Experimental and computational dynamic response comparison of hybrid and mono windmill towers considering soil–structure interaction

  • Hemal J. ShahEmail author
  • Atul K. Desai
Original Paper


In countries like India, wind turbine heights are rapidly increasing to harvest more wind energy at a given location. In recent years, due to increase in hub height of windmill likelihood, soil lying below foundation may influence dynamic response of wind turbines. By increasing the height of the conventional monopole supporting system, it becomes slender and dynamically sensitive under the influence of soil below foundation; therefore, in the present investigation, hybrid supporting system is proposed to avoid slenderness effect of monopole system. A 1:40 scaled model of 78-m-high conventional monopole windmill and hybrid windmill comprised of nacelle, rotor mass and supporting tower are prepared in the laboratory. To study the behavior of both the towers under operational dynamic loads of rotor, laboratory tests were conducted on scaled model considering soil below foundation. Simulations of experimental analysis are presented for multi-degree of freedom turbine structure subjected to dynamic loading of rotor considering soil stiffness below base. It is examined in terms of displacement in time domain, shear at base of tower and response spectra. From laboratory tests and its simulation, it can be concluded that hybrid supporting system are recommended for windmill towers with higher hub heights considering soil stiffness below foundations.


Dynamic analysis Hybrid windmill Base shear Soil–structure interaction 



The author would like to show their appreciation to the department of applied mechanics, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat, India, for providing laboratory facilities and other instruments for this research. The authors also show their appreciation to Nuta et al. (2011) for using various data of windmill tower in present investigation from their research work.


This study has not been funded from any funding agencies.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Adhikari, S., & Bhattacharya, S. (2012). Dynamic analysis of wind turbine towers on flexible foundations. Shock and Vibration, 19, 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alhamaydeh, M., & Hussain, S. (2011). Optimized frequency-based foundation design for wind turbine towers utilizing soil-structure. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 348, 1470–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, L. V., et al. (2012). Natural frequencies of wind turbines on monopile foundations in clayey soils—A probabilistic approach. Computers and Geotechnics, 43, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin, S., & Jerath, S. (2017). Effect of soil-foundation-structure interaction on the seismic response of wind turbines. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 8, 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattacharya, S., & Adhikari, S. (2011). Experimental validation of soil-structure interaction of offshore wind turbines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31, 805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhattacharya, S., et al. (2013). Observed dynamic soil-structure interaction in scale testing of offshore wind turbine foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 54, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Draxl, C., et al. (2014). Wind Resource Assessment of Gujarat (India). Report by NREL USA July 2014.Google Scholar
  8. Harte, M., Basu, B., & Nielsen, S. R. (2012). Dynamic analysis of wind turbines including soil-structure interaction. Engineering Structures, 45, 509–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. He, G., & Li, J. (2008). Seismic analysis of wind turbine system including soil-structure interaction. In The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering (pp. 1–7).Google Scholar
  10. Hongwang, M. (2012). Seismic analysis for wind turbines including soil-structure interaction combining vertical and horizontal earthquake. In 15th world conference on earthquake engineering.Google Scholar
  11. Kaveh, A., Mahdavi, V. R., & Kamalinejad, M. (2017). Optimal design of the monopole structures using CBO and ECBO algorithms. Periodica Polytechnica-Civil Engineering, 61(1), 110–116.Google Scholar
  12. Kaveh, A., & Sabeti, S. (2018a). Optimal design of jacket supporting structures for offshore wind turbines using CBO and ECBO algorithms. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 62(3), 545–554.Google Scholar
  13. Kaveh, A., & Sabeti, S. (2018b). Structural optimization of jacket supporting structures for offshore wind turbines using colliding bodies optimization algorithm. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 27(13), e1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaveh, A., & Sabeti, S. (2018c). Optimal design of monopile offshore wind turbine structures using CBO, ECBO, and VPS algorithms. Scientia Iranica Transaction A, Civil Engineering, 26(3), 1232–1248.Google Scholar
  15. Kaveh, A., & Sabeti, S. (2019). Optimal design of jacket supporting structures for offshore wind turbines using enhanced colliding bodies optimization. International Journal of Optimization in Civil Engineering, 9(1), 129–145.Google Scholar
  16. Lombardi, D., Bhattacharya, S., & Wood, D. M. (2013). Dynamic soil-structure interaction of monopile supported wind turbines in cohesive soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 49, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nuta, E., Christopoulos, C., & Packer, J. A. (2011). Methodology for seismic risk assessment for tubular steel wind turbine towers: application to Canadian seismic environment. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 38, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prowell, I. (2008). Shake table test of a 65 kW wind turbine and computational simulation. In 14th World conference on earthquake engineering, October 12–17, 2008, Beijing (pp. 1–10).Google Scholar
  19. Prowell, I. (2009). Modal properties of a modern wind turbine including SSI. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering: The academia and practice of geotechnical engineering (Vol. 3, pp. 1989–1992).Google Scholar
  20. Prowell, I., Elgamal, A., & Lu, J. (2010). Modeling the influence of soil structure interaction on the seismic response of a 5 MW wind turbine. In 5th international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics (pp. 1–9).Google Scholar
  21. Sawyer, S. (2017). Global Wind Power Report.Google Scholar
  22. Tabatabaiefar, H. R., & Mansoury, B. (2016). Detail design, building and commissioning of tall building structural models for experimental shaking table tests. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 25, 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tripathy, S., & Desai, A. K. (2016). Investigation of dynamic behavior for turbo generator frame foundation through experimental and computational approach. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 6362, 1–11.Google Scholar
  24. Yu, L. Q., et al. (2015). Long-term dynamic behavior of monopile supported offshore wind turbines in sand. Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters, 5(2), 80–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhao, P. M. X. (2016). Seismic response analysis of wind turbine towers including soil-structure interaction. In Proc. Mech. E Part K: J. multi-body dynamics (Vol. 220, pp. 53–61).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied Mechanic DepartmentGovernment Engineering CollegeBharuchIndia
  2. 2.Applied Mechanic DepartmentSardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of TechnologySuratIndia

Personalised recommendations