2013 Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Hydrod

261
Experimental and Numerical

Investigation of Hydrodynamic
Response of Spar with Wind Turbine
Under Random Waves
Nallayarasu S.1 and Saravanapriya S.2
1Professor,
Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai-600 036, India.
email: nallay@iitm.ac.in
2Research Scholar, Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai-600 036,
India. email:priya.suresh555@gmail.com
Received: Aug. 6, 2013; Accepted: Nov. 1, 2013
ABSTRACT
In this paper, experimental and numerical investigation on the motion response of Spar
with wind turbine subjected to random waves are presented and discussed. The studies
were carried out for three different cases: (a) Spar with wind turbine subjected to waves
when the turbine blades are in stationary condition; (b) Spar with wind turbine in
operating condition under calm sea state; (c) Spar with wind turbine subjected to waves
when the turbine blades are in operating condition. The numerical investigation was
carried out using hydrodynamic software Ansys AQWA. The influence of the turbine
blade rotation on the motion response of the Spar was investigated and the responses of
the system under random waves were presented in terms of statistical values. The
experimental results and the results obtained from numerical investigation matches
reasonably well. The motion response of the system has increased by about 30%, 20%
and 25% for surge, heave and pitch respectively, for turbine blades in rotating condition
when compared with Spar with wind turbine in stationary condition.
1. INTRODUCTION
Offshore wind turbines are an important part of quest for renewable energy resources, as the renewable
energy takes on added value in view of depleting hydrocarbon resources from onshore and offshore
locations around the world. The main reason for the rapid growth and development of offshore wind
turbines is abundant availability of wind in the offshore region. The technical challenge for their design
and analysis stems from the effect of high wind and wave. The motion response of the floating support
structure not only depends on load arising due to wind and wave, but also due to the rotation of the
turbine blades. The response of the supporting structure should be minimum, for the safe operation of
the wind turbine. Numerous floating support-platform configurations are possible for offshore wind
turbines, particularly when considering the variety of mooring systems, tanks, and ballast options used
in the offshore oil and gas industry. For the present study, Spar has been chosen as the supporting
structure for wind turbine which maintains stability from a deep draft combined with ballast. When the
Spar is used as a support structure for the wind turbine, it may tend to respond to the torque created by
the rotation of the wind turbine along with incident wave. So, in the present work, the effect of the
torque created by the rotation of the wind turbine blades on the motion response of the Spar under
random waves has been investigated experimentally and numerically.
The objective of the present study is to investigate the motion characteristics of the Spar supporting
the wind turbine, when the turbine blades are in stationary condition and in operating condition, under
random waves experimentally and numerically. The scope of the work consist the following
Volume 4 · Number 4 · 2013

262 Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Hydrodynamic Response of Spar
with Wind Turbine Under Random Waves
• Design of a Spar hull to support a 5MW wind turbine suitable for deployment in Indian coastal water.
• Numerical investigation of motion response and their effects on the performance of wind
turbines.
• Conduct experimental studies in the wave basin using a scale model of the Spar and wind
turbine to measure the motion response in random waves.
• Conduct experiments with different mooring line angle of 0 deg, 30 deg and 45 deg at the
seabed to obtain best possible mooring configuration for the operation of the wind turbine.
The motion response of the system, in terms of surge, heave and pitch RAO obtained from
experiments and numerical analysis in regular waves were discussed in Part I. Effect of turbine blade
rotation on the motion response, effect of mooring line configuration on the motion response and the
variation of mooring force RAO were also presented in Part I. This article presents the discussion on
motion response of the system obtained from experiments and numerical analysis in random waves.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Many studies, both numerical and experiment have been carried out in the past on the hydrodynamic
response of floating systems supporting wind turbines. A review of the past work has been carried out
and described below
Henderson et al. (2000) discussed the advantages of the offshore wind turbine and Multiple Unit
Floating Offshore Wind Farm (MUFOW). A semisubmersible concept floater was adopted for the
MUFOW system for 3.5 MW and 1.2 MW wind turbine. A numerical tool to calculate the motion
response in frequency domain and structural loads on the vessels was developed. The optimization of
the vessel layout for multiple wind farm units with weathervaning or non-weathervaning and the
stability and diffraction analyses were also presented. Bulder et al. (2002) presented the technical and
economical feasibility of floating wind energy system in the depth range of 50 m. Different design
concepts of the floating offshore wind turbine - Cylindrical floater, cylindrical floater with tension leg,
inverted spar, Tri-floater, quadruple floater, Jack-up were compared. Based on the cost analysis it was
concluded that the Tri-floater concept was technically and economically feasible option. Fulton et al.
(2005) presented a design concept and dynamic performance of semisubmersible type floating structure
with tension moorings for 5 MW National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) wind turbine in a
water depth of 61 m. The triangular shape platform and the tension leg moorings were connected to the
sea bed by gravity anchor. The detailed load cases for wind turbine supporting structures were also
presented. The response to first and second order forces and large survival waves in time domain as
well as in frequency domain were discussed. Jonkmann and Buhl (2007) has presented the use of fully
coupled aero-hydro-servo-elastic simulation tools to perform a preliminary loads analysis of a 5-MW
offshore wind turbine supported by a barge with catenary moorings, which is one of the many
promising floating platform concepts. Butterfield et al. (2007) carried out a dynamic analysis of the
floating wind turbine system supporting 5 MW wind turbine moored to sea floor with pre tensioned
tethers in TLP designs and catenaries for different sea states, of which the optimized TLP and slack
catenaries design showed low nacelle acceleration in a particular sea state. Tracy (2007) carried out a
parametric study for the design of floating wind turbines for four types of floaters namely, TLP with
deep drafted cylinder, TLP with shallow drafted cylinder, deep drafted and shallow drafted concrete
ballasted cylinder with slack mooring for supporting the NREL base line 5MW wind. A frequency
domain analysis was adopted for these structures for different sea states (water depth, wave height). It
was concluded that TLP is the better option for the supporting the offshore wind turbines. Shim and
Kim (2008) developed a model for coupled dynamic analysis of an offshore floating wind turbine
system including blade-rotor dynamics, mooring dynamics, and platform motions. The NREL wind
turbine supported on a mini TLP was chosen for the study. The wave and wind loads were calculated
using WAMIT and FAST modules. They concluded that the rotor-floater coupled effects increased with
increase in blade size and the increased coupling effect increased the dynamic tension on the mooring
line thereby reducing its fatigue life. Cermelli and Roddier (2009) studied the hydrodynamic behavior
of a three legged floating structure with taut mooring in 150 m water depth, supporting 5 MW wind
turbine. The numerical model was verified with data from the experiments conducted on a scale model
International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Nallayarasu S. and Saravanapriya S. 263
of total system with simplified aerodynamic simulation of wind turbine. It was concluded that the
interactions between the turbine and platform generated small rotational oscillations with long periods
(30 sec) reduced the power output. Karimirad (2010) carried out a coupled time domain analysis for a
moored Spar in wind and wave loads using the software DeepC. Karimirad and Torgeir (2012) carried
out a comparative study of Spar type wind turbine in moderate and deep water depths in
SIMO/REFLEX and TDHMILL3D package and concluded that the Spar in moderate water depth
shows a good performance than the other one.
From the literature review, it is understood that most of the work carried out in the past has been in
the areas of hydrodynamic response, but not in the interaction of floater with wind turbine responses.
Therefore, the objective of the present study is to investigate the motion response of the Spar due to the
influence of operation of wind turbine by experimental and numerical investigation.
3. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The experiments were conducted using a scale model (1:75) of Spar with wind turbine in the laboratory
wave basin, at the Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. The wave
basin measures 30 m x 30 m in size and the water depth used for the experiment is 3 m. The wave basin
is equipped with multi element wave maker (MEWM). The MEWM consist of 52 paddles, each of 0.5
m width, which is capable of generating long crested (2D) and short crested (3D) waves of pre-defined
spectral and directional characteristics. A number of standard wave spectra are defined in the wave
generation software. The wave basin is fitted with wave absorber on the other side to reduce reflection.
Water depth of 3 m is maintained constantly throughout the experimental investigation. The scale
model of Spar with wind turbine is placed at a distance of 15 m from MEWM. The detail of
experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. The motion response and the mooring line responses of the
Fig. 1 Plan view of the model in the wave basin (N.T.S)

system are studied for three different mooring configurations (slack, taut 30° and taut 45°). The
schematic representation of the experimental setup for three mooring configuration is shown in Fig. 2.
Experiments were conducted for the following three scenarios.
(a) Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine blades in stationary position (CASE I)
(b) Spar with no wave but turbine blades rotating at the operating speed (CASE II)
(c) Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine blades rotating at the operating speed (CASE III)
3.1 Design of the Spar Platform

The floating platforms are found to be more economical in deep waters. A faster and steadier wind gives
more electricity generated per turbine. The offshore wind turbine has large mass in nacelle and rotor,
which is nearly 90-100m above mean sea level. The placement of nacelle and the turbine blades at the
top of the mast with an eccentricity (out of centerline of mast) makes the floating system to tilt even
without the external forces from wave or wind. Therefore, achieving stability of the Spar platform is a
challenge. Spar is a ballast stabilized structure, the centre of gravity is lower than the centre of
buoyancy which guarantees a positive GM making the spar unconditionally stable. The instability
caused due to tilt and static wind force has also been considered in this effect. The total acceptable wind
heel angle is taken as 10 degrees as per Butterfield et al (2007). The important factor in design of Spar
to support the wind turbine is to determine the diameter and draft of the Spar that will provide sufficient
stability of the system in unmoored condition, as well as to keep the response of the system and the
nacelle acceleration within the acceptable limits. The proposed Spar has been designed as per static
stability requirements and in accordance with API RP 2A code. The details of Spar in prototype and
scale model are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Details of prototype and scale model of Spar with wind turbine
Description Prototype
Scale model
(1:75)
Diameter (m) 15 0.2
Draft(m) 110 1.50
Free board(m) 15 0.22
Water Depth(m) 225 3
Total tower height(m) 90 1.20
Rotor diameter(m) 126 1.68
Material steel acrylic
Unit weight(kg/m3) 7850 1200
Topside weight 2500 tonnes 6.0 kg
Self weight 3000 tonnes 7.1 kg
Ballast weight 1520 tonnes 36 kg
KB(m) 55 0.75
KG(m) 45.75 0.61
GM(m) 15 0.20
Displacement 20500 tonnes 48 kg

Fig. 2 Sectional view of the experimental setup for three mooring configuration

(a) (b)
Fig. 3 Fabricated scale model
(a) Spar (acrylic); (b) Tower with blades (Fiber reinforced plastic)
3.2 Model Fabrication

The Spar model is fabricated using the Perspex (acrylic) tube with the model scale of 1:75. The wind
turbine tower and the blades were fabricated using Fiber Reinforced plastic (FRP) as shown in Fig. 3.
The Spar is made of acrylic tube of outer diameter of 0.2 m and thickness of 5 mm. The total length of
the Spar is 1.72 m of which 1.5 m is the draft and 0.22 m is the freeboard. The bottom of the Spar is
closed with a circular acrylic plate of 0.02 m thick, diameter of 0.19 m with threaded connection to
facilitate the fixing of the steel plates, which are used as solid ballast. The topside of the spar is
provided with the acrylic plate of 0.3 m diameter and 0.01 m thick to accommodate the wind turbine
tower base. The height of the turbine tower is 1.2 m with 0.05 m diameter at the top and 0.08 m
diameter at the base. The thickness of tower is 0.002 m (hollow conical frustum). The turbine blades
were also fabricated in FRP, in which the profiles of the blades are as per the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) 5 MW wind turbine. The profile of NREL 5 MW wind turbine blade
consist of 8 different air foil sections which is divided into 17 individual segments of varying
aerodynamic properties. The details of different air foil sections and aerodynamic properties are shown
in Table 2. In order to get the exact profile of the blade, the geometry of the blade is modeled in Ansys
software. The created geometry is used as an input for the Rapid Prototyping Machine, which is
available at the Department of Engineering Design, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. From
which, the exact 3D model of the blade is generated. This model is used as a mould for fabricating the
blades in Fiber Reinforced Plastic. A variable speed type Direct Current (DC) motor was placed on top
of the turbine tower to facilitate the rotation of the turbine blades at various speeds to simulate the wind
turbine operating condition. The model is moored to the floor using four mooring lines of strand type
twisted steel wire rope of 3 mm diameter. One end of each mooring line was connected to the points
(mid distance between center of gravity and center of buoyancy) on the Spar model and the other end
to a rigid concrete block.

Table 2 Details of NREL 5 MW wind turbine Blade

Section Radius Angle of attack
Air Foil CL CD
No: (m) (deg)
1 CYL I 2.86 76.7 0.0 0.5
2 CYL 1 5.60 76.7 0.0 0.5
3 CYL 2 8.33 76.7 0.0 0.35
4 DU 40 11.75 76.7 0.45 1.6
5 DU 35 15.85 78.5 0.40 1.5
6 DU 35 19.95 79.8 0.40 1.5
7 DU 30 24.05 80.9 0.35 1.5
8 DU 25 28.15 82.2 0.30 1.4
9 DU 25 32.25 83.4 0.30 1.4
10 DU 21 36.35 84.6 0.15 1.45
11 DU 21 40.45 85.8 0.15 1.45
12 NA 64 44.55 86.8 0.20 1.4
13 NA 64 48.65 87.6 0.15 1.4
14 NA 64 52.75 88.4 0.15 1.45
15 NA 64 56.16 89.1 0.15 1.45
16 NA 64 58.90 89.6 0.10 1.45
17 NA 64 61.63 89.8 0.10 1.45
3.3 Instrumentation
In the present experimental program, the wave elevation and the responses of the spar model were
measured using a set of instruments, the details of which are discussed in this section. The wave surface
elevation was measured using resistance type wave probes. The wave gauge comprises of two thin
parallel stainless steel electrodes. When immersed in water, the electrodes measure the conductivity
depending on the instantaneous water volume between them. The conductivity changes resistance
which is proportional to the variation in the water surface elevation. The measurement of surge, and
heave accelerations was carried out using piezoelectric accelerometers with the sensitivity of 1000
mV/g. The pitch angles are measured with the help of dual axes inclinometer. The instruments were
mounted at the deck level of Spar model. Four single component ring-type load cells with a maximum
capacity of 25 N were used to measure the mooring line forces. Foil type strain gauges, 3 mm in length,
were used in conjunction with a Wheatstone bridge configuration. The strain gauges were protected by
epoxy coating.
3.4 Measurement of Responses

The present experimental investigation involves the study of hydrodynamic response of the scale model
under random waves. Wave environment adopted for the study are: Peak wave period (Tp) ranging
from 1 sec to 3 sec at an interval of 0.25 sec for two significant wave heights (Hs) of 0.04 m and 0.08
m. The time series of the wave surface elevation from wave probe, the responses from accelerometers,
inclinometer and load cells are recorded simultaneously for duration of 35 sec with the sampling rate
of 50 Hz, through a data acquisition system into a computer. The measured time histories of wave
elevation and corresponding surge, heave and pitch responses are shown in Fig. 4. For all the wave
heights and wave periods, the test runs were repeated two times for duration of 35 sec. The two runs
together were considered as a single run by merging the second test run with the first run, so that the
total duration of record is 70 sec. After removing the transient response, the effective record length of
time series is 60 sec. The test runs were repeated three times for all the wave periods and wave heights
to ensure the repeatability of the experiments. The standard deviation and variance were determined
from the significant response values. Table 3 shows the sample significant response values and the

(a) Wave surface elevation (c) Heave acceleration
(b) Surge acceleration (d) Pitch response

Fig. 4 Measured time histories of Wave surface elevation; Surge acceleration; Heave
acceleration; Pitch response.
Table 3 Statistical analysis of measured significant response values

Wave peak
1.5 sec
period
Case Mode Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Mean Standard deviation Variance
Surge 0.286 0.291 0.287 0.288 -0.002 0.003 -0.001 4.60E-06
I Heave 0.241 0.235 0.242 0.239 0.002 -0.004 0.003 9.60E-06
Pitch 1.089 1.081 1.091 1.087 0.002 -0.006 0.004 1.80E-06
Surge 0.4 0.401 0.398 0.4 0.0003 0.001 -0.002 1.70E-06
III Heave 0.294 0.297 0.289 0.293 0.0007 0.004 -0.004 1.08E-05
Pitch 1.568 1.569 1.487 1.541 0.027 0.028 -0.054 0.0015
NOTE:
Case I: Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine blades in stationary position
Case III: Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine blades rotating at the operating speed

variance for a wave peak period. The values obtained are sufficiently low to confirm the repeatability
of the experiments.
4. MOTION RESPONSE AND STATISTICS

The present experimental investigation involves the study of hydrodynamic response of the Spar with
wind turbine under random waves, for three cases as explained in Section 3. For the effective operation
of the wind turbine, the speed of the wind should be constant for a long duration. The P-M spectrum
describes the fully developed sea state by one parameter, namely wind speed. This model is used when
the wind is blowing with constant speed, over a large area, for a long time. So, for the present
experimental study, Pierson-Moskowitz (P-M) spectrum has been used for sea state representation. The
expression for P-M spectrum is written as
  −4 
5 2 ω02 5 ω
Sηη (ω ) = H s 2π 5 exp −    (1)
6 ω  4  ω0  
 
Where Hs = Significant wave height, ω = Circular frequency = 2πf, f = linear frequency in Hz,
ω0 = Circular frequency at which spectral energy is maximum = 2πf0, f0 = 1/Tp where Tp = Peak period.
The comparison of measured and target wave elevation spectra for different wave heights and wave
periods are shown in Fig. 5. It is observed from Fig. 5 that the measured wave elevation spectrum
matches very well with the theoretical P-M spectrum. The motion response of the structure is expressed
in terms of spectrum, where the response spectrum is defined as the response energy density of the
structure caused due to the incident wave. The motion response of the system in surge and heave
directions are measured in terms of acceleration. The acceleration time series is converted into spectral
density using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) technique using Matlab code and this spectrum is divided
by the square of the corresponding individual frequency component (ω2) to obtain the response energy
density spectrum. The response spectrum of a floating body can be expressed as
Srr ,i (ω ) =  RAO(ω ) Sηη (ω )

2
(2)
Where i=1 to 6 (six degrees of freedom), Srr (ω) and Sηη (ω) are measured response and wave surface
elevation spectral density respectively, RAO is response amplitude operator, η is wave surface elevation
and ω is circular wave frequency. The motion response of the system is expressed in terms of statistical
parameters. The statistical parameters considered for the present study are average height of the
response (double amplitude) (Ravg), maximum height of the response(Rmax), root mean square height of
the response (Rrms), significant height of the response (Rs) and average of the highest 10% of the
response (R1/10). These statistical parameters are calculated by
Average height of the response,
Ravg = 2.5 m0 , (3)
Maximum height of the response,
Rmax = 7.44 m0 (4)

Fig. 5 Comparison of measured and target wave elevation spectrum (P-M spectrum)
Root mean square height of the response,
Rrms = 2 2 m0 (5)
Significant height of the response,
Rs = 4 m0 (6)

and Average of the highest 10% of the response,
R1/10 = 5.09 m0 (7)
Where, m0 is the area under the spectral density curve.
5. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION
The numerical investigation for the present study was carried out using a hydrodynamic software tool
Ansys AQWA. The solution procedure adopted is based on potential flow boundary value. Since the
solution is based on the potential flow theory, viscous damping is not included. Hence viscous damping
shall be input as an external damping to the system, which is obtained from free decay tests. The
numerical simulation was carried out for the wave periods same as that of the experiments (1 sec to 3
sec).i.e. the wave length (L) ranging from 1.56 m to 14.04 m with the body characteristic dimension
along the horizontal plane (D) as 0.2 m. The moment generated due to the rotation of turbine blades are
externally input to the system, which is explained in detail in the Part I. The time domain analysis was
carried out in AQWA-NAUT module with the help of the inbuilt P-M spectrum. The obtained motion
response is converted into energy density spectrum by FFT technique.
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The motion responses (Heave, Surge and Pitch) obtained from experiments and numerical analysis are
presented in the form of energy density spectrum for the scale model. Comparison of response of Spar
with turbine blades in stationary and rotating condition, effect of mooring line configuration on the
motion response and the variation of mooring line force response, comparison of experimental and
numerical investigation on response of Spar are discussed in this section. The surge response measured
at the deck level of the Spar has been translated to center of gravity of the Spar, since the results
obtained from the numerical simulation are at the center of gravity of the Spar.
As mentioned in section 3, the experiments were conducted for three conditions, i.e.
Case II: Spar with no wave but turbine blades rotating at the operating speed
The schemes of experimental investigation carried out on models are presented as flow chart and is
shown in Fig.6.
Experimental Investigation on
Case I Case II Case III
Taut mooring Slack mooring Taut mooring Slack mooring Taut mooring Slack mooring
Taut 30 Taut 45
Taut 30 Taut 45 Taut 30 Taut 45
Fig 6. Details of experimental investigation on scale models with different mooring

configurations
NOTE:
Case II: Spar with no wave but turbine blades rotating at the operating speed

6.1 Effect of Turbine Rotation on Motion Response

The comparison of measured motion response spectra for the Spar with wind turbine in stationary and
rotating condition for three different mooring configurations are shown in Figs. 7, 8 and 9. The
measured motion response statistics for three mooring configurations for significant wave height (Hs)
Fig. 7 Comparison of measured response Fig. 8 Comparison of measured response

spectra of Spar with turbine blades in spectra of Spar with turbine blades in
stationary condition and in operating stationary condition and in operating
condition (slack mooring) condition (taut 30° mooring)
NOTE: NOTE:
Case I: Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine Case I: Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine
blades in stationary position blades in stationary position
Case III: Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine Case III: Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine
blades rotating at the operating speed blades rotating at the operating speed

Fig. 9 Comparison of measured response spectra of Spar with turbine blades in

stationary condition and in operating condition (taut 45° mooring)
NOTE:
of 4 cm and peak wave period (Tp) of 2 sec is shown in Table 4. It can be observed from the Table 4
that the significant response value is increased by about 30%, 20% and 25% for surge, heave and pitch
respectively, for turbine blades in rotating condition when compared with Spar with wind turbine in
stationary condition for slack mooring. In case of taut 30° mooring configuration the significant
response is increased by about 30%, 40% and 140% for surge, heave and pitch respectively for Case
III when compared with Case I, whereas for taut 45° the significant response is increased by 25%, 42%
and 167% for surge, heave and pitch respectively. In taut 30° and taut 45° mooring configuration there

Table 4. Comparison of measured motion response statistics for case I and Case III for
Tp=2sec
Mooring
Modes Ravg Rmax Rrms Rs R(1/10)
configurations
Slack Case I Surge 0.215 0.64 0.243 0.344 0.437
Heave 0.303 0.904 0.343 0.486 0.618
Pitch 1.143 3.402 1.293 1.829 2.328
Case III Surge 0.278 0.828 0.314 0.445 0.566
Heave 0.366 1.089 0.414 0.585 0.745
Pitch 1.421 4.231 1.608 2.274 2.894
Taut 30° Case I Surge 0.189 0.562 0.213 0.302 0.384
Heave 0.175 0.521 0.198 0.28 0.356
Pitch 0.624 1.858 0.706 0.999 1.271
Case III Surge 0.248 0.739 0.281 0.397 0.505
Heave 0.244 0.728 0.277 0.391 0.498
Pitch 1.498 4.458 1.694 2.396 3.049
Taut 45° Case I Surge 0.127 0.379 0.144 0.204 0.259
Heave 0.134 0.398 0.151 0.214 0.272
Pitch 0.511 1.521 0.578 0.818 1.041
Case III Surge 0.222 0.661 0.251 0.255 0.452
Heave 0.19 0.567 0.215 0.305 0.388
Pitch 1.368 4.072 1.548 2.189 2.786
NOTE:
is a significant increase in pitch response when compared with surge and heave. This may be due to the
fact that the pitch restoring moment is reduced, because of the rotation of the turbine blades, and hence
the pitch response is increased.
6.2 Influence of the Turbine Rotation in Calm Sea Condition

The time history of surge and heave response when the turbine blades are rotating in operating speed
in calm sea state is shown in Fig. 10. The turbines blades were allowed to rotate at an rpm of 105 which
corresponds to 12.1 rpm in the prototype scale, with the help of the variable speed DC motor. Constant
3 0.2
2 0.1
Heave response (cm)
Surge reponse (cm)
1 0
0 -0.1
-1 -0.2
-2 -0.3
-3 -0.4
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) Surge (b) Heave
Fig. 10 Measured time history of surge and heave response when the turbine blades are
rotating at the operating speed under calm sea state

rpm is maintained throughout the experiment assuming a steady state condition. Thus the motion
response of the structure only due to the rotation of the blades was recorded. It is observed from the
Fig. 10 that the influence of the turbine rotation on the motion response is very less (i.e. the amplitude
of the response for surge is 0.8 cm and for heave is 0.2 cm). A second order response can be observed
in which the high frequency response is due to frequency with which the turbine blades rotates, whereas
the low frequency response is because of the thrust created by the operation of the blades.
6.3 Effect of Mooring Line on Motion Response

Figs. 11 and 12 show the comparison of motion response spectra for three mooring configuration for
Fig. 11 Comparison of measured response Fig. 12 Comparison of measured response

spectra for different mooring configuration spectra for different mooring configuration
(CASE I) (CASE III)
NOTE: NOTE:
Case I: Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine Case III: Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine
blades in stationary position blades rotating at the operating speed

Spar with wind turbine in stationary condition and in rotating condition respectively. The following
observation can be made from the Table 4. The surge significant response is reduced by 13%, 68% for
taut 30° and taut 45° respectively when compared with slack mooring for Case I, whereas for Case III
it is reduced by 12% and 74% for taut 30° and taut 45° respectively. The heave significant response is
reduced by 73%, 130% for taut 30° and taut 45° respectively, for Case I and for Case III the heave
response is decreased by 50% and 90%. Similarly the pitch response is also reduced by about 80% for
taut 30° and 120% for taut 45° for both Case I and III. This is due to the fact that the length of the
mooring line is decreased and the stiffness is increased in case of taut moorings when compared with
slack mooring, hence the response is reduced for taut 30° and taut 45° mooring when compared with
slack mooring configuration.
6.4 Comparison of Simulated Motion Response Statistics

The simulated motion response spectra for the Spar with wind turbines in stationary and rotating condition
is shown in Fig.13 for slack mooring. Table 5, 6 and 7 shows the measured and simulated motion response
statistics for surge, heave and pitch. Figs. 14 and 15 show the simulated motion response spectra for surge,
heave and pitch for three different mooring configuration for Case I and Case III respectively. It is
observed from the Table. 5 that the significant surge response obtained from numerical investigation is
increased by 25% for Spar with rotating blades when compared with Spar with stationary blades for slack
mooring, whereas for taut 30° and taut 45°, it is increased by 55% and 52% respectively. The simulated
significant response value of heave is increased by 33%, 21% and 16% for Spar with wind turbine in
rotating condition when compared with stationary blades for slack, taut 30° and taut 45° mooring
configuration respectively. In case of pitch significant response value, the influence of turbine rotation has
increased the response by 31%, 200% and 150% slack, taut 30° and taut 45° mooring configuration
respectively. The surge significant response is reduced by 35% and 71% for taut 30° and taut 45°
respectively, when compared with slack mooring for Case I, whereas in Case III the response is decreased
by 8% and 38% for taut 30° and taut 45° respectively. The heave and pitch response is decreased by 42%
Table 5. Comparison of simulated and measured motion response statistics (Surge)

Mooring
parameters Case I Case III
configuration
Measured Simulated Measured Simulated
Slack Ravg 0.215 0.214 0.278 0.265
Rmax 0.64 0.637 0.828 0.789
Rrms 0.243 0.242 0.314 0.3
Rs 0.344 0.342 0.445 0.424
R(1/10) 0.437 0.436 0.566 0.539
Taut 30° Ravg 0.189 0.157 0.248 0.244
Rmax 0.562 0.469 0.739 0.726
Rrms 0.213 0.178 0.281 0.276
Rs 0.302 0.252 0.397 0.392
R(1/10) 0.384 0.321 0.505 0.496
Taut 45° Ravg 0.127 0.126 0.222 0.191
Rmax 0.379 0.375 0.661 0.569
Rrms 0.144 0.142 0.251 0.216
Rs 0.204 0.201 0.355 0.306
R(1/10) 0.259 0.256 0.452 0.389
NOTE:

Table 6. Comparison of simulated and measured motion response statistics (Heave)

Mooring
parameters Case I Case III
configuration
Slack Ravg 0.303 0.315 0.366 0.325
Rmax 0.904 0.939 1.089 0.969
Rrms 0.343 0.357 0.414 0.368
Rs 0.486 0.504 0.585 0.521
R(1/10) 0.618 0.642 0.745 0.663
Taut 30° Ravg 0.175 0.221 0.244 0.267
Rmax 0.521 0.658 0.728 0.796
Rrms 0.198 0.25 0.277 0.302
Rs 0.28 0.354 0.391 0.428
R(1/10) 0.356 0.45 0.498 0.545
Taut 45° Ravg 0.134 0.156 0.19 0.182
Rmax 0.398 0.466 0.567 0.541
Rrms 0.151 0.177 0.215 0.206
Rs 0.214 0.251 0.305 0.291
R(1/10) 0.272 0.319 0.388 0.37
NOTE:
Table 7. Comparison of simulated and measured motion response statistics (Pitch)

Mooring
Parameters Case I Case III
configuration
Slack Ravg 1.143 1.089 1.421 1.436
Rmax 3.402 3.242 4.231 4.275
Rrms 1.293 1.232 1.608 1.625
Rs 1.829 1.743 2.274 2.298
R(1/10) 2.328 2.218 2.894 2.924
Taut 30° Ravg 0.624 0.426 1.498 1.55
Rmax 1.858 1.27 4.458 4.613
Rrms 0.706 0.482 1.694 1.754
Rs 0.999 0.682 2.396 2.48
R(1/10) 1.271 0.869 3.049 3.156
Taut 45° Ravg 0.511 0.506 1.368 1.296
Rmax 1.521 1.507 4.072 3.858
Rrms 0.578 0.573 1.548 1.466
Rs 0.818 0.81 2.189 2.074
R(1/10) 1.041 1.031 2.786 2.639
NOTE:

Fig. 13 Comparison of simulated response Fig. 14 Comparison of simulated response

spectra of Spar with turbine blades in spectra for different mooring configuration
stationary condition and in operating (CASE I)
condition (slack mooring) NOTE:
NOTE: Case I: Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine
blades in stationary position
Case III: Spar subjected to sea conditions with turbine
blades rotating at the operating speed

Fig. 15 Comparison of simulated response spectra for different mooring configuration

(CASE III)
NOTE:
and 100% respectively for taut 30°, and 100% and 150% for taut 45° respectively for Case I. For Case III,
the heave significant response value is reduced by 21% and 79% for taut 30° and taut 45° respectively
when compared with slack mooring, and for pitch it is decreased by 7% and 10.8%.
6.5 Comparison of Measured and Simulated Motion Response

Fig. 16 shows the comparison of measured and simulated significant response values of surge, heave
and pitch for slack mooring for Case I and Case III. It is observed from the Fig. 16(a) that the significant
response value of surge increases with increase in wave peak period for Case I and III. The measured
and simulated results matches well with a maximum difference of 7% for Case I and 5% for Case III.
From Fig. 16(b) it can be observed that the heave significant response value increases with the increase
in wave peak period up to the wave peak period equal to the heave natural period and the response gets
decreased as the peak period increases. The measured and simulated heave significant response values
matches well with a maximum difference of 6% for Case I and 10% for Case III. Similar to surge, the
pitch significant response values (Fig. 16(c)) also increases with the increase in peak period. The
measured and simulated pitch response matches very well with an average difference of 4% for Case I
and 8% for Case III. Similar trends were followed in taut 30° and taut 45° mooring configuration.

(a) (b)
(c)
Fig. 16 Comparison of measured and simulated significant values of the responses
(Slack mooring)
NOTE:
6.6 Mooring Force Response Spectra

Fig. 17 and 18 shows the measured mooring force response spectra for Case I and Case III respectively,
for taut 30° and taut 45° mooring configuration. The mooring line force response statistical values are
given in Table 8. The significant values of mooring forces for sea side mooring is higher by 20% and
60%, when compared with lee side mooring force, in taut 30° mooring for Case I and Case III
respectively. For taut 45°, the significant mooring force on sea side in increased by 5% and 0.1% for
Case I and Case III respectively. The mooring line force response increases by 50% for taut 45°, when
compared with taut 30° for Case I. Similarly, the mooring force response is increased by 25% for taut
45°, when compared with taut 30° for Case III.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The motion response characteristics of the proposed Spar to support the wind turbine have been
investigated experimentally and numerically. The following conclusions were drawn based on the
response of the system under random waves for three different mooring configurations.
• The significant response value of surge has increased by about 30% for Spar with turbine
blades in operating when compared with the Spar with the turbine blades in stationary
condition for all the three mooring configuration.
• The heave significant response has increased by 20%, 40% and 42% for Spar with turbine

Fig. 17 Comparison of mooring force response spectra for Case I for taut 30° and taut 45°
NOTE:
Fig. 18 Comparison of mooring force response spectra for Case III for taut 30° and taut 45°
NOTE:
Table 8. Mooring force response statistics
Mooring
Ravg Rmax Rrms Rs R(1/10)
configuration
Case I Taut 30° Seaside 0.3400 1.0119 0.3847 0.5440 0.6923
Leeside 0.2826 0.8409 0.3197 0.4521 0.5753
Taut45° Seaside 0.5111 1.5209 0.5782 0.8177 1.0405
Leeside 0.4928 1.4666 0.5575 0.7885 1.0033
Case III °
Taut 30 Seaside 0.4232 1.2595 0.4788 0.6772 0.8617
Leeside 0.2612 0.7775 0.2956 0.4180 0.5319
Taut45° Seaside 0.5274 1.5695 0.5967 0.8428 1.0738
Leeside 0.5262 1.5659 0.5953 0.8419 1.0713
NOTE:

blades in rotating condition for slack, taut 30° and taut 45° respectively when compared with
Spar with turbine blades in stationary condition.
• For Spar with turbine blades in rotating condition, the pitch significant response is increased
by 25%, 140% and 160% for slack, taut 30°, taut 45° respectively when compared with Spar
with turbine blades in stationary condition.
• For Spar with turbine blades in stationary condition, the surge, heave and pitch significant
response is reduced by 13%, 73% and 80% respectively for taut 30°, whereas in case of taut
45°, it is reduced by 68%, 130% and 120% for surge, heave and pitch respectively, when
compared with slack mooring.
• For Spar with turbine blades in rotating condition, the significant response has reduced by
12%, 15% and 80% for surge, heave and pitch respectively for taut 30°, and 74%, 90% and
120% for taut 45° when compared with slack mooring.
• The mooring line responses were increased by about 40% when the turbine blades are in
rotating condition when compared with the blades in stationary condition.
• Measured and simulated significant response values matches reasonably well with average
difference of about 10%.
REFERENCES
Bulder B.H., Henderson A., Huijsmans and Peeringa J.M. (2002) “Floating offshore wind turbines for
Shallow waters”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, Oslo, Norway, June 23-28, 2002.
Butterfield S., Jonkman J.M., Musial W. and Scott G. (2007) “Definition of a 5MW Reference Wind
Turbine for Offshore System Development”, NREL Technical Report.
Cermelli C. and Roddier D. (2009) “Floating foundation for offshore wind turbines”. Part II,
International conference on ocean offshore and arctic engineering, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May
31-June 5, 2009, Vol 3, pp548-556.
Fulton G.R., Malcolm D.J., Elwany H., Stewart W., Moroz E., and Dempster H. (2005) “Semi-
Submersible Platform and Anchor Foundation”, Systems for Wind Turbine Support, Technical
report, , NREL Laboratory.
Henderson R., Gillian M., Patel M.H., Halliday J.A., (2000) “Floating offshore wind farms – an
option”, International conference on Offshore Wind Energy in Mediterranean and Other European
Seas, Scicily, Italy, April 13-15, 2000.
Jonkman J.M. and Buhl M.L. (2007) “Development and Verification of a Fully Coupled Simulator for
Offshore Wind Turbines”, NREL Technical Report.
Jonkman J.M. and Buhl M.L. (2007) “Loads Analysis of a Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Using Fully
Coupled Simulation”, NREL Technical Report.
Karimirad M. (2010) “Dynamic response of floating wind turbine Technical Report”, Scientia Iranica.
Vol 17 no. 2, pp146-156.
Karimirad M. and Torgeir M. (2012) “Comparative Study of Spar type Wind Turbine in Deep and
Moderate Water Depths”, International conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, Rio
do Janerio, Brazil, July 1-6, 2012.
Shim S. and Kim M.H. (2008) “Rotor-floater-tether coupled dynamic analysis of offshore floating
wind”, Proceedings of the International conference of Offshore and Polar Engineering,
Vancouver, Canada, July 6-11, 2008. Vol 1, pp 445-461.
Tracy C. (2007) “Parametric Design of Floating wind turbine”, M.S. Thesis, Department of Ocean
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

2013 Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Hydrod

Încărcat de

Informații document

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

2013 Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Hydrod

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

261

Experimental and Numerical

Received: Aug. 6, 2013; Accepted: Nov. 1, 2013

Volume 4 · Number 4 · 2013

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Fig. 1 Plan view of the model in the wave basin (N.T.S)

Volume 4 · Number 4 · 2013

3.1 Design of the Spar Platform

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Volume 4 · Number 4 · 2013

3.2 Model Fabrication

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Table 2 Details of NREL 5 MW wind turbine Blade

3.4 Measurement of Responses

Volume 4 · Number 4 · 2013

(a) Wave surface elevation (c) Heave acceleration

(b) Surge acceleration (d) Pitch response

Table 3 Statistical analysis of measured significant response values

Case Mode Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Mean Standard deviation Variance

Surge 0.286 0.291 0.287 0.288 -0.002 0.003 -0.001 4.60E-06

I Heave 0.241 0.235 0.242 0.239 0.002 -0.004 0.003 9.60E-06

Pitch 1.089 1.081 1.091 1.087 0.002 -0.006 0.004 1.80E-06

Surge 0.4 0.401 0.398 0.4 0.0003 0.001 -0.002 1.70E-06

Pitch 1.568 1.569 1.487 1.541 0.027 0.028 -0.054 0.0015

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

4. MOTION RESPONSE AND STATISTICS

Srr ,i (ω ) =  RAO(ω ) Sηη (ω )

Ravg = 2.5 m0 , (3)

Maximum height of the response,

Rmax = 7.44 m0 (4)

Volume 4 · Number 4 · 2013

Root mean square height of the response,

Significant height of the response,

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

and Average of the highest 10% of the response,

R1/10 = 5.09 m0 (7)

Where, m0 is the area under the spectral density curve.

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Case I Case II Case III

Fig 6. Details of experimental investigation on scale models with different mooring

Volume 4 · Number 4 · 2013

6.1 Effect of Turbine Rotation on Motion Response

Fig. 7 Comparison of measured response Fig. 8 Comparison of measured response

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Fig. 9 Comparison of measured response spectra of Spar with turbine blades in

Volume 4 · Number 4 · 2013

6.2 Influence of the Turbine Rotation in Calm Sea Condition

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

6.3 Effect of Mooring Line on Motion Response

Fig. 11 Comparison of measured response Fig. 12 Comparison of measured response

Volume 4 · Number 4 · 2013

6.4 Comparison of Simulated Motion Response Statistics

Table 5. Comparison of simulated and measured motion response statistics (Surge)

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Table 6. Comparison of simulated and measured motion response statistics (Heave)

Table 7. Comparison of simulated and measured motion response statistics (Pitch)

Volume 4 · Number 4 · 2013

Fig. 13 Comparison of simulated response Fig. 14 Comparison of simulated response

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Fig. 15 Comparison of simulated response spectra for different mooring configuration

6.5 Comparison of Measured and Simulated Motion Response

Volume 4 · Number 4 · 2013

6.6 Mooring Force Response Spectra

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems