LOADS FOR OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES; THE 2ND EDITION OF THE GL WIND GUIDELINE

Kimon Argyriadis*, Lindsay Gill** and Silke Schwartz*

*Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie GmbH, Steinhft 9, D-20459 Hamburg, GERMANY
Email: as@gl-group.com; Tel.: +49 40 31 106-138, Fax: +49 40 31 106-1720

**Cardiff University, Div. of Mechanical Engineering, Cardiff, UNITED KINGDOM
Email: lindsay_gill@virginstudent.com


ABSTRACT
Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie composed a completely revised guideline for offshore wind turbines. The new edition
builds on experience from application on several projects or type approvals for offshore wind farms or turbines. Emphasis
was put on giving more detailed description of the load case definitions and guidance in application of the combination of
the loads resulting from wind and waves. Often the design driver for the support structure is the Extreme Storm Load case. In
the paper the different possibilities to analyse this load cases are shown. Example calculations are performed for 3 different
turbine sizes. The results are discussed, advantages and drawbacks of the methods used are shown.
Keywords: guideline, offshore, loads, dynamic amplification, external conditions, certification

1 INTRODUCTION
The Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie (GL Wind)
Guideline for the Certification of Offshore Wind Turbine
[1] was revised on base of the experience of the
certification of several offshore projects and the knowledge
gained from the work in research projects. The 2
nd
Edition
of the GL Wind Guideline for Offshore Wind Turbines was
developed under the premise that:
Most possible similarity to the onshore GL-Guidelines
is achieved.
Type certification of the biggest part of the turbine is
possible.
The experience from numerous offshore wind park
certifications done so far is included.
The new edition is based on the proven GL-Regulations
for the Certification of Offshore Wind Energy Converters
issued 1995 [3] for the first time and harmonized with the
GL Wind Guideline for the Certification of Onshore Wind
Turbines [2] and the 2
nd
edition of the IEC 61400-1 [4].
In the following the improvements and the philosophy
behind the assumptions for external condition, the methods
for the loads calculations with emphasis on the
combination of wind and wave loading and the philosophy
behind the safety factor strategy for the loads which find
application in the 2
nd
edition of the Guideline for
Certification of Offshore Wind Turbines will be drawn up.
2 GENERAL
For the loading on offshore wind turbines the
oceanographic, the meteorological, geological and
electrical conditions at the site have to be considered to
calculate the loading for the turbine. As for an onshore
wind turbine a type class for generic wind condition is
appropriate and therefore a Type Certification is adequate
for an onshore wind turbine; for offshore wind turbines
external condition varies significantly depending on water
depth, soil conditions and possible wave heights. For
offshore wind turbines the definition of wind turbine
classes in terms of wind speed and turbulence intensity
parameters are only applicable for the topsides structure
(machinery and rotor blades) under the condition that no
resonance effects due to wave loading occur. For the
support structure (tower, transition piece and foundation)
the environmental conditions which are representative at
the specific site have to be considered. Therefore the design
of an offshore wind turbine support structure has to be site
specific.
The 2
nd
Edition of the Guidelines for the Certification of
Offshore Wind Turbines [1] is structured for the load
assumptions in a way that as more knowledge of the
external conditions at the site are available the most
optimize design for site conditions can be achieved. If
information is missing, the Guideline provides guidance for
conservative assumptions to fill the gaps. Also it is still
possible to apply the type classes for the wind conditions.
Here in a second step it has to be shown, that the conditions
at the erection site are less serve than the generic
assumption considered and that the turbines are suitable for
the site.
3 EXTERNAL CONDITONS
The main environmental conditions for offshore wind
turbines which may contribute to structural damages,
operation disturbances or other failures are mainly
Wind
Waves
Current
Sea ice
Other phenomena which may be important are:
Ice
Earthquake
Soil conditions
Temperature
Marin Growth
Tides


Wind conditions
Offshore wind turbines are designed to withstand safely the
wind conditions defined according to the site specific
values or by a wind class when it can be shown that it is
more benign than the conditions at the erection site.
The assumptions for the wind conditions in comparison to
the Guideline for the Certification of Wind Turbines [2] are
adjusted to reflect the conditions offshore. Offshore the
mean wind speeds found often considerably higher than
those on land, in contrast the gustiness or the turbulence
intensity offshore is lower than onshore. This fact was
taken into account thereby that a turbulence categorie C for
lower turbulence intensity is defined.
In figure 1 a comparison between available measurements
and the turbulence intensity for the different categories are
shown.

Figure 1: Comparison of proposed turbulence intensity with
North Sea measurements
For all wind conditions the power law exponent for the
wind profile is assumed to be =0.14. A constant exponent
of the wind profile neglect the fact that at high wind speeds
high waves occur and that high waves mean a higher
surface roughness influencing the wind profile. To analysis
this phenomenon for full developed seas the Charnock
equation can be used. In figure 2 and 3 the comparison of
the different wind profiles according to onshore
Regulations and the wind profile using the Charnock
equation in the ESDU [5] wind model for low and high
wind speeds are shown.

Figure 2: Wind profile at low wind speeds

Figure 3: Wind profile at high wind speeds
In both cases it can be seen, that the exponential profile
proposed is between this used in onshore cases, where
roughness may be considerably higher, and the profile
calculated using the Charnock equation for open sea. This
is a compromise, due to the fact that offshore wind turbines
will often be near shore structures, partly influenced by
open sea conditions and partly influenced by wind coming
from the land side.
The gust values for the 3 sec gust reflect the assumptions
made for turbulence intensity and wind profile. As a result
the gust factor for the extreme wind speed model used in
the Guideline for Certification of Offshore Wind
Turbines [1] is 1.25.
Marine Conditions
In practice the wave spectrum function may be given as a
measured spectrum for the site of the wind farm, or by
measured or estimated significant wave heights and periods
applying a standard formulation. In the Edition 1995 of the
Offshore Guideline [3] the Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum
for sea state was referred. Due to the fact, that offshore
wind farm may also be erected near shore or in relative
shallow water, this approach was found to be too
conservative. In the offshore industry often the Pierson-
Moskowitz-spectrum was used for fatigue loading and the
JONSWAP-spectrum for extreme loading. An investigation
showed that for offshore turbines, with a monopile
structure, the two spectra show minimal difference in
fatigue loading. In some cases (tripods) the resonance
frequency of the structure may result in significant
amplification in higher frequency regions, where the two
spectral formulations show significant difference. In these
cases site specific analysis shall be performed. For these
reasons mentioned for a general approach in the 2
nd
Edition
of the Guideline the JONSWAP-spectrum found
application. For a JONSWAP-spectrum the correction of
limited water depth is possible as well as the formulation of
an not fully developed sea state (time or fetch limed).
The formulations of the spectrum can be found in [1]. In
figure 4 a comparison of wind generated sea state for
different water depths and measurements are shown.
Further guidance for consideration of breaking waves
loads, sea ice loads, boat impact, assumptions for scour,
corrosion and marine growth, icing, currents, etc. can also
be found in [1].

Mean wind speed
GL A
GL B
GL-Offshore C

0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0
v [m/s]
H
s

[
m
]
deep water shallow water OWTES Measurement
Figure 4: Comparison of significant wave height from fetch
and water depth limed spectral formulations with OWTES
measurements.
3 CALCULATION OF COMBINED WIND AND
WAVE LOADS FOR THE EXTREME STORM CASE
In the following the theoretical assumptions which are
stipulated in the new guideline with respect to the external
conditions and the combination of external conditions or
loading are investigated exemplary for the extreme storm
event which is in the most cases the design driver for the
support structure of an offshore wind turbine and the
methods applicable are drawn up.
The main challenge to establish the design environmental
conditions for offshore wind turbines to derive the design
loads is the combination of the external conditions.
Long term analysis
Basis of the analysis is the combination of the long term
external phenomena according to the desired probability
level (50 year recurrence period). The long-term variability
of multiple actions is described by a scatter diagram or joint
density function. Conditional distribution functions can be
established for the different climatic conditions, resulting in
the determination of correlated values at the chosen
probability level for wind speed, wind direction, wave
height, water level, current conditions and ice. Normally,
one decisive external factor is chosen (e.g. wind speed for a
particular direction or ice condition and corresponding
wind load). As long as an overall description of statistics is
not available, several probable determining combined load
cases for the same external factor may appear.
Alternatively, the exceedance probabilities can be referred
to the action effects. Conditional distributions of the
corresponding loads may be build and the loads added
according to the desired probability level. It has to be
stated, that this method is not appropriate for types of
structure with significant dynamic response and significant
interaction of wind and wave loading.
Very often it is difficult to get information on the combined
probability of wind speed, sea state and direction. In this
case it may be assumed that wind speed and waves have a
common cause and interfere. Their properties are not
independent of each other. The short term wind climate and
the wave climate show a strong dependency. In this case it
can be assumed that the extreme mean wind speed is
associated with the extreme significant wave height but that
the individual gusts and waves are statistically independent.
Simplified it can be assumed that the 50 year extreme sea
state would occur at the same time as the storm with a mean
wind speed equal to the 50 year return mean wind speed.
In some cases it may be useful to use the formulations of
wind generated waves and adjust them in such a way that
the error in the probability distribution of wind speed, wave
height and period is minimized [6].
Short term analysis
In a short-term period with a combination of waves and
fluctuating wind, the individual variations of the two action
processes can be taken to be uncorrelated. It can be
assumed that the extreme values of the wind speed and the
wave height do not occur simultaneously.
For linear combination of loads it can be assumed that the
extreme combined load occurs when one of the sources
reaches its maximum value. For offshore wind turbines this
is usually not the case since aerodynamic loads are non-
linear and aero- and hydroelastic effects have to be
considered. In practice it has been shown, that this
assumption is a valuable approach for offshore wind
turbines too, due to the fact that one source of load usually
dominates.
Two methods may be used for the calculations of combined
wind and wave loading. The first is based on the
combination of the external conditions based on their joint
probability of occurrence. The second is based in the
combination of the response load.
Both methods have found application in offshore industry
and have been examined with success in the Offshore
study [7]. Additional analysis has been performed using
the extreme storm event on 3 different wind turbine
designs.
Since offshore wind turbines are highly elastic structures,
with non linear response to wind loading the recommended
method of analysis is in the time domain analysis using
stochastic wind and wave description. One drawback of
this method is that there is no widely used engineering
method to account for wave kinematics non linearity.
Contrary a deterministic approach would include non linear
wave kinematics in the analysis but could not correctly
represent the dynamic behaviour of the offshore wind
turbine.
As a solution both approaches are considered in the
analysis of extreme storm event (load case DLC 6.1
according to the Guideline [1]).
4 TURBULENT WIND AND STOCHASTIC WAVE
SIMULATIONS
This is a rather straight forward case where the statistical
properties of the wind and the waves are taken directly by
the long term distribution.
The loads can be calculated directly by simulation using
stochastic wind and waves in the same series. Alternatively,
for structures without significant interaction of wind and
wave loading, separate analysis may be performed for wind
and wave loading. The total force/moment at the mudline is
then:
( )
2
max ,
2
, max ,
, max ,
wave mean wind wind
mean wind total
F F F
F F
+ +
=



Comparison of superposition of wind and wave loads
A parametric analysis was performed to examine
differences in the superposition of the extreme load from
wind and waves. The analysis included 3 generic wind
turbines and 10 simulations of 600s were performed. The
resulting overturning moment (OTM) and base shear force
(BSF) at the mudline were considered. The data of the
analysis were:
Turbine 2MW 3MW 5MW
Diameter m 78 100 130
Hub height (WL) m 65 70 95
Water depth m 15 12 35
1
st
natural frequency Hz 0.35 0.33 0.26
wind speed (10-min) m/s 50 50 50
Turbulence intensity 0.11 0.11 0.11
Significant wave height m 7.2 6.2 10.3
Peak spectral frequency s 18.9 18.9 18.5
Zero Crossing frequency s 14.68 14.68 18.5
Table 1: Main data of analysis
The sea state was produced using standard JONSWAP
spectrum with a peak factor of 3.3. For the analysis the
mean of the maxima of the load was used. For the
combination of the separate wind and wave load
simulations the same seeds as for the combine simulations
were used. The combination was performed in two ways:
Calculate the mean of the maxima and the mean of all
simulations, then combine
Combine mean and maxima of each simulation and
use the mean of the results.
The results are shown in the following table 2 and table 3:
Turbine
Wind and
wave
Combination
of means
Difference
OTM
2MW 43756 45753 1,05
3MW 69788 70640 1,01
5MW 197530 227811 1,15
BSF
2MW 1352 1393 1,03
3MW 1493 1635 1,10
5MW 5294 5782 1,09

Table 2: Overturning moment (OWT) and base shear force
(BSF) comparison for simultaneous simulation and a
combined mean of all simulations
Required simulation time for the analysis
One problem is that in wind industry the wind speed is
referred to a 10-minute averaging time while in offshore
industry the significant wave height is considered to be
stable during a 3 hour period. The statistics and the analysis
has to be adjusted to the different situation.


Turbine
Wind and
wave
Combination
of series
Difference
OTM

2MW 43756 46072 1,05
3MW 69788 70734 1,01
5MW 197530 229376 1,16
BSF
2MW 1352 1407 1,04
3MW 1493 1645 1,10
5MW 5294 5790 1,09
Table 3: Overturning moment (OWT) and base shear force
(BSF) comparison for simultaneous simulation and the
mean of the combined simulations
In offshore industry a conservative assumption is made that
the wave height distribution is a Rayleigh one [8]. The
maximum wave height is then:

=
z
s
T
t
H H ln
2
1
max

Assuming a wave zero crossing period of about 10s (usual
for North Sea conditions) than the number of waves during
a 3hour storm is about 1000 while during the 10 minute
period used for wind turbine analysis only 60 waves may
occur.
Simulation time 10 30 1 h 3 h
Number of waves 60 180 360 1080
H
max
/H
s
1.43 1.61 1.71 1.87
Table 4: Peak wave height as a function of the number of
waves, Rayleigh distribution.
This means that if the correct maximum wave height and
thus probability level shall be reached, the simulation time
or the sea state statistical parameters have to be adjusted
accordingly.
The influence of the simulation time on the overturning
moment was investigated, applying only wave load on the
turbines considered. The wave heights from 10 seeds of
600s were compared to 3hour simulations. The significant
wave heights used to produce the time history are given in
table 1.
The influence of simulation time on the wave statistics is
shown in the following tables:
H
s
[m] of 3 hour
simulation
Mean H
s
of
2x
3 hours
Mean H
s

of 10x
10 min
Max H
s
of 10x
10min
Seed 0 Seed 4
2MW 6.9 7.24 7.1 7.1 8.96
3MW 6.0 6.22 6.1 6.0 7.08
5MW 10.51 9.97 10.2 9.9 12.09
Table 5: Statistic of significant wave height for different
simulation length
The significant wave height is reached in the mean of the
different simulation time series, although large scatter
exists. This may lead to the conclusion that it is sufficient

to perform several 10-minute simulations instead of one 3
hour simulation.
For the maximum wave elevation the same investigation
was carried out. The theoretical value using the zero
crossing period of the wave given in table 1 is shown in
following table:
H
max
[m]
3 h

max
[m]
3 h
H
max
[m]
10 min

max
[m]
10 min
2MW 13.10 6.55 9.84 4.92
3MW 11.38 5.69 8.56 4.28
5MW 18.74 9.37 14.1 7.05
Table 6: Theoretical maximum wave height, wave elevation
The maximum values in the simulation are shown in the
following:

max
of 3 hour
simulation [m]
Mean

max
[m]
of 2x
3 hours
Mean

max
[m]
of 10x
10 min
Max

max
[m]
of 10x
10 min
Seed 0 Seed 4
2MW 6.21 6.19 6.2 4.9 6.19
3MW 5.12 6.00 5.6 4.1 5.49
5MW 8.59 9.16 8.9 7.5 10.50
Table 7: Maximum wave elevations
It is clear that the 10 minute simulations are not large
enough to reach the target value for the extreme wave
height as required by the theory for the 3hour peak. They
are consistent with the theory for the peak during 10
minutes. The mean of the 3 hour simulation is in the
acceptable level, although the results for the 3MW turbine
show considerable scatter. The maximum wave elevation of
10 simulations is in the required level, but this may be
coincidence.
For the load cases shown the overturning moment (OTM)
was analysed. The statistics are shown in the following
table:
OTM Max [kNm]
3 hour simulation Mean of 3
hr
Mean of
10 min
Max of 10
x 10 min
Seed 0 Seed 4
2MW 19270 29060 24165 11088 20591
3MW 12970 17960 15465 9219 16317
5MW 141700 142500 142100 120778 184462
Table 8: Maximum Overturning Moment
OTM - Standard Deviation [kNm]
3 hour simulation Mean of 3
hourr
Mean of
10 min
Max of 10
min

Seed 0 Seed 4
2MW 1407 2053 1730 1426.6 2045
3MW 1485 1488 1487 1453.1 1775
5MW 19730 18690 19210 18636.1 22318
Table 9: Standard Deviation of the Overturning Moment
The loads show the same discrepancy as do the wave height
statistics. But, except for the 2MW case where seed 4
shows very high values in standard deviation and absolute
maximum, the maximum from the 10 simulations is
conservative and the mean standard deviation is in the
range of the individual 3 hour simulations. This gives some
confidence, that the analysis may be performed by using
several short (10 minute) simulations.
The analysis with 18 10 minute simulations = 3 hours gives
similar results. The maximum of all 18 simulations is in the
level of 3 simulations of 3 hours duration.
5MW Turbine 3 x3 hour
simulation
18 x10 min
simulation
Mean of Max 156400 117372
Max of Max 185000 184462
Standard deviation 24772 28196
Table 10: Overturning moment for different numbers of
realisations and lengths of simulations
From the graph it is clear that at least 18 seeds, resulting in
3 hours of simulation are needed for the analysis of the
extreme wave loads.
Figure 5: Comparison of simulations lengths and number of
realisations.
5 DETERMINISTIC APPROACH
In the deterministic approach the non linear kinematics of
the periodic waves are considered. A major problem is the
consideration of the system elasticity and the description of
the wind. A traditional approach is to use constant wind
speed and apply a dynamic amplification factor on the load
or the wind speed.
In the offshore industry two methods are used. One is based
on the simultaneous analysis of the 1-minute averaged wind
speed combined with the extreme wave height. This
method was extended to include the case with the extreme
wind speed with a reduced wave height. The second
method is based on a separate analysis of wind and wave
loads and a composition as it is performed for the
stochastic wave train.
The method is presented in the Offshore Study [7] and is
based on the UK DoE guidelines, which advise that the 50
year return extreme wave load is applied in conjunction
with the 50 year return 1 minute mean wind load. The
method was extended to consider the 50 year return
extreme wind load combined with the wave load that is
selected such that the probability of the combined event is
the same. In this analysis some simplifications are made:
Structural dynamics are ignored
50000
100000
150000
200000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
seed
m
a
x

O
T
M
10min simulation
3hr sim. #1
3hr sim. #2
3hr sim. #3

Wind speed has a Gaussian probability distribution,
while wave heights follow a Rayleigh distribution.
For the turbines considered (2MW, 3MW, 5MW) both
cases were analysed. The calculations were performed for
the combined case and for the cases with only wind or
waves. The conditions are shown in the following table:
V
ref

[m/s]
V
max

[m/s]
V
red

[m/s]
H
max

[m]
H
red

[m]
T
wave

[s]
DAF
2MW 50 66.4 59.5 10 8.8 9.7 1.88
3MW 50 66.4 59.5 7.75 7.5 9 2.05
5MW 50 66.4 59.5 18.2 12.5 11.5 1.97
Table 11: Calculation conditions
The DAF was analyses using the DS472 [9] method. An
analysis of the methods showed that the deviations are not
so high and differences are based on the selection of the
aerodynamic admittance function.
The results of the two methods for the maximum
overturning moment are shown in the following table:
OTM
[kNm]
wind &
wave
wind &
wave
stochastic
Turbine H
max
/V
red
H
red
/V
max

2MW 48100 43400 24200
3MW 161400 160400 16300
5MW 453000 242200 184500
Table 12: Overturning moment deterministic approach
compared to stochastic approach
OTM
[kNm]
wind wave combination stochasti
c
Turbine V
ref
H
max

2MW 28000 30200 59100 24200
3MW 38200 120600 165000 16300
5MW 112500 582300 705000 184500
Table 13: Overturning moment for separately calculated
loads
The analysis shows some problems in the combination of
the separately calculated loads. For the 2MW turbine the
results are very conservative. This can be due to vibrations
in the wind only case and the application of a gust factor. A
second point is that wind load and wave load are not in the
same direction.
In the case of the 3MW turbine the combination of the
separated analysis shows a good agreement with the
combined deterministic analysis. Contrary the discrepancy
between stochastic linear wave and non-linear extreme
wave analysis is huge. This can be explained by shallow
water breaking wave dynamics, considered only in the
deterministic case.
Additionally the 5MW turbine shows a large excitation to
the wave forces. This may be due to numerical reasons and
has to be considered with care.
6 ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC RESPONSE USING
DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (DAF)
Eight methods to calculate DAFs on wind loading have
been developed for three sizes of offshore turbines. All
methods were adjusted to comply with the EWM model as
given in the GL-Guidelines. The one exception is DIBt
(1993) which does not contain a term for turbulence
intensity, and so this value was not included.
The methods considered were:
- DIBt (1993)
- DIBt (2003)
- DIN 1055 (2003)
- DS 472 (1992)
- Dyrbye & Hansen (1997) [11]
- Holmes (2001) [12]
- ISO 4354 (1997)
- Combined method
A summary of the basic theory behind the methods is given
below.
The dynamic amplification factor is defined [11] as the
ratio between the characteristic wind load and the mean
wind load. The characteristic wind load is the 10 minute
mean wind load, plus a peak factor. The other methods
describe DAFs in slightly different ways, but the general
concept is the same:
DAF 1
. . .
2 g
Iu
100
B
2
R( ) No
2

As can be seen, the DAF is dependant on the peak factor, g,
the turbulence intensity, I
u
(in %), and the background and
resonant responses of the structure, B and R respectively.
The peak factor is similarly defined in all methods used as:
g
.
2 ln( )
.
T
0.577
.
2 ln( )
.
T

0 2 4 6
0
2
4
6
g ( ) f
f

Figure 6: Peak factor g over frequency f
The peak factor is dependant on the time interval (T) used
to determine the mean wind velocity, usually 600 seconds,
and on the zero-upcrossing frequency (), which is defined
in as the weighted average of the background (B) and
resonant (R) responses. The equations for the zero-
upcrossing frequency vary between the methods, however
most are a variation of that shown below:

.
No
2
R( ) No
2
B
2
R( ) No
2

Where No is the eigenfrequency of the structure.

The background response factor (B) accounts for the
contribution from low frequency turbulence and the
resonant response factor (R) accounts for contributions
from turbulence at the natural frequency of the structure.
Although these definitions are consistent throughout the
methods, the equations used for the background and
resonant response vary considerably. In some cases
corrections and alternations had to be made to consider the
wind turbines behaviour. The equations and the
corresponding figures 7 and 8 are taken from DIBt (2003)
and are the background and resonant response functions
respectively.

B
1
1
.
0.9
.
1.1 h
Li
0.63

In the equation (h) is the height of the structure and (Li) the
length scale of the wind speed, representing the mean size
of the gusts. In some methods the mechanic admittance
factor is used to analyse the background response. The
mechanical admittance factor as a transfer function relating
the spectral density of aerodynamic forces to the spectral
density of structural response. Only the Holmes[12] and DS
472 [9] methods contain separate mechanical admittance
functions, as in the other methods it is included in the
resonant response factor.
0 2 4 6
0.96
0.98
1
B ( ) f
f
Figure 7: Background response factor over frequency
R( ) n
. .

2
K01( ) n X( ) n
.
2

With () the total damping of the structure, (KO1) the
spectral density function of the wind speed and (X) the
aerodynamic admittance factor.

0 2 4 6
0
1
2
3
R ( ) f
f
Figure 8: Resonant response factor over frequency
It is important when considering large structures to include
an aerodynamic admittance factor to correlate the velocity
fluctuations over the whole windward face. Holmes defines
the aerodynamic admittance factor as a transfer function
relating the gust spectral density to the spectral density of
an aerodynamic force. This factor is included in all
methods with a different degree of complexity. In general it
can be calculated from the size of the structure and the
coherence function of the turbulent wind field [11]:
X( ) n
.
1
lcoh
d
0
lcoh
r
. .
2 1
r
( ) lcoh
Coh( ) , r n

with (lcoh) being the length of the structure the wind is
acting on.
A number of the methods either lacked certain terms, or
although a particular term was used, no value or equation
was given for it. In order to be able to use the methods
effectively, a number of alterations were made. Where it
was possible the values for the wind speed description
(Spectral density function, integral length scale, coherence
function, roughness length and profile exponent) were
changed to be in line with the recommendations of the GL
Wind Guideline.
Additionally the equations for the response factors had to
be adjusted to the wind turbine geometry having a large
rotor on the top of the tower, rather then being a building.
Values for wind were averaged at the hub height and the
rotor radius was taken to calculate admittance functions.
The Combined method is a combination of the equations
from the different methods. The equations selected were
felt to be the most precise equations which would fit
together to produce an effective method. This is a
combination mainly of the DS 472 and the modified DIBt
(2003) method extended with equations given by Holmes
and Dyrbye & Hansen.
For comparison with the analytical methods, simulations
were run. The simulations were run for the same three
turbines as used previously, and the resultant overturning
moment and base shear force was used for the comparisons.
A summary of the results is given below in Table 14 and
Figure 9.
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
1,1
0,52 0,57 0,62 0,67 0,72
f * D/u
D
A
F

/

D
A
F
(
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
DS472 Holmes Dyrbye
Eurocode DIBt(1993) DIBt(2003)
Figure 9: Comparison of analytic DAF methods and
simulation data DAF over a non-dimensional parameter




DAF
Method
2
MW
3
MW
5
MW
Simulation 1.8 2.3 2.2
DIBt (1993) 1.8 1.9 1.8
DIBt (2003) 1.9 2.1 2.0
DIN 1055 (2003) 1.7 1.7 1.7
DS 472 (1992) 2.0 2.2 2.1
Dyrbye & Hansen 2.0 2.1 2.1
Holmes (2001) 2.0 2.0 2.0
ISO 4354 (1997) 2.2 2.5 2.1
Combined Method 2.0 2.1 2.1
Table 14: Comparison of modified DAF methods

It can be seen that the results from the various methods and
from the simulation data follow roughly the same trend,
despite differences in the values produced. It is felt that in
general the analytical methods predict amplification within
10% of the simulation results if some care is taken in their
application. In terms of the trend of the results and the
individual DAFs produced, it is felt that modified DIBt
(2003) and DS 472 (1992) are the most accurate. These
methods can be applied for load analysis.
7 CONCLUSIONS
The long term statistics should be based on the joint
probability distribution of the external conditions. If this is
not possible it can be assumed that wind speed and waves
have a common cause and interfere. In this case it can be
assumed that the extreme mean wind speed is associated
with the extreme significant wave height but that the
individual gusts and waves are statistically independent.
Two possibilities exist for the analysis of the combined
load The first is based on the combination of the external
conditions based on their joint probability of occurrence.
The second is based in the combination of the response
load. Both are acceptable if not significant interaction of
wind wave load occur.
To take account both of the elastic behaviour and the non
linearity of wave kinematics a load case using stochastic
wind and wave description and one using deterministic
(periodic wave) description should be considered.
The simulation time to be used for the stochastic
simulations should be at least 10 minutes. Several seeds
should be analysed in the way that the sum of the
simulation time of all seeds exceeds 3 hours.
A deterministic approach shall be performed, for the
consideration of the non-linear wave kinematics. This
analysis has to be adjusted for the reduced wave height
according to the probability distribution of the wave
heights.
The separate analysis of the load with subsequent
combination using a DAF shows very large deviations to
the combined deterministic approach.
The present work was partly performed with the support of
the EU, and included in the RECOFF and OWTES research
projects.

REFERENCES
[1] Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie, Guidelines for the
Certification of Offshore Wind Turbines, Final Draft,
Edition 2004.
[2] Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie, Guidelines for the
Certification of Wind Turbines, Edition 2003 with
Supplement 2004.
[3] Germanischer Lloyd, Regulation for the Certification
of Offshore Wind Energy Converter Systems,
Hamburg 1995.
[4] IEC 61400-1, ed. 2, Wind Turbine Generator
Systems, Part1 Safety Requirements
[5] ESDU 85020, Characteristics of atmospheric
turbulence near the ground, Part II: single point data
for strong winds (neutral atmosphere), April 1993
[6] Matthies H.G., Meyer M., Nath C., Offshore-
Windkraftanlagen: Kombination der Lasten von Wind
und Wellen, Proceedings of the DEWEK 2000.
[7] Matthies et al, Study of Offshore Wind Energy in the
EC JOULE I (JOUR 0072), Verlag Natrliche
Energie 1995.




[8] K. Kokkinowrachos, Offshore-Bauwerke in
Handbuch der Werften XV. Band, 1980.
[9] DS 472, Loads and Safety of Wind Turbine
Construction, 1st edition May 1992 and amendment
September 2000.
[10] Eurocode 1, DIN V ENV 1991-2-4
[11] C. Dyrbye, S.O. Hansen, Wind loads on structures,
John Wiley & Sons, 1996
[12] J.D. Holmes, Wind loading of structures, Spon
Press, 2001