Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Energy
Available
Available Procedia
online
online 00 (2017) 000–000
atatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy
EnergyProcedia
Procedia137 (2017) 000–000
00 (2017) 186–195
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
14th Deep Sea Offshore Wind R&D Conference, EERA DeepWind'2017, 18-20 January 2017,
14th Deep Sea Offshore Wind R&D Trondheim,
Conference,Norway
EERA DeepWind'2017, 18-20 January 2017,
Trondheim, Norway
Design Basis for the Feasibility Evaluation of Four Different Floater
Design Basis
Thefor
15ththe Feasibility
International Evaluation
Symposium on Districtof Fourand
Heating Different
Cooling Floater
Designs
Designs
Assessing the feasibility of using the heat demand-outdoor
G K V Ramachandrana*, L Vitaaa, A Kriegeraa, and K Muellerbb
a
temperature
G K function for
V Ramachandran a *,long-term
L Vita , A Kriegerdistrict, and
DNV GL Renewables Certification, Denmark
a
heat demand forecast
K Mueller
b a
Stuttgart Wind EnergyDNV GL Renewables
at Insitute Certification,
of Aircraft Denmark
Design, University of Stuttgart, Germany
a,b,c
I. Andrić b
*, A. Pina , P. Ferrão , J. Fournier ., B. Lacarrière , O. Le Correc
a a b c
Stuttgart Wind Energy at Insitute of Aircraft Design, University of Stuttgart, Germany

a
AbstractIN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
b
Abstract Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France
c
Floating wind turbines are gainingÉnergétiques
Département Systèmes focus as the et Environnement
technology is -advancing
IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred
and more Kastler,
and more 44300 Nantes,projects
demonstration France are being
Floating
deployed.wind Theturbines are gaining
key aspects for focus as the technology
this development is advancing
are maturing theand more and towards
technology more demonstration projects
cost effective are being
solutions for
deployed. The keyIn aspects
commercialization. for this
this context, development
the European Union arefunding
maturing for the research
technology towards
project cost as
LIFEs50+ effective
part of solutions
Horizon2020for
commercialization.
framework becomesInmore thisand
context,
more the European
relevant for theUnion funding/ for
development the research project
commercialization LIFEs50+
of floating as part of
wind turbines Horizon2020
/ wind farm. To
Abstract
framework
obtain cost becomes
effectivemore and more
designs, relevant for
it is important to the development
characterize the /correct
commercialization of floating
site environmental wind turbines
conditions such as/ wind
wind,farm. To
waves,
obtain cost
current, etc..effective
Based ondesigns, it is
these site importantappropriate
conditions, to characterize
designthe correct are
concepts sitechosen.
environmental conditions
Once a specific suchconcept
design as wind, waves,
is chosen,
District heating networks are commonly addressed in the literature as one of the most effective solutions for decreasing the
current, etc..
relevant designBased on these site
methodologies as conditions, appropriate
per the existing standardsdesign
shallconcepts
be agreed areupon
chosen. Onceare
as there a specific design such
several parties concept is chosen,
as met-ocean
greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. These systems require high investments which are returned through the heat
relevant foundation
experts, design methodologies as per
designer, wind the existing
turbine supplier,standards shall agencies,
certification be agreed etc.,
uponare as involved.
there are several
As the parties
design such as met-ocean
methodologies are
sales. Due to the changed climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease,
experts, defined,
clearly foundation all designer, windcan
the experts turbine supplier,
initiate certification
the design processagencies,
in parallel.etc.,Inaregeneral,
involved. theAsabove
the design methodologies
mentioned are
process (the
prolonging the investment return period.
clearly defined,conditions
environmental all the experts can initiate
and design the design
methodology process
including in parallel.
the design load Incasegeneral,
table) isthedocumented,
above mentioned
which is process
termed(the
as
The main scope of this paper is to assess the feasibility of using the heat demand – outdoor temperature function for heat demand
environmental
Design Basis. Inconditions
this paper,and
the design
focus ismethodology including theofdesign
given to the development load case
a generalized table)
design is documented,
basis, whichthree
which categorizes is termed as
different
forecast. The district of Alvalade, located in Lisbon (Portugal), was used as a case study. The district is consisted of 665
Design
sites alongBasis.
withIndesign
this paper, the focus isforgiven
methodologies to the development
the design concepts along of with
a generalized
the process design basis,for
followed which categorizes three
the development of thedifferent
generic
buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district
sites along
design with
basis. Bydesign methodologies
this way, different for the design
interested concepts
parties along use
can make withofthethe
process
designfollowed
basis toforfill
theindevelopment
the relevantofdata
the generic
and to
renovation scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were
design basis.
understand how Bythese
this data
way,would
different interested
influence parties
the global can make use of the design basis to fill in the relevant data and to
design.
compared with results from a dynamic heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors.
understand how these data would influence the global design.
The results showed that when only weather change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© (the
2017error
TheinAuthors.
annual demand
Authors. Published was lower
byElsevier
Elsevierthan 20% for all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation
Ltd.
© 2017
Peer-reviewThe Published
under responsibility by
of SINTEFLtd. Energi AS.
Peer-review
scenarios, the under responsibility
error of SINTEF
value increased Energi(depending
up to 59.5% AS. on the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered).
Peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS.
The value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the
Keywords: Floating wind turbines; design basis; LIFEs50+;
decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending on the combination of weather and
Keywords: Floating wind turbines; design basis; LIFEs50+;
renovation scenarios considered). On the other hand, function intercept increased for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the
coupled scenarios). The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and
improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

* Corresponding
Peer-review author.
under Tel.: +45-60433820;
responsibility fax: +0-000-000-0000
of the Scientific Committee of. The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
* Corresponding
E-mail
Cooling. author.
address: Tel.: +45-60433820; fax:
Gireesh.Ramachandran@dnvgl.com +0-000-000-0000 .
E-mail address: Gireesh.Ramachandran@dnvgl.com
1876-6102
Keywords:©Heat
2017demand;
The Authors. Published
Forecast; Climatebychange
Elsevier Ltd.
1876-6102
Peer-review©under
2017responsibility
The Authors. of
Published
SINTEFby Elsevier
Energi AS.Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS.

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS.
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.345
 GKV Ramachandran et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 186–195 187
2 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

1. Nomenclature

The nomenclature and abbreviations used in this paper are detailed below:

Nomenclature

AEP Annual Energy Production

ALS Accident Limit State
DLC Design Load Case
DTU Technical University of Denmark
ECD Extreme Coherent gust with Direction change
EOG Extreme Operating Gust
EU European Union
FLS Fatigue Limit State
KPI Key Performance Indicator
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PLF Partial Load Factor
RNA Rotor Nacelle Assembly
SLS Serviceability Limit State
TLP Tension Leg Platform
TRL Technology Readiness Level
ULS Ultimate Limit State

2. Introduction

Floating wind turbines are becoming popular and the developments are reaching the level of commercial
deployment, once such example is the first pilot floating wind farm off the Scottish coast [1]. In this context, as part
of Horizon2020 framework, the European Union has granted funding for the research project LIFEs50+ in order to
reduce production, installation, and O&M costs for water depths of more than 50 m [2]. The objectives of the project
are to optimize and qualify to a technology readiness level TRL of 5 (which is a requirement set out by the
LIFEs50+ consortium for commercialization of floater designs), two innovative substructure designs for 10MW
turbines, and to develop a streamlined and key performance indicator (KPI) –based methodology for evaluation and
qualification process of floating substructures. For the project three generic sites viz. Site A (mild sea state), Site B
(moderate sea state), and Site C (severe sea state) are considered with four floater concepts viz. Semi-submersible by
Olav Olsen, Tension Leg Platform (TLP) by Iberdrola, Semi-submersible by Nautilus, and a moon-pool barge type
concept by Ideol. Details of the sites and floater concepts are described in [3]. All the floaters will be mounted with
DTU 10MW reference wind turbine [4].
Since floating wind turbines consist of several components and multi-disciplinary technologies, there are several
parties involved for the design of a concept such as the wind turbines (RNA and tower), floater, station-keeping
system, anchoring system, flexible power cables etc.. All these components and systems are subjected to site-specific
environmental conditions such as wind, waves, current, tidal variations, wind/wave misalignments etc.. These
environmental conditions are in general divided into operational conditions (which determines the Fatigue Limit
State (FLS) design) and extreme conditions (used for the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) design). A design basis serves
as an interface between the site-specific environmental data and the concept design.
In the present paper, the site conditions described in [5] for the three sites investigated in LIFEs50+ project are
summarized. The focus is given to the four floater concepts mentioned above and the scope of the analysis is the
feasibility study of the concepts (e.g. first design iteration). Starting from the site conditions, it is detailed how to
obtain simplified conservative values for the first design iteration (as it is not practical to have the comprehensive
188 GKV Ramachandran et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 186–195
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

design parameters (for instance, model test results, or site geotechnical test data etc.,) at this design stage,
assumptions are made to use conservative values in order to have the design feasible even after successive iterations
/ modifications) and how the different sites can/cannot be representative of different standard / generic
environmental conditions etc.. Further, while the design is in the preliminary stage, the assumptions that are chosen
for a conservative feasibility assessment such as wave lumping, wave peak enhancement factor, wind/wave
misalignment, wind speed bin width, FLS methodology etc., as per [6], [7] are illustrated. In addition, the design-
dependent parameters and the assumption, if any, are detailed. Finally, the paper discusses the challenges and
relevance of each and every aspect of design basis and its possible implication on the design such as the
methodology to deal with probable exceedance of the Serviceability Limit States (SLS) etc.,

3. Sites

Three types of sites are chosen for the present investigation. They are given as follows along with locational
sketch:
 Site A – mild sea states (e.g. Golfe de Fos area, France)
 Site B – moderate sea states (e.g. Gulf of Maine area, USA)
 Site C – severe sea states (e.g. West of Barra area, Scotland)

Site C

Site A

Site B

Figure 1 – Locational sketch for the sites (Courtesy: www.maps.google.com)

Typical site conditions for these sites were obtained by LIFEs50+ participants (Iberdrola and Tecnalia) based on
the publicly available data from the representative sites provided above as examples, see [5]. The important site
conditions for these sites, which will form the basis for the design, are given below. In the following table, please
note that the mean freestream turbulence intensity at 15 m/s deviates from the IEC requirements considering the
benign offshore turbulence conditions and the much higher wake induced effective turbulence intensity if IEC
standard turbulence intensity is used. Hence, based on the LIFEs50+ deliverable on generic layout for the three sites,
the proposed value of 8.5% has been used. The detailed site conditions are provided in Appendix A of [3].

Table 1. Important site conditions.

Parameter Site A Site B Site C
Water depth, m 70 130 100
Water level range (absolute), m 1.48 5.12 6.64
Wind conditions
Operational Mean air density, kg/m3 1.225 1.225 1.225
conditions Weibull scale parameter, A, m/s 11.0 10.46 11.74
Weibull shape parameter, k, - 1.6 1.701 2.096
Annual average wind speed, 9.0 6.214 9.089
Vave,hub, m/s
Wind shear exponent, - 0.14 0.14 0.14
 GKV Ramachandran et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 186–195 189
4 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Mean free turbulence intensity at 8.5 8.5 8.5

15m/s, I15, %
Extreme Mean air density, kg/m3 1.225 1.225 1.225
conditions 10 min. mean reference wind 37.0 44.0 50.0
speed (50 years return period) at
hub height, Vref, m/s
2 sec. gust wind speed (50 years 52.0 62.7 75.3
return period) at hub height, Ve50,
m/s
Extreme wind shear exponent, - 0.11 0.11 0.12
Wave conditions
Normal Sea States Please see Section 7.5.1 of [3] for NSS
(NSS)
Extreme Sea 50-year significant wave height, 7.5 10.9 15.6
States (ESS) Hs50,3h, m
50-year peak period range, 8.0 - 11.0 9.0 - 16.0 12.0 - 18.0
Tp50,3hmin - Tp50,3hmax, s
1-year significant wave height, 4.0 7.7 11.5
Hs1,3h, m
1-year peak period range, T p1,3hmin 6.0 - 11.0 9.0 - 16.0 12.0 - 18.0
- Tp1,3hmax, s
Severe Sea States Significant wave height up to the 4.0 7.7 11.5
(SSS) rated wind speed, m
Significant wave height beyond 7.5 10.9 15.6
the rated wind speed, m

4. Floater concepts

Four floater concepts are investigated here:

A B C D

Figure 2 – Schematic of four concepts

190 GKV Ramachandran et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 186–195
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

4.1. Ideol: Concrete barge platform with moon pool (Figure 2C)

This concept is designed by Ideol. The platform is made up of concrete. Catenary mooring system is used as
station keeping system.

4.2. Nautilus: Steel semi-submersible (Figure 2A)

Nautilus semi-submersible is with four columns as floaters. It is designed for water depths of 50 to 250 m.
Catenary mooring lines along with water ballasting is used as station keeping system.

4.3. Olav Olsen: Concrete semi-submersible (Figure 2B)

The OO Star Semi concept is a semi-submersible platform with three columns, a centre shaft (turbine tower), star
pontoon, and heave plates for improved hydrodynamic stability, especially in heave (by means of additional heave
damping). The concept is assumed to be suitable for shallow water application. The station keeping system consists
of three catenary mooring lines and ballasting.

4.4. Iberdrola: Steel tension leg platform (Figure 2D)

The TLPWIND® concept consists of a central cylindrical column and four pontoons symmetrically distributed
(perpendicular) on its bottom. In the top of the central column, a conical frustum allows a smooth transition between
the main cylinder diameter and the offshore wind turbine tower diameter. The station keeping is achieved through
pre-tensioned tendons.

5. Wind turbine

The wind turbine selected for the present investigation is the DTU-10MW reference wind turbine. A detailed
description about the turbine can be found in [4]. The important parameters of the turbine are given below:

Table 2. Important parameters of DTU-10MW reference wind turbine.

Parameter Unit Value
Rated power kW 10000 (IEC Class IA)
Rotor diameter m 178.3
Hub height (w:r:to MSL) m 119.0
Power regulation Variable speed,
Collective pitch
Rated rotor speed rpm 9.6
Rotor speed range rpm 6.0 to 9.6
Rated wind speed m/s 11.4
Cut in wind speed m/s 4.0
Cut out wind speed m/s 25.0
Rotor mass kg 227962
Nacelle mass kg 446036
Tower mass kg 628442
Life time of the turbine years 25

6. Serviceability limit states (SLS)

The tolerances and operational limits are important parameters, which could affect the load level and eventually
the design. The following limits are prescribed for the present investigations based on previous experience from both
floating and bottom fixed wind turbines projects (information obtained from various project partners):
6 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
GKV Ramachandran et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 186–195 191

Inclination of tilt: Based on the assumptions, the following limits are prescribed:
 Maximum tilt during operational load cases (e.g. DLC1.2, 1.6, etc.,) is limited to 5 deg (mean value of
the time series) and 10 deg (max. value in the time series)
 Maximum tilting during non-operational load cases (e.g. DLC6.1, 6.2, etc.,) is limited to 15 deg (max.
value in the time series)
Note: Here, tower tilting means that combined pitch/roll motion occur (including both static and dynamic
contributions) and it is measured at the tower top with respect to the vertical axis (i.e. excluding geometric tilt of the
wind turbine nacelle).

Maximum acceleration: The following maximum acceleration limits are defined:

 Maximum acceleration during operational load cases (e.g. DLC1.2, 1.6, etc.,) is limited to 0.3g (max.
value in the time series)
 Maximum acceleration during non-operational load cases (e.g. DLC6.1, 6.2, etc.,) is limited to 0.6g
(max. value in the time series)
Here, acceleration due to gravity, g = 9.81 m/s2.
Note: Maximum acceleration occurs in both horizontal directions and is measured at the tower top.

Even though these limits are prescribed, it could be that during certain environmental conditions, these limits are
exceeded. In such circumstances, the following two options are proposed:
 The wind turbine operations may be curtailed

In the case of DLC 1.1 or 1.2, if the limits are exceeded (for example, acceleration limit is exceeded) for
certain environmental conditions (for example, wind speeds above 20 m/s), the turbine can be stopped at
those environ-mental conditions. In these cases, the Annual Energy Production (AEP) is calculated only
for the environmental conditions the turbine is not stopped (for example, below 20 m/s wind speed). In
the case of DLC 1.6, if the SLS criteria in extreme operational conditions cannot be met, the SLS
exceedance shall be correlated to the severe sea states. It is assumed that in such conditions, an alarm
will stop the wind turbine during these conditions (which will normally be demonstrated).

 Impact of these parameters on loads are quantified and assessed

 Influence of parameters (motions) on loads: This can be achieved by the following steps:
Step1 – simulate the DTU-10MW reference wind turbine in the bottom-fixed configuration and obtain
the envelope of loads for blade root moments, main bearing loads, tower top loads. This step would
determine, the ‘design loads’ for RNA components as often floating wind turbine projects use the
standard wind turbines off the shelf with minor modifications such as controller tuning etc..
Step2 – by considering the above load envelope as design envelope of the wind turbine, compare this
with the site-specific RNA loads. This comparison will reveal that if the loads are within the design
envelope or not. Based on this, conclusions can be arrived. In this step, the load delta due to the
additional motions or parameters can be quantified and if necessary, design iterations can be carried out.
Sensitivity analysis: Another alternative is to compare the loads between situations wherein the SLS
criteria exceeded with those wherein the SLS criteria is not exceeded.

Clearances: Clearances such as air gap etc., shall be according to the standards [6] or [7].

7. Selected Design Load Cases (DLCs)

A key aspect of the design basis is to transform the site conditions into the relevant load cases, which determine
the design. As per [6] or [7], the load cases are generally classified into Fatigue Limit State (FLS) and Ultimate
Limit State (ULS) and in addition, there are Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and Accidental Limit States (ALS).
192 GKV Ramachandran et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 186–195
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7

For the certification of a commercial offshore wind farm project, the complete list of DLCs according to [8] shall
be used. In the case of LIFEs50+ project, a subset of DLCs has been selected for a first evaluation of the feasibility
of the concepts, which is provided in Appendix A.
For the normal production cases (DLC 1.1 and 1.2), the following should be applied:
 According to the standards, the simulation should be at least three hours for ULS analysis. This could be
avoided by demonstrating through sensitivity analysis that the extreme loads are not governed by this
DLC. Lower simulation lengths can be used for fatigue analysis (one hour or less depending on the
sensitivity) and power performance.
 A wind speed bin width of 2 m/s is recommended for the analysis. For DLC 1.2, the width of the bin
should be according to the simplified fatigue distribution.
 At least three seeds per wind speeds should be used.

For the DLCs dealing with deterministic gusts (DLC 1.4 and 2.3), the gust periods and amplitudes shall be
calculated according to Section 7.3 of [3] (for more details about these standard load cases, please refer to [3] and
[9]. The details specific to floating wind turbines are given below). The sensitivity of the specific platform design to
the gust periods shall be considered in the analysis as described in [6], section 3.
 For ECD (DLC 1.4), the amplitude of the gust may be considered as defined in [9]. In addition to the
period prescribed in [9], the most relevant platform periods shall be considered, e.g. yaw periods for
platforms with relatively high frequency yaw response and low yaw damping.
 For EOG (DLC 2.3), the same considerations above apply. In addition, also the amplitude of the gust has
to be calculated depending on the gust period, see equation in section 3, §2.2.10 of [6]. This DLC also
includes a grid failure. Timing of the grid failure has to be changed with respect to the start of the gust,
in order to include the most conservative case in the analysis. This DLC would be critical as both the
amplitude and period of the EOG could be sensitive and might drive the design.

For DLC 1.6, a limited number of wind speeds may be selected depending on the wind turbine operational
parameters, e.g. cut-out, rated, and two wind speeds depending on the wind turbine operation and concept periods.
At least three seeds per wind speed shall be considered. The simulation length should be three hours. The severe sea
states could trigger some of the substructure loads.
For DLC 6.1 and 6.2, the same external conditions can be used for the setup of both idling cases, with the
exception of the wind direction and the safety factor. At least three seeds per wind direction shall be considered (the
three seeds are suggested as a minimum requirement for the first design iteration expecting that three seeds would
result in slightly conservative loads. However, for the final design, the load cases shall be simulated as per [6], [7],
etc.,). The simulation length should be three hours.
For the evaluation of DLC 6.2, a sensitivity analysis can be carried out before hand, to evaluate the most severe
yaw error and consequently reduce the number of simulations. Please note that the worst wind direction may be
different for different components.
In the case of ultimate limit state analysis (ULS), the partial load factors (PLF) are defined according to [6],
section 6.1.4.1 and the statistical method followed for post-processing the results is described in [9].

7.1. Simplified fatigue analysis

The fatigue analysis will be based on the results from the global analysis. The FLS verification should include:
 RNA loads (blade root flap-wise and edge-wise, main bearing (low speed shaft) resulting bending
moment, and tower top fore-aft moments), based on simulations using effective turbulence intensity for
the material slope, m = 4. (please note that this is a highly simplified approach)
 Tower base bending moments
 Station keeping system – the focus should be on the attachment or the line tension in the moorings /
tendons depending on the design. Here, please note that the designer should include argumentation for in
the design brief for the selected checks.
 If the design of one of the above parts is driven by FLS, hot spot checks on the floater is recommended.
 GKV Ramachandran et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 186–195 193
8 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

For the calculation of damage equivalent loads, methods such as rain flow cycle counting should be applied along
with explanations and justifications for the selection.

The Following assumptions are made for the FLS analysis:

 Only one fatigue analysis (wind/wave aligned) per site is performed (DLC 1.2).
 Only loads during normal production are considered (DLC1.2) as DLC 1.2 contributes to major part of
the fatigue. This approach is considered sufficient for a preliminary assessment of the concept. Idling,
start up, and shut down cases should be included for the final assessment.
 The wind distribution and turbulence are assumed as per type class (Class C).
 Normal Sea States (NSS) and scatter diagram of significant wave height vs. mean wind speed for each of
the sites are constructed. Please see [3].
 As the effective turbulence intensities are provided for m=4 in [3], in the case of blade loads, in order to
avoid the load calculations for m=10, it is recommended to calculate the blade root FLS loads for m=4
and compare with that of the onshore configuration of the turbines (so as to understand the load
exceedances, if any).
 Only aligned wind / wave conditions are considered.

7.2. Serviceability Limit State (SLS) and Accidental Limit State (ALS) Fatigue Loads

Serviceability limits described in [6] (or defined by the floater designer) should be evaluated during the load
analysis. The results from DLC 1.1 should be used for the evaluation and a load factor of 1.0 may be used. The SLS
values and evaluation procedure are defined in Section 6 of this paper.
A number of ALS load cases are defined in Section 4, §7.1.1 to §7.1.4 of [6]. For the present case, it is
considered sufficient to consider the case of mooring failure.
This load case is only valid for the concepts having a redundant station keeping system, to carry out a
qualification of the redundancy of the station keeping system. For this purpose, characteristic environmental loads
defined as 1-year (or larger) loads can be assumed in conjunction with load factors for the ALS in the relevant safety
class. The analysis of the mooring fault should include both a transient load case (including the transient response
following the mooring line failure) and a DLC in damage conditions (after the failure).
Some clarifications on the recommended ALS load cases specified in Table 27 of [3] are given below:
 for the transient load cases:
o length of the simulations can be reduced in order to include the transient event (similarly to fault
case DLC 2.3)
o the environmental conditions should be according to the 1-year return period. Analysis according to
the governing DLCs in ULS conditions would be recommended
o both, the idling and operational conditions shall be considered for the wind turbine
o at least three seeds per case shall be used
 for the post-failure conditions:
o length of the simulation should be three hours
o the environmental conditions should be at least according to the 1-year return period
o at least three seeds should be used

8. Sensitivity Analysis to be carried out

In a preliminary design stage, it may not be possible to simulate all the load cases prescribed in [6] or [7] and
hence there could be possible deviations. These deviations shall be motivated with analysis and sensitivity studies.
These can be used to:
 ensure that the right combination of stochastic parameters and external conditions is considered for the given
return period
194 GKV Ramachandran et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 186–195
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 9

 justify assumptions and simplifications in the analysis, demonstrating that the selected methodology is
conservative for the design
 extend the validity of the preliminary analysis to later stages of the design
A list of sensitivity analysis is reported in the next section. These analyses are meant to be performed in
combination with the subset of DLCs. Sensitivity analysis shall also be performed when assumptions are made
during the design that cannot be justified with other argumentations, e.g. when simplifications in the model are used.
8.1. Sensitivity analysis for ULS

Effect of the following parameters shall be investigated:

 Wind/wave misalignment (if not assessed in the DLCs setup)
 Wave peak period/significant wave height (depending on the concept)
 Swell (if relevant)
 Mooring line orientation, with respect to the wave direction
 Wind direction, with respect to the platform orientation
 Water depth (if not included in the DLCs setup)
 Gusts and periods, e.g. evaluation of EOG in DLC 2.3
 Currents (if not included in the DLCs setup)
 Ice, marine growth, or any other factor relevant for the site under investigation but not included in the DLCs
setup.
 Optionally, effect of slamming loads (local or global), ringing loads for TLP (if relevant) etc.,

8.2. Sensitivity analysis for FLS

Effect of the following parameters shall be investigated:

 Wind/wave misalignment
 Wind direction, with respect to the platform orientation
 Ice, marine growth, or any other factor relevant for the site under investigation but not included in the DLCs
setup.

9. Conclusions

Key aspects of a design basis for the design of floating wind turbines for three sites considered for LIFEs50+
project are detailed and explained. The possible simplifications, its consequences, and requirements relevant for a
preliminary design and evaluation are discussed along with potential sensitivity studies required. In addition to the
ULS and FLS load cases, the limits and load cases for SLS and ALS are also elaborated along with
recommendations.

Acknowledgements

The present work is carried out as part of the LIFEs50+ project, which has received funding from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 640741. The funding and
support is gratefully acknowledged. Further, the contributions such as environmental data for the sites and the four
concept details from the project partners (IBERDROLA, TECNALIA, NAUTILUS, IDEOL, and OLAV OLSEN)
are thanked. Thanks to MARINTEK for allowing us to present the paper.
Appendix A. Reduced Load Case Table

A reduced load case table selected for LIFEs50+ project is given below. Please refer to [3], [6], and [7] for
detailed explanation of the symbols and acronyms used in the following table.
 GKV Ramachandran et al. / Energy Procedia 137 (2017) 186–195 195
10 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Marine Condition
D Type
Design Other
L Wind Wind & Sea of PS
Situati Conditions:
C wave Water Analy F
on Condition Waves
directional Curren Level sis
ity ts
1) Power 1.1 NTM NSS COD, UNI NCM MSL U N
Producti † Vin < Vhub < Hs = (1.25
on: Vout E[AHs|Vhub] )
1.2 NTM NSS Joint MIS, MUL NA NWLR or  F **
Vin < Vhub < prob. MSL
Vout distribution
of
Hs, Tp, Vhub
1.4 ECD NSS MIS, wind NCM MSL U N
Vhub = Vr – 2 Hs = direction
m/s, Vr, Vr + 2 E[AHs|Vhub] change
m/s
1.6 NTM SSS COD, UNI NCM NWLR U N
Vin < Vhub < Hs = Hs,SSS
Vout
2) Power 2.3 EOG NSS COD, UNI NCM MSL External or internal U A
Producti a Vhub = Vr ± 2 Hs = electrical fault
on + m/s, and Vout E[AHs|Vhub] including loss of
occurren electrical network
ce of
fault:
6.1 Turbulent - ESS MIS, MUL ECM EWLR U N
EWM Hs = Hs,50 U = U50
6) Parked Vhub = Vref
(standing 6.2 Turbulent - ESS MIS, MUL ECM EWLR Loss of electrical U A
still or EWM network
idling): Hs = Hs,50 U = U50
Vhub = Vref Yaw misalignment
of ±180 deg

References
[1] www.statoil.com
[2] www.lifes50plus.eu
[3] Ramachandran G K V, Krieger A, Vita L, Gomez Alonso P, Berque J, and Aguirre G. (2016) Design Basis, LIFES50+ Deliverable D7.2,
available at: http://lifes50plus.eu/results/.
[4] DTU Wind Energy Report-I-0092, (July 2013), Description of the DTU-10MW reference wind turbine.
[5] Gonzalez P, Sánchez G, Llana A, Gonzalez G, Berque J, Aguirre G, Norbeck J A, and Brethelsen P A. (2015) Oceanographic and
meteorological conditions for the design, LIFES50+ Deliverable D1.1, available at: http://lifes50plus.eu/results/.
[6] DNV-OS-J103, (2013), Design of floating wind turbine structures.
[7] IEC/TS 61400-3-2 Ed.1.0 Wind turbines – Part 3-2: Design requirements for floating offshore wind turbines.
[8] DNV-OS-J101, (2014), Design of offshore wind turbine structures.
[9] IEC 61400-1, Ed.3 (2005), Wind turbines – part 1: Design requirements, incl. Amendment:2010.

† As no load extrapolation is planned, simulating DLC 1.1 can be avoided as the load case is the same as that of DLC 1.2 except extrapolation.
Hence, AEP shall be calculated based on the DLC 1.2 results.