V-Shaped Semisubmersible Offshore Wind Turbine: An Alternative Concept For Offshore Wind Technology

V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine: An alternative
concept for offshore wind technology

Karimirad, M., & Michailides, C. (2015). V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine: An alternative concept
for offshore wind technology. Renewable Energy, 83, 126-143. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.04.033
Published in:
Renewable Energy
Document Version:
Peer reviewed version
Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:

Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal
Publisher rights
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/,which
permits distribution and reproduction for non-commercial purposes, provided the author and source are cited.
General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other
copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated
with these rights.
Take down policy

The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to
ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the
Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact openaccess@qub.ac.uk.
Open Access
This research has been made openly available by Queen's academics and its Open Research team. We would love to hear how access to
this research benefits you. – Share your feedback with us: http://go.qub.ac.uk/oa-feedback
Download date:06. thg 3. 2024

1 V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine: an alternative concept for
2 offshore wind technology
3 Madjid Karimirada and Constantine Michailidesb
4
5 a
Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute (MARINTEK), Marine Technology Centre, Otto
6 Nielsens veg 10, NO-7052 Trondheim, Norway (Postal address: POB 4125 Valentinlyst, NO-7450
7 Trondheim, Norway), Email address: Madjid.Karimirad@marintek.sintef.no
8 b
Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures (CeSOS), Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian
9 University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Otto Nielsens vei 10, NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway;
10 constantine.michailides@ntnu.no
11
12 Abstract
13 The design aspects of a 5-MW V-shaped semisubmersible floating wind turbine considering the
14 floater main dimensions and configurations are presented in this paper. Initially, the effect of different
15 geometry parameters that correspond to different design cases have been investigated on the hydrostatic
16 stability of the semisubmersible support platform through the comparison of righting arm and righting
17 moments. Afterwards, the dynamic behavior and performance of the V-shaped semisubmersible wind
18 turbine are presented for one of the examined design cases. Aero-hydro-servo-elastic numerical modeling
19 has been applied for achieving coupled integrated time-domain analysis in order to investigate the
20 dynamics of the V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine. The water depth is selected to be 100
21 m in order to study the feasibility of such concept in moderate water depth. The wave-induced as well as
22 wave-wind-induced motions, tension of mooring lines and functionality of wind turbine are presented and
23 discussed for selected environmental conditions. In general, the results show that the presented in the
24 present paper V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine is a promising concept which can enhance
25 the offshore wind industry.
26
27 Keywords: Floating wind turbine; V-shaped semisubmersible platform; Wave-wind-induced; Stochastic
28 dynamics; Offshore wind technology.
29
30
p. 1
31 1. Introduction
32 Offshore wind energy is widely recognized as a useful renewable energy capable to satisfy the
33 increasing energy need and to increase globally the security of energy supplies. Compared to the other
34 renewable energy resources that exist in the oceans such as waves and tides, wind energy resource
35 exploitation and its related technology is considered as matured and rather well established mainly for
36 fixed-bottom concepts and shallow water depths where several offshore wind turbines have been put into
37 operation [1,2,3]. For every possible site for installation of offshore wind turbines and depending to wave
38 and wind characteristics, seabed properties and social conditions, the usage of floating wind turbines at
39 some water depth [4,5,6] is indicated as the most appropriate mainly due to cost related issues. The
40 development of offshore wind turbines in deep waters requires further investigation. The issues related to
41 design configuration of the support structure, installation, grid connection, operation and maintenance
42 have significant effects on the cost of produced electricity. Hence, the feasibility of different floating
43 concepts needs to be addressed and innovative support structures that may help maturing the offshore
44 wind technology should be introduced and analyzed. Functionality, performance, dynamics, safety, cost
45 and power-production of a specific design are the main parameters that define the feasibility and
46 probability of success of a concept in industry (Karimirad [7]).
47 Compared to conventional fixed-bottom offshore wind turbines, floating offshore wind turbines
48 require high fidelity aero-hydro-servo-elastic coupled numerical analysis tools for their integrated
49 analysis and incorporate features as follow:
50  they introduce very low frequency modes that can affect the aerodynamic damping and stability
51 of the system,
52  for the case of semisubmersible and spar buoy support structures, they have translational and
53 rotational motions that can be coupled with the motions of the rotor-nacelle assembly,
54  they anchored to the seabed with a mooring system which must be included in the overall
55 analysis,
56  they do not need to have a slender/cylindrical support structure; hence, the hydrodynamic
57 radiation and diffraction can become important.
p. 2
58 Different floating concepts (Figure 1) considering the stability method, overall submerged shape,
59 dimensions, water surface area and mooring system can be imagined [8,9,10,11] such as spar-buoys
60 [12,13,14,15], semisubmersible [16,17,18], barges [19] and tension leg platform [20,21,22].
61
62 [Figure 1]
63
64 The semisubmersible concept relies on large water plane area as well as on a fairly deep draft and
65 ballasting to maintain stability. A basic advantage of the use of semisubmersible platform is that it can be
66 fabricated onshore in controlled settings where quality is more easily assured and afterwards towed to its
67 site, eliminating the need for expensive construction barges and marine cranes. Furthermore, concrete,
68 steel or hybrid semisubmersible platform can be utilized.
69 Common offshore semisubmersible wind turbine designs consist of cylinders that are connected each
70 other with braces [23,24] (e.g. a three-column semisubmersible in Figure 1). A disadvantage of the braces
71 of the semisubmersible platform is that they are prone to fatigue [25]. Usually the braces are slender
72 structural elements that connect the columns of the semisubmersible. The extensive hydro-aerodynamic
73 loads on the columns will be transferred to these members. In short-crested sea conditions, the wave loads
74 that are applied on each column have a specific phase; this phase results to cyclic loading at the root of
75 the braces. The welded joints are exposed to stress concentration which results in fatigue damage in long
76 term perspective. Furthermore, the axial forces (tension-compression) combined with periodic bending
77 moments will result in accumulated damage. Due to the large difference between the diameter of the
78 brace and columns punching may occur which should be checked as well.
79 Braceless semisubmersible platforms are widely and successfully deployed in offshore oil and gas
80 industry. The same idea is used in order to introduce braceless semisubmersible offshore wind turbines
81 [26,27,28,29,30]. These structures do not have braces and hence they are less prone to fatigue at the
82 welded joints (Figure 2).
83 In the present paper design aspects of a 5-MW V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine
84 considering the floater main dimensions and configurations are presented. Initially, the effect of different
85 shape-parameters has been investigated on the hydrostatic stability of the semisubmersible support
86 platform. Righting arm and righting moments are compared for the case of different examined design
p. 3
87 cases. For one selected design case wave-induced as well as wave-wind-induced motions, tension of
88 mooring lines and functionality of wind turbine are presented and discussed for selected environmental
89 conditions. The tool Simo-Riflex-Aerodyn has been used for the aero-hydro-servo-elastic dynamic
90 analysis of the V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine. In general, the results show that the
91 presented in the present paper V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine is a promising concept
92 which can enhance the offshore wind industry.
93
94 [Figure 2]
95
96 2. Characteristics of the V-shaped semisubmersible platform and of the wind turbine
97 The V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine in the present paper consists of: (a) a
98 semisubmersible floating platform with three columns (one central column and two side columns) and
99 two pontoons connecting the side columns to the central column making a V-shape, (b) a 5 MW wind
100 turbine placed top of the central column of the semisubmersible platform and (c) three catenary mooring
101 lines positioned at the three columns of the semisubmersible. The 5 MW NREL wind turbine is located at
102 the top of the column that is supported by both pontoons (Figure 3). Right handed coordinate system with
103 Z-axis upward from mean sea level (MSL) is used. The wind and wave are propagating in positive X-
104 direction. This means that in the head sea (zero for wave), the waves coming from left to right. Upwind
105 turbine is put over the floater and the rotor blades have negative X-value position. With regard to
106 geometry characteristics of the V-shaped semisubmersible platform, the three columns of the
107 semisubmersible have the shape of cylinder; while the two fully submerged pontoons that are connect the
108 three columns have rectangular shape. The two side columns have 20 m freeboard while the central one
109 has 10 m freeboard. The draft of the semisubmersible platform is equal to 28 m. All the structural parts
110 that compose the semisubmersible platform have thickness equal to 3 cm and have material properties
111 that correspond to the properties of steel. It must be noted that the selection of the wall thickness to be
112 equal to 3 cm is reasonable but a detailed engineering design is required in order to check if this thickness
113 is sufficient or too large.
p. 4
114 The NREL 5 MW wind turbine that has been applied is based on Jonkman et al. [31]. It should be
115 stressed that the tower of the wind turbine is modified for floating wind turbine application according to
116 Jonkman [32]. The main properties of the tower and wind turbine are listed in Table 1 and Table 2.
117
118 [Table 1]
119 [Table 2]
120 [Figure 3]
121
122 3. Hydrostatic stability of the semisubmersible platform
123 One of the main design aspects of marine structures is static stability. For floating structures, the
124 hydrostatic stability which is related to static equilibrium of buoyancy and gravity forces is very
125 important. There are rules and regulations available for offshore and ship structures addressing stability
126 requirements under intact and damaged conditions [33,34]; meanwhile in [35] exists recommendations for
127 stability analysis of floating wind turbines. However, since the offshore wind turbines are unmanned,
128 there is a question regarding the "required" safety level (or safety target).
129 For a catenary moored semisubmersible platform, the effects of pre-tension and weight of mooring
130 system are negligible compared to the total weight of the structure. The longitudinal metacentric height,
131 GML, is tightly linked to tilt angle (which appears as pitch motion in dynamic context). Similarly, for heel
132 angle (roll motions) the transversal metacentric height, GMT, is important. In general, the transversal
133 metacentric height of ship-shaped structures is much smaller than the longitudinal metacentric height.
134 However, for symmetric offshore structures, transversal and longitudinal metacentric heights are more or
135 less the same. It must be noted that the metacentric height is the distance between the center of gravity
136 (CoG) and the metacenter of the semisubmersible platform.
137 Both the metacentric heights, GML and GMT, have two contributing parts related to surface area
138 effects and gravitational-buoyancy. For semisubmersible platforms, the main positive contributor is the
139 surface area. Semisubmersible platforms use the advantageous of spreading the area which significantly
140 helps to increase the area moment of inertia. As it is clear in Figure 3, the V-shaped semisubmersible
141 structure is symmetric only in X axis. Hence, the metacentric heights in transversal and longitudinal
142 directions can be different. The performance of the floating wind turbine depends upon different
p. 5
143 environmental conditions that include short-crested sea states, misalignment between wave and wind and
144 different wave headings. As a result both the metacentric heights are important. Moreover, for this kind of
145 structure the metacentric height is tightly linked to hydrostatic restoring moments as well as dynamic
146 performance of the system.
147 In the following sub-sections, sensitivity studies considering the effect of angle between pontoons as
148 well as the effect of pontoon/column dimensions on the stability of the V-shaped semisubmersible
149 floating wind turbine are presented and discussed. The stability analysis has been performed with the use
150 of the software HydroD [36]. For the calculation of the relation between the overturning moment and
151 heeling angle, the effects of the mooring lines are included in the stability analysis.
152
153 3.1 Effect of angle between pontoons on the hydrostatic stability of the V-shaped floating wind turbine
154 In order to examine the effect of the angle between pontoons on the stability of the V-shaped
155 semisubmersible floating wind turbine, the righting arm (GZ) and righting moment curves as a function
156 of the heeling angles of four different examined cases are compared. Four different designs namely V55,
157 V60, V65 and V75 denoting θ=55 deg, θ=60 deg, θ=65 deg and θ=75 deg, respectively, are studied. It
158 must be noted that θ is the angle between pontoons (Figure 3). In Table 3, characteristics of the four
159 different examined cases are listed related to the geometry of the semisubmersible as well as to the
160 longitudinal, GML, and transversal, GMT, metacentric heights as calculated from the stability analysis. It
161 must be noted that with CoB the centre of buoyancy is symbolized. For all the examined cases the draft is
162 equal to 28 m, the distance between the centreline of the columns is 60 m, the diameter of the columns is
163 7 m and the pontoon has a rectangular cross section with dimension 7x4 m. As it can be seen in Table 3,
164 the gradually increase of the θ results to the gradually decrease of the GML and to the gradually increase
165 of the GMT. For θ=60 deg GML is equal with GMT, GML=GMT=4.3 m. In Figure 4 and Figure 5, the
166 righting arm and righting moment curves, respectively, as calculated from the stability analysis are
167 presented for the four examined cases, V55, V60, V65 and V75, for both transversal (around X axis) and
168 longitudinal (around Y axis) direction.
169 As it is clear in Figure 4, all the designs will not be capsized at heeling angle less than 50 degrees. The
170 maximum of the righting arm is changing depending to the different design and to the directionality of the
171 applied heeling moment. Additionally, the righting moments are compared with a constant threshold
p. 6
172 moment value, Tthres (Figure 5). It is noted that the Tthres value has no connection and is not used in the
173 stability analysis which performed with the use of the HydroD software. The Tthres moment value is
174 defined by multiplying the maximum expected thrust force and the distance between top of tower and
175 fairlead positions, Tthres=750x(90+18)=81,000 kNm. It must be noted that the maximum thrust occurs in
176 operational conditions at rated-wind speed (11.4 m/sec). The fairleads are located 18 m below the MSL
177 and the nacelle-hub height is 90 m above the MSL. The required righting moment for such heeling
178 moment appears at heeling angle of 16 deg for V55 and V60, of 18 deg for V65 and of 23 deg for V75.
179 As it is clear in Figure 4 and Figure 5, the GZ curves and righting moments in translational and
180 longitudinal directions are very similar for V60 in particular for small heeling angles, α. This can be
181 explained since the metacentric heights, GML and GMT, and consequently the righting moments in
182 translational and longitudinal directions are almost equal for V60. It must be noted that for small heeling
183 angles, α, GZ=GMLxsinα and GZ=GMTxsinα, which is consistent with the results that are presented in
184 Figure 4.
185
186 [Table 3]
187 [Figure 4]
188 [Figure 5]
189
190 3.2 Effect of pontoons/columns dimensions on the hydrostatic stability of the V-shaped floating wind
191 turbine
192 In the previous sub-section, the effect of the angle between pontoons is explained. Here, the pontoon
193 and column dimensions are modified in order to study the effects of this modification on the hydrostatic
194 stability of the V-shaped semisubmersible. The V60 (sub-section 3.1) is selected as the base
195 configuration. The V60 design is compared with three alternative designs: (a) decreasing the length
196 between columns (50 m) and increasing the pontoon section (9x5 mxm) and columns diameter (9 m),
197 V60al1, (b) increasing the length of pontoon (70 m), V60al2, and (c) increasing the column diameter (9 m)
198 and increasing the pontoon section (9x5 mxm), V60al3. Characteristics of the three aforementioned
199 alternative designs are listed in Table 4. For all the examined alternative cases the draft is kept equal to 28
200 m.
p. 7
201 In Figure 6 and Figure 7 the righting arm and righting moment curves, respectively, are presented as a
202 function of the heeling angle for V60, V60al1, V60al2 and V60al3. Considering the results that are presented
203 in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the V60al3 design is selected for further investigation regarding the performance
204 and dynamics of the system in the rest of the paper. This design, V60al3, has just 6 degrees of heel under
205 the defined threshold, Tthres. This means the rotor swept area is expected to subjected to 0.4% reduction
206 for the rated wind speed loading in calm sea. But, due to wave and wind loads and dynamic responses, the
207 tilt angle will increase which decrease the rotor swept area and consequently the power production of the
208 system. If the tilt angle increase to double due to pitch motion and coupled dynamics, the power
209 production will decrease by 1.5% (roughly). The dynamic behavior, functionality and power performance
210 of the V60al3 design will be discussed in the following sections of the present paper.
211
212 [Table 4]
213 [Figure 6]
214 [Figure 7]
215
216 4. Numerical modeling of the floating wind turbine
217 For the high fidelity modeling and analysis of the V-shaped floating wind turbine, the following codes
218 are used, directly or indirectly as an input for the final hydro-aero-servo-elastic time domain analysis. In
219 Table 5 the mass moment of inertia as well as the coordinates of the CoB and CoG of the V60al3 is listed.
220 All the inertias are given with respect to the MSL. It must be noted that in the present paper any possible
221 kind of active water ballast system into the three columns of the semisubmersible platform is not
222 considered and not included in the analysis. In Figure 8, examples of modeling are illustrated. The codes
223 that are used are:
224  Genie [37]: Modeling the geometry, mass/inertia properties and creating the panel model for
225 hydrodynamic analysis,
226  WAMIT [38]: Hydrodynamic analysis of the wet surface of the platform in frequency domain,
227  SIMA [39]: Coupled mooring-floater dynamic analysis,
228  Simo [40] –Riflex [41]: Integrated wave-induced simulations,
229  Simo-Riflex-Aerodyn [42]: Hydro-aero-servo-elastic time domain analysis.
p. 8
230
231 [Table 5]
232 [Figure 8]
233
234 4.1 Mooring lines configuration
235 Three mooring lines are used with one clump mass for each. The mooring line configuration has
236 symmetry with respect to the XZ plane. The properties of the mooring lines are given in Table 6. In Table
237 6 the term equivalent axial stiffness is defined as the product of the modulus of elasticity of the material
238 of the mooring lines with the area of the cross section of the mooring lines. Also, the equivalent axial
239 stiffness is defined as the product of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the mooring lines, E, with
240 the area, A, of the cross section of the mooring lines. The chosen specific values in Table 6 correspond to
241 representative values for mooring lines that behaves as multi-strand wire rope. Mooring lines’ stiffness
242 consists of material and geometrical stiffness. The force-displacement properties of a catenary moored
243 system are dependent on material properties, line geometry and mooring system configuration. The
244 geometrical stiffness is the main contributor for catenary mooring systems in most cases. The geometrical
245 stiffness of catenary mooring system is a function of mooring line length, clump mass, buoyancy
246 elements, fairlead position and footprint of anchoring system. In the present paper, some initial analyses
247 have been performed to select the mooring system geometry and mooring line properties. In such
248 consideration the dynamics of the floating wind turbine as well as mooring tension responses have been
249 considered to avoid over-loading and slack of mooring lines.
250 The fairlead and anchoring positions are listed in Table 7. The static configuration and effective
251 tension of the used catenary mooring lines are presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively.
252 It is necessary to mention that the different designs that are presented in this study are not optimized
253 with respect to the cost and the structural integrity of different parts of the V-shaped semisubmersible
254 wind turbine. The dimensions and properties utilized in this study are selected in the basis to present
255 rational designs. The aim of the present study is to investigate the feasibility of the V-shaped concept.
256 Hence, optimization including detailed engineering design is out of the scopes of the present paper.
257
258 [Table 6]
p. 9
259 [Table 7]
260 [Figure 9]
261 [Figure 10]
262
263 4.2 Natural frequencies and hydrodynamic characteristics
264 Added mass and restoring coefficients of the V60al3 are listed in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively.
265 The restoring coefficients C55 and C44 are calculated with respect to the coordinate system as presented in
266 Figure 3. The area moment of inertia around X and Y axis are not the same in the defined coordinate
267 system and as a result the corresponding restoring values are different. It must be noted that the numerical
268 equations in Simo-Riflex-Aerodyn were set with respect to the defined coordinate system.
269
270 [Table 8]
271 [Table 9]
272
273 According to empirical formulas the roll and pitch natural frequencies can be estimated by (ignoring the
274 coupling effects):
275 ω roll  ( K 44 ) /(I xx  A 44 )  ( 7.86 exp .  8) /(1.29 exp .  10  5.488 exp .  9)  0.20rad / sec
276 ω pitch  (K 55 ) /(I yy  A 55 )  (3.07 exp .  9) /(2.18 exp .  10  1.022 exp .  10)  0.31rad / sec
277
278 Based on decay and dynamic analyses, the heave natural frequency is around 0.25 rad/sec. It must be
279 noted that the aforementioned responses of the platform are coupled. However, it is possible to assume
280 initially that the motions are uncoupled in order to investigate the natural frequencies of the system by
281 empirical formulas (as estimated above for roll and pitch motions) that in most of the cases provide a
282 good rough estimation of the natural frequencies of the system. However, the drift motion induced by
283 wave and wind loads, nonlinear load actions and damping affect the natural frequencies. Moreover, the
284 coupling between different modes alters the hydrostatic stiffness, which in taut system has a large
285 influence (i.e. for tension leg platforms). The V-shaped semisubmersible is catenary moored and hence
286 the platform motions are not linked through mooring lines which is the case for taut moored structures
p. 10
287 [43]. As far as surge, sway and yaw motions there is no hydrostatic restoring and hence, natural
288 frequencies of these modes tightly linked to mooring line stiffness. The force-displacement relation for
289 mooring system is usually nonlinear, especially for floating wind turbines due to offset caused by mean
290 wind loads and wave drift loads. This means natural frequency of these slowly-varying modes can be
291 modified in different environmental conditions, load cases and turbine status.
292
293 5. Stochastic dynamics
294 5.1 Wave only load cases
295 5.1.1 Extreme sea state
296 An extreme wave condition with significant wave height, Hs, 14.4 m and wave spectral peak period,
297 Tp, 13.3 sec is applied in order to investigate the mooring system performance as well as motions’
298 characteristics. It must be noted that the chosen sea states are related with a specific offshore area in
299 North Sea off the Norwegian coast [3]. The head-sea (wave heading of 0 degrees) and quarter-sea (wave
300 heading of 45 degrees) are considered. Statistical quantities of one hour simulation of the mooring line
301 tension and motions are listed in Table 10. In Figure 11 the motion response spectra of surge, sway, heave,
302 roll, pitch and yaw for wave heading of 45 degrees are presented. The wave frequency and natural
303 frequency responses are indicated for each mode of response. In general, the eigenfrequencies are well set
304 out of first-order wave frequency excitation. The time series and spectra of effective tension of mooring
305 lines are presented in Figure 12 and Figure 13, respectively. It must be noted that in the presented results
306 the overall simulation time for each examined environmental condition is 4,100 sec; the first 500 sec have
307 not been considered in order the effects from the turbine run-up not to be accounted. As the stochastic
308 analysis in time domain present transient parts that should be avoided prior to statistical and spectral
309 analysis, hence, the first 500 seconds of the time domain simulations are neglected. The statistical and
310 spectral analyses are based on the time duration between 500 and 4,100 seconds (1 hour simulation). The
311 statistical quantities that are presented in Table 10 are based to 1 hour simulation and they cannot be
312 considered as extreme predicted values. In Table 10 the mean, standard deviation, minimum and
313 maximum values of each 1 hour simulation are presented and symbolized with Mean, STD, Min and Max,
314 respectively. These values are presented in order to compare the wave heading effect on the different
315 motions. For the examined extreme sea states the maximum utilization, U, of the mooring lines is:
p. 11
316 σ  Te / A  2, 720kN / 0.01496m 2  181MPa
317 U  (σ  R s ) /(σ y / R M )  (181  1.3) /(350 / 1.15)  0.77
318 where σ is stress, Te is effective tension, A is area of the cross section of the mooring line, Rs is a safety
319 load factor and RM is a safety material factor. The minimum breaking load of mooring lines accounting
320 for the material and load factors is 3,502 kN.
321
322 [Table 10]
323 [Figure 11]
324 [Figure 12]
325 [Figure 13]
326
327 As it is clear in Figure 11, the spectra of the motions of the semisubmersible platform under the action
328 of waves consist of two parts: (a) the low frequency part, which is related to resonant responses of the
329 platform and (b) the wave frequency part. Some motions are coupled and hence more than one peak is
330 observed at low frequency part (both surge and pitch resonant peaks are presenting for surge spectrum).
331 The resonant frequencies as appeared in dynamic responses are very close to the values that have been
332 calculated by empirical formula (sub-section 4.2). The small differences in the natural frequencies are
333 explained by the coupling effects between different motions, damping effects and involved nonlinearities.
334 In Figure 12, there is a large difference between tension responses of upstream and downstream
335 mooring lines. This is observed since ML1 is the only mooring line acting downstream. Hence, the
336 tension of ML1 obtains larger values than the tension of ML2 and ML3.
337 In Figure 13, the spectra of the tension responses are presented. As it is clear, the tension response
338 consists of three parts. The low frequency part is related with slowly-varying motions such as surge, sway
339 and yaw. In the wave frequency part, an obvious peak around 0.5 rad/sec exists and in the high frequency
340 part, the elastic eigenfrequencies are presented. These eigenfrequencies are excited by harmonics of wave
341 loads. The quadratic hydrodynamic damping effectively reduces the effect of these eigenfrequencies in
342 the high frequency part [44].
343
p. 12
344 5.1.2 Moderate sea state
345 The behavior of the V-shaped semisubmersible in moderate sea sate has been investigated. A sea state
346 with significant wave height, Hs, 3 m and wave spectral peak period, Tp, 10 sec is applied in order to
347 investigate the mooring system performance as well as motions’ characteristics. Quarter-sea (wave
348 heading of 45 degrees) is considered. In Figure 14 the motion response spectra of surge, sway, heave, roll,
349 pitch and yaw motions for wave heading of 45 degrees are presented. It can be seen that the
350 eigenfrequencies are well set out of first-order wave-frequency excitation. In Figure 15 time series of
351 motions are presented. The time series of the motions correspond to the origin (0,0,0) of the global
352 coordinate system that is used (Figure 3). The time series and spectra of effective tension of mooring lines
353 are presented in Figure 16 and Figure 17, respectively.
354 As it is clear in Figure 14, the spectra of the motion responses consist of two parts. The low frequency
355 part is related with the resonance of the motions while the higher frequency part is related with wave-
356 induced motions. This is similar to what is observed for wave-induced responses of the platform under
357 extreme sea state (sub-section 5.1.1). Compared to extreme sea state, the main difference is that the
358 magnitude of the motions is extensively smaller in moderate sea state but with the same trend. As far as
359 the tension responses of the mooring lines and compared to extreme sea state, same trend is observed for
360 moderate sea state. The magnitude of the tension response is smaller for moderate sea state for all the
361 mooring lines. Also, the dynamics of the tension responses is reduced, which is clear when comparing
362 Figure 12 and 16.
363 In Figure 17, the spectra of the tension responses in moderate sea state are presented. The spectra of
364 the tension responses are mainly dominated by slowly varying motions. The higher frequency parts, i.e.
365 the wave frequency region does not appear for such moderate sea state while for extreme sea state the
366 wave frequency part has appeared clearly (Figure 13) and dominates the tension responses.
367
368 [Figure 14]
369 [Figure 15]
370 [Figure 16]
371 [Figure 17]
372
p. 13
373 5.2 Wave and wind load cases
374 5.2.1 Rated wind speed
375 The performance of the V-shaped wind turbine subjected to environmental condition corresponding to
376 rated wind speed is investigated in the present sub-section. The mean wind speed of 11.4 m/sec with
377 turbulence intensity of 0.15 is applied in order to create a turbulence box that is required for the coupled
378 wave and wind induced analysis. Correlated with the rated wind speed of 11.4 m/sec, the significant wave
379 height is 3 m and the peak period is 10 sec. In Figure 18 time series of motions for head sea wave
380 direction and aligned wind direction are presented. The corresponding spectra of the motion responses are
381 presented in Figure 19. The time series and spectra of effective tension of mooring lines are presented in
382 Figure 20 and Figure 21, respectively. Compared to the wave only load cases (sub-section 5.1.1 and
383 5.1.2), it is clear that the responses that correspond to wave and wind load cases are increased due to
384 additional wind excitation. Most of the responses are affected at natural frequencies due to concentrated
385 energy of wind in low frequency part, as it was expected.
386 The surge motion time series (Figure 18) and the corresponding spectrum of surge motion (Figure 19)
387 have very low frequency components. This is observed since the wind energy exists at low frequencies. In
388 fact, the wind spectrum has an extensive energy with large return period in the order of 1,000 seconds and
389 consequently the semisubmersible wind turbine is exposed to load actions with very low frequency
390 components. As a result the slowly varying motions of the platform such as surge, sway and yaw are
391 affected and response components with high return periods are observed. The wave-wind-induced
392 motions presented in Figure 19 have the same frequency components as the wave-only responses
393 presented in Figure 14. However, the magnitude of the slowly varying motions are affected by the wind
394 actions and larger resonant responses are observed for the case of wave-wind-induced load cases. In some
395 cases, the wind loads are completely governing the motion of the platform; the response of the yaw
396 motion is governed by wind action (Figure 19). As it clear in Figure 21, the tension responses in coupled
397 wave-wind-induced analyses are mainly governed by wind actions. This is linked to yaw resonant
398 responses at 0.08 rad/sec which is excited by wind energy at low frequencies.
399 The wind speed, rotational speed of rotor, blade-pitch-angle, generated power and nacelle surge
400 acceleration time series and spectra are presented in Figure 22 and Figure 23, respectively. In Figure 22, it
401 is clear that there is no blade-pitch control for specific time durations. This happens as the relative wind
p. 14
402 speed recognized by the blades is less than rated wind speed for specific time durations. Hence, the wind
403 turbine is working below rated wind speed for those durations of time. It must be noted that the maximum
404 acceleration at nacelle (top of tower) is less than 0.2g (g is the gravitational acceleration). In general, the
405 wind turbine manufactures suggest that the maximum acceleration should be always less than 0.5g in
406 order to avoid damage to drivetrain components [45]
407 When the wind turbine is in operation for below rated wind speed condition, the control of wind
408 turbine is limited to torque control which shows itself in rotational speed of the rotor. The target of the
409 controller in this region is to take off the maximum power from the aerodynamic kinetic energy. This
410 means the entire energy of wind containing all frequency components will affect the floating wind turbine.
411 As it is discussed before, wind has great energy at low frequencies which can excite low frequency
412 responses of the platform. Figure 23 shows the spectra of the turbine functionality data such as generated
413 power. Most of responses of the turbine are governed by wind actions rather wave and this is clear as the
414 responses have low frequency components close to zero rad/sec.
415
416 [Figure 18]
417 [Figure 19]
418 [Figure 20]
419 [Figure 21]
420 [Figure 22]
421 [Figure 23]
422
423 5.2.2 Over rated wind speed
424 The performance of the V-shaped wind turbine subjected to environmental condition corresponding to
425 over rated wind speed is investigated below. The mean wind speed of 18 m/sec with turbulence intensity
426 of 0.15 is applied. The significant wave height of 4.2 m and peak period of 10.5 sec are correlated with
427 rated wind speed of 18 m/sec. In Figure 24 time series of motions for head sea wave direction and aligned
428 wind are presented; the corresponding spectra of the motion responses are presented in Figure 25. The
429 time series and spectra of effective tension of mooring lines ML1, ML2 and ML3 are presented in Figure
430 26 and Figure 27, respectively. The wind speed, rotational speed of rotor, blade-pitch-angle, generated
p. 15
431 power and nacelle surge acceleration time series and spectra are presented in Figure 28 and Figure 29,
432 respectively.
433 In general the dynamic behavior of the semisubmersible wind turbine for over rated wind speed has
434 same trends with the behavior for rated wind speed. The reason is that in rated wind speed the maximum
435 aerodynamic loads that are occurred can govern the responses. Compared to rated wind speed, the tension
436 response is smaller for over rated wind speed.
437 As it is mentioned, there are some differences between responses for over rated wind speed and rated
438 wind speed. The resonant responses of the floating wind turbine for rated wind speed is slightly higher,
439 which is related to the control effects of blade pitching for over rated wind speed load case that has as a
440 result the reduction of the amplitude of the motions by aerodynamic damping. The peaks in the spectra of
441 the responses are observed for similar values compared to what has been observed for rated wind speed.
442 These peaks are related with the resonant responses of the floating wind turbine plus the wave frequency
443 part. The wave frequency part in heave motion have a clear appearance (Figure 25); this is due to the fact
444 that the wind forces have small components in heave direction while the first order wave loads are
445 governing the heave motion, which is clear in wave-only responses (Figure 11 and 14).
446 Comparing the tension responses of the rated wind speed and over rated wind speed load cases, it is
447 clear that the magnitude of responses has the same order of magnitude (Figure 20 and 21 against Figure
448 25 and 26). However, if the wave-only responses (Figure 16 and 17) are compared with the wave-wind-
449 induced responses, it is clear that although the mean of tension responses are more or less the same but
450 the tension response dynamics is higher for coupled wave-wind load cases due to excitation of low
451 frequency responses. The low frequency responses can be excited by wind energy which is linked to
452 turbulent features of wind.
453 The responses presented in Figure 28 and Figure 29 show that for the V-shaped semisubmersible wind
454 turbine, the turbine functionality is not significantly affected by wave loads. As it is clear, the responses
455 have very low frequency components excited by wind actions. The power production fluctuation has
456 return period larger than 50 second. In a farm configuration, the output power from substation can be
457 smoothed by summing up produced power from different turbines.
458 The electrical torque (Figure 30) is constant for over-rated wind speed case. The target of controller
459 for over rated wind speed is set to constant torque to limit the aerodynamic loads and help structural
p. 16
460 integrity of the system. Also, in Figure 31, the rotor aerodynamic power spectrum is presented. The rotor
461 harmonics are appearing in the aerodynamic power spectrum. In most of load cases, these harmonics are
462 filtered by generator actions and hence the generated power will not have such high frequency
463 components.
464 Comparing aerodynamic power (Figure 31) and electric power (Figure 29), it is obvious that the
465 controller action is actively filtering the high frequency components while it cannot filter the low
466 frequency part. This is due to the fact that the servo and controller have action frequency around 0.2
467 rad/sec, which means the phenomena with lower frequencies will not be affected by servo actions i.e.
468 feathering the blades.
469
470 [Figure 24]
471 [Figure 25]
472 [Figure 26]
473 [Figure 27]
474 [Figure 28]
475 [Figure 29]
476 [Figure 30]
477 [Figure 31]
478
479 6. Conclusions
480 In the present paper, design aspects of a V-shaped braceless semisubmersible offshore wind turbine
481 focusing on the static and dynamic response analysis and performance of the structure under actions of
482 wave and wind loads are highlighted. The stability of the system for seven different examined design
483 cases is studied. The hydrostatic stability characteristic of such system is highly linked to the dynamic
484 performance of the system as the semisubmersible platforms are hydrostatically stabilized without the
485 action of mooring lines. Hence, metacentric height of the system can represent the restoring moments in
486 dynamics. This makes it easy to investigate the dimensioning of the floating part by setting heeling
487 moment thresholds. The tilt/heel angle can affect the swept area of the turbine and consequently the
488 produced electricity. Hence, large metacentric height is needed to restore the structure under wind and
p. 17
489 wave heeling moments. On the other hand, large metacentric height means high stiffness which may
490 result in high natural period of the system hitting wave energy zone. By considering these points and
491 similar aspects explained in the paper, the best possible solution among analyzed designs is finally
492 selected for fully coupled dynamic analysis and further investigations.
493 Wave only load cases for extreme and moderate environmental conditions are studied in order to
494 examine the behavior of the concept subjected to wave actions and also to examine the possible platform
495 mooring lines coupling (especially the possible effects on the tension responses). The wave only extreme
496 conditions are studied for two different wave propagating directions; this allows to examine the
497 transversal motions (sway, roll and yaw) more easily. The yaw wave moments are huge for this kind of
498 structure for oblique waves; however, the yaw inertia of the system is high enough to control the yaw
499 motions, effectively. Tension responses are fairly reasonable even for 100 m water depth. In the examined
500 designs, a catenary mooring system has been desired and matched by setting proper combination of line
501 properties, clump mass and more specifically the line length between fairleads and anchoring points. The
502 moderate sea state corresponds to rated wind speed load case. Compared to moderate sea state, the
503 calculated responses for extreme conditions are more wave-frequency dominant while resonant responses
504 are dominating the responses for moderate sea states. The reason is that the resonant frequencies of the
505 structure are out of the wave zone, hence the magnitude of them will not be significantly changed by
506 changing the wave height and they are controlled by the hydrodynamic damping. However, when the
507 wave height increase in extreme load case the wave-frequency part increases and dominates the total
508 dynamic response. The same trend is clear in tension responses.
509 As far as wave-wind load cases, both rated wind speed and over-rated wind speed load cases are
510 analyzed in the present study. The rated wind speed is connected with maximum thrust force. Comparing
511 the wave-only load case and wave-wind load case it is clear that in general, responses are increased due to
512 additional wind excitation. Most of the responses are affected at natural frequencies as expected due to
513 concentrated energy of wind in low frequency part. The performance of the wind turbine is highlighted by
514 showing the electrical power production, rotational speed of rotor, blade-pitch-angle and nacelle
515 acceleration. The spectral analysis shows that the performance of the wind turbine is highly affected by
516 wind energy concentration at low-frequencies. It is not possible to enhance the turbine performance much
517 with respect to the slowly-varying motion components as the resonant responses are anyway in the wind
p. 18
518 energy zone and will be excited. Note that the responses of the structure under action of wave and wind
519 are inherently resulted of both aero-hydro excitation and damping actions.
520 For over-rated wind speed case, the electrical produced power has much less fluctuations around the
521 mean value. The motion responses as well as tension of mooring lines are in good order. The trend of
522 responses is more or less similar to rated-wind speed case. The electric torque is perfectly constant as it is
523 set by target of the controller in this case. The aerodynamic power of the rotor has some high-frequency
524 components related to rotor harmonics which are filtered by generator actions. Hence, the generated
525 power has slowly-varying frequency components coming from rigid body resonant response induced by
526 wind loads. The period of such components is higher than 20 seconds. Usually, combining generated
527 power from array of wind turbines can help smoothing and filtering the remained fluctuations from
528 slowly-varying wind-induced load and load-effects.
529 In general, the studies carried out in this paper highlight the feasibility of application of a braceless V-
530 shaped semisubmersible wind turbine as an innovative solution for offshore wind technology. However,
531 the presented results in the present paper give an idea (indicator) about the magnitude that the structural
532 responses have for specific environmental conditions and more studies must be performed in future in
533 order to investigate the proposed concept in more detail as well as to predict the extreme responses based
534 on an appropriate long-term analysis.
535
536 Acknowledgements
537 The authors would like to thank the reviewers of this paper for their valuable comments and contribution
538 to the improvement of the manuscript.
539
540 References
541
542 [1] Breton SF, Moe G. Status, plans and technologies for offshore wind turbines in Europe and North
543 America. Renewable Energy 2009;34(3):646-654.
544 [2] Shi W, Park H, Han J, Na S, Kim C. A study on the effect of different modeling parameters on the
545 dynamic response of a jacket-type offshore wind turbine in the Korean Southwest Sea. Renewable Energy
546 2013;58:50-59.
p. 19
547 [3] Shi W, Han J, Kim C, Lee D, Shin H, Park H. Feasibility study of offshore wind turbine substructures
548 for southwest offshore wind farm project in Korea. Renewable Energy 2015;74:406-413.
549 [4] Musial W, Butterfield S, Ram B. Energy from offshore wind. Offshore Technology Conference
550 Houston, Texas, USA, 2006;1888-1898.
551 [5] Myhr A, Bjerkseter C, Ågotnes A, Nygaard TA. Levelised cost of energy for offshore floating wind
552 turbines in a life cycle perspective. Renewable Energy 2014;66:714-728.
553 [6] Sun X, Huang D, Wu G. The current state of offshore wind energy technology development. Energy
554 2012;41:298-312.
555 [7] Karimirad M. Offshore Energy Structures. Switzerland: Springer; 2014.
556 [8] Karimirad M. Stochastic Dynamic Response Analysis of Spar-Type Wind Turbines with Catenary or
557 Taut Mooring Systems. Thesis in partial fulfillment of the Doctor of Philoshophy degree, submitted to
558 and defended in the Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and
559 Technology, 2012.
560 [9] Butterfield S, Musial W, Jonkman J, Sclavounos P. Engineering challenges for floating offshore wind
561 turbines. Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005.
562 [10] Hall M, Buckham B, Crawford C. Hydrodynamics-based floating wind turbine support platform
563 optimization: A basis function approach. Renewable Energy 2014;66:559-569.
564 [11] Bagbanci H, Karmakar D, Guedes Soares C. Review of offshore floating wind turbine concepts,
565 Maritime Engineering and Technology. C. Guedes Soares et al. (Eds.), Taylor & Francis Group, London,
566 2012: 553–562.
567 [12] Karimirad Μ, Moan Τ. Feasibility of the Application of a Spar-type Wind Turbine at a Moderate
568 Water Depth. Energy Procedia 2012;24:340-350.
569 [13] Karimirad Μ, Moan Τ. (2012). Stochastic dynamic response analysis of a tension leg spar-type
570 offshore wind turbine. Wind Energy 2012;16(6):953–973.
571 [14] Sethuraman L, Venugopal V. Hydrodynamic response of a stepped-spar floating wind turbine:
572 Numerical modelling and tank testing. Renewable Energy 2013;52:160-174.
573 [15] Nava V, Guedes Soares C, Arena F.On the assessment of extreme forces on a floating spar wind
574 turbine, Developments in Maritime Transportation and Exploitation of Sea Resources, C. Guedes Soares
575 and López Peña (Eds.), Taylor & Francis Group, London 2012:553–562.
p. 20
576 [16] Robertson A, Jonkman J, Masciola M, Song H, Goupee A, Coulling A, Luan C. Definition of the
577 Semisubmersible Floating System for Phase II of OC4. NREL/TP-5000-60601, National Renewable
578 Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, U.S.A, 2014.
579 [17] Bagbanci, H., Karmakar, D., and Guedes Soares, C. Comparison of spar-type and semi-submersible
580 type floaters concepts of offshore wind turbines using long term analysis, 32nd Int. Conf. Ocean,
581 Offshore and Arctic Engineering, 2013, OMAE2013-11204.
582 [18] Lefebvre S, Collu M. Preliminary design of a floating support structure for a 5MW offshore wind
583 turbine. Ocean Engineering 2012;40:15-26.
584 [19] Philippe M, Babarit A, Ferrant P. Modes of response of an offshore wind turbine with directional
585 wind and waves. Renewable Energy 2013;49:151-155.
586 [20] Jonkman JM, Matha D. Dynamics of offshore floating wind turbines-analysis of three concepts.
587 Wind Energy 2011;14(4):557–569.
588 [21] Bachynski EE, Moan T. Design considerations for tension leg platform wind turbines. Marine
589 Structures 2012;29(1):89-114.
590 [22] Adama F, Myland T, Schuldt B, Großmann J, Dahlhaus F. Evaluation of internal force superposition
591 on a TLP for wind turbines. Renewable Energy 2014;71:271-275.
592 [23] Roddier D, Cermelli C, Aubault A, Weinstein A. WindFloat: A floating foundation for offshore wind
593 turbines. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 2010;2(3): 033104-1-033104-34.
594 [24] Roddier D, Cermelli C, Weinstein A. WindFloat: A Floating Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines
595 Part I: Design Basis and Qualification Process. 28th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
596 Arctic Engineering 2009, OMAE2009-79229.
597 [25] Kvittem MI, Moan T, Gao Z, Luan C. Short-Term Fatigue Analysis of Semi-Submersible Wind
598 Turbine Tower. 30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Rotterdam,
599 The Netherlands, 2011, OMAE2011-50092.
600 [26] Olav Olsen AS, (Online). Available at: http://www.olavolsen.no/node/82 [Accessed 14 February
601 2015].
602 [27] Fukushima FORWARD, (Online). Fukushima Floating Offshore Wind Farm Demonstration Project.
603 Japan: Fukushima Offshore Wind Consortium. Available at: http://www.fukushima-
604 forward.jp/english/pdf/pamphlet3.pdf [Accessed 14 February 2015].
p. 21
605 [28] Michailides C, Luan C, Gao Z, Moan T. WindFloat: Effect of Flap Type Wave Energy Converters on
606 the Response of a Semi-submersible Wind Turbine in Operational Conditions. 33rd International
607 Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 2014, OMAE2014-24065.
608 [29] Michailides C, Gao Z, Moan T. Response Analysis of the Combined Wind/Wave Energy Concept
609 SFC in Harsh Environmental Conditions. 1st International Conference on Renewable Energies Offshore
610 2014, RENEW2014.
611 [30] Huijs F, Bruijn R, Savenije F. Concept design verification of a semi-submersible floating wind
612 turbine using coupled simulations. Energy Procedia 2014;53:2-12.
613 [31] Jonkman J, Butterfield S, Musial W, Scott G. Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for
614 Offshore System Development. NREL/TP-500-38060, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
615 CO, U.S.A, 2009.
616 [32] Jonkman, J. Definition of the Floating System for Phase IV of OC3. NREL/TP-500-47535, National
617 Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA 2010.
618 [33] IMO 2008. International Code on instact Stability (2008 IS CODE).
619 [34] IMO 2009. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS 2009).
620 [35] DNV 2013. DNV-OS-J103 Design of Floating Wind Turbine Structures.
621 [36] DNV (Det Norske Veritas) software SESAM, Norway, HydroD.
622 [37] DNV (Det Norske Veritas) software SESAM, Norway, Genie.
623 [38] WAMIT. WAMIT User Manual – program version 6.4, 2009.
624 [39] SIMA. SIMA User’s Manual, MARINTEK 2014.
625 [40] SIMO. SIMO User’s Manual, MARINTEK 2011a.
626 [41] RIFLEX. RIFLEX User’s Manual, MARINTEK 2011b.
627 [42] Ormberg H, Bachynski EE. Global Analysis of Floating Wind Turbines: Code Development, Model
628 Sensitivity and Benchmark Study. In: Proc of the 22nd International Off and Pol Eng Conf, June 17-22,
629 Rhodes, Greece, 2012.
630 [43] Karimirad M, Meissonnier Q, Gao Z, Moan T. Hydro-elastic Code-to-Code Comparison for a
631 Tension Leg Spar Type Floating Wind Turbine. Marine Structures 2011;24(4):412-435.
632 [44] Karimirad M. Modeling Aspects of a Floating Wind Turbine for Coupled Wave-wind-induced
633 Dynamic Analyses. Renewable Energy 2013;53:299-305.
p. 22
634 [45] Karimirad M, Moan T. A simplified method for coupled analysis of floating offshore wind turbines.
635 Marine Structures 2012;27:45-63.
636
p. 23
637 Table Captions
638
639 Table 1: Characteristics of the tower of the wind turbine [32]
640 Table 2: Characteristics of the wind turbine [31,32]
641 Table 3: Characteristics of different designs of V-shaped semisubmersible, V55, V60, V65 and V75,
642 considering the modification of the angle between pontoons, θ.
643 Table 4: Characteristics of alternative designs of V-shaped semisubmersible considering increased
644 pontoon and columns dimensions
645 Table 5: CoB, CoG and mass moment of inertia of the V60al3
646 Table 6: Mooring line characteristics
647 Table 7: Coordinates of fairlead and anchoring points of the mooring lines ML1, ML2 and ML3
648 Table 8: Added mass coefficients calculated in WAMIT (at infinite frequency)
649 Table 9: Hydrostatic restoring coefficients calculated in WAMIT
650 Table 10: Statistical characteristics of motion and tension responses for wave only extreme environmental
651 conditions
652
p. 24
653 Figure Captions
654
655 Figure 1: Different floating concepts: semisubmersible, spar buoy and tension leg platform
656 Figure 2: Braceless semisubmersible offshore wind turbine (Fukushima FORWARD [12])
657 Figure 3: Schematic layout of the V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine
658 Figure 4: Transversal (around X-axis) and longitudinal (around Y-axis) GZ (righting arms) curves of V55,
659 V60, V65 and V75 V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine
660 Figure 5: Transversal (around X-axis) and longitudinal (around Y-axis) righting moment curves of the
661 V55, V60, V65 and V75 V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine
662 Figure 6: Transversal (around X-axis) and longitudinal (around Y-axis) GZ (righting arms) curves of
663 V60al1, V60al2, V60al3, and V60 V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine
666 Figure 8: Modeling of the V-shaped semisubmersible: a) mooring lines and platform in SIMA, b) panel
667 mesh for half-geometry in WAMIT (15,640 elements for entire platform) and c) V-shaped floating wind
668 turbine in Genie
669 Figure 9: Static equilibrium configuration of catenary mooring lines
670 Figure 10: Axial effective tension in mooring lines in static equilibrium configuration, the clump mass
671 effect is clear at X=82 m to increase the tension at upper part of the line from 930 kN to 1057 kN
672 Figure 11: Motion response spectra of surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw motions for wave heading
673 of 45 degrees.
674 Figure 12: Time series of tension of mooring lines in extreme conditions for wave heading of 45 degrees
675 Figure 13: Spectra of tension of mooring lines in extreme sea state for wave heading of 45 degrees
676 Figure 14: Motion response spectra of surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw motions for a moderate sea
677 state with wave heading of 45 degrees
678 Fig. 15: Time series of motions in moderate sea state with 45 degrees wave heading
679 Fig. 16: Time series of effective tension of mooring lines for moderate sea state
680 Fig. 17: Effective tension spectra of mooring lines in moderate sea state
681 Fig. 18: Time series of motions for environmental conditions corresponding to rated wind speed
p. 25
682 Fig. 19: Motion response spectra of surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw motions for environmental
683 conditions corresponding to rated wind speed
684 Fig. 20: Time series of effective tension of mooring lines in rated wind speed
685 Fig. 21: Spectra of effective tension for mooring lines for environmental condition that corresponds to
686 rated wind speed
687 Fig. 22: Time series of turbine functionality for environmental condition that corresponds to rated wind
688 speed
689 Fig. 23: Spectra of wind turbine functionality data for environmental condition that corresponds to rated
690 wind speed
691 Fig. 24: Time series of motions for environmental condition that corresponds to over rated wind speed
693 condition that corresponds to over rated wind speed
694 Fig. 26: Time series of effective tension of mooring lines for environmental condition that corresponds to
695 over rated wind speed
696 Fig. 27: Spectra of effective tension of mooring lines for environmental condition that corresponds to
698 Fig. 28: Time series of turbine functionality for environmental condition that corresponds to over rated
699 wind speed
700 Fig. 29: Spectra of turbine functionality data for environmental condition that corresponds to over rated
701 wind speed
702 Fig. 30: Time series of turbine electrical torque for environmental condition that corresponds to over rated
703 wind speed
704 Fig. 31: Spectrum of turbine rotor aerodynamic power for environmental condition that corresponds to
706
707
708
709
710
p. 26
711 Table 1: Characteristics of the tower of the wind turbine [32]
Property Value
Elevation to tower base (platform top) above MSL [m] 10
Elevation to tower top (yaw bearing) above MSL [m] 87.6
Overall (integrated) tower mass [kg] 250,000
Center of Gravity (CoG) location of tower above MSL

43.4
along tower centerline [m]
Elevation to tower base (platform top) above MSL [m] 10
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
p. 27
733 Table 2: Characteristics of the wind turbine [31,32]
Property Value
Nacelle mass [kg] 240,000
Rotor mass [kg] 110,000
Wind turbine (WT) CoG [m] (-0.2, 0.0, 70)
Total mass of WT [kg] 600,000
Total WT mass moment of inertia about X axis (IXX) [kg*m2] 3.77exp.+9
Total WT mass moment of inertia about Y axis (IYY) [kg*m2] 3.66exp.+9
Total WT mass moment of inertia about Z axis (IZZ) [kg*m2] 1.12exp.+8
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
p. 28
753 Table 3: Characteristics of different designs of V-shaped semisubmersible, V55, V60, V65 and V75,
754 considering the modification of the angle between pontoons, θ.
Alternative designs of V-shaped semisubmersible

Characteristics
V55 V60 V65 V75
Floater steel mass [kg] 1,280,000 1,282,000 1,283,000 1,285,000
Water ballast mass[kg] 4,335,000 4,338,000 4,346,000 4,354,000
Total mass [kg] 6,374,000 6,379,000 6,388,000 6,399,000
Submerged volume [m3] 6,218 6,225 6,231 6,241
XCoG [m] -31.2 -30.6 -29.8 -27.9
XCoB [m] -31.3 -30.6 -29.8 -27.9
ZCoG [m] -13.1 -13.0 -13.0 -13.1
ZCoB [m] -19.8 -19.8 -19.8 -19.8
GML [m] 4.9 4.3 3.7 2.5
GMT [m] 2.7 4.3 6.0 9.6
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
p. 29
770 Table 4: Characteristics of alternative designs of V-shaped semisubmersible considering increased
771 pontoon and columns dimensions
Alternative designs of V-shaped semisubmersible
Characteristics
V60al1 V60al2 V60al3
Distance between columns [m] 50 70 60
Pontoon dimensions; widthxheight [mxm] 9x5 7x4 9x5
Diameter of columns [m] 9 7 9
1,498,000 1,385,000 1,630,000

Floater steel mass [kg]
7,082,000 4,810,000 7,873,000

Water ballast [kg]
9,340,000 6,954,000 10,263,000

Total mass [kg]
9,113 6,785 10,013

Submerged volume [m3]
XCoG [m] -25.8 -35.2 -30.6
XCoB [m] -25.8 -35.2 -30.6
-14.9 -14.2 -16.0

ZCoG [m]
-18.8 -20.33 -19.4

ZCoB [m]
4.9 7.7 8.1

GML [m]
4.9 7.7 8.1

GMT [m]
772
773
774
775
776
p. 30
777 Table 5: CoB, CoG and mass moment of inertia of the V60al3
Property Value
CoB (x, y, z) [m] (-30.6, 0.0, -19.4)
CoG (x, y, z) [m] (-30.6, 0.0, -16.0) m
Ixx [kg*m2] 1.29exp.+10
Iyy [kg*m2] 2.18exp.+10
Izz [kg*m2] 1.79exp.+10
Iyx [kg*m2] 3.20exp.+6
Izx [kg*m2] -6.4exp.+9
Izy [kg*m2] 9.87exp.+5
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
p. 31
797 Table 6: Mooring line characteristics
Variables Value
Length of each line [m] 453
Mass per meter [kg/m] 117
Equivalent Axial stiffness [N] 3.0exp.+9
Diameter [m] 0.138
Drag coefficient 1.2
Clump mass [m] 37,000
Clump mass volume [m3] 4.4
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
p. 32
818 Table 7: Coordinates of fairlead and anchoring points of the mooring lines ML1, ML2 and ML3
Variables Value
Fairlead of ML1 (x, y, z) [m] (4.5, 0, -18)
Fairlead of ML2 (x, y, z) [m] (-55.8, 32.3, -18)
Fairlead of ML3 (x, y, z) [m] (-55.8, -32.3, -18)
Anchor point of ML1 (x, y, z) [m] (450, 0, -100)
Anchor point of ML2 (x, y, z) [m] (-441.7, 255, -100)
Anchor point of ML3 (x, y, z) [m] (-441.7, -255, -100)
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
p. 33
840 Table 8: Added mass coefficients calculated in WAMIT (at infinite frequency)
Variables Value
Surge [kg] 4.939exp.+6
Sway [kg] 6.772exp.+6
Heave [kg] 1.062exp.+7
Roll [kg*m2] 5.488exp.+9
Pitch [kg*m2] 1.022exp.+10
Yaw [kg*m2] 1.472exp.+10
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
p. 34
862 Table 9: Hydrostatic restoring coefficients calculated in WAMIT
Variables Value
Heave [N/m] 1.91exp.+6
Roll [Nm] 7.86exp.+8
Pitch [Nm] 3.07exp.+9
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
p. 35
887 Table 10: Statistical characteristics of motion and tension responses for wave only extreme environmental
888 conditions
Item Characteristics Wave heading 0 degrees Wave heading45 degrees

Mean 1,200 1,230
STD 190 147
Tension (kN)
Min 541 644
Max 2,720 2,250
Mean -6.39 -6.76
STD 2.39 1.74
Surge (m)
Min -13.50 -11.91
Max 2.76 -0.30
Mean 0.0 4.26
STD 0.0 2.11
Sway (m)
Min 0.0 -1.49
Max 0.0 13.38
Mean -0.07 0.01
STD 1.56 1.29
Heave (m)
Min -6.63 -5.12
Max 4.38 4.06
Mean 0.0 -0.07
STD 0.0 0.82
Roll (deg)
Min -0.03 -3.33
Max 0.03 2.35
Mean -0.10 -0.23
STD 1.97 1.58
Pitch (deg)
Min -6.71 -4.97
Max 7.28 5.70
Mean 0.0 -2.9
STD 0.0 1.8
Yaw (deg)
Min 0.0 -10.0
Max 0.0 2.8
889
890
891
892
893
p. 36
894
895 Figure 1: Different floating concepts: semisubmersible, spar buoy and tension leg platform
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
p. 37
919
920
921
922
923
924 Figure 2: Braceless semisubmersible offshore wind turbine (Fukushima FORWARD [12])
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
p. 38
948
949 Figure 3: Schematic layout of the V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
p. 39
6
V55 around Y
V55 around X
5 V60 around Y
V60 around X
V65 around Y
4
V65 around X
V70 around Y
GZ (m)
3 V70 around X
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
966 Angle (deg)
967 Figure 4: Transversal (around X-axis) and longitudinal (around Y-axis) GZ (righting arms) curves of V55,
968 V60, V65 and V75 V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
p. 40
8
x 10
4
V55 around Y
3.5 V55 around X
V60 around Y
3 V60 around X
Righting moment (Nm) V65 around Y
2.5 V65 around X
V70 around Y
2 V70 around X
Tthres
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
986 Angle (deg)
988 V55, V60, V65 and V75 V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
p. 41
6
V60 al1 around Y
V60 al1 around X
5
V60 al2 around Y
V60 al2 around X
4
GZ (m) V60 al3 around Y
V60 al3 around X
3
V60 around Y
V60 around X
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
1005 Angle (deg)
1006 Figure 6: Transversal (around X-axis) and longitudinal (around Y-axis) GZ (righting arms) curves of
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
p. 42
8
x 10
6
V60al1 around Y
V60al1 around X
5
V60al2 around Y
Righting moment (Nm) V60al2 around X
4
V60al3 around Y
V60al3 around X
3
V60 around Y
V60 around X
2 Tthres
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1025 Angle (deg)
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
p. 43
1044
c) floating wind
turbine
a) mooring lines - floater
b) mesh of panel model
1045
1046 Figure 8: Modeling of the V-shaped semisubmersible: a) mooring lines and platform in SIMA, b) panel
1047 mesh for half-geometry in WAMIT (15,640 elements for entire platform) and c) V-shaped floating wind
1048 turbine in Genie
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
p. 44
1066
-10
ML1
-20 ML2 and ML3
-30
-40
-50
Z (m)
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
X (m)
1067
1068 Figure 9: Static equilibrium configuration of catenary mooring lines
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
p. 45
1087
1150
1100
Tension (kN)
1050
1000
950
900
0 100 200 300 400 500
1088 Line length (m)
1089 Figure 10: Axial effective tension in mooring lines in static equilibrium configuration, the clump mass
1090 effect is clear at X=82 m to increase the tension at upper part of the line from 930 kN to 1057 kN
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
p. 46
1107
20 50
Wave frequency (first order) Sway eigenfrequency
Surge eigenfrequency
spec sway (m2/rad/sec)

40
spec surge (m /rad/sec)
15
Pitch eigenfrequency
30
2
10
20 Yaw eigenfrequency Wave frequecny
5
10
Roll eigenfrequency
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
1108 frequency (rad/sec) frequency (rad/sec)
12 6
Roll eigenfrequency
Wave frequency
spec roll (deg2/rad/sec)

spec heave (m2/rad/sec)
9
4
6
Heave eigenfrequency
2 Wave frequency
3
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
50 40
Yaw eigenfrequency
spec yaw (deg2/rad/sec)
spec pitch (deg2/rad/sec)
40 Pitch eigenfrequency 30
30
20
20 Heave
eigenfrequency
10
10 Wave frequency Wave frequency
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
1111 Figure 11: Motion response spectra of surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw motions for wave heading
1112 of 45 degrees.
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
p. 47
1124
2400
ML1
ML2
2100
ML3
1800
Axial force kN
1500
1200
900
600
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1125 Time (sec)
1126 Figure 12: Time series of tension of mooring lines in extreme conditions for wave heading of 45 degrees
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
p. 48
1147
4
x 10
10
ML1
spec tension (kN2/rad/sec) Wave frequency ML2
7.5 ML3
5 Surge/Sway/Yaw
eigenfrequencies
2.5 Elastic eigenfrequencies
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
1148 frequency (rad/sec)
1149 Figure 13: Spectra of tension of mooring lines in extreme sea state for wave heading of 45 degrees
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
p. 49
1170
0.8 2.5
spec surge (m2/rad/sec)

0.6 2
1.5
0.4
1
0.2
0.5
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.2 0.06
0.05

0.15
0.04
0.1 0.03
0.02
0.05
0.01
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
0.04 0.6
spec yaw (deg2 /rad/sec)
0.03
0.4
0.02
0.2
0.01
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
1174 Figure 14: Motion response spectra of surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw motions for a moderate sea
1175 state with wave heading of 45 degrees
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
p. 50
-6
1186 -6.5
surge (m)
-7
1187
-7.5
1188 -8
-8.5
1189 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
time (sec)
3000 3500 4000
2
1190
1.5
1191 1
sway (m)
0.5
1192 0
1193 -0.5
-1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1194 time (sec)
1
1195
0.5
1196
heave (m)
1197
-0.5
1198
-1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time (sec)
1199 0.4
1200 0.2
roll (deg)
1201 0
1202 -0.2
1203 -0.4
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time (sec)
1204 -0.1
1205 -0.3
pitch (deg)
1206
-0.5
1207
1208 -0.7
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time (sec)
0.5
1209
0
1210
yaw (deg)
-0.5
1211
-1
1212
-1.5
1213 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
time (sec)
3000 3500 4000
1214 Fig. 15: Time series of motions in moderate sea state with 45 degrees wave heading
p. 51
1400
1200
Axial force kN
ML1
ML2
1000
ML3
800
600
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1215 time (sec)
1216 Fig. 16: Time series of effective tension of mooring lines for moderate sea state
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
p. 52
4
x 10
7
spec tension (kN2/rad/sec)

6 ML1
linked to slowly-varying motions ML2
5 (surge, sway and yaw) ML3
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
1241 Fig. 17: Effective tension spectra of mooring lines in moderate sea state
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
p. 53
5
1265
1266 0
surge (m)
1267 -5
1268
-10
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1269 4
time (sec)
1270 2
0
sway (m)
1271
-2
1272 -4
1273 -6
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time (sec)
1274 -1
-1.5
1275
-2
heave (m)
1276 -2.5
-3
1277 -3.5
1278 -4
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time (sec)
2
1279
1
1280
roll (deg)
0
1281
-1
1282
-2
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1283 time (sec)
6
1284
5
1285
pitch (deg)
1286 3
2
1287
1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1288 time (sec)
10
1289 5
yaw (deg)
1290 0
1291 -5
1292 -10
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time (sec)
1293 Fig. 18: Time series of motions for environmental conditions corresponding to rated wind speed
p. 54
1294
120 40
100

30
80
60 20
40
10
20
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
frequency (rad/sec)
0.4 3.5
3.0

0.3
2.5
2.0
0.2
1.5
0.1 1.0
0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
2.5 100
2.0 80
1.5 60
1.0 40
0.5 20
0.0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1299 conditions corresponding to rated wind speed
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
p. 55
1600
ML1
ML2
1400 ML3
Axial force kN
1200
1000
800
600
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1311 Time (sec)
1312 Fig. 20: Time series of effective tension of mooring lines in rated wind speed
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
p. 56
5
x 10
4
Yaw eigenfrequency ML1
ML2

3 ML3
2
Surge/Sway
eigenfrequency
1
Yaw eigenfrequency harmonic
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
1337 Fig. 21: Spectra of effective tension for mooring lines for environmental condition that corresponds to
1338 rated wind speed
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
p. 57
1360
15
wind (m/sec)
10
5
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time (sec)
1361
1.4
omega rotor (rad/sec)
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1362 time (sec)
6
pitchAngle (deg)
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1363 time (sec)
6000
5000
powerG (kW)
4000
3000
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

1364 time (sec)
Nacelle surge acceleration (m/sec )
2
-1
-2
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1365 time (sec)
1366 Fig. 22: Time series of turbine functionality for environmental condition that corresponds to rated wind
1367 speed
1368
p. 58
40 0.06
spec omega ((rad/sec)2/rad/sec)

spec wind ((m/sec)2/rad/sec)
0.05
30
0.04
20 0.03
0.02
10
0.01
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
7
100 2 x 10
spec pitchAngle (deg2/rad/sec)
spec powerG (kW2/rad/sec)

80
1.5
60
1
40
0.5
20
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
1371 Fig. 23: Spectra of wind turbine functionality data for environmental condition that corresponds to rated
1372 wind speed
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
p. 59
0
1389
-2
1390
surge (m)
-4
1391
-6
1392
-8
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1393 4
time (sec)
1394 2
sway (m)
1395 0
1396 -2
1397 -4
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time (sec)
1398 0
1399 -1
heave (m)
1400 -2
1401 -3
1402 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

time (sec)
3000 3500 4000
3
1403 2
1404 1
roll (deg)
1405 0
-1
1406
-2
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1407 time (sec)
4
1408
3
pitch (deg)
1409 2
1410 1
1411 0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time (sec)
1412 5
1413
yaw (deg)
0
1414
-5
1415
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1416 time (sec)
1417 Fig. 24: Time series of motions for environmental condition that corresponds to over rated wind speed
p. 60
1418
40
40
spec sway (m2 /rad/sec)

30
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
2 4
spec roll (deg /rad/sec)

1.5 3
2
1 2
0.5 1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
5 80
spec pitch (deg2 /rad/sec)
4
60
3
40
2
20
1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
1423 condition that corresponds to over rated wind speed
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
p. 61
1300 ML1
ML2
1200 ML3
Axial force kN
1100
1000
900
800
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1435 time (sec)
1436 Fig. 26: Time series of effective tension of mooring lines for environmental condition that corresponds to
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
p. 62
5
x 10
2

ML1
ML2
1.5
ML3
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
1460 Fig. 27: Spectra of effective tension of mooring lines for environmental condition that corresponds to
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
p. 63
30
25
wind (m/sec)
20
15
10
5
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1483 time (sec)
1.5
omega rotor (rad/sec)
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

1484 time (sec)
18
16
pitchAngle (deg)
14
12
10
8
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1485 time (sec)
6000
powerG (kW)
5500
5000
4500
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1486 time (sec)
2
Nacelle surge acceleration (m/sec2)
-1
-2
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1487 time (sec)
1488 Fig. 28: Time series of turbine functionality for environmental condition that corresponds to over rated
1489 wind speed
p. 64
0.03
spec omega ((rad/sec)2/rad/sec)

60
spec wind ((m/sec)2 /rad/sec)
50
0.02
40
30
20 0.01
10
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
5
50 6 x 10
spec pitchAngle (deg2/rad/sec)
spec powerG (kW2/rad/sec)

40 5
4
30
3
20
2
10 1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
1492 Fig. 29: Spectra of turbine functionality data for environmental condition that corresponds to over rated
1493 wind speed
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
p. 65
4000
elecTorque (kNm)
3000
2000
1000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1511 time (sec)
1512 Fig. 30: Time series of turbine electrical torque for environmental condition that corresponds to over rated
1513 wind speed
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
p. 66
6
x 10
2
spec powerR (kW2/rad/sec)

1.5 Wind-induced
1
Wave-induced
1P rotor 3P rotor
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
1537 Fig. 31: Spectrum of turbine rotor aerodynamic power for environmental condition that corresponds to
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
p. 67

V-Shaped Semisubmersible Offshore Wind Turbine: An Alternative Concept For Offshore Wind Technology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

V-Shaped Semisubmersible Offshore Wind Turbine: An Alternative Concept For Offshore Wind Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine: An alternative

concept for offshore wind technology

Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:

Take down policy

Download date:06. thg 3. 2024

2 offshore wind technology

3 Madjid Karimirada and Constantine Michailidesb

25 the offshore wind industry.

28 dynamics; Offshore wind technology.

46 probability of success of a concept in industry (Karimirad [7]).

49 analysis and incorporate features as follow:

57 radiation and diffraction can become important.

68 steel or hybrid semisubmersible platform can be utilized.

82 welded joints (Figure 2).

92 which can enhance the offshore wind industry.

113 is sufficient or too large.

136 (CoG) and the metacenter of the semisubmersible platform.

146 performance of the system.

168 longitudinal (around Y axis) direction.

223 that are used are:

225 hydrodynamic analysis,

227  SIMA [39]: Coupled mooring-floater dynamic analysis,

228  Simo [40] –Riflex [41]: Integrated wave-induced simulations,

229  Simo-Riflex-Aerodyn [42]: Hydro-aero-servo-elastic time domain analysis.

249 considered to avoid over-loading and slack of mooring lines.

261 [Figure 10]

274 coupling effects):

294 5.1 Wave only load cases

295 5.1.1 Extreme sea state

317 U  (σ  R s ) /(σ y / R M )  (181  1.3) /(350 / 1.15)  0.77

320 for the material and load factors is 3,502 kN.

323 [Figure 11]

324 [Figure 12]

325 [Figure 13]

342 the high frequency part [44].

353 are presented in Figure 16 and Figure 17, respectively.

362 Figure 12 and 16.

369 [Figure 15]

370 [Figure 16]

371 [Figure 17]

374 5.2.1 Rated wind speed

385 energy of wind in low frequency part, as it was expected.

406 order to avoid damage to drivetrain components [45]

414 responses have low frequency components close to zero rad/sec.

417 [Figure 19]

418 [Figure 20]

419 [Figure 21]

420 [Figure 22]

421 [Figure 23]

436 response is smaller for over rated wind speed.

452 turbulent features of wind.

457 smoothed by summing up produced power from different turbines.

468 feathering the blades.

471 [Figure 25]

472 [Figure 26]

473 [Figure 27]

474 [Figure 28]

475 [Figure 29]

476 [Figure 30]

477 [Figure 31]

508 dynamic response. The same trend is clear in tension responses.

528 slowly-varying wind-induced load and load-effects.

534 on an appropriate long-term analysis.