Conference Paper

NREL/CP-500-46225

March 2010

FAST Simulation of Wind Turbine 

Seismic Response

I. Prowell and A. Elgamal

University of California – San Diego

J. Jonkman

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Presented at the 2009 Asian-Pacific Network of Centers for 

Earthquake Engineering Research (ANCER) Workshop

Urbana-Champaign, Illinois

August 13–14, 2009
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC 

(ASE), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308. Accordingly, the US 

Government and ASE retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
ABSTRACT

Numerical modeling is an essential tool for predicting the seismic response of structures. Many 

mature computational tools, both commercial and public domain, are available for modeling 

stationary buildings and structures. Wind turbines are structures in motion, however, and as such 

are not easily modeled in these existing packages. FAST, an open source software tool

maintained by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), designed specifically to 

simulate turbine dynamics, overcomes this limitation. This paper discusses recent additions to

FAST that allow a user to consider seismic loads in addition to existing robust capabilities for 

simulating wind and other load sources under the various states of wind turbine operation. For 

that purpose, researchers at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) first simulated 

seismic response for a small utility-scale wind turbine to a suite of earthquake motions using an 

experimentally validated OpenSees model. A comparable model built for FAST was subjected to 

the same earthquake recordings. Results from the two models validate this new capability in 

FAST.
2

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their gratitude to all the organizations, corporations, and individuals who 

contributed to this investigation, and who fund this research (National Science Foundation grant 

no. CMMI 0830422). Oak Creek Energy Systems (Hal Romanowitz and J. Edward Duggan) 

generously donated the 65-kW turbine for shake table testing and continues to assist in 

advancing this important area of research. The pilot phase of shake-table testing was conducted 

in collaboration with Professors José Restrepo and Marc Veletzos. In situ testing is progressing 

with the oversight of Dr. Robert Nigbor of the University of California Los Angeles. To facilitate 

this research, Dr. Paul Veers and the Sandia National Laboratories Wind Energy Technology 

Department gave summer internship support (Mr. Ian Prowell), guidance, and advice.
3

Introduction

Wind energy production continues to grow rapidly—almost 20 GW of capacity was built 

worldwide in 2007, and total production rapidly approached 100 GW (Wiser and Bolinger 2008).

More so than with past installations, recent growth is expanding into some regions of high 

seismic hazard. In response to this trend, regulating bodies recently added some seismic 

requirements for certifying wind turbines (Germanischer Lloyd 2003; IEC 2005).

These updated certification guidelines led to an increased interest in considering related seismic 

loading. Early investigations (Bazeos et al. 2002; Lavassas et al. 2003) focused on tower loading 

using models that lump the nacelle and rotor as a point mass (Figure 1). Gradually, interest 

shifted from these simple models to more refined models that also consider loads for turbine 

components other than the tower (Ritschel et al. 2003; Witcher 2005; Haenler et al. 2006; Zhao 

and Maisser 2006). Migration to models that include dynamics of the rotor (Figure 1) is also 

dictated by industry standard load cases such as an emergency shutdown triggered by an 

earthquake (IEC 2005). In addition to modeling techniques, researchers investigated effects such 

as soil structure interaction through equivalent springs and dampers (Bazeos et al. 2002; Zhao 

and Maisser 2006). Each of these publications approaches modeling seismic loads for wind 

turbines differently, and with the exception of Witcher (2005), none offers a publically available 

tool for analyzing wind turbines.

LOWER JOINT

ACCELEROMTER

UPPER JOINT

ACCELEROMETER

TOWER BASE

LATERAL BASE EXCITATION

TOP OF NACELLE

ACCELEROMETER

MIDD LE SECTION

UPPER

SECTION

MIDDLE

SECTION

LOWER

SECTION

HUB

ROTOR

lea der

X

Y

Z

Figure 1. Wind turbine configuration and location of accelerometers

This paper details updates to the FAST (Jonkman and Buhl 2005) code, an open-source piece of 

software capable of modeling turbine dynamics that allow users to consider base excitation; it 
4

also discusses existing capabilities. A finite element code, OpenSees, was used to benchmark 

results obtained with the updated version of FAST. We compared simulations of an idling 

turbine subjected to base shaking from FAST to OpenSees simulations using an experimentally 

validated turbine model (Prowell et al. 2008).
5

Description of FAST

The FAST code is a package that models two- and three-bladed horizontal-axis wind turbines 

(HAWTs) under various conditions to predict extreme and fatigue loads (Jonkman and Buhl 

2005). For aerodynamic calculations, FAST employs the subroutines for HAWTs in the 

AeroDyn Code (Laino and Hansen 2001). The FAST code uses a combined modal and 

multibody dynamics formulation to simulate a turbines dynamic behavior in the time domain.

The code solves the equations of motion using standard multibody dynamics formulations with 

elements whose flexibility is determined by summing user-defined mode shapes. Wind Turbine 

designers and researchers throughout the world use the FAST code. Germanischer Lloyd Wind 

Energie evaluated the code and found it suitable for calculating onshore wind turbine loads for 

design and certification.

Of particular interest to this work are recent updates to FAST that allow modeling of an offshore 

turbine on a movable platform (Jonkman 2007). These updates are a mechanism to supply a 

force and moment to be applied at the tower base platform with six degrees of freedom at each 

time step for a time marching simulation. In earthquake engineering, a base acceleration time 

history is responsible for the resulting structural loads. The model configuration may prescribe

acceleration time histories for each of the three translational axes (Figure 1). Using an artificially

large mass for the platform, approximately 5,000 times the mass of the turbine, the force required 

to achieve the desired acceleration can be calculated by F= ma, where F is the required force, m

is the total system mass (turbine and artificial platform mass), and a is the desired acceleration.

This simple approach produces a faithful reproduction of the desired acceleration history, but 

implicitly assumes that the foundation and soil surrounding the turbine, modeled by the large 

artificial platform mass, act as a rigid block without rocking. This assumption is frequently used

in earthquake engineering, but specific locations should be evaluated to ensure validity. In 

conjunction with the prescribed acceleration time history, all other loading mechanisms in the 

FAST code are still available. This allows time domain simulation of simultaneous earthquake 

and wind loads as well as the required simulation of an earthquake-induced emergency shutdown

(IEC 2005). Conducting this calculation in the time domain allows a researcher to directly 

consider nonlinear effects such as structural nonlinearities, aerodynamic hysteresis, control 

system influence, and transients—all of which are important to wind turbine response.
6

Turbine Model

The models described here are based on a 65-kW Nordtank (Figure 2) wind turbine 

manufactured in Denmark. Many of these and similar turbines were installed during the 1980s in

California. They are characterized by high reliability and simple operation in comparison to other 

turbines of a similar vintage (Hau 2006). These turbines are still in use in some areas, and many

retired units have been reconditioned for sale on the second-hand market.

Figure 2. 65-kW Nordtank shake table test

A 65-kW turbine is near the lowest power rating used in 1980s-era utility-scale wind farms.

Though no longer desirable for utility-scale applications, this size unit is still appropriate for 

distributed power applications. In comparison to modern megawatt-scale turbines, this unit is 

small, but it represents the most common turbine configuration, a thin-walled tubular steel tower 

topped with a nacelle that yaws to orient the rotor into the wind. Table 1 summarizes the 

turbine’s engineering properties.
7

Table 1. Wind Turbine Properties

Property Value

Rated power 65 kW

Speed regulation Passive stall

Operational RPM range 45–55 rpm

Rated wind speed 33.8 km/h

Rotor diameter 16.0 m

Tower height 22 m

Lower section length 7.9 m

Lower section diameter 2.0 m

Middle section length 7.9 m

Middle section diameter 1.6 m

Top section length 6.0 m

Top section diameter 1.1 m

Tower wall thickness 5.314 mm

Rotor hub height 22.6 m

Tower mass 6400 kg

Nacelle mass 2400 kg

Rotor mass (with hub) 1900 kg

OpenSees Model

UCSD researchers developed a finite element (FE) model for OpenSees (Mazzoni et al. 2006)

based on the engineering properties of the turbine (Table 1) to facilitate dynamic simulation of 

the turbine while idling. They divided the tower (Figure 1) into 30 beam-column elements with a 

flexural stiffness based on the cross section at the center of each element. Each blade was 

modeled using 12 beam-column elements to represent the mass and stiffness of the rotor (Figure 

1). The nacelle was modeled with rigid elements to connect the top of the tower to the rotor. An 

added hinge condition allowed the free rotation of the rotor.

For an idling condition at zero rotational speed, the FE model predicted the first longitudinal 

(Figure 3a) and lateral (Figure 3b) bending modes at 1.7 Hz. It predicted the second bending 

modes at 10.5 Hz in the longitudinal direction and 10.9 Hz in the lateral direction. Full-scale 

shake table tests of an idling 65-kW Nordtank turbine validated this model configuration, which 

produces good agreement for the predicted and observed mode shapes and frequencies (Prowell 

et al. 2008). Based on the test results and industry guidelines (IEC 2005), structural damping was 

set to 1% for the first mode. Specified in the form of Rayleigh damping, a value of 3.5% used at 

12 Hz better matched the recorded results.
8

(a) Longitudinal (b) Lateral

Figure 3. OpenSees model first bending modes (1.7 Hz)

FAST Model

As described earlier, the FAST code employs a combined multibody and modal dynamics 

formulation. A FAST model has five flexible bodies: tower, three blades, and drive shaft. As in 

the OpenSees model, the nacelle (Figure 1) is a rigid body. The mass and stiffness distribution 

derived for the FAST model matched that used in the OpenSees model as closely as possible.

The FAST code relies on external calculation of mode shapes and requires that mode shapes be 

described by a five-coefficient polynomial of the form φ(x) = a2x

2 + a3x3 + a4x4 + a5x5 + a6x6

Table 2. Predicted Tower Bending Frequencies of Idling Turbine

.

The coefficients must sum to a value of 1. Because the tower is assumed to have a cantilevered 

base, the code neglects the constant and linear coefficients. We calculated the coefficients used 

for the model described here by selecting polynomial coefficients that best approximated the first 

longitudinal and lateral modes (Figure 3) as well as the second longitudinal and lateral modes

developed from the OpenSees model. The resulting FAST model predicted the first longitudinal 

and lateral bending modes at 1.7 Hz for the wind turbine idling at zero rotational speed. The 

predicted frequencies for the second bending modes are 10.4 Hz for the longitudinal mode and 

10.9 Hz for the lateral mode. Table 2 summarizes the predicted tower bending natural 

frequencies for both models.

Model First Bending Second Bending

Longitudinal Lateral Longitudinal Lateral

OpenSees 1.7 1.7 10.5 10.9

FAST 1.7 1.7 10.4 10.9
9

Numerical Modeling of Seismic Response While Idling

We used the two turbine models to conduct base shaking simulations for three earthquakes 

recorded in California (Table 3). Because OpenSees cannot predict aerodynamics and other 

operational loads for a turbine, to accommodate direct comparison, both models have the wind 

turbine idling at zero rotational speed without aerodynamics during the simulations. Both 

horizontal components of the records simulated the turbine response for a fixed base condition.

This assumption is suitable for the stiff soils found at many wind farms. Further consideration of 

soil structure interaction would be warranted for location with soft soils (Bazeos et al. 2002; 

Zhao and Maisser 2006). Figure 4 compares the calculated acceleration from OpenSees and 

FAST at the top of the nacelle for 1940 El Centro earthquake acceleration time history recorded 

at array station 9 in El Centro, California. The results for the other earthquake simulations also 

show the same high level of agreement observed for the El Centro earthquake simulation.

Table 3. Earthquake Data

Earthquake Moment Magnitude Station PGA Source Distance

1981 Westmorland 5.9 Mw Fire Station 0.50 g 7.2 km

2000 Yountville 5.0 Mw Fire Station No. 3 0.41 g 13.7 km

1940 El Centro 6.9 Mw Array Station 9 0.35 g 12.2 km

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

-1

0

1

Time (s)

Accel (g)

Nacelle Acceleration - Lateral

FAST

OpenSees

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

-1

0

1

Time (s)

Accel (g)

Nacelle Acceleration - Longitudinal

Figure 4. Comparison of nacelle acceleration for the 1940 El Centro earthquake

To investigate the possible implications of the two models on design loads, we calculated the 

maximum moment demand at the base, the lower joint, the upper joint, and the top of the tower 

(Figure 1). This maximum was taken from the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of 

the horizontal tower moments at each time step. As with the acceleration time history, the 

moment demands calculated by the FAST and the OpenSees model showed good agreement 

(Figure 5).
10

0 1000 2000

0

5

10

15

20

Elevation (m)

Moment Demand (kN m)

a. Westmorland

0 1000 2000

0

5

10

15

20

Elevation (m)

Moment Demand (kN m)

b. Yountville

0 1000 2000

0

5

10

15

20

Elevation (m)

Moment Demand (kN m)

OpenSees

FAST

c. El Centro

Figure 5. Moment demand in turbine tower
11

Conclusions

This paper presents recent modifications developed by UCSD researchers to the FAST code that 

consider seismic loads for designing wind turbines. To validate these modifications, we 

compared results to those from a calibrated FE turbine model developed using OpenSees 

(Prowell et al. 2008). Both the acceleration time history and the tower moment demand show 

good agreement for both computational approaches. This development makes the FAST code the 

first open-source tool specific to wind energy for simulating seismic loading of wind turbines.

This will enable practitioners and researchers throughout the world to simulate scenarios where 

wind turbines are subjected to loads from wind, operational state, and base excitation 

simultaneously in the time domain.

This work is part of a continuing effort at UCSD to reduce uncertainty associated with seismic 

design loads for wind turbines. Through National Science Foundation funding, researchers are 

conducting full-scale experiments to inform and refine modeling of wind turbines for 

earthquake-induced loads. The modifications to FAST described here will be used to simulate 

and validate experimental results. Feedback from findings will be used to refine the capability of 

the FAST code to accurately incorporate base shaking as a load source for wind turbines. 
12

References

Bazeos, N.; Hatzigeorgiou, G.D.; Hondros, I.D.; Karamaneas, H.; Karabalis, D.L.; Beskos, D.E.. “Static, Seismic 

and Stability Analyses of a Prototype Wind Turbine Steel Tower.” Eng. Struct.; Vol. 24, 2002; 1015. 

Germanischer Lloyd. Guideline for the Certification of Wind Turbines. Hamburg, Germany: Germanischer Lloyd, 

2003. 

Haenler, M.; Ritschel, U.; Warnke, I. “Systematic Modelling of Wind Turbine Dynamics and Earthquake Loads on 

Wind Turbines.” European Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition, European Wind Energy Association, Athens, 

Greece, 2006; 1–6. 

Hau, E. Wind Turbines. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2006. 

IEC. IEC 61400-1 Ed.3: Wind Turbines. Part 1: Design Requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: International 

Electrotechnical Commission, 2005. 

Jonkman, J.M. Dynamics Modeling and Loads Analysis of an Offshore Floating Wind Turbine. NREL/TP-500-

41958. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2007. 

Jonkman, J.M.; Buhl, M.L., Jr. FAST User's Guide. NREL/EL-500-38230. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, 2005. 

Laino, D.J.; Hansen, A.C. User’s Guide to the Wind Turbine Dynamics Computer Software AeroDyn. Salt Lake 

City, UT: Windward Engineering, LC, 2001. 

Lavassas, I.; Nikolaidis, G.; Zervas, P.; Efthimiou, E.; Doudoumis, I.N.; Baniotopoulos, C.C. "Analysis and Design 

of the Prototype of a Steel 1-MW Wind Turbine Tower." Eng. Struct.; Vol. 25(8), 2003; 1097–1106. 

Mazzoni, S.; McKenna, F.; Fenves, G.L. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation User Manual. 

Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, 2006. 

Prowell, I.; Elgamal, A.; Veletsos, M.; Restrepo, J. “Shake Table Test of a 65 kW Wind Turbine and Computational 

Simulation.” Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008. 

Ritschel, U.; Warnke, I.; Kirchner, J.; Meussen, B. “Wind Turbines and Earthquakes.” Second World Wind Energy 

Conference, World Wind Energy Association, Cape Town, South Africa, 2003. 

Wiser, R.; Bolinger, M. Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Costs, and Performance Trends: 2007. 

DOE/GO-102008-2590 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 2008. 

Witcher, D. “Seismic Analysis of Wind Turbines in the Time Domain.” Wind Energy; Vol. 8, 2005; p. 81. 

Zhao, X.; Maisser, P. "Seismic Response Analysis of Wind Turbine Towers Including Soil-Structure Interaction." 

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part K: J. Multi-Body Dynamics; Vol. 220, 2006; p. 53. 
F1147-E(10/2008)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

March 2010

2. REPORT TYPE

Conference paper

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

August 13 - 14, 2009

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

FAST Simulation of Wind Turbine Seismic Response

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

I. Prowell, A. Elgamal, and J. Jonkman 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/CP-500-46225

5e. TASK NUMBER

WER9-3530

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/CP-500-46225

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This paper discusses recent additions to the computer simulation code FAST that allow a user to consider seismic 

loads in addition to existing robust capabilities for simulating wind and other load sources under the various states of 

wind turbine operation. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

wind turbine design codes; wind turbine simulation

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18