Articles | Volume 7, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-903-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-903-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Floating wind turbines: marine operations challenges and opportunities
Rahul Chitteth Ramachandran
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
MaREI Centre, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Cian Desmond
Gavin and Doherty Geosolutions Ltd., Dublin, Ireland
Frances Judge
MaREI Centre, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Jorrit-Jan Serraris
Maritime Research Institute Netherlands, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Jimmy Murphy
MaREI Centre, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Related authors
No articles found.
Felipe Vittori, José Azcona, Irene Eguinoa, Oscar Pires, Alberto Rodríguez, Álex Morató, Carlos Garrido, and Cian Desmond
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2149–2161, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2149-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2149-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the results of a wave tank test campaign of a scaled SATH 10 MW INNWIND floating platform. The software-in-the-loop (SiL) hybrid method was used to include the wind turbine thrust and the in-plane rotor moments. Experimental results are compared with a numerical model developed in OpenFAST of the floating wind turbine. The results are discussed, identifying limitations of the numerical models and obtaining conclusions on how to improve them.
Navid Belvasi, Frances Judge, Jimmy Murphy, Brian Flannery, and Cian Desmond
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-128, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-128, 2022
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
In tank testing, the use of the underwater stereoscopic PIV method to fully characterise the 3D flow field around floating platforms can provide a rich source of validation data and overcome some of the limitations associated with more classical measurement techniques. Therefore, in the current study, the key considerations for using S-PIV for this purpose are discussed; meanwhile, the related studies in the field of quantitative flow measurements are reviewed.
Jared L. Peters, Felix Butschek, Ross O'Connell, Valerie Cummins, Jimmy Murphy, and Andrew J. Wheeler
Adv. Geosci., 54, 55–65, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-54-55-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-54-55-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This study endeavours to improve marine spatial planning abilities and the productivity of potential offshore renewable energy developments by creating a unique geological dataset that can be incorporated into common GIS assessments. To accomplish this, a dataset of 1,858 new and existing points is compiled and used to build a series of gridded outputs. The final model reveals areas of probable seabed stability that could provide useful information to future planning activities.
Cian J. Desmond, Simon J. Watson, Christiane Montavon, and Jimmy Murphy
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2017-34, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2017-34, 2017
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
The flow over densely forested terrain under neutral and non-neutral conditions is considered using commercially available Computational Fluid Dynamics software. Results are validated against data from a site in North-Eastern France. It is shown that the effects of both neutral and stable atmospheric stratifications can be modelled numerically using state of the art methodologies whilst unstable stratifications remain elusive.
Related subject area
Operation, condition monitoring, and maintenance
Analysing the effectiveness of different offshore maintenance base options for floating wind farms
Wind turbine drivetrains: state-of-the-art technologies and future development trends
Data-driven farm-wide fatigue estimation on jacket-foundation OWTs for multiple SHM setups
Identification of wind turbine main-shaft torsional loads from high-frequency SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) measurements using an inverse-problem approach
On sensor optimisation for structural health monitoring robust to environmental variations
Effect of individual blade pitch angle misalignment on the remaining useful life of wind turbines
Nadezda Avanessova, Anthony Gray, Iraklis Lazakis, R. Camilla Thomson, and Giovanni Rinaldi
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 887–901, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-887-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-887-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyses two logistical strategies that could be considered for operation and maintenance of floating wind farms. The results show that the OPEX for the strategy with an offshore maintenance base (OMB) is 5 %–8 % lower than with a service operation vessel. When CAPEX and the net present value are taken into account, then the fixed costs associated with building the OMB have a significant impact on selecting a preferred strategy.
Amir R. Nejad, Jonathan Keller, Yi Guo, Shawn Sheng, Henk Polinder, Simon Watson, Jianning Dong, Zian Qin, Amir Ebrahimi, Ralf Schelenz, Francisco Gutiérrez Guzmán, Daniel Cornel, Reza Golafshan, Georg Jacobs, Bart Blockmans, Jelle Bosmans, Bert Pluymers, James Carroll, Sofia Koukoura, Edward Hart, Alasdair McDonald, Anand Natarajan, Jone Torsvik, Farid K. Moghadam, Pieter-Jan Daems, Timothy Verstraeten, Cédric Peeters, and Jan Helsen
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 387–411, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-387-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-387-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents the state-of-the-art technologies and development trends of wind turbine drivetrains – the energy conversion systems transferring the kinetic energy of the wind to electrical energy – in different stages of their life cycle: design, manufacturing, installation, operation, lifetime extension, decommissioning and recycling. The main aim of this article is to review the drivetrain technology development as well as to identify future challenges and research gaps.
Francisco d N Santos, Nymfa Noppe, Wout Weijtjens, and Christof Devriendt
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 299–321, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-299-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-299-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The estimation of fatigue in offshore wind turbine is highly relevant, as it can help extend the lifetime of these assets. This article attempts to answer this issue by developing a methodology based on artificial intelligence and data collected by sensors installed in real-world turbines. Good results are obtained, and this methodology is further used to learn the value of eight different sensor setups and employed in a real-world wind farm with 48 wind turbines.
W. Dheelibun Remigius and Anand Natarajan
Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 1401–1412, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1401-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1401-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A novel inverse-problem-based methodology estimates drivetrain main-shaft torsional stiffness and displacement by using high-frequency SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) measurements without an aeroelastic design basis. It involves Tikhonov regularisation for regularising the measurement data and the collage method for system identification. The estimated quantities can be further used to identify the site-specific torsional loads and the damage-equivalent load of the main shaft.
Tingna Wang, David J. Wagg, Keith Worden, and Robert J. Barthorpe
Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 1107–1116, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1107-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1107-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper illustrates two sensor placement optimisation techniques designed for damage detection while taking into account temperature effects. A case study of a glider wing shows that, compared to the normalised method using the temperature label, the linear method that did not require temperature labels provided features that were less sensitive to damage. However, it is cheaper and more convenient to extract temperature-robust features in practical engineering.
Matthias Saathoff, Malo Rosemeier, Thorsten Kleinselbeck, and Bente Rathmann
Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 1079–1087, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1079-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1079-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Wind turbine blade misalignments were measured. About 38 % of the turbines measured have been operating outside the accepted misalignment range. This research quantifies the effect of the measured misalignment on the turbine lifetime by means of simulations. The lifetimes of the main frame at the tower top and the tower base were affected most by a blade misalignment. To avoid a lifetime reduction, blade misalignments should be identified and corrected as early as possible during the lifetime.
Cited articles
Acero, W. G., Gao, Z., and Moan, T.: Methodology for assessment of the
allowable sea states during installation of an offshore wind turbine
transition piece structure onto a monopile foundation, J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng., 139, OMAE-16-1039, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4037174, 2017. a
Adam, F., Myland, T., Dahlhaus, F., and Großmann, J.:
Gicon®-TLP for wind turbines – the path of development, in: The 1st International Conference on Renewable Energies Offshore (RENEW), November 2014, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–26,
https://doi.org/10.1201/b18973-92, 2014. a, b
Ahn, D., Shin, S.-C., Kim, S.-Y., Kharoufi, H., and Kim, H.-C.: Comparative
evaluation of different offshore wind turbine installation vessels for Korean
west–south wind farm, Int. J. Naval Architect. Ocean Eng., 9, 45–54, 2017. a
Ahsbahs, T., Badger, M., Volker, P., Hansen, K. S., and Hasager, C. B.: Applications of satellite winds for the offshore wind farm site Anholt, Wind Energ. Sci., 3, 573–588, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-3-573-2018, 2018. a
Alexandre, A., Percher, Y., Choisnet, T., Buils Urbano, R., and Harries, R.:
Coupled analysis and numerical model verification for the 2 MW Floatgen
demonstrator project with IDEOL platform, in: International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, vol. 51975, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V001T01A032, 2018. a
Andersen, M. T., Tetu, A., and Stiesdal, H.: Economic Potential of
Industrializing Floating Wind Turbine Foundations, in: International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, vol. 51203, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V001T01A045, 2018. a
Bachynski, E. E. and Moan, T.: Design considerations for tension leg platform
wind turbines, Mar. Struct., 29, 89–114, 2012. a
Balakrishnan, K., Arwade, S. R., DeGroot, D. J., Fontana, C., Landon, M., and
Aubeny, C. P.: Comparison of multiline anchors for offshore wind turbines
with spar and with semisubmersible, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1452, 012032, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1452/1/012032, 2020. a
Banister, K.: WindFloat Pacific Project, US Department of Energy, https://doi.org/10.2172/1339449, 2017. a, b, c, d
B.Cheater: U.S. Jones Act Compliant Offshore Wind Turbine Installation Vessel
Study, Tech. rep., USA, https://www.cesa.org/resource-library/resource/u-s-jones-act-compliant-offshore-wind-turbine-installation-
(last access: 11 April 2022), 2017. a
Berg, P. W. S.: A Discussion of Technical Challenges and Operational Limits for Towing Operations, MS thesis, NTNU, https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2453421/17059_FULLTEXT.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(last access: 11 April 2022), 2017. a
Borg, M., Walkusch Jensen, M., Urquhart, S., Andersen, M. T., Thomsen, J. B.,
and Stiesdal, H.: Technical definition of the tetraspar demonstrator floating
wind turbine foundation, Energies, 13, 4911, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13184911, 2020. a
Bridget Randall-Smith, C. O.: More moorings to be installed at Kincardine
floating wind farm,
https://www.4coffshore.com/news/more-moorings-to-be-installed-at-kincardine-floating-wind-, last access: 16 August 2021. a
Butterfield, S., Musial, W., Jonkman, J., and Sclavounos, P.: Engineering
challenges for floating offshore wind turbines, Tech. rep., NREL – National
Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/917212 (last access: 11 April 2022), 2007. a
Castro-Santos, L.: Life-Cycle Cost of a Floating Offshore Wind Farm, in:
Floating Offshore Wind Farms, Springer, 23–38, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27972-5_2, 2016. a, b, c
Castro-Santos, L., Ferreño González, S., and Diaz-Casas, V.:
Methodology to calculate mooring and anchoring costs of floating offshore
wind devices, in: International Conference on Renewable Energies and Power
Quality (ICREPQ), vol. 1, 20–22 March 2013, Bilbao, Spain, p. 45,
https://www.icrepq.com/icrepq'13/276-castro.pdf (last access: 11 April 2022), 2013. a
Castro-Santos, L., Filgueira-Vizoso, A., Álvarez-Feal, C., and Carral, L.: Influence of size on the economic feasibility of floating offshore wind
farms, Sustainability, 10, 4484, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124484, 2018a. a, b
Castro-Santos, L., Filgueira-Vizoso, A., Lamas-Galdo, I., and Carral-Couce, L.: Methodology to calculate the installation costs of offshore wind farms
located in deep waters, J. Clean. Product., 170, 1124–1135, 2018b. a
Chung, Y. C.: Dynamic Analysis of the Ampelmann G25 Gangway, https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:d009326a-63c6-489d-9e91-eaba76f4dbd0
(last access: 11 April 2022), 2016. a
Connolly, P. and Hall, M.: Comparison of pilot-scale floating offshore wind
farms with shared moorings, Ocean Eng., 171, 172–180, 2019. a
Cozijn, J., van der Wal, R., and Dunlop, C.: Model testing and complex numerical simulations for offshore installation, in: The Eighteenth
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, OnePetro, 6–11 July 2008, Vancouver, Canada, https://onepetro.org/ISOPEIOPEC/proceedings-abstract/ISOPE08/All-ISOPE08/ISOPE-I-08-080/10594
(last access: 11 April 2022), 2008. a
Crowle, A. and Thies, P.: Installation Innovation for floating offshore wind,
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/125194 (last access: 11 April 2022), 2021. a
Cummins, V. and McKeogh, E.: Blueprint for offshore wind in Ireland 2020–2050: A Research Synthesis, EirWind project, MaREI Centre, ERI, University College, Cork, Ireland, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3958261, 2020. a, b
Dewan, A. and Asgarpour, M.: Reference O & M Concepts for Near and Far
Offshore Wind Farms, ECN, Petten, https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:34af4079-528d-487d-a6ef-10eeead62a6d/datastream/URL/download
(last access: 11 April 2022), 2016. a
Diaz, B. D., Rasulo, M., Aubeny, C. P., Fontana, C. M., Arwade, S. R., DeGroot, D. J., and Landon, M.: Multiline anchors for floating offshore wind towers, in: IEEE OCEANS 2016 MTS/IEEE Monterey, 19–23 September 2016,
Monterey, CA, USA, 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANS.2016.7761374, 2016. a
Díaz, H., Fonseca, R., and Guedes Soares, C.: Site selection process for
floating offshore wind farms in Madeira Islands, https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429505324, 2019. a
DNV: Offshore Standard – DNV-RP-H103, Modelling And Analysis Of Marine
Operations, https://rules.dnv.com/servicedocuments/dnv/#!/home (last access: 16 August 2021), 2011b. a
DNV: DNV-OS-H202, Sea transport operations, https://rules.dnv.com/servicedocuments/dnv/#!/home (last access: 16 August 2021), 2015. a
DNV: Floating Wind: The Power to Commercialize, Tech. rep., https://www.dnv.com/Publications/floating-wind-the-power-to-commercialize-192334
(last access: 11 April 2022), 2020. a
Dohan, K. and Maximenko, N.: Monitoring ocean currents with satellite sensors, Oceanography, 23, 94–103, 2010. a
EC: General Annexes, Work Programme 2016–2017, https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/wp/2016-2017/annexes/h2020-wp1617-annex-ga_en.pdf
(last access: 11 April 2022), 2017. a
EDP: WindFloat Atlantic begins the installation of the first floating wind
farm,
https://www.edpr.com/en/news/2019/10/21/windfloat-atlantic-begins-installation-first-floating-wind-farm
(last access: 11 April 2022), 2019. a
EDP: WindFloat Atlantic,
https://www.edp.com/en/innovation/windfloat (last access: 11 April 2022), 2020. a
Emmanouil, S., Aguilar, S. G., Nane, G. F., and Schouten, J.-J.: Statistical
models for improving significant wave height predictions in offshore
operations, Ocean Eng., 206, 107249, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107249, 2020. a
Equinor: Hywind installation,
https://www.equinor.com/en/how-and-why/innovate/the-hywind-challenge.html (last access: 16 August 2021), 2022a. a
EWEA: Deep water, The next step for offshore wind energy, Tech. rep., https://windeurope.org/about-wind/reports/deep-water/ (last access: 11 April 2022), 2013. a
Farr, H., Ruttenberg, B., Walter, R. K., Wang, Y.-H., and White, C.: Potential environmental effects of deepwater floating offshore wind energy facilities, Ocean Coast. Manage., 207, 105611, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105611, 2021. a
Fontana, C.: A Multiline Anchor Concept for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines,
https://doi.org/10.7275/13483708, 2019. a, b
Fontana, C. M., Arwade, S. R., DeGroot, D. J., Myers, A. T., Landon, M., and
Aubeny, C.: Efficient multiline anchor systems for floating offshore wind
turbines, in: International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, vol. 49972, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V006T09A042, 2016. a
Fontana, C. M., Hallowell, S. T., Arwade, S. R., DeGroot, D. J., Landon, M. E., Aubeny, C. P., Diaz, B., Myers, A. T., and Ozmutlu, S.: Multiline anchor
force dynamics in floating offshore wind turbines, Wind Energy, 21, 1177–1190, 2018. a
Foxwell, D.: Day rates for SOVs likely to continue upward course,
https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/news-content-hub/day-rates-for-sovs-likely-to-continue-upward-course-54572
(last access: 11 April 2022), 2019. a
Goldschmidt, M. and Muskulus, M.: Coupled mooring systems for floating wind
farms, Energy Procedia, 80, 255–262, 2015. a
González, S. F. and Diaz-Casas, V.: Present and future of floating offshore wind, in: Floating Offshore Wind Farms, Springer, 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27972-5_1, 2016. a
Hall, M., Buckham, B., and Crawford, C.: Evaluating the importance of mooring
line model fidelity in floating offshore wind turbine simulations, Wind
Energy, 17, 1835–1853, 2014. a
Hatledal, L. I., Zhang, H., Halse, K. H., and Hildre, H. P.: Numerical study
for a catamaran gripper-monopile mechanism of a novel offshore wind turbine
assembly installation procedure, in: International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, vol. 57779, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V009T12A030, 2017. a
H. H. Hersleth: Hywind Scotland Pilot Park Project Plan For Operation and
Maintenance, Tech. rep., Norway, http://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/00516548.pdf (last access: 11 April 2022), 2016. a
Hutton, G., Torr, R., Proskovics, R., and Fong, T.: LIFES50+ D6.1 Risk
management for deep water substructures, Tech. rep., UK, http://lifes50plus.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/GA_640741_LIFES50_D6.1.pdf (last access: 11 April 2022), 2016. a
Jacobsen, V. and Rugbjerg, M.: Offshore wind farms–the need for metocean data, Copenhagen Offshore Wind, http://www.waterforecast.com/-/media/microsite_waterforecast/publications/about/waterforecast_offshorewindfarms-theneedformetoceandata.pdf (last access: 11 April 2022), 2005. a
Jiang, Z., Yttervik, R., Gao, Z., and Sandvik, P. C.: Design, modelling, and
analysis of a large floating dock for spar floating wind turbine
installation, Mar. Struct., 72, 102781, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2020.102781, 2020. a, b, c
Kausche, M., Adam, F., Dahlhaus, F., and Großmann, J.: Floating offshore
wind-Economic and ecological challenges of a TLP solution, Renew. Energy, 126, 270–280, 2018. a
Koschinski, S. and Lüdemann, K.: Development of noise mitigation measures
in offshore wind farm construction, Commissioned by the Federal Agency for
Nature Conservation, 1–102, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sven-Koschinski/publication/308110557_Development_of_Noise
(last access: 11 April 2022), 2013. a, b
Lambkin, D., Wade, I., and Stephens, R.: Estimating Operational Weather
Downtime: A Comparison of Analytical Methods, in: International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, vol. 58851, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V07BT06A003, 2019. a
Lange, K., Rinne, A., and Haasis, H.-D.: Planning maritime logistics concepts
for offshore wind farms: a newly developed decision support system, in:
International Conference on Computational Logistics, Springer, 142–158, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33587-7_11, 2012. a, b
Leimeister, M., Kolios, A., and Collu, M.: Critical review of floating support structures for offshore wind farm deployment, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1104, 012007, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1104/1/012007, 2018. a, b, c
Li, B.: Operability study of walk-to-work for floating wind turbine and service operation vessel in the time domain, Ocean Eng., 220, 108397, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108397, 2021. a
Maienza, C., Avossa, A., Ricciardelli, F., Coiro, D., and Georgakis, C.:
Sensitivity analysis of cost parameters for floating offshore wind farms: an
application to Italian waters, J. Phys.: Conf. Se., 1669, 012019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1669/1/012019, 2020. a
Maples, B., Saur, G., Hand, M., Van De Pietermen, R., and Obdam, T.:
Installation, operation, and maintenance strategies to reduce the cost of
offshore wind energy, Tech. rep., NREL – National Renewable Energy Lab.,
Golden, CO, USA, https://doi.org/10.2172/1087778, 2013. a
Maritime-Journal: A flipping good idea for floating turbines,
https://www.maritimejournal.com/news101/marine-renewable-energy/a-flipping-good-idea-for-floating-turbines (last access: 16 August 2021), 2012. a
Martini, M., Jurado, A., Guanche, R., and Losada, I. J.: Evaluation of
walk-to-work accessibility for a floating wind turbine, in: International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, vol. 49972, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V006T09A038, 2016. a
McCann, J.: Annual Report – International Energy Agency (IEA), Tech. rep.,
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2016 (last access: 11 April 2022), 2016. a
Musial, W., Butterfield, S., and Boone, A.: Feasibility of floating platform
systems for wind turbines, in: 42nd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and
exhibit, 5–8 January 2004, Reno, Nevada, p. 1007, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-1007,
2004. a
Musial, W., Heimiller, D., Beiter, P., Scott, G., and Draxl, C.: 2016 offshore wind energy resource assessment for the united states, Tech. rep., NREL – National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, https://doi.org/10.2172/1324533, 2016. a
Myhr, A., Bjerkseter, C., Ågotnes, A., and Nygaard, T. A.: Levelised cost
of energy for offshore floating wind turbines in a life cycle perspective,
Renew. Energy, 66, 714–728, 2014. a
Nedwell, J., Langworthy, J., and Howell, D.: Assessment of sub-sea acoustic
noise and vibration from offshore wind turbines and its impact on marine
wildlife; initial measurements of underwater noise during construction of
offshore windfarms, and comparison with background noise, Subacoustech Report
ref: 544R0423, published by COWRIE, http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~ling/2A_EU1.pdf (last access: 11 Apirl 2022), 2003. a
Ocean-Energy-Resources: Bourbon collaborates in installation third floating
wind turbine for Windfloat Atlantic,
https://ocean-energyresources.com/2020/05/29/bourbon-collaborates-in-installation-third-floating-wind-turbine
(last access: 16 August 2021), 2020. a
Offshore-Engineer: iFROG: Robot for Cleaning and Inspection of Offshore Wind
Monopiles Completes Trials,
https://www.oedigital.com/news/483611-ifrog-robot-for-cleaning-and-inspection-of-offshore
(last access: 16 August 2021), 2020. a
offshorewind.biz: Largest Floating Offshore Wind Farm Stands Complete,
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2021/08/24/largest-floating-offshore-wind-farm-stands-complete/,
(last access: 11 January 2022), 2021. a
Paterson, J., D'Amico, F., Thies, P. R., Kurt, R., and Harrison, G.: Offshore
wind installation vessels – A comparative assessment for UK offshore rounds 1 and 2, Ocean Eng., 148, 637–649, 2018. a
Remmers, T., Cawkwell, F., Desmond, C., Murphy, J., and Politi, E.: The
potential of advanced scatterometer (ASCAT) 12.5 km coastal observations for
offshore wind farm site selection in Irish waters, Energies, 12, 206, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12020206, 2019. a
Reuters: Shared anchors slice cost of floating wind parts, vessels,
https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/wind/shared-anchors-slice-cost-floating-wind-parts-vessels
(last access: 16 August 2021), 2020. a
Roddier, D., Cermelli, C., Aubault, A., and Weinstein, A.: WindFloat: A
floating foundation for offshore wind turbines, J. Renew. Sustain. Energ., 2, 033104, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3435339, 2010. a
Saipem: Hywind, https://www.saipem.com/en/projects/hywind (last access: 16 August 2021), 2017. a
Salzmann, D. C., Prezzi, J., ten Haaf, S., and Groenteman, S.: Walk to work
offshore using motion compensated gangways, in: OTC Brasil, OnePetro, https://doi.org/10.4043/26197-MS, 2015. a
Santos, F. P., Teixeira, Â. P., and Soares, C. G.: Operation and
maintenance of floating offshore wind turbines, in: Floating Offshore Wind
Farms, Springer, 181–193, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27972-5_10, 2016. a
Sclavounos, P. D., Lee, S., DiPietro, J., Potenza, G., Caramuscio, P., and
De Michele, G.: Floating offshore wind turbines: tension leg platform and
taught leg buoy concepts supporting 3–5 MW wind turbines, in: European wind
energy conference EWEC, 20–23 April 2010, Warsaw, Poland,
http://web.mit.edu/flowlab/pdf/EWEC2010.pdf (last access: 16 August 2021), 2010. a
Skaare, B.: Development of the Hywind concept, in: International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, vol. 57779, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V009T12A050, 2017. a
Sperstad, I. B., McAuliffe, F. D., Kolstad, M., and Sjømark, S.:
Investigating key decision problems to optimize the operation and maintenance
strategy of offshore wind farms, Energy Procedia, 94, 261–268, 2016. a
Sperstad, I. B., Stålhane, M., Dinwoodie, I., Endrerud, O.-E. V., Martin,
R., and Warner, E.: Testing the robustness of optimal access vessel fleet
selection for operation and maintenance of offshore wind farms, Ocean Eng., 145, 334–343, 2017. a
Stehly, T., Beiter, P., and Duffy, P.: 2019 Cost of Wind Energy Review, Tech. rep., NREL – National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, https://doi.org/10.2172/1756710, 2020. a
Stetco, A., Dinmohammadi, F., Zhao, X., Robu, V., Flynn, D., Barnes, M., Keane, J., and Nenadic, G.: Machine learning methods for wind turbine condition monitoring: A review, Renew. Energy, 133, 620–635, 2019. a
Tchakoua, P., Wamkeue, R., Ouhrouche, M., Slaoui-Hasnaoui, F., Tameghe, T. A., and Ekemb, G.: Wind turbine condition monitoring: State-of-the-art review, new trends, and future challenges, Energies, 7, 2595–2630, 2014. a
Teleki, P., Shuchman, R., Brown, W., McLeish, W., Ross, D., and Mattie, M.:
Ocean wave detection and direction measurements with microwave radars, in:
IEEE OCEANS'78, 6–8 September 1978, Washington, DC, USA, 639–648, https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANS.1978.1151082, 1978. a
Ulstein: Bourbon Orca, https://ulstein.com/references/bourbon-orca, last access: 21 January 2022. a
Umoh, K. and Lemon, M.: Drivers for and barriers to the take up of floating
offshore wind technology: a comparison of Scotland and South Africa,
Energies, 13, 5618, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13215618, 2020. a
Uzunoglu, E., Karmakar, D., and Soares, C. G.: Floating offshore wind
platforms, in: Floating offshore wind farms, Springer, 53–76, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27972-5_4, 2016.
a
Vågnes, D., Monteiro, T. G., Halse, K. H., and Hildre, H. P.: Low-Height
Lifting System for Offshore Wind Turbine Installation: Modelling and
Hydrodynamic Response Analysis Using the Commercial Simulation Tool SIMA, in:
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, vol. 84317, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V001T01A030, 2020. a
Wayman, E. N., Sclavounos, P., Butterfield, S., Jonkman, J., and Musial, W.:
Coupled dynamic modeling of floating wind turbine systems, in: Offshore
technology conference, OnePetro, https://doi.org/10.4043/18287-MS, 2006. a
Wu, X. and Moan, T.: Dynamic behaviour of anchor handling vessels during anchor deployment, J. Mar. Sci. Technol., 22, 655–672, 2017. a
Wyatt, L.: Spatio-temporal metocean measurements for offshore wind power,
J. Energ. Power Technol., 3, 2690-1692, https://doi.org/10.21926/jept.2101005, 2021. a
Xu, S., Murai, M., Wang, X., and Takahashi, K.: A novel conceptual design of a dynamically positioned floating wind turbine, Ocean Eng., 221, 108528, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108528, 2021. a, b
Yamamoto, M. and Morooka, C.: Dynamic positioning system of semi-submersible
platform using fuzzy control, J. Brazil. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng., 27, 449–455, 2005. a
Short summary
Marine operations represent a significant proportion of costs involved in the installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning phases of a floating wind farm. The floating-wind industry is reaching array-scale deployments, and it is very important to optimize the various marine operations involved in each of these phases. This paper analyses the various challenges in the path and opportunities for encountering them by the transfer of technical know-how from similar offshore sectors.
Marine operations represent a significant proportion of costs involved in the installation,...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint