (such as Allowable Stress or Working Load Design) may be adopted
1723 where required to maintain consistency with the Reference Standard for the region for which
1724 the design is being applies but this must result in at least the same level of safety as required
1725 by IEC 61400-1 or -2.
1726 Serviceability Limit State (SLS) conditions for S1, S2, S3 load levels shall be as presented in
1727 Section 5.4.3.
1728 Fatigue load cases are not normally considered as part of geotechnical design due to the lack
1729 of established design methodologies and the prohibitive cost of site specific field or laboratory
1730 testing required to define fatigue resistance of soil. The effect of cyclic loading on soil
1731 strength and stiffness shall be addressed by considering the potential effects of erosion due
1732 to ground gapping, effect of repeated loading on soil stiffness and degradation of soil strength
1733 due to repeated loading.
1734 8.2.2 Geotechnical Limit States
1735 Table 3 presents a summary of the limit states to be considered during geotechnical design.
1736
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 49 –
1737
Limit State Design Situation
Ultimate Limit State - ULS Loss of static equilibrium due to overturning
Failure or excessive deformation of the ground

through bearing capacity or sliding
Internal structural failure or excessive

deformation – for specialist geotechnical works
e.g. piles and anchors
Serviceability Limit State - SLS Rotational and lateral stiffness under dynamic
and static conditions
Excessive long term inclination and absolute

settlement
Long term degradation of geotechnical capacity

leading to failure of other limit states– qualitative
assessment
1738 Table 3 - Summary of geotechnical limit states
1739 Partial safety factors on loads for variable actions (wind generated turbine loads) and
1740 permanent actions (gravity and buoyancy loads) shall be as specified in 61400-1 or -2. Full
1741 non-linearity of foundation soil-structure response, for eccentrically loaded gravity bases in
1742 particular, is only properly accounted for when partial factors are applied to input loads.
1743 Partial safety factors on material (resistance) shall be applied as a function of the limit state
1744 being considered, as summarised in the following Sections 8.5,8.6 and 8.7.
1745 Partial safety factors on material and/or resistance shall be applied to characteristic
1746 geotechnical parameters to derive appropriate design values. Depending on the applicable
1747 local and national standards, these partial safety factors may be applied to the soil properties
1748 (which may be dependent on the soil type) or directly to the resulting resistance. Note that
1749 the method of applying a global factor of safety (allowable stress design) to the resistance is
1750 NOT appropriate when applying limit state design in this manner.
1751 8.3 Geotechnical data
1752 8.3.1 General
1753 Foundation design shall be based on a good understanding of the ground conditions at each
1754 turbine location using geotechnical data of adequate quality and quantity. Geotechnical data
1755 shall be obtained by performing sufficient in-situ and laboratory testing within the zone of
1756 influence of the foundation to perform the geotechnical design.
1757 Geotechnical Site Investigation (SI) shall include at least one investigation point at each
1758 individual turbine location to define geotechnical parameters or demonstrate equivalent rigour
1759 through alternative methods; however additional points should be considered where particular
1760 geotechnical hazards or uncertainties are identified as listed in Section 8.3.2 and which may
1761 be mitigated in design by the collection of additional data. The SI shall be designed,
1762 supervised and reported by an appropriately qualified specialist Geotechnical Engineer. The
1763 SI shall be designed, supervised and reported by appropriately qualified specialist personnel.
1764 The design, supervision and reporting of the SI requires appropriate qualifications.
1765 The results of SI shall be reported within a factual report.
1766 A Geotechnical Interpretive Report (GIR) shall also be produced to provide clear guidance for
1767 defining appropriate soil parameters for calculation of geotechnical capacity, settlement,
1768 stiffness and groundwater conditions at each turbine location and for use in the foundation
– 50 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1769 design. This report should focus on developing a geotechnical model (soil profile) for each
1770 location based on the information presented in the factual report.
1771 Soil chemistry testing is required in order to quantify the chemical aggressiveness of the
1772 surrounding ground conditions to buried elements with respect to concrete mix design and/or
1773 steelwork corrosion rates for foundation solutions.
1774 Any areas of particular geotechnical risk shall be highlighted, and possible methods of
1775 reducing that risk addressed, which may include additional investigation, testing, monitoring
1776 or verification prior to or as part of the construction activities. In this case, the method of
1777 implementation and review shall be clearly documented and included on relevant project
1778 documentation.
1779 Where appropriate, the GIR should present soil parameters in a universally recognised
1780 format, such as undrained shear strength for cohesive soils and internal angle of friction for
1781 granular soils. The geotechnical model should be based on characteristic geotechnical
1782 parameters, selected as a cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of the limit
1783 states under consideration.
1784 The soil parameters shall be used to derive the geotechnical resistance for each limit state. It
1785 is recognised that some soil types are difficult to define in this manner and an alternative
1786 approach of providing minimum characteristic capacity based on knowledge of specific soil
1787 and location may be more appropriate.
1788 Soil stiffness shall be determined as it has a fundamental effect on the behaviour of dynamic
1789 structures such as wind turbines and minimum criteria for lateral, vertical and rotational
1790 stiffness shall be satisfied as part of the geotechnical design. Direct or indirect techniques
1791 such as mechanical in-situ tests, laboratory tests on undisturbed soil samples or geophysical
1792 methods should be used where appropriate. Alternatively, derivation of soil stiffness values
1793 may be justified based on limited testing or empirical correlations if they can be demonstrated
1794 not to govern the design. The soil modulus shall be for a defined load or strain level.
1795 Buoyancy has a fundamental effect on the behaviour of wind turbine foundations, especially
1796 gravity bases. Groundwater conditions shall be appropriately investigated, and should include
1797 ongoing monitoring to quantify seasonal variations when these are considered critical to the
1798 design. Alternatively, maximum groundwater levels may be recommended based on local
1799 knowledge or appropriate literature sources. Care should be taken to differentiate between
1800 hydrostatic groundwater levels and surface or perched water conditions. The potential risk of
1801 artesian water pressure shall also be considered and addressed where relevant. Monitoring
1802 through the use of standpipes or similar should be considered prior to construction and/or
1803 during the life of the foundation where ground water conditions have the potential to be a
1804 design driver.
1805 Foundation design shall take due consideration of the potential buoyancy effects due to the
1806 flow of surface water into the foundation excavation within an impermeable strata. Solutions
1807 may include appropriate passive drainage or clay capping to prevent build-up of water around
1808 the foundation. Any long-term inspection or maintenance requirements shall be included in
1809 the project documentation.
1810 8.3.2 Specific Considerations
1811 8.3.2.1 General
1812 Specific consideration shall be given in the GIR to the following geotechnical parameters, as
1813 appropriate to the project location, and may require additional investigation to provide the
1814 level of information required for appropriate mitigation as part of the design. This is not a fully
1815 inclusive list and the geotechnical investigation shall consider all potential risks based on
1816 local knowledge and experience.
1817 8.3.2.2 Topography and Soil Variability
1818 One or more additional investigation points may be required to address issues such as
1819 variability of soil conditions or strata depth, which are often associated with topographical
1820 features and may require several investigation points within a turbine footprint.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 51 –
1821 The risk of slope instability shall be identified if the combination of soil conditions and steep
1822 topography co-exist, and suitable parameters provided to allow stability analyses to be
1823 performed.
1824 8.3.2.3 Presence of Voids
1825 Any evidence of voids present below the ground surface due to natural processes (e.g. Karst
1826 features) or human activity (e.g. mining) shall be appropriately investigated. Suitable
1827 investigation methods may comprise additional investigation points or geophysical methods to
1828 locate and quantify any geotechnical anomaly.
1829 8.3.2.4 Sensitive Soils
1830 Some regions have specific soil conditions which require special consideration in developing
1831 the foundation design. Soils which are susceptible to swelling or shrinkage, liquefiable or
1832 collapsible soils or quick clay are all examples of soils which shall be identified if present and
1833 the GIR shall include recommendations for their suitability in foundation design. The GIR may
1834 provide recommendations for ground treatment to improve soil properties to meet the
1835 requirements of the foundation performance criteria.
1836 8.3.2.5 Ground-water Conditions
1837 A design value of the ground water level shall be defined and stated in the GIR which should
1838 be determined by measurement. In case of uncertainty regarding long term or seasonal
1839 ground water levels, this may be addressed through the use of cautious assumptions
1840 regarding buoyancy, drainage, and/or long-term monitoring.
1841 Drainage solutions may be provided as a permanent solution to mitigate potential buoyancy
1842 effects during the lifetime of the foundation, but shall include allowance for inspection and
1843 maintenance. Drainage systems shall be defined to prevent blockage with fine material.
1844 Pipes and outfalls shall be constructed with sufficient gradient to maintain free flow.
1845 8.3.2.6 Frost Action
1846 The risk of frost penetration into the ground and associated heave shall be addressed for
1847 projects located in cold climates with significant frost penetration below ground. The site
1848 investigation may include specific testing to identify the frost susceptibility of foundation soils
1849 if appropriate. Such soils may require that foundations be positioned beyond the frost depth,
1850 be over excavated and replaced with non-frost susceptible fill or include insulation placed
1851 over or below the foundation to prevent excessive frost penetration. Construction
1852 methodology shall prevent penetration of frost into susceptible formation soils at any time.
1853 8.3.2.7 Seismic Activity
1854 In seismically active regions, the soils shall be classified in accordance with the local seismic
1855 standards to meet design requirements e.g. identification of liquefaction potential and soil
1856 class.
1857 The seismic parameters shall be defined. This may be from available mapping to allow
1858 vertical and horizontal ground acceleration coefficients and damping response spectra to be
1859 determined and used in the turbine model for calculating combined wind and seismic loads by
1860 the turbine manufacturer in accordance with IEC 61400-1 or -2 including the additional
1861 guidance with respect to calculating seismic loads on foundations.
1862 8.3.2.8 Construction Methodology
1863 The applicability of methods of excavation, pile/ground anchor installation, ground treatment,
1864 storage of spoil and reuse of soil and rock material shall be addressed and recommendations
1865 made as appropriate.
1866 In particular, recommended parameters relating to compaction of excavated material for
1867 foundation support or backfill shall be provided.
1868 8.4 Supervision, Monitoring and Maintenance of Construction
1869 The soil and ground water parameters adopted in design shall be verified during construction
1870 using appropriate inspection and testing methods. This should consist of a documented
1871 verification of the native soil, which may be supplemented by testing to verify bearing capacity
1872 and stiffness. Suitable methods include proof rolling, static or dynamic cone penetrometer
1873 tests, plate loading tests or other methods which provide confidence in the as-constructed
– 52 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1874 conditions. In case of rock subgrades, the rock quality shall be verified considering any
1875 fissures and joints if the design is sensitive to these parameters. The inspection and testing
1876 shall be performed by appropriately qualified and/or experienced personnel, but shall be
1877 validated by a Geotechnical Engineer.
1878 Appropriate testing and inspection of placed earthworks shall also be provided such that
1879 adequate compaction criteria required for bearing capacity or self-weight are satisfied.
1880 Any additional test or inspection requirements relating to risks identified in the GIR shall be
1881 clearly identified and implemented during foundation construction.
1882 8.5 Gravity Base Foundations
1883 8.5.1 General
1884 Gravity base foundations consist of a shallow base slab which derives its geotechnical
1885 resistance through equilibrium and bearing capacity of the founding soil. Where the native
1886 founding soil is not capable of providing the capacity or stiffness criteria required, suitable
1887 treatment to enhance its properties may be considered.
1888 The structural resistance of the foundation shall follow the principles presented in Sections 6
1889 and 7.
1890 8.5.2 Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
1891 8.5.2.1 General
1892 Verification of the geotechnical stability under ULS shall include:
1893 (1) equilibrium (overturning)
1894 (2) soil bearing capacity and sliding
1895 Gravity base foundations are not normally considered as specialist geotechnical structures
1896 and are designed following structural codes as presented in Section7. The structural limit
1897 states of such foundations are not considered further in this geotechnical section.
1898 Gravity base foundations are sensitive to the effects of buoyancy due to the presence of
1899 ground water. The potential effect of buoyancy shall be included by applying buoyancy loads
1900 as an additional overturning moment, or by applying a reduced effective weight of backfill in
1901 calculating the stabilising moment. In both cases, the design value for buoyancy effects due
1902 to groundwater level may be derived by either applying partial safety factor on load to
1903 characteristic water pressure, or by applying a safety margin to the characteristic water level
1904 to represent the most unfavourable credible condition that could occur during the lifetime of
1905 the structure.
1906 Minimum acceptable partial safety factor on material (resistance) are given for each limit
1907 state. The appropriate partial safety factor shall be selected to be applied to soil parameters
1908 or design resistance in accordance with the Reference Standard.
1909 8.5.2.2 Equilibrium
1910 Stabilising forces shall take account of the wind turbine vertical load, the foundation and soil
1911 backfill weight, including buoyancy effects in the event of potentially high ground water levels.
1912 The unfavourable effects of less dense topsoil and surface slope shall be calculated or
1913 simplified to provide a conservative result. Design backfill density shall be achievable by
1914 recompacting excavated soils if used and suitable testing should be specified to verify the as-
1915 placed density. The beneficial effect of soil shearing and passive soil pressures around the
1916 edge of the base may be included if they can be well quantified.
1917 For the purposes of geotechnical design, the footing may be considered as a rigid body and
1918 the overturning moment and stabilizing moment shall be calculated and checked around the
1919 edge of the foundation.
1920 Safety against overturning:
𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑,𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
≥ 𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑,𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜
𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 53 –
1921 Where: M d,overturning = Design value of destabilizing moment from wind load and other
1922 loads including the effect of horizontal and torsion loads, and including
1923 unfavourable partial safety factors for load
1924 M d,stabilizing = Design value of stabilizing moment from gravity load and backfill
1925 including favourable partial safety factor on resistance.
1926 The effect of buoyancy, if applicable, may be applied in the form of an uplift force contributing
1927 to the destabilising moment or a reduction in effective density from gravity loads resulting in a
1928 reduction stabilising moment. In both cases, the appropriate partial factor shall be applied
1929 directly to the load or to the effect of the load in a consistent manner.
1930 Static equilibrium rarely governs geotechnical design of gravity base footings, except when
1931 bearing on rock. If the overturning assessment demonstrates the foundation is close to
1932 equilibrium (M d,stabilizing / M d,overturning <1.1), its sensitivity to the location of the point of rotation
1933 of the foundation shall be assessed, and additional detailed analysis may be required.
1934 Minimum values for γ are given in Table 4:
Rd
Partial safety factor on
resistance
γ Rd
Soil material 1.1

Rock 1.0
1935 Table 4 – Minimum partial safety factors on for the equilibrium limit state
1936 8.5.2.3 Bearing Resistance

1937 Soil capacity shall be verified for bearing and sliding failure modes.
1938 The ultimate bearing capacity of the soil formation below the foundation shall be calculated
1939 from the geotechnical data presented in the GIR. Where the foundation is bearing directly
1940 onto fresh or slightly weathered bedrock, bearing capacity is not normally critical to the design
1941 and a reasonable conservative value may be adopted based on values obtained from
1942 literature and recommended in the GIR. Recommended bearing capacity shall take specific
1943 account of the effect of repeated loading, and any expected degradation of ultimate bearing
1944 capacity over the life of the foundation shall be addressed where relevant.
1945 The bearing capacity of soils subjected to freezing and thawing cycles shall be specifically
1946 addressed if frost penetration is expected to reach the foundation level, accounting for the
1947 higher thermal conductivity of concrete. Replacement of susceptible soils or the use of
1948 insulation may be considered to address this issue.
1949 The bearing capacity of non-bedrock formation soils shall be determined with reference to
1950 specific in-situ or laboratory soil tests performed as part of the geotechnical site investigation.
1951 It is preferable to evaluate bearing capacity using characteristic soil properties such as
1952 undrained shear strength or angle of internal friction with application of appropriate partial
1953 safety factor on material. The recommended bearing capacity shall take account of the
1954 effects of load inclination, foundation shape, depth (including the effect of sloping ground) and
1955 groundwater conditions. The effect of variations in soil properties within the zone of influence
1956 (rupture zone), either beneath or to the side of the foundation shall be considered in the
1957 calculation of bearing capacity.
1958 Wind turbine foundations are subject to highly eccentric loading and due account shall be
1959 taken of potential alternative failure planes such as reverse wedge failure that may become
1960 critical when the eccentricity becomes significant, that is, greater than 0.3 times the
1961 foundation width (e>0.3B)
1962 Where:
𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑,𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜
𝑒𝑒 =
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
– 54 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
1963 Projects designed for construction in seismically active regions shall include additional checks
1964 in accordance with appropriate local and national standards. Such checks may include
1965 definition of soil class and liquefaction potential as it affects bearing capacity.
1966 The calculated vertical bearing pressure shall take account of the turbine vertical load, the
1967 foundation and soil backfill weight, accounting for buoyancy effects in the event of potentially
1968 high ground water levels as described in Section 8.5.2.1. The effect of horizontal and torsion
1969 loads from the turbine shall be included in the calculation of bearing pressure and capacity.
1970 This load shall be applied over an area calculated by taking into account the eccentricity of
1971 the overturning load.
1972 Ground rupture shall be verified in the load case:
𝑞𝑞𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = < 𝑞𝑞𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝐴𝐴′
1973 q Ed = plastic (uniform) ground pressure based on eccentricity calculation
1974 F zd = design value of vertical force acting on the soil formation, accounting for
1975 wind turbine, foundation and backfill weight including unfavourable partial safety
1976 factor for load
1977 A’ = effective foundation area around the line of action of the resultant force for
1978 F zd .
1979 q Rd = design values of bearing capacity of soil in ultimate limit state, including
1980 appropriate partial safety factor for material (resistance).
1981
1982 q RD shall incorporate an adequate partial safety factor on material (resistance) of not less than
1983 the values given in Table 5:
1984 The method used shall be consistent with Reference Standard for the region for which the
1985 design is being applied. Method 1 shall be used where the partial safety factor is applied to
1986 the material properties. Method 2 shall be used where the partial safety factor is applied to
1987 effects of the material properties i.e., to the resulting resistance. The difference in applied
1988 partial safety factors accounts for the non-linearity of the material parameters in the bearing
1989 capacity calculation, particularly for granular soils.
1990
Geotechnical parameter Partial safety factor on Partial safety factor on

material – resistance –
Method 1 Method 2
Angle of internal friction, 1.25 1.0
tanφ‘ for granular soils
Undrained shear strength, c u 1.4 1.0
for cohesive soils
Bearing resistance, q Rk based 1.0 2.0
on ultimate bearing capacity
1991
1992 Table 5 – Minimum partial safety factors on material and resistance for the bearing
1993 resistance limit state
1994 8.5.2.4 Sliding Resistance

1995 Sliding capacity shall be checked to ensure adequate resistance to horizontal loads.
1996 The presence of any potentially weak, thin soil bands below the foundation shall be taken into
1997 account in assessing sliding capacity. Buoyancy effects shall be taken into account in the
1998 event of potentially high ground water levels as described in Section 8.5.2.1.
1999 The beneficial effect of passive soil pressures against the foundation sides may be included if
2000 they can be well quantified.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 55 –
2001 Sliding shall be evaluated in the load case:

𝐻𝐻𝑑𝑑
𝜏𝜏𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = < 𝜏𝜏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝐴𝐴′
2002 τ Ed = Design values of shear stress acting at the soil/structure interface
2003 H d = horizontal force acting on the soil formation including unfavourable partial
2004 safety factor on load
2005 A’ = effective foundation area around the line of action of the resultant force for
2006 F zd .
2007 τ Rd = Design values of sliding stress of soil in ultimate limit state, including
2008 appropriate partial safety factor on material and/or resistance.
2009 Design values of sliding stress of soil, τ RD, shall incorporate an adequate partial safety factors
2010 on material and/or resistance of not less than the values given in Table 6:
2012 design is being applied as presented in Section 8.5.2.3.
2013

materials – resistance –
Method 1 Method 2
for cohesive soils
2014
2015 Table 6 – Minimum partial safety factors on material and resistance for the sliding
2016 resistance limit state
2017 8.5.2.5 Overall (Slope) Stability

2018 If the foundation is situated near to a change in topography e.g. on an embankment, next to a
2019 retained structure or slope then the total geotechnical safety (overall stability) shall be
2020 evaluated by slope analyses or similar analyses.
2021 Potential limit states resulting in loss of stability shall be assessed using accepted
2022 geotechnical principles. The resistance provided by the soil and relevant structural
2023 components shall be calculated to ensure they exceed the applied actions.
2024 The stability assessment shall include the effect of any anticipated changes through the
2025 design life of the foundation which can reasonably be anticipated, including maintenance,
2026 vegetation growth, climatic conditions and groundwater variations.
2027 Overall stability shall be evaluated in the load case:
2028
𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑑 < 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑

2029
2030 F d = Design value of destabilising action including unfavourable partial safety

2031 factor on load
2032 R d = Design value of stabilising action comprising gravity and soil resistance
2033 including unfavourable partial safety factor on load.
2034 R D shall incorporate an adequate partial safety factor on material and/or resistance of not less
2035 than the values given in Table 7:
– 56 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2037 design is being applied as presented in Section 8.5.2.3.
2038

material - resistance -
Method 1 Method 2
for cohesive soils
2039
2040 Table 7 – Minimum partial safety factors on material and resistance for the overall
2041 stability limit state
2042 Since the soil mass within a slope can act as a stabilising or destabilising force, it is not
2043 necessary to apply a partial safety factor on load to the soil density or self-weight gravity load.
2044 The partial safety factors given in Table 7 provide adequate safety in this case.
2045 Buoyancy effects shall be taken into account in the event of potentially high ground water
2046 levels as described in Section 8.5.2.1.
2047 8.5.3 Serviceability Limit State (SLS)
2048 8.5.3.1 Long term behaviour
2049 Verification of the geotechnical behaviour under SLS shall be performed to ensure that the
2050 foundation satisfies the serviceability criteria over the life of the wind turbine. Serviceability
2051 criteria include:
2052 1. Compliance with the dynamic and (if specified) static rotational and lateral stiffness
2053 specified by the turbine manufacturer as the basis for the loads calculations;
2054 2. Control of maximum inclination and settlement of the foundation over the life of the
2055 foundation;
2056 3. Prevention of degradation of the soil bearing capacity or stiffness due to repeated or
2057 cyclic loading e.g. accumulated generation of pore water pressures, hysteresis, creep,
2058 liquefaction or other degradation mechanism which can ultimately lead to ULS failure.
2059 8.5.3.2 Foundation Stiffness
2060 The foundation system shall meet the required stiffness criteria as defined in section 5.
2061 Dynamic foundation stiffness shall be verified based on small-strain soil modulus. The
2062 foundation stiffness is a function of contact area, and this shall be calculated for the S3 load
2063 level and any reduction from full contact shall be accounted in the stiffness calculation.
2064 Static foundation stiffness, if specified by the turbine manufacturer, shall be verified based on
2065 a soil modulus which makes allowance for the reduction of small strain shear stiffness as a
2066 function of actual soil strain at S1 Load level. This reduction depends on the soil
2067 characteristics and degree to which soil strength has been mobilized. The foundation stiffness
2068 shall be calculated for the S1 load level including any reduction from full contact area.
2069 Guidance on the selection of appropriate soil modulus and foundation stiffness is presented in
2070 Annex L Guidance on selection of soil modulus and foundation rotational stiffness.
2071 8.5.3.3 Inclination and Settlement
2072 Foundation displacement due to long term settlement shall be calculated to quantify maximum
2073 inclination (rotation due to differential settlement) and absolute settlement over the design life
2074 of the foundation.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 57 –
2075 The foundation shall not exceed maximum inclination criteria on which the turbine loads are
2076 calculated due to out-of-vertical of the tower. Maximum allowable foundation inclination
2077 should be specified by the turbine manufacturer in addition to any allowance for construction
2078 tolerances. In the absence of specific criteria specified by the turbine manufacturer, a value
2079 of rotation of the tower base 3mm/m (0.17 degrees) may be assumed due to differential
2080 settlement.
2081 The foundation shall be limited to a maximum absolute settlement criteria (average across the
2082 foundation), which is consistent with its serviceability requirements. Settlement limits may be
2083 governed by soil strain limits, ductility of the electrical ducts where they exit the foundation, or
2084 other criteria determined by the design team. In the absence of specific criteria imposed by
2085 the design team, a value of 25mm may be assumed for allowable total settlement.
2086 The calculation of inclination and absolute settlement shall be performed using S3 load level
2087 and static stiffness applied over the design life of the system.
2088 Where the foundation is sited on non-uniform soil conditions, the potential for differential
2089 settlement shall be checked. Significant differences in soil or rock type may be mitigated by
2090 replacement or the incorporation of an attenuation layer e.g. layer of compacted structural fill.
2091 This is particularly significant for foundations located partially on fresh bedrock and the risk of
2092 any hard points shall be addressed in a similar manner.
2093 8.5.3.4 Soil degradation under cyclic loading
2094 Potential soil sensitivity to repetitive or cyclic loads shall be identified in the GIR. The risk of
2095 progressive or sudden degradation of the soil capacity or stiffness shall be evaluated as part
2096 of the foundation design. This risk may be addressed by fulfilling a zero ground gap criterion
2097 or by other mitigation measures outlined in this section.
2098 A zero ground gap criterion can be fulfilled by proportioning the base to remain in full contact
2099 with the soil, under the S3 load level with partial safety factors for load of 1.0.
2100 Alternative mitigation measures include limiting bearing pressures to acceptable values as
2101 recommended in the GIR or by replacement of sensitive soils.
2102 If it can be demonstrated that the conditions below are satisfied, then it is permissible that the
2103 resulting foundation design is subject to gapping between the foundation and underlying soil
2104 formation at the S3 load level.
2105 (1) The foundation geometry is not controlled by rotational stiffness requirements or, in
2106 cases where it is, the soil modulus has been accurately determined based on in-situ
2107 measurement of shear modulus e.g. CPT or shear wave velocity measurements;
2108 (2) the foundation stiffness calculation specifically accounts for any loss of contact area;
2109 (3) compliance with foundation inclination and settlement criteria are not sensitive to loss
2110 of contact area;
2111 (4) the absence of high or variable ground water conditions with the potential to lead to
2112 high pore water pressure or erosion of the soil under the foundation during prolonged
2113 cyclic loading;
2114 (5) cyclic loading is not expected to lead to a significant reduction of soil modulus such
2115 that it governs the foundation geometry; and,
2116 (6) the soil is identified as not susceptible to degradation of strength under repeated
2117 cyclic loading at the load levels being applied such that it governs the foundation
2118 geometry
2119 8.6 Piled foundations
2120 8.6.1 General
2121 Piled foundations consist of a pilecap connected to one or several pile shafts which derive
2122 their geotechnical resistance through a combination of shaft friction, end bearing and lateral
2123 passive resistance.
2124 The structural resistance of the pilecap and piles shall follow the principles presented in
2125 Sections 6 and 7. If required by the design process, the interface between the pilecap and pile
2126 shall be clearly documented, especially where one design element is sensitive to the
– 58 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2127 properties of the other e.g. load transfer and rotational stiffness, this shall be clearly
2128 communicated in the design documentation.
2129 8.6.2 Pile Loads
2130 A global stability assessment shall be performed to determine characteristic axial pile loads
2131 for the extreme load cases presented in Section 5.4 based on the geometric arrangement. It
2132 may normally be assumed that the pilecap behaves as a rigid structure for the calculation of
2133 pile loads. The loads shall take account of permanent actions due to self-weight of the
2134 turbine, tower, pilecap foundation and any soil backfill, and a superposed variable push-pull
2135 action derived from wind loading. No capacity should normally be derived from bearing
2136 pressures on the underside of the pilecap.
2137 Analyses shall be performed for moments applied about all axes of symmetry to ensure that
2138 the worst case orientation is considered.
2139 Design horizontal pile loads shall be calculated by distributing the total load into the piles,
2140 taking account of any torsional loads about the vertical axis. Depending on whether piles are
2141 designed as vertical or inclined, horizontal loads are not always equal in all piles under any
2142 particular loading direction.
2143 Design pile loads shall be derived by applying appropriate partial safety factors on load as
2144 defined in Section 5.
2145 The effect of ground water shall be taken into consideration, including the potential variation
2146 across the site and maximum/minimum levels through the design life of the project.
2147 8.6.3 Ultimate Limit State
2148 8.6.3.1 Pile Geotechnical Capacity
2149 Ultimate vertical and horizontal pile capacity shall be derived using total or effective stress
2150 approaches based on established analysis methods taking account of soil conditions, pile
2151 type and installation method. Pile capacity shall be calculated to incorporate appropriate
2152 partial safety factor on resistance and as required by local and national standards and in a
2153 manner consistent with the geotechnical and load testing applied. Full scale static or dynamic
2154 load testing of piles, either in advance of or during the main works may be used to validate
2155 the pile design and allow reduced partial safety factors on resistance if allowed in the local
2156 standards.
2157 Axial pile capacity shall be based on shaft friction and end bearing. The effect of negative
2158 skin friction shall be included as an additional permanent load for soft soils which
2159 demonstrate a risk of ongoing long term settlement.
2160 Lateral capacity shall be based on passive soil capacity. The beneficial effect of a moment
2161 connection at the interface of the pilecap and pile head may be included subject to adequate
2162 structural connection details. Passive soil resistance acting on the pile cap may be
2163 considered where ground conditions allow.
2164 The axial and lateral capacities shall take account of the pile installation method and its effect
2165 on the pile/soil interface behaviour.
2166 The axial and lateral capacity of the piles may be considered to be independent if the pile is
2167 sufficiently long to provide resistance to axial and lateral forces in different sections of the
2168 pile. Short piles or piles with high shaft friction near the pilehead may require additional
2169 assessment to address any interaction effects.
2170 The effect of pile spacing shall be included in the analysis, and may become important if
2171 spacing is less than 3 to 5 pile diameters.
2172 8.6.3.2 Pile Structural Capacity
2173 The structural capacity of the pile should be determined by the specialist pile designer to
2174 account for the combination of compression, tension and lateral loads. The principles
2175 provided in Section 6 and 7 for steel and reinforced concrete shall be applied to the structural
2176 design of piles. The pile structural design shall include for ultimate, serviceability and fatigue
2177 limit states.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 59 –
2178 The effects of pile driving during installation shall be included in the structural verification
2179 such that maximum stresses include a reduction factor and fatigue analysis including the
2180 installation stresses.
2181 Particular attention shall be given to the interface connection details between the piles and
2182 the pilecap to ensure full transmission of loads under all limit states. In cases of tension piles,
2183 an adequate load path between the tensile face of the pile cap and the pile structure shall be
2184 provided.
2185 Pile head bending moments shall be assessed for fatigue damage using elastic theory. Pile
2186 head bending moments shall be assessed for ultimate limit state unless the design can
2187 accommodate plastic hinges at pile heads and pile head moment is not required to be
2188 developed.
2189 In case of any welded parts in the pile design (including tack welds used as a reinforcement
2190 cage construction aid), the fatigue assessment of the pile structure shall consider the reduced
2191 SN properties of the welded component as described in Section 7.
2192 8.6.4 Serviceability Limit State
2193 The design shall include specific consideration to ensure that the piled foundation satisfies
2194 the serviceability criteria over the life of the wind turbine. The serviceability criteria include:
2195 (1) Compliance with the static and (if specified) dynamic rotational and lateral stiffness
2196 specified by the turbine manufacturer as the basis for the loads calculations;
2197 (2) Control of maximum inclination and settlement of the foundation over the life of the
2198 foundation;
2199 (3) Prevention of degradation of the soil bearing capacity or stiffness due to repeated or
2200 cyclic loading e.g. accumulated generation of pore water pressures, hysteresis, creep,
2201 liquefaction or other degradation mechanism.
2203 The foundation system shall meet the required rotational and lateral stiffness as defined in the
2204 wind turbine interface document under serviceability loads.
2205 The analysis may consist of equivalent springs applied to the underside of the pilecap at the
2206 pile positions, or may be calculated based on standard solutions taking into account the pile
2207 deflection as a function of soil stiffness.
2208 Dynamic foundation stiffness shall be verified based on small-strain soil modulus. The
2209 foundation stiffness is a function of the relative pile and soil modulus at the S3 load level.
2210 The soil stiffness shall take account of potential reduced values if the piles experience load
2211 reversals (tension to compression) over this load range.
2212 Static foundation stiffness, if specified by the turbine manufacturer, shall be verified based on
2213 a soil modulus which makes allowance for the reduction of small strain shear stiffness as a
2214 function of actual soil strain under S1 load level. This reduction depends on the soil
2215 characteristics and degree to which soil strength has been mobilized.
2216 8.6.4.2 Pile Deflection
2217 Pilehead deflection shall be calculated to quantify maximum inclination (rotation) and absolute
2218 settlement of the foundation, using the same criteria as presented in Section 8.5.3.3.
2219 The pile flexibility and deflection required to mobilize shaft friction, end bearing and passive
2220 resistance shall be accounted in the deflection analysis. Potential pile group effects on the
2221 development of resistance with displacement shall be taken into account.
2222 8.6.4.3 Soil degradation under cyclic loading
2223 The risk of progressive or sudden degradation of the pile capacity or stiffness shall be
2224 evaluated as part of the pile design.
2225 Soil sensitivity to repetitive or cyclic loads shall be identified and mitigation provided based on
2226 the recommendations of the GIR. Suitable mitigation may be obtained by limiting the
2227 mobilised shaft friction and end bearing stress to a low proportion of the pile capacity, or by
2228 limiting or eliminating pile tension at the S3 load level.
– 60 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2229 8.7 Rock Anchored Foundations

2230 8.7.1 General
2231 Rock anchored foundations consist of a foundation connected to several post-tensioned rock
2232 anchors. This foundation derives its geotechnical resistance through bearing onto the rock
2233 surface.
2234 Rock anchors are pre-stressed and maintain equilibrium of the foundation. The pre-stressing
2235 force from the rock anchors should be treated as an external force. Partial safety factors for
2236 load shall be applied on the pre-stressing force together with losses according to Section
2237 8.7.6.
2238 The structural resistance of the foundation and anchors shall follow the principles presented
2239 in Sections 6 and 7. It is normal that the design responsibility is split between different
2240 designers as rock anchors are a specialist design element. If the design is split in this way,
2241 responsibilities for discharging the requirements of this code shall be clearly communicated
2242 and recorded. Where one design element is sensitive to the properties of the other e.g. load
2243 transfer and rotational stiffness, this shall be clearly communicated in the design
2244 documentation.
2245 8.7.2 Types of Rock Anchor Foundation
2246 This section considers two types of rock anchor foundation:
2247 (1) Conventional reinforced concrete anchor cap - reinforced concrete cap anchored into
2248 the bedrock. The anchor head is shall be protected by a protective cap if it is
2249 positioned on top of the footing.
2250 (2) Steel Rock adapter - transition section connecting the tower to the under lying
2251 concrete and rock. The tower is connected to the transition section by short bolts and
2252 the rock anchors connect the transition section to the rock.
2253 Examples of these types of rock anchor foundations are given in Figure 7.
2254
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 61 –
2255
2256
2257
2258 Figure 7 – Examples of rock anchored foundations
2259 Rock anchors may consist of post-tensioned multi strand tendons or threaded bars. The post
2260 tension system should have an approval or product certification according to local standards
2261 for post tensional systems.
2262 8.7.3 Geotechnical data
2263 The geotechnical data for the rock shall be investigated in accordance with Section 8.3.
2264 Geotechnical Site Investigation (SI) shall include drilling of boreholes to verify the quality of
2265 the rock and determine the anchoring zone. Core drilling is recommended to be conducted at
2266 some sites to verify the quality of the rock and investigate the potential presence of fissures,
2267 crack zones and ground water. The bore holes shall be drilled to at least the same depth as
2268 the proposed length of the anchors.
2269 The geotechnical site investigation, inspection data and quality of the rock shall be evaluated
2270 and compiled in a GIR as described in Section 8.3. The report shall evaluate and state the
2271 maximum allowable ground pressure in ultimate limit state and the modulus of elasticity of the
2272 rock.
– 62 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2273 An inspection of the rock at the foundation area and surrounding area shall be conducted
2274 during the foundation construction works when the rock surface is cleaned from natural soil.
2275 This inspection shall validate the conditions reported in the GIR and used in the design before
2276 and after any blasting operations and that all compressible material is removed.
2277 8.7.4 Corrosion protection
2278 The rock anchors shall be designed as permanent rock anchors, normally containing of a
2279 double corrosion protection system. Examples of allowable systems are given in Annex M
2280 Guidance for rock anchored foundation design. Galvanised protection systems shall not be
2281 allowed.
2282 Special measures shall be adopted to protect the tendons or bars below the anchor plate
2283 (bearing plate) on top of the foundation to prevent water ingress and corrosion of the anchor.
2284 This may be achieved by a steel trumpet placed at the bottom of the anchor plate together
2285 with rubber seals and corrosion protection compound. Normally the anchor plate should be
2286 galvanized as shown in Annex M.
2287 A protection cap filled with corrosion protection compound shall protect the anchor head on
2288 top of the anchor plate. The anchor head should allow access for inspection throughout its
2289 design life.
2290 8.7.5 Anchor inspection and maintenance
2291 The designer shall ensure that the rock anchor post tension force can be checked through the
2292 design life and also that any post tension losses can be corrected if necessary.
2293 The designer shall specify the inspection and maintenance requirements of the rock anchor
2294 system through its design life.
2295 8.7.6 Post Tension Tolerances and Losses
2296 Post tension execution tolerances shall be taken into account as a percentage tolerance
2297 and/or partial safety factors on load according to local requirements.
2298 Losses of post tension shall be taken into account in all limit states to account for:
2299 (1) Immediate losses (slip of wedges and elastic losses)
2300 (2) Time dependent losses due to concrete and rock mass creep, concrete shrinkage and
2301 tendon relaxation
2302 Unless a value is determined by calculation, normal losses of 20% due to relaxation, creep
2303 and shrinkage shall be assumed.
2304 The design value of post tension force used in the calculations shall account for positive or
2305 negative tolerances and the presence or absence of losses, depending on whether they
2306 favourable or unfavourable for the limit state being considered.
2307 8.7.7 Ultimate Limit State
2308 8.7.7.1 Overturning
2309 Overturning shall be assessed as presented in Section 8.5.2.2 including the effect of the
2310 anchor holding down force.
2311 8.7.7.2 Ground Rupture - Rock bearing capacity
2312 The vertical bearing capacity shall be verified.
𝑞𝑞𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = < 𝑞𝑞𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 , 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 8.5.2.3
𝐴𝐴′
2313 q Ed design value of plastic ground pressure as an uniform load
2314 q Rd design value of bearing capacity of the rock mass as a uniform load
2315 including the effect of fissures or other discontinuity and including
2316 appropriate partial material and/or resistance factors.
2317
2318 F zd design value of vertical force

2319 A’ effective foundation area around the centre of gravity for F zd .
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 63 –
2320 The bearing capacity of the rock is influenced of the local geometry of the rock and the
2321 magnitude of F zd .
2322 The local maximum elastic ground pressure shall also be verified.
2323 q Ed, elastic < q Rd, local
2324 q Ed, elastic = design value of elastic ground pressure
2325 q Rd, local = design value of maximum bearing capacity on a local area of the rock (unconfined
2326 compressive strength value)
2327 8.7.7.3 Sliding
2328 Sliding shall not occur between the rock, levelling concrete and the foundation, taking into
2329 account the beneficial effect of the rock anchor tension force.
2330 8.7.8 Serviceability Limit State
2332 See Section 8.5.3, although in practice rock anchor foundations are significantly stiffer than
2333 other types and this criterion is not normally a design driver.
2334 8.7.8.2 Inclination and Settlement
2335 Settlements are not normally a design driver on solid rock and do not require a specific check.
2336 8.7.8.3 No Gapping
2337 If the anchor cap is modelled as a rigid body, zero ground gapping shall occur at the S3 load
2338 level including the effect of the anchor holding down force. If the ground pressure is modelled
2339 by vertical springs to represent the contact with the rock then the following items shall be
2340 satisfied:
2341 (1) Contact pressure around the whole perimeter of the foundation to prevent water
2342 ingress for corrosion protection
2343 (2) Contact pressure at the rock anchor and 0.1 meter from the outer edge of the anchor
2344 ensure load sharing between anchor and cap to improve fatigue resistance
2345 This verification shall ensure the corrosion protection of the anchors.
2346 For rock adapter type foundations, the transition section shall be in contact with concrete over
2347 the whole area under S1 load level, with no loss of pressure over the perimeter or no gapping
2348 (decompression). This requirement is important to secure the rotational stiffness of the tower
2349 and fatigue resistance of the anchors.
2350 8.7.9 Robustness Check
2351 A robustness check of the foundation shall be performed to allow for anchor failure. In this
2352 load case, a minimum of one rock anchor or 10% of all rock anchors (whichever is greater)
2353 shall be assumed to have lost their preload. The structure shall remain stable with the
2354 remaining rock anchors, to be verified for the S1 Load level.
2355 The design of the foundation shall have a redundancy plan in case an anchor fails during
2356 construction.
2357 8.7.10 Rock Anchor Design
2358 Rock anchors shall be designed according to local standards and building codes. At the S1
2359 load level, no rock anchor yielding is permissible.
2360 Testing, supervision and monitoring of rock anchor installation shall be conducted.
2361 During drilling of holes, the rock quality shall be logged in a drilling report and any findings
2362 which invalidate the design assumptions shall be addressed.
2363 Drill holes should be hydraulic tested with falling head water test to ensure that the hole is
2364 “closed”.
2365 During prestressing of rock anchors, the foundation shall be monitored to verify that there are
2366 no settlements.
– 64 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2367 The tendon or bar shall have an upper free length from the stressing point and down to the
2368 bonded zone. Over the free length the tendon or bar is free to strain separately to the
2369 surrounding grout and rock. The free length at the top of the anchor is very important to
2370 secure the proper action of the anchor.
2371 The free length of the rock anchor ensures:
2372 - Robustness (no brittle (fragile) failure mode)
2373 - Low stress variations in the fatigue load case
2374 - Minimize losses due to slip of wedges
2375 The required fixed anchor length (L fixed ), also known as bond length (L bond ), over which the
2376 load is transmitted to the surrounding rock shall be verified.
𝛾𝛾𝐹𝐹 ∗ 𝑃𝑃
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙−𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜
𝐿𝐿𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 =
𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ∗ 𝜋𝜋 ∗ 𝜃𝜃
2377 Where:
2378 L anchor = L free + L fixed
2379 P lock-off = Lock off load for rock anchor
2380 f bd = design value of bond strength between rock and cement grout
2381 θ = diameter of bore hole
2382
2383 For good quality rock, the bond strength could be calculated with this formula:
0.1 ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑓𝑓𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 =
𝛾𝛾𝑀𝑀3
2384 with γ M3 = 3
2385
2386 8.7.10.1 Fatigue of rock anchors

2387 A fatigue assessment shall be performed for all rock anchors.
2388 No additional detailed fatigue analysis is required if the stress range in pre-stressing steel of
2389 multi strands is lower than ∆σ d, fatigue, strands < 100 MPa.
2390 Fatigue of threaded bars shall be verified in accordance with the requirements of Section
2391 6.7.3.
2392 8.7.10.2 Geotechnical bearing capacity of rock anchors
2393 The geotechnical bearing capacity of the rock anchors shall be verified and the global effect
2394 of spacing of the anchors shall be included.
2395 R d = design resistance regarding to geotechnical bearing capacity
𝑅𝑅𝑘𝑘
𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙−𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 < 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 =
𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅
2396 with γ R = 1,35
2397 R k is the weight of the mobilised rock volume, normally an inverted cone with a bottom angle
2398 of 60 degrees to the horizontal, starting at the bottom of the rock anchor.
2399 8.7.10.3 Length of rock anchors
2400 The total length of the rock anchor is governed by either:
2401 • Geotechnical bearing capacity and thickness of foundation, illustrated as H 2 in Figure
2402 8.
2403 • Free and fixed anchor length according to previous chapter, illustrated as L FREE and
2404 L FIXED in Figure 8.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 65 –
2405
2406 Figure 8 – Illustration of rock anchor length

– 66 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2407 9 Operation, Service and Maintenance Requirements

2408 9.1 Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring
2409 The elements of operation, maintenance and monitoring programs are assembled using
2410 proprietary technical information specified in wind turbine generator documents, commercial
2411 contract and warranty terms, engineering documents, industry guidelines and their own
2412 requirements. Structural maintenance that is necessary for continued safe operation and/or
2413 design structural performance of the plant shall be specified in engineering drawings and/or
2414 specifications and shall be integrated in the operation documentation of the wind. Such
2415 anticipated mandatory maintenance that is part of the design intent includes bolt tension
2416 maintenance in steel flange bolt connections and anchorage bolt cage connections. Other
2417 structural maintenance may become necessary following observation of defects in structural
2418 elements; i.e., structural concrete cracks, excessive anchor bolt or steel tower corrosion and
2419 concrete surface defects that could be indicative of serious underlying issues.
2420 Generally, preventive and proactive maintenance is accepted to be more effective than costly
2421 reactive repairs and their associated downtime. Periodic inspections are an important
2422 component of a preventive maintenance program. However, the effectiveness of such a
2423 program can be improved significantly through structural health monitoring. Even though
2424 these preventive measures are strongly encouraged, the extent and nature of their adoption
2425 remain defined by contract terms and owner choices.
2426 9.2 Periodic Structural Inspections
2427 Typically, a fairly thorough accounting of the state of structural components is obtained as
2428 part of the commissioning exercise and the project QA/QC documentation. While this
2429 accounting is made necessary by the acceptance of works process, periodic inspections are
2430 recommended as part of a preventive maintenance program. At a minimum, structural
2431 inspections should include:
2432 • Concrete cracking and concrete surface defects
2433 • State of joints (open/closed, cracked mortar or grouts, etc.)
2434 • Any detectable tower tilt
2435 • Any signs of distress of tower, foundation or soils around the installation
2436 9.3 Embedded Steel Form Inspections
2437 Towers connected to foundations using embedded steel forms require special periodic
2438 monitoring to verify the condition of the joint between the steel and the concrete and to look
2439 for signs of distress. The joint shall be maintained in a watertight condition and any cracks in
2440 the concrete around the metal form shall be sealed.
2441 9.4 Bolt Tension Maintenance
2442 In the case of the bolt cage anchorage or steel flange bolt connections, fatigue life of the
2443 anchorage components is dependent on the bolts remaining in tension. Anchor bolt pre-
2444 tension shall be maintained and the bolt tension maintenance program shall be specified on
2445 the structural drawings and/or specifications. If different sections of a steel or concrete tower
2446 are bolted together and the tower performance is dependent on bolt tension, an appropriate
2447 bolt tension maintenance/verification program shall be specified as part of the tower design.
2448 Bolt tensioning shall be carried out using certified calibrated equipment. The bolt tension
2449 maintenance program shall be tailored in terms of frequency and number of bolts to be
2450 checked. A combination of tensioning, pinging and other non-destructive methods can be
2451 adopted to provide a measure of checking all bolts.
2452 9.5 Structural Health Monitoring
2453 Structural health monitoring allows real time tracking of any number of parameters that are
2454 correlated with the state of health of the structure and/or its foundation. These indicators are
2455 used to detect changes to that state of health and to predict approaching states of distress or
2456 failures. This knowledge allows operators to take preventive measures to keep the plant
2457 operating at low stress levels, thereby extending the life of components, and to prevent
2458 failures. Common sensors include accelerometers, velocity meters, load cells, tilt meters and
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 67 –
2459 strain gauges. Accelerometers are particularly useful to measure the dynamic response and
2460 to detect changes in natural frequencies which are indicative of changes in the structure.
– 68 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2461 Annex A
2462 List of suitable design codes in regards to the calculation basis
2463 (Informative)
2464 A.1 General

2465 In this annex different local series of design codes that fulfil the requirements stated in
2466 section 6.1.1 are listed. The application of one of the following series of standards leads to a
2467 design with a sufficient reliability level.
2468 In principle, a tower design according to a country / region specific series of design codes (in
2469 combination with the related execution standard) is not limited to this country / region, as long
2470 as the used design codes are accepted in the country / region in question.
2471  EN1993-1 series [1]
2472 EN 1090-1 [2] and EN1090-2 [3] can be used as an execution standard (EXC 3 required
2473 for primary steel).
2474  JSCE Guideline 2010 Edition [4]
2475 JASS6 [5] can be used as an execution standard.
2476 Reference documents
2477 [1] EN1993-1
2478 [2] EN1090-1
2479 [3] EN1090-2
2480 [4] Guidelines for design of wind turbine support structures and foundations, Structural
2481 Engineering Series 20, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 2010.
2482 [5] Japanese Architectural Standard Specification JASS 6 (1996) Structural Steelwork
2483 Specification for Building Construction
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 69 –
2484 Annex B
2485 List of material for structural steel
2486 (Informative)
2487 B.1 General

2488 A list of materials which fulfil the requirements for structural steel and bolts are summarized
2489 in this annex.
2490 B.2 Structural steel

2491 The following structural steels fulfil the requirements stated in section 6.2.2. For any
2492 properties and restrictions of the material check the stated national codes.
Country / Region Standard Structural Steel
Japan JIS G 3106 SM400A, SM400B, SM400C, SM490A, SM490B,
SM490C, SM490YA, SM490YB, SM520B, SM520C,
SM570
JIS G 3136 SN400A, SN400B, SN400C, SN490B, SN490C
Europe EN 10025-2 S 235, S 275, S 355, S 440
EN 10025-3 S 275 N/NL, S 355 N/NL, S 420 N/NL, S 460 N/NL
EN 10025-4 S 275 M/ML, S 355 M/ML, S 420 M/ML, S 460 M/ML
EN 10025-5 S 235 W, S 355 W
EN 10025-6 S 460 Q/QL/QL1
EN 10210-1 S 235 H, S 275 H, S 355 H, S 275 NH/NLH,
S 355 NH/NLH, S 420 NH/NLH, S 460 NH/NLH
EN 10219-1 S 235 H, S 275 H, S 355 H, S 275 NH/NLH,
S 355 NH/NLH, S 460 NH/NLH, S 275 MH/MLH,
S 355 MH/MLH, S 420 MH/MLH, S 460 MH/MLH
China GB/T1591 Q345B, Q345C, Q345D, Q345E
GB/T28410 Q345FTC, Q345FTD, Q345FTE, Q345FTF
2493
2494 Note: In general, if steels from one region will be substituted by steel grades from other
2495 regions additional requirements may become necessary. These additional
2496 requirements are especially related to the kind of de-oxidation, chemical
2497 composition, yield strength, normalization process and absorbed impact energy.
– 70 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2498 Annex C Bolts

2499 (Informative)
2500 As mentioned in Section 6.3.3, the material for bolt has to comply with ISO898 or equivalent
2501 standard. JIS B 1186 and ASTM A490M can be considered as equivalent standard and the
2502 comparison of their properties with ISO898-1 are shown in Table 8.
ISO898-1 JIS B1186 ASTM A490M
Maximum size M39 M30 M36
Property classes 8.8 10.9 F8T F10T 10.9
Chemical composition [%]
C (min./max.) 0.15/0.40 (*1) 0.20/0.55 (*1) 0.28/0.50
P (max.) 0.025 (*1) 0.025 (*1) 0.045
Not specified Not specified
S (max.) 0.025 (*1) 0.025 (*1) 0.045
B (max.) 0.003 0.003 －
Mechanical properties (min.)
-Tensile strength 830N/mm2 (*3) 1040N/mm2 800-1000N/mm2 1000-1200N/mm2 1040N/mm2
-Stress at 0.2% nonproportional
elongation 660N/mm2 (*3) 940N/mm2 640N/mm2 900N/mm2 940N/mm2
-Percentage elongation 12% 9% 16% 14% 14%
-Percentage reduction of area 52% 48% 45% 40% 40%
(*1) This value for the carbon steel with additives (e.g. Boron or Mn or Cr) quenched and tempered.
(*2) This value for the medium carbon steel, product is quenched and tempered.
2503 (*3) This value for d > 16mm.
2504 Table 8 – Comparison of Bolt material in ISO898-1, JIS B1186 and ASTM A490M
2505 Note 1: Phosphorus has a negative impact on the cold brittleness behaviour of bolts. As
2506 the limitation of this element is less strict in ASTM A325 and ASTM A490
2507 compared to ISO 898-1, special attention may be necessary if bolts according to
2508 these ASTM standards are used under cold climate conditions.
2509 Note 2: As no chemical composition limitations are stated in JIS standards, special
2510 attention may be necessary regarding any interaction of outer influences and bolt
2511 behaviour due to its chemical composition. (e.g. amount of phosphorus in
2512 combination with cold climate as mentioned above).
2513 Note 3: As no operation temperature ranges are specified in ASTM- and JIS standards,
2514 special attention may be needed if bolts according to these standards are used
2515 under cold climate conditions.
2516 Note 4: According to RCSC standard hot dip galvanization or metallizing is not permitted
2517 for bolts ASTM A490.
2518

2520 [1] JIS G 3106
2521 [2] JIS G 3136
2522 [3] JIS B 1186
2523 [4] ASTM A490M

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 71 –
2524 Annex D
2525 Z-values for structural steel
2526 (Informative)
2527 D.1 Definition of Z-value acc. to Eurocode

2528 The required Z-value (through-thickness property) of the material may be calculated
2529 according to EN 1993-1-10.
2530 Note: For flanges with a weld neck according to section 6.3.2, depending on the neck
2531 length a linear interpolation of the Z b value in the range of -25 to +8 according to
2532 the values stated in table 3.2 of EN 1993-1-10 is permitted.
– 72 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2533 Annex E
2534 Simplified Buckling verification for openings in tubular steel towers
2535 (Informative)
2536 The simplified verification is based on analytical methods according to EN 1993-1-6 and
2537 JSCE Guideline 2010.
2538 In the area of circumferentially edge-stiffened openings without added longitudinal stiffeners
2539 (“collar stiffeners”), see Figure 9 and Figure 10, the buckling safety analysis may in
2540 simplification be performed as for an unweakened tower wall if, instead of the meridional
2541 design buckling stress according to EN 1993-1-6, the reduced meridional design buckling
2542 stress according to equation E1a (for Eurocode) or E1b (for JSCE) is used:
2543 σ x,R,d = C 1 ⋅ σ x,R,d-EC (E1a)

2544 f c,r = C 1 ⋅f c,r-JSCE (E1b)
2545 where:
2546 σx,R,d-EC meridional design buckling stress according to EN 1993-1-6,
2547 fc,r meridional design buckling stress according to JSCE,
2548 C1 reduction factor as per equation E2 to consider the influence of the opening.
2549 C 1 = A 1 – B 1 ⋅(r/t) (E2)
2550 with A1 and B1 according to Table 9
2551 where:
2552 δ opening angle along the girth
2553 The above rules are valid for
2554 • tower walls with (r/t) ≤ 160,
2555 • opening angle δ ≤ 60°, and
2556 • opening dimensions h 1 / b 1 ≤ 3,
2557 whereby the opening angle and opening dimensions refer to the cut-out of the tower wall
2558 without considering the opening edge-stiffener (see Figure 9), and also for opening edge-
2559 stiffeners,
2560 • which exhibit a constant cross-section around the entire opening or are
2561 considered with their smallest cross-section,
2562 • whose cross-section area is at least one-third of the missing opening area,
2563 • whose cross-section at the opening edges is arranged centrally with regard to
2564 the wall mid-plane (see Figure 9 ),
2565 • whose cross-sectional parts meet the limiting (c/t) values for class 2 according
2566 to EN1993-1-1, Table 5.2. (c and t designations per definition according to
2567 Eurocode), respectively W s/t s ≤ 8 according to JSCE (definition of W s and t s see
2568 Figure 10 ).
2569
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 73 –
EN: S 355 / JIS: SM 490 or

EN: S 235 / JIS: SM 400
SM 490Y
A1 B1 A1 B1
δ = 20° 1.00 0.0019 0.95 0.0021
δ = 30° 0.90 0.0019 0.85 0.0021
δ = 60° 0.75 0.0022 0.70 0.0024

Intermediate values may be interpolated linearly. Extrapolation is not
permissible.
2570 Table 9 – Coefficients for equation E2
2571
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
2572
2573 Figure 9 – Circumferentially edge-stiffened opening

– 74 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2574
2575 Figure 10 – Definition of W s and t s according to JSCE
2576 Note: An extension of the Velickov method has been developed by Katsuchi et al. for
2577 the buckling analysis of wind turbine steel towers with larger height-width ratio
2578 openings for the buckling method according to JSCE.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 75 –
2579 Annex F
2580 Fatigue verification
2581 (Informative)
2582 The verification of fatigue strength may be done according to EN 1993-1-9 in connection with
2583 section 6.5 of this standard.
2584 The reference value of the fatigue strength is to be taken from the detail category catalogues
2585 of EN 1993-1-9, Table 8.1 to 8.10 and EN 1993-3-2 Annex C corresponding to the given detail
2586 category.
2587 Note to EN 1993-3-2 C2(1): An increase of the detail category is not allowed by simply
2588 changing the quality level of the welding seam. An increase has to be proven experimentally
2589 according to the rules of EN 1990.
2590 The geometric (hot spot) stress concept according to EN 1993-1-9, Annex B, may be used
0,2
2591 alternatively to the nominal stress concept. A plate thickness reduction k s = (25/t) is to be
2592 used.
2593 Specific Details:
2594 • Holes In steel plated in uniaxial stress:
2595 Holes in rolled steel plate equal or smaller than 50mm and 1.5 times the thickness of
2596 steel plate in Diameter (D) may be categorized as Detail Category 90. Holes need to be
2597 machine gas cut or drilled with subsequent dressing. No cracks and no visible imperfections
2598 are allowed. ∆σ may be calculated on the net cross-section. End or edge distance shall be
2599 equal or larger than 1.5 times D. Spacing in between holes needs to be equal or larger than
2600 2.5 times D.
– 76 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2601 Annex G Methods for ring flange verification

2602 (Informative)
2603
2604 G.1 Method of Petersen / Seidel

2605 G.1.1 Basics
2606 The simplified calculation method according to Petersen / Seidel can be used to assess the
2607 ultimate limit state of the ring flange connection using elastic-plastic theory. It comprises the
2608 L-flange model according to Petersen with enhancement according to Seidel.
2609 In the following, the method is described for an L-Flange connection, but can be extended
2610 analogously for a T-Flange connection.
2611 The circular ring flange connection is reduced to a segment model with only one bolt, see
2612 Figure 11. The tension stress in the tower shell needs to be transferred into an equivalent
2613 tension force Z, which acts on the tower wall of the segment model.
2614
Segment
2615
Ring
2616 Figure 11 – Simplification of system to segment model
2617 G.1.2 Calculation method

2618 For the ultimate limit state, it shall be proven that the ultimate tension force Z in the tower wall
2619 of the segment model is lower than the allowable limit tension resistance force F u ,:
𝑍𝑍 ≤ 𝐹𝐹𝑢𝑢
2620 The allowable limit tension resistance force F u is calculated as minimum value of the following
2621 four failure modes. In the Figure 12 and Figure 13, the areas of potential plastic hinges in the
2622 segment model and the geometric parameters as used in the subsequent calculation rules are
2623 presented.
2624 For the application of this method the ratio of a/b shall be limited to a/b ≤ 1.25.
2625 Failure Mode A (“failure of bolt”)
2626 𝐹𝐹𝑢𝑢 = 𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡,𝑅𝑅
2627 Failure Mode B (failure of bolt and plastic hinge in flange or tower shell (M pl,3 )):
𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡,𝑅𝑅 ⋅ 𝑎𝑎 + 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,3
2628 𝐹𝐹𝑢𝑢 =
𝑎𝑎+𝑏𝑏
2629 Failure Mode D (plastic hinges in flange in the bolt hole center plane (M’ pl,2 + ΔM pl,2 ) and in the
2630 flange or tower shell (M pl,3 )):
′
𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,2 + Δ𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,2 + 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,3
2631 𝐹𝐹𝑢𝑢 =
𝑏𝑏
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 77 –
2632 Failure Mode E (plastic hinges in the flange next to the bolt hole (M pl,2 ) and in the flange or
2633 tower shell (M pl,3 )):
𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,2 + 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,3
2634 𝐹𝐹𝑢𝑢 = ′
𝑏𝑏𝐸𝐸
Mpl,3
Ft,R
M‘ pl,2 Mpl,2
2635 Figure 12 – Locations of plastic hinges for different failure modes
2636
D s
d
t
b‘
a b
2637 Figure 13 – Geometric parameters
2638 The resistance on the bolt for yielding and the flange and the tower shell for plastic hinges is
2639 calculated according to the following formulas:
𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢
2640 Yielding limit force of the bolts: 𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡,𝑅𝑅 = 0.9 ⋅ 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠 ⋅
1.25
2641
2642 Resistance of the flange for plastic hinges in the perimeter of the bolt hole:
′ 𝑐𝑐 ′ ⋅ 𝑡𝑡 2
2643 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,2 = ⋅ 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑑𝑑,𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 using 𝑐𝑐 ′ = 𝑐𝑐 − 𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵
4
2644 with c as width of the segment

𝑐𝑐 ⋅ 𝑡𝑡 2
2645 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,2 = ⋅ 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑑𝑑,𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
4
2646
𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡,𝑅𝑅 𝐷𝐷 + 𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵
Δ𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,2 = ⋅
2 4
2647
2648 Resistance of the tower shell / flange for plastic hinges in / close to the tower shell:
𝑐𝑐 ⋅ 𝑠𝑠 2 𝑐𝑐 ⋅ 𝑡𝑡 2
2649 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = ⋅ 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑑𝑑,𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = ⋅ 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑑𝑑,𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
4 4
– 78 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2650
2651 with 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑑𝑑,𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 as the design yield strength of the tower wall and 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑑𝑑,𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 as the design yield strength
2652 of the flange
2
𝑁𝑁
2653 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,𝑁𝑁,𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = �1 − � � � ⋅ 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
2654 including interaction: 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,3 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

2
𝑉𝑉
𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,𝑉𝑉,𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = �1 − � � � ⋅ 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
𝑉𝑉𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝,𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
2655
2656 Note 1: Because of the interaction of axial stresses due to bending and tension in the
2657 tower shell and the interaction of stresses due to transversal force and bending in
2658 the flange, the calculation of M pl,3 requires an iterative calculation procedure.
2659
2660 Note 2: Further explanation on the method can be found in the following publication:
2661 Seidel, Marc: Zur Bemessung geschraubter Ringflanschverbindungen von
2662 Windenergieanlagen. Dissertation, Leibniz-Universität Hannover, Shaker Verlag,
2663 Aachen.
2664
2665 G.1.3 Extension by Tobinaga

2666 Regarding the Failure mode B, 𝑎𝑎′ instead of 𝑎𝑎 can be used [1] for1.25 < 𝑎𝑎/𝑏𝑏 ≤ 2.25:
2667 a′ = λa
2668 where,
5
λ = 1 − �1 − 𝛼𝛼 𝛽𝛽 � 1.25 < 𝑎𝑎/𝑏𝑏 ≤ 2.25
2669
2670 a = t (a + b ) − 0.12α + 0.55 ≤ α ≤ 1
2671 b = (a b − 1.25)0.32 + 0.45 1.25 ≤ a b ≤ 2.25

2672 Here,
2673 𝜆𝜆 ：M od ifica tion fa ctor of a ( -)
2674 𝛼𝛼 ：Asp ect ra tio of fla ng e section ( -)
2675
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 79 –
1.1
1.0
0.9
λ = a'/a
a=1.25b
0.8
a=1.50b
a=1.75b
0.7
a=2.00b
a=2.25b
0.6
0.5
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
α = t/(a+b)
2676
2677 Figure 14 – The modification factor 𝛌𝛌 for different 𝜶𝜶 [1]
2678 Reference document

2679 [1] Ikuo Tobinaga, A study of lever ratio correction factor of L-type flange for wind turbine
2680 towers, Grand Renewable Energy Conference, Tokyo, (2014)
2681 G.2 Method according to Schmidt / Neuper

2682 G.2.1 Basics
2683 For the calculation method according to Schmidt / Neuper the non-linear relation of tension
2684 force in the bolt F S based on tension force on a segment of the bolted flange connection Z is
2685 approximated by a tri-linear approach, see Figure 15.
2686
– 80 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2687
Section 1 Sec. 2 Section 3
2688
2689 Figure 15 – Tri-linear approximation of the non-linear relation between bolt force and
2690 tension force of the bolted connection
2691 The calculation method of Schmidt / Neuper is used to derive bolt loads in a pre-tensioned
2692 flange connection that is subject to tension load. It is based on a combination of the elastic
2693 truss and tie model according to Petersen and a spring model for the pre-tensioned bolts.
2694 The calculation method can only be applied for flange connections that comply with the
2695 flatness tolerances listed in sections 6.7.1 and if the maximum (inside) taper is limited to 2°
2696 under full design preload of the bolts.
2697 In the following, the method is described for an L-Flange connection, but can be extended
2698 analogously for a T-Flange connection.
2699 G.2.2 Formulas for the tri-linear approximation
2700 The three straight lines that represent the relation between bolt force Fs and tension force of
2701 the bolted connection Z can be derived by the following (see also Figure 15):
2702 section 1: 𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠1 = 𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝,𝐶𝐶 + 𝑝𝑝 ⋅ 𝑍𝑍
𝑍𝑍−𝑍𝑍𝐼𝐼
2703 section 2: 𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠2 = 𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝,𝐶𝐶 + 𝑝𝑝 ⋅ 𝑍𝑍𝐼𝐼 + �𝜆𝜆∗ ⋅ 𝑍𝑍𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − �𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝,𝐶𝐶 + 𝑝𝑝 ⋅ 𝑍𝑍𝐼𝐼 �� ⋅
𝑍𝑍𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 −𝑍𝑍𝐼𝐼
2704 section 3: 𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠3 = 𝜆𝜆∗ ⋅ 𝑍𝑍

2705 The transition between the sections of the curve is defined by the values Z I und Z II :
𝑎𝑎−0.5 ⋅𝑏𝑏
2706 𝑍𝑍𝐼𝐼 = ⋅ 𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝,𝐶𝐶
𝑎𝑎+𝑏𝑏
1
2707 𝑍𝑍𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = ⋅ 𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝,𝐶𝐶
𝜆𝜆∗ ⋅𝑞𝑞
2708 The load factor of the tension spring p, the load factor of the compression spring q and the
2709 auxiliary parameter λ* are defined as:
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠
2710 𝑝𝑝 =
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠 +𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑
𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑
2711 𝑞𝑞 =
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠 +𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑
0.7 ⋅𝑎𝑎 + 𝑏𝑏
2712 𝜆𝜆∗ =
0.7 ⋅𝑎𝑎
2713 with C s = spring stiffness of the tension spring (resembling the bolts)
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 81 –
2714 C d = stiffness of the compression spring q (resembling the compressed parts)

2715 a, b = geometric parameters
2716 The stiffness of tension and compression string may be calculated according to VDI 2230 (or
2717 equivalent).
– 82 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2718 Annex H Crack Control- Guidance on 7.9.4

2719 (informative)
2720 H.1 Europe - Crack width limitation based on Eurocode 2
2721 The crack width may be limited in accordance with the methods given in EN 1992-1-1, 7.3.
2722 The alternative rules of DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA may also be applied.
2723 In order to take into account the dynamic loading conditions of wind turbines, the following
2724 reduced crack width limits shall be applied:
2725 0.2 mm for all structural concrete surfaces above ground and within 0.5 m below ground
2726 level (e.g. tower, upper foundation surfaces)
2727 0.3 mm for all other surfaces below ground (e.g. piles, foundation surfaces deeper than
2728 0.5 m)
2729 The following load cases shall be applied for the calculation of the crack widths. In all cases
2730 the wind loads shall also be superimposed with temperature actions as defined in Section
2731 7.2.3.1.
2732 For components of reinforced and prestressed concrete without bond, the load level S3 shall
2733 be applied.
2734 For components of prestressed concrete with bond in normal environmental conditions, the S2
2735 load level shall be applied.
2736 For components of prestressed concrete with bond in environmental conditions with corrosion
2737 induced by chlorides, the characteristic combination of loads S1 shall be applied.
2738 H.2 Japan – Crack width limitation based on Japanese Standard

2739 The crack width may be limited in accordance with the methods given in JSCE Guidelines for
2740 Concrete [1] [2] and applied for S1 load case.
2741 The crack width of reinforced concrete structures shall be limited to 0.005c defined on Table
2742 10. Depend on the environmental condition for the reinforcement corrosion, appropriate
2743 numbers shall be taken.
2744 However，maximum limitation is 0.5mm.
2745 c; Outer Distance from steel bar set the most outside (Nominal cover).
2746 On the prestressed concrete structures shall be limited to 0.004c defined on Table 10.
2747 However, maximum limitation is 0.3mm.
2748 This limit is for PRC structures (Partially Prestressed Concrete Structure).
2749 PRC structure is designed to allow cracks by using reinforcement.
2750 PC structure is designed that does not allow the cracks for all load cases. The concrete stress
2751 at outermost edge is lower than the allowable tensile stress of concrete.
Type of Environmental conditions for reinforcement corrosion
reinforcement
Normal Corrosive Severely corrosive
Deformed bars
0.005c 0.004c 0.0035c
and plain bars
Prestressing steel No No
0.004c
decompression decompression
[1]
2752 Table 10 – Limit value of crack width based on Japanese Standard
2753
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 83 –
2754

2756 [1] JSCE Guidelines for STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONCRETE STRUCTURES-
2757 2012 in Japanese.
2758 [2] JSCE Guidelines for Concrete No.15 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONCRETE
2759 STRUCTURES-2007.
2760 H.3 USA - Crack width limitation based on ACI 318

2761 The crack width may be limited in accordance with the methods given in ACI 318. Based on
2762 the ACI 318 for distribution of flexural reinforcement in beams and one-way slabs the stress
2763 reinforcement closest to the tension face at service load shall be computed based on the
2764 characteristic load combination (S1) moment.
2765 The stress from the S1 moment is used to calculate maximum spacing requirements in ACI
2766 318-14 section 24.3. Improved crack control is obtained when the steel reinforcement is well
2767 distributed over the zone of maximum concrete tension. Table 24.3.2 of ACI 318-14 provides
2768 maximum spacing of bonded reinforcement in non-prestressed and Class C prestressed one-
2769 way slabs and beams. ACI 318 in article R10.6.4 states: Crack widths in structures are highly
2770 variable. In Codes before the 1999 edition, provisions were given for distribution of
2771 reinforcement that was based on empirical equations using a calculated maximum crack width
2772 of 0.4mm. The current provisions for spacing are intended to limit surface cracks to a width
2773 that is generally acceptable in practice but may vary widely in a given structure. ACI224R01 in
2774 Table 4.1 presents a “Guideline for reasonable crack widths reinforced concrete under service
2775 loads” in chapter 4, which is titled “Concrete of cracking in flexural members”.
– 84 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2776 Annex I Finite Element Analysis for concrete

2777 (Informative)
2778 I.1 Objectives of the Analysis:

2779 Structural concrete is a complex composite material in which the concrete and reinforcements
2780 exhibits inelastic and time-dependent response characteristics. The first step in the conduct of
2781 a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is to define the objective(s) of the analysis clearly as this will
2782 control the selection of the computation tools, the information needed to conduct the analysis,
2783 the modelling approach and the interpretation of the results. A FEA analysis may be
2784 conducted for a variety of reasons, including the need to: (i) consider inelastic material
2785 properties; (ii) model a complex geometry; (iii) determine load capacity; (iv) determine
2786 displacement capacity and ductility; (v) predict stiffness and performance under service loads:
2787 (vi) predict performance under fatigue loads; (vii) predict performance under ultimate loads;
2788 (viii) investigate sensitivity to design assumptions; (ix) predict dynamic response; (x) evaluate
2789 a rehabilitation strategy, as well as other reasons.
2790 The accuracy and value of a FEA analysis is controlled by the applicability of the selected
2791 models and parameter values, the conduct of a sensitivity analysis to assess uncertainties,
2792 and thorough interpretation of the predicted response via checking and benchmarking. In
2793 addition to stiffness, strength, and ductility, and depending on the sophistication of material
2794 models and analysis techniques, FEA may be used to predict the full load-deformation
2795 response of structures including displacements and strain in the concrete, crack widths, crack
2796 spacing, strains and stresses in the reinforcement, bond stresses, and other response
2797 characteristics.
2798 I.2 Order and Type of Elements:

2799 There are several types of elements that can be used in a FEA, including truss, beam, plate,
2800 shell, 2D solid, and 3D solid elements. The first four of these assume that plane sections
2801 remain plane (i.e. linear distribution of strain through thickness of member), while the latter
2802 two are more general. There are subdivisions within these element types that can significantly
2803 affect predicted response, including how shear stresses are distributed through the thickness
2804 of the section, the order and type of the elements, and the number of integration points within
2805 the element. The modelling of reinforcement may be done in one of three ways. The
2806 reinforcement may be modelled as truss bars that are connected at nodes within the model; in
2807 this situation, the geometry of the elements should be selected to maximize the number of
2808 nodal connections of the truss bar where appropriate. A second way to model reinforcement is
2809 for the user to directly distribute (smear) the effects of the reinforcement over the dimensions
2810 of the element through which the reinforcement passes. A third way is similar to the second
2811 but rather where the analysis program automatically embeds the effect of the reinforcement in
2812 the elements through which it passes; this has the benefit of not constraining the geometry of
2813 the FEA model, and in most cases will result in a more appropriate effect on the stiffness of
2814 elements than user-defined smearing of the reinforcement. The use of an interface/contact
2815 element may be needed to capture sliding on a surface, or may also be used to model bond
2816 slip between reinforcement and concrete. The effects of prestressing may be accounted for by
2817 applied forces at nodes, an effective prestrain, and/or a temperature change in one material.
2818 I.3 Constitutive Modelling:

2819 The stress-strain response of reinforced concrete is highly inelastic. The response of concrete
2820 in compression depends on the compressive strength of the concrete, levels of transverse
2821 straining(s), and the effect of confinement. This compressive response can range from linear
2822 elastic until brittle fracture, to becoming inelastic at less than one-half of the compressive
2823 capacity and exhibiting significant plasticity under peak stresses. The response of concrete in
2824 tension may be considered to be linear until the point of concrete cracking. Post-cracking,
2825 there is still some tension transferred at the face of the crack through tension softening.
2826 Between cracks, concrete may carry a large portion and even the majority of the total tension
2827 force being transmitting across a region. The effect of cracking due to shrinkage can
2828 significantly reduce the stiffness of both the compressive and tensile response of the
2829 concrete, while creep may result in more than twice the otherwise expected displacement. In
2830 many cases, degradation in bond between concrete and reinforcement that results in splitting
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 85 –
2831 cracks can have a significant effect on performance. In lightly-reinforced structures, the
2832 response may be dominated by individual cracks for which fracture mechanics (including
2833 microplane models) approaches and fracture energy may need to be considered. If the
2834 transfer of shear stress across cracks is important, an interface element will be needed that
2835 can account for the influence of opening stiffness, crack roughness, and slip on performance.
2836 The full inelastic characteristics of the reinforcement may need to be considered. In
2837 indeterminate structures, the effect of changes in temperature, temperature gradients, and
2838 time dependent characteristics may also need to be considered.
2839 I.4 Solution Methods:

2840 There are several solution methods for a FEA, and it is important to have a sufficient
2841 understanding of the different aspects of an analysis, and of the convergence criteria that
2842 govern the ability to achieve a reliable solution. The setting of very tight convergence criteria
2843 can result in a prohibitively long time to conduct an analysis, as well as a solution not being
2844 achieved (i.e. a lack of convergence) for imposed loadings or displacement. On the other
2845 hand, convergence criteria that are too loose can result in unrealistic solutions being achieved
2846 as well as the solution path deviating from what could be more accurately predicted.
2847 FEA methods apply principles of mechanics, equilibrium of forces, compatibility of
2848 displacements, and constitutive (stress versus strain) laws. They utilize matrix-based solution
2849 methods. FEA programs for structural concrete usually require an iterative solution method
2850 that is controlled by convergence criteria. These criteria and other factors relax the
2851 satisfaction of equilibrium, compatibility, and the law of conservation of energy. Most finite
2852 element analysis programs for modelling concrete structures have taken an implicit approach
2853 in which the solution only depends on the state in the previous analysis step, and where large
2854 steps in the imposed loading or displacement in the analysis can be taken. This is opposed to
2855 an explicit approach that is sometimes used to model structures when time-dependent effects
2856 are critical, and which is particularly important for structures subjected to impact. In an explicit
2857 analysis, very small time steps are needed.
2858 I.5 Implicit Approach:

2859 The implicit approach usually uses a direct stiffness method, as opposed to a flexibility
2860 method. The most common direct stiffness method uses a tangent predictor-corrector
2861 formulation in which a solution is estimated using a tangent stiffness matrix. Next, inelastic
2862 constitutive relationships are used to produce an updated stiffness matrix (corrector step).
2863 When the two updated values are deemed sufficiently close to those in the matrix
2864 calculations, then a converged solution is deemed to have been achieved. These tangent
2865 stiffness formulations have greater difficulty converging when there are discontinuities in
2866 constitutive properties, such as the cracking of concrete. These can usually be overcome by
2867 arc-length methods. Another solution strategy is to use secant-based methods for defining
2868 element stiffness values. Such methods provide an inherently more stable convergence even
2869 with materials that are less stable.
2870 I.6 Steps in Conduct of a Finite Element Analysis:

2871 The conduct of a FEA must include the following steps, as applicable: (i) Clearly define
2872 objectives for the analysis; (ii) Select a FEA program that is able to model all aspects of
2873 performance critical to the study; (iii) Identify all input variables and model selection options;
2874 (iv) Obtain specified and available in-situ material properties using mean values rather than
2875 characteristic values when appropriate; (iv) Make condition assessments of existing structures
2876 if this is relevant; (v) Create the numerical model using as built geometry when appropriate.
2877 Define boundary conditions including range of possible support conditions, and include non-
2878 structural elements when appropriate; (vi)Define the load cases to consider, including load
2879 path and environmental conditions; (vii) Conduct a linear-elastic analyses with mesh
2880 sensitivity investigation for all relevant load cases; (viii) Design and conduct inelastic
2881 parametric analyses; and (ix) Conduct sensitivity analysis of all assumptions.
2882 The predicted response of a structure from a finite element analysis is highly dependent on
2883 modelling selections and assumptions. It is not uncommon for predicted strength, stiffness,
2884 and ductility to differ by more than a factor of two between what initially appears to be
– 86 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2885 appropriately-built models. Consequently, it is critically important that the user develop and
2886 test the model at every stage in the development process, and evaluate the effect of
2887 modelling assumptions at every opportunity. The selected model should be only as
2888 complicated as needed to achieve the purpose of the investigation.
2889 I.7 Checking Results:

2890 It is important to check the results of finite element analyses, and to assess the sensitivity of
2891 the results to all variables in the analysis. The sensitivity of results to the selected mesh size
2892 should be checked by conducting analyses with different size meshes until two analyses with
2893 adjacent mesh sizes give similar results. While it is generally true that a finer mesh provides
2894 more realistic results for structures composed of linear-elastic materials, a minimum mesh
2895 size is essential for application of some material models for structural concrete. It is important
2896 to assess the sensitivity of the results to model and parameter values so as to quantitatively
2897 determine the sensitivity of predicted performance (stiffness, strength, ductility) to
2898 uncertainties. This may be necessary to be done in a fully rigorous manner, such as by
2899 conducting a Monte-Carlo analysis for a fully probabilistic based design or condition
2900 assessment. It is often not possible to conduct a full parametric evaluation because of the
2901 number of analyses required. A large number of analyses are needed because the principle of
2902 superposition does not apply for inelastic structures nor is performance proportional to
2903 imposed loading or displacements. Thus, a combination of insight and informed trials are
2904 needed to carefully plan the sensitivity study. This plan is also influenced by the design or
2905 assessment approach, such as whether a partial safety-factor or global resistance method is
2906 being adopted.
2907 Additional guidance on the application of FEA for concrete structures is available in the fib
2908 “Practitioners’ Guide to Finite Element Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Structures”. An
2909 overview of the mechanics of structural concrete is presented in Non-Linear Mechanics of
2910 Reinforced Concrete by Maekawa et al.
2911 I.8 References

2912 fib Task Group 4.4 Computer Based Modelling and Design, “Practitioners’ Guide to Finite
2913 Element Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Structures”, International Federation for Structural
2914 Concrete (fib), State-of-the-Art Report, Bulletin 45, 2008, 344 pp.
2915 Maekawa, K., Okamura, H., and Pimanmas, A., “Non-Linear Mechanics of Reinforced
2916 Concrete”, CRC Press, 2003, 768 pp.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 87 –
2917 Annex J Tower-foundation anchorage

2918 (Normative)
2919 The basic function of the tower-foundation anchorage is to transfer tower loads to the
2920 foundation safely and without operational hindrances for the design life of the structure. There
2921 are two common solutions for connecting steel towers to foundations: embedded metal forms
2922 and anchor bolt cages.
2923 An embedded metal form is a short tower section that is cast into the reinforced concrete
2924 foundation and then bolted to the remainder of the tower via conventional flange-to-flange
2925 tower connections.
2926 A bolt cage anchorage consists of bolts attached to the tower base flange and terminated in
2927 the foundation concrete using a steel ring plate, washers, and nuts. The bolts are designed
2928 with post-tensioning and the flange is typically a T-flange that is welded to the tower shell.
2929 The tower base flange rests atop a bed of grout which is used to spread the high contact
2930 pressure to the lower strength foundation concrete. Spreader plates have also been used to
2931 transition stresses from the tower base flange to the grout.
2932 Other anchorage systems are possible, but the foregoing two systems are the most common
2933 Wind Turbine tower anchorages.
2934 J.1 Embedded anchorages

2935 The design of embedded metal form anchorages shall be carried out using conventional
2936 reinforced concrete practice with due consideration for fatigue and serviceability. The overall
2937 anchorage pull-out capacity shall be shown to be sufficient. The assumed load path shall take
2938 due account of the relative flexibility of the steel and concrete sections which may lead to the
2939 elastic load path being significantly different to the ultimate load path.
2940 Critical concrete verifications include bearing at the metal form bottom edge and punching
2941 shear of the concrete under the metal form. With respect to fatigue, the presence of cyclic
2942 concrete stresses of changing sign and the absence of a preload mechanism shall be
2943 recognized. In practice, this is often addressed through the provision of tensile load path in
2944 reinforcing only which typically leads to amounts of reinforcing that exceed amounts
2945 anticipated based on ultimate stresses alone.
2946 With respect to serviceability, the anchorage design shall ensure that the joint between the
2947 metal form and the concrete remains closed or sealed throughout the life. Water ingress into
2948 the space around the anchoring flange can lead to erosion of the concrete and loosening of
2949 the embedment. Care shall be taken to ensure that applied load do not cause significant
2950 opening of the interface.
2951 In addition to these considerations, a short tower section used as an embedded anchorage
2952 shall be subject to all the design requirements of steel tower sections though account can be
2953 taken of the concrete resisting displacement in buckling.
2954 J.2 Bolted anchorages

2955 Bolted anchorages involve an assemblage of elements typically including the tower base
2956 flange, sleeved post-tensioned anchor bolts, grout beneath base flange, concrete beneath the
2957 grout, washers, nuts and an embedded ring plate at the bottom of the bolt cage.
2958 The design and selection of the various elements of a bolted anchorage shall consider the
2959 interdependence and interactions of these elements. Anchor bolts connections shall be
2960 designed according to applicable standards for steel and concrete construction with due
2961 consideration for fatigue, corrosion, stiffness, and the load share of each of the jointed
2962 elements. Tolerances on hole and bolt sizes, as well as on their eccentricities, shall be
2963 specified and the prying forces resulting from gaps and eccentricities shall be considered in
2964 stress calculations.
2965 In addition to verification of the different elements, the bolted assembly shall be adequately
2966 anchored to the foundation below through reinforcing that transfers the tower loads to the
– 88 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
2967 foundation. All elements that are part of the assembly as well as those anchoring the
2968 assembly to the foundation shall be verified for ultimate stresses and fatigue life.
2969 J.3 Grout

2970 The grout bed serves to spread high contact stresses under the tower base flange to lower
2971 strength foundation concrete.
2972 The grout bed shall be designed to resist the applied loads and the bolt preload forces with
2973 due consideration for fatigue. The grout shall be designed with due consideration of the base
2974 flange interface and selected with due regard to service climatic conditions such as
2975 precipitation and freeze/thaw cycling. The grout shall be specified for long term strength as
2976 well as the minimum strength required at different construction stages (e.g. tower / turbine
2977 erection and anchor bolt post-tensioning).
2978 Preferably the grout should have reached its full design strength at the time of post-
2979 tensioning.
2980 High performance grouts used in the wind industry require special care in specification and
2981 installation. Adherence to grout manufacturer's installation procedures and the involvement of
2982 the grout manufacturer whenever possible are recommended.
2983 J.4 Anchor bolts

2984 Anchor bolts shall be post-tensioned and the specified preload shall be sufficient, after
2985 accounting for losses and installation tolerances, to ensure compression in the concrete under
2986 the full range of operational loads. Anchor bolt preload is critical for durability and fatigue
2987 resistance of the bolted joint. Therefore, anchor bolt preload shall be maintained for the entire
2988 lifetime of the structure through such measures as the implementation of a preload monitoring
2989 and maintenance program. Toughness of the bolt material shall also be considered for
2990 inclusion in material specification particularly for cold climate sites.
2991 J.5 Embedded ring

2992 Embedded ring bending capacity and stiffness shall be verified in the radial and
2993 circumferential direction with due consideration to embedded ring construction (as a
2994 continuous or segmented beam). Bearing of the concrete in contact with the embedded ring
2995 shall also be verified.
2996 J.6 Anchorage load transfer

2997 Whether for embedded or bolted anchorages, shear and moment load transfer from the tower
2998 or the anchorage itself to the remainder of the foundation shall be ensured for ultimate and
2999 fatigue loading. For bolted anchorages, regions of concrete kept in compression using pre-
3000 loaded bolts and stress free regions should be identified and designed with due consideration
3001 for strain compatibility. The application of methods developed for classical concrete structures
3002 shall take into account the size and geometry typical of wind turbine foundations. Due the
3003 differing strain levels at which concrete and mild reinforcing reach their respective ultimate
3004 capacities, if reinforcing steel is added to resist pull-out of the anchorage, it should be
3005 designed to resist the entire pull-out force.
3006
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 89 –
3007 Annex K Strut-and-Tie Section

3008 (Informative)
3009 K.1 General

3010 In the strut-and-tie design method, an idealized truss is designed to carry forces through a
3011 Discontinuity (D)-Region as illustrated for the design of the deep beam that is shown in Figure
3012 16(a). A simple strut-and-tie (or truss) model is selected for the flow of forces that consists of
3013 compressive struts that run from the point of loading to the supports, and a tension tie
3014 between these two supports that carries the horizontal components of these diagonal
3015 compression struts. After calculating the factored loads in the strut “C” and tie “T”, the design
3016 involves ensuring that the compressive capacity of the struts (Area) x (Stress Limit) is greater
3017 than “C”, and that an adequate amount of reinforcement is provided so that its tie strength
3018 (Area) x (Stress Limit) is greater than “T”.
3019
3020 P
3021 Strut
3022 C C
3023
Fill Fill
3024 Fill
C C
3025
T T
3026
Nodal
P Tie P
3027 Zones
2 2
3028
3029 Figure 16 – Example for the Design of a Deep Beam using the Strut-and-Tie Method
3030 As illustrated in Figure 16 and Figure 17, for many cases the shape of a suitable strut-and-tie
3031 model is easy to identify.
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040 Figure 17 – Simple Shapes of Strut-and-Tie Models
3041 Even for such relatively simple design problems, there can be multiple suitable strut-and-tie
3042 model shapes as shown in Figure 18. The basis of the strut-and-tie method gives the designer
3043 freedom in the selection of model shape, and providing that the selection is reasonable the
3044 member will have an ultimate strength that is equal to or greater than the calculated strength
3045 as the strut-and-tie method is a lower-bound design methodology. The performance of the
3046 designed structures under service and overloads will depend in part on the shape of the
3047 selected model. Thereby, designers with limited expertise in the theory and use of the strut
3048 and tie method are referred to design examples and guidance in key reference documents
3049 [Refs. 5-17].
3050
– 90 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060 Figure 18 – Five Examples for Carrying Load in a Deep Beam
3061 Example of a Rock Anchor Foundation

3062 An example is now given for a somewhat more complicated design problem in which a
3063 complex 3-dimensional strut-and-tie model is needed to complete a suitable design. This
3064 example is for the design of a rock-anchor foundation for a wind tower. The plan view of the
3065 footing for this wind tower is shown in Figure 19(a). As shown, 16 “rock anchors” are used to
3066 post-tension this foundation to the rock. Figure 19(b) shows that this anchoring force would
3067 flow down to the supporting rock as a fan-shaped strut that spreads in a radial inward
3068 direction; compressive stress trajectories are shown as dashed lines. The spreading of this
3069 force would create a radial tension at the base of the footing that would have to be carried by
3070 Tie A; tie forces are shown as solid lines. While not shown in this figure, this anchoring force
3071 would also spread from the top of the foundation in a circumferential direction. In accordance
3072 with the strut-and-tie modelling approach, it would be required to check the stresses in the
3073 concrete struts (or node) that is beneath the anchor plates (Post-Tensioning Force)/(Area of
3074 Plate) is less than the compressive stress limit for concrete under this bearing condition.
3075 There is no need to check the conditions of the concrete at the base of the footing as this
3076 stress would be smaller than that at the top.
3077 The tower is then bolted to this foundation via a ring of “tower anchor bolts” that extend from
3078 the top of the footing to an embedded anchor plate near the base of the foundation. Since the
3079 dimensions of the concrete are greater between the loaded plates than at the loaded plates,
3080 this compression would spread out between the plates as also shown in Figure 19(b). A strut-
3081 and-tie model for the flow of forces is shown in Figure 19(b) in which Tie B and Tie C are
3082 needed at the turning points (joints or nodes) of the compressive struts; the centre point of
3083 these nodes is denoted by solid dots. Reinforcement is required to equilibrate these tie
3084 forces, and this could be provided by radial-oriented reinforcing bars at the location of the ties
3085 shown in Figure 19(b). Note that the left and right sides of Figure 19(b) show a slightly
3086 different location for Tie B; this is a feature of the strut-and-tie method that the designer
3087 selects a load path, and then reinforces for the selected load path. Some designers find this
3088 flexibility to be disconcerting, but providing that reasonable selections are made, the strut-
3089 and-tie method has proven that this flexibility can be accommodated with good performance.
3090 When the tower supports a lateral load due to wind effects, a significant downward
3091 compressive force will be transmitted from the ring on one side of the tower, and a significant
3092 upwards tensile force will be transmitted on the opposite side of the tower, as shown in Figure
3093 19(c). On the tension side (right side in figure), this force may exceed the preload level and
3094 result in a tension force in the tie that runs from the top of the foundation through to the
3095 embedded plate near the bottom of the footing as shown in this figure. This tie force would be
3096 balanced at the joint (or node) at the bottom of this tie by the vertical component of diagonal
3097 compressive struts that spreads out from the base of the tie in the direction of the topside
3098 rock-anchor bolts and the other half of the footing. A portion of the diagonal compression
3099 force that runs towards the rock anchor is expected to run directly from the lower tower
3100 anchor plate to the rock anchor plate (strut “d” for direct), with the remainder to be carried by
3101 a truss type mechanism. The higher the shear-span-to-depth ratio, the larger the fraction to
3102 be taken via the truss mechanism. The fip (1999) bulletin on the Practical Design of Structural
3103 Concrete provides guidance for what portion of the load should be taken directly, what portion
3104 of the load should be taken indirectly, and how to distribute the tie reinforcement. The
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 91 –
3105 horizontal component of the diagonal compression forces that run to the node under the rock
3106 anchor plate much be equilibrated by the horizontal tie at the top of the footing that is shown
3107 in Figure 19(c).
3108
3109
3110
3111 Figure 19 – Strut-and-Tie Models for a Rock-Anchor Foundation
3112
– 92 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
3113 The footing must be designed for the summation of the loadings in Figure 19(b) and Figure
3114 19(c), which may be taken as a simple linear superposition of demands. An effective radial tie
3115 could be provided by reinforcement that extends from beneath one rock anchor towards its
3116 counterpart on the opposite side of the footing. Since the wind may blow from any direction, a
3117 radial tie would be needed beneath and between all eight pairs of anchor plates. It is
3118 impractical to provide all tie reinforcement in this way as it would require eight different layers
3119 of ties; a viable design solution is to transition from radial ties to a square grid of ties as
3120 shown in Figure 20. The strength and amount of reinforcement should be calculated using the
3121 web-shaped vertical segment as shown in Figure 19(c), and the grid reinforcement should be
3122 provided, with adequate splice length, so that the radial force component of the grid
3123 reinforcement is equal to or greater than the calculated demand.
3124
3125 Figure 20 – Top Tie Reinforcement in a Rock-Anchor Foundation
3126 Another challenge to this strut-and-tie design is that that there are circumferential actions
3127 created due to the overturning moment and anchorages. As shown in Figure 19(c), when the
3128 overturning moment creates an uplift force that is transmitted down to the anchor point on the
3129 inner ring, a diagonal strut carries part of this load to the outside ring of rock anchors. A
3130 component of this upward diagonal compression is in the circumferential direction because
3131 the outside ring is larger in diameter and because the anchorages are not in a continuous
3132 ring. This will lead to a circumferential tension force at the top of the footing under the rock
3133 anchors for which circumferentially oriented bars should be placed to carry this tension, as
3134 denoted by the hollow circles in Figure 19(c).
3135 K.2 Selected Codes and Standards for Design using the Strut-and-Tie Method
3136 1. CSA Committee A23.3 (2004), “Design of concrete structures for buildings”, Standard
3137 A23.3-M04, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Ontario, 2004, 258 pp.
3138 2. ACI Committee 318 (2011), Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI318-11)
3139 and commentary (ACI318R-11), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 509
3140 pp.
3141 3. fib Model Code (2012b) Final draft, Volume 2, fib Bulletin 66, Fédération Internationale du
3142 Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 370 pp., ISBN: 978-2-88394-106-9
3143 4. AASHTO (2012), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 6th
3144 Edition, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC,
3145 2012, 1672 pp.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 93 –
3146 K.3 Selected Key STM Reference Documents

3147 5. Müller, P. (1978), “Plastische berechnung von stahlbetonscheiben und –balken,” Report
3148 No. 83, Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule,
3149 Zürich, Switzerland, 1978
3150 6. Marti, P. (1985), “Basic tools of reinforced concrete beam design,” ACI Journal,
3151 Proceedings, 82(1), pp. 45-56.
3152 7. Schlaich, J., Schäfer, K., and Jennewein, M., “Toward a consistent design of structural
3153 concrete,” PCI Journal, 32(3), 1987, pp. 74-150.
3154 8. Schlaich, M., and Anagnostou, G., “Stress fields for nodes of strut-and-tie model,” Journal
3155 of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116(1), 1990, pp. 13-23.
3156 9. Nielsen, M. P., Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity, 2nd Ed., CRC Press LLC, Boca
3157 Raton, FL., 1999
3158 10. Practical Design of Structural Concrete, fip Bulletin September 1999, 113 pp. ISBN: 978-
3159 1-874266-48-8
3160 11. fib, Textbook on Behaviour, Design and Performance, Volume 3: Durability - Design for
3161 Fire Resistance – Member, Design - Maintenance, Assessment and Repair - Practical
3162 Aspects, Structural Concrete Textbook, first edition, 292 pp., 1999
3163 12. fib, Design examples for the 1996 FIP recommendations Practical design of structural
3164 concrete, fib Bulletin No. 16, 2002, 198 pp., ISBN: 978-2-88394-056-7
3165 13. Joint ACI/ASCE Committee 445, “Examples for the Design of Structural Concrete using
3166 Strut-and-Tie Models”, Special Publication of the American Concrete Institute, No. 208,
3167 October, 2003, 249 pp.
3168 14. Mitchell, D., Collins, M.P., Bhide, S.B., and Rabbat, B.S., “AASHTO LRFD Strut-and-Tie
3169 Model Design Examples”, Portland Cement Association,
3170 15. Martin, B.T., and Sanders, D.H., Verification and Implementation of Strut-and-Tie Model in
3171 LRFD Bridge Design Specifications”, American Association of State Highway and
3172 Transportation Officials (AASHTO), November, 2007, 281 pp.
3173 16. Joint ACI/ASCE Committee 445, “Further Examples for the Design of Structural Concrete
3174 using Strut-and-Tie Models”, Special Publication of the American Concrete Institute, No. 273,
3175 September, 2010, 288 pp.
3176 17. fib Task Group 1.1, “Design Examples for Strut-and-Tie Models”, Bulletin No. 61 of the
3177 International Concrete Federation, 2011, 220 pp. ISBN: 978-2-88394-101-4
– 94 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
3178 Annex L Guidance on selection of soil modulus and foundation rotational

3179 stiffness
3180 (Informative)
3181 The information presented within this annex provides guidance for the evaluation of
3182 appropriate soil modulus and foundation rotational stiffness to comply with Section 8.5.3.2.
3183 L.1 Soil Model

3184 Many models have been developed to relate the non-linear stress-strain characteristics of soil
3185 under loading. Site-specific models are not expected to be developed on a routine basis for
3186 all projects, and a generic approach may be adopted. Care shall be taken to identify the
3187 characteristics of the site-specific soil conditions which may invalidate the assumptions made
3188 in any generic stress-strain relationship.
3189 Figure 21 provides an example soil model based on a skeleton model published by Yi (2010) 6.
3190 Many other models are available in published literature which account for differences in soil
3191 properties and stress history such as plasticity, voids ratio, over-consolidation ratio and
3192 number of cycles of loading. Vucetic and Dobry (1991) 7 provide a useful review of the effect
3193 of such parameters.
3194 The stress-strain relationship is presented using normalised parameters, and this example
3195 assumes that ultimate soil capacity is reached at a strain of 1%.
3196
3197 Figure 21 – Example stress-strain relationship for soil
3198 The soil stress experienced under serviceability conditions are normally a relatively low
3199 proportion of ultimate capacity. Loading and unloading of the soil during repeated cyclic
3200 loading may be idealised by travelling along a line approximately equal to the slope of the
3201 stress-strain plot at small strain. Some hysteresis will occur and the GIR should address
3202 whether this is likely to be significant for the specific soil being studied. Figure 22 presents
3203 the general behaviour of soil undergoing loading and unloading cycles.
3204
—————————
6 Yi, F. Nonlinear Cyclic Characteristics of Soils, Proceedings of GeoFlorida 2010, Advances in Analysis, Modelling
and Design, Feb 2010
7 Vucetic, M. And Dobry, R. Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Vol.
117, No.1 Jan 1991
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 95 –
3205
3206 Figure 22 – Loading and unloading behaviour of soil
3207 The reduction of the slope of the stress/strain plot with increasing strain is indicative of
3208 reducing elastic and shear moduli. The reduction of soil shear modulus with strain level may
(1)
3209 be derived based on the following formula :
3210
G 1
3211 = a
G0 Rf γ 
3212 1+  
1 − R f  γ f 
3213
3214
3215 Where G = secant shear modulus at specific strain level γ

3216 G 0 = small-strain shear modulus at γ=0 (initial tangent value)
3217 R f = 1-G f /G 0 (assumed 0.95 in the above example) where G f is shear modulus near
3218 soil failure
3219 γ f = soil strain near failure (assumed 0.01 in the above example)
3220 a = shape parameter of non-linearity (assumed 0.95 in the above example)
3221
3222 Figure 23 illustrates this formula in graphical form:

3223
3224
– 96 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
3225
3226 Figure 23 – Variation of shear modulus with soil strain
3227 The most reliable methods of obtaining site specific small-strain shear modulus (G o ) involve
3228 the use of geophysical methods to measure shear wave velocity through a representative
3229 zone of influence below the foundation. Such methods include Multichannel Analysis of
3230 Surface Waves (MASW) or cross-hole methods which are offered commercially in most
3231 regions. Alternatively published correlations between other measured soil parameters and
3232 shear wave velocity may be used with caution, taking due consideration of correlation
3233 uncertainty. The following relationship allows the small-strain shear modulus to be derived:
G o = ρv
2
3234
3235 Where G o = small-strain shear modulus

3236 ρ = soil density obtained from physical measurements
3237 v = shear wave velocity
3238 L.2 Dynamic rotational stiffness

3239 Dynamic foundation rotational stiffness shall be verified based on small-strain shear modulus.
3240 The foundation rotational stiffness is a function of contact area; this shall be calculated for the
3241 S3 load level and any reduction from full contact shall be accounted in the stiffness
3242 calculation.
3243 The generic formula for the calculation of dynamic rotational stiffness of a shallow foundation
3244 in contact with a semi-infinite uniform soil takes the form:
3245
8Go R 3
3246 K R ,dyn =
3247
3(1 − ν )
3248 Where K R,dyn = the dynamic rotational stiffness of the foundation subjected to overturning
3249 moments
3250 G o = the small-strain shear modulus of the soil
3251 R = the foundation radius in contact with the subgrade
3252 ν = the Poisson’s Ratio of the soil
3253 Additional terms may be added to this formula to take account of the benefits of foundation
3254 embedment, limited depth to a harder stratum or increasing soil stiffness within the depth
3255 influence of the foundation.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 97 –
3256 Note the above equation is only valid for foundations in full contact with the ground at the S3
3257 load level. For circular or octagonal foundations exhibiting less than 100% contact with the
3258 sub grade, the effective radius may be approximated to half the width in contact with the
3259 ground. Since the rotational stiffness is proportional to the cube of the radius of the contact
3260 area, it is highly sensitive to the contact area. Figure 24 provides an example of this effect for
3261 an octagonal shaped foundation, whereby loss of full contact occurs at a load eccentricity of
3262 approximately 0.13.
3263 Where: load eccentricity = e/B
3264 And e = horizontal distance between centre of soil reaction and geometric
3265 centre of the foundation
3266 B = breadth of the foundation
3267
3268
3269 Figure 24 – Reduction in rotational stiffness due to load eccentricity
3270 L.3 Static Rotational Stiffness

3271 Static foundation rotational stiffness, where required to be checked by the turbine
3272 manufacturer, shall be verified based on a soil modulus which makes allowance for the
3273 reduction of small strain shear stiffness as a function of actual soil strain under S1 load case.
3274 The calculation of static rotational stiffness for the foundation may make use of the same
3275 generic formula as for the dynamic condition, adjusted for strain effects as shown below.
3276 Generally, wind turbine foundations should operate within the range of soil strain between
3277 0.0001 and 0.001 (0.01 to 0.1%) during normal operation and up to characteristic loads.
3278
8GR 3
3279 K R , stat =
3(1 − ν )
3280
3281 Where K R,stat = the static rotational stiffness of the foundation subjected to overturning
3282 moments
3283 G = the shear modulus of the soil reduced from G o to account for non-zero soil
3284 strain
3285
– 98 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
3286 The same enhancements may be made to account for the benefits of foundation embedment,
3287 limited depth to a harder stratum or increasing soil stiffness within the depth influence of the
3288 foundation.
3289 The application of the principles described above to incorporate the reduction in soil shear
3290 modulus with strain and reduced bearing width is illustrated in Figure 25 for a typical
3291 foundation. Note that this example curve is based on an octagonal foundation founded on
3292 firm (but not hard) soils, and such a curve should be generated using specific foundation
3293 characteristics to ensure compatibility with all design assumptions relating to soil type,
3294 loading conditions and foundation geometry.
3295
3296
3297 Figure 25 – Illustrative example of reduction in foundation rotational stiffness due to
3298 increasing load eccentricity
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 99 –
3299 Annex M Guidance for rock anchored foundation design

3300 (Informative)
3301 M.1 General

3302 Rock anchors shall be designed according to the Reference Standard, the following text
3303 makes reference to European and North American standards. Alternative equivalent
3304 standards are also acceptable.
3305 Rock anchored foundations should be designed and constructed according to EN 1997-1:2004
3306 chapter 8 and EN 1537:1999 or the “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil
3307 Anchors”, by the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI DC35.1.14).
3308 M.2 Corrosion protection

3309 M.2.1 Standard Anchors
3310 The rock anchor shall be designed as a permanent anchor. Corrosion protection should
3311 comply with EN 1537:1999 chapter 6.9 or table 3 or Section 6.4 of PTI DC35.1.14. Normally
3312 the corrosion protection consists of double protection system. For stranded rock anchor
3313 systems designed with the PTI criteria, the system shall be designed with Class I corrosion
3314 protection in place.
3315
3316 Typical
3317
3318 Figure 26 – Section through rock and anchor
– 100 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
3319
3320
3321 Figure 27 – Typical anchor configuration with corrosion protection

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 101 –
3322 M.2.2 Corrosion protection of bar anchors

3323 Section M.2.1 is also valid for bar anchors. Corrosion protection for threaded bar anchors
3324 should follow Post Tension Institute guidelines for class I protection.
3325 M.3 Product approval

3326 The post tensioned system should have an ETAG-approval according to ETAG 013 from
3327 EOTA (European Organization for Technical Approvals) or similar certification. In the absence
3328 of regional certification, clear information should be provided regarding ASTM test criteria,
3329 mill certificates, material strengths, and material uniformity for all rock anchor materials.
3330 M.4 Rock anchor design

3331 Rock anchors should be designed according to EN 1537:1999 and EN 1992-1-1:2004 chapter
3332 5.10 or PTI Section 6.0.
3333 Maximum pre-stressing force can be calculated according to:
3334 - EN 1992-1-1:2005 chapter 5.10.2-3
3335 - EN 1537:1999 Annex E chapter E.2.
3336
3337 Maximum lock-off load : P lock-off < 0,65*P k , P k = f pk *A s

3338
3339 Lock-off load : P lock-off is defined as the load transferred to the foundation by the rock anchor
3340 after completion of stressing operation (after locking the wedges).
3341 f pk = characteristic tensile strength of pre-stressing steel
3342 The free length may be calculated according to EN 1537:1999 chapter 9.9, PTI DC35.1-14
3343 and/or by calculating friction losses and losses due to anchor slip when wedges are tightened,
3344 or slip in mounting hardware for solid bar anchors.
3345 M.5 Grout design

3346 Anchor grout and quality assurance should be designed and conducted in accordance with EN
3347 1537:1999 chapter 6.7 and 8.3 or PTI DC35.1-14 section 7.8 and Figure 7.1. Grout should be
3348 tested and mixed according to the Eurocode and PTI specifications and the manufacturer’s
3349 requirements where appropriate.
– 102 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015
3350
3351 M.6 Testing and execution

3352 Testing, supervision and monitoring of rock anchors should be conducted according to EN
3353 1537:1999 chapter 9 or PTI DC35.1-14 Section 8.0.
3354 If rock anchor design and testing is performed per EN 1537:1999, anchor test load (proof
3355 load) :
3356 P p > 1.25*P o < 0.95* P p0.1k (P o = P lock-off )
3357 P p0.1k = f p0.1k *A s
3358 f p0.1k = Characteristic 0,1 % proof-stress of pre stressing steel
3359
3360 Recommendations in PTI DC35.1-14 Section 8.0 may also be utilised for load testing of the
3361 rock anchors.
3362 Execution may be performed in accordance with EN 1537:1999 chapter 8 and CEN Workshop
3363 Agreement, CWA 14646.
3364 M.7 Suitability/Performance test

3365 At least three suitability/performance tests should to be conducted on anchors constructed
3366 under identical conditions.
3367 Minimum of five load cycles should be used. Maximum creep displacement should be 1 mm.
3368 Performance tests may also be carried out in accordance with PTI DC35.1-14, Section 8.3.2.
3369 M.8 Acceptance/Proof test

3370 Each working anchor not subjected to a performance test should be subjected to an
3371 acceptance/proof test in accordance with EN 1537:199 chapter 9.7 or PTI DC35.1-14, section
3372 8.3.3.
3373 Loading to proof load (Pp) may be performed as indicated in PTI DC35.1-14, Table 8.2 or by a
3374 minimum of three equal increments. The monitoring/hold period should be not less than 5
3375 minutes at proof load and the maximum creep displacement should be 0,8 mm.
3376 M.9 Supplementary Extended Creep Tests

3377 Extended creep tests may be necessary in decomposed or argillaceous rock materials that
3378 may have a potential for time dependent movement. Supplementary creep tests should be
3379 carried out in accordance with PTI DC 35.1-14 Section 8.3.4.
3380 Note that due to the dynamic loading nature of wind turbines, additional means should be
3381 implemented to maintain rock anchor tension during the design life of the foundation,
3382 particularly during the first 3 to 5 years of operation. Periodic anchor tension measurements
3383 or installation of permanent tension measurement devices may be utilized for select anchors
3384 for confirmation of adequate anchor tension during the design life of the wind turbines.
61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 103 –
3385 Annex N Internal loads

3386 Explanation of internal loads
3387 (Informative)
3388
3389 N.1 General

3390 The loads provided by the methods in IEC 61400-1 or -2 are referred to as internal loads.
3391 They are the loads between internal sections and interfaces such as flanges. They are not the
3392 loads applied to the external surfaces of the structure. The methods of structural analysis
3393 shall take account of this. This is particularly important when using the loads with finite
3394 element modelling where it is necessary to ensure that internal loads are represented
3395 correctly at the relevant interface but cannot be applied directly as the interface cannot be a
3396 free edge or must be constrained correctly.
3397

IEC 61400-6-Wind Turbine Foundation - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

IEC 61400-6-Wind Turbine Foundation - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEC 61400-6-Wind Turbine Foundation - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ID: 12830

IEC TC88 – 61400-6

Karl Lundstedt - Skanska

I referensgruppen har följande personer ingått:

Karl Lundstedt från Skanska Teknik

2 TC88 61400-6, TOWER AND FOUNDATION DESIGN

4 SYFTET MED ARBETET

Convener : John Dalsgaard Sörensen, University of Åalborg

Se medlemmar i arbetsgruppen 61400-6 i bilaga 1.

5.1 Arbetsgruppens struktur

Uppdelningen har varit:

Nr Plats Datum Kommentar

Arbetet har också bedrivits via telefonmöten.

Foto från vårt möte i Malmö.

Kapitel 7 angående betong skulle behövas kompletteras med några delar:

1 Member Mr Stefan Baars DE DNV-GL

36 Member Mr Yehy CN China Windey

37 Member Mr Zhangqiang CN SHTSP

38 Member Mr Eric Ntambakwa US DNV-GL

39 Member Mr Matthew Rogers US DNV-GL

40 Member Mrs Liv Hamre NO DNV-GL

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 –1–

–2– 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 –3–

49 9.1 Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring ................................................................ 65

–4– 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015

96 M.1 General ................................................................................................................. 98

108 Figure 1 – Flange notations as an example of an L-flange .................................................... 28

138 Table 1 – Damping coefficients ............................................................................................. 23

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 –5–

140 Table 3 - Summary of geotechnical limit states ..................................................................... 49

–6– 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015

153 INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSION

156 WIND TURBINES –

158 Part 6: Tower and Foundation Design requirements

199 This is the first edition.

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 –7–

–8– 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 –9–

228 WIND TURBINES –

230 Part 6: Tower and Foundation Design requirements

– 10 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 11 –

246 2 Normative references

251 - IEC 61400-1

– 12 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015

266 3 Terms and definitions

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 13 –

– 14 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 15 –

– 16 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015

435 4 Symbols and Abbreviated terms

454 f yk Characteristic reinforcement yield strength

61400-1 preCD  IEC:2015 – 17 –

473 n (Δs i ) Number of load cycles for a given range Δs i

476 P lock-off , Lock off load for rock anchor

483 r Transition radius

– 18 – 61400-6 pre-CD  IEC:2015