Floating wind turbine motion assessment

Numerical simulation results compared to model test measurements

Sébastien Gueydon Wei Xu

Renewable Energy Team (RENT) MARIN-USA
Maritime Research Institute of The Netherlands, MARIN Maritime Research Institute of The Netherlands, MARIN
Wageningen, The Netherlands Houston (TX), United States
s.gueydon@marin.nl w.xu@marin.nl

Abstract—In April and May 2011 model tests have been

conducted in the Offshore wave basin of MARIN to calibrate and
validate simulation codes for floating wind turbines. This paper
reports on a numerical study of an offshore floating wind turbine
(OFWT) and about the comparison of simulation results with
experiments at model scale. This numerical study aims to
reproduce the physical model tests of a wind turbine installed on
a floater tested in waves. Firstly the model test set-up is
described. Secondly, the hydrodynamic model of the floater is
presented together with the representation of the wind turbine.
In this numerical study the diffraction theory is applied to
determine the response of the floater to waves from its geometry.
Then the motions of the floater are simulated in time domain
when the floater is exposed to waves. The motions resulting from
the numerical study are compared to motions measured during
the model tests. The outcome of this comparison is discussed in
the conclusion of this paper.
Figure 1. Global wind distribution over 10 years.
OFWT; wind; wave; turbine; simulation; model; basin; test;
spar The DeepCwind consortium has tested a Spar, a Tension
Leg Platform and a Semi-submersible in the Offshore Basin of
I. INTRODUCTION MARIN in the second trimester of 2011. The scaled-down
model tests are an early part of Phase 1 of the Maine
Wind energy is seen as a major mean of increasing the part Deepwater Offshore Wind Plan. The set-up was designed in
of renewable resources in the energy supply. Wind turbine close co-operation between the University of Maine and
technology continues to improve. Larger and more efficient MARIN. The test results are currently analyzed by both
wind turbines are being deployed onshore and offshore. institutes for the three tested floaters. The results will then be
Although the offshore wind market is currently substantially used to calibrate and validate simulation codes for floating
smaller than the onshore one, the much higher wind energy wind turbines. This numerical study is a forerunner study
potential rises the expectations of several nations. Nowadays, initiated by MARIN to look at whether or not a standard
fixed offshore wind turbines are installed in shallow water. See numerical tool for floating structures can predict the motions of
e.g. the Amalia wind farm. Some projects are in deeper water, a floating wind turbine. For this study the spar buoy was
e.g. the OWEC tower at the Beatrice wind farm in less than 60 chosen. This system is referred to as the “Spar” in this paper.
m water depth. A very few are located in deeper areas, and then
the floating wind turbine may become attractive, e.g. the
Hywind turbine in Norway. A quick glance at the distribution
of the wind speed of Fig. 1 shows that the strongest winds are
located in far offshore areas. Keeping in mind that the power
varies with the third power of the wind speed, it makes sense to
investigate ways to harvest this potential of renewable energy.
However designing a reliable OFWT which is cost effective is
a big challenge ([1] and [2]).

0-933957-39-8 ©2011 MTS

 II. NOMENCLATURE Starting point is the response function of a floating structure
to waves in the frequency domain, described by:
D diameter of spar-buoy at still water line [m]
T spar-buoy draft [m] 6

M mass matrix of a body [t, tm2] ∑ (M kj x j + bki x j + ckj x j = Fk for k = 1, 2...6

+ akj )  (1)
a, A added mass matrix of a body [t, tm2] j =1

b damping matrix [kNs/m, kNms/rad] The linear frequency domain approach does not allow
B matrix of retardation functions [kN/m, kNm/rad] taking variations in time into account nor non-linear motion
c, C hydrostatic restoring forces matrix [kN/m, kNm/rad] response effects. In [3] a method is described to make (1)
F external force in the k-th mode [kN] suitable for analysis in the time domain by a normalization of
t time [s] the potential Φ. This method is described in [4]. Taking the
Cummins-equation into account (1) and following the approach
k,j hydrodynamic response in the k-mode
of [3] results in:
due to motion in the j-mode [-]
ρw water density [kg/m3] 6 t

ρa air density [kg/m3] ∑ (M kj + Akj )x j + ∫B kj (t − τ ) x j (τ )dτ + Ckj x j = Fk (t )

CFx Wind force coefficient for surge [-] j =1 −∞

CMy Wind moment coefficient for pitch [-]

for k = 1, 2...6 (2)
Af Front wind area [m2]
Lpp Length between perpendicular [m] The coefficients A, B and C in (2) are respectively the
U relative wind velocity [m/s] added mass matrix, the matrix of retardation function and the
FW,MW wind force / moment [kN, kNm] matrix of hydrostatic restoring forces based on the geometry of
G Centre of gravity of floating wind turbine the floating object. The coefficients A and B can be determined
x 6 component vector with positions of point G as worked out in [4] by comparing the solution of (2) for a
x(1) surge [m] harmonic oscillation with unit amplitude, described by
x(2) sway [m] x=1.0cos(ωt), with the analytical frequency domain solution
x(3) heave [m] for this motion. The analysis results in definition of the matrix
and three rotations: of added mass and the retardation function:
x(4) roll [rad] ∞
1
ω ∫0
x(5) pitch [rad] Akj = akj (ω ) + Bkj (τ )sin(ω t )dτ
x(6) yaw [rad]
x first time derivative of vector x [m/s, rad/s] 2
∞
Bkj (t ) =
π ∫b
0
kj (ω ) cos(ω t )d ω
III. SIMULATION TOOL FOR FLOATING STRUCTURES
for k = 1, 2...6 and j = 1, 2...6 (3)
Previously at MARIN the different aspects in the offshore
industry were simulated individually by different simulation The derived retardation function and added mass matrix
programs. However, the developments in the offshore industry give the relation between the motion components in the
showed the need for a more integrated simulation package in frequency and in the time domain. This relationship makes it
which the different aspects of the offshore industry are possible to use the linear results of a diffraction analysis to
combined. To provide clients with an up to date simulation determine the added mass and damping of a floating object in
program MARIN developed the modular multi-body time the time domain.
domain simulation program aNySIM. In aNySIM the different
specialized simulations tools which have been developed and The derived equation allows taking into account arbitrary in
validated through the years at MARIN are combined around time varying loads, such as wave excited forces, current forces
the central multi-body time domain simulation module. and non-linear mooring or thruster forces, into the equation of
Applications of the program are: multi-body side-by-side motion at the right hand side of (2).
studies, mooring simulations and multi-body lifting operations, The simulation program allows analysis of combinations of
dynamic positioning capability studies see for instance [5], [6] multiple coupled bodies. The coupled motion response is not
and [7]. described in the present study. The coupled motion response
The various modules of the simulation program are and a practical application are described in [1].
clustered around the central time domain multi-body core of The fourth order Runge-Kutta method is used to determine
the program. At each time step the equation of motion is solved the positions and velocities of the body at the following time
taking non-linear vessel responses and interaction effects step. From the known motions at time t the positions and
between bodies into account. This section describes briefly velocities are estimated in a small intermediate time step t+Δt’.
how the classical static equation of motion of a floating object At time t+Δt’ the accelerations are calculated taking the
is implemented in the simulation program to make analysis in external forces into account and solving (2) for the
the time domain possible. accelerations only. The positions and velocities derived from
the accelerations at t+Δt’ by integration are compared with the
estimated values. When the difference is acceptable the
computation continues for the next time step Δt’. The positions
and velocities at time t+Δt are the weighed average of the
positions and velocities of the body at the time steps Δt’.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

As part of the test program of DeepCwind, a Spar has been
tested in the Offshore Basin of MARIN. The set-up was
designed in close co-operation between the University of
Maine and MARIN. As seen on picture of Fig. 2 a model of a
wind turbine was mounted on the Spar for these tests. The
University of Maine has designed, built and instrumented the
model scale wind turbine; whereas MARIN has built and
instrumented the Spar according to the specifications of
DeepCwind. During these model tests special attention was
given to the wind generation and the aerodynamic wind loading
on the rotor. However, the present study focuses on the model
tests in waves only in order to stay in a valid application range
of the selected numerical tools. Indeed only the standard tool of
MARIN for the simulation of floating structures is used:
aNySIM. This tool is not adapted for an accurate description of
the physics of a rotating rotor in a three dimension wind
velocity field. The extension of aNySIM with improved
aerodynamics to better suit the modeling of a wind turbine
Figure 2. Picture of model test set-up
rotor is an ongoing work. To start with, the motions of the
floating support of the wind turbine need to be predicted Axyz TOP Ø6.50 m
correctly, before adding the aerodynamics correctly.
Irregular waves are generated by a system of approximately
200 oscillating flaps. Each of these wave flaps is controlled
individually with full control over stroke and period. This wave Axyz MID

generation system can generate long-crested irregular seas,

irregular seas with directional spreading and combinations of
irregular waves and swell, each with their own direction of Motions

propagation. Wave absorbing beaches are present opposite to

the wave generators. The wave generators themselves have an Axyz LOW

active reflection compensation option. Fxyz TURBINE

Mxyz TURBINE

The following measurement devices are of interest for this

201.70 m

study:
130.0 m
127.9 m

• A linear array of four wave probes over the range of

116.0 m
169.45 m

the floater offsets thanks to which the wave elevation

108.0 m

time series at the floater position was made available

144.75 m

for this numerical study.

128.30 m
127.85 m

• 3 degrees of freedom (dof) accelerometers at three

heights along the wind turbine tower (Fig. 3).
50.0 m

• Load cell at every fairlead for all three mooring lines.

4.50 m

Motions
9.40 m
Fxyz TURBINE
Mxyz TURBINE Axyz LOW
X

Axyz MID
Axyz MID 4.40 m
1.50 m

Measuring devices Dimensions of the Spar

Figure 3. Views of the Spar with measuring devices

 The model tests were done at scale 1/50 for a full-scale The motions of the Spar are given at the Cog of the Spar.
water depth of 200 m. The Spar was moored using three taut The system of axis is orthogonal. The x-axis is perpendicular to
lines, 120 azimuth angles apart (Fig. 4). Each line ended with a the rotor plan. The z-axis is positive upwards. It is a direct
‘crow foot’ for the connection to the Spar. A ‘crow foot’ is a system of axes; thus the y-axis points towards the portside
connector at which the main line separates into two lines direction. The origin of the referential used to describe the
attached to the floater. This connector provides additional yaw motions coincides with the position of the Cog of the Spar
stiffness to the mooring system. when no external loads act on it. In this referential:
202

200
• Surge is a forward motion (along the x-axis).
•
15
195

14
Sway is a lateral motion to portside (along the x-
190

13
axis).
185 222.5 m 445.0 m
12
• Heave is a upward motion (along the z-axis).
• Roll is a rotation around the x-axis.
180

11
385.4 m

• Pitch is a rotation around the y-axis.

175

10
170
Waves 180°

165
Current 180°
9
• Yaw is a rotation around the z-axis.
160
Wind 180°
8
The same definition is used for the measured motions and
7
the simulated motions. Figure 5 shows how the motions and
385.4 m

155

6
150

5
rotations are defined.
145

4
140

3
135

2
130

1
125

U T S R P O N M L K I H G F E D C B A
5°
22

120
es
av
W

115

113
112 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

Figure 4. Lay out of the Spar in the basin

The characteristics of the Spar are given in Table 1.

TABLE I. MAIN PARTICULARS

Designation
Symbol Unit

Mass M ton 7,980

Displacement Δ ton 8,230

Centre of Gravity above keel KG m 43.65

Roll radius of gyration in air kxx m 53.54 Figure 5. Definition of the motions of the Spar

Pitch radius of gyration in air kyy m 53.55

The model of the main external loads are shortly described
Metacentre height GM m 16.72 in the rest of this chapter. Additional information can be found
in [12].
Natural roll period (moored) Tϕ s 31.5

31.5
A. Wave loads
Natural pitch period (moored) Tθ s
The first order (and second order low frequency)
Natural heave period (moored) Tz s 31.0
hydrodynamics are calculated in the frequency domain, using a
Mooring connection height KFz m 50.0 three-dimensional source distribution technique. The mean
wetted part of the spar is modeled by a large number of panels.
Mooring connection radius r m 4.7
The distribution of source singularities on these panels forms
Mooring line azimuth μ Deg 120 the velocity potential describing the fluid flow around the spar.
The pressure distribution on the immersed part of the spar is
V. DESCRIPTION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL calculated from the velocity potential. Fig. 6-a shows the panel
distribution for the spar. The transfer functions of the three
The floating structure consists of the wind turbine specified
component forces and three component moments result from
and delivered by the DeepCwind Consortium mounted on a
the integration of this pressure distribution for every frequency.
spar-buoy type floater. The Spar floating wind turbine
described in the previous chapter was used to carry out this
numerical study. The Spar is balanced is such way that it stays
vertical when no external loads act on it.
 Figure 5-a Figure 5-b
Spar under water geometry Side view of geometry on which
diffraction/radiation wave forces are
calculated
Figure 6. Under water geometry.
B. Viscous loads
In addition to the radiation contribution of the potential-
flow theory, some viscous loads are added to the hydrodynamic
loading on the spar-buoy. This viscous damping is added
thanks to linear damping coefficients for the three translation
velocities and the three rotation velocities.
C. Mooring loads
In this simulation the seabed is horizontal and the water
depth is 200 m. The Spar is moored using three taut lines with
azimuth angles of 0 deg, 120 deg and 240 deg. Line 1 is the
line connected to the stern of the Spar. Line 2 is the line
connected at starboard. Line 3 is the line connected at portside.
Each line is modeled individually as a spring with constant
stiffness and a pre-tension. Fig. 7 shows a picture of the
mooring system when no environment acts on the Spar.
Following the same approach as in [9], the yaw spring stiffness
of the mooring system is increased thanks to a linear spring
stiffness coefficient to better account for the “crowfoot”
connection to the spar. Eventually the mooring loads on the
Spar are the superposition of the tension in the three lines at the
connection points to the spar plus the moment resulting from
this extra yaw spring stiffness.
Figure 7. 3D-view of the mooring system
The overall stiffness of the mooring system of the
numerical model is compared to the stiffness of the physical
model in the next chapter.
D. Wind loads
The turbulent wind is described as a time series of the
horizontal wind velocity taken as uniform over the entire rotor
plane. Wind load coefficients are commonly used to calculate
the wind loads on a floating structure. These coefficients are
defined around the centre of gravity (Cog) of the floater. This
approach is not meant for a rotor of a wind turbine. Therefore,
at best this standard model can give the expected average surge
offset and average heel angle of a wind turbine in a steady and
uniform wind field provided that the coefficients for the surge
mode and for the pitch mode are appropriately derived. The
formulation for the force in the surge direction and the pitch
moment around the y-axis passing by the CoG are:
• Surge wind force: Fx = ½ ρa CFx U2 Af
• Trim wind moment: My = ½ ρa CMya U2 Af Lpp
VI. CALIBRATION OF NUMERICAL MODEL
The numerical model has some shortcomings:
• The mooring system is simplified.
• Viscous damping must be added.
• Wind forces are based on coefficients.
• The whole floating turbine is a rigid body.
• It lacks a model of a wind rotor.
Fortunately it is possible to calibrate the model based on the
results of some model tests so that we can find our way around
some of these obstacles.
A. Mooring stiffness
The global stiffness of the mooring system in surge (x) and
sway (y) can be determined thanks to the results of static load
tests, which were carried out during the model tests. These
static load tests can also be simulated with the numerical model
with the simplified version of the mooring system. Fig. 8 and
Fig. 9 show the resulting stiffness plots for both the model tests
and the simulations. As can be shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, the
stiffness in x and y direction of the simulated model are quite
comparable with those in the model test.
Figure 8. Static loads in x direction
Figure 9. Static loads in y direction
B. Viscous loads
The magnitude of viscous loss can be revealed thanks to
decay tests for each degree of freedom of the system – 6 d.o.f.
for the floater considered as a rigid body. These decay tests
have been done with the physical model in the basin. For each
degree of freedom, the natural period of the motion can be
generated from the results of the model test, and the added
mass at this frequency can be calculated using the diffraction
analysis (DIFFRAC). The linear damping in aNySIM model is
considered by adding several percentage of the critical damping
Bcr, which can be calculated as follows:
Bcr=2 (M+madd) ωn (1)
Where M is the total mass of the spar, madd is the added
mass, ωn is the natural frequency. It should be noted that for
roll, pitch and yaw, M is the moment of inertia in that degree of
freedom. The percentages of the critical damping that are added
into the simulated model are determined based on MARIN’s
experience.
The similar decay tests as those in the model tests can also
be simulated with the numerical model and by the way checked
against measurements. Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 show the
comparison between measurements and simulations of the
decay tests for heave and pitch.
C. Rotor loads
All loads acting on the rotor are transferred to the floater.
The following parameters come into play for the description of
the dynamics of a rigid rotor:
• Wind: a 3 dimension description of the wind field is
required for a good assessment of the wind load. The
rotation of each blade and the correct angle of attack
should be accounted for in this calculation.
• Power extraction and power loss: the purpose of the
turbine is to extract power. Some power is also lost in
this conversion process.
• Rotational speed: the rotation of the rotor induces in a
gyroscopic effect.
The measurements done on the rotor were not available for
this study. Moreover these loads are not described accurately
enough by the numerical model as it is in its standard version.
Therefore, these loads cannot be accounted for in this study. As
a consequence all model tests with wind are excluded from this
study. Even without wind, the rotating rotor feels a relative
wind and it generates a thrust; moreover it remains under the
control of the power take off system which may slow it down
or accelerate it. This dynamic behavior of the rotor cannot be
described by the standard simulation tool.
The average thrust will cause a drift offset. This drift offset
will be visible in the horizontal translations and in the rotations,
mainly in pitch. As we cannot include these effects, we will try
to limit our comparison to the motions caused by the waves.
D. Elastic response of the tower
In aNySIM, the rigid body assumption is adopted and the
flexibility of the turbine and floater is not considered in the
simulations. The motions of the OFWT, as well as the
accelerations at three different heights along the tower of the
wind turbine were measured (Fig. 3) during the model test. In
this study, the motions of the OFWT from the measurements
for a survival test are forced into aNySIM, and the
accelerations of those three locations from aNySIM are
compared with the measurements (Fig. 12). As can be shown in
the Fig. 12, the accelerations at those three points are very
close between the measurements and the aNySIM results. That
validates the rigid body assumption in the numerical model. It
should be noted that only part of the time trace is shown in Fig.
12, the total simulated time is 3.5 hours.
VII. COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF SIMULATIONS AND MODEL
TESTS
In a first stage, the simulation results of aNySIM are
compared to the results of model tests for surge, sway, heave
and pitch decay. In these simulations the viscous damping
coefficients are determinant. Initially these coefficients are
deduced from the decay model tests. If required these initial
values are adjusted to better fit the results of the model test.
(Fig. 10 and Fig. 11).

Figure 10. Heave decay

Figure 13. Tensions in the 3 main mooring lines

The next step is to confront the numerical model of the

spar with the physical model in waves. As discussed before,
the loads on the rotor are likely to cause large differences,
Figure 11. Pitch decay especially because of the drift motions and rotations induced
by the rotor thrust. This could alter our vision of the floater
response. Nevertheless we will just look at the first order
5
response of the Spar to the waves hoping that the rotor loads
Acc-Top-X [m/s2]

measurement

0
aNySIM
are outside the wave frequency range. In this respect the
motion response amplitude operators (RAOs) are a rather fair
-5
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 way to compare the simulations with the model tests. The
5 comparison is done on a frequency range in which the wave
Acc-Mid-X [m/s2]

measurement
aNySIM
energy is large enough. This is achieved by calculating the
0 RAOs for the spectral density of the wave higher than 10 % of
the peak of the wave spectrum. As illustration the part of the
-5
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 spectrum that is considered to calculate the RAO is colored in
2 orange in Fig. 16. RAOs for the heave motion and the pitch
Acc-Low-X [m/s2]

measurement
aNySIM rotation are calculated. These RAOs can also be deduced
0
directly in frequency domain from the diffraction results by
-2 rewriting (1) for an sine wave excitation. These RAOs are
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250
Time [s] plotted with a blue line in Fig. 14, Fig. 15, Fig. 17, Fig. 18,
Fig. 20 and Fig. 21.
Figure 12. Comparison of accelerations at 3 locations (Low, Mid & Top)
between aNySIM and measurements. A. White noise tests simulation results
A ‘white noise’ kind of wave spectrum is chosen so that the
In a second stage the motions of the spar during the decay
response of the spar can be plotted in terms of RAOs over a
model tests are forced into the numerical model. In this way the
wide frequency range. Fig. 14 and Fig. 15 shows the RAOs of
calculated values of the tensions in the lines can be compared
the heave and pitch motions as calculated from the
to the measured values. This tension check is done with feeding
measurements and from the simulations.
the numerical model with the motions resulting from the pitch
decay. Fig. 13 shows that the match is not perfect, but the
average values and the trend of the tensions in the three lines
are found back by the numerical model. Note that the simulated
tensions are disturbed by numerical noise, which is a
consequence of the way the motion are forced into the model.
 The numerical model is fed in with wave time series in order
to compare the simulation results with the model tests. Table
II shows the statistics of the simulated motions. Table III
shows the statistics of the measured motions. In this sea state
the Spar does not move much. However the differences
between the simulation results and the test results are
noticeable. In the test, the drift horizontal drift motions is
clearly visible, as well as the trim angle. More remarkably the
Spar moves sideways and she rolls in head sea. The numerical
model is incapable of capturing this behavior.

TABLE II. STATISTICS OF SIMULATION RESULTS

Signals Standard
Unit Average
deviation
Surge m -0.0 0.08

Figure 14. Heave RAO Sway m 0.0 0.0

Heave m 0.01 0.02

Roll deg 0.0 0.0

Pitch deg 0.0 0.05

Yaw deg 0.0 0.0

TABLE III. STATISTICS OF MODEL TEST RESULTS

Signals Standard
Unit Average
deviation
Surge m 0.15 0.20

Sway m 0.48 0.40

Heave m -0.01 0.05

Roll deg 0.28 0.23

Pitch deg -0.11 0.13

Figure 15. Pitch RAO
Yaw deg 0.12 0.11

The agreement between the simulation and the model test is

good. However some differences can be noticed around 0.4
[rad/s]. At this stage, the numerical model seems to be ready
for the confrontation with a wave that the Spar is likely to
encounter.
B. Simulation of an operational sea state
During the experiments, model tests were done with waves
corresponding to sea states in which the floater should be able
to operate. Among these operational tests, a few were done
with wave only. The following sea state was chosen to run the
numerical model:
• Head waves.
• Significant wave height of 2.0 m.
• Peak period of 7.5 s.
• JONSWAP spectrum with enhancement peak factor of
2.
The statistic data of the measurements show the outcome of
the complex physics involved in the dynamics of the OFWT. A
standard numerical tool for floating structures fails to
reproduce this physics completely. It was known beforehand
that the model of the rotor is missing in the simulations.
Nevertheless it is still interesting to check whether the response
to the waves is correct or not. Therefore the comparison is
continued with the comparison of the RAOs rather than the
statistics. Because RAOs show the results in frequency domain,
it is possible to look at effects distinctly as long as the periods
involved are clearly different.
Figure 16 shows the wave spectral density. The two vertical
orange lines delimit the domain in which there is enough wave
energy for this sea-state. The heave and pitch RAO’s are
calculated in this frequency range. The RAO calculated from
the diffraction results are plotted in a blue dashed line outside
this domain in Fig.16 and Fig. 17.
The agreement on the heave and pitch RAOs is good (Fig.
17 and Fig. 18).
 Figure 18. Pitch RAO in operational sea-state

C. Simulation of a survival test

During the experiments, model tests were done with waves
corresponding to the most severe conditions that the floater
should be able to endure. Among these design tests, one was
with only waves. This design test can be used for the
comparison with the simulation. It was carried out with the
following sea state:
• Head waves.
• Significant wave height of 10.5 m.
• Peak period of 14.3 s.
• JONSWAP spectrum with peak enhancement factor of
3.
The numerical model is fed in with wave time series in
order to compare the simulation results with the model test
results. Figure 19 shows the wave spectral density. The heave
Figure 16. Wave spectrum for the operational condition
and pitch RAO’s are calculated (Fig. 20 and Fig. 21). The
agreement between the simulation and the model test is still
acceptable (Fig. 21). It is noted that the simulation
underestimates the heave response and the pitch response of the
Spar.

Figure 17. Heave RAO in operational sea-state

Figure 19. Wave spectrum for a survival sea-state


Figure 20. Heave RAO in survival sea-state
. MARIN and ECN will proceed with the validation of the
Figure 21. Pitch RAO in survival sea-state
VIII. CONCLUSION
In this study a numerical model of the Spar has been made
and this model has been calibrated against the model test
results. The simulation results have been compared with the
model test results for two tests without wind: an operational
sea state, and a design sea state. Clearly the numerical model
without a model for the rotor failed to restitute the behavior of
the Spar in the operational sea-state. Nevertheless the work
was continued to look specifically at the motion response of
the Spar to the waves. Heave RAOs and pitch RAOs were
used for this comparison. This comparison was done for
frequencies where the wave energy is big enough. Despite that
the numerical tool is not fit for the simulation of a wind
turbine including the dynamics of the rotor, the first order
wave responses in heave and pitch are comparable for these
tests. However the numerical tool slightly underestimates the
heave and pitch responses for the most severe sea-state.
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FURTHER WORK
A key point in the tests performed for DeepCwind is that
wind and waves were present simultaneously. This allows the
study of the motions and loads of the rotating wind turbine on a
moving platform in both wind and waves. Therefore, these tests
can serve as high quality benchmark data to validate simulation
methods for the coupling between aerodynamic and
hydrodynamic behavior. The aerodynamic wind loading on the
rotor has a considerable influence on the behavior of the
floater. Nonetheless, the tests with only waves give a nice
opportunity to check the hydrodynamic model and the mooring
line model in a first stage. This first step was done for aNySIM
in this study.
MARIN and the Dutch Research Centre on Energy (ECN)
are currently coupling aNySIM with an aerodynamic tool of
ECN: PHATAS ([8]). The new model integrates all loads
acting on the entire wind turbine, including the loads on the
rotor. This work is in the verification stage. As soon as the
measurements of the rotor loads will be made available,
coupled aNySIM\PHATAS simulation tool against physical
model tests including wind loads.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank their colleagues of MARIN
for their enthusiast collaboration in the execution of this work
and in the redaction of this paper. The authors are very obliged
for the DeepCWind consortium, which provided them with
very valuable data for the comparison of simulations with
measurements.
REFERENCES
[1] A.R. Henderson, B. Bulder, R.H.M. Huijsmans, J.M. Peeringa, J.T.G.
Pierik, E.J.B. Snijders, M.Th. van Hees, G.H. Wijnants and M.J. Wolf,
2003, “Floating Windfarms for Shallow Offshore Sites”. Proc. Of
OWEMES Conference, Naples, Italy.
[2] B. Bulder, A.R. Henderson, R.H.M. Huijsmans, J.M. Peeringa, J.T.G.
Pierik, E.J.B. Snijders, M.Th. van Hees, G.H. Wijnants and M.J. Wolf,
2003, “Floating Wind Turbines for Shallow Waters”. EWEC 2003,
Madrid, Spain.
[3] W.E. Cummins, “The Impulse Response Function of Ship Motions”,
International Symposium on Ship Theory, Hamburg, number 8, 1962.
[4] G. van Oortmerssen, “The Motions of a Moored Ship in Waves”. NSMB
Publication No. 510, 1973.
[5] M. Naciri, O.J. Waals and J.J. de Wilde, “Time Domain Simulations of
Side-by-Side Moored Vessels, Lessons Learnt from a Benchmark Test”,
OMAE2007-29756, San Diego, California.
[6] J.J. de Wilde, A.W. van Dijk , A.J. van den Berg and J. Dekker, “Direct
Time Domain Downtime Assessment for LNG Operations using
Computer Cluster”, ISOPE 2009.
[7] J. Serraris, 2009, “Time Domain Analysis for DP Simulations”. OMAE
2009-79587, Honolulu, Hawaii.
[8] C. Lindenburg, “PHATAS Release “APR-2005” USER’S MANUAL,
Program for Horizontal Axis wind Turbine Analysis and Simulation”,
ECN-I—05-005 Rev.7, ECN, Petten, December 2010.
[9] J.M. Jonkman, “Phase IV of the IEA Annex XXIII Offshore Code
Comparison Collaboration”, 2010, Technical Report NREL/TP-500-
47535.
[10] User manual of aNySIM, http://wiki.marin.nl/index.php/ANYwiki.