See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317510081

Buffeting response analysis of offshore wind turbines subjected to hurricanes

Article  in  Ocean Engineering · September 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.06.005

CITATIONS READS
9 208

2 authors:

Gholamreza Amirinia Sungmoon Jung

Hayward Baker Inc. FAMU-FSU College of Engineering
20 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS    74 PUBLICATIONS   898 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hurricane effects on offshore wind turbines View project

Florida Sea Grant project- Promoting preventive mitigations of buildings against hurricanes through enhanced risk-assessment and decision making View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gholamreza Amirinia on 16 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1  This is a draft version of an article published in:
2  Amirinia, G., & Jung, S. (2017), Buffeting response analysis of offshore wind turbines subjected
3  to hurricanes, Ocean Engineering, 141, 1-11
4  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.06.005

5  Buffeting Response Analysis of Offshore Wind Turbines Subjected to

6  Hurricanes

7  Gholamreza Amirinia, Sungmoon Jung

8  Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida A&M University – Florida State University
9  College of Engineering, Tallahassee, FL 32310, USA

10  Abstract

11  The objective of this paper is to investigate the effects of newly observed hurricane turbulence

12  models on offshore wind turbines by considering unsteady aerodynamic forces on the tower and

13  wind-wave-soil-structure interaction. The specific goals were analyzing the tower and blade

14  structural buffeting responses, the low cycle fatigue during different hurricane categories, and

15  extreme value of the short term responses. To achieve these goals, first, the recent observations

16  on hurricane turbulence models were discussed. Then a new formulation for addressing unsteady

17  wind forces on the tower was introduced and NREL-FAST package was modified with new

18  formulation. Results showed that recently observed turbulence models resulted in larger

19  structural responses and low cycle fatigue damage than existing models. In addition, extreme

20  value analysis of the short term results showed that the IEC 61400-3 recommendation for wind

21  turbine class I was conservative for designing the tower for wind turbine class S subjected to

22  hurricane; however, for designing the blade, IEC 61400-3 recommendations for class I

23  underestimated the responses.

                                                            

 Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-850-410-6505; E-mail address: gamirinia@fsu.edu 

1 
 
24  Keywords: Offshore wind turbine, hurricane, structural responses, low cycle fatigue, IEC 61400-

25  3.

26  1. Introduction

27  Investigation of hurricanes during last decade showed that hurricanes have different turbulence

28  characteristics from regular high winds (Caracoglia and Jones, 2009; Jung and Masters, 2013; Li

29  et al., 2012; Schroeder and Smith, 2003; Yu et al., 2008). These differences in the turbulence

30  energy models affect the structures by changing the buffeting response characteristics or causing

31  low cycle fatigue. In this regard, special structures such as offshore wind turbines in hurricane

32  prone regions need to be studied more for safety and economical aspects (Amirinia and Jung,

33  2017, 2016; Amirinia et al., 2015; Gong and Chen, 2015).

34  Observations and analysis of hurricane surface winds revealed that turbulence spectrum of

35  hurricane winds differs from that of non-hurricane high winds (Balderrama et al., 2011;

36  Caracoglia and Jones, 2009; Gong and Chen, 2015; Jung and Masters, 2013; Li et al., 2012;

37  Schroeder and Smith, 2003; Yu et al., 2008). Li et al. (2012) and Caracoglia and Jones (2009)

38  showed that in the hurricane, the higher turbulence frequencies have higher level of energy;

39  however, Schroeder and Smith (2003), Yu et al. (2008), and Jung and Masters (2013) showed

40  that hurricane spectrum has higher level of energy in low frequencies. Different turbulence

41  energy models affect structures differently, while the mean wind speed and turbulence intensity

42  are identical between models. In this regard, mean responses of structures subjected to regular

43  high winds and hurricane winds are comparable, whereas, the buffeting responses are different.

44  Because of these differences in buffeting responses, conditions such as structural integrity and

45  low cycle fatigue subjected to different hurricane turbulence models should be investigated.

2 
 
46  Various studies in recent years have been conducted to investigate hurricane effects on wind

47  turbines. Han et al. (2014) reviewed the characteristics of tropical cyclones and their probable

48  effects on the wind turbines. Guo et al. (2014) compared existing wind shear and turbulence

49  spectrum models in standards for wind turbine analysis during hurricane and showed that

50  different models result in different responses. Kim and Manuel (2014) used conventional Kaimal

51  et al. (1972) turbulence model and a coupled wind-wave approach for analyzing offshore wind

52  turbines. They explored hurricane induced loads on offshore wind turbines with consideration of

53  nacelle yaw and blade pitch control. After that, Kim et al. (2016) studied effects of hurricane Ike

54  (2008) and hurricane Sandy (2008) on an offshore wind turbine. They considered the

55  conventional Kaimal et al. (1972) wind spectrum and addressed effects of yaw misalignment and

56  blade azimuthal angle on the responses. All the mentioned studies addressed an important issue

57  in the analysis of offshore wind turbines subjected to hurricanes, however, all of them used

58  existing turbulence models for simulating the hurricane. To this end, there is a need for studying

59  the effects of recent observations of hurricane turbulence models on the wind turbines.

60  The duration of the hurricane compared to structural design life is short. Hence, large turbulent

61  forces in a short period of time are exerted on the structure. In this case an accurate low cycle

62  fatigue analysis is necessary for determining the structural integrity during hurricane. By

63  referring to the differences in turbulence spectrum models, the buffeting responses of the

64  structures subjected to the various hurricane turbulence models are important in terms of low

65  cycle fatigue analysis. Li et al. (2014) studied wind buffeting forces on fatigue analysis of the

66  wind turbine foundation. Tibaldi et al. (2015) investigated the operating wind turbine fatigue

67  based on a linear model. Lee et al. (2013) applied a numerical method to study the wake

68  turbulence impacts on wind turbine fatigue. By reviewing previous studies and new findings

3 
 
69  about hurricane turbulence models, the low cycle fatigue analysis of the offshore wind turbines

70  should be studies carefully to investigate the effect of newly observed and presented models.

71  IEC 61400-1 (2005) and IEC 61400-3 (2009) have recommendations for different wind turbine

72  classes and load cases; however, for special events such as hurricane, they introduced wind

73  turbine class S which the design variables should be defined by the designer. In order to compare

74  the short term responses of the wind turbine subjected to hurricane with IEC 61400-1 (2005) and

75  IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations, an extreme value analysis is necessary. Several studies

76  has been conducted on extreme value analysis which considered various methods and approaches

77  (Kim and Manuel, 2013; Kim and Manuel, 2014; Kim et al., 2016). By considering the

78  importance of new hurricane turbulence models on buffeting responses, an accurate extreme

79  value analysis is necessary for comparing the short term results with IEC 61400-3 (2009)

80  recommendations. An accurate extreme value analysis and comparison with existing

81  recommendations also assist to consider important issues in designing wind turbines class S.

82  In this paper, the main objectives were investigating the effects of recently observed hurricane

83  models on structural responses and low cycle fatigue of offshore wind turbines. In addition, to

84  compare the short term analysis with existing IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations and

85  proposing extra consideration for special conditions such as hurricane, an extreme value analysis

86  was carried out. For these purposes, first, the recent observations on hurricane turbulence models

87  were discussed. Next, the buffeting wind loads on the wind turbine structure were mentioned and

88  a new formulation for addressing unsteady wind forces on the tower was introduced (Amirinia

89  and Jung, 2016). This new formulation was later used to modify NREL-FAST (Jonkman and

90  Buhl Jr, 2005) for analysis. At next step, according to recent findings about hurricane winds,

91  hurricane wind and wave fields were simulated based on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind

4 
 
 92  scale (Simpson and Saffir, 1974). Then, to investigate the effects of various hurricane turbulence

93  models on the wind turbine structures, the modified NREL-FAST (Jonkman and Buhl Jr, 2005)

94  in previous sections was used to analyze structure-wind-wave-soil interaction of the NREL-5

95  MW wind turbine (Jonkman et al., 2009). Finally, the structural responses and low cycle fatigue

96  analysis were presented and discussed. At the end, an extreme value analysis was carried out on

97  the short term results and extreme responses were compared with IEC 61400-3 (2009)

98  recommendations for 50-years return period load case for extra design consideration.

99  2. Hurricane Turbulence Models

100  The wind turbulence spectrum represents the energy distribution in turbulent wind (Li et al.,

101  2012). The total energy of turbulent flows can be expressed as superposition of eddies (Yu et al.,

102  2008). Big eddies which represent small wave numbers or low frequencies, supply the most

103  energy content of turbulent flow; whereas, small eddies with high wave numbers in high

104  frequencies dissipate the gained energy (Kaimal et al., 1972; Tieleman, 1995; Yu et al., 2008).

105  This gain and dissipation are connected to each other with an inertial subrange where the

106  influence of viscosity is small. According to the equilibrium, the gain and dissipation of energy

107  should be equal which made Kolmogorov’s hypothesis as eq. 1 as:

/ / (1)

108  Where represents energy dissipation, is wave number, and is a universal constant. Earlier

109  studies investigated wind turbulence spectrums for non-hurricane winds (Davenport, 1961;

110  Kaimal et al., 1972; Tieleman, 1995; Von Karman, 1948). Kaimal et al. (1972), based on series

111  of experiments, showed that all spectra reduce to a limited family of curves which fit a single

5 
 
112  universal curve in inertial subrange but spread out in low frequencies. They proposed a formula

113  for wind spectrum as shown in eq. 2:

21.6
/
(2)
1 33

114  where / represents the normalized frequency, is the frequency, is the spectral

115  density of the longitudinal velocity fluctuation at height , and is the standard deviation of

116  longitudinal velocity fluctuation. Hurricane field data observations during the last decade

117  revealed that turbulence spectrum of the hurricane boundary layer winds is different from those

118  of non-hurricane high-winds. Schroeder and Smith (2003), Yu et al. (2008), and Jung and

119  Masters (2013) showed that compared to non-hurricane spectral models, hurricane spectrums had

120  higher energy content in low frequencies. The formula derived for hurricane wind turbulence

121  spectrum (Yu et al., 2008) with high amount of energy in low frequencies was presented as:

1
(3)

∗ ∗
122  where / is the turbulence ratio, represents the friction velocity, and and are

123  constants proposed by Yu et al. (2008) as shown in Table 1.

124  Table 1. Coefficients of Yu et al. (2008) spectrum

Spectra
10m, Over Land -0.9999 3.112 1.159e-4 18.64 1.188 3.35e-3
10m, Over Sea -0.00598 0.1544 1.055e-5 0.4458 0.06486 9.754e-5

125  On the other hand, Li et al. (2012) and Caracoglia and Jones (2009) based on series of

126  observations, presented an opposite results that higher frequencies contained larger amount of

6 
 
127  energy rather than low frequencies. Li et al. (2012) provided spectrum models for their

128  observation with high amount of energy in high frequencies as:

16.66
/
(4)
1.72 237.24

129  Table 2 summarizes the spectrum models presented by mentioned researchers and used in this

130  paper. In addition, Figure 1 shows the difference between recent observed models and the

131  spectrum introduced by Kaimal et al. (1972).

132  Table 2. Spectrum models summary

Model Name Proposed by Similar Observations
Schroeder and Smith (2003), Yu et al.
Model A Yu et al. (2008)
(2008), Jung and Masters (2013)
Caracoglia and Jones (2009), Li et al.
Model B Li et al. (2012)
(2012)

133 

134 
135  Figure 1. Comparison of hurricane spectrum models (over sea) and Kaimal spectrum

7 
 
136  Some relevant discussion can be found in the meteorological and engineering literature to

137  understand the large variation in hurricane spectra. Wind spectra can be affected by various

138  parameters such as upstream roughness (Yu et al., 2008). It is been observed that spectral values

139  water surface and sea are higher than those of onshore regions. Also for open exposures, the

140  spectral energy contents in lower observatory anemometers are more than those in higher

141  observatory devices (Yu et al., 2008). Moreover, the low frequency range of spectrum depends

142  on the atmospheric stability (Kaimal et al., 1972; Tieleman, 1995; Yu et al., 2008), hence for

143  increased instability, the spectral peak shifts to the lower frequencies. In addition, dissipation of

144  energy commonly occurs in the high frequency range (Fiedler and Panofsky, 1970; Singer et al.,

145  1968; Teunissen, 1970). The anemometers used for observations can also affect the

146  measurements where their effects can be corrected to make the different measurements

147  comparable (Jung and Masters, 2013; Schroeder and Smith, 2003; Yu et al., 2008).

148  3. Buffeting Wind Loads on Wind Turbine Structure

149  The effect of unsteady forces on the operating wind turbine has been investigated before

150  (Sebastian and Lackner, 2013); however, generally, the unsteady forces for parked wind turbine

151  in high-winds is neglected and only the quasi-steady method was used (Jonkman and Buhl Jr,

152  2005). Previous studies showed that in parked condition the tower play an important role in total

153  structural responses (Amirinia and Jung, 2016) and unsteady analysis of the tower in parked

154  condition resulted in more accurate and realistic responses. Figure 2 shows a schematic view of

155  aerodynamic forces on a wind turbine tower. Formulation of wind loading on the wind turbine

156  tower is given in eq. 5 and eq. 6 as (Strømmen, 2010):

8 
 
 ̅ ,
z, ̅ , ̅ (5)
,

,t / / (6)

157  where ̅ ̅ , ̅ , are quasi-static forces, are buffeting forces, and

158  are self-excited forces, and are longitudinal and lateral fluctuating parts of the wind, and

159  and are structural position and velocity vectors. In eq. 5 and eq. 6 it is assumed that the main

160  flow direction is perpendicular to the rotor plane and wind field is homogenous (Strømmen,

161  2010).

162 
163  Figure 2. Aerodynamic forces on the wind turbine tower

164  The second term in right hand side of eq. 5, denotes wind buffeting force. In order to address

165  unsteady forces, buffeting force components can be revised by considering aerodynamic

9 
 
166  admittance function. For instance, along-wind component of buffeting forces can be expressed as

167  eq. 7:

z, 2 ̅ ̅ (7)
2

168  where and are the frequency dependent aerodynamic admittance functions in

169  longitudinal and lateral directions respectively, ̅ / , ̅/ and ̅ /

170  in which is the angle of attack. In the time domain, the along wind buffeting forces (for the

171  unit length of the structure) due to the wind fluctuations and can be expressed as the

172  convolution integrals as:

z z, (8)
2

173  where and are the aerodynamic impulse functions in along wind and across wind

174  directions respectively. The aerodynamic admittance function can be addressed in the time

175  domain, by comparing Fourier transform of eq. 8 and the Fourier transform of eq. 7 (Chen et al.,

176  2000; Clobes and Peil, 2011). By addressing aerodynamic admittance function in terms of

177  rational functions, the frequency dependent unsteady buffeting forces can be computed in time

178  domain. The time domain formulation for unsteady drag force can be expressed as:

1
, , , , (9)
2

, , , ,   (10)

10 
 
179  where is drag force as a function of time, and , and , represent rational function (RF)

180  coefficients. The time dependent functions , are new variables to express aerodynamic

181  phase lag and should be defined in such a way that satisfies eq. 10. In eq. 10, is scalar

182  representation of wind fluctuation introduced in eq. 6 which represents the longitudinal

183  component if and the lateral component if .

184  The aerodynamic admittance function can be presented in terms of rational function (RF) as:

,
, (11)
,

185  where , and , are frequency independent coefficients and represents the level of

186  accuracy. In the current study, in the eq. 11, by using 1 (2 terms RF) and according to

187  experimental tests by Davenport (Davenport, 1977) and previous studies (Clobes and Peil, 2011)

188  for along-wind drag force responses, the coefficients were chosen as , , , 1

189  which according to Figure 3, represents more conservative condition. The NREL-FAST model

190  was later modified based on the presented procedure to analyze unsteady forces on tower in

191  parked condition. More details about the model validation and verification can be found in

192  previous studies (Amirinia and Jung, 2016).

11 
 
 2

193 
194  Figure 3. Aerodynamic admittance function

195 

196  4. Modeling of Wind Field, Wave, and Soil-Structure Interaction

197  To investigate the contribution of blades and tower under hurricane condition, the NREL 5MW

198  offshore monopile wind turbine (Jonkman et al., 2009) was selected for analysis. In order to

199  consider randomness of the wind field, 60 wind field time series for each turbulence model

200  presented in section 2 (each one 600s) were generated by NREL-TurbSim (Jonkman, 2009) with

201  frequency of 10Hz. The mean wind speeds at 10 m height were equal to 30, 40, 50,60, 70, and 80

202  m/s (each speed 10 time series) in order to cover five Siffir-Simpson hurricane categories

203  (Simpson and Saffir, 1974) as shown in Table 3.

204  Table 3. Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Classification (1-min sustained wind speed)

Category Wind Speed Range (m/s)
1 33~42.5
2 42.5~49.2
3 49.2~57.8
4 57.8~69.7
5 69.7<

12 
 
205  ASCE 7-10 vertical profile for exposure D was used for height extrapolation as eq. 11:

(11)
10

206  where is the mean hourly wind speed at 10 m height, is the height and and are

207  constants depending on the terrain. For flat terrain or sea surface and are 0.11 and 0.8

208  respectively. In addition, In order to convert hourly mean wind speed to maximum speed

209  averaged over 10-minutes, a coefficient of 1.07 was used (Durst, 1960). Turbulence intensity

210  was equal to 13% at 10 m height which corresponds with observed data by Li et al. (2012).

211  Coherence function between fluctuation parts can be expressed as eq. 12 which considers famous

212  models by Davenport (1961) and Solari (1987).

(12)

213  In eq. 12, and are spatial coherence decrement and offset parameter, respectively, is the

214  distance between point and , is frequency, is coefficient for spatial coherence function and

215  and are the mean height and wind speed of points and , respectively. In this study, eq.

216  12 was used to address the spatial coherence of wind speed fluctuation where the authors

217  assumed 0 and 7.7 which represents Davenport (1961) general formula.

218  Since waves are commonly induced by wind, wind and wave climate are correlated. The

219  irregular wave climate can be represented by the significant wave height, and the spectral

13 
 
220  peak wave period, . The JONSWAP (Joint North Sea Wave Observation Project) spectrum

221  was used to represent wind induced wave in the analysis as:

α 5 .
exp (13)
2π 4

222  where is wave frequency, is spectral peak frequency, is gravity acceleration, is

223  generalized Phillips’ constant, is spectral width parameter, and is peak-shape parameter. By

224  considering 20 m water depth ( in the offshore wind farm and assuming 6 hours hurricane and

225  duration-limited wave field, the wind and wave field characteristics are summarized in Table 4

226  (U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1977). The wave length, /2 , for

227  each peak wave period, , ranges from 230 m to 613 m which represents shallow water in the

228  depth of 20 m ( / 0.5). Hence the maximum wave height will be 0.9 times of the water

229  depth (Sorensen, 2005) and the maximum wave height for the considered depth was limited to 18

230  m. In addition, the peak shape parameter followed the IEC 61400-3 (2009) annex B. The

231  nonlinear wave forces due to large wind induced wave heights were computed by the HydroDyn

232  package (Jonkman et al., 2014) through a hybrid model consist of potential flow theory and

233  Morison’s equation.

234  Table 4. Hurricane wind and wave field

Wind Speed @10m
(m) (s)
(m/s)
30 8.4 12.1
40 12.2 15.1
50 16.6 17.2
60 18.0 19.8
70 18.0 19.8
80 18.0 19.8

14 
 
235  The interaction between monopile and soil, influence the responses of offshore wind turbine. In

236  order to address the effect of soil-structure interaction, the non-linear and depth dependent p-y

237  soil model presented by Jonkman and Musial (2010) which considers sand under cyclic loading

238  condition was used. The p-y model depended on the effective sand weight, ′, angle of internal

239  friction, , pile diameter, and soil depth (Jonkman and Musial, 2010). The soil was chosen

240  layered as shown in Figure 4 with increasing internal friction and density with depth which

241  increased the soil-pile interaction participation in the dynamic analysis. A distributed spring

242  model was used for monopile flexible foundation where the stiffness constants were computed

243  based on linearization of p-y model (Jonkman and Musial, 2010).

244 
245  Figure 4. Soil layer profile and simplified distributed springs models

246  5. Analysis Results for Hurricane Effects on Wind Turbines

247  For the analysis of the parked wind turbine, the following modes were considered: first and

248  second fore-aft (FA) of the tower, first side to side (SS) of the tower, first and second flapwise

15 
 
249  (flap) of the blade, first edgewise (edge) of the blade as well as platform (monopile-soil

250  connection) six degrees of freedom in surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw. In this study, only

251  along-wind responses of the structure was focused since the spectrum Model B, only provided

252  turbulence spectrum model for longitudinal fluctuation components. In this case, since the

253  analysis purpose was along-wind responses, the yaw degree of freedom was fixed. During high-

254  wind conditions, wind turbine was parked where the blade pitch angles were set to 90°, blades

255  were put on feathered condition, and High Speed Shaft (HSS) brake was applied.

256  After applying pre-requisite condition, the structural analysis was carried out with 0.01s time

257  steps. After the simulations, in order to prevent capturing the model start up inaccuracy, the first

258  30 seconds of the simulations were omitted (Jonkman and Buhl Jr, 2005) for post-processing.

259  In post-processing of the analysis, tower and blade structural responses to the various turbulence

260  models, low-cycle fatigue analysis of the tower and blade were carried out. At the end, in order

261  to compare the results with IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations, an extreme value analysis

262  was carried out for long-term extrapolation of the loads and responses.

263  5.1. Structural Responses

264  Since the mean wind speed and turbulence intensities in all turbulence models were identical, the

265  mean responses of all structural parts were equal; however, the buffeting responses because of

266  various levels of energy in different turbulence frequencies were different among the models.

267  The correlated wind-wave field affects the structural responses where the increase rate of wind

268  speed is not equal to increase rate of wave height and peak wave period. By increasing the wind

269  speed, the wave evolution rate gets larger in the deep water; however, sensing the bed effects

270  decreases the wave evolution rate. This issue was presented in Table 4 where by increasing the

16 
 
271  wind speed from 30 m/s to 40 m/s and 50 m/s, the wave height increased by 3.8 m and 4.4

272  respectively, whereas by increasing the wind speed from 50 m/s to 60 m/s, the wave field start to

273  sense the bed effects and wave evolution rate decreased to 1.4 m. This trend in wind and wave

274  field was obvious in tower base moment responses.

275  For all the response time series, the mean response and the mean of maximum responses were

276  computed. The comparison of mean responses with previous literature (Rose et al., 2012)

277  showed comparable values. Also the wind speeds were 10-min averaged which satisfied the 1-

278  min sustained wind speed in Saffir-Simpson categories mentioned in Table 3. Figure 5a shows

279  the mean of maximum buffeting base moments in various mean wind speeds where the slope of

280  the line increased from 30 m/s to 50 m/s, but after that by decreasing the wave evolution rate, the

281  slope decreased. The similar wave field for all cases and various turbulence models, resulted in

282  differences in base moment responses. The unsteady analysis of the Model A and Model B,

283  resulted in average 7 % smaller and 1 % larger fore-aft base moment responses than

284  conventional Kaimal et al. (1972) in different mean wind speeds.

285  Since the blade responses were mostly involved with aerodynamic forces, the change in wave

286  height did not affect the blade responses. Figure 5b shows the blade root edge-wise moments

287  where the Model A and Model B resulted in 57% smaller and 9% larger responses than

288  conventional Kaimal et al. (1972) respectively.

17 
 

(a) (b)
289  Figure 5. Mean of maximum (a) tower buffeting fore-aft base moments and (b) blade root
290  edge-wise buffeting moment for different wind speeds at 10 m height

291  Figure 6a presents the tower tip buffeting displacements subjected to three different turbulence

292  models. The tower tip displacements of all models were similar; however, Model A and Model B

293  resulted in average 6% smaller and 1% larger responses than Kaimal et al. (1972) model

294  respectively. Spectral analysis of the tower tip displacement in Figure 7a depicts that Model A,

295  in low frequency responses (background responses) has higher amount of energy compared to

296  other two counterpart spectrum models. This is consistent with characteristics of spectrum model

297  A which had higher amount of energy in low frequencies compared to other two spectrums. All

298  three spectrums have similar response energy around 1st tower fore-aft frequency; however, in

299  higher frequencies, spectrum Model A, has smaller amount of energy compared to other two

300  counterparts. In addition, spectral analysis of the spectrum Model B and conventional Kaimal et

301  al. (1972) model shows that both two spectrums have similar responses energy in all frequency

302  ranges. It was the reason that average differences in tower tip displacement between spectrum

303  Model B and Kaimal et al. (1972) model was 1%.

18 
 
 (a) (b)
304  Figure 6. Mean of maximum (a) tower tip buffeting displacements and (b) blade tip
305  displacements for different wind speeds at 10 m height

306  Figure 6b shows the blade tip displacement resulted from three different models where the

307  spectrum Model A and B resulted in 62% larger and 7% smaller responses respectively

308  compared to Kaimal et al. (1972) model. The spectral analysis of the blade tip responses in

309  Figure 7b shows that the 1st blade edge-wise frequency which is located in relatively high

310  frequencies is the most important resonant part of the responses. On the other hand, spectrum

311  Model A has low amount of energy in high frequencies. Hence the level of response energy

312  resulted from spectrum Model A is smaller than other two spectrums; however, spectrum Model

313  A has slightly larger response energy in background part in low frequencies. The lower amount

314  of spectral response of Model A compared two other two models, especially in the 1st blade

315  edge-wise frequency range, resulted in large difference between maximum blade tip

316  displacements of Model A with other spectrum models.

19 
 
 (a) (b)
317  Figure 7. (a) Tower tip displacement spectrum and (b) blade tip displacement spectrum for
318  60 m/s at 10 m height
319  5.2. Low Cycle Fatigue

320  The duration of the hurricane compared to total life of the wind turbine is short; however, since

321  the loads exerted on the structure during hurricane are very large, the cycles of loading and low

322  cycle fatigue are important. The fatigue damage on the structure can be represented as Miner’s

323  Rule (Miner, 1945) as:

(14)

324  where is the damage index, is load case number, is total number of load cases, is

325  number of load cycles for case , and represents number of load cycles to failure for case .

326  Studies conducted by Coffin Jr (1954) and Manson (1965) related the number of cycles to crack

327  initiation to the amplitude of plastic strain. Together with study carried out by Basquin (1910),

328  the well-known strain-life (ε-N) model was introduced as eq. 15:

, , 2 2 (15)

20 
 
329  where the total strain amplitude, , , is divided into elastic, , , and plastic, , , components.

330  , represents fatigue strength coefficient, is the Young modulus, 2 is the number of cycles

331  to fatigue failure (crack initiation), is fatigue ductility coefficient, and and are fatigue

332  strength and ductility exponents respectively. The first and second terms in right hand side of the

333  eq. 15, represent the strain caused by elastic and plastic parts respectively which are shown in

334  Figure 8a. The Coffin-Manson model follows a continuum mechanics approach and assumes that

335  the material is homogeneous and isotropic. Hence it can represent the low cycle fatigue in the

336  wind turbine steel tower. By applying Basquin’s exponents for the elastic strain and Coffin’s

337  exponents for plastic strain parts of the eq. 15 (Ellyin, 2012), the eq. 15 simplifies to:

3.5 . . (16)

338  The low cycle fatigue also can affect the composite fiberglass materials (Carvelli et al., 2010;

339  Karahan et al., 2011) which are used in blade structure. Conventional test-load methods and

340  simplified load spectrum methods are the most common models for fatigue analysis of the blades

341  (Freebury and Musial, 2000). In simplified load spectrum method, the S-N curves and M-N

342  curves (applied moment vs. allowable cycles to failure) can be used as:

/ (17)

/ (18)

343  where and are moment and stress amplitude in one load cycle respectively, and are

344  ultimate moment and stress of the blade, is the allowable cycles to failure, and is the slope

21 
 
345  of the curve. Many database of fiberglass laminates showed that the slope of the curve, , range

346  from 6 to 12 (Freebury and Musial, 2000; Mandell and Samborsky, 1997). Commonly poor

347  performing fabrics and laminates with fabrication flaw such as resin and etc. have slopes close to

348  6; however, by improving the material quality, the slope would have values close to 12. Figure

349  8b show the normalized stress (or normalized moment) versus allowable number of cycles to

350  failure for different slopes.

0
10
Elastic Strain
Plastic Strain
Total Strain

10-2

10-4
100 102 104 106
(a) Log (N )
f
351  Figure 8. (a) Coffin-Manson ε-N curve and (b) fiberglass σ-N curve

352  In this study, since the mean wind speeds and turbulence intensities of various models were

353  identical, the mean load and accordingly the mean damage index caused by fatigue were almost

354  the same; however, different turbulence spectrums resulted in different damage indices in

355  buffeting responses. By considering 2 hours of hurricane loading on the wind farm location,

356  Figure 9a presents tower base buffeting damage indices where the spectrums Model A and

357  Model B have average 53% smaller and 12% larger damage indices compared to Kaimal et al.

358  (1972) models. Figure 9b also shows the blade root damage indices for different wind speeds and

359  hurricane categories where spectrum Model A and Model B resulted in 96% smaller and 24%

360  larger damage indices compared to Kaimal et al. (1972) model. Although structural responses

22 
 
361  caused by spectrum Model B has small difference with Kaimal et al. (1972) model, low cycle

362  fatigue analysis of the tower and blades showed that the Model B results in higher damage

363  indices compared to other spectrum models.

(a) (b)
364  Figure 9. (a) 2 hours tower base buffeting damage indices and (b) blade root buffeting
365  damage indices for different hurricane models and hurricane categories

366  During the wind turbine parked (stand-still) condition, the blades have 90° pitch angle which

367  decreases the edge-wise moments which is the reason that the damage indices for blade edge-

368  wise root moments are very small. In this study, the spectrum Model B only represents the

369  longitudinal fluctuation components. Hence, further research is needed to address lateral

370  fluctuation components of Model B and investigate the responses such as tower side to side

371  moment, blade flap-wise moments, and damage indices correlated with lateral components.

372  5.3. Extreme Value Analysis

373  IEC 61400-3 (2009) provides recommendations for extreme value analysis and long term load

374  extrapolations for different wind turbine classes; however, for special conditions such as

375  hurricane, it defines class S, where the values should be specified by the designer. Hence, for

376  better understanding the required values for class S, a comparison between IEC 61400-3 (2009)

377  recommendations and results of current study was carried out. For this purpose, the wind turbine

23 
 
378  class I in an low turbulence offshore region (similar to recent observations (Yu et al., 2008)) was

379  selected where the reference wind speed and turbulence intensity at hub height were 50 m/s and

380  12% respectively (IEC 61400-3, 2009).

381  In order to conduct an extreme value analysis, there are several methods such as direct

382  integration, first order reliability method (FORM), and inverse first order reliability method

383  (IFORM) (Agarwal and Manuel, 2009; Ragan and Manuel, 2008). The direct integration method

384  which is the most straight forward method can be expressed as (Ragan and Manuel, 2008):

1 | (19)

385  where is the probability that load resulted from 10 minute simulation exceed

386  the load value of , | represents the cumulative distribution of load value in the wind

387  speed bin , and is the wind speed distribution. The most basic way to use direct

388  integration method is the method of global maxima. In this case, for each 10 minute simulation

389  the global maxima can be detected and the best distribution are fitted on the observed maxima.

390  Another common way for using the direct integration method is to use the method of peak-over

391  threshold (POT). In the POT method, a threshold is selected and the local maxima are captured.

392  Then the exceedance probability can be restated as:

1 | (20)

393  where is the expected number of peaks above the selected threshold. According to IEC 61400-

394  1 (2005) and IEC 61400-3 (2009), the 10 minutes averaging duration is standard for wind turbine

24 
 
395  analysis. In this case, the probability to observe a load larger than -years load, , can be

396  expressed as:

1/ 365.25 24 6 1.90 10 / (21)

397  In order to compare IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendation and results of new hurricane

398  turbulence models, the extreme wind speed model (EWM) with 50-years recurrence period (50

399  m/s @ hub height) was considered which reduced eq. 21 to:

50 3.80 10 (22)

400  Choosing an appropriate threshold and distribution for exceedance probability are important for

401  extreme value analysis (Agarwal and Manuel, 2009; IEC 61400-3, 2009; Ragan and Manuel,

402  2008). The distribution representing the exceedance probability of the local maxima in each wind

403  speed should precisely represent the tail behavior. Figure 10 shows observed local maxima of

404  tower buffeting base moment with different POTs where Weibull, lognormal, and generalized

405  extreme value (GEV) distributions are fitted on the data (SD: Standard Deviation). By increasing

406  the threshold value, the POT method leads in the method of global maxima.

25 
 
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
407  Figure 10. Fitted distributions on local maxima based on different thresholds as (a) 1.4SD,
408  (b) 2.0SD, (c) 2.5SD, and (d) 3.0SD

409  The direct integration method with a POT of 1.4 time standard deviation (IEC 61400-1, 2005)

410  was applied for extreme value analysis of the tower fore-aft base and blade root edge-wise

411  moments. In addition, three mentioned distributions for fitting local maxima in this section were

412  used for the analysis. Figure 11 shows the response extreme value analysis of the three

413  turbulence models by assuming different distributions compared to IEC 61400-3 (2009)

414  recommendations. At 50-years return period, by assuming Weibull distribution for tower

415  buffeting fore-aft moment, IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations are larger than resulted

416  extreme values from all turbulence models; however, IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations are

26 
 
417  smaller than results of GEV assumption (Figure 11a, c, e). Hence, by assuming Weibull and

418  GEV distributions respectively, IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations for wind turbine class I

419  are conservative and non-conservative for designing the tower of wind turbine class S subjected

420  to hurricane.

421  Blades response extreme value analysis showed that for Kaimal et al. (1972) and Model B, all

422  three distributions resulted in larger extreme values than IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations

423  (Figure 11b, f); however, for Model A, Weibull and GEV distributions resulted in smaller and

424  larger values than IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations respectively (Figure 11d).
Exceedance Probability

Exceedance Probability

(a) (b)
Exceedance Probability

Exceedance Probability

(c) (d)

27 
 
 Exceedance Probability

Exceedance Probability
(e) (f)
425  Figure 11. Extreme value analysis of fore-aft buffeting base moment (a: Kaimal et al.
426  (1972), c: Model A, e: Model B) and blade root edge-wise moment (b: Kaimal et al. (1972),
427  d: Model A, f: Model B) using different distributions

428  The comparison of the different distributions for extreme value analysis showed that, Weibull

429  distributions has the smallest extreme values for tower and blades. Hence the IEC 61400-3

430  (2009) recommendations compared to Weibull distribution results, will be the condition for

431  proposing minimum changes in IEC 61400-3 (2009). By assuming Weibull distribution for local

432  maxima, Figure 12a shows the extreme values of tower buffeting base moment for three different

433  turbulence models where the IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations resulted in 30%, 37%, and

434  18% larger values than Kaimal et al. (1972), Model A and Model B respectively. For blade root

435  edge-wise moment, the IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations resulted in underestimating the

436  blade buffeting responses compared to conventional Kaimal et al. (1972) model and spectrum

437  Model B (Figure 12b). Table 5 shows the values of tower buffeting fore-aft base moment and

438  blade root buffeting edge-wise moment extrapolated for 50-years return period.

28 
 
 (a) (b)
439  Figure 12. Extreme value analysis of the (a) tower buffeting base moment, (b) blade root
440  buffeting edge-wise moment

441  Table 5. 50-years return period buffeting responses for different models
Response Kaimal et al. Model A Model B IEC 61400-3
(1972) (2009)
Tower Buffeting base
64.07 60.12 70.68 83.38
moment (MNm)
Blade Root edge-wise
3.54 1.17 3.78 1.67
moment (MNm)
442 

443  The extreme value analysis of along-wind responses depicted that by assuming Weibull

444  distribution for local maxima, for designing the tower, the IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations

445  for turbine class I can be used for class S; however, for designing the blades subjected to

446  hurricane, IEC 61400-3 (2009) should be reconsidered.

447  6. Conclusions

448  This paper studied the effects of newly observed hurricane turbulence models on offshore wind

449  turbines by considering unsteady aerodynamic forces on the tower and wind-wave-soil-structure

450  interaction. For this purpose, first, the recent observations and presented turbulence models were

451  discussed. Then, the Model A, with high amount of turbulence energy in low frequencies and

452  Model B, with high amount of energy in high frequencies were introduced. Next, the unsteady

453  formulation for wind turbine tower was introduced and NREL-FAST package was modified with

29 
 
454  new formulation. Later, the new turbulence models as well as new unsteady aerodynamic

455  formulation was used for simulations. The five Saffir-Simpson hurricane categories as well as

456  wind induced wave field was generated. The goals were analyzing the tower and blade structural

457  buffeting responses, the low cycle fatigue during different hurricane categories, and extreme

458  value analysis of the responses for comparison with existing standard recommendations. At the

459  end the followings were concluded:

460  - Analysis of the tower buffeting base moments showed that spectrum Model B and

461  conventional Kaimal et al. (1972) model almost resulted in identical responses with 1%

462  difference; however, spectrum Model A resulted in almost 7% smaller responses. The

463  tower tip displacements of Model A and Model B resulted in average 6% smaller and 1%

464  larger responses than Kaimal et al. (1972) model respectively. Spectral analysis of the

465  tower tip displacement showed that Model A, in low frequency responses (background

466  responses) has higher amount of energy compared two other two spectrum models which

467  was consistent with characteristics of spectrum model A. All three spectrums had similar

468  response energy around 1st tower fore-aft frequency; however, in higher frequencies,

469  spectrum Model A, had smaller amount of energy compared to other two counterparts.

470  - For blade root edge-wise moment, since the blade responses were mostly involved with

471  aerodynamic forces rather than wave forces, the differences between models were more

472  evident. Model A and Model B resulted in 57% smaller and 9% larger responses than

473  conventional Kaimal et al. (1972) respectively. The blade tip displacement results from

474  three different models showed that the spectrum Model A and B resulted in 62% larger

475  and 7% smaller responses respectively compared to Kaimal et al. (1972) model. The

476  spectral analysis of the blade tip responses showed that the 1st blade edge-wise frequency

30 
 
477  which is located in relatively high frequencies is the most important resonant part of the

478  responses. On the other hand, spectrum Model A has low amount of energy in high

479  frequencies. Hence the level of response energy resulted from spectrum Model A is

480  smaller than other two spectrums. The lower amount of spectral response of Model A

481  compared two other two models, especially in the 1st blade edge-wise frequency range,

482  resulted in large difference between maximum blade tip displacements of Model A

483  compared to other models.

484  - Although the mean fatigue damage was identical between models, different turbulence

485  models can cause different low cycle fatigue damages due to buffeting forces. By

486  considering 2 hours of different hurricane categories on the wind farm location, the

487  spectrum Model A and Model B resulted in average 53% smaller and 12% larger damage

488  indices compared to Kaimal et al. (1972) model. In addition, spectrum Model A and

489  Model B resulted in 96% smaller and 24% larger damage indices compared to Kaimal et

490  al. (1972) model for blade root buffeting edge-wise moment.

491  - In order to compare the responses of short term analysis of the offshore wind turbine with

492  IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations for 50-years return period, an extreme value

493  analysis was carried out. For the extreme value analysis, the direct integration method

494  with peak over threshold (POT) approach was used. The extreme value analysis of along-

495  wind responses depicted that by assuming Weibull distribution for local maxima, for

496  designing the tower, the IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations for turbine class I can be

497  used for class S; however, for designing the blades subjected to hurricane, IEC 61400-3

498  (2009) should be reconsidered. On the other hand, assuming GEV distribution showed

31 
 
499  that IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendation for turbine class I, should be revised for

500  designing tower and blades of turbine class S subjected to hurricane.

501  - The comparison of three different distributions for fitting local maxima in extreme value

502  analysis showed that, Weibull distribution has the smallest extreme values for tower and

503  blades. Hence the IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations compared to Weibull

504  distribution results, will be the condition for proposing minimum changes in IEC 61400-3

505  (2009). By using the Weibull distributions, the results showed that for the tower fore-aft

506  buffeting base moment, the IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations resulted in 30%, 37%,

507  and 18% larger values than Kaimal et al. (1972), Model A and Model B respectively;

508  however, the IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations resulted in underestimating the blade

509  edge-wise buffeting responses compared to conventional Kaimal et al. (1972) model and

510  spectrum Model B. Hence, for designing the tower for special events such as hurricane,

511  the IEC 61400-3 (2009) recommendations for turbine class I can be used for wind turbine

512  class S; however, for designing the blades subjected to hurricane, IEC 61400-3 (2009)

513  should be reconsidered.

514  7. Acknowledgements

515  The research reported here is supported in part by the National Science Foundation CMMI Grant

516  1252736. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the

517  authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.

518  8. References
519  Agarwal, P., Manuel, L., 2009. Simulation of offshore wind turbine response for long-term
520  extreme load prediction. Engineering structures 31 (10), 2236-2246.

32 
 
521  Amirinia, G., Jung, S., 2017. Along-wind buffeting responses of wind turbines subjected to
522  hurricanes considering unsteady aerodynamics of the tower. Engineering structures 138, 337-
523  350.

524  Amirinia, G., Jung, S., 2016. Time domain analysis of unsteady aerodynamic forces on a parked
525  wind turbine tower subjected to high winds, 8th International Colloquium on Bluff Body
526  Aerodynamics and Applications., Boston, US.

527  Amirinia, G., Jung, S., Alduse, B.P., 2015. Effect of different hurricane spectrums on wind
528  turbine loads and responses, AWEA Wind Power Conference, Orlando, US,.

529  Balderrama, J., Masters, F., Gurley, K., Prevatt, D., Aponte-Bermúdez, L., Reinhold, T., Pinelli,
530  J.-P., Subramanian, C., Schiff, S., Chowdhury, A., 2011. The Florida coastal monitoring program
531  (FCMP): A review. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 99 (9), 979-995.

532  Basquin, O., 1910. The exponential law of endurance tests, proc. ASTM, p. 625.

533  Caracoglia, L., Jones, N.P., 2009. Analysis of full-scale wind and pressure measurements on a
534  low-rise building. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 97 (5), 157-173.

535  Carvelli, V., Gramellini, G., Lomov, S.V., Bogdanovich, A.E., Mungalov, D.D., Verpoest, I.,
536  2010. Fatigue behavior of non-crimp 3D orthogonal weave and multi-layer plain weave E-glass
537  reinforced composites. Composites science and technology 70 (14), 2068-2076.

538  Chen, X., Matsumoto, M., Kareem, A., 2000. Time domain flutter and buffeting response
539  analysis of bridges. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 126 (1), 7-16.

540  Clobes, M., Peil, U., 2011. Unsteady buffeting wind loads in the time domain and their effect on
541  the life-cycle prediction of guyed masts. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 7 (1-2), 187-
542  196.

543  Coffin Jr, L.F., 1954. A study of the effects of cyclic thermal stresses on a ductile metal. trans.
544  ASME 76, 931-950.

545  Davenport, A., 1977. The prediction of the response of structures to gusty wind. Safety of
546  structures under dynamic loading 1, 257-284.

547  Davenport, A.G., 1961. The spectrum of horizontal gustiness near the ground in high winds.
548  Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 87 (372), 194-211.

549  Durst, C., 1960. Wind speeds over short periods of time. Meteorological Magazine 89 (1960),
550  181-186.

551  Ellyin, F., 2012. Fatigue damage, crack growth and life prediction. Springer Science & Business
552  Media.

553  Fiedler, F., Panofsky, H.A., 1970. Atmospheric scales and spectral gaps. Bulletin of the
554  American Meteorological Society 51 (12), 1114-1120.

33 
 
555  Freebury, G., Musial, W.D., 2000. Determining equivalent damage loading for full-scale wind
556  turbine blade fatigue tests. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

557  Gong, K., Chen, X., 2015. Improved modeling of equivalent static loads on wind turbine towers.
558  Wind and Structures 20 (5), 609-622.

559  Guo, Y., Damiani, R., Musial, W., 2014. Simulating Turbulent Wind Fields for Offshore
560  Turbines in Hurricane-Prone Regions (Poster). National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),
561  Golden, CO.

562  Han, T., McCann, G., Mücke, T., Freudenreich, K., 2014. How can a wind turbine survive in
563  tropical cyclone? Renewable Energy 70, 3-10.

564  IEC 61400-1, 2005. IEC 61400-1: Wind turbines part 1: Design requirements. International
565  Electrotechnical Commission.

566  IEC 61400-3, 2009. Wind turbines – Part 3: Design requirements for offshore wind turbines.
567  International Electrotechnical Commission 3.

568  Jonkman, B.J., 2009. TurbSim user's guide: version 1.50. National Renewable Energy
569  Laboratory Golden, CO, USA.

570  Jonkman, J., Musial, W., 2010. Offshore code comparison collaboration (OC3) for IEA task 23
571  offshore wind technology and deployment. Contract 303, 275-3000.

572  Jonkman, J., Robertson, A., Hayman, G., 2014. HydroDyn user’s guide and theory manual.
573  National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

574  Jonkman, J.M., Buhl Jr, M.L., 2005. FAST user’s guide. National Renewable Energy
575  Laboratory, Golden, CO, Technical Report No. NREL/EL-500-38230.

576  Jonkman, J.M., Butterfield, S., Musial, W., Scott, G., 2009. Definition of a 5-MW reference
577  wind turbine for offshore system development. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden,
578  CO, USA.

579  Jung, S., Masters, F., 2013. Characterization of open and suburban boundary layer wind
580  turbulence in 2008 Hurricane Ike. Wind and Structures 17 (2), 135-162.

581  Kaimal, J., Wyngaard, J., Izumi, Y., Coté, O., 1972. Spectral characteristics of surface‐layer
582  turbulence. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 98 (417), 563-589.

583  Karahan, M., Lomov, S.V., Bogdanovich, A.E., Verpoest, I., 2011. Fatigue tensile behavior of
584  carbon/epoxy composite reinforced with non-crimp 3D orthogonal woven fabric. Composites
585  science and technology 71 (16), 1961-1972.

586  Kim, E., Manuel, L., 2013. On the Extreme Rotor and Support Structure Response of an
587  Offshore Wind Turbine in an Evolving Hurricane, ASME 2013 32nd International Conference

34 
 
588  on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp.
589  V008T009A082-V008T009A082.

590  Kim, E., Manuel, L., 2014. Hurricane-Induced Loads on Offshore Wind Turbines with
591  Considerations for Nacelle Yaw and Blade Pitch Control. Wind Engineering 38 (4), 413-424.

592  Kim, E., Manuel, L., Curcic, M., Chen, S.S., Phillips, C., Veers, P., 2016. On the Use of Coupled
593  Wind, Wave, and Current Fields in the Simulation of Loads on Bottom-Supported Offshore
594  Wind Turbines during Hurricanes. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),
595  Golden, CO (United States)).

596  Lee, S., Churchfield, M.J., Moriarty, P.J., Jonkman, J., Michalakes, J., 2013. A numerical study
597  of atmospheric and wake turbulence impacts on wind turbine fatigue loadings. Journal of Solar
598  Energy Engineering 135 (3), 031001.

599  Li, C., Bao, G., Cao, Y., Zhou, J., Liu, M., 2014. Wind-Induced Fatigue Loading and Its Effect
600  on the Stability of Wind Power Foundations, New Frontiers in Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE,
601  pp. 78-87.

602  Li, L., Xiao, Y., Kareem, A., Song, L., Qin, P., 2012. Modeling typhoon wind power spectra near
603  sea surface based on measurements in the South China sea. Journal of Wind Engineering and
604  Industrial Aerodynamics 104, 565-576.

605  Mandell, J.F., Samborsky, D.D., 1997. DOE/MSU composite material fatigue database: test
606  methods, materials, and analysis. Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States).

607  Manson, S., 1965. Fatigue: a complex subject—some simple approximations. Experimental
608  mechanics 5 (7), 193-226.

609  Miner, M.A., 1945. Cumulative damage in fatigue. Journal of applied mechanics 12 (3), 159-
610  164.

611  Ragan, P., Manuel, L., 2008. Statistical extrapolation methods for estimating wind turbine
612  extreme loads. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 130 (3), 031011.

613  Rose, S., Jaramillo, P., Small, M.J., Grossmann, I., Apt, J., 2012. Quantifying the hurricane risk
614  to offshore wind turbines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (9), 3247-3252.

615  Schroeder, J.L., Smith, D.A., 2003. Hurricane Bonnie wind flow characteristics as determined
616  from WEMITE. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 91 (6), 767-789.

617  Sebastian, T., Lackner, M., 2013. Characterization of the unsteady aerodynamics of offshore
618  floating wind turbines. Wind Energy 16 (3), 339-352.

619  Simpson, R.H., Saffir, H., 1974. The hurricane disaster potential scale. Weatherwise 27 (8), 169.

35 
 
620  Singer, I., Busch, N., Frizzola, J., 1968. The micrometeorology of the turbulent flow field in the
621  atmospheric boundary surface layer, Proceedings of international research seminar on wind
622  effects on buildings and structures, Ottawa, University of Toronto Press, pp. 557-594.

623  Solari, G., 1987. Turbulence modeling for gust loading. Journal of Structural Engineering 113
624  (7), 1550-1569.

625  Sorensen, R.M., 2005. Basic coastal engineering. Springer Science & Business Media.

626  Strømmen, E., 2010. Theory of bridge aerodynamics. Springer Science & Business Media.

627  Teunissen, H., 1970. Characteristics of the mean wind and turbulence in the planetary boundary
628  layer. DTIC Document.

629  Tibaldi, C., Henriksen, L., Hansen, M., Bak, C., 2015. Wind turbine fatigue damage evaluation
630  based on a linear model and a spectral method. Wind Energy.

631  Tieleman, H.W., 1995. Universality of velocity spectra. Journal of Wind Engineering and
632  Industrial Aerodynamics 56 (1), 55-69.

633  U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1977. Shore protection manual, 3rd ed.
634  Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

635  Von Karman, T., 1948. Progress in the statistical theory of turbulence. Proceedings of the
636  National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 34 (11), 530.

637  Yu, B., Chowdhury, A.G., Masters, F.J., 2008. Hurricane wind power spectra, cospectra, and
638  integral length scales. Boundary-layer meteorology 129 (3), 411-430.
639 

36 
 

View publication stats