energies

Article
Study on the Coupled Dynamic Responses of a
Submerged Floating Wind Turbine under Different
Mooring Conditions
Conghuan Le 1,2, * , Yane Li 1 and Hongyan Ding 1,2
1 State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072,
China; lchizpy@163.com (Y.L.); dhy_td@163.com (H.D.)
2 School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
* Correspondence: leconghuan@163.com




Received: 25 December 2018; Accepted: 24 January 2019; Published: 29 January 2019


Abstract: A submerged floating offshore wind turbine (SFOWT) is proposed for intermediate water
depth (50–200 m). An aero-hydro-servo-elastic-mooring coupled dynamic analysis was carried out
to investigate the coupled dynamic response of the SFOWT under different mooring conditions
subjected to combined turbulent wind and irregular wave environments. The effects of different
parameters, namely, the tether length, pretension and the tether failure, on the performance of SFOWT
were investigated. It is found that the tether length has significant effects on the motion responses of
the surge, heave, pitch and yaw but has little effects on the tower fore-aft displacements and the tether
tensions. The increased pretension can result in the increase of the natural frequencies of surge, heave
and yaw significantly. The influence of tether failure on the SFOWT performance was investigated by
comparing the responses with those of the intact mooring system. The results show that the SFOWT
with a broken tether still has a good performance in the operational condition.

Keywords: floating offshore wind turbine (FOWT); motion response; length of tether; pretension;
tether failure

1. Introduction
Offshore wind energy has become an increasingly attractive solution for energy conversion
due to the enormous energy potential associated with the vast offshore areas, higher wind speeds,
more consistent wind patterns, decreased noise and visual effects for human population centers [1,2].
Most of offshore wind turbines are installed in shallow water (<50 m) on the bottom-fixed foundations,
such as monopiles, gravity-based, jackets and bucket foundations [3–5]. With the development of
offshore wind energy, it is inevitable for a wind farm to move towards the deeper water to harvest
stronger and superior wind resource [6]. At the intermediate water depth, the bottom-fixed foundations
will no longer be economically feasible. A variety of FOWT concepts have been proposed in the last
two decades, such as spar, semi-submersible and tension leg platforms (TLPs) [7–10]. Several of these
concepts have already outgrown the prototype status and will go into pre-serial production shortly,
such as the WindFloat semi-submersible, SWAY [11–13]. In late 2017 the world’s first floating wind
farm, Hywind Scotland pilot park, has been built near Buchan Deep, 25 km off the northeast coast of
Peterhead in Scotland, at a water depth of 95–120 m, with five 6 MW floating wind turbines.
Before FOWTs can be widely applied, it has several critical challenges to be addressed. The main
challenge is to combine the stability, acceptable motions, mooring and low costs [14,15]. Most of the
FOWT concepts are evolved from offshore oil & gas platforms. The loads from offshore wind turbines
differ significantly from the oil & gas structures and are more dynamic. Given the payload of the
wind turbine and nacelle weighing approximately 700 tons for a 5 MW wind turbine and producing

Energies 2019, 12, 418; doi:10.3390/en12030418 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 418 2 of 21

a maximum steady-state thrust of approximately 800 kN at 90 m above sea level, the FOWT has a
raised center of gravity and a large overturning moment, which will severely challenge its stability.
Several studies were conducted to compare and optimize the designs of support structures and
mooring systems [16–18]. TLPs have been proposed as a possible solution for intermediate water
depths, since the taut mooring system may be better suited for relatively shallow water depths than a
catenary mooring system. Meanwhile, the platform motions are expected to be reduced compared to
other floating concepts [1,19–21].
FOWT systems are complicated and dynamic due to time-variant environmental loads from wind,
wave, current and mooring tension acting on a flexible integrated structure with a wide range of
natural frequencies, coupled with the complex control strategy of the wind turbine. How to accurately
predict FOWT’s system dynamic responses excited by variable loads is one of the primary issues in
the design, which requires multidisciplinary consideration of wind turbine aerodynamics, floating
platform hydrodynamics, structural mechanics and control systems. In recent years, a number of
researches have been carried out on the dynamic responses under various environmental conditions.
Several coupled codes have been developed to address the challenges of the coupling wave and wind
loads and the choice of blade-pitch control strategy [22,23], such as FAST developed by NREL [24],
HAWC2 developed by DTU Wind Energy [25], SIMO-RIFLEX-AeroDyn developed by NTNU [26].
In this paper, a submerged floating offshore wind turbine (SFOWT) is proposed to support a 5 MW
turbine and withstand harsh environmental conditions in intermediate water depth [27]. The SFOWT
is self-stabilized in the transportation and installation phases due to its relatively large waterline area,
like a semi-submersible. It has a sufficient restoring moment in ballasted conditions and can thus
be wet-towed together with the wind turbine from the quayside to the installation site. The main
structure of the SFOWT, cylinder-shaped pontoons and horizontal pontoons, is submerged with a
relatively small waterline area of approximately 51.5 m2 in the operation phase, like a spar, which can
reduce its wave force and mean drift force. The SFOWT is stabilized and positioned by the taut tethers,
like a TLP, which means limited platform motions are expected without a deep draft or large footprint
for spread mooring system.
The stability of SFOWT is achieved from the mooring system, which means mooring conditions
have a significant influence on the motion response of SFOWT. Although a lot of research on the
dynamic response of FOWT has been investigated, there are few studies regarding the effect of
various design mooring variables on system responses. This paper discusses the effects of mooring
conditions on the SFOWT system’s performance under the combined actions of wind and wave.
Frequency-domain analysis and time-domain method were employed to study the hydrodynamic
behavior of the SFOWT by means of two simulation tools, SESAM and FAST, which are able to perform
fully coupled time-domain aero-hydro-servo-elastic simulations for the system [24,28,29].
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly describes the configuration of the SFOWT
system. Section 3 introduces the numerical methods that are used for fully coupled dynamic analysis
and environment conditions. Section 4 discusses the dynamic response of the SFOWT under different
mooring conditions and Section 5 summarizes the results.

2. Configuration of the Submerged Floating Wind Turbine

The SFOWT consists of a wind turbine, a tower, a floating platform and a mooring system, as
illustrated in Figure 1. The coordinate system and main dimensions of the SFOWT platform are shown
in Figure 2. The NREL-5 MW wind turbine, designed by National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is
employed for the analysis. Its principal properties are given in Table 1 [30]. The floating platform is
composed of one column to support the wind turbine and four separated cylinder-shaped pontoons
connected by four rectangular horizontal pontoons. The column and pontoons are interconnected by
cross braces. The mooring system consists of 4 sets of vertical tethers and suction anchors to maintain
the position of the SFOWT system. The principal properties of the SFOWT and the mooring system
are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
 Energies 2019,
Energies 2017, 12,
10, 418
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of 21
of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21

Figure 1. Overall model of the SFOWT.

Figure
Figure1.1.Overall
Overallmodel
modelofofthe
theSFOWT.
SFOWT.

SWL
SWL

Figure 2. Coordinate system and main dimensions

dimensions of
of the
the SFOWT
SFOWT platform.
platform.
Figure 2. Coordinate system and main dimensions of the SFOWT platform.
Table 1. NREL-5MW wind turbine principal properties.
Table 1. NREL-5MW wind turbine principal properties.
Impeller Hub Table 1. NREL-5MW
Hub wind turbine Nacelle
Impeller principal properties. Centroid
Impeller Hub Hub Impeller Nacelle TowerTower Mass Centroid
Diameter Diameter Height Mass Mass Coordinates
Impeller
Diameter Hub
Diameter Hub
Height Impeller
Mass Nacelle
Mass Tower
Mass Centroid
Coordinates
126
Diameterm 3m
Diameter 90 m
Height Mass 110 t Mass 240 tMass 347.46 t (−0.2, 0.0, 74.0) m
Coordinates
126 m 3m 90 m 110 t 240 t 347.46 t (−0.2, 0.0, 74.0) m
126 m 3m 90 m 110 t 240 t 347.46 t (−0.2, 0.0, 74.0) m
Table 2. Floating platform principal properties.
Table 2. Floating platform principal properties.
Table 2. Floating platform principal properties.
Item Item Value Value Item Item Value
Value
Item Pontoon diameter
Pontoon diameter Value
9m 9 m Item
PontoonPontoon
height height Value
12 m12 m
PontoonMiddle axis distance
diameter
Middle axis distance of pontoons
of pontoons m m 40 m Pontoon
940 Column height height
Column
height 18mm18 m
12
Column diameter 6m Bracing diameter 2m
Middle
Column axis distance of pontoons
diameter 40
6 m 2734.2 t Column
Bracing height
diameter volume 18
2m
Platform mass (including ballast) Displacement 6116 m3
Column diameter
Platform mass(including ballast) 62734.2
m t Bracing diameter
Displacement volume 26116
m m3
Platform mass(including ballast) 2734.2 t Displacement volume 6116 m3
Energies 2019, 12, 418 4 of 21

Table 3. Mooring system principal properties.

Item Value Item Value

Number of tethers 8 Tether mass density 116.07 kg/m
Depth to anchors below SWL 60–120 m Pretension 1500–4500 kN
Depth to fairleads below SWL 20 m Breaking strength 13,249 kN
Tether diameter 0.127 m Axial stiffness EA 2.7 × 109 N

3. Numerical Modeling and Environmental Conditions

The equation of the SFOWT motion in the time domain can be expressed as [3,19,31]:

” Z t . .
[ M + M a (∞)]ξ + h(t − τ )ξ (τ )dτ + Kh ξ = FI (t) + Fn (t, ξ ) + Fw (t) + Fm (t, ξ ) (1)
0
.
where M denotes the mass matrix of the SFOWT, M a (∞) is the added mass at infinite frequency, ξ, ξ and
”
ξ are the vectors of six degree of freedom of displacements, velocities and accelerations of the SFOWT,
R∞
respectively, h(t) is the retardation function, which can be given by h(t) = π2 0 b(ω ) cos(ωt)dω, b(ω )
is the liner radiation damping matrix, Kh is the hydrostatic stiffness matrix, FI (t) is the wave exciting
.
forces, Fn (t, ξ ) is the nonlinear drag force, Fw (t) is the wind induced forces including aerodynamic
force and tower drag force, Fm (t, ξ ) is the restoring force provided by the tethers.
Fm (t, ξ ) can be expressed as [32,33]:

Fm (t, ξ ) = Kξ (2)

K = T T KP T (3)

where K is the stiffness matrix to the center of gravity, T is the displacement transformation matrix, K P
is the stiffness matrix to the center of the body bottom, can be expressed as follows:
 
k11 0 0 0 0 0

 0 k22 0 0 0 0 

 k31 k32 k33 0 0 k36 
KP =  (4)
 
0 0 0 k44 0 0

 
 
 0 0 0 0 k55 0 
0 0 0 0 0 k66

k∗15
 
k11 0 0 0 0

 0 k22 0 k∗24 0 0 

 k31 k32 k33 k∗34 k∗35 k36 
K = T T KP T =  (5)
 
0 k∗42 0 k∗44 0 0

 
k∗51 k∗55
 
 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 k66
Energies 2019, 12, 418 5 of 21

where the components are given by [32,33]:

= k22 = ltz +]ρgAw δlzs



 k11
= EA

k33 l +] ρgAw




k31 = k33 ξ 1 /(2l )







 k32 = k33 ξ 2 /(2l )
= k33 r2 ξ 6 /(2l )


k36




 ]ρgIx EIxx 2
k44 = cos 3 ] ϕ + B(z B − z E ) − G (zG − z E ) + l cos ] ϕ +] ρgAw ( z B − z E ) δs





 ]ρgIy EIyy 2
k55 = + B(z B − zE ) − G (zG − z E ) + l cos θ +] ρgAw ( z B − z E ) δs

cos3 θ (6)
2 t



 k66 = r lz +]ρgAw δlzs
k∗15 k∗51 = −zGT k11




 =
k∗24 = k∗42 = zGT k22




k∗34

= zGT k32




k∗35 = −zGT k31




k∗44 = k44 + z2GT k22





k∗55 = k55 + z2GT k11


t denotes the tether pretension, B and G are the buoyance and gravity of the SFOWT, respectively, l
is the tether length, lz is the mean vertical distance between the upper fairlead and seabed, ]ρ is the
water density, g is the gravitational acceleration, Aw is the waterline area of SFOWT, ξ 1 , ξ 2 , and ξ 6 are
the displacements of surge and sway and the angle of yaw, respectively, r is the horizontal distance
between the center of the column and the center of cylinder-shaped pontoon, Ix and Iy are the inertia
moment of the waterline about x-axis and y-axis, respectively, Ixx and Iyy are the inertia moment of the
SFOWT about x-axis and y-axis, respectively, ] ϕ and θ are the rotational angles of roll and pitch, z B , z E
and zG are the vertical coordinates of the buoyancy center, the upper fairlead and the center of gravity,
respectively, δs is the increment of the set-down motion, δs = l − lz , zGT is vertical distance between
the upper fairlead and the center of gravity.
The time domain analysis tool FAST, developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) was utilized to perform fully coupled time-domain aero-hydro-servo-elastic simulations of the
SFOWT system [24]. Five modules of FAST, namely, AeroDyn, HydroDyn, ServoDyn, ElastoDyn and
Map++, were employed to simulate the dynamic response of the SFOWT, as illustrated in Figure 3.
The aerodynamic loads were obtained by AeroDyn [34]. AeroDyn accounted for the influence of wake
via induction factors based on the quasi-steady BEM (blade element momentum) theory. The effect
of skewed wake was considered by using the Pitt and Peters model. And the tower shadow effect
was also considered based on the potential flow theory. Regarding the drag load acting on the
tower, it was determined by the tower diameter, drag coefficient and the local relative wind velocity.
The hydrodynamic coefficients, such as the added mass, potential damping, hydrostatic restoring
stiffness and wave excitation force transfer function, were calculated in frequency domain using the
potential-based 3D diffraction/radiation code HydroD/Wadam and then applied in time domain
using the convolution technique. Then these hydrodynamic coefficients were fed to the HydroDyn
module in FAST [9]. MAP++ was used to model the mooring system. ServoDyn regulates the rotor
rotational speed using the generator torque controller below the rated wind speed and the blade
pitch angle based on a blade-pitch control algorithm above the rated wind speed. The platform hull
was simulated as a rigid body and the tower and blades were simulated as flexible finite elements in
ElastoDyn module.
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21

simulated as a rigid body and the tower and blades were simulated as flexible finite elements in
simulated as a rigid body and the tower and blades were simulated as flexible finite elements in
ElastoDyn module.
ElastoDyn
Energies module.
2019, 12, 418 6 of 21

Turbulent wind Hydrodynamic coefficients

Turbulent
Turbsimwind Hydrodynamic coefficients
HydroD/Wadam
Turbsim HydroD/Wadam

Aerodynamic loads Hydrodynamic loads

Aerodynamic
AeroDyn loads Hydrodynamic
HydroDyn loads
AeroDyn HydroDyn
FAST
FAST

Control and electrical

Control and electrical Structural response Mooring quasi-statics
drive dynamics Structural response Mooring quasi-statics
drive dynamics ElastoDyn MAP++
ServoDyn ElastoDyn MAP++
ServoDyn

Figure 3. An overview of codes used in the fully coupled analysis [3].

Figure 3. An overview of codes used in the fully coupled analysis [3].
The
The overall
overallsystem
systemperformances
performances of SFOWT
of SFOWTwere simulated under different
were simulated under mooring
differentconditions.
mooring
The The
wave andoverall
wind system
propagatedperformances of SFOWT were simulated under different mooring
conditions. The wave and windalong the positive
propagated alongsurge direction.
the positive JONSWAP
surge spectrum
direction. JONSWAP was employed
spectrum
conditions.
to generate The
the to wave
irregularand wind
wave propagated along the positive surge direction. JONSWAP spectrum
was employed generate the time series.
irregular Turbsim
wave developed
time series. by NREL
Turbsim was used
developed to generate
by NREL the 3D
was used to
was employed
turbulent wind to generate
field [35]. Thethemost
irregular wave timesea
representative series.
state Turbsim
with the developed
highest by NRELprobabilities
occurrence was used to
generate the 3D turbulent wind field [35]. The most representative sea state with the highest
generate
was thefor
selected 3Danalyzing
turbulentSFOWT
wind field [35]. Thewith
performance most representative
a significant wavesea state with
height 3 m,the highest
occurrence probabilities was selected for analyzing SFOWT performance with aofsignificant
a spectral
wave
occurrence
peak period probabilities
of 10s and was
rated selected
wind speedfor analyzing
of 11.4 m/s SFOWT
at a performance
zero-degree with
heading. a
Thesignificant
time wave
series of
height of 3 m, a spectral peak period of 10s and rated wind speed of 11.4 m/s at a zero-degree heading.
height
wave of 3 m,
elevation a spectral
and wind peak period
velocityand of 10s
are wind
shown and rated wind
in Figures speed of 11.4 m/s
4 and 5,inrespectively. at a zero-degree heading.
The time series of wave elevation velocity are shown Figure 4 andAnd currents
Figure were not
5, respectively.
The time series
considered in the ofpresent
wave elevation
study forand wind velocity are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively.
convenience.
And currents were not considered in the present study for convenience.
And currents were not considered in the present study for convenience.
3
3
2
2
elevation(m)
elevation(m)

1
1
0
0
Wave

-1
Wave

-1
-2
-2
-3
-30 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0 100 200 300 400 Time(s)
500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time(s)
Figure 4. Time series of wave elevation.
Figure 4. Time series of wave elevation.
Energies 2019, 12, 418 7 of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21

18
16

Wind velocity(m/s)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time(s)

Timeseries
Figure5.5.Time
Figure seriesof
ofwind
windvelocity.
velocity.

4. Results
4. Resultsand
andDiscussion
Discussion

4.1. Length of Tethers

4.1 Length of Tethers
To study the influence of the tether length on the dynamic response of the SFOWT, several tether
To study the influence of the tether length on the dynamic response of the SFOWT, several tether
lengths of 40 m, 60 m, 80 m and 100 m were studied in operational condition with the same draft
lengths of 40 m, 60 m, 80 m and 100 m were studied in operational condition with the same draft of
of 20 m, in other words, the water depth varied from 60 m to 120 m. Figure 5 shows the time series
20m, in other words, the water depth varied from 60 m to 120 m. Figure 5 shows the time series of
of the surge, heave, pitch and yaw responses of the SFOWT with different tether lengths. The time
the surge, heave, pitch and yaw responses of the SFOWT with different tether lengths. The time series
series of tower fore-aft displacements and tension of tether 1# (in the downstream direction) are
of tower fore-aft displacements and tension of tether 1# (in the downstream direction) are presented
presented in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. An overview of the maximum, minimum, mean values and
in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. An overview of the maximum, minimum, mean values and
standard deviation for the platform motions, tower fore-aft displacements, normalized tether tension
standard deviation for the platform motions, tower fore-aft displacements, normalized tether tension
is illustrated in Figure 8 for different lengths of tether. The tether tensions are normalized as the ratio
is illustrated in Figure 8 for different lengths of tether. The tether tensions are normalized as the ratio
of tension to pretension (3500 kN).
of tension to pretension (3500kN).
An increase in the tether length will result in a decrease in the mooring system stiffness. As shown
An increase in the tether length will result in a decrease in the mooring system stiffness. As
in Figures 6a and 9a, the mean surge increase with the growth of tether length due to the reduced
shown in Figure 6a and Figure 9a, the mean surge increase with the growth of tether length due to
tether stiffness. With the increase of the tether length, ranging from 40 m up to 100 m, the mean surge
the reduced tether stiffness. With the increase of the tether length, ranging from 40 m up to 100 m,
increases by 154.3%, from 0.85 m up to 2.16 m. As can be seen from Figures 6b and 9b, the largest
the mean surge increases by 154.3%, from 0.85 m up to 2.16 m. As can be seen from Figure 6 (b) and
heave amplitude and standard deviation reach 0.15 m and 0.02 m, respectively, which appear when
Figure 9b, the largest heave amplitude and standard deviation reach 0.15 m and 0.02 m, respectively,
the tether length is 40 m. As the tether length increases from 60 m up to 100 m, the maximum heave
which appear when the tether length is 40 m. As the tether length increases from 60 m up to 100 m,
amplitude and mean heave amplitude increase by 57.5% and 60.0%, respectively. The pitch motion
the maximum heave amplitude and mean heave amplitude increase by 57.5% and 60.0%,
increased due to the increased tether length, the maximum and mean pitch increase by 137.5% and
respectively. The pitch motion increased due to the increased tether length, the maximum and mean
154.1%, respectively, as the tether length increases from 40 m up to 100 m. However, the pitch motion
pitch increase by 137.5% and 154.1%, respectively, as the tether length increases from 40 m up to 100
is overall low, below 0.10◦ . The yaw motion response shows the same variation trend of the pitch
m. However, the pitch motion is overall low, below 0.10°. The yaw motion response shows the same
motion as shown in Figures 6d and 9d. The maximum and mean yaw increase by 81.1% and 157.3%,
variation trend of the pitch motion as shown in Figure 6d and Figure 9d. The maximum and mean
respectively, as the tether length increases from 40 m up to 100 m. The variation of tether length has
yaw increase by 81.1% and 157.3%, respectively, as the tether length increases from 40 m up to 100
little effect on the tower fore-aft displacements and the tether tensions.
m. The variation of tether length has little effect on the tower fore-aft displacements and the tether
tensions.
Energies 2019, 12, 418 8 of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

6
40m
5 60m
80m
4
Surge (m) 100m
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
(a) Surge motion

0.04

0.00
Heave (m)

-0.04

-0.08 40m
60m
-0.12 80m
100m

-0.16
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
(b) Heave motion

0.12
40m
60m
80m
0.08
100m
Pitch (°)

0.04

0.00

-0.04
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
(c) Pitch motion

Figure 6. Cont.
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
Energies 2017,
Energies 12, x418
2019, 10, FOR PEER REVIEW 9 9of
of 21
21
Energies 2017, 10, x2.0
FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
2.0 40m
2.0 40m
1.5 60m
1.5 40m
60m
80m
1.5 60m
80m
1.0 100m
Yaw(°()°) 1.0 80m
100m
1.0 100m
0.5
Yaw (°)
0.5
Yaw

0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-1.0
200 300 400 500 Time
600 700 800 900 1000
200 300 400 500 600(s) 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
(d) YawTime (s)
motion
(d)
(d) Yaw motion
Yaw motion
Figure 6. Time series of platform motions for different tether lengths.
Figure
Figure6.
Figure 6.6.Time
Timeseries
Time seriesof
series of platform
platform motions
platform for
motionsfor
motions different
fordifferent tether
differenttether lengths.
tetherlengths.
lengths.
1.2
(m)

0.7
1.2
displacement(m)

1.2 40m
Tower top fore-aft displacement (m)

0.7
0.6
0.7
40m
40m 0.6
1.0 60m 0.5
0.6
fore-aftdisplacement

1.0
1.0 60m
60m 0.5
0.5
0.4
80m 0.4
0.4
0.8 80m
80m 0.3

0.8
0.8
100m 0.3
0.3
0.2
100m
100m 0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6 0.0
0.6
0.6 550
0.0
0.0
550
550
560
560
560
570
570
570
580
580
580
590
590
590
600
600
600

0.4
topfore-aft

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
Towertop

0.00.0
0.0
Tower

-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500 600
600 700 700 800
800 900
900 1000
1000
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time
Time (s)
(s)
Time (s)
Figure 7. 7.
Figure Time series
Time seriesofoftower
towertop
topfore-aft
fore-aftdisplacements differenttether
displacements for different tetherlengths.
lengths.
Figure
Figure 7.
7. Time
Time series
series of
of tower
tower top
top fore-aft
fore-aft displacements
displacements for different
different tether lengths.
6
6.0×106
6.0×10
6.0×1066 6
6
40m
6
40m 4.5x10
4.5x10
6

5.5×10
5.5×10 40m
60m
4.5x1066
4.0x10
4.0x10
5.5×1066 6 60m 4.0x10666
3.5x10
60m
80m
3.5x10
5.0×10
5.0×10 80m 3.5x10666
3.0x10
3.0x10
5.0×1066 6 80m
100m Pretension
100m
3.0x1066
2.5x10
2.5x10
6

4.5×10
4.5×10 100m Pretension
Tension(N)

2.5x10666
Tension(N)

2.0x10
2.0x10
4.5×1066 6 Pretension
Tension(N)

2.0x10666
1.5x10
4.0×10
4.0×10
1.5x10550
550
1.5x106
560
560 570
570 580
580 590
590 600
600
4.0×1066 6 550 560 570 580 590 600
3.5×10
3.5×10
3.5×1066 6
3.0×10
3.0×10
3.0×1066 6
2.5×10
2.5×10 6
2.5×10
2.0×106
2.0×1066
2.0×10
1.5×106
1.5×1066 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1.5×10200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
200 300 400 500 Time (s)
600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 8. Time series of tether 1# tension for different tether lengths.
Timeseries
Figure8.8.Time
Figure seriesofoftether
tether1#
1#tension
tensionfor
fordifferent
differenttether
tetherlengths.
lengths.
Figure 8. Time series of tether 1# tension for different tether lengths.
Energies 2019, 12, 418 10 of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21

6 0.05
40 m
5 60 m
80 m 0.00
4 100 m
3

Heave (m)
-0.05
Surge (m)

40 m
2 60 m
80 m
1 -0.10 100 m

0
-0.15
-1

-2 -0.20
Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std

(a) Surge (b) Heave

0.15 2.0
40 m 40 m
60 m 1.5 60 m
0.10 80 m 80 m
100 m 1.0 100 m
Pitch (o)

0.5
Yaw (o)

0.05
0.0

-0.5
0.00
-1.0

-0.05 -1.5
Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std

(c) Pitch (d) Yaw

0.8 1.6
Tower top fore-aft displacement (m)

40 m 40 m
0.7 1.4
60 m 60 m
0.6 80 m 1.2 80 m
Normalized tension

100 m 100 m
0.5 1.0

0.4 0.8

0.3 0.6

0.2 0.4

0.1 0.2

0.0 0.0
Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std

(e) Tower top fore-aft displacements (f) Normalized tension of tether 1#

Figure9.9. Comparison
Figure Comparison of of platform
platform motion,
motion, tower
tower fore-aft
fore-aft displacements,
displacements, tension
tension of
of tether
tether 1#
1#for
for
differenttether
different tetherlengths.
lengths.

4.2.
4.2 Pretension
Pretension of
of Tethers
Tethers
The
Therestoring
restoringforces ofof
forces the taut
the mooring
taut mooringsystem
systemareare
provided by the
provided tether
by the tension
tether [7], therefore,
tension the
[7], therefore,
variations in tether pretension have direct effects on the dynamic response of the SFOWT.
the variations in tether pretension have direct effects on the dynamic response of the SFOWT. To To complete
the pretension
complete comparisons,
the pretension 4 pretensions
comparisons, of 1500 kN,of
4 pretensions 2500 kN,
1500 3500
kN, kNkN,
2500 and3500
4500kN
kNand
for 4500
each tether
kN for
were
each tether were simulated by adjusting the base ballast. The SFOWT with a tether lengthselected
simulated by adjusting the base ballast. The SFOWT with a tether length of 80 m was of 80 m
for
wasanalysis.
selected for analysis.
The natural frequency of surge, heave, pitch and yaw in different pretension conditions are
plotted in Figure 10. It can be observed that the natural frequency of the SFOWT in vertical plane
motions (heave and pitch) are much higher than others in horizontal plane motions (surge and yaw).
Energies 2019, 12, 418 11 of 21

The natural frequency of surge, heave, pitch and yaw in different pretension conditions are plotted
inEnergies
Figure2017,
10. 10,
It xcan
FORbe
PEER REVIEWthat the natural frequency of the SFOWT in vertical plane motions
observed 11 of 21
(heave and pitch) are much higher than others in horizontal plane motions (surge and yaw). Except for
a Except for a slight
slight increase increase
in the naturalinfrequency
the natural
offrequency of pitch,frequencies
pitch, the natural the naturalin
frequencies in other
other degrees degrees
of freedom
of freedom
increase increase owing
significantly significantly owing to the
to the increased increased pretension.
pretension.

1.1
surge
1.0
heave
0.9 pitch
0.8 yaw
Frequency (Hz)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
1500 2500 3000 4500
Pretension (kN)

Figure 10.Natural
Figure10. Naturalfrequencies
frequenciesofofsurge,
surge,heave,
heave,pitch
pitchand
andyaw
yawinindifferent
differentpretension
pretensionconditions.
conditions.

Time series of the SFOWT platform motions, tower fore-aft displacements and tether tension in
Time series of the SFOWT platform motions, tower fore-aft displacements and tether tension in
different pretension conditions are shown in Figure 11, while corresponding statistics are presented
different pretension conditions are shown in Figure 11, while corresponding statistics are presented
in Figure 12. It is obvious that the pretension has significant effects on the behaviors of the SFOWT.
in Figure 12. It is obvious that the pretension has significant effects on the behaviors of the SFOWT.
The restoring force increases with the increase of pretension and the motion in surge, heave, pitch and
The restoring force increases with the increase of pretension and the motion in surge, heave, pitch
yaw reduce significantly first but with the increase of pretension, the restoring force provided by the
and yaw reduce significantly first but with the increase of pretension, the restoring force provided
tether is large enough, the effects of pretension on reducing the responses of the SFOWT are decreased.
by the tether is large enough, the effects of pretension on reducing the responses of the SFOWT are
For instance, the maximum surge motion reduces by 40.8%, from 6.25 m to 3.70 m. Meanwhile, the
decreased. For instance, the maximum surge motion reduces by 40.8%, from 6.25 m to 3.70 m.
maximum heave motion reduces by 60.7%, from −0.10 m to −0.25 m, when the pretension increases
Meanwhile, the maximum heave motion reduces by 60.7%, from −0.10 m to −0.25 m, when the
from 1500 kN to 3500 kN. However, when the pretension increases from 3500 kN to 4500 kN, the
pretension increases from 1500 kN to 3500 kN. However, when the pretension increases from 3500
reduction rates of motions in surge and heave drops sharply to 9.7% and 23.0%, respectively. The pitch
kN to 4500 kN, the reduction rates of motions in surge and heave drops sharply to 9.7% and 23.0%,
responses are relatively small, the motion range of pitch decreased obviously with the increase of
respectively. The pitch responses are relatively small, the motion range of pitch decreased obviously
pretension, from 1500 kN to 3500 kN. Interestingly, when the pretension reaches 4500 kN, it grows up
with the increase of pretension, from 1500 kN to 3500 kN. Interestingly, when the pretension reaches
slightly instead of going down. The pretension variation has a minor effect on the responses of the
4500 kN, it grows up slightly instead of going down. The pretension variation has a minor effect on
tower fore-aft displacements,
the responses of the tower the maximum
fore-aft fore-aft displacement
displacements, the maximum reduces by 9.7%
fore-aft when the pretension
displacement reduces by
increases from 1500 kN to 4500 kN. The standard deviations for the
9.7% when the pretension increases from 1500 kN to 4500 kN. The standard deviationstension have small changes with
for the tension
the increase of pretension. When the pretension is 1500 kN, the lowest tension
have small changes with the increase of pretension. When the pretension is 1500 kN, the lowest of tether 1# is only
281.6 kN,of
tension close
tetherto the
1# isrelaxed state,
only 281.6 kN,which
closeistothe
thelimit statestate,
relaxed of the mooring
which is thesystem. So increasing
limit state the
of the mooring
pretension
system. So increasing the pretension is conducive to improve the performance of the SFOWT in of
is conducive to improve the performance of the SFOWT in the case of ensuring the safety the
the mooring system.
case of ensuring the safety of the mooring system.
Energies 2019, 12, 418 12 of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

10
1500 kN
2500 kN
8
3500 kN
4500 kN
6
Surge (m)

-2
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
(a) Surge

0.2
1500 kN
2500 kN
0.1 3500 kN
4500 kN
Heave (m)

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
(b) Heave

0.15
1500 kN
0.12 2500 kN
3500 kN
0.09 4500 kN
Pitch (°)

0.06

0.03

0.00

-0.03

-0.06
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
(c) Pitch

Figure 11. Cont.

Energies 2019, 12, 418 13 of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

5
1500 kN
4 2500 kN
3 3500 kN
4500 kN
2
Yaw (°)

1
0
-1
-2
-3
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
(d) Yaw

0.9
Tower top fore-aft displacement (m)

1500 kN
0.8 2500 kN
0.7 3500 kN
0.6 4500 kN
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
(e) Tower top fore-aft displacements

7.0×106
1500 kN
6.0×10 6 2500 kN
3500 kN
5.0×106 4500 kN
Tension (N)

4.0×106

3.0×106

2.0×106

1.0×106

0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
(f) Tension of tether 1#
Figure
Figure 11.
11. Time
Time series
series of
of platform
platform motion,
motion, tower
tower fore-aft
fore-aft displacements
displacements and
and tension
tension of
of tether
tether 1#
1# in
in
different
different pretension
pretension conditions.
conditions.
Energies 2019, 12, 418 14 of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

7 0.2
Max Max
6 Min Min
5 Mean 0.1 Mean
Std Std
4
Surge (m)

Heave (m)
3 0.0

2
-0.1
1
0 -0.2
-1
-2 -0.3
1500 2500 3500 4500 1500 2500 3500 4500
Pre-tension (m) Pre-tension (kN)

(a) Surge (b) Heave

0.20 5
Max Max
Min 4 Min
0.15
Mean Mean
3
Std Std
0.10
2
Pitch (°)

Yaw (°)

0.05 1
0
0.00
-1
-0.05
-2
-0.10 -3
1500 2500 3500 4500 1500 2500 3500 4500
Pre-tension (kN) Pre-tension (kN)

(c) Pitch (d) Yaw

1.5 6000
Tower top fore-aft displacement (m)

Max Max
Min 5000 Min
1.0 Mean Mean
Std 4000 Std
Tension (kN)

0.5 3000

2000
0.0
1000

-0.5 0
1500 2500 3500 4500 1500 2500 3500 4500
Pre-tension (kN) Pre-tension (kN)
(e) Tower top fore-aft displacements (f) Tension of tether 1#
Figure
Figure 12.
12. Statistics
Statistics of
of platform
platform motion,
motion, tower
tower fore-aft
fore-aft displacements,
displacements, tension
tension of
of tether
tether 1#
1# in
in different
different
pretension conditions.

The power
The power spectra
spectraofofthe surge,
the heave,
surge, pitch
heave, andand
pitch yaw yaw
motions are shown
motions in Figure
are shown 13. The 13.
in Figure spectra
The
of motions
spectra are mainly
of motions dominated
are mainly by the by
dominated resonant response,
the resonant wind frequency
response, response
wind frequency and wave
response and
frequency
wave response
frequency in thein
response operational condition.
the operational The variation
condition. of pretension
The variation also introduces
of pretension large
also introduces
discrepancies
large of power
discrepancies spectra.spectra.
of power As shown As in the Figure
shown in the13a, the surge
Figure motion
13a, the is mainly
surge motiondominated
is mainly
by the surge
dominated byresonant
the surgeresponse,
resonantespecially
response, for that with
especially forpretension of 1500 kN.ofThe
that with pretension 1500wind
kN. and wave
The wind
frequency responses are smaller than the surge resonant response. The heave response
and wave frequency responses are smaller than the surge resonant response. The heave response in in the range
the range of low frequency and wave frequency is similar to its surge motion, as shown in Figure 13b.
This is because the heave motion is mainly caused by the set-down effect induced by the surge
Energies 2019, 12, 418 15 of 21

of low frequency and wave frequency is similar to its surge motion, as shown in Figure 13b. This is
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21
because the heave motion is mainly caused by the set-down effect induced by the surge motion.
Natural Natural
motion. frequency of heaveof
frequency motion
heaveismotion
much larger than
is much the wave
larger frequency,
than the which avoids
wave frequency, whichhaving an
avoids
obvious resonance response with the wave. The pitch motion is mainly dominated by the
having an obvious resonance response with the wave. The pitch motion is mainly dominated by the wave and
wind and
wave frequency responses.
wind frequency The yaw The
responses. motion
yawismotion
mainlyisconcentrated in the natural
mainly concentrated frequency
in the natural of yaw
frequency
motion
of and theand
yaw motion response of yaw of
the response motion decreases
yaw motion with thewith
decreases increase of pretension.
the increase of pretension.

0.8 0.040
1500kN 1500kN
0.7 2500kN 0.035 2500kN
Surge resonant response
3500kN 3500kN
0.6 0.030 Surge resonant response
4500kN 4500kN
Spec surge (m2/Hz)

Spec heave (m2/Hz)

0.5 Wind frequency 0.025
response
0.4 0.020
Wind frequency response
0.3 Wave frequency response 0.015
Wave frequency response
Heave resonant response
0.2 0.010

0.1 0.005

0.0 0.000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Frequence (Hz) Frequence (Hz)

(a) Surge (b) Heave

0.008 1.2
Wave frequency response 1500kN 1500kN
0.007 2500kN 2500kN
1.0
3500kN 3500kN
0.006
4500kN 4500kN
Spec pitch (deg /Hz)

Spec yaw (deg2/Hz)

Wind frequency 0.8 Yaw resonant response

0.005 response
2

0.004 Pitch resonant 0.6

Wind
response frequency
0.003 response
0.4
0.002
0.2
0.001

0.000 0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Frequence (Hz) Frequence (Hz)

(c) Pitch (d) Yaw

Figure
Figure 13.
13.Power
Powerspectra
spectraof
ofmotions
motionsin
insurge,
surge,heave,
heave,pitch
pitchand
andyaw
yawin
indifferent
differentpretension
pretensionconditions.
conditions.

4.3. Tether Failure

4.3 Tether Failure
Two mooring condition scenarios of intact mooring system and one of the tethers broken have
beenTwo mooring
simulated condition
with scenarios
the tether length ofof intact
80 m mooring systemof
and pretension and onekN.
3500 of the
Thetethers
layoutbroken have
of tethers is
been simulated
illustrated in thewith
Figurethe1.tether
Therelength of 80m
are 4 sets and pretension
of tethers, each includingof 3500 kN. The
2 tethers. layout3#of(7#)
Tethers tethers
and 4#is
illustrated in theupstream
(8#) are located Figure 1.ofThere are 4 sets
the incident waveof tethers,
directioneach
andincluding
tethers 1# 2(5#)
tethers.
and 2#Tethers
(6#) are3# (7#) and
located 4#
in the
(8#) are located
downstream upstream
direction. of the14incident
Figure gives thewavetimedirection
series ofand tethers
tether 1# (5#)
tensions andand 2# (6#) are located
corresponding in
statistics.
the downstream direction. Figure 14 gives the time series of tether tensions
As can be seen in the figure, the tensions of upstream tethers are higher than those of the downstream and corresponding
statistics.
tethers due Astocan
thebe seen in of
influence thetrim,
figure, the tensions
of which tether 3#of (7#)
upstream
has thetethers
greatestaretension.
higher Tether
than those
mayof the
break
downstream
in response totethers
the harshdueenvironment
to the influence of trim, fatigue
or repetitive of which loadtether
[31]. 3# (7#) 7#,
Tether hasonetheofgreatest tension.
the tethers with
Tether may break in response to the harsh environment or repetitive fatigue load
the greatest tension, is intentionally broken. After the loss of tether 7#, the remaining tethers keep [31]. Tether 7#, one
of
the SFOWT at a new equilibrium position. The tether failure may result in significant changes to the
the tethers with the greatest tension, is intentionally broken. After the loss of tether 7#, the
remaining
performance tethers
of thekeep
SFOWT the and
SFOWT at a new
the impact of theequilibrium position.
tether failure on the The
dynamictetherresponse
failure mayof theresult
SFOWT in
significant changes
was investigated. to the performance of the SFOWT and the impact of the tether failure on the
dynamic response of the SFOWT was investigated.
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21
Energies 2019, 12, 418 16 of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21
8.0×106
5.5×106 Mooring line 1# (5#)
Mooring line 1# (5#) 6 Mooring line 2# (6#)
66 Mooring line 2# (6#) 7.0×10
8.0×106
5.0×10
5.5×10 Mooring
Mooringline
line3#
1#(7#)
(5#)
Mooringline
Mooring line3#
1#(7#)
(5#) 6 Mooring
Mooringline
line4#
2#(8#)
(6#)
6.0×10
7.0×106
4.5×106
5.0×106 Mooringline
Mooring line4#
2#(8#)
(6#) Mooring line 3# (7#)
(N) (N)

Mooring line 3# (7#) 5.0×106 Mooring line 4# (8#)

6.0×106

(N ) (N )
66
4.0×10
4.5×10 Mooring line 4# (8#)
Tension

Tension
6
6
4.0×10
5.0×106
3.5×10
4.0×106
Tension

Tension
6
6
3.0×10
4.0×106
3.0×10
3.5×106
6
2.0×10
3.0×106
6
2.5×10
3.0×106
6
1.0×10
2.0×106
6
2.0×10
2.5×106
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1.0×1006
2.0×106 Time (s) Max Min Mean Std
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0
Time14.
Figure (s) Time Max
series and statistics of tether tensions. Min Mean Std

Figure 14. Time

Figure 14. Time series
series and
and statistics
statistics of
of tether
tether tensions.
tensions.
The changes in the tether tension are presented in Figures 15 and 16. The loss of tether 7# results
in a Thesignificant
The changesincrease
changes in
in the in the
the tether
tether tensions
tension
tension are of remaining
are presented
presented in tethers
in Figures
Figures 15 except
15 and
and16.16.tether
The
The loss 1#,of
loss ofwhich
tether
tether 7# is results
7# in the
results
downward
in
in aasignificant direction.
significant increase
increase The inmaximum
in the tensions oftether
the tensions of tension,
remaining occurs
tethers
remaining except
tethersat tether
the tether
except 1#,tether3#, 1#,
which reaches
is inwhich 2.22
the downward
is intimes
the
pretension
direction. after
The the
maximumfailure, which
tether has
tension,1.71 times
occurs safety
at the factor
tether for
3#, the tether
reaches
downward direction. The maximum tether tension, occurs at the tether 3#, reaches 2.22 times breaking
2.22 times strength.
pretension Figure
after
17
the shows
failure,the
pretension comparison
which
after thehas 1.71of
failure, dynamic
times
which safety response
factor
has 1.71 forstatistics
times the tether
safety and
factor percent
breaking
for change.
strength.
the tether breakingThe
Figuretether 7# failure
17 shows
strength. the
Figure
results
comparison in changes
of in
dynamic the SFOWT
response performance,
statistics and such
percent as heave
change. and
The pitch
tether
17 shows the comparison of dynamic response statistics and percent change. The tether 7# failure 7#motions.
failure As shown
results in in
changesthe
Figure
in 17b,
the SFOWT
results the
in changes minimum
performance,
in the SFOWTheave motion
suchperformance,decreases
as heave andsuch by
pitch 30.2%,
asmotions. from
heave andAspitch −0.099
shown m to −0.069
in theAs
motions. Figurem
shown after
17b, the
in the
failure.
minimum Meanwhile,
heave motion the maximum
decreases by and
30.2%, mean
from pitch
− 0.099 motions
m to − increase
0.069
Figure 17b, the minimum heave motion decreases by 30.2%, from −0.099 m to −0.069 m after the m after bythe 95.4%
failure. and 214.5%,
Meanwhile,
respectively.
the maximum
failure. The
and
Meanwhile,increase
mean in
the pitch pitch
maximum motion
motions explains
increase
and the
meanbypitch reason
95.4% andfor
motions the
214.5%, decrease byin 95.4%
respectively.
increase tension ofincrease
Theand tether
214.5%,1#.
in
The
pitch surge
respectively. and yaw
motion explains motions
The increasethe reasonshow
in pitchforlittle change
the decrease
motion after
explains the
inthe failure.
tension
reason The
of for
tether SFOWT
the 1#. with
The surge
decrease a broken
and yaw
in tension tether still
motions
of tether 1#.
has
show a good
little performance
change after thein the operational
failure. The SFOWT condition,
with a which
broken means
tether the
still restoring
has
The surge and yaw motions show little change after the failure. The SFOWT with a broken tether still a good force provided
performance in by
the
the
hasremaining
operational tethers is
a good condition,
performance sufficient.
whichin themeans the restoring
operational force provided
condition, which means by the remaining
the restoringtethers is sufficient.
force provided by
the remaining tethers is sufficient.
5.0×106
Intact
5.0×1066
4.5×10
Broken-7#
Intact
4.5×1066
4.0×10 Broken-7#
(N) (N)

4.0×1066
3.5×10
Tension

3.5×1066
3.0×10
Tension

3.0×1066
2.5×10
2.5×1066
2.0×10
2.0×1066
1.5×10
1.5×1066
1.0×10
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1.0×106 Time (s)
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(a) Tether 1#(s)
Time
(a) Tether
Figure 1#
15. Cont.
Energies 2019, 12, 418 17 of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21

5.0×106
Intact
6
4.5×10 Broken-7#

4.0×106
Tension (N)

3.5×106

3.0×106

2.5×106

2.0×106
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)
(b) Tether 2#

9.0×106
Intact
8.0×106 Broken-7#
7.0×106
Tension(N)

6.0×106

5.0×106

4.0×106

3.0×106

2.0×106
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time(s)
(c) Tether 3#

6.5×106
Intact
6.0×106 Broken-7#
5.5×106
Tension(N)

5.0×106
4.5×106
4.0×106
3.5×106
3.0×106
2.5×106
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time(s)
(d) Tether 4#
Figure
Figure 15.
15. Time
Time series
series of
of tether
tether tensions.
tensions.
 Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21
Energies 2019, 12, 418 18 of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21
2.5
1# 1#
2.5 Intact Broken
2#
1# 2#
1#
Intact 3# Broken 3#
2.0 2# 2#
4#
3# 4#
3#
2.0

tension
4# 4#

tension
1.5
1.5
Normalized
Normalized

1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

0.0
Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std
0.0
Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std
Figure 16. Comparison of normalized tension statistics.
Figure 16.Comparison
Figure16. Comparisonof
ofnormalized
normalizedtension
tensionstatistics.
statistics.
4.5 2.00 0.06 300
Intact Intact
4.0 0.04 Broken 250
4.5 Broken 2.00 0.06 300
Intact Intact 200
3.5 0.02
0.04 250
4.0 Broken 1.50 Broken
150

Percent
Percent

3.0 0.00
0.02 200
3.5
1.50 100
Heave(m)
Surge(m)

150

Percent
-0.02
Percent

2.5
3.0 0.00
1.00 50

Change
Change

100
Heave(m)

-0.04
Surge(m)

2.0
2.5 -0.02 0
1.00 50

Change
Change

1.5
2.0 -0.06
-0.04 -50

(%) (%)
(%) (%)

0.50 0
1.0
1.5 -0.08
-0.06 -100
-50
0.5
1.0 0.50 -0.10
-0.08 -150
-100
0.0
0.5 Max 0.00 -0.12
-0.10 -200
Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std -150
0.0 0.00 -0.12 -200
Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std
(a) Surge (b) Heave
0.20 (a) Surge 300 1.50 (b) Heave 4
Intact Intact
250 1.25 2
0.20 Broken 300 1.50 Broken 4
0.15 Intact 200 1.00 Intact 0
250 1.25 2
Broken 150 Broken
0.75 -2
Percent

Percent

0.15 200 1.00 0

100
0.10 150 0.50 -4
0.75 -2
)

Percent

Percent
)

50
o

o
Pitch(Pitch(

Yaw(oYaw(

100 0.25 -6
Change

Change

0.10 0 0.50 -4
)

50
o

0.05 0.00 -8
-50 0.25 -6
Change

Change

0 -0.25 -10
(%) (%)

(%) (%)

0.05 -100 0.00 -8

0.00 -50 -0.50 -12
-150 -0.25 -10
-100
-200 -0.75 -14
0.00 -150 -0.50 -12
-0.05 -250 -1.00 -16
Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std -200 -0.75 Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std -14
-0.05 -250 -1.00 -16
Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std Max
(c)Max Min
Pitch Mean Std
(d) Yaw Min Mean Std

(c) Pitch Figure 17. Cont.

(d) Yaw
 Energies 2019, 12, 418 19 of 21
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 21

0.7 5
Intact

tower top fore-aft displacement (m)

0.6 Broken
4

0.5

Percent Change (%)

3
0.4
2
0.3
1
0.2

0.1 0

0.0 -1
Max Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std

(e) Tower top fore-aft displacement

Figure 17.17.
Figure Comparison of dynamic
Comparison response
of dynamic statistics
response and
statistics percent
and change.
percent change.

5. 5. Conclusions
Conclusions
Thispaper
This paperpresents
presents an an investigation
investigationinto intothe thecoupled
coupled dynamic
dynamic responses
responses of a submerged
of a submerged floating
wind turbine
floating wind turbine(SFOWT) under under
(SFOWT) different mooring
different conditions.
mooring The time
conditions. Thedomain
time domain analysis tool FAST
analysis tool is
FAST is utilized to perform fully coupled time-domain aero-hydro-servo-elastic simulations of the of
utilized to perform fully coupled time-domain aero-hydro-servo-elastic simulations of the response
SFOWTofsystem.
response SFOWT system.
The influence ofof
The influence tetherlength
tether lengthon onthetheperformance
performanceof ofthe
theSFOWT
SFOWT was was investigated.
investigated. An An increase
increase in
the tether length will result in a decrease in the stiffness of
in the tether length will result in a decrease in the stiffness of the mooring system. The surgethe mooring system. The surge andand pitch
motions
pitch motions increase
increasesignificantly,
significantly, as the astether length
the tether increases
length fromfrom
increases 40 m 40mto 100 tom. The The
100m. maximum
maximum heave
amplitude and mean heave amplitude increase by 57.5% and
heave amplitude and mean heave amplitude increase by 57.5% and 60.0%, respectively, as the tether 60.0%, respectively, as the tether length
increases
length from from
increases 60 m 60 upm to up
100tom.100 It ism.worth notingnoting
It is worth that thethat largest heave amplitude
the largest heave amplitudeand standard
and
standard deviation appear when the tether length is 40 m. The variation of tether length has littlethe
deviation appear when the tether length is 40 m. The variation of tether length has little effect on
tower
effect on fore-aft
the tower displacements and the tether
fore-aft displacements andtension.
the tether tension.
AnAn increase
increase in in pretension
pretension will
will result
result in in
anan increase
increase in in restoring
restoring force.
force. AsAs expected,
expected, thethe pretension
pretension
has significant effects on the performance of the SFOWT. The
has significant effects on the performance of the SFOWT. The natural frequencies of surge, heave natural frequencies of surge, heave andand
yaw increase significantly owing to the increase of pretension and the natural frequency of pitch has a
yaw increase significantly owing to the increase of pretension and the natural frequency of pitch has
slightincrease.
a slight increase.The Themotions
motionsininsurge, surge,heave,heave,pitchpitchandandyaw yawobviously
obviously reduced
reduced withwiththethe increase
increase of of
pretension until the pretension is large enough. The pretension variation has a minor effect on thethe
pretension until the pretension is large enough. The pretension variation has a minor effect on
responses
responses of ofthethe tower
tower fore-aft
fore-aft displacements.
displacements. TheThe standard
standard deviations
deviations forforthethe tension
tension have
have small
small
changes
changes with
with thethe increase
increase of of pretension.
pretension. TheThe power
power spectra
spectra of of motions
motions areare mainly
mainly dominated
dominated byby thethe
resonant response, wind frequency response and wave frequency
resonant response, wind frequency response and wave frequency response in the operational response in the operational condition.
The variation
condition. The of pretension
variation also introduces
of pretension also large discrepancies
introduces of power spectra.
large discrepancies The coupled
of power spectra.behavior
The
coupled behavior among the surge and heave motion is also captured in the spectra. The motions ofnot
among the surge and heave motion is also captured in the spectra. The motions of the SFOWT are
thea simple
SFOWTlinear are superposition
not a simple of wind-wave
linear inducedof
superposition motions
wind-wave and complex
induced nonlinear
motionsmotion responses
and complex
may occur
nonlinear whenresponses
motion coupled with may other
occur multiple
when coupled degrees withof freedom.
other multiple degrees of freedom.
The influence of a tether failure on the
The influence of a tether failure on the SFOWT performance was SFOWT performance was investigated
investigated byby comparing
comparing thethe
responses
responses with
with those
those of of
thethe intact
intact mooring
mooring system.
system. The The
loss loss
of of tether
tether 7# 7# results
results in ainsignificant
a significant increase
increase
in tensions of remaining tethers except tether 1#, which is in the
in tensions of remaining tethers except tether 1#, which is in the downward direction. The maximum downward direction. The maximum
tension
tension of of tether
tether reaches
reaches 2.222.22
times times pretension
pretension and hasand 1.71
has times
1.71 times
safetysafety
factor factor
after theafter the failure.
failure. The
The failure
tether tether results
failure results in the increase
in the increase of pitchof pitch motion
motion response. response.
However, However,
the surge theandsurge
yaw andshowyawlittle
show
change. It is worth noting that the SFOWT with a broken tether still has a good performance in the in
little change. It is worth noting that the SFOWT with a broken tether still has a good performance
the operational
operational condition.condition.

Author Contributions: conceptualization, C.L. and H.D.; methodology, C.L.; software, C.L. and Y.L.; writing—
original draft preparation, C.L.; writing—review and editing, C.L.
Energies 2019, 12, 418 20 of 21

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.L. and H.D.; methodology, C.L.; software, C.L. and Y.L.;
writing—original draft preparation, C.L.; writing—review and editing, C.L.
Funding: The financial support from the Innovation Method Fund of China (Grant No. 2016IM030100), the
Tianjin Municipal Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. 18JCYBJC22800) and State Key Laboratory of Coastal
and Offshore Engineering (Grant No. LP1709).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bachynski, E.E. Design and Dynamic Analysis of Tension Leg Platform Wind Turbines. Ph.D. Thesis,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 2014.
2. Zhang, P.-Y.; Guo, Y.-H.; Liu, Y.-G.; Ding, H.-Y.; Le, C.-H. Model tests on sinking technique of composite
bucket foundations for offshore wind turbines in silty clay. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2015, 7, 033113.
[CrossRef]
3. Han, Y.-Q.; Le, C.-H.; Ding, H.-Y.; Cheng, Z.-S.; Zhang, P.-Y. Stability and dynamic response analysis of a
submerged tension leg platform for offshore wind turbines. Ocean Eng. 2017, 129, 68–82. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, X.-F.; Yang, X.; Zeng, X.-W. Seismic centrifuge modelling of suction bucket foundation for offshore
wind turbine. Renew. Energy 2017, 114, 1013–1022. [CrossRef]
5. LeBlanc, C. Design of Offshore wind Turbine Support Structures. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of
Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark, 2009.
6. Dinh, V.N.; McKeogh, E. Offshore Wind Energy: Technology Opportunities and Challenges. In Proceedings of
the First Vietnam Symposium on Advances in Offshore Engineering; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018; Volume 18,
pp. 3–22.
7. Jonkman, J.M.; Matha, D. Dynamics of offshore floating wind turbines-analysis of three concepts. Wind
Energy 2011, 14, 557–569. [CrossRef]
8. Simos, A.N.; Ruggeri, F.R.; Watai, A.; Souto-Iglesias, A.; Lopez-Pavon, C. Slow-drift of a floating wind
turbine: An assessment of frequency-domain methods based on model tests. Renew. Energy 2018, 116,
133–154. [CrossRef]
9. Oguz, E.; Clelland, D.; Day, A.H.; Incecik, A.; López, J.A.; Sánchez, G.; Almeria, G.G. Experimental and
numerical analysis of a TLP floating offshore wind turbine. Ocean Eng. 2018, 147, 591–605. [CrossRef]
10. Viselli, A.M.; Goupee, A.J.; Dagher, H.J. Model Test of a 1:8-Scale Floating Wind Turbine Offshore in the Gulf
of Maine. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. 2015, 137. [CrossRef]
11. Nematbakhsh, A.; Olinger, D.J.; Tryggvason, G. Nonlinear simulation of a spar buoy floating wind turbine
under extreme ocean conditions. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2014, 6, 033121. [CrossRef]
12. Utsunomiya, T.; Matsukuma, H.; Minoura, S.; Ko, K.; Hamamura, H.; Kobayashi, O.; Sato, I.; Nomoto, Y.;
Yasui, K. At Sea Experiment of a Hybrid Spar for Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Using 1/10-Scale Model.
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. 2013, 135. [CrossRef]
13. Skaare, B.; Nielsen, F.G.; Hanson, T.D.; Yttervik, R.; Havmoller, O.; Rekdal, A. Analysis of measurements and
simulations from the Hywind Demo floating wind turbine. Wind Energy 2015, 18, 1105–1122. [CrossRef]
14. Skaare, B.; Hanson, T.D.; Nielsen, F.G.; Yttervik, R.; Hansen, A.M.; Thomsen, K.; Larsen, T.J. Integrated
dynamic analysis of floating offshore wind turbines. In Proceedings of the European Wind Energy
Conference, Milan, Italy, 7–10 May 2007.
15. Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Jonkman, J.; Sclavounos, P.; Wayman, L. Engineering challenges for floating
offshore wind turbines. In Proceedings of the Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen,
Denmark, 26–28 October 2005.
16. Goupee, A.J.; Koo, B.J.; Kimball, R.W.; Lambrakos, K.F.; Dagher, H.J. Experimental Comparison of Three
Floating Wind Turbine Concepts. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. 2014, 136. [CrossRef]
17. Myhr, A.; Maus, K.J.; Nygaard, T.A. Experimental and computational comparisons of the OC3-HYWIND
and Tension-Leg-Buoy (TLB) floating wind turbine conceptual designs. In Proceedings of the Twenty-first
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Maui, HI, USA, 19–24 June 2011.
18. Campanile, A.; Piscopo, V.; Scamardella, A. Mooring design and selection for floating offshore wind turbines
on intermediate and deep water depths. Ocean Eng. 2018, 148, 349–360. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 418 21 of 21

19. Bae, Y.H.; Kim, M.H. Rotor-floater-tether coupled dynamics including second-order sum-frequency wave
loads for a mono-column-TLP-type FOWT (floating offshore wind turbine). Ocean Eng. 2013, 61, 109–122.
[CrossRef]
20. Adam, F.; Steinke, C.; Dahlhaus, F.; Großmann, J. GICON® -TLP for Wind Turbines-Validation of Calculated
Results. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
Anchorage, Alaska, 30 June–5 July 2013.
21. Jonkman, J.M.; Matha, D. A quantitative comparison of the responses of three floating platforms.
In Proceedings of the European Offshore Wind 2009: Conference and Exhibition, Stockholm, Sweden,
14–16 September 2009.
22. Bae, Y.H.; Kim, M.; Shin, Y.S. Rotor-floater-mooring coupled dynamic analysis of mini-TLP-type offshore
floating wind turbines. In Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering, Shanghai, China, 6–11 June 2010; Paper No. OMAE2010-20555.
23. Ormberg, H.; Passano, E.; Luxcey, N. Global analysis of a floating wind turbine using an aero-hydro-elastic
model. Part 1: Code development and case study. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference
on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 19–24 June 2011; Paper No.
OMAE2011-50114.
24. Jonkman, J.M. Dynamics of Offshore Floating Wind Turbines-Model Development and Verification.
Wind Energy 2009, 12, 459–492. [CrossRef]
25. Larsen, T.J.; Hansen, A.M. How 2 HAWC2, the User’s Manual. Available online: http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/
7703110/ris_r_1597.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2019).
26. Bachynski, E.E. SIMO-RIFLEX-AeroDyn (64-bit) and NREL-Control Fixpitch. Jar User Manual, Tech. Rep.; Centre
for Ships and Ocean Structures, Norwegian University of Science and Technology: Trondheim, Norway, 2013.
27. Ding, H.-Y.; Han, Y.-Q.; Le, C.-H.; Zhang, P.-Y. Dynamic analysis of a floating wind turbine in wet tows
based on multi-body dynamics. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2017, 9. [CrossRef]
28. Coulling, A.J.; Goupee, A.J.; Robertson, A.N.; Jonkman, J.M.; Dagher, H.J. Validation of a FAST
semi-submersible floating wind turbine numerical model with DeepCwind test data. J. Renew.
Sustain. Energy 2013, 5. [CrossRef]
29. MARINTEK. SIMA User Guide; MARINTEK: Trondheim, Norway, 2013.
30. Jonkman, J.; Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Scott, G. Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System
Development; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2009.
31. Bae, Y.H.; Kim, M.H.; Kim, H.C. Performance changes of a floating offshore wind turbine with broken
mooring line. Renew. Energy 2017, 101, 364–375. [CrossRef]
32. Li, Y.; Tang, Y.-G.; Zhu, Q.; Qu, X.-Q.; Wang, B.; Zhang, R.-Y. Effects of second-order wave forces and
aerodynamic forces on dynamic responses of a TLP-type floating offshore wind turbine considering the
set-down motion. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2017, 9. [CrossRef]
33. Wang, B.; Tang, Y.-G.; Liu, L.-Q.; Li, Y.; Qu, X.-Q. Nonlinear random motion analysis of a Tension Leg
Platform considering the set-down motion of a floating body. China Ocean Eng. 2017, 31, 210–219. [CrossRef]
34. Jonkman, J.; Hayman, G.; Jonkman, B.; Damiani, R. AeroDyn v15 User’s Guide and Theory Manual. Available
online: https://wind.nrel.gov/nwtc/docs/AeroDyn_Manual.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2019).
35. Jonkman, B.J. TurbSim User’s Guide: Version 1.50. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/
46198.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2019).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).