High Reliability Solutions & Innovative Concepts For Offshore Wind Turbines

63rd IEA Topical Expert Meeting
HIGH RELIABILITY SOLUTIONS AND INNOVATIVE

CONCEPTS FOR OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES
September 21-22 2010
SINTEF Energy Research, Trondheim, Norway
Organized by: CENER
Scientific Co-ordination:
Flix Avia Aranda
CENER (Centro Nacional de Energas Renovables)
Urb. La Florida C/ Somera 7-9, 1
28023 - Madrid Spain
Disclaimer:
Please note that these proceedings may only be redistributed to persons in countries participating in
the IEA RD&D Task 11.
The reason is that the participating countries are paying for this work and are expecting that the
results of their efforts stay within this group of countries.
The documentation can be distributed to the following countries: Canada, Denmark, European
Commission, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.
After one year the proceedings can be distributed to all countries, that is October 2011
Copies of this document can be obtained from:

CENER
Flix Avia Aranda
Urb. La Florida. C/ Somera 7-9, 1
C.P.: 28023 - Madrid Spain
Phone:
+34 91417 5042
E-mail:
favia@cener.com
For more information about IEA Wind see www.ieawind.org
International Energy Agency

Implement Agreement for Co-operation in the
Research, Development and Deployment of Wind
Turbine Systems: IEA Wind
The IEA international collaboration on energy technology and RD&D is organized under
the legal structure of Implementing Agreements, in which Governments, or their delegated
agents, participate as Contracting Parties and undertake Tasks identified in specific Annexes.
The IEAs Wind Implementing Agreement began in 1977, and is now called the
Implementing Agreement for Co-operation in the Research, Development, and Deployment of
Wind Energy Systems (IEA Wind). At present, 24 contracting parties from 20 countries, the
European Commission, and the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) participate in
IEA Wind. Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, the European Commission, EWEA, Finland,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy (two contracting parties), Japan, the Republic of Korea,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway (two contracting parties), Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States are now members.
The development and maturing of wind energy technology over the past 30 years has been
facilitated through vigorous national programs of research, development, demonstration, and
financial incentives. In this process, IEA Wind has played a role by providing a flexible
framework for cost-effective joint research projects and information exchange.
The mission of the IEA Wind Agreement continues to be to encourage and support the
technological development and global deployment of wind energy technology. To do this, the
contracting parties exchange information on their continuing and planned activities and
participate in IEA Wind Tasks regarding cooperative research, development, and
demonstration of wind systems.
Task 11 of the IEA Wind Agreement, Base Technology Information Exchange, has the
objective to promote and disseminate knowledge through cooperative activities and
information exchange on R&D topics of common interest to the Task members. These
cooperative activities have been part of the Wind Implementing Agreement since 1978.
Task 11 is an important instrument of IEA Wind. It can react flexibly on new technical and
scientific developments and information needs. It brings the latest knowledge to wind energy
players in the member countries and collects information and recommendations for the work
of the IEA Wind Agreement. Task 11 is also an important catalyst for starting new tasks
within IEA Wind.
The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

Co-operation in the Research, Development, and Deployment of Wind Energy Systems
www.ieawind.org
IEA Wind TASK 11: BASE TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION

EXCHANGE
The objective of this Task is to promote disseminating knowledge through cooperative
activities and information exchange on R&D topics of common interest. Four meetings on
different topics are arranged every year, gathering active researchers and experts. These
cooperative activities have been part of the Agreement since 1978.
Two Subtasks
The task includes two subtasks. The
objective of the first subtask is to develop
recommended practices for wind turbine
testing and evaluation by assembling an
Experts Group for each topic needing
recommended practices. For example, the
Experts
Group
on
wind
speed
measurements published the document
titled Wind Speed Measurement and Use
of Cup Anemometry. A document dealing
with Sodar measurements are presently
under development.
The objective of the second subtask is to
conduct topical expert meetings in research
areas identified by the IEA R&D Wind
Executive Committee. The Executive
Committee designates topics in research
areas of current interest, which requires an
exchange of information. So far, Topical
Expert Meetings are arranged four times a
year.
Documentation
Since these activities were initiated in
1978, more than 60 volumes of
proceedings have been published. In the
series of Recommended Practices 11
documents were published and five of
these have revised editions.
All documents produced under Task 11
and published by the Operating Agent are
available to citizens of member countries
participating in this Task.
Operating Agent
CENER
Flix Avia Aranda
Urb. La Florida. C/ Somera 7-9, 1
C.P.: 28023 - Madrid Spain
Phone: +34 91417 5042
E-mail:favia@cener.com

www.ieawind.org
II
COUNTRIES PRESENTLY PARTICIPATING IN THE TASK 11

COUNTRY
INSTITUTION
Canada
National Resources Canada
Denmark
Ris National Laboratory - DTU
European Commission
European Commission
Finland
Technical Research Centre of Finland - VTT Energy
Germany
Bundesministerium fr Unwelt , Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit -BMU
Ireland
Sustainable Energy Ireland - SEI
Italy
Ricerca sul Sistema Energetico - RSE S.p.A.
Japan
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology AIST
Republic of Korea
POHANG University of Science and Technology - POSTECH
Mexico
Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas - IEE
Netherlands
SenterNovem
Norway
The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate - NVE

Centro de Investigaciones Energticas, Medioambientales y Tecnolgicas
Spain
CIEMAT
Sweden
Energimyndigheten
Switzerland
Swiss Federal Office of Energy - SFOE
United Kingdom
Uk Dept for Bussines, Enterprises & Regulatory Reform - BERR
United States
The U.S Department of Energy -DOE

www.ieawind.org
Blank page

www.ieawind.org
IV
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
a) BackgroundIX
b) Techniques..X
c) Topics to be addressedXI
d) Expected outcomes..XI
e) AgendaXII
PRESENTATIONS
1.Presentation of Introductory Note
Mr. John O. Tande SINTEF 01
1. Review of the OC3 IEA Wind Task 23 & Plans for OC4 under Task 30
Jason Jonkman, National Renewable Energy Laboratoy (NREL), USA..09
2. Findings and Prospects in Research on Support Structures and Foundations

in GIGAWIND alpha ventus
Jan Dubois, Leibniz Univ. of Hannover, Germany ...33
3. DeepCWind Floating Offshore Wind Project in the U.S.
Amy Robertson. National Wind Technology Center (NREL), USA 49
4. SAEMar Project. Anchoring Systems for Renewable Marine Energies Offshore Platforms
Ral Rodrguez Arias. Centro Tecnolgico de Componentes (CTC), Santander. Spain 57
5. Taut mooring of floating wind turbines, application examples and comparisons.

Tor Anders Nygaard, Institute for Energy Technology (IFE), Kjeller, Norway ..69
6. Extreme loads Extrapolation for Offshore turbines

www.ieawind.org
Anand Natarajan. Ris DTU. Denmark ...87

7. IDERMAR METEO: an innovative solution for offshore wind assesment.
Ral Guanche Garca. IH Cantabria. Spain 97
8. ZEFIR Test Station

Rajai Aghabi Rivas. IREC. Spain 111
9. The status of research and technology development on offshore wind energy in Japan
Chuichi Arakawa. Kyoto University, Japan ................121
10. Research and Development of a Hybrid-spar for Floating Offshore Wind Turbine
Tomoaki Utsunomiya, Civil and Earth Resources Engineering Dep, Kyoto Univ. Japan ..133
11. Influence of Waves to Wind Misalignment to Dynamic Characteristics...."
Yoshida Shigeo. Fuji Heavy Industries. Japan 163
12. Integrated Dynamic Response Analysis of Spar-Type Wind Turbines with Catenary and
Taut Mooring.
Madjid Karimirad.Torgeir Moan. NTNU. Norway 169
13. Innovative Concepts for Offshore Wind Installations.
Peter Jamieson. Univ Stratchclyde UK .179
14. WindFlip, a transportation vessel for offshore floating wind turbines.

Torbjrn Mannsker. Marintek. Norway ..201
15. Research activities on bottom-supported wind turbines

Michael Muskulus, NTNU, Trondheim,Norway...211
16. Marine Technology Laboratories MARINTEK and Offshore wind technology.

Petter Andreas Berthelsen, MARINTEC. Norway .223
17. EU-funded activities under FP7.

Thierry Langlois dEstaintot. New and Renewable Energy Sources
www.ieawind.org
VI
European Commission .235
SUMMARY
a) Participants
b) Discussion
c) Future actions under the umbrella of IEA Wind

www.ieawind.org
VII

www.ieawind.org
VIII
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
Prepared by John Olav Tande
a) Background
Targets are set for a massive installation of offshore wind farms. In Europe alone plans suggest 40 GW
by 2020 and 150 GW by 2030 as viable. The development is ongoing, but in an early stage. Only about
2 GW of offshore wind farms have so far been installed, and all relatively close to shore at shallow
waters using what can be called on-shore wind technology. The exceptions are the Beatrice wind farm
installed at 46 m water depth using jacket sub-structures, the Alpha Ventus wind farm demonstrating
jackets and tripods for foundation, and the floating wind turbine concepts, HyWind and BlueH. New
concepts are under development, e.g. SWAY, WindFloat and WindSea.
The experience so far indicates that technical challenges related to offshore installation, operation,
maintenance and repairs have been underestimated, though are now being addressed by the industry and
applied research.
Bottom-fixed wind farms, and mainly at shallow waters, are expected to dominate the near term
development, whereas industry-scale deployment of deep offshore (floating) wind farms are expected
after 2020.
A joint challenge in offshore wind is costs. The very ambitious targets for development of offshore wind
farms are only likely to be realized provided significant cost reductions. This can be achieved through
incremental improvements, e.g. gaining cost reductions through more efficient mass-fabrication and
installation procedures, reduction of risks and contingencies through experience and better engineering
tools, improved quality in critical parts and more cost-efficient operation and maintenance.
This topical expert meeting takes this as background, and focus on the possibilities of step-changes in
technology aiming for high reliability solutions and innovative concepts as a means for cost reductions
of offshore wind energy. These are solutions and concepts in the R&D phase today.

www.ieawind.org
IX
b) Techniques
Improving the reliability of offshore wind turbines is paramount to the success of offshore wind
energy in the future. The larger the machine and further away from the coast, the larger the economic
loss for non-operation and associated maintenance. Vintage wind turbines often have the same gearbox
for their entire working lives. Modern wind turbines are much larger and optimised by weight and
efficiency. They need a number of major overhauls during their lifetimes to ensure efficient operation,
as does any conventional power generation plant. Wind turbines are currently designed in such a way
that the exchange of main components or sub assemblies is difficult. More efficient and newer drive
train concepts are needed to bring turbine reliability up to the required level. A more modular build up
of drive trains with more built in redundancy could help faster, cheaper and more efficient turbine
maintenance. The need for extremely reliable machines offshore can also be an extra driver for the
reliability of onshore machines.
Innovative concepts, such as variable speed, direct-drive offshore wind turbines are currently
emerging, with the aim of limiting the number of moving parts and lowering maintenance costs, as
gearboxes are expensive to replace offshore. A multi-pole gearless machine also operates at lower drive
train speeds and thus creates less stress on components. A main challenge for these concepts is to reduce
the weight on top of the tower, in order to optimise the use of material and limit the transport and
installation costs. So far, gearless machines have been heavier and more expensive to produce than their
geared equivalent. Lighter gearless technology is now being tested onshore.
Larger machines (5 to 10 MW), specifically designed for offshore could bring benefits in terms of
economies of scale by placing fewer larger machines on fewer foundations, or increasing the wind
farms power output. For example, economies of scale could also be realised by increasing the lifetime
to 30 years, provided it does not negatively affect the design.
Concepts such as two-bladed downwind turbines could emerge in the medium term. Two-bladed
machines are louder in operation making them less appropriate onshore, but not offshore. A two-bladed
machine would be easier to install as nacelles can be stacked with the full rotor mounted, whereas the
single blade lifts of the third blade for the bunny eared configuration are highly dependent on calm
weather. No large two-bladed offshore turbine is currently in operation.
The offshore wind industry will need to deploy upwards of 10,000 structures by 2020. The offshore
manufacturing industry cannot deliver this in its current form. The industry currently has insufficient
capacity, and the processes adapted from oil and gas manufacturing are not capable of delivering the

www.ieawind.org
volumes required. Therefore the offshore wind industry must take urgent steps to rectify this situation.
In addition, the supply of substructures should not been seen as independent from their transport and
installation as an integrated approach is taken, taking into account unique site conditions and the
location of the wind farm.
Substructures represent a significant proportion of offshore development costs. In the case described
by Papalexandrou , the foundation represents 25% (5 MW turbine) to 34% (2 MW turbine) of
investment costs in 25m water depth. Thus, novel sub-structure designs and/or improved manufacturing
processes that reduce costs will be critical to improving the economics of offshore developments.
c) Topics to be addressed
The main objective is to hold a meeting to discuss and gather information on:
Wind Characteristics Measurement for Offshore Assessment
New Technological Solutions for WT
New Technical Solutions for Support Structures
The participants were encouraged to prepare presentations relevant to these objectives.
d) Expected outcomes
One of the goals of the meeting will be to gather the existing knowledge on the subject and come up
with suggestions / recommendations on how to proceed for future developments. The proceedings
document will contain:
Presentations by participants
Compilation of the most recent information on the topic
Main conclusions of the discussion session.
Definition of IEA Wind RD&Ds future role in this topic
The expected outcome of the meeting is a clearer understanding of high reliability solutions and
innovative concepts for offshore wind turbines, hereunder the proceedings and a plan for future
information exchange / work within this area. Is there a need for continued information exchange in this
area (e.g. is there interest in an IEA Task on this topic, and how should this relate to new Task 30:
Offshore Comparison of Dynamic Computer Codes and Models Offshore Comparison Collaborative
(OC3) Extension Project.
www.ieawind.org
XI
e) Agenda
Tuesday, September 21st
09:00 Registration. Collection of presentations and final Agenda
09:25 Introduction by Host
President Sverre Aam, SINTEF Energy Research
09:40 Introduction by AIE Task 11 Operating Agent. Recognition of Participants
Mr. Felix Avia, Operating Agent Task 11 IEAWind R&D
10:00 Presentation of Introductory Note
Mr. John O. Tande SINTEF
10:30 Coffee Break
11:10 Review of the OC3 Project under IEA Wind Task 23 & Plans for OC4
under Task 30. Jason Jonkman, National Renewable Energy Laboratoy
(NREL), USA
11:35 Findings and Prospects in Research on Support Structures and
Foundations in GIGAWIND alpha ventus. Jan Dubois, Leibniz University of
Hannover, Germany
12:00 Lunch
13:00 DeepCWind Floating Offshore Wind Project in the U.S.
Amy Robertson. National Wind Technology Center, NREL, USA
13:25 SAEMar Project. Anchoring Systems for Renewable Marine Energies
Offshore Platforms. Ral Rodrguez Arias, Centro Tecnolgico de
Componentes, CTC, Santander .Spain
13:50 Taut mooring of floating wind turbines, application examples and
comparisons. Tor Anders Nygaard, Institute for Energy Technology (IFE),
Kjeller, Norway
14:15 Extreme loads Extrapolation for Offshore turbines.
Anand Natarajan. Ris DTU. Denmark
14:40 IDERMAR METEO: an innovative solution for offshore wind assesment.
Ral Guanche Garca. IH Cantabria. Spain

www.ieawind.org
XII
15:05 Coffee Break

15:30 ZEFIR Test Station. Rajai Aghabi Rivas. IREC. Spain
15:55 The status of research and technology development on offshore wind energy
in Japan. Chuichi Arakawa, Kyoto University, Japan
16:20 Research and Development of a Hybrid-spar for Floating Offshore Wind
Turbine. Tomoaki Utsunomiya, Department of Civil and Earth Resources
Engineering Kyoto University, Japan
16:45 Influences of Wave to Wind Misalignment to Dynamic Characteristics and
Fatigue Loads on Spar-type Floating Offshore Wind Turbine.
Yoshida Shig, Fuji Heavy Industries. Japan
17:10
Adjourn
19.00 Informal dinner
Wednesday, September 22nd

09:00 Welcome
09:15 Integrated Dynamic Response Analysis of Spar-Type Wind Turbines with
Catenary and Taut Mooring.
Madjid Karimirad.Torgeir Moan. NTNU.Norway
09:40 Innovative Concepts for Offshore Wind Installations.
Peter Jamieson. Univ. Stratchclyde. UK
10:05 WindFlip, a transportation vessel for offshore floating wind turbines.
Torbjrn Mannsker. Marintek. Norway.
10:20 Research activities on bottom-supported wind turbines.

Michael Muskulus, Civil and Transport Engineering Dept (BAT), NTNU, Trondheim,
Norway
10:45 Coffee Break

11:15 Marine Technology Laboratories MARINTEK and Offshore wind technology.
Petter Andreas Berthelsen, Marintec. Norway.

www.ieawind.org
XIII
11:40 EU-funded activities under FP7.

Thierry Langlois dEstaintot. New and Renewable Energy Sources. DirectorateGeneral Research. European Commission
12:05 Lunch
13:00 Discussion and Summary of Meeting
14:00 Technical Tour to the Ocean Basin Laboratory at MARINTEK.
16:00 End of the meeting

www.ieawind.org
XIV
PRESENTATIONS

www.ieawind.org
XV

www.ieawind.org
XVI
TEM 63 "High Reliability Solutions and Innovative Concepts for Offshore Wind Turbines"
HIGH RELIABILITY SOLUTIONS

AND INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS
FOR OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES
Introduction to IEA Wind TEM #63
Trondheim, 21-22 September 2010
John Olav Giver Tande

Director NOWITECH
Senior Research Scientist
SINTEF Energy Research
John.tande@sintef.no
www.nowitech.no
1
NOWITECH in brief
Objective:
Pre-competitive research laying a foundation for industrial value creation
and cost-effective offshore wind farms. Emphasis on deep sea (+30 m).
R&D partners: SINTEF, IFE, NTNU + associates: Ris DTU (DK), NREL & MIT
(US), Fraunhofer IWES (DE), University of Strathclyde (UK), TU Delft (NL)
Industry partners: Statkraft, Statoil, Vestavind Kraft, Dong Energy, Lyse,
Statnett, Aker Solutions, SmartMotor, NTE, DNV, Vestas, Fugro Oceanor,
Devold AMT, TrnderEnergi, EDF + associates: Innovation Norway, Enova,
NORWEA, NVE, Energy Norway, Navitas Network
Work packages:
1. Numerical design tools (including wind and hydrodynamics)
2. Energy conversion system (new materials for lightweight blades & generators)
3. Novel substructures (bottom-fixed
(bottom fixed and floaters)
4. Grid connection and system integration
5. Operation and maintenance
6. Concept validation, experiments and demonstration
Total budget (2009-2017): +NOK 320 millions including 25 PhD/post docs

2
IEA WIND ENERGY - Task 11: Base Technology Information Exchange
NOWITECH vision
large scale deployment of deep sea offshore wind turbines
an internationally leading research community on offshore wind
technology enabling industry partners to be in the forefront.
Means and main ambitions

Combine wind technology know-how with offshore and energy industry
experience to enhance development of offshore wind.
Establish a recruitment and educational programme that provides for
highly qualified staff at Master and PhD level for serving the industry.
Build strong relations with selected top international research partners.
Facilitate active involvement by industry partners to ensure relevance
and efficient communication and utilization of results.
Support to industry is through pre-competitive research commercial
development will come as a result and be run in separate projects.
Actively pursue opportunities to increase R&D activity on critical issues.
3
Strong motivation for offshore wind R&D

Offshore 2030: 150 GW*
Offshore 2020: 40 GW*
Huge potential
Offshore wind is vital for
battling climate change,
development of industry and
security of supply
Development at an early
stage; less than 2% of the
global wind capacity is
installed offshore
Technology needs to be
developed to reduce costs
per kWh
Karmy
HyWind
(floating, 200m)
(jacket, 46m)
Offshore 2009: ~2 GW
(jacket & tripods, 30m)
O&M
*EWEA estimate for EU
LPC distribution of
offshore wind farm
(example)
Wind
turbine
Substructure
Grid
Lots of options to improve bottom-fixed support structures
Mono-pile dominates the

market for shallow waters
Jackets and tripods are
tested at intermediate
intermediatedepths (+30 m)
Various new concepts are
being developed by
industry, incl. concrete substructures (Vici Ventus)
Lots of room for
improvements through
integrated design, incl.
control actions to reduce
loading on structure
Design should also consider
alternative ways for
installation.
Graphics: copy from Haiyan Long, PhD student NTNU, 2009
Many exciting floating concepts

(2009, 2,3 MW)
BlueH (2007, 80 kW)
NREL/MIT
HiPRwind
The HyWind demo in operation since Sept. 2009

Turbine power
2,3 MW
Turbine weight
138 tons
Draft hull
100 m
Nacelle height
65 m
Rotor diameter
82,4 m
Water depth
150700 m
Displacement
5300 tons
Mooring
3 lines
D @ water line
6m
D submerged
8,3 m
Data from Statoil

7
One big advantage of floaters: relatively easy installation!
In-shore assembly in
sheltered waters
Tug-boats for transport
to site for installation
Alternative: WindFlip?
8
Is HyWind stable? Yes; according to

Simulations and Test in Ocean Basin Lab (2005)
Tower top displacement (m

m)
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
10
-15100
With stabilizer
Without stabilizer
200
250
Time (s)
150
300
tower pittch angle / mean tower pitch angle [-]
Measurements of HyWind operating at 2,3 MW

controller tuned
controller not tuned
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Copy from Bjrn

Skaare, Statoil:
Wind power R&D
seminar deep
sea offshore wind,
21-22 January
2010, Trondheim,
www.nowitech.no
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
0
200
400
600
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

time [s]
10
Will floaters be economic?

O&M
Wind
turbine
Substructure
Grid
HyWind 2,3 MW floater: 1300 tons of steel;

simple structure, suitable for mass
production; quick installation; amounts of
steel can be reduced through
optimization
Al
Alpha
h Ventus
V t 5 MW jjacket:
k t 500 ttons off
steel; complex structure & installation;
what will the steel weight be at 50 m water
depth?
11
Tower top weight is critical for keeping the cost down
12
An optimized grid is a key for efficient integration
Hydropower
with storage
Wind farms
NorNed
SK 4
Ekofisk
NORD.LINK / NorGer
Wind and hydro:

a win-win combination
SK
1,2,3
Main challenges
Many possible grid configurations
New market solutions are required
New technology
gy ((HVDC VSC, multiterminal, hybrid HVDC/HVAC, .. )
Cost, Reliability and Security of Supply
140
Number of cab
ble configurations
Statnett vision (2009)
10
120
10
100
10
80
10
60
10
40
10
20
10
10
10
15
20
Number of nodes
25
30
13
Why bother with all this new, when there are

plenty of challenges in need for urgent attention?
Need for both; long term R&D
are the answer to be prepared
for the urgencies of tomorrow
New solutions should be robust
Systems for remote monitoring,
state estimation and control
should be developed
Improved systems for access
and HSE must be developed
Much can be learnt from the
offshore oil and gas sector (also
how not to do it..)
Copy from Recharge June 2010
14
NOWERI: a platform for R&D (expected 2012)
~225 kW
15
Rounding up
Remarkable results are already achieved by industry and
R&D institutes on offshore wind
Technology still in an early phase Big potential provided
technical development and bringing cost down
The goal of this meeting is to address high reliability
solutions & innovative concepts for offshore wind turbines.
Focus is on solutions / concepts under development.
The expected outcome is a clearer understanding of the
topic and considering need for continued information
exchange in this area, e.g. through a new IEA Wind Task
or as part of IEA Wind Task 30 (offshore)
16
Review of the OC3 Project

Under IEA Wind Task 23
& Plans for OC4 Under Task 30
IEA Wind Task 11 TEM #63
September 21-22, 2010
Trondheim, Norway
Jason Jonkman, Ph.D.
Senior Engineer, NREL
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
The OC3 & OC4 Projects
The Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration (OC3)

project operated under Subtask 2 of IEA Wind Task
23
IEA Wind Task 30 will continue work of OC3 project
New project called OC4: Offshore Code Comparison
Collaboration Continuation project
Focus is on OWT code verification & benchmarking,
with emphasis on the support structure
Spar Concept by SWAY
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
OC3/OC4 Background
OWTs are designed using aero-hydro-servo-elastic codes
The codes must be verified to assess their accuracy
Activities
Discuss modeling strategies

Develop suite of benchmark models & simulations
Run simulations & process results
Compare & discuss results
Objectives
OC3/OC4 Activities & Objectives
Assess simulation accuracy & reliability

Train new analysts how to run codes correctly
Investigate capabilities of implemented theories
Refine analysis methods
Identify further R&D needs
10
OC3 Participants & Codes
3Dfloat
ADAMS-AeroDyn-HydroDyn
ADAMS-AeroDyn-WaveLoads
ADCoS-Offshore
ADCoS-Offshore-ASAS
ANSYS-WaveLoads
BHawC
Bladed
Bladed Multibody
DeepC
FAST-AeroDyn-HydroDyn
FAST-AeroDyn-NASTRAN
FLEX5
FLEX5-Poseidon
HAWC
HAWC2
SESAM
SIMPACK-AeroDyn
Simo
OC3/OC4 Approach & Phases

Approach
All inputs are predefined:

NREL 5-MW wind turbine, including control system
Variety of support structures
Wind & wave datasets
A stepwise procedure is applied:

Load cases selected to test different model features
Phases
OC3 ran from 2005 to 2009:
Phase I: Monopile + Rigid Foundation

Phase II: Monopile + Flexible Foundtn
Phase III: Tripod
Phase IV: Floating Spar Buoy
OC4 will run from 2010 to 2012:

Phase I: Jacket
Phase II: Floating semisubmersible
11
Load Cases
1.X Full-System Eigenanalysis
4.X Inverted Pendulum
Full-system flexibility
Elastic response only
Compared natural frequencies &
damping ratios
Flexible support structure

Rigid tower top
Hydro-elastics without aero:
Regular & irregular waves
2.X Rigid
5.X Full-System Dynamics
Rigid turbine
Aerodynamics without hydro:
Hydrodynamics without aero:
Steady & turbulent winds
Full-system flexibility
Full aero-hydro-servo-elastics:
Steady winds with regular waves
Turbulent winds with irregular waves
Regular & irregular waves
3.X Onshore Wind Turbine
Flexible tower, drivetrain, & rotor

Rigid substructure
Aero-servo-elastics without hydro:
Steady & turbulent winds
Output Parameters
12
OC3 Results
1 conference paper per phase
published/presented:
Phase I: Torque, 2007

Phase II: EOW, 2007
Phase III: AIAA, 2009
Phase IV: EWEC, 2010
Final report reviewing all

phases in publication,
including updated results
submitted since originally
published
Journal article in progress
OC3 Phase III Results: Tripod

Jump in complexity from monopile to
tripod:
Multiple members
Statically indeterminate (loads influenced
by relative deflection of members)
Nonaxisymmetric
Key findings:
A fine discretization of hydrodynamic loads
is required near the free surface
Overlapping regions where structural
members join at nodes have a large effect
Despite having thin members, shear
deflection through Timoshenko beam
theory has a large effect on the tripod load
distribution
10
Tripod (Image: J. Nichols, GH)

Spar Concept by
SIWAY
13
OC3 Phase IV Results: Spar Buoy

Jump in complexity from fixed to floating:
Low-frequency modes (influence on
aerodynamic damping & stability)
Large platform motions (coupling with turbine)
Complicated shapes (radiation & diffraction)
Moorings (new component)
Key findings (may only apply to this

spar):
Radiation damping is negligible; so, codes that
apply Morisons equation are adequate
Quasi-static mooring models provide adequate
reactions for global response analysis;
dynamic mooring models, however, result in
more line excitation at higher frequencies
Turbine structural flexibilities had an effect on
turbine loads, but little effect on spar motions
11
Coupled dynamics issues not fully
resolved
OC3-Hywind Spar Buoy

Spar Concept by
SIWAY
OC4 Phase I Plans: Jacket

Title: Verification of simulation codes for a
jacket-supported fixed-bottom WT
Coordinator: Fraunhofer-IWES
Rambll has kindly agreed to make the
UpWind WP4 reference jacket available to
OC4 participants:
Jacket supports the NREL 5-MW turbine

4 legs, 4 levels of X braces, & mud braces
Concrete Transition Piece (TP) & 4 central piles
50-m water depth
Code-to-code comparison results will be

published in a conference paper in 2011
12
Spar Concept
by SWAY
UpWind
WP4 Reference
Jacket (Images: F. Vorpahl,
Fraunhofer-IWES)
14
OC4 Phase II Plans: Semi-submersible

Title: Verification of simulation codes for
a WT on a floating semi-submersible
Coordinator: NREL
OC4 participants will choose between
Principle Power Inc.s (PPI) WindFloat &
DeepCwind generic semi-submersibles:
PPI WindFloat is a patented commercial
system with first full-scale installation
scheduled for late 2011
DeepCwind is a generic publically available
design to be wave-tank tested at 1/50th scale
in early 2011
Code-to-code comparison results will be

published in a conference paper in 2012

WindFloat
(Image: D. Roddier, PPI)
13
OC4 Code Validation Experts Meeting

OC4 focuses on code-to-code verification;
code-to-experiment validation also needed
OC4 participants dont comprise all experts
needed to develop field validation plan
Separate meeting proposed for 2011
NREL (Walt Musial) will organize the meeting
Meeting objectives:
Catalogue existing datasets for selected
configurations available for code validation
Establish methods for collecting new data
Make recommendations for R&D agencies that
may want to support the effort as a follow-on task
Stand-alone report will be published

14
Image: J. t Hooft,
SenterNovem
15
Summary
OC3/OC4 aims to verify OWT dynamics
codes
Benchmark models & simulations established
Simulations test a variety of OWT types &
model features
Code-to-code comparisons have agreed well
Differences caused by variations in:
Model fidelity
Aero-, hydro-, & structural-dynamic theories
Model discretization
Numerical problems
User error
Spar
Concept by SWAY
Many code errors have been resolved
Semi-submersible
Concept
Engineers equipped with modeling experience
15
Verification is critical to advance offshore wind
Thank You for Your Attention
Jason Jonkman, Ph.D.

+1 (303) 384 7026
jason.jonkman@nrel.gov
16
IEA Task 23 Organizational Structure
17
OC3 Coordination & Meetings

E-mail coordination
Net-meetings held every 1-2
months
Physical meetings held 1-2
times per year
IEA Wind Task 23 Website
(now public!)
Database of model parameters
& simulation results
18
17
OC4 Funding & Cost

Countries will pay 5,000/year to participate
9 countries assumed to join, for an annual budget of 45000/yr
No limit on the number of participants, but each participant
should be approved by the countrys ExCo representative
Meeting hosts will donate costs voluntarily
Operating Agent
NREL
Responsibilities Funding (3 yr)

WP2 Coordination
Expert Meeting Coord.
Reporting
Project Management
Website
95000
WP1 Coordination
Reporting
40000
Fraunhofer-IWES
TOTAL
135000
19
OC4 Project Schedule

ID
Task Name
ExCo Approval of Annex 30

Receive Commitment Letters
Receive Funds
Jacket Code Comparison - W ork Package 1
Publish Paper or Report on Jacket
Establish Floating Design Concept
Floating Platform - Work Pakage 2
Report on Floating Structure
Code Validation Data Comparison Workshop
Report on W orkshop
Final Report
Kickoff Meeting #1
Meeting #2
Meeting #3
Meeting #4
Meeting #5
Meeting #6
Meeting #7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2010
2011
2012
2013
O N D J F MA M J J A S O N D J F MA M J J A S O N D J F MA M J J A S O N D J F MA M J J A S O
11/9
2/1
3/31
1/29
4/28
9/22
12/18
4/30
4/30
11/1
5/2
10/31
4/30
10/31
4/30
20
18
OC4 Organizational Structure
21
Country Commitments
Interested countries must join
Task 30
Committed:
Germany, USA
Declined:
EC, EWEA, Switzerland
Considering:
Norway, The Netherlands, Korea,
Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Finland,
Canada
No Response:
Denmark, UK
Please encourage your ExCo

representative to join!
22
19
OC3: Benchmark Exercise of

Aero-elastic Offshore Wind
Turbine Codes
J A Nichols and T R Camp, Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd.
J Jonkman and S Butterfield, NREL
T Larsen and Anders Hansen, Ris
J Azcona, A Martinez and X Munduate, CENER
F Vorpahl and S Kleinhansl, CWMT
M Kohlmeier, T Kossel and C Bker, Leibniz University of Hannover
D Kaufer, SWE University of Stuttgart
Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by Midwest Research Institute Battelle
Phase III: Offshore Tripod
Significant jump in
complexity from
monopile substructure.
Statically
indeterminate
Loads influenced by
relative deflection of
members
24
20
Axial Force (kN)
Modelling wave loads

Importance of modelling the structure near the
sea surface in detail
Without a fine discretisation, sharp jumps are

seen in load signals
0.0000
10
15
20
25
30
35
-500.0000
Upwind leg axial shear
force (coarse
discretisation)
Shear Force [kNm]
-1000.0000
-1500.0000
-2000.0000
Upwind leg axial shear

force (fine
discretisation)
-2500.0000
-3000.0000
-3500.0000
-4000.0000
Time [s]
25
Modelling overlapping members
It is important to take
account of the
overlapping regions
when structure
members join at nodes
In this case, the volume
which could be doublecounted would be 8%
of the total volume
below sea level having
a significant effect on
buoyancy and wave
IEA Wind Task 11 TEM
#63
loads.
26
21
Modelling shear deflection

Bernoulli-Euler theory
only considers pure
bending of a beam.
l
x
M
P
One side is compressed

while the other is
stretched.
x=
In real beams, there is

some shear deformation
of the material.
l2
(Pl (4 + ) + 6M )
12 EI
This becomes important

once relative deflection of
joined
members becomes
IEA Wind Task 11 TEM
#63
27
important.
12EI
GAS l 2
Modelling shear deflection
28
22
Results - Eigenanalysis
CENER FASTNASTRAN Natural Frequency (Hz)
CENER Bladed Natural Frequency (Hz)
CWMT ADCoS Natural Frequency (Hz)
GH Bladed Natural Frequency (Hz)
GH Bladed (Timoshenko) Natural Frequency (Hz)
LUH WaveLoadsANSYS Natural Frequency (Hz)
Risoe HAWC2 Natural Frequency (Hz)
Risoe HAWC2_BE Natural Frequency (Hz)
SWE FLEX5Poseidon Natural Frequency (Hz)
3.0000
2.5000
2.0000
1.5000
1.0000
0.5000
tra
1s
in
1s
tB
To
tB
la
rs
la
de
io
de
n
C
As
ol
l
ec
ym
1s
t
iv
m
tB
e
et
Fl
la
ric
ap
de
Fl
As
ap
1s
w
ym
i
tB
se
m
la
et
Pi
de
ric
tc
h
As
Fl
ap
ym
1s
w
m
ise
tB
et
la
ric
Ya
de
Ed
w
As
ge
ym
w
ise
m
et
Pi
ric
tc
Ed
h
ge
w
ise
2n
Ya
d
w
To
w
er
2n
Fo
d
To
re
-A
w
er
ft
Si
2n
de
2n
d
-to
d
B
la
Bl
Si
de
ad
de
e
C
As
ol
le
ym
2n
ct
ive
m
d
et
Bl
Fl
ric
ad
ap
e
Fl
As
ap
ym
wi
s
m
e
et
Pi
ric
tc
h
Fl
ap
w
is
e
Ya
w
to
-S
id
e
1s
tD
riv
e
ow
1s
tT
1s
tT
ow
er
Si
de
-
er
F
or
eAf
0.0000
29
Results Output Locations

1
2
3
4
30
23
Results bending moments due to wave loads

Bending Moment (kNm))
-1200
-1250
-1300
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1350
-1400
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1450
-1500
-1800
10
15
Simulation Time (s )
6000
4000
2000
15
0
-500
-1000
0
-2000
-1500
-4000
-2000
-6000
-8000
-2500
-10000
-3000
10
15
Simulation Time (s)
-100
-200
10
15
Simulation Time (s)
10
Simulation Time (s)
8000
-300
-400
-500
10000
5000
0
-5000
-10000
-600
-700
-15000
10
15
10
15
Simulation Time (s)
31
Results shear forces due to wave loads

100
Shear Force (kN)
Shear Force (kN)
150
50
0
-50
-100
5
10
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
15
10
40
80
Shear Force (kN)
Shear Force (kN)
50
60
40
20
0
-20
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
10
15
10
Simulation Time (s)

10000
60
40
Shear Force (kN)
Shear Force (kN)
15
80
20
0
-20
-40
-60
5000
0
-5000
-10000
-15000
10
15
Simulation Time (s)
15
100
10
15
Simulation Time (s)
32
24
Results axial forces due to wave loads

-7099
-7100
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
-7099
-7100
-7101
-7101
-7102
-7102
-7103
5
10
-7160
-7170
-7180
-7190
-7200
-7210
-7220
-7230
-7240
-7250
15
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
5
10
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
15
10
15
Simulation Time (s)

0
-500
Axial Force (kN)
600
400
Axial Force (kN)
15
1000
-1000
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
5
10
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
-4000
-4500
15
10
Simulation Time (s)
10
15
Simulation Time (s)
33
Motion of the dynamic support structure

Tower Top Displacement (m))
0.010
0.005
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
-0.015
-0.020
-0.025
-0.030
-0.035
5
10
15
Simulation Time (s)
Mean Sea Level Displacement (m))
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
-0.001
-0.002
-0.003
-0.004
-0.005
5
10
15
Simulation Time (s)
34
25
IEA Wind Task 23 OC3:

Phase IV Results Regarding Floating Wind Turbine Modeling
Operated
the
U.S.
Department
Energy
Office
Energy
Efficiency
and
Renewable
Energy
Midwest
InstituteEnergy,
Battelle
Operated
forfor
the
U.S.
Department
of of
Energy
Office
of of
Energy
Efficiency
and
Renewable
Energy
byby
the
AllianceResearch
for Sustainable
LLC
Floating Challenges & Phase IV Model

Challenges
Low frequency modes:

Influence aerodynamic damping & stability
Large platform motions:

Coupling with turbine
Complicated shape:
Radiation & diffraction
OC3-Hywind
Moorings
Statoil supplied data for 5-MW
Hywind conceptual design
OC3 adapted spar to support the
NREL 5-MW turbine:
Rotor-nacelle assembly unchanged
Tower & control system modified
36
OC3-Hywind Model
26
Aero-Hydro-Servo-Elastic Capabilities
FAST
Bladed
ADAMS
HAWC2
3Dfloat
Simo
SESAM / DeepC
IFE-UMB
MARINTEK
DNV
IFE-UMB
MARINTEK
Acciona + NTNU
( BEM or GDW )
BEM
None
Airy + ME
Airy + PF + ME
Airy+ + ME,
Airy + PF + ME
UD
DLL
None
Turbine: FEM,
Moorings: FEM, UDFD
Turbine: MBS,
Moorings: QSCE,
MBS
Turbine: MBS,
Moorings: QSCE,
FEM
Code Developer
NREL
GH
MSC + NREL
+ LUH
Ris-DTU
OC3 Participant
NREL + POSTECH
GH
NREL + LUH
Ris-DTU
Aerodynamics
( BEM or GDW )
+ DS
( BEM or GDW )
+ DS
( BEM or GDW )
+ DS
Airy+ + ME,
Airy + PF + ME
( Airy+ or Stream )
+ ME
Airy+ + ME,
Airy + PF + ME
DLL, UD, SM
DLL
DLL, UD
( BEM or GDW )
+ DS
Hydrodynamics
Airy + ME
Control System (Servo)
DLL, UD, SM
Structural Dynamics (Elastic)
Turbine: FEMP +
( Modal / MBS ),
Moorings: QSCE
Airy+
BEM
DLL
DNV
DS
Turbine: FEMP +
( Modal / MBS ),
Moorings: UDFD
Airy wave theory

+) with free surface corrections
blade-element / momentum
external dynamic link library
Det Norsk Veritas
dynamic stall
Turbine: MBS,
Moorings: QSCE,
UDFD
GDW
FEMP
MBS
ME
MSC
Turbine: MBS / FEM,

Moorings: UDFD
generalized dynamic wake

finite-element method
P) for mode preprocessing only
multibody-dynamics formulation
Morisons equation
MSC Software Corporation
PF
QSCE
SM
UD
UDFD
linear potential flow with radiation &

diffraction
quasi-static catenary equations
interface to Simulink with MATLAB
implementation through user-defined
subroutine available
implementation through user-defined forcedisplacement relationships
37
Phase IV Load Cases

Load
Case
Enabled DOFs
Wind Conditions
Wave Conditions
Analysis Type
1.2
Platform, tower,
drivetrain, blades
None: air density = 0
Still water
Eigenanalysis
1.3
Platform, tower,
drivetrain, blades
Still water
Static equilibrium solution
1.4
Platform
Still Water
Free-decay test time series
4.1
Platform, tower
Regular Airy: H = 6 m, T = 10 s
Periodic time-series solution
4.2
Platform, tower
5.1
Platform, tower,
drivetrain, blades
Steady, uniform, no shear:

Vhub = 8 m/s
5.2
Platform, tower, Turbulent: Vhub = Vr (11.4 m/s), Irregular Airy: Hs = 6 m, Tp = 10 s, Time-series statistics, DELs,
drivetrain, blades 1 = 1.981 m/s, Mann model
JONSWAP wave spectrum
power spectra
5.3
Platform, tower,
drivetrain, blades
Turbulent: Vhub = 18 m/s,

1 = 2.674 m/s, Mann model
5.4
Platform, tower,
drivetrain, blades
Steady, uniform, no shear:

Vhub = 8 m/s
DEL
DOF
H
Hs
damage equivalent load

degree of freedom
individual wave height
significant wave height
T
Tp
Vhub
Irregular Airy: Hs = 6 m, Tp = 10 s, Time-series statistics, DELs,

power spectra
Regular Airy: H = 6 m, T = 10 s
Periodic time-series solution
Irregular Airy: Hs = 6 m, Tp = 10 s, Time-series statistics, DELs,

power spectra
Regular Airy: H = 2 m,
= 0.1, 0.2,, 3.5 rad/s
individual wave period

peak spectral period
hub-height wind speed
averaged over 10 minutes
38
Vr
1
Time-series-generated
effective RAOs
rated wind speed

longitudinal wind speed
standard deviation
individual wave frequency
27
Output Parameters & Results Legend
Drivetrain & Generator

Loads & Operation
7 Outputs
Rotor Blade
Loads & Deflections
13 Outputs
Tower
Loads & Deflections
15 Outputs
Environment
Wind & Waves
4 Outputs
Mooring System
Fairlead & Anchor
Tensions & Angles
12 Outputs
Platform
Displacements
6 Outputs
Output Parameters (57 Total)
39
Results Legend
Full-System Eigenanalysis
40
28
Free Decay
Free Decay in Platform Surge
Free Decay in Platform Pitch

41
Hydro-Elastic Response
with Regular Waves
42
29
Hydro-Elastic Response
with Irregular Waves
43
Aero-Hydro-Servo-Elastic Response
with Regular Waves
44
30
Aero-Hydro-Servo-Elastic Response
with Irregular Waves
45
Aero-Hydro-Servo-Elastic
Effective RAOs
46
31
Unresolved Issues of OC3 Phase IV

Close agreement was not achieved by all codes:
What was the reason?
The effective RAO load case was somewhat academic:

What response charateristic is more relevant?
Alternative suggested by IF RAOs could be derived from irregular
time series & cross spectra between excitation & response
The stochastic response statistics & spectra are sensitive to

simulation length:
What length would be more appropriate?
How can we eliminate start-up transients from the comparisons?
47
Limitations of OC3 Phase IV

OC3-Hywind platform was considered as a rigid body; no
hydro-elastic effects
OC3-Hywind platform is simple in shape; only a single member
Hydrodynamic radiation & diffraction was negligible in the
OC3-Hywind spar buoy
Sea current was never considered
Few sea states were tested; larger waves may be interesting
The relative importance of 2nd versus 1st order hydrodynamics
was never assessed
The relative importance of dynamic versus quasi-static
mooring models was never assessed
The influence of platform motion on rotor aerodynamics was
never looked at in detail
48
32
Findings and Prospects

in Research on Support Structures and
Foundations in GIGAWIND alpha ventus
Raimund Rolfes1, P. Schaumann1, Jan Dubois1,
T. Schlurmann1, L. Lohaus1, M. Achmus1, H. Huhn2
1) Leibniz Universitt Hannover
2) Fraunhofer IWES
1. The alpha ventus Wind Farm

2. The GIGAWIND alpha ventus
Research Project within RAVE
3. Research Objectives
4. GIGAWIND alpha ventus in Detail
WP1 - Load Modelling for Waves
WP2 - Fatigue Resistance /
Manufacturing Aspects
WP3 - Corrosion Protection
WP4 - Load Monitoring Systems
WP5 - Scour Protection / Scour Monitoring
WP6 - Soil Modelling
WP7 - Model Validation
WP8 - Holistic Design Concept
Nov 2009
Apr 27, 2010
Jan 2010
alpha-ventus.de
Outline
33
Offshore-Testfeld alpha ventus
1st German offshore wind farm

2 installation
phase 2009
12 x 5MW OWECs (Multibrid / REpower)
Operator:
DOTI
Distance from coast: 45 km
Water depth:
30m
Planning:
since 2006
Installation:
2008 2009
alpha ventus
Research:
RAVE
nd
About alpha ventus
Location
About alpha ventus
34
REpower 5M
Met Mast
FINO 1
Multibrid M5000
Layout of alpha ventus
Holistic design concept for offshore wind

turbine support structures
BMU project (Coordination: LUH)
50 Mio.
member in
3 Mio.
GIGAWIND project
Leibniz Universitt
Hannover (75%)
GIGAWIND project
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
IWES (25%)
Cooperation partners with supporting function

(AREVA Wind, REpower Systems AG)
own funding
GIGAWIND alpha ventus
35
coordination
deputy coordination
Cooperation Partners:
Franzius-Institut
fr Wasserbau und
Ksteningenieurwesen
associated project in:
funded by:
Research Objectives
Cost reduction of OWEC support
structures
corrosion rate
GIGAWIND alpha ventus

Consortium
lighter support structures

optimised design process
Comprehensive simulation and design
package
holistic design concept
Cooperation with industry
research focused on
industrial needs
Validation
alpha ventus measurement data
Research Objectives
of GIGAWIND alpha ventus
36
Wave Loads
Large scale model tests
Impact loads of breaking waves
Waveloads of nonbreaking waves
Spatial and time-resolved pressure
distribution
Wave kinematics
Validation
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
Calibration of numerical models
Analysis of impact loads
Probabilistic design concepts
Influence of sea state parameters
Source: Franzius-Institute for Hydraulic, Waterways and Coastal Engineering, Arndt Hildebrandt, 2010
Wave Loads

Large scale model tests:

Impact loads of breaking waves
Waveloads of nonbreaking waves
Spatial and time-resolved pressure
distribution
Wave kinematics
Validation
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD):
Calibration of numerical models
Analysis of impact loads
Probabilistic design concepts:
Influence of sea state parameters
Source: Franzius-Institute for Hydraulic, Waterways and Coastal Engineering, Arndt Hildebrandt, 2010
37
Hybrid connections for Offshore-WEC Grouted Joints

Measurements on Grouted Joints
of real structures
sea level
box
sleeve
18 m
relative displacement
between pile and sleeve
standard inductive
sensor
Source: Nick Lindschulte, Institute of Building Materials Science, 2010
animation offshore
measuring box
tested in laboratory
pile
tripod
fixture and box
WP 2 - Fatigue Resistance /
Influence of Manufacturing Aspects on Fatigue Assessment

Measurement of manufactured
geometry
Implementation of filters
FE-analyses of imperfect structure
Assessment of fatigue resistance of
imperfect tubular welded joints
Laser scanner IMAGER 5006

Zoller+Frhlich GmbH
Point cloud discrepancy between real shape

and best fitting ideal cylinder (middle area)
[m]
Source: Institute for Steel Construction, Malte Gottschalk
WP 2 - Fatigue Resistance /
38
Corrosion Monitoring
Transfer of electrochemical laboratory methods
onto offshore structures
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
-2
10
proper coating
Impedance /Z/ / cm2
Impedance /Z/ / cm2
Example: EP-coating on thin sheet for tin cans in 3% acetic acid
t= 0
t = 4d
t = 8d
t = 11d
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
-2
10
weak coating
t= 0
t = 4d
t = 8d
t = 11d
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
laboratory cell
Source: Fraunhofer IWES, Holger Huhn
defect after 46 days
Implementation and testing of sensor electrodes on
coated samples
6 months
2 weeks
inkjet application
embedded wires
2 weeks
6 months
Top coat
3. Primer layer
2. Prmer layer
primer
Sensors
Steel
samples with embedded wires
Implemented sensor electrodes
39
Field exposure test of sensorized and coated samples
High Performance Mortar for Corrosion Protection

By polymer modification of the HPM:
Spalling of the concrete surfaces after several freeze-thaw-cycles

1500
The spalling of the surface decreases

to a minimum (153 g/m)
reference
styrenebutadiene
10,0%
1250
styrenebutadiene
20,0%
1000
spalling [g/m]
The freeze-thaw resistance can be

increased compared to a concrete for
Hydraulic Structures
styreneacrylate
10,0%
750
styreneacrylate
20,0%
500
250
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
freeze-thaw-cycles
Normal concrete
Corrosion protection mortar
Different test coupons have been installed in the

test field, to investigate corrosion protection
effect of the mortars in real sea water conditions
Source: Institute of Building Materials Science, Hannes Weicken
40
Monitoring of an Offshore Support Structure (SHM):

(foundation, tower and rotor blades)
Inverse load detection from measured structural responses
Early damage detection
Damage localisation (global, local)
REpower 5M (av)
SHM
Damage quantification
Damage curve over life time per
component
Estimation of residual load capacity
and residual life time
Serial, cost-efficient offshore application
Example
Reduction of stiffness in the upper section

of the mast by dissolving 264 bolts: ~100%
Method
Multi-parameter eigenvalue problem,
scanning parameter
Detection Parameter of intact/defect system: 0,999 => 0,004
means reduction of stiffness of 99,6%.
Test of the monitoring system at

an onshore-WT with girder mast
Sdwind S70 1,5MW
Source: Institute of Structural Analysis, Johannes Reetz
WP4 - Load Monitoring Systems
TP5:
Arne Stahlmann
WP5 - Scour Protection /

Scour Monitoring
41
Research Activities on Scouring Phenomena

Physical model tests (1:40 & 1:12)
Modeling of scours
Flow pattern and turbulences
Scouring processes at complex offshore
structures
Scour protection systems
Calibration and validation of numerical
models
Franzius-Institute (2010)
0, 3000
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD):

1P
Simulation of scour depths and evolutions
MC
S/ D
1P: 0.82
3P: 1.13
MC: 1.11
Forecasting and dimensioning

Soil-structure interaction
3P
RW: d= 2.5m, H m= 0.76m, Tm = 5.48s

Franzius-Institute (2010)

Scour Monitoring
Scour Protection & Soil-Structure Interaction

Innovative Scour Protection Chains
Monopile:
S: scour depth
Connected chains of concrete elements;

physical model tests (1:40 & 1:12)
Soil-Structure Interaction (FEM)

Investigations on the effect of scours on
the stiffness distribution, deflection lines
and secant rotations (right figure)
initial state
IfB & Franzius-Institute (2010)
3000 waves
IGBE (2010)

Scour Monitoring
42
Stiffness Degradation Method (SDM):

Estimation of Monopile Deformation
under Cyclic Lateral Load
Investigation based on
Cyclic triaxial test results
FE simulations
Result: Performance of a monopile
under cyclic loads
Stress distributions from the numerical analyses
Foundation system and loading

condition of monopile foundation
a) pile deflection lines

after N cycles
b) Accumulation rate of horizonatal

displacement at pile top
Source: Institute of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Khalid Abdel-Rahman, Marina Mller
Validation of the Stiffness Degradation

Method (SDM)
SDM Characteristics:
Allows estimating the accumulated
pile deformation under cyclic
horizontal loading
Combination of cyclic triaxial test
results and numerical simulations
The accumulated pile deformation can be
interpreted as a decrease of the secant stiffness
modulus of the soil
The back-calculation of experimentally conducted
pile tests (LeBlanc (2009)) showed realistic results:
Source: Institute of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Khalid Abdel-Rahman, Marina Mller
43
Prediction of the Axial Pile Capacity

Predicting the shaft friction with CPT-based methods
Validated against a database
Just 6 pile tests are relevant for German Conditions
Pile diameter is almost less than 1.0 m
Over proportional arise of pile capacity
with increasing diameter
Source: Institute of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,

Khalid Abdel-Rahman, Marina Mller

General structural model

initial state based on construction data
Definition of validation
parameter
on the basis of sensitivity analysis
Measurement data
dynamic behaviour from system
identification (AR models)
GUI of the software Vali tool
eigenfrequencies as
target values
Validation process
- correlation of simulated and measured eigenmodes
by weighted MAC values (comparison of eigenvectors)
Validated general structural model

to be used for further investigation or for SHM
Source: DOTI
- optimisation algorithm, e. g. Newton iteration,

inverse eigenvalue problem (Natke)
REpower plant AV04 at alpha ventus.

Jacket structure during installation in 2010 (left)
and general structural model to be validated (right).
Source: Institute of Structural Analysis, Gerrit Haake
WP7 - Model Validation
44
Poseidon/WaveLoads
AV4 alpha ventus
Adams/WaveLoads/ AeroDyn
OC3 Tripod
WaveLoads OC3 Tripod

FAST
AeroDyn
ADAMS
WaveLoads
Aerodynamic
Aerodynamic
loads
loads
Poseidon
ANSYS
DeSiO OC3 Tripod
Design- and Simulation Framework for Offshore Wind Turbines (DeSiO)

Date Base
WP8
GUI / Visualization
Controller
GIGAWIND alpha ventus - Tools

Source: Institute for Steel Construction, Vsquez; Institute of Structural Analysis, Reil, Kohlmeier, 2010
Modelling
FAST
AeroDyn
ADAMS
WaveLoads
FALCOS
Poseidon
ANSYS
DeSiO
Date base
Controller
Visualization
Program interfaces through DLL

Modelling of Jacket structure
trough data transfer
Result integration of GIGAWIND
alpha ventus Work Packets
AV4 - alpha ventus
45
Multibody Dynamics Simulation

FAST
AeroDyn
ADAMS
WaveLoads
FALCOS
Poseidon
ANSYS
DeSiO
Date base
Controller
Visualization
OC3 floating turbine

analysed in Adams
OC4 jacket
structure
analysed in
WaveLoads
OC4 jacket structure

analysed in Adams
5MW NREL Baseline Turbine

generated with FAST
Wave loading on floating
spar-buoy structure
generated by WaveLoads
FE-Modelling of Structural Joints

FAST
AeroDyn
ADAMS
WaveLoads
FALCOS
Fatigue assessments according to the

structural stress concept
Poseidon
ANSYS
Y-, Double-K, Tripod-Joint, and others
DeSiO
Date base
Controller
Visualization
ANSYS
ANSYS
OC3 - TripodAV4 - alpha ventus

46
OWEC support structures have to become

an cost efficient mass product!
Methods for several aspects of the

design process for OWEC support
structures has been developed
Holistic design concept with an easy
operable design and simulation package
Validation of simulation models against
measurement data from the offshore test
field alpha ventus
Cost optimisation of support structures
designed for further offshore wind farms
Offshore test field alpha ventus

in November 2009
Conclusion
Thank you for your

attention!
www.gigawind.de
www.rave-offshore.de
www.alpha-ventus.de
www.forwind.de
This presentation is composed by

contributions from researchers of
GIGAWIND alpha ventus:
WP 1 Arndt Hildebrandt
WP 2 Nick Lindschulte
Malte Gottschalk
WP 3 Holger Huhn
Hannes Weicken
WP 4 Johannes Reetz
WP 5 Arne Stahlmann
WP 6 Khalid Abdel-Rahman
Marina Mller
WP 7 Gerrit Haake
WP 8 Andrs Vsquez
Benjamin Reil
Martin Kohlmeier
Thank you for your attention!
47
48
DeepCWind Floating Offshore Wind

Project in the U.S.
Topical Expert Meeting
#63
Amy Robertson
September 21, 2010
DeepCWind Project Maine, USA

New Technology Development
Initiative for floating wind
technology
Deep Water
(>60 m)
Funding ~ $25M US Dollars

1/50th scale model testing
1/3rd scale open ocean testing
Goal: Develop engineering
tools to enable the design of
optimized full-scale systems
NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY
49
UMaine Test Site Timeline
DeepCWind Project Phase 1 Objectives

This is a pilot project to evaluate feasibility and cost of
deploying floating offshore wind turbines.
The primary objectives are to:
Validate coupled aeroelastic/hydrodynamic models for floating
offshore wind turbines.
Optimize floating platform designs by integrating more durable,
lighter, hybrid composite materials.
Estimate the cost of energy for deepwater offshore wind
technologies.
Compare the benefits and costs of innovative composite
materials to conventional materials in deepwater offshore wind
manufacturing, design, and construction.
50
STEP 1: Scaled Model Testing

1/50th scale models will
be tested at a world class
wave/wind facility
Models are based on
NREL 5MW reference
turbine.
Model testing is
scheduled for April 2011.
Generic Floating Platforms
Three generic platform

designs have been
identified for tank
testing.
OC3 Hywind Spar
TLP
Semi-submersible
51
Validate/revise coupled aeroelastic/

hydrodynamic models
Development of
numerical models of
all three generic
designs.
Data generated
from these tests will
be used to validate
NRELs coupled
aeroelastic/
hydrodynamic
models.
Model Scaling
Offshore platforms are typically scaled
using Froude Number and geometric
similarity:
Frm = Frf
Lm = Lf
m= model
f = full scale
Froude Number will not scale all parameters

properly, but maintains proper inertia scaling
Wind speed to wave celerity ratio
maintained:
Q = C/U
Froude Number:
ratio of bodys
inertia to
gravitational forces
Fr =
C2
gL
C = wave celerity
g = gravity
L = Length unit
U = wind speed
TSR also maintained

TSR = r/U
TSRm = TSRf
= angular velocity of rotor

r = radius of rotor
52
Summary of Scale Factors

Parameter
Unit
Scale Factor
Length
Time
0.5
Area
L2
Volume
L3
Mass
Wave Celerity
LT-1
0.5
Wave Height
Wave Period
0.5
Wind Speed
LT-1
0.5
Wind or Wave Force
MLT-2
Power
ML2T-3
7/2
Stress
ML-1T-2
Modulus of Elasticity
ML-1T-2
Modal Frequency
T-1
-0.5
Dimensionless numbers
maintained in scaling
1.Froude
2.MV - C/V
3.Tip Seed Ratio (TSR) of
Turbine by adjusting rpm?
Reference Full-Scale Spar Platform

NREL OC3 Hywind
Full Scale
Scaling Equation
=50
=60
=75
Tower
Elevation to Tower Base (Platform Top) Above SWL (m)
Elevation to Tower Top (Yaw Bearing) Above SWL (m)
Tower Mass (kg)
10
87.6
249718
Lm = Lf/
0.200
0.167
0.133
Lm = Lf/
Mm = Mf/3
1.752
1.998
1.460
1.156
1.168
0.592
1.552
0.076
0.130
1.293
0.063
0.108
1.035
0.050
0.087
Overall Tower Length (m)

Tower Top Diameter (m)
77.6
3.78
Tower Base Diameter (m)
6.5
Lm = Lf/
Lm = Lf/
Lm = Lf/
Total Draft (m)
120
Lm = Lf/
2.400
2.000
1.600
Elevation to Platform Top (Tower Base) Above SWL (m)

Depth to Top of Taper Below SWL (m)
10
108
Lm = Lf/
Lm = Lf/
0.200
0.167
0.133
2.160
1.800
1.440
4
12
Lm = Lf/
Lm = Lf/
0.080
0.240
0.067
0.200
0.053
0.160
0.019
Platform
Depth to Top of Taper Below SWL (m)

Depth to Bottom of Taper Below SWL (m)
Platform Dispersion (m3)
7919.58
Vm = Vf/
0.063
0.037
Platform Diameter Above Taper (m)
6.5
Platform Diameter Below Taper (m)

Platform Mass, Including Ballast(kg)
9.4
7466330
Lm = Lf/
Lm = Lf/
0.130
0.188
0.108
0.157
0.087
0.125
Mm = Mf/3
59.731
34.566
17.698
Lm = Lf/
Lm = Lf/
6.4
18.044
5.3
15.04
4.27
12.03
Mooring 3 line
Water Depth(m)
Unstretched (?) mooring length (m)
320
902.2
10
53
FAST with AeroDyn and HydroDyn

Structural-dynamic model for horizontal-axis turbines:
Coupled to AeroDyn, HydroDyn, and controller for aero-hydroservo-elastic simulation
Evaluated by Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie
Turbine Configurations
HAWT
2 or 3-bladed
Upwind or downwind
Land-based or offshore
Offshore monopiles or floating
Rigid or flexible foundation
11
FAST Verification
Participated in OC3, which compared the results of a
variety of load cases for the OC3 HyWind Spar, with the
NREL 5 MW turbine placed on top.
New verification efforts are looking at understanding
limitations in the HydroDyn Module of FAST
2nd order irregular waves
Dynamic mooring lines
Viscous drag elements
12
54
STEP 2:Testing of 1/3 Scale Model at Test Site

Approximately 1/3rd Scale of
5MW
Commercial turbine with proven
record of performance is planned
~100 kW (will be provided).
Floating platform designs will
be selected from competitive
industry solicitation
Turbine will be deployed at
times when desired scaled wind/
wave conditions are present.
Example 100 kW turbine for 1/3
scale testing at UMaine Test
Site deployment
13
1/3 Scale Prototype Monhegan Island
Approx. 2.5 miles south

from Monhegan Island
Up to 400 ft depth
9.0 m/s +
averagewinds
9 years of wind/ wave
data from buoy deployed
0.8nmi from test site
New test buoy at the
test site
14
55
Test Window for 1/3 Scale Turbine

Month
Prob. Exceeding
1/3 Scale 50
year Hs (3.3m) in
one week
Jan
52%
Feb
69%
March
56%
April
47%
May
28%
June
7%
July
0%
August
1%
September
4%
October
46%
November
58%
December
73%
15
Current Status of 1/3 Scale

A Request for Interest (RFI) for
industry participation in testing plan
has been released
Several submissions have been
received.
Prequalification questionnaires
have been reviewed.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) is

currently under development.
Submissions will:
Be evaluated by a joint, industry,
academic, and government review
team. Best designs will be
considered for deployment at the
University of Maine Deep Water
Test Site
Include enough detail to allow for
numerical modeling as part of the
platform evaluation process.
RFP Release date: Soon
16
56
FUNDACIN
CENTRO
TECNOLGICO DE
COMPONENTES
SAEMar Project
Ral Rodrguez Arias
Head of Renewable Energies Unit
CTC
IEA R&D WIND TASK XI

Topical Expert Meeting #63
on
HIGH RELIABILITY SOLUTIONS AND
INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS FOR OFFSHORE
WIND TURBINES
September 21-22 2010
SUMMARY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CTC Presentation
SAEMar Project: an overview
Project's main objective and key points
Consortium and Subprojects
Work Packages and dissemination activities
57
CTC Presentation
Technological Centre of Components, CTC

CTC is a non-profit foundation and aims to contribute
to economic and social development, helping companies to
assess the technological feasibility of their ideas, as well as
technically execute their R+D+I projects, as part of the
Science-Technology-Enterprise system.
SAEMar Project
CTC's activity is focused primarily to companies whose

main challenge is the technological innovation.
CTC's operational structure is based on business units,
market-oriented strategies align with the key players in
business and industry.
58
FACILITIES
SAEMar Project
CTC is located in the Scientific and Technological Park of

Cantabria (PCTCAN), in an enabling environment for activities
related to R & D.
The new facilities include a laboratory with equipment and

space necessary for project implementation and research.
59

SAEMar Project: Anchoring Systems for Renewable Marine Energies
Offshore Platforms
SAEMar Project
National call: Fundamental and Basic

Research
Project Coordinator: CTC
Partners: Cantabria University and A Corua
University
36 months (January 2011-December 2013)
Total budget: 811 K(420 k funded by
MICINN)
60

Main objetive
The main objective of the project is to create a methodology for the
reliable design of the system formed by the mooring line-anchor-soil of
Floating Ocean Energy Platforms (FOEP).
Key points
Probabilistic design (level III) of the system life cycle (mooring lineanchor-terrain)
SAEMar Project
Mechanical design and material selection.

Fatigue analysis using advanced probabilistic methods of fracture
mechanics.
Dynamic terrain of the seabed and hydrodynamic analysis platforms.
Laboratory experimental program, including not only hydrodynamic
tests in a wave tank, but also geotechnical testing of the seabed
terrain.
SAEMar Project: initial hypothesis
SAEMar Project
The main reason to present this proposal is to cover the gaps of

scientific knowledge and to develop a specific methodology for
the selection and improved design of anchoring systems for a
FOEP.
The initial hypothesis which support the objectives are the
following:
1. The action of the waves on the sea bottom in medium depths
(50m-150m) affects the soil dynamics.
2. The design of the anchoring system is affected by the cycling
load acting along its operative life.
3. Applying probabilistic methods when defining the loadings and
responses of the soil, of the mechanical systems and the
materials, will allow specifying with more accuracy the design
reliability.
4. The design basis of an anchoring system is different in a farm
configuration from an individual installation.
10
61
Specific objectives (I)

1. To develop specific methodologies for the analysis and
selection of the suitable alternative of the anchoring
system for an individual offshore floating moored platform.
2. Based on the previous objective, to adapt or develop
specific methodologies for the analysis and selection of the
suitable alternative of the anchoring system of a set of
platforms in a farm configuration.
SAEMar Project
3. To generate synergies in the knowledge of the

interrelationship mechanisms between the dynamics of
the floating platforms, moorings systems, anchoring
systems and loads in the sea bottom materials.
11
PAGE11
Specific objectives (II)
4. Analyse different typologies of FOEPs, its anchoring

systems and the different sea bottom characteristics in
order to select some types for mooring lines forces
parameterization.
SAEMar Project
5. Analysis, parameterization and statistical description

(short- and long-term) of forces acting on the mooring
lines and anchors due to the combined action of wind,
waves and currents on a single FOEP deployment.
6. Analysis and parameterization and statistical
description (short- and long-term) of the strength
characteristics of the mooring lines, anchors and soils
submitted to the forces obtained in 5.
7. Level III implementation examples for the FOEP-mooring
line-anchor-soil combination types selected in 4.
12
PAGE12
62
Consortium and subprojects
SAEMar Project
Consortium and subprojects (I)
14
63
SAEMar Project
Consortium and subprojects (II)
15
Consortium and subprojects (III)
SAEMar Project
SP1 (CTC): Methodologies to select and design the anchoring

system in FOEP
Coordination and technical integration development of a

methodology for selection and analysis of anchoring systems.
Establish the basic criteria of the project as a whole and especially

the mechanical design criteria.
Anchoring system: mechanical and structural design.
16
64
Consortium and subprojects (IV)
SAEMar Project
SP2 (UC): Hydrodynamics and Geotechnics of FOEP mooring

Systems
Analysis, parameterization and statistical description (short and long

term) of the acting forces and loads in the mooring lines and anchors
due to the combined actions induced by wind, waves and currents
Characterization of the response of the soil and its interaction with

the anchor
17
Consortium and subprojects (V)
SAEMar Project
SP3 (UDC): Life cycle and integration of FOEP mooring and

anchoring system
Life cycle analysis of the different alternatives from its deployment

until decommissioning at the end the life of the unit.
Define a methodology to enable anchoring systems integration into

the design of new FOEPs.
18
65
Workpackages (I)
SAEMar Project
SP1: Methodologies to select and design the anchoring

system in FOEP
WP 1.1
Coordination and dissemination (CTC)
WP 1.2
Preliminary
analysis:
configuration (UDC)
WP 1.3
Anchoring systems preliminary design (CTC)
WP 1.4
Preliminary analysis: geothecnical and environmental

typologies (UC)
WP 1.5
Anchoring system: mechanical and structural design

(CTC)
WP 1.6
Anchoring system
configuration (CTC)
WP 1.7
Integration of Technical results of the Project (CTC)
platform
analysis
in
and
mooring
offshore
farm
20
66
Workpackages (II)
SP2:Hydrodynamics and Geotechnics of FOEP mooring
Systems
WP 2.1
Platform Hydrodynamics (UC-IH)
WP 2.2
Offshore geothecnical analysis (UC-GG)
WP 2.3
Geotechnical tests (UC-GG)
SAEMar Project
SP3: Life cycle and integration of FOEP mooring and

anchoring system
WP 3.1
Mooring design (UDC)
WP 3.2
Life cycle analysis of the mooring and anchoring systems

(UDC)
WP 3.3
Mooring platform interface: analysis and design (UDC)
21
Dissemination activities
Exploitation and dissemination of project results will be achieved
at 3 levels:
SAEMar Project
1. Within the project team, project advances and results will be

shared and discussed during regular meetings and the
contributions from all the partners will be collected in a yearly
report.
2. Within the scientific community results will be disseminated
through publications in peer reviewed scientific journals and by
presentations to national, European and international
conferences and forums (i.e IEA Task 11 TEM).
3. Within endusers/ EPOs, results of the project will be shared
during regular meetings and Workshops.
22
67
Thank you for your

attention
Questions?
Parque Cientfico y Tecnolgico de Cantabria

(PCTCAN)
C/ Isabel Torres, 1 - 39011 Santander.
Cantabria. Espaa
Tel.: 942 29 00 03
Fax: 942 76 69 84
Email: info@ctcomponentes.com
www.ctcomponentes.es
68
Taut mooring of floating wind turbines;

application examples and comparisons
(work in progress)
IEA Task XI Topical Expert Meeting 63, Trondheim,
Norway, September 21-22, 2010
Tor Anders Nygaard
Institute for Energy Technology (IFE), Norway
tor.anders.nygaard@ife.no
23.09.2010
Outline
Engineering challenges, floating wind turbines

Examples of conceptual designs
Motivation, aim and approach
Tension Leg Buoy (TLB) with Taut Mooring (TM)
3Dfloat Simulation results
Comparisons with Hywind-OC3
Costs
23.09.2010
69
Engineering Challenges
From the ocean engineers perspective: High thrust force and

mass on top of structure giving overturning moment. The floater
must provide restoring moment to counteract this.
From the rotor aeromechanics engineers perspective: Large
motions compared to land-based or bottom-fixed towers. Wind
turbine suppliers are cautious about foundations with large
motions.
Strong coupling between aerodynamics, structural dynamics,
hydrodynamics and control system
Strong cost constraints compared to the oil and gas industry
23.09.2010
Examples
23.09.2010
70
HYWIND
Spar-buoy with catenary lines. Floater
restoring moment and rotor motion control
by large floater, heavy ballast and
innovative pitch controller. Inertiacontrolled motions.
5 MW version OC3-HYWIND defined
for model development and benchmarking
in the IEA-OC3 project.
Jonkman, J. et al (2010). Offshore Code
Comparison Collaboration within IEA
Wind Task 23. Europen Wind Energy
Conference & Exhibition, Warsaw, Poland,
April 2010.
23.09.2010
SWAY
Pre-stressed tower/floater spar with
downwind turbine. Restoring moment
by the horizontal offset between
center-of buoyancy and effective
center-of mass. Heave and yaw is
stiffness-controlled, other DOFs are
inertia-controlled.
10 MW prototype planned for
ygarden, Norway
23.09.2010
71
Semi-Submersible - WindFloat
Restoring moment provided by heave
stiffness of three horizontally offset
cylinders.
Closed-loop water ballast system helps
maintaining vertical orientation of
tower.
Inertia- and damping control of motions.
Commercial development by Principal
Power Ltd.
23.09.2010
Taut Line Buoy (TLB)
Wind
from left
Restoring moment and rotor

motion constraints by excess
buoyancy and prestressed taut
mooring in several heights.
All DOFs are stiffnesscontrolled.
In simplest form, disregarding
redundancy and safety
systems, TLB has low floater
(steel) mass, and offers a
stable platform with motions
comparable to onshore towers.
23.09.2010
72
Previous work
Worked with Christian Grorud from 2006, evaluating various

floaters with taut mooring in several heights:
Nygaard, T. A., Myhr, A. and Maus, K. J. (2009). A comparison
of two conceptual designs for floating wind turbines. European
Offshore Wind Conference & Exhibition, September 2009,
Stockholm, Sweden.
The term TLB in the context of wind turbines appeared for the
first time in a paper by prof. Sclavonous, MIT at EWEC 2010:
Sclavounos, P. D. et al.(2010). Floating wind turbines:
Development of a Taught-Line-Buoy (TLB) concept. European
Wind Energy Conference (EWEC 2010), Warsaw, Poland, April
2010
23.09.2010
Motivation and aim

The aim is to develop cost-effective, stable platforms
for floating wind turbines, with properties comparable
to bottom-fixed or onshore towers.
The savings in the floater could easily be lost due to
increased costs for mooring lines, anchors and safety
systems
The present study aims at estimating loads on the
mooring lines and anchors, as a basis for discussions
with suppliers, to improve our cost estimates.
23.09.2010
73
Approach
Design a TLB floater for the IEA 5MW reference
offshore wind turbine.
Select mooring lines axial stiffness from Eigen
frequency analysis.
Determine pre-tension in the mooring lines, requiring
that a minimum level of pre-tension is maintained
during a worst-case extreme event.
Run various load cases to estimate loads on the
mooring lines and anchors.
23.09.2010
Example of TLB:
5MW application for 80m water depth
Above +10m: Identical to IEA OC3 5MW reference offshore

wind turbine
Below +10m: Stripped down, ignoring redundancy and safety
systems, to provide estimate for maximum steel mass savings.
Draft 50m
Excess buoyancy of 8000 to 10000 kN, chosen to provide
tension in all lines, at Hs = 17m and Vhub = 65 m/s. Assuming
steel mass 20% of deplacement. Floater steel mass is around
350 tons, compared to 1600 tons (our estimate) for OC3-Hywind
Mooring lines: Fiber ropes with axial stiffness EA = 1000 MN,
chosen to keep all Eigen periods below 5s.
No other consideration of dynamics.
23.09.2010
74
Eigen Frequency Analysis: Pitch : T = 4.9s
23.09.2010
Surge: T = 2.3s
23.09.2010
75
Heave : T = 2.13s
23.09.2010
First Bending : T = 0.94
23.09.2010
76
Second Bending : T = 0.46s
23.09.2010
Extreme case:
Hs = 17m, Vhub = 65 m/s (steady)
Wave kinematics: Superposition of airy waves for
finite water depth, JONSWAP spectrum with peak
period of 15.5 m/s. Phase, amplitude and
wavenumber information is stored to provide identical
wave fields for the different simulation runs.
Wave forces: Morison for floater and mooring lines.
Wind forces: Drag on tower and mooring lines. Airfoil
tables and freestream on parked rotor (fully exposed)
Gravity and buoyancy.
Wave elevation simulated for 3 hours, extreme event
at t = 1800-2200 chosen for simulation
23.09.2010
77
23.09.2010
23.09.2010
78
10
23.09.2010
23.09.2010
79
11
Load case 5.1, IEA OC3

Regular airy waves, H = 6m T = 10s
Vhub = 11.4 m/s (steady)
Wave induced motion of nacelle causes power
variations, which in turn trigger pitch control actions,
which in turn changes rotor trust, causing new
motions, and so on
Land based pitch controller was modified in IEA OC3
project to provide stable behavior under operation
Both land-based and offshore controllers can be used
for TLB
23.09.2010
23.09.2010
80
12
23.09.2010
23.09.2010
81
13
TLB at other water depths

Continue upper ML down at same angle, 45 deg.
Adjust EA to give same overall stiffness EA/L (fiber
ropes)
In this study, upper and lower ML are identical. This
should be studied closer, to optimize translatory
response to waves.
23.09.2010
Example 2: TLB at 200m depth.

Upper and lower ML: Increase diameter with factor
(200/80)**0.5 = 1.58. Otherwise identical
Ran same extreme case as earlier and compared
tower stresses to TLB at 80m depth.
Stresses are matching well, indicating similar overall
behavior.
23.09.2010
82
14
Comparison of TLBs at 80 and 200m depth
23.09.2010
Proposed variations
For a downwind turbine, upwind upper mooring
line(s) can take position almost up to hub height. This
would increase pitch stiffness, and reduce the need
for axial stiffness. The problem is that the roll
stiffness at certain wind directions would be
unaffected.
Move effective mooring line height up just below
nacelle during extreme weather (parked rotor). This
would relieve the entire tower of bending moment.
23.09.2010
83
15
Cost estimates
Based on master thesis of Vold and Sanden (2010). Life Cycle

Analysis of floating wind turbines with regard to internal and
external factors compared with bottom-fixed wind turbines (in
Norwegian).
Side-by side comparisons of OC3-Hywind and TLB.
Two windfarms of 100 and 1000 wind turbines respectively,
each located either 10 or 100 km offshore in the North sea, at an
average water depth of 150m.
Wind farms with OC3-Hywind has estimated costs of 100 MNOK
(125000 Euro) per 5MW wind turbine.
Excluding costs of redundancy and safety systems for TLB, and
with very crude assumptions for TLB anchor costs, TLB
investment costs are 30% lower than OC3-Hywind. This is
mainly due to floater steel mass saving of 1300 tons per turbine
for the TLB, compared to Hywind-OC3.
The potential cost savings for the TLB, and the constrained
motions of the nacelle are motivations for further studies of the
TLB concept.
23.09.2010
Summary
Tension Leg Buoy has been identified as potential
cost effective and stable platform for floating wind
turbines
The cost for mooring lines and anchors are currently
examined.This study aims to provide loads for
mooring lines and anchors, to improve cost
estimates.
The ultimate goal is to develop a platform with
properties similar to land-based tower, enabling
existing rotor technology to be utilized.
23.09.2010
84
16
Experiment at MClab Wave Tank

Student project at UMB spring 2010.
Scale models 1:100 of 2 TLBs and OC3-Hywind,
including measurement systems were designed and
built by master students Ulrik Aimar Mller and
Fredrik Even Hansen, under the supervison of PhD
student Anders Myhr.
Test in MClab, NTNU April 2010, also including PhD
student Karl Jacob Maus
Measurements include mooring line forces, nacelle
motions, tower root bending moment (OC3-Hywind)
and waveheight.
23.09.2010
85
17
86
Extreme Loads Extrapolation

for Offshore Turbines
Anand Natarajan
VEA, Ris DTU
Introduction
IEC 61400-1, -3 load case 1.1 requires that operating load
predictions are made under normal turbulence wind inputs.
Edition 3 of the standard requires that the 50 year operating
extreme load is determined under normal turbulence wind
inputs
One of the common methodologies to determine the 50 year
extreme is to extrapolate the stochastic distribution of
extreme loads as determined from limited simulation data.
Normal turbulent wind simulations need to be performed
between cut-in to cut-out with atleast 15 seeds per mean
wind speed at mean wind speeds near and above rated till
cut-out.
The focus is primarily on the rotor-nacelle load extremes and
on the blade tip deflection where if extrapolation is not used,
then a conservative safety factor must be applied.
Ris DTU, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet
87
Importance of Operational Extreme loads

Identification
1. It is an operational load over long time (50 years)
2. The extreme loads are mainly due to
Controls actions (not necesarilly improper but
inadequate)s
Wind conditions
3. Importance on the foundation reliability is stressed as
flexible soils can further increase this load.
4. It should be shown that the operational 50 year
extreme load at the foundation is less than the 50 year
stand still load.
5. Fore aft moments have more pronounced wind induced
affects.
Offshore Turbines DLC 1.1

IEC 61400-1 Ed. 3 describes the
need for extreme loads
extrapolation in DLC 1.1.
Portions of the standard describe
different conditions for the extreme
loads extrapolation.
However the emphasis on RNA
loads and the relation to stochastic
sea states is confusing.
The general assumption is that
RNA loads are not affected by the
sea for fixed foundations unless the
waves are high enough to impact
the blade.
The investigation of the mudline
extreme moments under
operational conditions is developed
here.
88
Statistics of Extreme values

Based on the binomial distribution for M opportunities for
exceedance in N observations.
For N independent observations of the extreme value x of a
process with a distribution P, the probability that the largest
extreme is exceeded is 1-P(x)N.
In particular, if P is a Gaussian process, then closed form
expressions for the probability of exceedance exist.
The asymptotic probability of exceedance of the global maxima
for a Gaussian process is exp(-N.exp(-x2/2)) for a zero mean
standardized process.
Results lead to asymptotic expectations for mean, variation
and mode as proposed by Cartwright, Longuet-Higgins.
Further simplifications can be made for narrow band Gaussian
processes.
Rice method - Level Crossings of a

Barrier
The rate of up-crossings of the barrier, x by a process, R is given
by:
.
.
.
R p ( x, R ) d R
x
0
Where p( x, R) is the joint probability distribution of the process

rate with the process at the intersection with the barrier
This expression is not dependent on R being a Gaussian process

and distortions of the Gaussian distribution maybe handled
numerically.
For a narrowband Gaussian process, the probability of
exceedance follows a Rayleigh distribution.
89
Accounting for Deterministic

Riders
0 mean process with sinusoidal rider

Example : The blade in-plane
moment in which the inertial forces
on the blade vary periodically.
1. The deterministic part can be solved
by treating the specification limit as
time varying.
2. Instead of a Gaussian process, the
assumption is Poisson crossings.
3. The level crossings of a time varying
barrier ( (t)) by a Gaussian process
Data
is given by
( )
( )
( )
.
.
(t )
R
where is the normal PDF and
( (t )) (
)
R
iis the normal CDF
.
Variable
Deterministic Rider
Normally distributed
0.06
0.05
Density
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
-42
-28
-14
14
28
42
Natarajan A. & Holley, W.E., Statistical Extreme Loads

Extrapolation with Quadratic Distortions for Wind
Turbines, ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering,
Vol. 130, 031017, Aug 2008
Asymptotic Tail Distributions

1. Assumptions are the level crossings are Poisson in nature.
2. The underlying process is Gaussian but is allowed to have
deterministic over riders.
3. The tail distribution of the load (F) is of the form
z
P( F ) e
, z aaF 2 bbF c
p( F ) e
z e
, F FS
(2aF b), p( F ) 0,
FS
b / 2a
4. The equation is not valid if F approaches 0, but converges

to the CDF asymptotically for large F.
Natarajan A. & Holley, W.E., Statistical
Extreme Loads Extrapolation with
Quadratic Distortions for Wind
Turbines, ASME Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering, Vol. 130, 031017,
Aug 2008
90
Extrapolation of the Quadratic

Gumbel Distribution
The fitted exponent quadratic distribution of the form

p( Fe
F) 1 e
( aF2 bF c )
a 0
0, b 0
Extrapolation is stable even at low probabilities

Distribution is valid only for all values >= tail data
considered
Extrapolation by combining all wind

conditions
Extrapolated load probability over all wind speeds from cut-in to
cut-out:
Vout
P[ L10 min .
L]
P[ L10 min .
L V , ] fV , (V , )d dV
Vin 0
And
LV , ] 1
P[LLocalMax
P[ Llocal max
L |V, ] 1 e
LV , ]
e
(aF(v,
(a
)2 bF(V,
b
) c)
0.18
k = 2.0
0.16
k = 2.5
0.14
k = 3.0
0.12
fV,
Probability
P[ L10min .
k = 3.5
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02 0
10
15
20
25
30
Wind Velocity (m /s)
91
Monopile Out of Plane Mudline moments
5MW Upwind turbine

Normal turbulence, 4 seeds, 7-25m/s mean wind speed
6 wave seeds, irregular waves, JONSWAP spectrum
The extreme loads are
most likely near rated
wind speed.
The wave loading at
cut-out is also
significant but the
reduced Weibull
probability of the wind
decreases its
significance.
Wave Loading
1. Wave loading need not complicate the extreme load at the mud
line based on the significant contribution to the operational
extreme load from the wind.
2. Based on the percentage contribution from the wave loading,
the Weibull wind weighting in the computation of the 50 year
load maybe modified to separately add wave loading.
Mudline out of plane moment from normal operating linear wave loading is
about 20% of the total load
92
Extrapolated 50 year load with and without

wave loading
No wave loading
The wave loading increases

the 50 year extrapolated load
by 35% and is therefore
significant.
The extremes from the waves
are consistent and repeatable
unlike the extremes from the
wind.
With wave loading
Consistency of the 50 year

extreme load
Since the peak extreme loads scatter from wave input is repeatable,
the 50 year extrapolated out of plane mudline moment is fairly robust
with varying irregular wave seeds.
Extrapolation with 6 turbulent wind seeds and a) 4 wave seeds, b) 7 wave seeds
93
Comparison with loadcase 6.2

1. The 50 year storm wind run at wind inflow angles between -45 deg
and 45 deg
2. Waves with wind mislignment of 15 degs.
3. The out of plane mudline moment is of similar magnitude as the 50
year operating extreme moment.
Impact of Soil Flexibility

Soil flexibility increases
the mudline loads due to
the lowered frequency of
the support structure.
The tower design must be
performed with the
knowledge of the soil
stiffness.
The 50 year extreme load
at the mudline is impacted
by the soil stiffness.
94
Summary
1. The operating extreme 50 year mudline out of plane
load is strongly influenced by the wind induced effects.
2. The wave loading contributes to the extreme load at
the mudline, but the scatter in extremes is repeatable
unlike the scatter in extremes from the wind effect.
3. The 50 year operating extrapolated load with linear
waves showed limited variations with increase in wave
seeds.
4. The soil flexibility is relevant in determining the 50 year
extreme load.
5. The comparison with wind wave mislignment loads
from a 50 year storm case showed similar extreme
loads at the mudline as from the operating extremes.
95
96
IDERMAR METEO: an innovative solution for

offshore wind assesment
Environmental Hydraulics Institute
IH Cantabria University of Cantabria
Ral Guanche Garca
PhD Civil Engineer
guancher@unican.es
jueves, 23 de septiembre de 2010
Index
1. IH Cantabria: Brief introduction
2. IDERMAR: The Consortium
3. IDERMAR METEO
1. Prototype number 1
2. Prototype number 2
3. First IDERMAR METEO buoy
4. CONCLUSIONS
97
IH Cantabria
Environmental Hydraulics Intitute of Cantabria
Spain
IH Cantabria is a joint research institution between the

University of Cantabria and the Environmental
Hydraulics Institute Foundation, is a non-profit
organization.
Cantabria
IH Cantabria has a multidisciplinary staff: civil,

industrial and mechanical engineers, biologists, marine
scientists,
physicists,
chemists,
mathematicians,
geographers, IT specialists... 110 members.
IH Cantabria focuses its activities on three

fields of expertise:
Research
Education
Consultancy
Santander: future facilities (Spring 2011)
IH Cantabria
Main research areas
Main research areas
Coastal Oceanography
Design of coastal structures
Coastal and port engineering
Hydraulic engineering
Effects of Climate Change
Analysis of geophysical variables
Oil spill pollution in marine environments
Eco-hydraulics
Pollution of marine environments
Water quality
Flooding risks
Marine renewable energies
Main research techniques
Computational fluid dynamics

Physical modeling
Field measuring techniques
Remote sensing
98
IH Cantabria
Main facilities
Physical modelling (wave basin and flumes)

Test sites (wave energy, offshore wind energy)
Wave flume
68.5 m x 2 m x 2 m
Wave and current flume

24 m x 0.6 m x 75 m
Future facilities at
PCTCAN
Facilities at
University of Cantabria
Multipaddle wave basing

28 m x 8.6 m x 1.2 m
Wave and current basin

64 wave paddles
30m x44mx0.2-3m
Currently under construction
Spring 2011
IH Cantabria
Main facilities
Permissions processed, Budget approved under design
Physical modelling (wave basin and flumes)

Test sites (wave energy, offshore wind energy)
Ubiarco
Wave energy and
offshore wind prototypes
Administrated by
IH Cantabria
Santoa
Wave energy prototypes
Area: 4800 Ha
Depth 45 200 m
Coastline at 16km
Depth:48 to 55 m
Allowed power: 2 MW.
Submerged electrical
transformer+sumerged power
cable+onshore electrical
station+Grid conection.
Submerged electrical
transformer+sumerged
power cable+onshore
electrical station+Grid
conection.
99
IH Cantabria
Marine Renewables
Assessment and forecast of energy resources in the marine environment

(waves, wind, currents, tides)
Design, development
technologies
and
testing
of
marine
renewable
energy
Environmental assessment of offshore and coastal marine renewable

technologies
Permitting of test, demonstration and production sites
IDERMAR
Consortium presentation
IDERMAR is a mixed private-public company set

up by the Cantabria Government through
SODERCAN, ACTIUM, an Investment company of
the APIA XXI Group, the Hydraulics Institute (HI)
of the University of Cantabria (UC) and the
Helium Company.
IDERMARs goal is to develop research and
development projects in the offshore energy field.
100
IDERMAR METEO
Objectives
IDERMAR is developing a new concept called
IDERMAR METEO consisting of an integral
wind resource and ocean data acquisition
system based on a floating structure.
-For medium-depth and deep waters
-Easily
adaptable
to
environmental conditions.
site-specific
-Easily transported and installed reducing

economic costs and environmental impact
-Can be reused
-Certified product (under process)
IDERMAR METEO
Concept
IDERMAR METEO floating met-mast is composed of different structural
elements made of curved rolled steel plates and protective marine coating
treatments.
-Ballast tank
-Floater tank
-Central tube
-Mast
-Mooring lines
-Anchoring system
-Auxiliary structures
-Machinery
101
IDERMAR METEO
September 2010
-Prototype num 1: June 2009

-Prototype num 2: May 2010
-First IDERMAR METEO BUOY: October 2010
IDERMAR METEO
Prototype num 1: Description
Anchored on June 2009
Anchoring system: 3 dead weigth
50 m of water depth
Fully monitorized:
-Wind sensors (cup and ultrasound):
20, 40 and 60m
6km from the coast
-Wave and current sensor

-Temperature, humidity, visibility
and rain sensors
-Stress sensors at the mast
100 m
Mooring system: 3 catenary slack
6 km
-Load cells at the tree mooring lines

102
IDERMAR METEO
Experimental buoy num 1: Field data
Field data results:
Real time monitorized
Worst observed sea state:
Hs=6.5m and Tp=15.4s
15th Nov 2009
Numerical model (SESAM)
calibration/validation:
Hs=4m Tp=15s
21st Oct 2009
Heave - Experimental vs Numrico
10
m0exp= 0.16441
m0num= 0.16726
S(m2/m/s)
8
6
4
Boya experimental
Boya num
2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
f(Hz))
IDERMAR METEO
Prototype num 1: Laboratory test
Facility used: IH Cantabria wave flume.
Mooring system adapted to flume width
Objective: Improve know-how and buoy design process
Results: Calibration data base
Test campaign instrumentation setup
Waves:
4 gauges: 1 at the buoy and 3 for incident and
reflected decomposition
Wind:
Generated with calibrated conventional fans
Corrected data: pom3_007_wii_2.dat
One ultrasonic anemometer
150
Movement tracking system:

In house made infrared traking system.
Y coordinate (mm)
Mooring line forces:

Two load cells at the main mooring line
Target 1
Target 2
Target 3
Target 4
200
100
50
-50
-200

-150
-100
-50
0
X coordinate (mm)
50
100
150
103
IDERMAR METEO
Experimental buoy num 1: Laboratory test vs numerical
model
SESAM (HydroD, DeepC y GeniE).
Wind test (85 km/h): static analysis
Der Norske Veritas AS, DNV.
Lab:
Pitch=14
Test:
Pitch=15
IDERMAR METEO
Prototype num 2: Description
Anchoring system: 3 dead weigth

Fully monitorized:
Anchored on May 2010

180 m of water depth
16km from the coast
130 m
Mooring system: 3 catenary slack
-Wind sensors (cup and ultrasound):

40, 60 and 80m
-Wave and current sensor
-Temperature, humidity, visibility
and rain sensors
16 km
-Stress sensors at the mast

-Load cells at the tree mooring lines
104
IDERMAR METEO
Prototype num 2: Laboratory studies
First laboratory test: IHCantabria Wave flume
Anchoring system adapted to wave flume width
Water depth 70 m due to facility limitations
Limited wave and wind conditions
Scale: 1/50
Second laboratory test: MARIN (NL)
Long crested and short crested tests
Current test: VIM test
Wave and current test
Scale: 1/40
Conclusions:
Long crested is a conservative test
Wind and current induce similar dynamics on
the buoy
The observed motions never resulted in
unnaccpetable mooring loads
IDERMAR METEO
First IDERMAR METEO buoy
First IDERMAR METEO buoy has gathered all the
experience learnt with prototype 1 and 2.
The concept is still the same.
130 m
Garrad-Hassan has given additional recommendations

that has been included on the design.
The most important difference is the mast, the future
buoy will have a lattice mast instead a conical mast.
The buoy is currently under construction at Santander
quays.
It will be anchored on end
October 2010
Water depth 50-70 m
105
IDERMAR METEO
IDERMAR METEO
106
10
IDERMAR METEO
Facility used:
IH Cantabria wave flume.
Objective:
Mooring system adepted to flume width

Ultimate limit state waves
Results:
Normal conditions
Movements and Forces. Calibration database
Conclusions:
Under normal conditions movements and mooring loads
are limited
Extreme waves yields mooring loads that never were
unacceptable
Freak waves has been registered and significant
motions has been observed but mooring lines were
limited.
IDERMAR METEO
Mooring line setup comparison
107
11
IDERMAR METEO
Numerical model calibration:
Hs=12.59m; Tp=14.94s
SESAM (HydroD, DeepC y GeniE).

Der Norske Veritas AS, DNV.
Conclusions:
A meteorological floating mast has been developed thanks
to laboratory test and prototype examples.
Several laboratory test has been conducted at IH Cantabria
and Marin facilities.
SESAM numerical model (DNV software) has been
calibrated and validate with laboratory data and field data
IDERMAR and IH Cantabria thanks to two prototypes
deployed has gathered experience in:
Construction
Deployment
Maintenance
Management and meteorological data mining.
IDERMAR METEO is the main result of all the work

developed
108
12
Future works
Deployment of IDERMAR METEO first buoy.
Analyze winter 2011 field data recorded by the three
prototypes.
Continue with numerical methods validation with field data.
Finish certification procedure with Garrad-Hassan.
Instituto de Hidrulica Ambiental

de Cantabria
Environmental Hydraulics Institute
IH Cantabria
Ral Guanche Garca
PhD Civil Engineer
guancher@unican.es
109
13
110
ZFIR TEST STATION:

DEEP-SEA OFFSHORE WIND POWER TESTING OFF THE COAST OF TARRAGONA
Rajai Aghabi Rivas
raghabi@irec.cat
High reliability solutions and innovative concepts for offshore wind turbines
IEA R&D WIND TASK XI: Topical Expert Meeting #63
21-22 September 2010
www.irec.cat
PRINCIPLES
Mission
Contribute to the sustainable development of society and
enhance corporate competitiveness via:
Innovation and development of new technological
products;
Medium and long-term research; and
Development of scientific and technological know-how
in the field of energy.
Vision
Become a center of excellence and an international
benchmark organization in the established technological
fields of action through Research, Technology
Development and Innovation (R+TD+i), working in
coordination with the Administration, the Industry and
Universities.
111
GOVERNING BODY
IREC is governed by a Board composed of:
Catalan Ministry of Economy and Finance
Catalan Ministry of Innovation, Universities and Enterprise
Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CIEMAT)
Spanish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce (IDAE)
University of Barcelona UB
Technical University of Catalonia UPC
Rovira I Virgili University in Tarragona URV
ENDESA
GAS NATURAL FENOSA
AGBAR
Fundacin REPSOL
ENAGS
Compaa Logstica de Hidrocarburos CLH
ALSTOM Wind
ORIENTATION
The Institutes orientation takes a dual approach:

on
technology
Market
orientation,
focusing
development, new products and new technical solutions
for energy sector companies active in the same fields as
IRECs established lines of action.
Long-term research into different aspects of the
established lines of action. It will not initially aimed at the
market, but at generating knowledge amongst groups in
the Institute itself, with a long-term commercial projection
in mind.
The Institute's orientation will consist of a balance
between these two approaches.
112
TECHNOLOGY & RESEARCH AREAS

The Institutes focus of technological research:
Energy Efficiency
Electricity
Grids
CO2 Capture,
Storage and
Applications
Bioenergy
Offshore
Wind
Energy
With the following cross-cutting fields of knowledge:

Advanced Materials for Energy Applications
Power Electronics
Socio-Technical Research
OFFSHORE WIND POWER TECHNOLOGY
ZFIR Test Station

Substructures
Models
Energy Transport and Grid Connection
Safety
Electric Wind Turbine Systems
Control Systems
113
PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES: FORECAST

In 2009, worldwide wind power capacity reached 158,000 MW.
In 2009, worldwide offshore

wind power capacity reached
2,100 MW.
The EWEA estimates that

40,000 MW of offshore wind
power capacity will be
installed by 2020.
PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES: CURRENT STATE

Offshore wind farms currently exist off the coasts of Denmark, the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden and Ireland, though none of them in deep
waters (>50m).
114
PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES: SPAIN

Spain estimates it will have an offshore wind power capacity of 5,000 MW installed by
2020, although current applications to install wind farms amount to a capacity of 7,300
MW.
Offshore wind farms will be

developed in places where they
cannot be seen from the coast, i.e. at
least 20 km from the coastline, where
depth generally surpasses 50 m,
which in this technology is
considered deep waters.
PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES: MARKET NEEDS
The installation of wind farms on land is conditioned by their visual impact on the
landscape.
The logical next step is to install them offshore, far enough from the coast to avoid
causing such impact (25 km).
At that distance, the majority of possible sites have a depth greater than 50 m. This
means that the wind turbines cannot rest on the seafloor, but require a technical
solution based on floating platforms.
Such deep-water offshore locations require the development of new, highly complex
technological solutions that need to be modeled and tested exhaustively before they
can be marketed.
The business opportunity is estimated at 40,000 MW, which would amount to 100,000
million , to be installed by 2020.
10
115
ZFIR: AIM OF THE PROPOSAL

ZFIR Test Station
Setting up an International Test Station for offshore wind turbines in deep waters,
contributes to:
The progressive reduction of costs in offshore wind farm installation.
The increase of the technological credibility of this kind of applications.
The increase of the scientific and technological knowledge of the Industry and the
involved research centers.
The creation of new business opportunities for the companies involved in the project.
The setting up of a reference international center, with capacity to attract industrial
investments.
The creation of a favorable environment to develop university programs, as attraction
pole in R&D.
The Project is an opportunity demanded by the Industry, that will consolidate Europe
as the international reference in Offshore Wind Energy.
11
ZFIR: LOCATION
ZFIR Test Station
Planned location: off the coast of Tarragona.
Availability of good wind resources, proximity to the port of Tarragona and
electricity grid connections.
12
116
ZFIR: PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS

ZFIR Test Station
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
Depth:
40 m
100 m
Distance from the coast:
3 km
20 km
Number of wind turnines:

Capacity installed:
Substructures:
20 MW
50 MW
Anchored
Floating
alpha ventus
statoil hywind
13
ZFIR: TECHNOLOGY & RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Developing offshore wind turbine standards and hydrodynamic and aeroelastic codes.
Different types of turbine systems for deep-water testing, seafloor anchorage (GBS,
Monopile, Multipod) and floating (SPAR, TLP, Barge).
Logistics development.
Systems reliability.
Electrical devices and control systems for wind turbines and wind farms.
Electric power transmission (HVAC-VDC). Transformation. Connection.
Safety to the grid.
14
117
ZFIR: ENVIRONMENTAL R&D ACTIVITIES

It is an opportunity to investigate the real environmental impacts of offshore
wind technology in the Mediterranean Sea, in order to use this
knowledge for future commercial applications
Behavior of sound waves during construction and O&M
Impact on flora and fauna (birds, mammals, fish, etc)
Sediment transport
Seabed geology
EM emissions
Etc
alpha ventus
statoil hywind
15
ZFIR: TRAINING ACTIVITIES

Training is critical in offshore wind energy industry, for technological evolution, safety
and environment respect.
Training for suitable profile technicians and workers, in manufacturing, installation,
operation and maintenance of offshore wind farms.
Training for university graduates in different related fields (component design, wind
turbine design, electrical and civil design, materials, atmosphere physics, etc.), in
collaboration with the Universities.
The Platform will be very valuable for the development of new and unique scientific and
technologic research fields in the Universities, and for the development of a new
academic specialization.
alpha ventus
statoil hywind
16
118
ZFIR: CALENDAR
Once operating, the Test Station will fund itself through resources from the sale of energy, for
which it will receive a percentage, and charges for services to third parties.
Year
STAGE I
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
4 shallow-water sites
STAGE II 8 deep-water sites
alpha ventus
statoil hywind
17
ZFIR: CONCLUSIONS
The International Test Station for Offshore Wind Turbines is a
unique project, with great international impact, that covers an
urgent requirement of the Industry in order to increase in the new
and complex offshore wind energy market.
The wind turbine and infrastructure technologies require a great
improvement in order to make feasible this new market, by means of
technological developments and costs reduction. Solutions must
be verified in order to make the projects bankable.
To make feasible the offshore wind technology is required an
ambitious long term R&D program, involving manufacturers,
investors, research centers, certification bodies and governments.
This is a great and unique opportunity.
statoil hywind
18
119
Sponsors:
Financed by:
120
The status of research and

technology development on
offshore wind energy in Japan
Chuichi ARAKAWA
The University of Tokyo
Japan Wind Energy Association
Tokyo Wind Power Plant
From J-POWER
121
Wind Power Generation in Japan

Latest wind Power Statistics in Japan (at the end of May 2010 by NEDO)
- Total installed wind generation
2,186 MW, 1,683 units
- New wind generation installed
178 MW / year
- Total electric output from wind
3,138 GWh / year
- Wind generation share of national electric demand0.37 %
Total Number of Wind Turbines
Cumulative Installed Capacity (kW)

Fiscal Year
Start of RPS Law

1. 35% by 2010
1. 63% by 2014
Start of Project for Promoting
the Local Introduction of New Energy
Start of Field Test Project
on Wind Power Systems
1989
1995
1997
1999
2003
2009
Top 13 Total Capacity in 2

2007
007
MW
World Wind Energy Association

2007 Report
122
New Guideline for Wind Turbines

in Japan and Asian Area
Typhoon Attack
Miyako Island was hit by huge
Typhoon #14 on 11.Sep.2003 and
all 7 WT were destroyed; 3 fallen
down, 3 lost blades, 1 lost nacelle
roof
How Unusual?
Record of 29 paths of typhoons in 2004

Data: Digital Typhoon: Best Track Map View (http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp)
123
NEW MW
MW--class Machines
SUBARU 80/2.0 (FHI)

2 MW WT
MWT92 (MHI) 2.4MW WT
Offshore
MiddelgrundenCopenhagen / 2MW x 20
124
Semi--Offshore
Semi
Kamisu, Japan / 2MW x 7
Potential of Offshore in Japan

6th position of EEZ in the world
Advanced technology in marine engineering
69GW (0~20m depth), 210GW(0~50m),
1200GW(0~200m)
5MW machine, 80m height, 30km from
land and more than 7m/sec wind speed in
assumption
Huge wind resources in offshore !!!
125
JWPA proposal to Japanese Government

- Wind power shall supply 10% electricity demand in Japan by 2050.
- Installed capacity shall be 11.1GW in 2020 and 50GW in 2050.
50GW = On-shore 25GW + Off-shore 7.5GW + Floating 17.5GW
- Offshore (Founding type) will be promoted after 2015.
- Offshore (Floating type) will be promoted after 2020.
Roadmap for Wind Power
Development in Japan,
JWPA,
May 2010
55,000
45,000
Off-shore
Floating
Off-shore
(Founding)
50,000
40,000
50GW
in 2050
On-shore Installed
35,000
30,000
11.1GW
in 2020
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Fiscal
Year
Deep Offshore in Japan

Floating type of offshore is
required for deep and steep slope
of sea bottom.
Advanced technology is
proposed such as sailing system.
JAMSTEC
http://www.deepscience.miraikan.jst.go.jp/special/new/guide_
01_02.php
Map of depth water around Japan island
12
126
Advanced Technology
New materials for blade : carbon
More efficient blade : two-blade
systems
Drive train : direct drive, superconductivity motor
Offshore : jacket, maintenancefree like
Floating offshore
Prof.H.Suzuki in UT
Prof.T.Ishihara in UT
Proposal of Sailing System for Wind Power

by National Institute for Environment Studies
in Japan
Keep position of floating system with attached aerofoil
Possible to escape from typhoon with engines
Install Hydrogen System to Storage Energy
127
Giant Turbine for Offshore

Two-blades system
New material such as CFRP for smart and
light-weight blade
Superconducting generator system instead
of extremely heavy drive trains in the
present
New trend for floating offshore wind
turbine should be developed.
Superconducting Wind Power Generation

High-power direct-drive synchronous
generators
Very low speed
High torque
Very large
Superconductivity
Very high magnetic fields (10 T) without joule heating
One of the key technologies to solve the problem in
size and weight
More efficient, lightweight and compact
Higher-output and direct-drive synchronous generator
16
128
An Example of Design Study Results for WPG

using Superconducting Racetrack Coils
Cu armature windings (Stator)
Main parameters of superconducting generator
Superconducting field coils
Number of poles
Outer diameter
~ 3.6 m
Coil dimensions
1.8 m 0.8 m
(racetrack coil)
Cross section
0.18 m 0.18 m
1 108 A/m2
Current density
Superconducting field coils (Rotor)

Magneic flux density Br (T)
12
Double-layer distributed armature windings
2.5
2.0
Diameter (outer, inner)
1.5
4.32 m, 3.84 m
1.0
1.6 ~ 2 A/mm2
Current density
0.5
0.0
Rotational speed
-0.5
10 rpm
-1.0
Output
-1.5
10.3 MVA
(5 kV, 1.2 kA)
-2.0
Max. flux density
-2.5
0
10
15
20
25
~ 10 T
30
Angle (degree)
Radial field components at stator coils
[H. Ohsaki: presented at ISS2009,

Tsukuba]
17
High-temperature Superconducting
(HTS) tapes and magnets
First-generation Bi2Sr2Ca2Cu3O10 (Bi-2223) tapes
Long-length ( 1.5 km) tapes available, currently lowest-cost HTS tape
Sumitomo Electric Ind. (Japan) is unrivaled
Second-generation YBa2Cu3O7 (YBCO) tapes

R &D active in many countries (USA, Japan, EU, Korea, ---)
High current tape (> 500 A/cm-width) commercially available in Japan
Expected to be much cost-effective in the near future, compared with
the 1st-generation Bi-2223 tapes
High-field HTS magnets

Japan has large experience in R &D to produce HTS magnets for
levitation train, SMES (Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage
device), motors, --Surround Cu Stabilizer YBCO tape by SuperPower
DI-BSCCOTM Bi-2223 tape by Sumitomo Elec. Ind.
Width: 4.3 mm, thickness: 0.23 mm

Superconducting current ~ 180 A@77.3 K
129
NEDO project of shallow offshore

Preliminary research in 2007/Feasible Study (FS) in 2008
Fundamental information in area, design, environment,
social acceptance such as fishermans rights in 6 areas
Two projects have started in 2009 only for measurement
of wind, wave and so on.
When the exact offshore will start ???
Now, one unit of 2.4MW machine is planning to
be installed next year, 2011.
Breaking News !!!

Ministry of the EnvironmentMOE has announced to
start floating offshore.
Be Ambitious,
Wind Power in Japan !
Thank you for your attention
130
10
Computer Simulation of Blade in

Wind Turbines with Earth Simulator
Actual blade
Ogee tip shape

for small noise
131
11
132
Research and Development

of a Hybrid-Spar
for Floating Offshore Wind Turbine
Tomoaki Utsunomiya
Kyoto Univ., Japan
Background
Bottom-fixed type Offshore Wind Turbine
Foundation type and Water depth constructed
Monopile Foundation
Gravity-type Foundation
Jacket-type Foundation
25m
9m
45m
30m
30m
100m
Limited Shallow Water Area in Japan EEZ
Floating type Offshore Wind Turbine

Cost effective in deeper water (e.g. d > 60m) over
bottom-fixed type OWT
Huge Wind Power Resources in Japan EEZ
Reduction of Construction Cost is primary Concern.
133
EEZ as
6th in the
world
Wind Energy Resources in Japan

(estimation by JWPA, 2010)
Land Based: 169GW
wind speed>6.5m/s@80m
Offshore (fixed): 94GW

water depth<50m
distance from the shore<30km
Offshore (floating): 519GW

water depth=50m200m
distance from the shore<30km
Total Supply Capacity (2008): 202GW
134
Hybrid Spar concept

In order to reduce the construction cost, we
have
selected Spar among semi-, TLP, pontoon,
because the structure shape is simplest.
used precast concrete segment as the main hull
material. Suitable for Mass-production.
used steel for tower and upper part of the main
hull, in order to optimize the structure size.
Such a Hybrid-Spar has not yet been made

demonstration experiment using 1/10
scale model
Prototype 2MW FOWT

Hybrid SPAR:
Precast PC at lower hull
Steel at upper hull
CG of the prototype FOWT model
2MW wind turbine of downwind type (SUBARU 80/2.0)

Steel mono-tower
Catenary mooring system using
anchor chains
Hub-height: 55m
Rotor diameter: 80m
Draft: 60-70m
135
Down-wind turbine
Tilt angle
-8
No wind
Wind
Down-wind turbine
Wind
Wind
Constant pitch angle

Rotor plane
faces to wind
power-up
Stability in Yaw is
good because of the
Weather Vane effect.
136
Development history of Hybrid-Spar

2007FY 1/100 scale model experiment
Wave basin at Kyoto Univ.
Regular/Irregular wave
2008FY 1/22.5 scale model experiment

Deep-sea wave basin at NMRI
Regular/Irregular wave with constant horizontal force
2009FY 1/10 scale model on-sea experiment

On-sea experiment in Sasebo shipyard
Mount 1kW wind turbine
Same material as the prototype (precast PC, Steel,
mooring by chain)
External force mainly due to wind and tidal change
(wave effect small).
1/100 Scale Experiment

Wave Tank
Length 30m, Width 0.8m, Depth 0.75m
Measured Items
Incident wave height (Capacity-type wave gauge)
Motion of floating body (maker tracking using Video)
Wave gauge
Damping
zone
Wave
generator
137
SPAR Models3types
chain
Simple SPAR (at C.G.)
Simple SPAR (upper)
Stepped SPAR (upper)
1/100 Scale of the prototype (2MW Wind Turbine, Draft 60m)

Draft 60cm, KG=24.8cm
Diameter 8.9cm (For stepped-type, 4.8cm at upper part)
SPAR Models
Simple SPAR (at C.G.)
Stepped SPAR (upper)
138
Wave conditions (prototype scale)

Regular Wave
Height (m)
Period (s)
3.0, 6.0
7.5, 10.0, 12.5, 15.0,17.5, 20.0

Irregular Wave
Wind conditions
Hs (m)
Ts (s)
At rated wind
(U10=13m/s)
3.9
7.4
At cut-out wind
(U10=25m/s)
7.1
9.8
At storm wind
(U10=50m/s)
12.0
13.4
Response Amplitude Operator

(RAO) for Regular Wave: Surge
2
Experiment(WH3.0)
Experiment(WH3.0)
Experiment(WH6.0)
1.5
1.5
Potential Theory
Surge RAO
Surge RAO
Experiment(WH6.0)
Morison_Airy(WH3.0)
Morison_Airy(WH6.0)
Morison_Airy(WH3.0)
Morison_Airy(WH6.0)
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
1.5
T(s)
Simple SPAR (upper)
2.5
0.5
1.5
T(s)
2.5
Stepped-type SPAR (upper)
No significant difference between Simple SPAR and

Stepped-type SPAR
Good agreement with simulations using Morisons Eq. and
Potential Theory
139

(RAO) for Regular Wave: Heave
6
Experiment(WH3.0)
Experiment(WH6.0)
Morison_Airy(WH3.0)
1.5
Heave RAO
4
Heave RAO
Experiment(WH3.0)
Experiment(WH6.0)
Morison_Airy(WH3.0)
Morison_Airy(WH6.0)
Potential Theory
Morison_Airy(WH6.0)
1
2
0.5
1
0
0.5
1.5
T(s)
2.5
0.5
Simple SPAR (upper)
1.5
T(s)
2.5
For Stepped-type SPAR, resonant response is evaded,

because of long natural period in Heave.
For Simple SPAR, resonant response is significant.
Nonlinearity of the response with incident wave height is
observed. Potential theory without drag force term
overestimates the response.

(RAO) for Regular Wave: Pitch
2
Experiment(WH3.0)
Experiment(WH6.0)
1.5
Pitch RAO (deg/cm)
1.5
Pitch RAO (deg/cm)
Experiment(WH3.0)
Experiment(WH6.0)
Morison_Airy(WH3.0)
Morison_Airy(WH6.0)
Potential Theory
0.5
Morison_Airy(WH3.0)
Morison_Airy(WH6.0)
0.5
0.5
1.5
T(s)
Simple SPAR (upper)
2.5
0.5
1.5
T(s)
2.5
For the Stepped-type SPAR, pitch response is significantly

reduced because of longer natural period in pitch and
reduction of excitation moment with slenderness at upper
part.
Good agreement with simulations using Morisons Eq. and
potential theory.
140
Irregular Wave Experiment for

Stepped-type SPAR
At rated wind speed (H1/3=3.9mT1/3=7.4s)

Stepped-type SPAR
At cut-out wind speed (H1/3=7.1mT1/3=9.8s)
141

Stepped-type SPAR
At Storm wind (H1/3=12.0mT1/3=13.4s)
Significant Values
Response
(in Prototype Scale)
Simple
SPAR ( at
C.G.)
Simple
SPAR
(upper)
Steppedtype SPAR
(upper)
Surge
(m)
At rated
At cut-out
At storm
1.07
1.99
4.85
1.30
2.26
5.68
1.17
2.48
6.62
Heave
(m)
At rated
At cut-out
At storm
0.33
2.61
6.37
0.27
2.43
6.14
0.41
0.83
1.50
Pitch
(deg.)
At rated
At cut-out
At storm
1.83
9.69
16.46
1.68
7.29
11.76
0.96
1.92
4.22
For Heave and Pitch responses,

Simple SPAR (at C.G.) Simple SPAR (upper) Stepped
SPAR
142
10
Time series response for irregular

wave (Stepped-type SPAR; at cut-out)
Pitch
Surge
6
4
Experiment
nonlinear
6
4
Displacement(deg)
Displacement(cm)
Experiment
nonlinear
0
-2
-4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
150
160
170
180
190
200
-6
t(s)
-8
150
160
170
180
190
200
t(s)
Heave
3
Experiment
nonlinear
Displacement(cm)
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
150
160
170
180
190
200
t(s)
In Surge and Pitch responses,

long period oscillations are
significant.
Simulation using Morisons
Eq. can predict the timeseries response in experiment.
1/22.5 scale model experiment

Deep sea wave basin (at NMRI)
Diameter 14m, Depth 5m
Measument items:
Incident wave (wave guage)
Motion of the floating body (marker tracking by video)
143
11
Prototype configurations
Wind turbinedown-wind 2MW
Main hull
Lower partballast concrete
Middle part: Precast concrete
Upper part and towersteel
Mooringcatenary (anchor chain)

Hub height
55m
Draught
60m
Meta center height

(GM)
3.83m
Displacement
3,339m3
Heave natural period
27.9s (est.)
Pitch natural period
28.9s (est.)
Experimental model
1/22.5 scale of the prototype
Steady horizontal force applied/not
Hub height
2.465m
Draught
2.667m
Water depth
5m
Initial tension in
mooring
9.8N
Spring constant
21.0N/m
for a mooring line
Steady horizontal 29.4N
force
144
12
Experimental model moored in

the deep-sea wave basin
Mooring lines (8 lines)
Incident wave conditions

(in prototype scale)
Regular wave
Wave height (m)

Period (s)
2.25, 4.5
4.7, 7.1, 9.5, 11.9, 14.2, 16.6, 19.0
Irregular wave
Significant
Significant
Motion
wave height (m) wave period (s) suppression device
1.125
9.5
Not installed
1.125
11.9
Not installed
2.25
9.5
Installed / not
2.25
11.9
Installed / not
145
13
Free-decay tests
SURGE
HEAVE
PITCH
Mode
Exp
Sim
Exp/Sim
Surge
111.5s
113.5s
0.98
Heave
27.5s
27.5s
1.00
Pitch
25.0s
25.6s
0.98
Yaw
23.3s
24.3s
0.96
Regular wave experiment
H=4.5m,
T=9.5s
T20A10.wmv
146
14
RAO in Surge
Good agreement between experiment and

prediction (except at long wave periods)
RAO in Heave

prediction
147
15
RAO in Pitch

prediction (except at long wave periods)
Irregular wave experiment
H1/3=2.25m,
T1/3=11.9s
TS25HS10.wmv
148
16
Power spectrum in Surge
H1/3=2.25m, T1/3=9.5s
H1/3=2.25m, T1/3=11.9s
Feasible agreement between experiment and simulation

Two peaks corresponding to LF (Low frequency) and WF
(Wave frequency) motions
LF motions are damped well, compared to simulations.
Power Spectrum in Heave
H1/3=2.25m, T1/3=9.5s
H1/3=2.25m, T1/3=11.9s
Feasible agreement between experiment and

simulation
Two peaks corresponding to LF and WF motions
149
17
Power Spectrum in Pitch
H1/3=2.25m, T1/3=11.9s
H1/3=2.25m, T1/3=9.5s
Feasible agreement between experiment and simulation

Three peaks at Surge and Pitch natural frequencies and at WF.
LF motions are well damped.
More accurate estimation of damping forces is necessary.
Significant values of the responses

Comparison with the simulation
Significant values
H1/3=2.25m
Experiment Simulation
Exp./Sim.
Surge
(m)
T1/3=9.5s
T1/3=11.9s
0.686
1.117
0.786
1.190
0.87
0.94
Heave
(m)
T1/3=9.5s
T1/3=11.9s
0.524
0.571
0.434
0.573
1.21
1.00
Pitch
(deg.)
T1/3=9.5s
T1/3=11.9s
1.051
1.590
1.288
1.554
0.82
1.02
Significant values are predicted within 20.

If more accurate damping forces are included, the
prediction accuracy will be even better.
150
18
Objectives for 1/10 scale

on-sea experiment
Demonstration for feasibility of the
fundamental concept of the hybrid spar
Construct the hybrid spar using the same material as
the prototype Precast PC for lower part, steel for
upper part, and the composite connection in between.
Installation onto the sea
Demonstration of offshore wind power generation
using 1kW wind turbine
Data acquisition for validation of the simulation

program
Motion (6dof), strains (16ch), tension in a chain (1ch),
wind speed, wind direction, power output, pressure at
sea-bottom (convert into water depth and wave height)
Participants for 1/10 experiment
Kyoto University
Sasebo Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
Toda Corporation
Nippon Hume Corporation
151
19
Experimental Model
Wind turbine
Upper tower
Tower
5.5m
Upper SPAR
(steel)
Middle SPAR
(steel)
Composite joint
element
7m
Lower SPAR
(PC)
Wind Turbine: Free-yaw

1kW HAWT
Rotor diameter: 2,058mm
Hub height: 5,506mm
Draft: 7,022mm
Diameters:
Upper SPAR: 508mm
Lower SPAR: 920mm
Anchor chain: 16mm

Natural periods (design)
Heave: 9.29s
Pitch: 8.46s
Water depth: 10m 12.5m
Concrete
ballast
Location of the experimental site

Layout of Sasebo
Shipyard
Dry towing
Install position
152
20
153
21
20090827095957.mpg
154
22
Response record in Roll and Pitch

Aug 31, 13:4516:39 (2h54m)
Maximum in Roll, 6.8deg.
Maximum in Pitch 6.7deg.
Video including max. roll response
20090831150456.mpg
155
23
Roll and Pitch responses (for 2h54m)

Maximum Roll 6.8 deg.
Roll
Surge & Sway Natural Freq.

Roll & Pitch Natural Freq.
Pitch
Wave dominant
Minimum Pitch 6.7deg.
Power spectrum densities
Time-series
Tension in anchor chain #1

Time-series
Surge & Sway Natural Freq.
Roll & Pitch Natural Freq.

Power spectrum
densities
Wave dominant
156
24
Wind load at hub height

Wind load prediction for CT=1.5
1
Fwind CT D 2 U uhub U uhub
8
CT: thrust force coefficient

: the density of air,
D: rotor diameter
U: wind velocity
uhub: velocity of the tower at hub height
Inputs for simulation (10min)

Wind inputs
Wind speed (m/s)
Wind direction (deg.)
Wave inputs
Water surface elevation (cm)
PSD for wave height
157
25
Experiment & Simulation

Roll response
Pitch response
Experiment & Simulation

Yaw angular velocity
Tension in anchor chain
158
26
Significant Values
Experiment Simulation
Sim./Exp.
Roll (deg)
1.91
2.65
1.39
Pitch (deg)
2.29
2.30
1.00
Yaw velocity (deg/s)
2.41
1.09
0.45
Tension (N)
19.1
18.6
0.97
Conclusions for 1/10 experiment

Feasibility of the fundamental concept of the
hybrid spar using precast concrete segments and
steel has been demonstrated.
Natural periods agreed with the predictions
(design values).
Basically, good agreement is observed between
experiment and simulation for pitch and tension in
the anchor chain; however, for yaw velocity case,
the prediction underestimates the experiment.
159
27
.wmv
160
28
Thank you very much

for your kind attention!
161
29
162
IEA TEM#63, Trondheim, 2121-22/Sep/2010
Influences of Wave to Wind Misalignment to

Dynamic Characteristics and Fatigue Loads on
Spar-type Floating Offshore Wind Turbine
Shigeo Yoshida, Fuji Heavy Industries (Japan)

yoshidas@utu.subaru-fhi.co.jp
Contents
1. Overview
2. Simulation Model
3. Simulation Conditions
4. Simulation Results
5. Conclusions
163
1. Overview
- Energy potential of deep ocean is huge.
- Spar-type floating turbines are promising in cost and safety aspects, whereas
challenging in dynamics and control.
- Dynamic characteristics of wind turbine are not uniform to rotor direction.
Influences of wave to wind misalignment were analyzed.
60m60m-900m
15331533-GW
SparSpar-type
Onshore:169GW Offshore:94GW
Floating:519GW
in Japan, JWPA
2. Simulation Model
Wind Turbine
Rotor Pos.
Downwind
Rotor Dia.
69.7m
No. of Blades
3
Coning Angle
5deg
Tilt Angle
-8deg
Tower Height
82m
Ref. Speed
20.5r/min
Rated Power
1.5MW
Spar Float
Sway
Pitch
Wind
Wave
WL
d2
h2
4.6m
7.6m
12.0m
68.0m
80.0m
33,006kN
60.24m
100m
8
12.0m
1.414kN/m
200kN
d1
CG
h1
Roll
Diameter of Spar (Upper Part) (D2 )

Diameter of Spar (Lower Part) (D1 )
Depth of Spar (Upper Part) (h 2 )
Depth of Spar (Lower Part) (h 1 )
Draft of Spar (Total) (h D )
Displacement
Spar CG (below WL) (lG )
Water Depth
Number of Mooring Chains
Depth of Fairleads (below WL) (lF)
Weight of a Chain in Water
Initial Horizontal Tension in a Chain
lF
Yaw
lG
Surge
hD
Heave
164
3. Simulation Conditions
H1/ 3[m]
6
4
2
0
10
10
15
20
25
30
15
20
25
30
12
10
T1/ 3[s]
Wind
- Turbulence intensity: IEC-C
- Turbulence spectrum: Kaimal
- Av. wind speed: 525m/s, each 2m/s
- Av. wind direction: 0deg
- Av. wind shear exponent: 0.14
- Annual av. wind speed: 8.5m/s(Rayleigh dist.)
8
6
4
2
0
Wind Speed[m/ s]
Wave
- Sig. wave height and wave period: H1/3, T1/3
- Wave spectrum: Bretschneider-Mitsuyasu
- Wave to wind misalignment: -90+90deg
Sig. Wave Height and Wave Period

0
- 30
- 60
60
1.2
0.6
- 90
Simulation
- FAST + Modified Morison

n
- Sim. duration: 600s
G I ( e ) = k n cos ( e )...
G ( ) = 0...else
I e
30
90
Distribution[1/ rad]
n=0
n=1
n=2
n=4
n=8
- 30
Wave to Wind Misalignment
30
- 60
0.6
- 90
60
0.3
90
Weight to Ref. Direction[- ]
4. Simulation Results
165
4.1 Time Series Output

- Example of time series simulation results are shown below, where, D00 for
0deg and D90 for 90deg of wave to wind misalignment.
- Rotor speeds are maintained around 20.5r/min by blade pitch control.
25
Roll[deg]
20
15
10
5
100
200
300
400
500
Pitch[deg]
0
100
200
300
400
500
100
200
300
400
500
600
D90V17
D00V17
100
200
300
400
500
D90V17
600
D00V17
20
10
0
100
200
300
400
500
100
200
300
400
500
600
5
0
-5
600
30
10
20
15
0
-5
600
25
20
Yaw[deg]
Blade Pitch
[deg]
Rot or Speed
[r/ min]
Wind Speed
[m/ s]
- Float motions of 90deg are fairly larger than those of 0deg.
10
0
- 10
- 20
600
Time[s]
Time[s]
Float Motion(17m/s)
Hub W.S., Rotor Speed, Blade Pitch(17m/s)
4.2 Float Motion

Roll AVSD[deg]
- Influences of wave to wind

misalignment are small in low wind
speed low wave height conditions.
- 90
- 60
- 30
+- 0
+30
+60
+90
2
0
-2
-4
- Float motions tend to increase as wave

to wind misalignment increased in high
wind speed high wave height
conditions.
10
15
Wind Speed[m/ s]
20
25
30
- 30
30
- 60
25m/ s
19m/ s
13m/ s
7m/ s
60
- 90
90
Roll
Roll SD[m]
20
- 90
- 60
- 30
+- 0
+30
+60
+90
8
6
4
2
0
10
15
Wind Speed[m/ s]
20
25
Yaw AVSD[deg]
Pitch AV SD[deg]
10
0
- 10
- 20
30
- 90
- 60
- 30
+- 0
+30
+60
+90
10
10
- 30
4
- 90
- 30
25m/ s
19m/ s
13m/ s
7m/ s
60
Pit ch SD[deg]
25
90
Pitch
30
- 60
16
0
20
30
30
- 60
15
Wind Speed[m/ s]
- 90
25m/ s
19m/ s
13m/ s
7m/ s
60
Yaw SD[deg]
90
Yaw
166
4.3 Coupled Motion

- Coupling between float pitch and roll is not strong.
- Roll motion mainly caused by side wave affects to yaw motion.
- Roll motion causes yaw motion by rotor aerodynamics and inertial/gravity
forced by tower head CG offset.
D90
D00
Roll[deg]
Roll[deg]
D90
D00
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-3
- 25
10
- 20
- 15
- 10
-5
10
15
20
25
Yaw[deg]
Pitch[deg]
Float Yaw to Roll(17m/s)
Float Pitch to Roll(17m/s)
10
4.4 Fatigue Loads

- DEL of tower base fore-aft bending MYT tends to decrease as wave to wind
misalignment increased, whereas, side-side bending MXT tends to increase.
- MYT is still dominant as wave to wind misalignment distribution, as DEL
of tower base bending.
- DEL of tower bending is dependent on wave to wind misalignment and its
distribution.
1
n L m
i
i
DEL =
N eq
0
- 30
Uniform
Distribution
MXT0
MYT0
30
- 60
60
400
200
- 90
90
DEL[kNm]
Norm. DEL[- ]
DEL
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
DEL/Damage D Calculation
Directional Distribution Shape Factor[- ]
10
Tower Base DEL
167
11
5. Conclusion
- Followings were shown through simulations of spar-type floating turbine,
considering wave to wind misalignment.
- Roll motion, which tend to increase as wave to wind misalignment increased,
was shown to amplify roll-yaw coupled motion.
- Fatigue load of tower base bending is influenced by wave to wind
misalignment and its distribution.
12
END
168
Integrated Dynamic Response Analysis of Spar-Type

Wind Turbines with Catenary and Taut Mooring
IEA Wind TEM 21-22 October at SINTEF
Madjid Karimirad
Torgeir Moan
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Centre
for Ships
Ocean
Structures
Centre
for Ships
and and
Ocean
Structures
Author CeSOS
Madjid Karimirad:
born 1982, has completed his B.Sc. and M.Sc.
at the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Sharif University of Technology in Tehran-IRAN.
In 2007, he joined the Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures
(CeSOS)
at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
in Trondheim-NORWAY.
He is carrying out his Ph.D.
under supervision of Professor Torgeir Moan.
His Ph.D. research is related to stochastic dynamic response analysis
of offshore wind turbines.
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
andKarimirad-21.09.2010
Ocean Structures
Author Centre for Ships
169
Outline:
Spar wind turbine
Catenary moored spar (CMS)
Tension leg spar (TLS)
Challenge
Modeling
Case Studies
Hydrodynamic code-to-code comparison
Dynamic response analysis
motion responses
structural responses
electrical power
Stochastic analysis
ULS
Statistical characteristics
Negative damping
Rotor configuration
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
Spar Type Wind Turbines
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
170
Catenary Moored Spar (CMS) similar to HYWIND

NREL 5-MW Wind Turbine mounted on a 120-m spar platform
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
Tension Leg Spar (TLS) similar to SWAY
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
171
Challenge
Floating Offshore Wind Turbine is
an Aero-Hydro-Servo-Elastic
Multi-Body System
The coupling is inevitable in such structures as the Aerodynamic and
Hydrodynamic damping and excitation forces are highly affected by
each other through the relative motions.
Influencing
Power Production
Control
Motion responses
Structural dynamic response
FLS and ULS
Extreme value analysis, harsh conditions
Risk analysis
Fault conditions; etc.
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
Modeling
HAWC2, Simo-Riflex (DeepC), USFOS
PhD fellow
The extended Morison Formula accounting the

instantaneous position of the structure
Pressure integration in heave direction
Advanced Blade Element Momentum Theory
Elastic formulation of bodies, Multi-body theory
DLL interface for mooring system action
Full modeling of mooring systems
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
172
Hydrodynamic code-to-code comparison for CMS

HAWC2 and Simo-Riflex (DeepC)
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
10
Madjid
Ocean Structures
Hydrodynamic code-to-code comparison for TLS

HAWC2 and USFOS
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
173
11
Wave and Wind Induced Dynamic Responses for CMS

Integrated Analysis
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
12
Madjid
Ocean Structures
Statistical characteristic of dynamic response of CMS
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
174
13
Power Production of CMS
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
14
Power Production of CMS cont.
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
175
15
Extreme response analysis

Up-crossing rate
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
16
Madjid
Ocean Structures
Extreme response analysis cont.
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
176
17
Ameliorating the Negative Damping in the Dynamic Responses

of a TLS with Downwind turbine
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
18
Madjid
Ocean Structures
Dynamic Reponses of TLS with upwind or downwind rotor
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
177
19
Statistical characteristic for dynamic responses of TLS
www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
20
Thanks for your attention!
We can keep it Green.

www.cesos.ntnu.no
www.cesos.ntnu.no
Madjid
Ocean Structures
178
10
IEA
Innovative Wind Turbine
Concepts for Offshore
Wind Turbines
Peter Jamieson
University of Strathclyde
Glasgow, UK
Logic of Innovation
Function to address design specification requirements
and improve technology
NOT purely as entertainment for bored engineers!
A number of innovative systems will be presented - all
related to wind turbine technology in the offshore
context
No time for details focus on why each may or may not
make sense
179
Innovative Concepts
Rotor concepts
Drive train concepts
System concept
Rotor Concepts
1. VAWT
2. 2 Blades
3. Coned rotor
180
VAWT Design
1. Key issues and old problems
2. New solutions?
VAWT beats HAWT!

World first (1887) for
electricity generation
US first (1888) for

electricity generation
Glasgows first VAWT

6
181
Key VAWT issues

1.
The central issues with conventional VAWT compared with HAWT

design are;
an intrinsically lower optimum speed implies higher torque and

weight
cyclic variation in inflow implies reduced aerodynamic efficiency
2.
To be viable the VAWT concept needs to move beyond the traditional

arrangements.
3.
Conventional multiple streamtube models are being questioned (most

recently in PhD of CS Ferreira)
4.
Innovative systems demand effective modelling of oblique flows,

additional interference effects and blade pitch action
Traditional VAWT Designs
182
VAWT low optimum tip speed ratio

0.50
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.05
0.45
0.40
0.35
Cp
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
10
tip speed ratio -
Power performance
350
VAWT 19m
power [kW]
300
Power
250
k
W
289
Tip Speed
51.84
Diameter
19.2
m/s
m
5.4
rad
/s
53.5
kN
m
200
Shaft Speed
150
Torque
100
VAWT 19m clean

VAWT 19m dirty
50
HAWT of equal maximum

power
HAWT equal rated power

HAWT equal swept area
0
0
10
15
20
25
Power
289
kW
Tip Speed
75.0
m/s
Diameter
30.3
wind speed [m/s]

4.9
rad/
s
58.4
kN
m
Shaft Speed
Torque
Torque rating of FloWind 19 m compared to HAWTs

10
183
New VAWT Concepts
NOVA V type VAWT

11
2 Bladed rotors
12
184
0.55
20
0.54
18
0.53
16
Cp max
0.52
14
0.51
Cp
12
0.50
tip speed ratio
10
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
optimum tip speed ratio
2 Blades higher optimum speed

Lower maximum Cp
0
1
10
100
1000
blade number
Optimum Rotor Performance with lift to drag ratio of 120

13
2 Bladed rotors
1. Optimum 2 bladed rotor for tsr of 11 has similar chord
to 3 bladed optimised for tsr of 9 but the blades are
more highly loaded
2. 2 blades suited to low power density designs ~ 200
W/m2
3. Some advantages in rotor assembly options
4. A few % COE at stake
5. Reasonable but not radical no step change!
14
185
Coned rotor
1. Concept
2. Logic for
offshore
15
Coned Rotor
1. Diameter open about 25% greater than conventional
equivalent
2. Key design loads are restrained to within the levels of
smaller conventional rotor by action of free and
regulated coning but much greater energy capture is
achieved
3. Major project in 1990s on system dynamics and
control followed later by PhD work on coning
aerodynamics and control issues
16
186
5.0
2.5
4.0
2.0
3.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
Energy
Relative COE
Relative Cost
1.0
0.0
relative COE
anual energy [GWh]
Optimisation of Rating for 65m

Rotor Diameter on land
0.5
0.0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
rated power [kW]

17
Coned Rotor Offshore

1. Wind turbines may be up to 80% of project CAPEX on
land but only 40% offshore, even less in very deep water
2. Rotor is about 20% of turbine CAPEX
3. Much bigger rotors are logical offshore to exploit more
expensive electrical infrastructure efficiently
4. But only if foundation/floater loads do not also escalate in
cost
5. Coned rotor avoids this problem 30% more energy at
same rated power, similar spacings and wake effects as
conventional designs
18
187
Downwind High Speed rotor

1. Logic
2. Key issues drag, erosion, damping, tower
shadow, acoustics
3. Potential benefits
19
Gearbox torque history

5000
gearbox torque [kNm]
4500
4000
Baseline
3500
High Speed
High Speed Soft
3000
2500
2000
40
41
42
43
44
45
time [s]
20
188
Comparison of blade loads

100%
Extreme out-of-plane
90%
Extreme in-plane
80%
Fatigue out-of-plane
Fatigue in-plane
load ratio
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
20%
40%
60%
75%
90%
percentage of blade radius

21
Wind Turbine Capital Cost Comparison

0.25
standard speed
high speed
0.15
0.10
0.05
ub
C
on
t
ro
M
l
ai
Br nfr
am
ak
e
es
y
N
ac stem
el
le
co
ve
R
r
ot
or
lo
ck
ar
ia
bl
e
Bl
ad
es
G
ea
r
b
sp
ox
ee
d
dr
iv
e
Pi
tc
G
h
en
er
a
Y
t
or
aw
sy
st
em
El
ec
tr
i
H
yd cs
M rau
lic
ai
n
be s
ar
in
g
0.00
Capital cost fractionn
0.20
22
189
High Speed rotor

1. Not radical innovation
2. Simple higher speed, lower torque, weight and cost
3. Good sense as an integrated design concept
4. Widespread load reductions facilitate design
5. No additional systems to standard rotor concepts
6. Substantial savings in wind turbine weight and cost
23
Drive train developments

1. PMGs much more prevalent and offer robust direct
drive solutions but no clear benefits in weight or cost
2. Magnetic transmission
3. Hydraulic transmission
24
190
Magnetic Transmission
Conventional magnetic gear
High torque magnetic gear
25
Pseudo Direct Drive
26
191
Superconducting
27
Hydraulic Transmission
Artemis hydraulic pump and high speed motor

28
192
Hydraulic Concept
1. Efficiency critical and well addressed with new
optimised valve technology
2. High power density ~ 6 tonne system at 1.5 MW
3. Note however, do not cost effectively get motor and
generator at base level because high pressure down
pipes too massive and expensive
29
Multi Rotor Concept
30
193
Component Scaling Laws

A component scaling rule is typically of the form:
where Mc is the mass of a component and D is wind turbine

diameter and the coefficient, f(a,b,c...) is a function in principle
of many variables e.g. materials, design concept, process etc.
31
Multi-Rotor Systems
Work with scaling rules dont fight them!
D 2 = nd 2
M = kD3
m = kd 3
d
R = n
D
R=
nm
1
=
M
n
Ratio, R, of mass of n rotors, diameter, d,

to a single rotor, diameter, D, of same total
swept area is as 1/n
32
194
Blade Mass Scaling

20
Technology curves from CRES

Blade data from GH database
blade mass (tonne)
15
10
oldest technology hand

lay-up glass polyester
Vestas V 120
5
newest technologies
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
blade length (m)
33
Multi-Rotor Design Issues

Aerodynamics
Loads
Structure and yaw system
Maintenance and reliability
34
195
Structure and Yaw System

Closed cell tubular lattice structure avoiding
cantilevered elements
NOT as Lagerwey
Structure + rotors and nacelles of the multirotor system is lighter than the rotor alone of
the 20 MW turbine!
The multi-rotor system is generally similarly or
less highly loaded
Therefore the multi-rotor system can be
supported by the same tower and yaw
bearing as the equivalent single rotor system no basic cost/feasibility issue
However, more innovative support structure
and bearing systems may be optimum
35
Comparison with Single Rotor
36
196
Maintenance
Large scale system (could be 50 MW) permanently

manned with shift crews like an oil rig no weather
window issues for very minor maintenance
Structure designed to allow access, integral cranes,
no single large components to be handled (as
compared to multi-megawatt single rotor systems)
Spare parts supply on the platform
37
Reliability
Much higher part count in the multi-rotor system but
usually only 1/nth of capacity at risk from a single fault
More electrical connections but similar benefits in fault
exposure
Standard components of fixed size maintaining the
wind turbine technology demands within proven
capability and allowing the technology to be perfected
improving quality and reliability (and also much cost
reduced)
38
197
Vertical Axis Alternative
3 rotor prototype test

module
Coriolis Wind
Concept
39
The Case for Multi-Rotor Systems

Single system capacity not dictated by limits on turbine
technology only support structure. 100 MW units can be
conceived. Meets political objectives of maximum
capacity for maximum resource utilisation
Cost of energy can be reduced by this technology instead
of the usual upscaling involving fighting hard to limit the
increase
Standardisation of the scale of wind turbine components
will bring long sought opportunities for stable production,
process improvement, quality improvement and cost
reduction
No new technology yet radical cost benefit ~ 30% +
reduction in COE can be envisaged
40
198
Summary
A variety of innovative systems presented with focus
on what they can achieve in the offshore context
Generally much more evaluation needed but in each
case some clear indication of limitations or promise
Not discussed are some popular ideas about
simpler offshore technology great care needed
some systems look simple because half of the design
problems are not addressed
No new technology yet totally radical ~ 30% +
reduction in COE can be envisaged
41
Thanks for your attention!
42
199
200
IEA Annex XI 20-21. september 2010

Presented by Torbjrn Mannsker
offshore potential today
201
the floating opportunity
our solution
202
proof of concept performed spring 2010
windflip model test
february 2010
Sintef MARINTEK
1:45 scale
verification of
numerical models
203
still water resistance

17 ton tow rope force at 8
knots transit speed
2 20 knots tested
good comparison
considering scale
seakeeping with forward speed
towing speed 6 knots

head seas
the results compares well
2.5 meter operational limit
operational limit satisfied
for 97% of the period may
september. Gulf of Maine
204
ballast operation
five loading conditions
20 85 degrees trim
experimental and calculated
results compare well
forces in seafastning
determined and verified
technical focus forwards
verify assumptions
convince industry
investigate possibilities
document limitations
205
technical focus forwards

specific projects
resonance points in
ballasting operation
ballast control and
monitoring system
release operation
organization
Prof. Torgeir Moan(project manager, center
of offshore wind NTNU)
(MSc School of Entrepreneurship +

Marine Technology , NTNU)
- Torbjrn Mannsker
(MSc Marine Technology, NTNU + Berkeley)
advisory board
2 in full time employment:

- Ane Christophersen
Prof. Kre Syvertsen (founder Sevan Marine)

Mr. Knut Erik Steen (CTO Hywind, Statoil)
Prof. Stig Berge (NTNU)
Mr. Lars Strk (CEO STX Offshore Brevik)
Part time:
- Eirik Hogner
Prof. Stein Ove Erikstad (founder ProNavis)
(MSc School of
Entrepreneurship + Electronics, NTNU)
Mr. Sondre Jacobsen (NTNU Technology

Transfer)
206
the value of windflip

enables spar type floating wind in markets like the US, Continental Europe, Japan and
South Korea
effective transportation
low cost of installation per turbine
enables onshore assembly
savings on offshore equipment + savings from economies of scale
www.windflip.com
post@windflip.com
207
tested in real world conditions at MARINTEK
potential partners
Ship owner
Offshore service
EPCI- contractors
Shipyard/turbine assembly
Potential partners
Eidesvik Offshore
Farstad Shipping
Solstad Offshore
Acergy
Subsea 7
Reinertsen
Aker Solutions
Technip
Aker Vrdal
STX
Bergen Group
Characteristics
Owner of AHTS
Offshore
installation
experience
Engineering,
Procurement,
Construction and
installation
Construction
Limitations
Little operational
experience
Specific solution
provider
Not owners of vessels
Little operational experience,

geograpically limited
Incentives
Rent out barges
Increase utilization
of existing fleet
Deliver a cost-effective
total solution
Value of onshore assembly
208
technical papers on the concept

Loads on the Hywind turbine during transportation on WindFlip
Stability analysis of the barge model of WindFlip
Loads on the Hywind wind turbine during the flipping-phase with WindFlip
Hydrodynamic interaction between the flaoting bodies Hywind and WindFlip
A study of the disconnection operation when launching Hywind from a WindFlip barge
Liquid level sensing in rotating ballast tanks
Sea fastning of the Hywind wind turbine during transportation with WindFlip
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
IEA TEM #63

Trondheim, Norway
EU-funded activities under FP7
Thierry Langlois dEstaintot

Principal Research Programme Officer
New and Renewable Energy Sources
Directorate-General Research
European Commission
Energy: A complex Policy Jigsaw

n
io
at
x
Ta
ETS
Targets
l
na cy
er o li
t
Ex g y P
er
En
t
en
m
p
lo y
ve olic
e
D
P
G
Cap lobal
&T
rad
e
S ta
te A
id
Internal
Market
Technology
Co
mp
et i
tio
n
SETSET-Plan
235
Targets for RES and EE

Binding and mandatory targets for 2020*
Renewable energy: 20% of consumption

10% of all transport fuel to be renewable
GHG emissions reduced by 20%
and
Energy efficiency increase of 20%

*Presidency Conclusions, Brussels European Council 8/9 March 2007
and Energy and Climate Change Package, adopted Dec 2008
The Strategic Energy

Technology (SET) Plan
Joint strategic planning / New governance /
Information System (SETIS)
Three main pillars for implementation:

European Industrial Initiatives (EIIs)
European Energy Research Alliance (EERA)
Trans-European Energy Networks and Systems
(transition planning)
Increase resources, both financial and human

Reinforce international cooperation
236
Marine Renewables
Many marine renewable projects already
supported in previous FPs, both for wind and
ocean energies.
Special effort on Offshore Wind is included in

the European Wind Industrial Initiative
EERA - Wind is already operational

EERA Ocean is being considered
Several FP7 projects are currently active
(Marina Platform, ORECCA)
MARINA Platform
Multipurpose floating platform
Potential combination wind-ocean energy
Coordinator : Acciona Energia S.A.
MArine Renewable INtegrated Application
Platform
Collaborative Project. 7th Framework Programme
Grant agreement number: 241402
54 months January 2010 to June 2014
17 partners from 12 different countries
Total budget: 12.761.220
Max. EC contribution: 8.708.660
Website: www.marina-platform.info
237
ORECCA
Coordinated Action
Knowledge sharing on offshore renewable energy
conversion platforms
Coordinator : Fraunhofer - IWES
Off-shore Renewable Energy Conversion
platforms
Grant agreement number: 241421
18 months March 2010 to August 2011
28 partners from 11 different countries
Total budget: 1,797,870
Max. EC contribution: 1,599,032
Website: www.orecca.eu
New project
Start: 1st October 2010
DEEPWIND
238
New Project
Start 1st October 2010
HAWE
New Project
Start: 1st November 2010
HiPRWind
239
OCEAN-2011
Topic 1: Multi-use Offshore
Platforms
Combination wind-ocean energy with
Transport & Aquaculture
Collaborative Project
Max EU contribution: EUR 14 000 000
(EUR 4 000 000 from Energy)
Up to three projects may be funded.
OCEAN-2011
Topic 4: Knowledge-base... with
assessment of wind energy potential
in the Mediterranean and the Black
Sea
SICA Collaborative Project
Max EU contribution: EUR 9 000 000
(EUR 1 000 000 from Energy)
Up to one project may be funded.
240
ENERGY-2011
One ERA-NET Topic on OCEAN ENERGY
Supporting the coordination of national
research activities of Member States and
Associated States in the field of OCEAN
energy
Aiming at the development and
implementation of joint programming and
opening of calls
More information
about
ENERGY Research at
the European Commission
http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/index_en.cfm
241
Summary of IEA RD&D Wind 63rd Topical Expert Meeting

Jos Azcona and Flix Avia, CENER
a) Participants
A total of 30 persons registered for this meeting. They represented the following countries: Denmark,
Finland, Germany, Greece, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Spain, UK, USA and the EU. An observer from France
was invited to attend the meeting. The participants represented a great variety of stakeholders related to the
topic: research organizations, universities and consultants. 18 presentations were given:
1. John O. Tande SINTEF
2. Jason Jonkman, National Renewable Energy Laboratoy (NREL), USA
3. Jan Dubois, Leibniz Univ. of Hannover, Germany
4. Amy Robertson. National Wind Technology Center, NREL, USA
5. Ral Rodrguez Arias. Fundacin Centro Tecnolgico de Componentes. Santander .Spain
6. Tor Anders Nygaard, Institute for Energy Technology (IFE), Kjeller, Norway
7. Anand Natarajan. Ris DTU. Denmark
8. Ral Guanche Garca. IH Cantabria. Spain
9. Rajai Aghabi Rivas. IREC. Spain
10. . Chuichi Arakawa. Kyoto University, Japan
11. Tomoaki Utsunomiya, Civil and Earth Resources EngineeringDep, Kyoto Univ. Japan
12. Yoshida Shigeo. Fuji Heavy Industries. Japan
13. Madjid Karimirad.Torgeir Moan. NTNU.Norway
14. Peter Jamieson. Univ Stratchclyde UK
15. Torbjrn Mannsker. Marintek. Norway
16. Michael Muskulus, Department of Civil and Transport Engineering (BAT), NTNU,
Trondheim, Norway
17. Petter Andreas Berthelsen, Marintec. Norway.

18. Thierry Langlois dEstaintot. New and Renewable Energy Sources. Directorate-General
Research. European Commission
The presentations covered different issues:
Offshore National Programs (10)
Wind Measurement Systems for Offshore Sites (8)
Tools for Offshore Design (2)
Offshore Test Platforms (3, 9)
Mooring and Anchoring Systems (5, 6, 13)
Innovative Concepts (4, 11, 14, 15)
Analytical Studies (7, 12, 13)
First presentation, from John O. Tande, was an introduction summarising the present situation of the wind
offshore technology, and identifying new promising options for future developments.
Presentation 16, from Petter Andreas Berthelsen, presented the Marine Technology Laboratories of
MARINTEK that were visited the last day of the meeting.
Presentation 17, from Thierry Langlois dEstaintot, principal research programme officer of the New and
Renewable Energy Sources Dept of the Directorate-General Research. European Commission, presented a
summary of the European research programs related to the development of offshre wind technology.

b) Discussion
Following the two days of presentations, the floor was opened and a general discussion took place with the
main target of reach conclusions derived from the presentation trying to identify priorities for new R&D
activities, including specific actions to improve the present state of the art of this topic. A number of different
points were handled.
In particular, the following topics were discussed, in order to decide which the main priorities are:
New Technological Solutions for WT and Support Structures
Experimental data requirements for codes verification.
Scaling process for models. Sharing of data from model scale test
New Technological Solutions for WT and for support structures

The presentation of Peter Jamieson was an excellent summary of
different approaches and solutions that should be analysed in deep
trying to find the most promising technological solutions for offshore
WT.
An action to make deep comparison between the different
technological options was identified for a future Task, similar to the
ongoing work on the EquiMar project. EquiMar involves about 60
scientists, developers, engineers and conservationists from 11
European countries working together to find ways to measure and
compare the dozens of tidal and wave energy devices. These devices are currently competing for funds, and
the conclusions of the project should help governments to invest in the best ones and get marine energy on
tap fast.
The proposed idea could be to select 3 different sites for different conditions and different technologies and
score the different options according with several parameters: weight, installation cost, O&M cost, etc.

Experimental data requirements for codes verification

One of the identified priorities is the necessity of available measured data
of experimental offshore installation to validate the existing developed
models.
For the time being the are not data available from any of the existing
experimental offshore test sites, mainly due to the confidentiality of the
data, usually property of the manufacturers involved in the projects.
The initiative of NOWITECH, the NOWERI project, it is an interesting
R&D platform that could contribute to improve the designing tools.
Scaling process for models. Sharing of data from model scale test
The attendees expressed also their interest to have access to the available data of scale models tested, that
could be very useful for ongoing research projects.
It was expressed the necessity to perform different experiments for different technologies
Amy Parsons presented information of the scaling process

followed at NREL to obtain the scale factors for modelling. It
was expressed the interest to define more precisely the
procedures for defining the scaling models.

c) Future actions under the umbrella of IEA Wind
The continuation of interchange of information between the participants was proposed for some of the
participants. NREL offered to host a new TEM next year in parallel with one of the workshops of Task 30:
Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration Continuation(OC4).
The majority of the participants decided that it is required more development before propose a specific task
covering the priorities selected.
The purpose is to gain insight into the benefits and drawbacks of a set of modeling assumptions for a wide
range of applications. Much of this new task will involve benchmarking models of wakes against other
models and verifications using good quality measured data.


TEM # 63: PARTICIPANTS LIST

HIGH RELIABILITY SOLUTIONS & INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS
FOR OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES
September , 21st-22nd 2010 (Trondheim, Norway)
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
First Name
Aghabi Rivas
Anaya-Lara
Arakawa
Azcona
Berthelsey
Christofer
D'Estaintot
Dubois
Guanche
Heinonen
Hillmann
Jamieson
Jonkman
Kahloul
Leithead
Madjid
Matha
Moritz
Natarajan
Nyaard
Robertson
Rodriguez Arias
Sieros
Tande
Family Nam Job Center

Country
Rajai
Catalonia Institute for Energy Research (IREC)
SPAIN
Olimpo
Univ. Strathclyde
UK
Chuichi
The University of Tokyo
JAPAN
Jose
CENER
SPAIN
NORWAY
Petter AndreMARINTEK
Amy
WindFlip
NORWAY
Thierry
European Comission
BELGIUM
Jan
Leibniz University of Hannover
GERMANY
Raul
Enviromental Hydraulic Institute of Cantabria ( IH Cantabria )
SPAIN
Jaakko
VTT
FINLAND
Claudio
IWES
GERMANY
Peter
Univ. Strathclyde
UK
Jason
USA
Soraya
EDF
FRANCE
Bill
Univ. Strathclyde
UK
Karimirad CESOS/NTNU
NORWAY
Denis
Stiftungslehrstuhl Windenergie (SWE) am Institut fr Flugzeugbau UniversitGERMANY
Bertil
HM POWER
SWEDEN
Anand
Riso DTU
DENMARK
Tor Anders IFE
NORWAY
Amy
USA
Raul
Fundacion Centro Tecnologico de Componentes
SPAIN
Giorgios
CRES
GREECE
John Olav SINTEF Energi AS
NORWAY
E-mail
raghabi@irec.cat
olimpo.anaya-lara@eee.strath.ac.uk
arakawa@mech.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
jazcona@cener.com
p.a.berthelsen@marintek.sintef.no
Thierry.d'Estaintot@ec.europa.eu
dubois@stahl.uni-hannover.de
guancher@unican.es
Jaakoo.Heinonen@vtt.fi
Claudio.Hillmann@iwes.fraunhofer.de
peter.jamieson@eee.strath.ac.uk
jason.jonkman@nrel.gov
Soraya.kahloul@edf.fr
w.leithead@eee.strath.ac.uk
madjid.karimirad@ntnu.no
bertil.moritz@hmpower .se
anat@risoe.dtu.dk
Tor.Anders.Nygaard@ife.no
amy.robertson@nrel.gov
rrodriguez@ctcomponentes.com
gsieros@cres.gr
John.O.Tande@sintef.no

High Reliability Solutions & Innovative Concepts For Offshore Wind Turbines

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

High Reliability Solutions & Innovative Concepts For Offshore Wind Turbines

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

63rd IEA Topical Expert Meeting

HIGH RELIABILITY SOLUTIONS AND INNOVATIVE

Copies of this document can be obtained from:

For more information about IEA Wind see www.ieawind.org

International Energy Agency

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

IEA Wind TASK 11: BASE TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

COUNTRIES PRESENTLY PARTICIPATING IN THE TASK 11

National Resources Canada

Ris National Laboratory - DTU

Technical Research Centre of Finland - VTT Energy

Bundesministerium fr Unwelt , Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit -BMU

Sustainable Energy Ireland - SEI

Ricerca sul Sistema Energetico - RSE S.p.A.

National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology AIST

POHANG University of Science and Technology - POSTECH

Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas - IEE

The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate - NVE

Swiss Federal Office of Energy - SFOE

Uk Dept for Bussines, Enterprises & Regulatory Reform - BERR

The U.S Department of Energy -DOE

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

2. Findings and Prospects in Research on Support Structures and Foundations

5. Taut mooring of floating wind turbines, application examples and comparisons.

6. Extreme loads Extrapolation for Offshore turbines

Anand Natarajan. Ris DTU. Denmark ...87

8. ZEFIR Test Station

14. WindFlip, a transportation vessel for offshore floating wind turbines.

15. Research activities on bottom-supported wind turbines

16. Marine Technology Laboratories MARINTEK and Offshore wind technology.

17. EU-funded activities under FP7.

European Commission .235

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

Wind Characteristics Measurement for Offshore Assessment

New Technological Solutions for WT

New Technical Solutions for Support Structures

The participants were encouraged to prepare presentations relevant to these objectives.

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

15:05 Coffee Break

19.00 Informal dinner

Wednesday, September 22nd

10:20 Research activities on bottom-supported wind turbines.

10:45 Coffee Break

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

11:40 EU-funded activities under FP7.

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for

HIGH RELIABILITY SOLUTIONS

John Olav Giver Tande

Total budget (2009-2017): +NOK 320 millions including 25 PhD/post docs

IEA WIND ENERGY - Task 11: Base Technology Information Exchange

Means and main ambitions

Strong motivation for offshore wind R&D

(jacket & tripods, 30m)

*EWEA estimate for EU

IEA WIND ENERGY - Task 11: Base Technology Information Exchange

Lots of options to improve bottom-fixed support structures