Abstract

This article shows the principle requirements for remediation of WTG foundations and the advantages and disadvantages of different injection materials like cement lime, epoxy resin and PUR resin. Mostly there are reservations against epoxy resin mainly because of assuming wet cracks in foundations. Regarding state of the art epoxy resins are not usable at wet surfaces or for cracks with liquid water inside. It will be shown that nevertheless it can work and why it works. There were done some basic investigations in how to fill a crack/gap between two concrete slabs. The gap was filled with water or a suspension to simulate a wet crack surface. The spread of an Epoxy resin in the gap was investigated.

Highlights

  • Onshore foundations of wind turbine generators (WTG) are mostly built from reinforced concrete

  • This article shows the principle requirements for remediation of WTG foundations and the advantages and disadvantages of different injection materials like cement lime, epoxy resin and PUR resin

  • The gap was filled with water or a suspension to simulate a wet crack surface

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Onshore foundations of wind turbine generators (WTG) are mostly built from reinforced concrete. The principle method is clear – drilling of some holes in the foundation concrete and injection of a suitable material. Only a responsible remediation planner has the knowledge to decide where the holes should be drilled, how many of them, the right diameter and the most important fact – which material should be injected. There are some new pure Epoxy resins (not hybrid PUR resins!) available on the marked for which the developers promise that they will work under wet conditions or in cracks with liquid water in. Such materials are interesting in the wind industry for remediation of wind turbine foundations. Some investigations have been performed by Vestas, EFG Beratende Ingenieure GmbH, W+S Bau-Instandsetzung GmbH and INGVESTA to find out how the resin spreads in cracks depending on the environmental conditions in the cracks

Reason for Investigations
Scope of investigations
Injection of the specimen
Testing of the specimen
Visual evaluation of the injection success
PF-1 – gap two weeks with mud suspension and flushed out
PF-3 – gap 30 min with mud suspension and flushed out
PF-2 – gap 30 min with water and blown out
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call