CMC RIGID INCLUSIONS AND GROUND IMPROVEMENT

CONSIDERATIONS UNDER WIND TURBINE FOUNDATIONS

J. Jong1 and A. Hubaut2
1
Design Engineer at Menard Oceania, Sydney head office, 13-15 Lyonpark Rd, Macquarie Park NSW 2113; PH (02) 9491 7100;
email: [email protected]
2
Design Manager at Menard Oceania, Sydney head office, 13-15 Lyonpark Rd, Macquarie Park NSW 2113; PH (02) 9491 7100;
email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Foundation systems for wind turbines are subject to large cyclic bending moments throughout their
lifetime. In unfavourable ground conditions, the turbine foundation under these loads may not meet
stability and serviceability requirements unless a form of foundation support is used including deep
piling, stone columns, rigid inclusions, or other alternative measures which improve bearing capacity
and reduce long term settlements. This paper describes the factors to be considered when choosing a
foundation support option and presents a case study on the Controlled Modulus Column (CMC) rigid
inclusion design supporting most of the turbine pad foundations at the Granville Harbour Wind Farm.
The design of the CMC system was analysed using numerical methods which predicted that the bearing
capacity, expected settlements and dynamic rotational stiffness would meet the turbine foundation
design requirements.

Keywords: Ground Improvement, Wind Turbine, Rigid Inclusions, Controlled Modulus Columns

1 INTRODUCTION

Wind turbines are constructed on a range of foundation types that are chosen according to various
factors including: i) if the environment is onshore or offshore, ii) ground conditions which can vary from
high strength rock to soft silts, and iii) the water table elevation. Large wind turbines can also reach
heights in excess of 120m causing significant bending moments to form at their base and when installed
in areas with unfavourable ground conditions foundation support will likely be required. When soft
ground conditions are encountered the turbines will likely be constructed on either a piled foundation
(deep foundation) or a slab foundation with ground improvement supported by Rigid Inclusions or Stone
Columns. This paper will address the design of such supports under onshore foundations.

In the cases where foundation support is required, choosing the most appropriate technique can be
difficult due to the performance limitations, construction feasibility and cost constraints involved. This
paper addresses the relevant principles and constraints for Stone Column, Rigid Inclusion and Deep
Pile foundation solutions with reference to the Recommendations for the design, calculation, installation
and inspection of wind-turbine foundations developed by the French Committee of Soil Mechanics
(CFMS) in 2011. As a following case study, the design of a Controlled Modulus Column (CMC) system
for the wind turbine foundations at the Granville Harbour Windfarm is described alongside the relevant
strength and serviceability performance improvements.

2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR ONSHORE WIND TURBINE FOUNDATIONS

For the purpose of design, the lifecycle of a turbine can be broken into a set of critical load cases that
represent the most significant conditions that the turbine will experience. These applicable load cases
have been defined in the Recommendations for the design, calculation, installation and inspection of
wind-turbine foundations (CFMS, 2011a). The International Standard Wind turbines – Part 1: Design
Requirements IEC 61400-1: 2005 requirements are summarised in the CFMS 2011a and state that the
following conditions are to be checked:
• Minimum foundation area in compression.
• Bearing capacity.
• Sliding resistance.
• Total and differential settlements.
• Stiffness;
o Long term rotational stiffness KφLT.
 o Dynamic rotational stiffness Kφdyn.
o Stiffness requirements in displacement.
• Factor of safety against sliding and overturning.

3 GRAVITY BASES ON SOIL REINFORCEMENT BY STONE COLUMNS

Stone Columns consists of vertical columns made of cohesionless material that is driven into the ground
and then compacted. This method of ground reinforcement creates a homogenous material with
improved mechanical characteristics that provide greater bearing capacity, stiffness and settlement
control underneath the foundation. The horizontal shear strength and internal friction angle is also
improved which increases the factor of safety against sliding. Guidelines for the design of stone columns
under turbine pad foundations are sourced from the CFMS 2011a and the Recommendations for the
design, calculation, construction and quality control of stone columns under buildings and sensitive
structures (CFMS, 2011b).

According to the CFMS 2011a, the Load Transfer Platform (LTP) is an important requirement below the
turbine foundations supported by stone columns as it prevents subsequent construction disturbing the
stone columns and ensures homogenous contact between the footing and soil. The CFMS 2011a further
states that load transfer (especially shear force) must be obtained by means of a load transfer platform.

The design of Stone Columns under the turbine pad foundations rely on the principles of proportional
load distribution between the soil and the Stone Columns via the LTP, as well as the limitation of the
mobilised lateral earth pressure surrounding the Stone Columns. As the Stone Column behaviour
depends on the soil confinement, the following limitations are noted:
• Lack of soil confinement in soft ground (undrained shear strength Cu < 20kPa or CPT resistance,
qc < 300 kPa) means it will be difficult to justify a bearing capacity greater than 250kPa at the
Serviceability Limit State (SLS) or 350kPa at the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) (CFMS 2011a).
• The static deformation modulus (E) must be limited as Stone Column characteristics rely on the
lateral confinement of the surrounding soil (CFMS 2011a).
• It may be necessary to include an extra row of stone columns outside of the peripheral rows
under the foundation if the design relies on perfect column confinement (CFMS 2011a).
• Bulging Failure limits qre must not be exceeded (CFMS 2011b).
• General Shear failure limits must not be exceeded (CFMS 2011b, Soyez 1985).
• Punching limits qrp must not be exceeded for floating columns (CFMS 2011b).
• The effects of groundwater infiltration through Stone Columns should be assessed ensuring
long term issues don’t arise under the foundation i.e. trigger potentially collapsible material.

Due to the general limits of the soil confinement Stone Columns may not be appropriate where the
ground conditions are soft or when they may form an unwanted drainage path. The significant benefits
typically associated with Stone Columns are the cost advantages as both material and associated plant
costs are usually low when compared to other foundation support options and with installation of the
columns performed with relatively high productivity rates.

4 GRAVITY BASES ON SOIL REINFORCEMENT BY RIGID INCLUSIONS

Rigid Inclusions typically comprise of mortar or concrete elements that are bored into the ground via soil
extraction or with soil displacement with the mortar or concrete cast in-situ. Rigid Inclusions may contain
reinforcing steel which is installed into the wet concrete if the above methods are used. Rigid Inclusions
may also be driven rather than bored using pre-cast concrete or steel columns. It should be noted that
Rigid Inclusions are stated to be the preferred form of soil reinforcement when the static ground
deformation modulus is less than 50MPa from the CFMS 2011a.

Rigid Inclusions are noted by the author to support the wind turbine foundations on the Fantanele &
Cogealac wind farms which are currently the largest onshore wind farm project in Europe (Wind Europe
2013, Windpower Monthly 2019). These wind farms consist of 139 turbines of 2.5MW, with the turbine
structures total height being about 150m above ground. The ground consisted of aeolian loss deposits
over stiff clays or sandy silts underlain by rocky schist encountered down to 27m depth. Rigid Inclusions
were installed at a grid between 4.5m2 to 2.0m2 to accommodate significant bending moments of
between 35 000 to 76 000kNm (Plomteux and Ciortan, 2010).
Rigid Inclusions reinforce the soil to deliver similar benefits as Stone Columns by improving bearing
capacity, increasing overall stiffness and providing settlement control. Unlike Stone Columns, Rigid
Inclusions are not limited to the lateral confinement of the surrounding soil defining the characteristics
of the semi-rigid elements. However as displacement effects due to differential shortening could occur,
a detailed analysis of the soil-inclusion and inclusion-soil load transfer mechanisms are required.
Guidelines for the design of rigid inclusions under the turbine pad foundations are sourced from both
the CFMS 2011a and the National ASIRI Project for the Recommendations for the design, construction
and control of rigid inclusion ground improvements by IREX in 2012.

The design of the Rigid Inclusions relies on the principles of the structural load being distributed between
the soil and rigid inclusions via the LTP including resultant displacements of the inclusions and the
surrounding soil. Loads on the inclusions are also limited by the settlement that occurs on the sub-base
layer under the inclusion tip and the inclusion penetrating in the load-transfer platform. In addition to the
need for Rigid Inclusions to provide adequate bearing capacity, the following geotechnical and structural
requirements apply:
• The geotechnical resistance of inclusions is calculated according to pressuremeter or
penetrometer methods for tip resistance, Rb and Positive skin friction, qs for friction below neutral
plane (IREX, 2012).
• Negative skin friction, for friction above the neutral plane, must be verified such that the friction
τ of the soil along the inclusion shaft above the neutral plane does not exceed the limit value
σv’. (IREX, 2012).
• The mean compressive force at the ULS is limited to fcd and the mean compressive force at the
SLS is limited to the minimum of 0.3fc* and 0.45fc. Where fcd is the inclusion design compressive
strength, f*c is the characteristic value for concrete or grout strength and f c is the concrete
compressive strength (CFMS, 2011a).
• The structural integrity of columns under stresses calculated from combined bending actions
must be verified (CFMS, 2011a).
• The structural integrity of columns in shear must be verified following the requirements of
Eurocode 2 part 12 for unreinforced inclusions (CFMS, 2011a).

Without the limitations of the soil confinement preventing using Stone Columns in soft ground conditions,
Rigid Inclusions provide a foundation support solution applicable in most ground conditions. Although
installation costs for Rigid Inclusions may be somewhat higher than Stone Columns due to sourcing
material (mortar or concrete) and plant to outlying regions, productivity rates are generally quite high for
rigid inclusions which helps to balance cost. As Rigid Inclusions are able provide foundation support to
a wide range of ground conditions with relatively minimal plant components, they make an ideal solution
to supporting most types of turbine foundations.

5 PILED FOUNDATIONS (DEEP FOUNDATIONS)

When design requirements cannot be met with ground improvement options then piles in a deep
foundation system may be necessary. Piles in the deep foundation system provide greater rigidity than
ground improvement solutions through the direct connection of the foundation to the piling elements
which are anchored into deeper and significantly stiffer strata, usually rock. Typically, the piling solution
under turbine foundations consist of installing piles in a circular ring or rings about the perimeter of the
foundation pad where stresses are highest due to the overturning moments. Drawbacks for piling
solutions often involve greater cost and time implications compared to ground improvement solutions.
These factors include the need to transport more expensive and heavier materials, particularly steel
reinforcement, to be brought to remote areas, more plant components to move the reinforcement and
slower productivity. Installation of the structural connections typically as thick pile caps between the pile
and footings also contribute to additional cost expenditures and time.

A key difference between piled foundations and rigid inclusion foundations is that they result in
significantly higher bending moments and vertical stresses at the head of the pile which leads to greater
reinforcement requirements as demonstrated through 3D analyses conducted by Pham et al (2018). For
the specific scenarios modelled by Pham et al (2018), piling options were compared to rigid inclusions
with a 500mm LTP and similar replacement ratios of 2.4%, 4.8% and 7.2%. The analysis showed that
although the piling option represented only about 4% to 5% (less than 5mm) of the settlements of rigid
inclusions, stresses in the piles were substantially higher with bending moments more than three times
that of the rigid inclusions.
6 CMC RIGID INCLUSIONS IN GRANVILLE HARBOR WINDFARM

Granville Harbour Wind Farm (GHWF) covers an area of approximately 800 hectares and is currently
under construction near Zeehan, on the west coast of Tasmania. When complete, the wind farm will
host 31 Vestas V126 wind turbine generators, each rated at 3.6MW with a maximum rated capacity of
111.6MW. The turbine foundation loads are shown in Table 1.
Controlled Modulus Columns (CMCs) was developed by Menard Soltraitement to support structures
including wind turbines, warehouses, industrial buildings, medium weight housings, roads, railways,
embankments, and storage tanks. The CMCs is predominantly used for sites with soft cohesive soils,
loose sand, chalk, organic soil and peat. During the tender stage, several foundation solutions were
considered including Piling, Stone Columns and Rigid Inclusions. Ultimately the solution chosen
employed CMCs as Rigid Inclusions and was based on:
• High loads imposed by 3.6MW wind turbines make it difficult to justify allowable stresses in the
soil and Stone Columns. This includes considering potential lateral expansion failure and
punching failure of Stone Columns.
• The remoteness of the site and the expense required to control the quality of the Stone Columns
in the variable ground conditions.
• Remoteness of the site means any additional machinery and materials needed, including steel
for piling methods, results in significantly more expense.
• CMCs have a much faster installation rate than that of Stone Columns or Piling.
• Unlike Stone Columns made of free draining stone aggregate, CMCs do not create a preferential
drainage path.
Based on the wind turbine manufacturer’s specifications, the foundation solution was required to provide
a rotational stiffness in dynamic conditions, Kϕ-dyn, of not less than 54GNm/rad. The ground conditions
were noted to be variable across the site with groundwater levels measured from 1.8m to 17.5m with an
average in the order of 10m depth below natural ground level. Although the ground conditions varied,
one of the more prominent soil profiles used in the design is summarised and shown in the table below.
Calculations were performed considering the foundation base geometry with an equivalent circular base
derived from the area of the octagonal foundation pad. As the octagonal pad base has an area of 338m2,
the diameter of the equivalent circular base is 20.75m. For the given load types in Table 1, the design
cases were calculated and the minimum area requirements for the foundation in compression due to
overturning were deemed acceptable in accordance with the CFMS 2011a.

Table 1: Wind turbine foundation loads

Load type SLS/ULS* N= Vertical (kN) H= Horizontal (kN) M= Moment (kNm)

ULS Fundamental 5,600 900 121,200
ULS Accidental 5,600 1,000 128,200
SLS Rare 5,600 900 121,200
SLS quasi-
5,700 600 73,300
permanent
*SLS: service limit state; ULS: ultimate limit state

Table 2: Soil Profile

Soil Description Depth to top of layer (m) Ey (MPa) Em (Mpa)

Silt – Stiff 0.0 6.7 3.4
Clay – Firm 3.3 3.3 2.2
Clay – Firm-Stiff 12.0 5.0 3.3
Clay – Stiff-Very Stiff 19.0 11.0 7.3
Clay – Hard (*) 22.5 20.0 13.3
(*) Anchoring layer of CMCs
Calculations for bearing and settlement analysis however consider the reference area, Sref and the
corresponding reference stress, σref which represent the relative compressed area and relative average
loading which is equivalent to the compressed area, Scomp and the non-uniform loading over it. The
reference area was derived according to the “half-moon” model defined in the CFMS 2011a. The non-
uniform loadings over the compressed area Scomp are used for calculating local bearing capacity and
allowable stress requirements for individual CMCs at each grid location. The relative compressed areas
with the representation of the loadings per CMC location are shown in Figure 2, where larger circles
represent a proportionally larger load at the CMC location.
Equivalent improved ground parameters were determined considering an axi-symmetrical calculation of
a CMC unit cell using the quasi-permanent load case. The analysis utilised Menard in-house software
that captures the distribution of the stresses and displacements from underside of the foundation slab,
LTP, along the CMC, in the anchoring layer and throughout the surrounding soil. The Menard software
is developed according to the analytical model MV2 explained in the ASIRI (IREX, 2012).
Stiffnesses determined and utilised in the design include the following:
• Equivalent modulus of reinforced ground: 79.8Mpa.
• Equivalent dynamic modulus of reinforced ground: 239.4Mpa.
• Long-term rotational stiffnesses in large-strain domain: 106.8GNm/rad.
• Long-term vertical stiffness: 5Mpa/m.
• Dynamic horizontal stiffness in small-strain domain: 338MN/m.
• Dynamic rotational stiffnesses in small-strain domain: 320GNm/rad > 54GNm/rad.
Global bearing capacity of the foundation system was assessed for each load case. Similarly, local
bearing capacity was assessed for the most heavily loaded CMC cell. The global bearing capacity in
SLS and ULS were 264kPa and 385kPa respectively.

Figure 1 – CMC section and arrangement under modelled turbine pad at GHWF

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2 – (a) Compressed area, Scomp in black hatching and reference area, Sref in red hatching (b)
Reference area, Sref over CMC arrangement (c) Distributed load per CMC location over compressed
area, Scomp
 Table 3: Global Bearing Capacity Assessment

Bearing
Reference Reference Number of Allowable
Capacity per Mobilized load
Type stress, σref area, Sref supporting bearing capacity
CMC, QCMC σref . Sref (kN)
(kPa) (m2) CMCs, n (kN)
(kN)
ULS fund1 263.9 155.7 58 555 41085 59888
ULS fund2 306.8 99.2 41 555 30433 40306
ULS acc 208.8 139.0 54 610 29019 60361
SLS Rare 176.1 172.9 67 431 30433 51587
SLS QP 128.9 236.5 89 352 30478 62505
1: ULS fundamental case 1, 2: ULS fundamental case 2

Settlement and rotation of the foundation system were calculated from rigidities of the improved ground
for SLS quasi-permanent load. Minimum, average and maximum settlement of the foundation were
calculated to be 19 mm, 26 mm and 33 mm respectively with calculations showing differential settlement
would be less than 3mm/m. Once the calculations were completed the wind turbine foundation system
for the described ground profile consisted of an octagonal shaped gravity-based footing with 20.2m
length and 3.75m depth of embedment. Static load tests verified the performance of the inclusion-soil
response where the CMC was load tested to 440kN in accordance with the testing scheme in ASIRI
(IREX, 2012) resulting in a total of 2.5mm of movement.

7 CONCLUSION

Although each foundation support system has its suitability in different scenarios, care should be taken
for each type of support due to the nature of the mechanisms involved including; Stone Columns for the
lateral confinement pressures particularly in soft ground, Rigid Inclusions for the differential shortening
of inclusion to soil and Piling solutions for the large resultant bending moments and stresses in each
pile. As windfarms are usually planted in outlying areas, the benefits of each foundation system need to
also be reviewed against the associated costs which can increase significantly if more material or plant
is required. The ground improvement design of CMC Rigid Inclusions under the GHWF highlights the
effectiveness of this foundation support for large onshore wind turbines and demonstrates the properties
of the reinforced soil.

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Menard Oceania for providing the project information,
Lucas Construction, Vestas and Granville Harbour Wind Farm Pty Ltd for permission to publish.

REFERENCES

(CFMS) Comité Français de la Mécanique des Sols et De Géotechnique (2011a) “Recommendations for the Design, Calculation,
Installation and Inspection of Wind-Turbine Foundations”, Revision 1.1. 109.
(CFMS) Comité Français de la Mécanique des Sols et De Géotechnique (2011b) “Recommendations for the Design, Calculation,
Construction and Quality Control of Stone Columns Under Buildings and Sensitive Structures”, Version No. 2
(IREX) Institute for Applied Research and Experimentation in Civil Engineering (2012) “ASIRI National Project. Recommendations
for the design, construction and control of rigid inclusion ground improvements”.
Frank, R. and Zhao, S, R. (1982) “Estimation à partir des paramètres pressiométriques de l'enfoncement sous charge axiale de
pieux forés dans les sols fins.” Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées, 119, 17-24.
IEC 61400-1: 2005 (Wind Turbines – Part 1: Design Requirements)
Pham, H, V. Dias, D. Miranda, T. Cristerlo, N. and Araújo, N (2018) “3D Numerical Modelling of Foundation Solutions for Wind
Turbines”, International Journal of Geomechanics, 18(12), 04018164.
Plomteux, C. and Ciortan, R. (2010) “Integrated Ground improvement solution for the largest wind farm project in Europe”, Proc
14th Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Engineering ‘From Research to Design in European Practice, 2010.
Bratislava, Slovakia.
Soyez, B. (1985) “Méthodes de dimensionnement des colonnes ballastées”, Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et
Chaussées, 135, 35-51.
Wind Europe (2013), Ten biggest onshore wind farms in Europe, Viewed 28 February 2020,
<http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/publications/statistics/Ten_biggest_wind_farms_in_Europe.pdf>.
Windpower Monthly (2019), Ten of the best projects from the last decade, Viewed 28 February 2020,
<https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1666828/ten-best-projects-last-decade>.