This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]

On: 24 February 2015, At: 18:17

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and
Performance
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Control of wind/wave-induced vibrations of jacket-

type offshore wind turbines through tuned liquid
column gas dampers
a a a
Reza Dezvareh , Khosrow Bargi & Seyed Amin Mousavi
a
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Published online: 17 Feb 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Reza Dezvareh, Khosrow Bargi & Seyed Amin Mousavi (2015): Control of wind/wave-induced vibrations
of jacket-type offshore wind turbines through tuned liquid column gas dampers, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:
Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2015.1011169

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1011169

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1011169

Control of wind/wave-induced vibrations of jacket-type offshore wind turbines through

tuned liquid column gas dampers
Reza Dezvareh*, Khosrow Bargi1 and Seyed Amin Mousavi2
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
(Received 3 March 2014; final version received 30 September 2014; accepted 4 December 2014)

Wind/wave-induced vibrations of jacket-type offshore wind turbines (JOWTs) are suppressed by placing a passive vibration
absorber, called tuned liquid column gas damper (TLCGD), on the turbine nacelle. Adopting an ensemble of 75 wind/wave
combinations, three different JOWTs and a SimuLink-based nonlinear model in time domain, main parameters of the
TLCGD are optimised to reach the minimum standard deviation of nacelle displacement. Obtained results indicate that
contribution of the proposed TLCGD is more pronounced in the case of regular excitations such as those from sea waves and
less turbulent winds. Depending on the wind/wave combination, TLCGD can result in reductions up to 45% and 51% in
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015

nacelle displacement standard deviation and maximum acceleration, respectively. As a result, TLCGD deemed to be well
suited to protect fatigue critical JOWTs as well as acceleration-sensitive devices of the nacelle.
Keywords: wind/wave excitation; offshore wind turbines; passive control; tuned liquid column gas dampers

1. Introduction and tension leg platforms (TLPs). The monopile support

As a renewable energy source, wind energy has gained
significant interest during the last decades. While wind
energy harvest facilities have a long historical background,
modern wind turbines have been built in the early twentieth
century in some countries, such as Denmark, Germany,
USA, India and Italy (Vestergaard, Brandstrup, & Goddard,
2004). Within the last 15 years or so, offshore wind turbines
have gained more attention, due to the fact that they are
generally more stable and of higher speed in comparison
with their land counterparts. With the installation of the
wind turbine in an offshore location, however, new
concerns would arise in terms of additional excitations
from sea waves and special constructional issues (Inter-
national Electrotechnical Commission [IEC], 2009).
Compared to conventional civil engineering structures,
dynamic behaviour of wind turbines is not fully under-
stood. An aeroelastic analysis is required to account for the
interaction between wind current and rotating blades of the
turbine. The so-called blade element momentum (BEM)
theory is commonly adopted for the required aeroelastic
analysis and many simulation tools, such as FAST
(Jonkman & Buhl, 2005), have been developed based on
this theory. In addition, required simulations of offshore
wind turbines are even more complicated compared to
their land counterparts due to the water – structure
interaction.
In general, support structures of offshore wind
turbines can be categorised as monopiles, jacket-types
structures are more suitable for depths of about 30 m
while jacket support structures are commonly used for
depths in the range of 30 – 70 m, and TLPs are mainly
used for the depths of more than 70 m. As the support
structure has a significant effect on the overall
constructional costs of an offshore wind turbine (Seidel,
2007), some efforts have been made to investigate jacket-
type supports for higher depths. Beatrice wind farm
(http://www.beatricewind.co.uk) is an example of the
aforementioned efforts in which jacket-type supports
were installed in deep waters.
The main focus of this study is also on the jacket-type
offshore wind turbines (JOWTs). Commonly, compared to
conventional petroleum offshore jacket platforms, JOWTs
have smaller natural frequencies as well as smaller
inherent damping. Both features make JOWTs quite
sensitive to wind/wave-induced vibrations which need to
be accounted for during the design phase of the project
(Dong, Moan, & Gao, 2011). Moreover, it is well
recognised that welded joints in jacket-type supports are
vulnerable to fatigue demands. Consequently, a robust
vibration control strategy is required to address both
service and ultimate level performances of the JOWT
under dynamic excitations.
Current control techniques can be categorised into two
general classes of passive and active, which have been
briefly discussed by Soong and Dargush (1997) and Soong
and Spencer (2002), respectively. Vibration control is not

*Corresponding author. Email: rdezvareh@ut.ac.ir

q 2015 Taylor & Francis
 2 R. Dezvareh et al.

a new technique for offshore structures and has been

considered in some earlier studies. For example, dynamic
behaviour of offshore jacket platforms under wave-
induced excitations was reduced through passive and
active dampers by Patil and Jangid (2005) and Mahadik
and Jangid (2003), respectively. Vibration mitigation for
offshore wind turbine is also not a new idea and many
studies have been devoted to this topic (Lackner & Rotea,
2011a, 2011b; Stewart & Lackner, 2011; Colwell & Basu,
2009). In the above-mentioned studies, contribution of
various vibration absorbers, such as tuned mass damper,
Figure 1. (a) Three samples of liquid column energy absorber
tuned liquid column damper (TLCD) and active mass and (b) the TLCGD motion, under base excitation of x and
damper, for monopile and floating offshore wind turbines associated parameters.
have been investigated. Behaviour of offshore wind
turbines with ball vibration absorbers under seismic
excitations as well as equivalent wind/wave excitations
gravitational restoring forces of the vibrating liquid as
has been studied by Zhang, Chen, and Li (2014), and
well as hydrodynamic loss mechanisms, such as friction,
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015

encouraging results were also reported.

In 2006, a new generation of TLCDs, called tuned
liquid column gas damper (TLCGD), was introduced by
Hochrainer and Ziegler (2006). TLCGD is similar to
TLCD in many ways and the main difference stems from
its improved flexibility in frequency regulation. That is,
frequency of TLCDs can be tuned only through adjusting
their geometrical parameters. However, in the case of
TLCGD, it is possible to bring such regulation by
adjusting the gas pressure in the vertical columns.
Contribution of TLCGD towards petroleum offshore
jacket platforms was investigated by Mousavi, Zahrai, and
Bargi (2012, 2013) and different parameters of the
TLCGD were optimised through comprehensive para-
metric studies. However, the carried out studies were
limited to earthquake excitation and, to the authors’
knowledge, contribution of TLCGD towards offshore
wind turbines under wind/wave excitations is not fully
understood. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate
contribution of TLCGD in reducing wind/wave induced
vibrations of JOWTs.
2. Fundamentals of TLCGD
2.1. Background
Similar to conventional TLCDs, TLCGDs consist of an
U-shaped tube partially filled with liquid. However, in
contrast to TLCDs, vertical columns of the TLCGD are
sealed and its liquid is under a predetermined initial
pressure, as depicted in Figure 1(a). Accordingly,
frequency of the vibrating liquid can be regulated,
through the gas spring effect. In other words, the
frequency of the TLCGD can be tuned not only by
geometrical parameters, but also through initial gas
pressure in the vertical columns. Similar to conventional
TLCDs, parts of the vibration energy of the structure are
transmitted to the liquid and would be dissipated by
orifices and elbows.
Another modification to earlier TLCDs is the liquid
column vibration absorber (LCVA), in which vertical
columns have different cross-sections compared with the
horizontal column. This minor modification could
convey noticeable contribution in terms of efficiency as
suggested by Chang and Hsu (1998) and Mousavi et al.
(2012). Note that, similar to LCVAs, TLCGDs can also
have different cross-sections in vertical and horizontal
columns.
2.2. Governing equation of motion
The equation of liquid motion inside the TLCGD can be
derived in different ways. Consider a TLCGD like the one
illustrated in Figure 1(b), where y represents displacement
of the liquid in the vertical columns and x denotes base
horizontal displacement of the TLCGD. Horizontal and
vertical column lengths (which are filled by liquid) are
also represented by b and h, respectively. Moreover, Ab
and Ah stand for cross sectional area of the horizontal and
vertical columns, respectively. In Figure 1(b), ha denotes
length of the gas filled vertical columns with initial gas
pressure of P0.
According to earlier studies, equation of motion of
the proposed TLCGD can be written as (Mousavi et al.,
2013):
y€ þ dL jy_ jy_ þ v2A y ¼ 2k1 x€ ; ð1Þ
where
2gð1 þ nP0 =rgha Þ b
v2A ¼ ; k1 ¼ ; ð2Þ
2h þ bl 2h þ bl
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 3

 Meanwhile, the force F2 would be triggered due to the out

1

dL ¼ K el 1 þ l 2 þ of phase acceleration of the liquid in the horizontal column
2ð2h þ blÞ with respect to the base acceleration of the TLCGD:

2f h f b 2
N b K or l þ N h K or þ K C þ K E þ
2
þ l
Dh Db
F 1 ¼ mf x€ ; F 2 ¼ rbAb ly€ ¼ rbAh y€ : ð4Þ
if l . 1 ! K C ¼ 0:5l ðl 2 1Þ; ð3Þ
K E ¼ ðl 2 1Þ2
In Equation (4), mf and r are mass and density of the
if l , 1 ! K C ¼ 0:5 ð1 2 lÞ; TLCGD liquid, respectively. Besides, x€ is the absolute
K E ¼ ð 1 2 lÞ 2 acceleration at the base of the TLCGD. For example, in the
if l ¼ 1 ! K C ¼ K E ¼ 0: case of earthquake excitations, ground acceleration should
be added to the relative acceleration of the structure to
obtain the true value of x€ . An algebraic summation of the
In the above equations, vA and dL are, respectively,
above-mentioned forces gives the overall controlling force
natural frequency and hydraulic head loss coefficient of
of the TLCGD as:
the TLCGD. Parameter l is the area ratio and defined
to be the cross-sectional ratio of the vertical column to
the horizontal one. Besides, Kel and Kor, respectively,
yÞ; b
k
¼
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015

are hydraulic local head loss coefficients at the elbows
and orifices. Nb and Nh denote number of placed
orifices in the horizontal and vertical columns,
respectively. The diameter of the vertical column is
presented by Dh and Db stands for the diameter of the
horizontal column. Moreover, KC and KE are the
contraction and expansion coefficients, respectively.
Parameter f is also the so-called Darcy’s coefficient of
friction. It is crucial to note that liquid and gas mixing
is not allowed in the TLCGD and should be avoided.
To address this criterion, as proposed by Linder –
Silvester and Schneider (2005), the liquid speed in the
vertical column needs to be less than 10 m/s.
The authors note that, while liquid –gas blending
would definitely change the governing equations, it might
not necessarily disturb efficiency of the TLCGD. In any
case, behaviour of liquid –gas blended TLCGD is not fully
understood and further discussion about this specific case
is out of scope of this study. Finally, it should be pointed
out that, similar to most liquid vibration absorbers, the
liquid inside the TLCGD is water and all presented
formulations have been derived based on this assumption.
Care should be exercised in adopting these formulations
for TLCGDs filled with other liquids.
F ¼ mf ð€x þ k€ : ð5Þ
2h þ b=l
In the presented relations, the mass of the TLCGD tubes
(without liquid) was ignored.
3. JOWTs
3.1. Considered wind turbine
A 5 MW benchmark wind turbine is adopted in this study
with the main characteristics represented in Table 1 and
Figure 2(a). Detailed discussion about the adopted turbine
can be found, e.g., in Jonkman, Butterfield, Musial, and
Scott (2009). As depicted in Figure 2(a), with the increase
of the mean wind speed up to 11.4 m/s, thrust force as well
as generated power would also increase. However, when
the nominal power (5 MW) of the turbine is achieved,
pitch and stall regulations start such that no further thrust
force would be transmitted to the rotor and subsequently
no further power would be generated. Consequently, the
generated power would be sustained to the nominal value
of 5 MW. Note that, during mean speeds exceeding 25 m/s,
the turbine will cease functioning to avoid any potential
damage.

2.3. Controlling force of the TLCGD

Table 1. The 5 MW turbine characteristics by NREL.
The vibration-reducing effect of TLCGD, or any other
vibration absorber, can be explained either through energy Nominal power 5 (MW)
balance or dynamic equilibrium. The latter point of view is
Rotor orientation Upwind
considered in this study as equations of motion of civil Blades length and number 3 blades, 61.5 m long
engineering structures are commonly written in the form Rotor diameter 126.3 m
of equilibrium of dynamic forces. Hub height 90 m
As denoted by Equation (4), TLCGD would impose Wind nominal speed 11.4 m/s
two types of lateral forces, F1 and F2, on the structure. The Rotor nominal speed 12.1 (RMP)
Generator efficiency 94.4 (%)
force F1 is simply attributed to the inertial force of the Rotor mass 110,000 kg
TLCGD (vertical and horizontal columns) and its liquid.
 4 R. Dezvareh et al.

in which the sum of internal forces (inertia, damping and

elastic) equals the external forces, namely, the aero-
dynamic and hydrodynamic forces acting upon the turbine
and its support structure.

3.3.1. The wave load (hydrodynamic force)

According to the current state-of-the-practice, Morison’s
relation is well accepted in order to account for
hydrodynamic forces caused by water – structure inter-
action. The force exerted by waves upon a cylindrical
element is proportional to the ratio of the wavelength to
the cylinder diameter. When this ratio is . 5 (IEC, 2009),
incoming waves would not be affected by the cylindrical
element and the wave force can be written as a summation
of the drag and inertia forces, as follows:
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015

F hydro ¼ F Morison ¼ F D þ F I
_ jv 2 u_ j
¼ 0:5rw C D Aðv 2 uÞ ð7Þ
€
þ rw BðC M v_ 2 ðC M 2 1ÞuÞ:

In Equation (7), Fhydro stands for the hydrodynamic force

Figure 2. (a) The 5 MW turbine characteristics versus speed in vector and FD and FI are the drag and the inertia force vectors,
steady state (Jonkman et al., 2009) and (b) considered JOWTs respectively. Besides, rw denotes water density. Matrices A
with different heights.
and B are the area and volume matrices of the jacket
platform. Scalar parameters CD and CM denote drag and
inertia coefficients, respectively. Moreover, v denotes the
3.2. Considered support structures
wave velocity vector and v̇ represents the wave acceleration
In this study, as shown in Figure 2(b), three jacket-type vector. Finally, u̇ and ü represent velocity and acceleration of
supports are considered for the aforementioned 5 MW the structure. In Equation (7), known as the Morison’s
turbine. All jackets are four-legged with different heights modified equation, effect of the relative movement between
in different water depths. Considered support structure the structure and water is also addressed. Also, the inertia
heights are 62 m, 88 m and 120 m installed in water depths force contains an added mass term proportional to the
of 50 m, 70 m and 100 m, respectively. As presented cylinder acceleration (Laya, Connor, & Sunder, 1984).
in Table 2, cross-sectional dimensions of the support
structure elements are considered to be the same in all
three cases. 3.3.2. The wind load (aerodynamic force)
Energy generation stems from interactions between
airfoils of the turbine blades and the wind current which
3.3. Equation of motion of the JOWT
leads to generation of aerodynamic forces (drag and lift).
The governing equation for JOWT under wind and wave In general, the aerodynamic forces made up from three
loadings can be written as follows: main components as follows:
(1) a rather monotonic component which is mainly
F Inertia þ F Damping þ F Elastic ¼ F Aero þ F Hydro ; ð6Þ produced by the mean wind velocity,
(2) periodic forces which are produced by wind
shears, blades rotation, non-axial winds and
Table 2. Adopted cross sectional dimensions of the support turbine tower shadow and
structures. (3) turbulent portion of aerodynamic forces with
irregular fluctuations.
Inclined brace Horizontal brace leg
BEM is used to calculate imposed aerodynamic forces
0.8 0.8 1.8 External diameter (m) on the considered turbines. According to the classic BEM,
20 20 30 Thickness (mm)
lift and drag forces per unit length of the airfoil can be
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 5

estimated by (Hansen, 2008): torque, respectively. The number of turbine blades is

denoted by B, and r stands for the distance between the
L ¼ 0:5rair V 2rel cC l ð8Þ airfoil and the rotor centre (hub). Moreover, dr denotes the
radial length increment of each airfoil. Main parameters of
D ¼ 0:5rair V 2rel cC d ð9Þ BEM theory are schematically shown in Figure 3 in which
v, V0, a, u, a and a 0 are angular velocity of rotor, wind
where L and D denote the lift and drag forces imposed on speed, angle of attack, local pitch, axial induction factor
the airfoil, respectively. Also, rair represents the air and tangential induction factor, respectively.
density, c is the airfoil chord and Vrel stands for the sum of Related formulations of the above-mentioned par-
the wind velocity and rotational speed. ameters are not presented here due to the page limitation.
Parameters Cl and Cd denote the coefficients of lift and Readers are referred to Hansen (2008) for more detailed
drag. Projecting the calculated lift and drag forces, the discussion. The authors clarify that all aerodynamic forces
perpendicular and tangential forces on the rotor are are obtained from FAST code (Jonkman & Buhl, 2005)
obtained using: which is based on BEM theory. A fixed-bottom support
platform was adopted in the FAST model to derive the
pN ¼ L cos B þ D sin B ð10Þ
required thrust force. Further details about the FAST
pT ¼ L sin B 2 D cos B ð11Þ model of the 5 MW benchmark offshore wind turbine has
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015

been reported by Jonkman et al. (2009). Moreover, only

where pN and pT represent the perpendicular and tangential the thrust load perpendicular to the rotor was considered in
aerodynamic force components on the rotor plane, this study as other wind-induced loads on other directions
respectively, and B denotes the angle between Vrel and the are negligible.
rotor plane. Therefore, the total perpendicular force on the
rotor plane (rotor thrust force) and the rotor torque are
obtained by: 4. Modelling
ð 4.1. Mathematical model of the JOWT– TLCGD system
T ¼ BpN dr ð12Þ Placing the TLCGD on the nacelle and adopting a discrete
lumped mass model, Equation (6) can be rewritten in the
ð matrix form of:
M ¼ rBpT dr ð13Þ
In Equations (12) and (13), T and M indicate the total
perpendicular force (the rotor thrust) and the total rotor Mu€ þ Cu_ þ Ku ¼ F Aero þ F Hydro þ F TLCGD ; ð14Þ

Figure 3. Aerodynamic forces per BEM theory.

 6 R. Dezvareh et al.

where, M, C and K stand for mass, inherent damping and
lateral stiffness matrices, respectively. Moreover, u denote
displacement vector and dot operator indicates differen-
tiation with respect to time. Aerodynamic force vector is
represented by FAero and FHydro is the hydrodynamic force
vector. Besides, FTLCGD is the force vector corresponding
to the TLCGD forces. Further details about aerodynamic
and hydrodynamic forces are provided in Appendix A.
It should be pointed out that many terms in Equation
(14) are coupled with each other and conventional finite
element methods would fail to provide fast computational
tools for these nonlinear-correlated equations. MATLAB
(2008) proved to be a well-suited tool for such computations
and very large number of analysis (in the order of 104
analyses or more) can be carried out with reasonable speed
and without parallel techniques. As a result, in the present
study, Equation (14) is solved through a SimuLink based
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015
lumped at different levels. Mass, stiffness, area and
volume matrices are obtained from physical character-
istics, while damping matrices are obtained from a
frequency-independent formulation in which damping
ratio in all modes regulated to be 2%. Detailed discussion
about frequency-independent damping has been provided
by Clough and Penzien (1993).
In order to verify the accuracy of the used lumped mass
models in SimuLink, obtained modal properties are
compared with those of SAP 2000 as presented in
Tables 3 –5 and illustrated in Figure 4. It is interesting to
note that, effective modal mass at the second mode is
higher than that of the first mode in all considered JOWTs.
This is due to the specific stiffness/mass distribution along
the height of the JOWTs. The so-called equivalent static
procedure is not applicable as response of the structure is
not well governed by its first mode. As a result, dynamic

model as briefly introduced in Appendix B.
4.2. Verification of the discrete model
As previously described, considered JOWTs include a
5 MW wind turbine with the previously presented
characteristics and four-legged support structures which
are in different water depths of 50 m, 70 m and 100 m. All
JOWTs are modelled with 11 degrees-of-freedom (DOFs)
procedures, either spectral or time history, are required for
seismic design of JOWTs. Further discussion about this
interesting topic is out of scope of this study.
It can be seen that the lumped mass model is in good
agreement with its 3D finite element counterpart. This is
mainly due to the fact that used stiffness matrices are
obtained from flexibility matrices. Note that offshore wind
turbines are flexible structures with noticeable rotational
responses. Accordingly, stiffness matrix should be
estimated from the flexibility matrix to account for

Table 3. Modal information obtained from SAP and SimuLink models for JOWT-A (first five modes).

Type Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5

Period (s) – SAP 2.864 0.390 0.208 0.116 0.074
Period (s) – SimuLink 2.863 0.388 0.208 0.112 0.074
Modal mass ratio (%) – SAP 41 44 6.4 8.7 0.2
Modal mass ratio (%) – SimuLink 40.7 43.8 6.3 8.5 0.18

Table 4. Modal information obtained from SAP and SimuLink models for JOWT-B (first five modes).

Type Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5

Period (s) – SAP 2.941 0.529 0.224 0.154 0.084
Period (s) –SimuLink 2.941 0.525 0.223 0.150 0.083
Modal mass ratio (%) – SAP 37 46 5.9 8.7 1.7
Modal mass ratio (%) – Simulink 37.5 46.4 5.5 8.7 1.6

Table 5. Modal information obtained from SAP and Simulink models for JOWT-C (first five modes).

Type Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5

Period (s) – SAP 3.029 0.692 0.255 0.193 0.120
Period (s)- SimuLink 3.028 0.688 0.252 0.191 0.117
Modal mass ratio (%) – SAP 34 46 12 5.5 2.2
Modal mass ratio (%) – SimuLink 34.3 46.1 11.4 5.9 2.1
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015
Figure 4. SAP and lumped mass first three mode shapes of (a)
JOWT-A, (b) JOWT-B and (c) JOWT-C.
rotational DOFs as well. Obtained stiffness matrix is a
condensed matrix with only translational DOFs (Chopra,
1995). It should be clarified that adopted discrete model
has only lateral translational DOF in each level and
considered wind/wave excitations has the same direction,
as proposed in IEC61400-3 (2009). In addition, considered
external loads assumed to be perpendicular to the rotor of
the wind turbine due to the yaw control mechanism of the
nacelle and effect of the aerodynamic force on the tower of
the wind turbine is neglected.
5. Numerical analysis
TLCGD is a rather new vibration absorber and its major
parameters, namely mass ratio and frequency ratio, are
not yet optimised for offshore wind turbines under wind/
wave excitations. To assess TLCGD performance in the
time domain, a criterion beyond merely the maximum
response has to be considered, as the maximum response
7
occurs at an instant of time. As a result, damper
evaluation based merely on the reduction of maximum
response would be neither sound nor adequate. The
authors opted for standard deviation of the nacelle
response as the optimisation index. The formula can be
written as follows:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u N
u1 X 1X N
s¼t ðxi 2 x
Þ2 where x
¼ xi ; ð15Þ
N i¼1 N i¼1
where s denotes standard deviation of the nacelle
response and N represents number of the time steps used
in the SimuLink model. Moreover, xi stands for the
nacelle response – displacement or acceleration – in the
ith time step, while x
denotes its corresponding mean
value.
5.1. A parametric study on TLCGD parameters
Fluid mass and frequency of the TLCGD deemed to be
the main parameters in this study. Accordingly, mass
and frequency ratios of the TLCGD would be optimised
during this subsection assuming following constant
parameters:
b ¼ 16 m; h ¼ 3 m; Dh ¼ 1 m; Db ¼ 1:67 m;
dL ¼ 0:5:
It should be pointed out that the head loss coefficient
of the TLCGD (dL) can also have noticeable effect on
the TLCGD efficiency. However, as reported by Mousavi
et al. (2013), optimum head loss coefficients of 0.5– 1
result in good efficiency in most cases. As a result a
constant value of 0.5 is adopted herein. Note that the
frequency ratio is defined to be the ratio of TLCGD
frequency to the JOWT fundamental (first mode)
frequency. Besides, the mass ratio is the ratio of TLCGD
fluid mass to total mass of the JOWT. Optimisation is
achieved through a comprehensive parametric study in
terms of frequency ratio (a) and mass ratio (m) with the
following lower/upper bands and increments.
0:1 Spaced
a ¼ 0:5 ! 1:4
2% Spaced
m ¼ 1%; 2% ! 10%:
An ensemble of 75 different wind/wave combinations
is considered to cover a broad range of possible loading
 8 R. Dezvareh et al.

states:
4 Spaced
T pwave ¼ 8 s ! 16 s:
m 4 Spaced m
uwind ¼8 ! 24
s s Note that uwind is the mean wind speed at the nacelle
elevation, Hswave is the significant wave height and
2 Spaced Tpwave is the wave peak period. Obtained results are
H swave ¼ 2 m ! 10 m
summarised in Figure 5 in which as the mass ratio
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015

Figure 5. Mean S.D. Displacement reduction versus a for mass ratios of (a) 1%, (b) 2%, (c) 4%, (d) 6%, (e) 8% and (f) 10%.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 9

increases, the optimum frequency ratio (the peaks of the 5.2. Contribution of the TLCGD under wind and
presented curves) decreases. Moreover, Figure 5 indi- wave excitations
cates that the higher the mass ratio, the more sensitive 5.2.1. Wind load
the TLCGD’s performance to its frequency. In other
Winds with mean speeds varying from 8 to 24 m/s are
words, as the liquid mass increases, the frequency span
adopted in this section. Note that considered wind speeds
in which a favourable performance was achieved (the
are larger than cut-in and smaller than cut-out speeds.
positive side of the vertical axis in Figure 5), would be
As a result, maximum possible aerodynamic forces are
narrowed. Both of the above-mentioned features are also
expected to occur during the carried out simulations.
the case for TLCGD under seismic excitations (Mousavi
Obtained results in terms displacement reduction at the
et al., 2013).
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015

Figure 6. Mean S.D. Displacement reduction percent under different wind speeds.
 10 R. Dezvareh et al.

nacelle are illustrated in Figure 6. Note that aforemen-
tioned sea states (Hs of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 m and Tp of 8, 12
and 16 s) are also considered in this section and each point
on the depicted curves of Figure 6 represents averaged
result of different sea states.
5.2.2. Wave load
To investigate wave effects on the TLCGD performance,
waves with significant heights of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 m and
period of 8 s are considered. This range is in accordance
with the annual statistics of waves in different seas.
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015
In other words, the waves with height higher than 10 m are
less frequent during annual periods and are considered as
an ultimate level wave.
Figure 7 indicates that as the wave height increases the
efficiency of the placed TLCGD would also increase. This is
due to the fact that when compared with aerodynamic forces,
hydrodynamic forces are rather regular with narrower
frequency band. As a result, an increase in the hydrodynamic
force leads to more regularity in the structural response and
consequently improves damper performance. Note that each
point in the represented curves of Figure 7 denotes averaged
result of different wind mean speeds.

Figure 7. Mean S.D. Displacement reduction percent versus different wave heights.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015
Figure 8. (a) Periodic and (b) irregular aerodynamic force for the mean speed of 12 m/s.
5.2.3. Effect of wind turbulence intensity
In the earlier sections, aerodynamic forces were
accompanied by their inherent turbulences and it is
observed that higher irregularities in structural vibration
results in lower efficiency of the placed TLCGD. Note that
all turbulence intensities were considered based on
IEC61400-3 (2009) in which turbulence intensity varies
with mean wind velocity.
To achieve a better understanding about sensitivity
of the TLCGD to wind turbulence, another parametric
study is carried out considering both periodic and
turbulent aerodynamic forces. The authors clarify that
periodic aerodynamic forces came from wind shear,
rotor spinning, non-axial winds and tower shadow.
Simulated in the FAST code, Figure 8 illustrates periodic
and irregular turbulent aerodynamic forces for a sample
wind with the mean speed of 12 m/s. In this section,
considered TLCGD has a mass ratio of 6% and
frequency ratio of 0.8.
The computed aerodynamic forces are imposed on the
SimuLink model, and Figures 9 and 10, respectively,
illustrate nacelle displacement and acceleration. Besides,
Tables 6 –8 represent the contribution of the TLCGD in
terms of reduction percentage of the nacelle response.
Note that only JOWT-C is considered in this section, and
adopted wave heights are 2, 6 and 10 m. Again,
11
contribution of the TLCGD is more pronounced in the
case of periodic aerodynamic forces which lead to more
regular structural vibrations compared with those of
turbulent aerodynamic forces. This is in agreement with
obtained results in Figure 7 in which TLCGD performed
more effectively in the cases of higher wave heights
(higher hydrodynamic forces). This behaviour deemed to
be due to the irregularity compensation made by higher
waves which are more regular.
From Tables 6 –8, it can be seen that reduction in
displacement standard deviation is more encouraging
when compared with that of maximum displacement.
Therefore, TLCGD seems to be more effective in the
case of fatigue dominated offshore wind turbines.
Moreover, regardless of wind turbulence and wave
height, maximum nacelle acceleration was substantially
reduced in the case of wind turbine with TLCGD. The
aforementioned reduction roughly ranges from 10% to
50% depending on the loading state. As a result,
TLCGD is a well-suited controller in order to improve
serviceability performance of the nacelle mechanical/
electrical devices.
From the obtained results, it is turned out that
efficiency of a pre-regulated TLCGD has minor sensitivity
to the height and flexibility of its JOWT. The same
conclusion has been made earlier by Mousavi et al. (2013)
 12 R. Dezvareh et al.
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015

Figure 9. Nacelle displacement under mean wind speed of 12 m/s. (a) Irregular force, Hs ¼ 2 m, (b) periodic force, Hs ¼ 2 m,
(c) irregular force, Hs ¼ 6 m, (d) periodic force, Hs ¼ 6 m, (e) irregular force, Hs ¼ 10 m, and (f) periodic force, Hs ¼ 10 m.

Figure 10. Nacelle acceleration under mean wind speed of 12 m/s. (a) Irregular force, Hs ¼ 2 m, (b) periodic force, Hs ¼ 2 m,
(c) irregular force, Hs ¼ 6 m, (d) periodic force, Hs ¼ 6 m, (e) irregular force, Hs ¼ 10 m, (f) periodic force, Hs ¼ 10 m.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 13

Table 6. Nacelle displacement and acceleration of JOWT-C, under mean wind speed of 12 m/s and Hs ¼ 2 m.

Periodic aerodynamic force Irregular aerodynamic force

With TLCGD Without TLCGD Reduction (%) With TLCGD Without TLCGD Reduction (%)
S.D. Disp. 0.013 0.017 22.87 0.060 0.062 4.01
Maximum Disp. 0.362 0.378 4.29 0.487 0.472 2 3.19
S.D. Acc. 0.044 0.064 31.66 0.074 0.109 32.65
Maximum Acc. 0.126 0.183 31.02 0.348 0.381 8.78

Table 7. Nacelle displacement and acceleration of JOWT-C, under mean wind speed of 12 m/s and Hs ¼ 6 m.

Periodic aerodynamic force Irregular aerodynamic force

With TLCGD Without TLCGD Reduction (%) With TLCGD Without TLCGD Reduction (%)
S.D. Disp. 0.033 0.045 28.22 0.067 0.075 10.59
Maximum Disp. 0.411 0.469 12.27 0.507 0.541 6.38
S.D. Acc. 0.108 0.170 36.89 0.118 0.186 36.21
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015

Maximum Acc. 0.260 0.536 51.52 0.380 0.609 37.56

Table 8. Nacelle displacement and acceleration of JOWT-C, under mean wind speed of 12 m/s and Hs ¼ 10m.

Periodic Aerodynamic Force Irregular Aerodynamic Force

With TLCGD Without TLCGD Reduction % With TLCGD Without TLCGD Reduction %
St.Dev. Disp. 0.058 0.106 45.35 0.081 0.122 33.43
Maximum Disp. 0.480 0.592 18.90 0.555 0.672 17.44
St.Dev. Acc. 0.192 0.406 52.80 0.199 0.419 52.43
Maximum Acc. 0.518 1.019 49.13 0.579 1.020 43.26

for offshore jacket platforms under seismic excitations.
As a result, the authors believe that reported results of this
study can be generalised for other JOWTs as well. Based
on this study, to achieve a reliable and robust TLCGD,
a mass ratio of 4– 6% with frequency ratio of 0.8– 0.85
can be proposed.
6. Conclusions
This study attempts to reduce vibrations of JOWTs under
wave and wind excitation through a rather new vibration
absorber called TLCGD. Considering water – structure
interaction and nonlinear damping mechanism of the
TLCGD, a SimuLink model is developed based on the
correlated equations of motions of the JOWT –TLCGD
system. Considering different wind/wave combinations,
frequency and fluid mass of the TLCGD are optimised
through a parametric study for three JOWTs with different
heights.
The obtained results indicate that TLCGD would
perform better in the case of higher mass ratios. However,
no noticeable improvement would be achieved for mass
ratios more than 4%. Note that the defined mass ratio, in
this study, is the ratio of TLCGD mass to total mass of the
JOWT. In general, as the mass ratio increases, the
optimum frequency ratio decreases which is in agreement
with earlier studies. Moreover, TLCGDs with higher mass
ratios are more sensitive to their frequency ratios such that
they can impose destructive effects in the cases of ill-
regulated frequencies. It should be pointed out that
observed optimum frequency ratios are smaller than those
commonly used in other structures. This can be attributed
to the turbulent nature of the considered excitations as well
as pitch/stall regulations of the turbine which lead to
further distraction in the wind thrust.
The comparative study revealed that contribution of
TLCGD would be more pronounced in the case of regular
excitations such as sea waves and winds with low
turbulence intensity. Accordingly, TLCGD is more
suitable in offshore area with higher wave heights and
lower wind turbulence. Finally the authors point out that
TLCGD is well suited for fatigue critical JOWTs as it
leads to more reduction in standard deviation of
displacements compared with the maximum displace-
ments. For example, obtained results indicated that
TLCGD could reduce standard deviation of nacelle
displacement up to 45%, while the corresponding
 14 R. Dezvareh et al.
reduction in maximum displacement was 18%. Observed
reductions are highly sensitive to the imposed wind/wave
combination. Moreover, maximum nacelle accelerations
can be dramatically reduced (up to 50%) by the TLCGD.
This feature would improve serviceability of mechanical/
electrical devices of the wind turbine which are commonly
lumped at the nacelle. Finally, it should be pointed out that
TLCGD is an evolving technology and more numerical,
experimental and case studies in this field are welcome.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Email: kbargi@ut.ac.ir mailto:rdezvareh@ut.ac.ir
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015
2. Email: s.a.mousavi@ut.ac.ir
References
Chang, C.C., & Hsu, C.T. (1998). Control performance of liquid
column vibration absorbers. Engineering Structures, 20,
580– 586. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00062-X
Chopra, A.K. (1995). Dynamics of structures. Theory and
applications to earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Clough, R.W., & Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamic of structures.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Colwell, S., & Basu, B. (2009). Tuned liquid column dampers in
offshore wind turbines for structural control. Engineering
Structures, 31, 358 – 368. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.
09.001
Dean, R.G., & Dalrymple, R.A. (1992). Water wave mechanics
for engineering and scientists. Farrer Road, Singapore:
World Scientific Publishing Co..
Dong, W., Moan, T., & Gao, Z. (2011). Long-term fatigue
analysis of multi-planar tubular joints for jacket-type
offshore wind turbine in time domain. Engineering
Structures, 33, 2002– 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.
02.037
Hansen, M.O.L. (2008). Aerodynamics of wind turbines. London:
Etherscan.
Hochrainer, M.J., & Ziegler, F. (2006). Control of tall building
vibrations by sealed tuned liquid column dampers. Structural
Control and Health Monitoring, 13, 980– 1002. doi: 10.1002/
stc.90
International Electrotechnical Commission (2009). Wind tur-
bines-Part 3: Design requirements for offshore wind turbines.
Geneva: IEC (IEC International Standard 61400-3).
Jonkman, J.M., & Buhl, M.L. Jr (2005). FAST user’s guide
(NREL/EL-500-38230). Golden, CO: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory.
Jonkman, J.M., Butterfield, S., Musial, W., & Scott, G. (2009).
Definition of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore
system development (NREL/TP-500-38060). Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Kelley, N.D., & Jonkman, B.J. (2007). Overview of the TurbSim
stochastic inflow turbulence simulator. Version 1.21 (NREL/
TP-500-41137). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
Lackner, M.A., & Rotea, M. (2011a). Passive structural control
of offshore wind turbines. Wind Energy, 14, 373– 388.
doi: 10.1002/we.426
Lackner, M.A., & Rotea, M. (2011b). Structural control of
floating wind turbines. Mechatronics, 21, 704 – 719.
doi: 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2010.11.007
Laya, E.J., Connor, J.J., & Sunder, S.S. (1984). Hydrodynamic
forces on flexible offshore structures. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 110, 433– 448. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399
(1984)110:3(433)
Linder-Silvester, T., & Schneider, W. (2005). The moving
contact line with weak viscosity effects- an application and
evaluation of Shikhmurzaev’s model. Acta Mechanica, 176,
254– 258.
Mahadik, A.S., & Jangid, R.S. (2003). Active control of offshore
jacket platforms. International Shipbuilding Progress, 50,
277– 295.
MATLAB (2008). User guide, Simulink version 7.6.0. Natick,
MA: MathWorks Inc..
Mousavi, S.A., Bargi, K., & Zahrai, S.M. (2013). Optimum
parameters of tuned liquid column-gas damper for mitigation
of seismic-induced vibrations of offshore jacket platforms.
Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 20, 422– 444. doi:
10.1002/stc.505
Mousavi, S.A., Zahrai, S.M., & Bargi, K. (2012). Optimum
geometry of tuned liquid column-gas damper for control of
offshore jacket platform vibrations under seismic excitation.
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 11,
579– 592. doi: 10.1007/s11803-012-0143-z
Patil, K.C., & Jangid, R.S. (2005). Passive control of offshore
jacket platforms. Ocean Engineering, 32, 1933 – 1949.
doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2005.01.002
Seidel, M. (2007). Jacket substructures for the REpower 5 M
wind turbine. In Conference Proceedings European Offshore
Wind 2007. Brussels: European Wind Energy Association
(EWEA).
Soong, T.T., & Dargush, F. (1997). Passive energy dissipation
systems in structural engineering. Chichester: Wiley.
Soong, T.T., & Spencer, B.F. (2002). Supplemental energy
dissipation: State-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice.
Engineering Structures, 24, 243–259. doi: 10.1016/S0141-
0296(01)00092-X
Stewart, G., & Lackner, M.A. (2011). The effect of actuator
dynamics on active structural control of offshore wind
turbines. Engineering Structures, 33, 1807– 1816. doi: 10.
1016/j.engstruct.2011.02.020
Vestergaard, J., Brandstrup, L., & Goddard, R.D. (2004). A brief
history of the wind turbine industries in Denmark and the
United States. In Academy of International Business
(Southeast USA Chapter) Conference Proceedings, Stock-
holm (pp. 322 – 327). East Lansing, MI: Academy of
International Business.
Zhang, Z.L., Chen, J.B., & Li, J. (2014). Theoretical study and
experimental verification of vibration control of offshore
wind turbines by a ball vibration absorber. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 10, 1087– 1100. doi: 10.1080/
15732479.2013.792098
Appendix A
In order to achieve time domain descriptions of aerodynamic and
hydrodynamic forces exerted on the system, the wind velocity
and water level variations in time domains are required.
To calculate time history of wind speed, Kaimal spectrum is
adopted which can be described by Equation (A-1). The Kaimal
spectrum is a function of frequency ( f), average wind velocity
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 18:17 24 February 2015
Figure A-1. SimuLink model.
(Vmean), length scale (l), and the turbulence intensity factor It
(Hansen, 2008):
I 2t V mean l
Sðf ÞKaimal ¼ 5 : ðA
1Þ
ð1 þ 1:5 V mean
fl
Þ3
In this study, using Turbsim (Kelley & Jonkman, 2007)
which is one of the subsets of FAST code, the turbulence
intensity factor, shear effect, and other contributing factors are
considered so as to extract the time domain wind velocity for
different mean wind velocities. Note that Turbsim uses random
phases with uniform distribution to obtain wind speed time series.
Having wind speeds in time domain, FAST is used to calculate
the aerodynamic force based on the so called BEM theory.
In order to calculate the time domain of water level, Pierson –
Moskowitz spectrum, which is expressed in Equation (A-2), is
used. This spectrum is a function of the significant wave height
(Hs), the wave peak period (Tp), and frequency ( f). Using the
above-mentioned spectrum and the Inverse Fast Fourier Trans-
form (IFFT), the time history of water level variations would be
obtained. Again, during the IFFT, random phases with uniform
distribution are adopted. Subsequently, adopting the so called
Airy theory (Dean & Dalrymple, 1992), velocity and acceleration
15
of water particles in different depths are calculated and are used
in the Morrison formulation to obtain the corresponding
hydrodynamic forces:
 
5 H 2s 5
24
Sðf ÞPierson – Moskowitz ¼ exp 2 fT p : ðA
2Þ
16 T 4p f 5 4
Appendix B
Figure A-1 illustrates the developed SimuLink model. This
model is built based upon the governing equation of motion of the
JOWT– TLCGD system, Equation (14). The derived model is
indeed the MDOF model of the JOWT and TLCGD while taking
into account the interaction between water and the
support structure. In Figure A-1(a), a screen shot from the
model is depicted in which the main three blocks, called main
structure, TLCGD and hydrodynamic, are represented. Details of
each block are depicted in Figures A-1(b) – (d). Note that
these blocks are correlated with each other through the closed
loops. Direct inputs of the model are the time domain vectors of
the aerodynamic force (obtained from FAST) as well as
water level variations (obtained from Pierson – Moskowitz
spectrum).