Optimisation of the steel tower for a wind turbine structure

P.E. Uys*2, J. Farkas**, K. Jármai**, F. van Tonder*

*Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of Pretoria, 0002 Pretoria, South

Africa

** Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Miskolc, H-3515 Miskolc, Hungary

Abstract

The purpose of the research presented in this paper is to obtain a design that will minimise the cost

of a steel tower for a wind turbine. The wind turbine tower investigated, is constructed from a slightly

conical ring-stiffened welded steel shell. This 45 m high shell is modelled by three stacked cylindrical

shell segments, each 15 m in length and each having constant average diameter and thickness. The wind

load is calculated according to Eurocode 1 Part 2-4. Design constraints on shell buckling and local

buckling of flat ring-stiffeners are considered. The ring-stiffeners are necessary to prevent ovalisation. To

calculate the manufacturing costs, the processing cost to form the shells into near cylindrical shapes, as

well as the cost to assemble and weld the segments, are taken into account. The cost function to be

minimised includes material and manufacturing costs. The optimum shell thickness, number of stiffeners

and dimensions of the stiffeners are calculated using Rosenbrock’s direct search method for function

minimisation complemented by an additional discretisation to account for available profiles. The results

indicate that the minimum cost solution corresponds to the minimum number of ring stiffeners. The

procedure proposed can be treated as a baseline for determining least cost designs of slightly conical

2
Corresponding author: Dr. P E Uys, Tel. +27 12 4202254, Fax. +27 12 3625087, e-mail:
petro.uys@up.ac.za
towers that meet the structural requirements of slender structures predominantly loaded by bending due to

dynamic loads.

Keywords: ring-stiffened shells, shell buckling, wind load, structural optimisation, welded structures,

manufacturing costs

1. Introduction

Design optimisation implies a search for better or more cost effective designs,

which minimise an appropriate objective function and satisfy certain design constraints.

Up-to-date engineering requires structures that have suitable load carrying capacity and

that are cost effective in terms of materials and manufacturing. A structural

optimisation methodology has previously been developed [1] in which safety and

manufacturing is guaranteed by design and manufacturing constraints respectively,

while economy is achieved by minimisation of a cost function. In order to minimise the

objective function, subject to prescribed constraints, effective mathematical methods

have to be applied.

The above approach has successfully been applied to several structural models

(welded beams, layered sandwich beams, tubular trusses, frames, stiffened plates and

shells), and industrial problems (silos, bunkers, bridge decks, a punching press table, an

aluminium truck floor, a belt-conveyor bridge) [2]. This design optimisation procedure

is now applied to determine an optimal wind turbine tower structure which features the

distinct property of conical cylindrical elements of considerable diameter. Another novel

aspect of the structure considered is the fact that it is subjected to varying wind loads

and excitation from the turbine. To address these issues the optimisation is performed

2
for a chosen average shell segment diameter and number of stiffeners. The shell

thickness and ring stiffener thickness are the design parameters to be determined for the

optimal solution.

Wind turbines are becoming an important alternative to standard energy provision, since

wind energy costs are becoming comparable to coal and nuclear on average kWh costs

today [3]. Also the fact that wind energy is renewable and has no direct pollution related

environmental effects, makes it attractive in terms of the Kyoto agreement to reduce

CO2-production. The global wind industry grew by 40% p.a. during the years 1997 to

2001. Denmark is one of the countries where several research projects on the

development of wind energy resources have been pursued. In 2001 Danish wind turbine

companies supplied turbines with a rated capacity of 3000 MW. Some 40 countries use

Danish wind turbines, mainly Spain, the USA, Germany and Italy [3].

The growth in the wind industry necessitated related investigations. Fatigue loads

on wind turbines were investigated by Riziotis and Voutsinas [4]. Lavassas, Nikolaidis

and Zervas [5] analysed a prototype 1 MW steel wind turbine tower. Bazeos [6]

performed a stability analysis on a steel wind turbine tower. Watakabe et al.[7]

performed wind pressure measurements on towers. Horváth and Tóth [8] reported on

activities in wind energy in Hungary and devised a new method in wind turbine tower

design using a combined Finite Element and Fluid Dynamics Modelling approach to

optimise tower geometry [9].

Many academics and others are, however, not convinced of the viability of wind

energy as an alternative energy source to fossil and nuclear fuel [8]. Small-scale users

make up a considerable percentage of the whole [3]. Also, renewable energy sources

are considered to be more expensive than standard energy at many locations. Horváth

3
and Tóth [8] state that at present energy in Hungary is provided at half the estimated EU

renewable energy price, even if considerable escalation of standard energy costs is

foreseen. Energy costs also impact largely on production and living costs. It is therefore

very important to minimise the construction cost of wind energy generation devices.

Cost depends heavily on the wind speed at turbine sites. Designing for wind speed

implies structural requirements. This again underlines the relevance of the constrained

structural design optimisation problem being considered here.

There are also other slender tower designs to which the mathematical optimisation

approach can be applied, such as for example TV towers [10,11], airport towers [12]

and cellular antennas [13]. Although these towers are not subject to the dynamic forces

of a rotating turbine, aerodynamic forces due to wind agitation is present. Against this

background the cost optimisation of the slender steel turbine tower being investigated

here, is well justified.

In section 2 the problem addressed is stated formally. Section 3 provides an

explanation of the methodology applied. Section 4 presents the application of Eurocode

1 [14] to determine wind loads. A description of the constraints to which the system

must comply in terms of Det Norske Veritas (DNV) design rules [15] is given in section

5. Section 6 states the optimisation problem in terms of the design variables, objective

function and constraints. This is followed by the results in section 7 and conclusions

drawn are given and discussed in the final section.

2. Problem Statement

4
 The most suitable load-carrying structure for a wind turbine, is a welded steel

shell tower, which can be constructed as a tower composed of stacked cylindrical and

conical shell segments [6].

The aim of the present study is to formulate a methodology to optimise the design

of a 45 m high slightly conical (3.3 m at the bottom and 2.1 m at the top) ring-stiffened

shell tower with linearly varying diameter and stepwise varying thickness, subject to

wind forces and moments typical of conditions prevailing in Greece. The shell is

modelled by three stacked cylindrical segments each 15 m in length and each having a

constant average diameter, and a thickness that has to be determined (See Figure 1b).

The 15 m shell segments consist of five shell elements, height 3 m, which are welded

together (Figures 1b and 1d). Simultaneous and continuous optimisation is performed

with respect to shell and stiffener geometry.

3. Methodology

For the cost minimisation, the procedure already developed by Farkas and Jármai [2] to

optimise the design of a ring-stiffened cylindrical shell loaded in bending, is used.

Design constraints on shell buckling and on local buckling of flat ring-stiffeners are

formulated according to DNV [15] and API [16] design rules. The wind load acting on

the shell tower is calculated according to Eurocode 1 Part 2-4 (EC1) [14]. The wind

force and bending moment acting on the top of the 45 m high tower for a 1 MW wind

turbine in Greece, is given by Lavassas et al. [5]. The load due to the self-weight of the

nacelle is furthermore considered.

5
 To avoid shell ovalization a minimum number of 5 and a maximum number of 15

stiffeners is prescribed. In the shell buckling constraint an imperfection factor as

proposed by Farkas [19] is used, which expresses the effect of radial shell deformation

due to shrinkage of circumferential welds.

The cost function includes the material and manufacturing costs. The

manufacturing cost is formulated in terms of the production sequence. It includes the

cost of forming shell elements from a flat plate into near cylindrical shapes, the cost of

cutting the flat ring-stiffeners, as well as the cost of assembly and welding.

The design variables in the optimisation procedure are the average thickness of

the shell segments and the dimensions and number of ring-stiffeners. The minimisation

of the continuous cost function is complemented by a discrete neighbourhood search of

available dimensions in the vicinity of the continuous minimum obtained.

4. Wind load acting on the tower

According to the Eurocode [14] the average wind force FW (see Figure 1b) can be

calculated from the relation:

FW  q ref ce ( z )cd c f Aref

(1)

r0 2
where Aref is the effective area and qref  vref , (2)
2

6
with the air density r0  1.25kg / m  1.25 Nm s and the extreme wind velocity for
3 -4 2

the Grecian islands vref  36m / s . Thus qref  810 Nm .

-2

The factor ce(z) = cr2ct2(1+2glν), where g = 3.5, z is the height in m, (3)

kr
l  , kr = 0.17, ct = 1, (4)
c r ct

 z 
c r  k T ln  and z0 = 0.01. (5)
 z0 

The values of kT,, ct and z0 are obtained for sea or level area from Table 8.1 in reference

[14]. The calculated values of ce for three characteristic heights are given in Table 1

below.

The dynamic factor related to the turbine motion for a height h = 45 m and average

diameter of D = 3 m is cd = 1.1 according to Figure 9.5 in reference [14].

The force factor is given by [14]:

c f  c f 0y l , (6)

which can be obtained as follows:

From Figure 10.8.2 in [14] , cf0 can be obtained. In Figure 10.8.2 [14] cf0 is presented

as a function of the Reynolds number Re and the ratio of k/D, where

D m (z )
Re  , D = 3m (7)


7
 vm  cr vref  1.43x36  51.48 , the viscosity of air   15 x10 -6 m 2 / s and

Re  10.3 x10 6.

From Table 10.8.1 in [14] k = 0.05, for a steel surface, thus k/D = 0.05/3 = 1.67x10-2, so

that cf0 = 1.1 from Figure 10.8.2 [14].

For a slenderness ratio l/D = 45/3 = 15 and for the effective area j  1 , the value of y l

= 0.75 is obtained from Figure 10.14.1 in [14]. Thus cf = 1.1x0.75 = 0.825.

The uniformly distributed wind loads for the three shell segments indicated by pw1, pw2

and pw3 in Figure 1(a) are calculated by the relation

pw  qref ce cd c f D . (8)

For the three shell segments, the wind loads are as follows: pw1 = 6.334, pw2 = 6.883 and

pw3 = 6.864 kN/m. The factored bending moments due to wind load Fw, are given in

Figure 1 (c), with M w0 = 997 kNm, the safety factor being 1.5. The factored load Fw0 =

282kN and the nacelle (rotor) self-weight Gw = 950 kN. Optimisation is performed for

the three shell segments using an average diameter and bending moment acting in the

middle of every shell segment.

5. The Design Constraints

1.1 Local buckling of the flat ring-stiffeners

The limitation on the height to thickness ratio of a flat ring-stiffener is [16]

8
 hr E
�0.375 , (9)
tr fy

where tr is the ring stiffener thickness to be determined. Using the upper limit to obtain

a larger moment of inertia, one obtains

hr = 9tr, (10)

for E = 2.1x105 MPa and yield stress fy = 355 MPa.

1.2 Constraint on local shell buckling (unstiffened)

According to Det Norske Veritas [15], for the length of one shell segment L = 15 m,

the number of ring stiffeners in one shell segment n, R the radius and t the thickness of

the shell, M pertaining to the moment on the shell segment (see Figure 1(b)): The sum

of the axial a and bending b stresses should be less than the critical buckling stress,

i.e:

Gw M w fy
a b   2   cr  , (11)
2 Rt R t 1  l4

where

fy  a b 
l2    , (12)
 a   b   Ea  Eb 

2
 2E  t 
 Ea  1.5 - 50   Ca   (13)
121 -  2   Lr 

2
 2E  t 
 Ea  1.5 - 50   Ca   (14)
121 -  2   Lr 

C a  1   r a 
2
(15)

C b  1   r b 
2
(16)

9
 -0.5
 R 
r a  0.51  
 150t 

(17)
-0.5
 R 
r b  0.51  
 300t 

(18)

  0.702 Z , Z 
L2r
1 - 2 (19)
Rt

L
and Lr  . (20)
n 1

The factor of (1.5-50  ) in Equations 13 and 14 expresses the effect of initial radial

shell deformation caused by the shrinkage of circumferential welds and can be

calculated as follows [19]:

The maximum radial deformation of the shell caused by the shrinkage of a

circumferential weld is

u max  0.64 AT t R / t , (21)

where ATt is the area of specific strains near the weld. According to previous results of

Farkas and Jármai [17]

0.3355QT  0
AT t  , (22)
c0 r

10
where c0 is the specific heat, r is the material density and  0 is the coefficient of

thermal expansion. QT is given by the relation

UI
QT   0  C A Aw , (23)
vw

with  0 the coefficient of thermal efficiency, U the arc voltage, I is the arc current, vw is

the speed of welding, CA is the specific energy flow (J/mm3) related to the welding

process and Aw is the cross-sectional area of the weld.

For steel, relation (22) thus reduces to

AT t  0.844 x10 -3 QT (ATt in mm2, QT in J/mm). (24)

For butt welds

QT  60.7 AW (AW in mm2). (25)

When t  10 mm, AW = 10t. (26a)

When t > 10 mm, AW  3.05t 1.45 . (26b)

The shell buckling strength should be multiplied by the imperfection factor,

(1.5 - 50  ) where a reduction factor  is introduced for which

u max
0.01     0.02 ; (27a)
4 Rt

u max u max
  0.01 for < 0.01 and   0.02 for  0.02. (27b)
4 Rt 4 Rt

11
From Equations (13) and (14) it can be deduced that  Ea and  Eb does not depend on

Lr, since Lr2 is in the denominator and from Equations (15) and (16), Ca and Cb has Lr2 in

the numerator. The fact that the buckling strength does not depend on the shell length,

was first derived by Timoshenko & Gere [18]. Note that this dependence of  E on Lr is

very small according to the API design rules [16]. It has however been determined that

in the case of external pressure, the distance between ring-stiffeners does play an

important role [19, 20, 21].

1.3 Constraint on panel ring buckling

Requirements for a ring stiffener are as follows [22]:

�2 �
Ar  hr tr �� 2  0.06 �Lr t , (28)
�Z �

hr3tr 1  4w  max tR04

Ir  . � , (29)
12 1  w 500 ELr

hr
R0  R - y G , yG  , (30)
2(1  w )

Le t
w (31)
hr tr


and Le  min Lr , Le 0  1.5 Rt .  (32)

12
2 The cost function

The possible manufacturing sequence is as follows:

(1) Manufacture five shell elements with a length of 3 m without rings. Two axial butt

welds (GMAW-C) are needed for every shell element. The cost to form a shell element

into a slightly conical, near cylindrical shape, is included in the factor KF0 described

below. From data obtained from the Hungarian production company Jászberényi

Aprítógépgyár, Crushing Machine Factory, Jászberény, the time T for bending a plate

element of 3m width can be approximated by the following function:

ln T  6.85825 - 4.5272t -0.5  0.0095419D 0.5 .

(33)

(4 mm < t < 40mm and 750 mm < R < 1750 mm). In this equation, which also includes

the time to form the plate and reduce the initial imperfections due to forming, t is the

plate thickness and D is the diameter. The cost for shell formation is thus given by KF0 =

kFFT, where F = 3 is the difficulty factor indicative of the complexity of fabrication

and kF is the specific manufacturing cost per unit time.

The welding cost of a shell element is [2]

 
K F 1  k F W krV1  kF[1.3×0.224×10-3t2(2×3000)], (34)

13
where W is a difficulty factor expressing the complexity of the assembly and k is the

number of elements to be assembled. For the elements of radius R and density ρ to be

welded

κ = 2, V1 = 2Rπt×3000 and W = 2, where V1 is the volume of an element.

(2) Weld a complete unstiffened shell segment, combining the five elements by using

four circumferential butt welds. This implies welding costs [2, 22] of

K F 2  k F (W 5  5 rV1  1.3  0.2245  10-3 t 2  4  2 R )

(35)

for a shell segment.

(3) Cut n flat plate rings using acetylene gas. The cutting cost amounts to [2, 22]

K F 3  k F  c Cc t r 0.25 Lc , (36)

where  c , Cc and Lc are respectively the difficulty factor for cutting, the cutting

parameter and the cutting length with values  c = 3, Cc = 1.1388x10-3 and

Lc  2 Rn  2 R - hr n

for a ring radius R and ring height hr. (37)

14
(4) Weld n rings into the shell segment with double-sided GMAW-C fillet welds. (2n

fillet welds) [2]:


K F 4  k F W  n  1 rV2  1.3  0.3394  10-3 aW2  4 Rn 
(38)

The size of the weld for a ring of thickness tr is aW = 0.5tr, but aWmin = 3 mm.

� h �
 hr tr n .
The volume of material for a shell V2 is given by V2  5V1  2 �R - r � (39)
� 2�

The total material cost for a shell is

K M  k M rV2 . (40)

The cost of painting is given by

 hr 
K P  k P S P , S P  4 R 1500  5  2  2 R - hr (41)
 2

The total cost for a shell thus is

K  K M  5( K F 0  K F 1 )  K F 2  K F 3  K F 4  K P . (42)

15
 The material cost factor is kM = 1 $/kg, the labour cost factor is kF = 1 $/min, and the

paint cost factor is kP = 14.4×10-6 $/mm2.

3 Optimisation and results

The optimisation can be carried out using any appropriate constrained optimisation

algorithm. Here it was performed using Rosenbrock’s search algorithm [1]. The masses

and costs for five ring stiffeners (n = 5) are summarized in Table 2.

It should be noted that the cost difference for the variation in number of ring

stiffeners (n = 5 to 15) is not very large (1.5 to 3.6%). The cost difference is most

significant for the top segment.

The calculation of the first eigenfrequency of the optimised tower structure is made

using Eurocode 1 Part 2-4 [23] and results in 0.53 Hz. Using a simple finite element

model with a top diameter of 2.1 m, a 3.3 m base diameter, a turbine mass of 30 t, and

average diameters pertaining to every shell segment, the first eigenfrequency obtained

for the optimised geometry of the structure is 0.6 Hz without stiffeners and 0.63 Hz

when five stiffeners per section are added. The corresponding second eigenfrequencies

are 4 Hz and 6 Hz. Figure 2 (a) and (b) show respectively the shape of the tower with

stiffeners at the first and second eigenfrequencies. With a rotor frequency of 0.37 Hz

given by Lavassas et al. [5] and quoted by the Nordex company for comparable turbines

[25], these values of the eigenfrequencies should pose no excitation danger.

Fatigue calculations for fillet welded joints of the shell on the bottom and on the

intermediate diaphragms, are performed using the wind spectrum data of Lavassas et al.

[5]. According to Eurocode 3 Part 1-9 [24] the fatigue stress range for toe failure and for

2×106 cycles in the case of T-joints is 63 – 71 MPa depending on the diaphragm

16
thickness. The calculated safety factor is, in all cases of the spectrum, larger than the

prescribed value of 1.35.

8. Conclusions

A procedure has been developed to calculate the least cost design of a slightly

conical steel wind turbine tower that meets the structural requirements of slender

structures, predominantly loaded by bending due to dynamic loads. For the cost

optimisation both production and material costs are addressed. It is apparent from the

optimised design that the minimum cost solution corresponds to the minimum number

of ring stiffeners. Since shell thickness does not depend on the number of ring-

stiffeners, the optimal shell thickness and stiffener thickness can be calculated for

different numbers of stiffeners.

The expressions obtained from Eurocode Part 2-1 [14] for wind force calculations,

and the buckling constraint equations on ring stiffeners and ring stiffened shells derived

previously by Farkas & Jármai [22], can be applied to determine the most cost effective

structures which are structurally safe for different wind speeds. The algorithm should

however be extended to verify compliance with fatigue requirements [23] for the

welded joints of the shell on the bottom and on the intermediate diaphragms. The first

eigenfrequency of the tower, which can successfully be calculated using Eurocode 1

Part 2-4 [23], should also be limited to a value distant enough from the rotor excitation

frequency.

Acknowledgements

17
 The research work was supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research

Foundation grants OTKA T38058, T37941 and the Hungarian - South African

Intergovernmental S&T co-operation program. The Hungarian partner is the Ministry of

Education, R&D Deputy Undersecretary of State and the South African partner is the

National Research Foundation.

18
References

[1] Farkas J, Jármai K. Analysis and design of metal structures, Rotterdam: Balkema,

1997.

[2] Farkas J, Jármai K. Economic design of metal structures, Rotterdam: Millpress,

2003.

[3] Krohn S. Danish wind turbines: An industrial success story, www.nordex-

online.com, 2002.

[4] Riziotis VA, Voutsinas SG. Fatigue loads on wind turbines of different control

starategies operating in complex terrain. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2000; 85:211-40.

[5] Lavassas I, Nikolaidis G, Zervas P, Efthimiou E, Doudoumis IN, Baniotopoulos CC.

Analysis and design of the prototype of a steel 1-MW wind turbine tower. Eng Struc

2003;25:1097-106.

[6] Bazeos N, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Hondros ID, Karamaneas H, Karabalis DL,

Besos DE. Static, seismic and stability analyses of a prototype wind turbine

steel tower. Eng Struc 2002;24:1015-25.

[7] Watakabe M, Ohashi M, Okada H, Okuda Y, Kkitsu H, Ito S, Sasaki Y, Yasui

K, Yoshikawa K, Tonagi M. Comparison of wind pressure measurements on tower-

like structures obtained from full-scale observation, wind tunnel test, and the CFD

technology. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2002;90( 12-15):1817-29.

[8] Horváth G, Tóth L. The activities in wind energy in Hungary. Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews 2001;5(2): 91-200.

[9] Horváth G, Tóth L. New methods in wind turbine tower design. Wind Engineering

2001;25(3):171-8.

19
[10] Huang BC, Leung AYT, Lam KM, Cheung YK. Analyical determination of

equivalent modal damping of a composite tower in wind-induced vibrations.

Computers and Structures 1996;59(2):311-6.

[11] Feng MQ & Zang R. Wind induced vibration characteristics of Nanjung TV

Tower. International Journal of non-linear mechanics 1997;32(4):691-706.

[12] Tamaru Y, Kohsaka R, Nakamura O, Miyashita K, Modi V. Wind-induced

responses of an airport tower – efficiency of tuned liquid damper. J Wind Eng Ind

Aerodyn 1996;65:121-31.

[13] Wannnenburg JJ, du Preez R. Personal communication. Advantec, Pretoria, South

Africa, 10 Dec 2002.

[14] Eurocode 1: Basis of design and actions on structures Part 2-1. Actions on

structures. Densities, self-weight and imposed loads. ENV 1991-2-1:1999.

[15] Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Buckling strength analysis. Classification Notes,

Hovik, Norway, 1995:30.1.

[16] American Petroleum Institute (API). Bulletin 2U. Bulletin on stability design of

cylindrical shells, 2nd ed. Washington, 2000.

[17] Farkas J, Jármai K. Analysis of some methods for reducing residual beam

curvatures due to weld shrinkage. Welding in the World 1998;41(4):385-98.

[18] Timoshenko SP, Gere JM. Theory of elastic stability 2nd ed, New York, Toronto,

London: McGraw Hill, 1961.

[19] Farkas J. Thickness design of axially compressed unstiffened cylindrical shells

with circumferential welds. Welding in the World 2002;46(11/12): 26-9.

[20] Farkas J, Jármai K, Snyman JA, Gondos Gy. Minimum cost design of ring-

stiffened welded steel cylindrical shells subject to external pressure. In: Lamas A,

20
 Simoes da Silva L, editors, Proc 3rd European Conf Steel Structures, Universidade

de Coimbra, Coimbra; 2002:513-22.

[21] Jármai K, Farkas J,Virág Z. Minimum cost design of ring-stiffened cylindrical

shells subject to axial compression and external pressure. In: Short papers 5th World

Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Italian Polytechnic Press,

Milano; 2003:63-4.

[22] Farkas J, Jármai K, Virág Z. Optimum design of a belt-conveyor bridge constructed

as a welded ring-stiffened cylindrical shell. Welding in the World 2004, 48(1/2): 37-

41.

[23] Eurocode 1: Part 2-4. Wind loads. ENV 1991-2-4:1999.

[24] Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-1, General structural rules Part 1-9:

Fatigue strength of steel structures. PrEN 1993-1-9: 2002.

[25] Nordex. N60/1300 kW N62/1300 kW Long term experience all over the world (as

of 2/2002). www.nordex-online.com; accessed January 2004.

21
Figure captions

Figure 1. Wind loads and bending moments on shell segments

Figure 2(a). First vibration mode of the optimised stiffened structure

Figure 2(b). Second vibration mode of the optimised stiffened structure

22
Table 1. Calculated values of ce for different heights z

z (m) cr Iv ce
45 1.43 0.119 3.747
30 1.36 0.125 3.468
15 1.24 0.137 3.012

23
Table 2. Masses and costs for five ring-stiffeners

Shell Part Mass (kg) Cost without KP ($) KP ($) Total ($)
Top 5398 12096 3220 15316
Middle 9472 19772 3802 23574
Bottom 15648 30941 4389 35330
TOTAL 30518 62809 11411 74220

24
Gw

11

12

13

14

15

25
26
27