the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
OC6 Project Phase IV: Validation of Numerical Models for Novel Floating Offshore Wind Support Structures
Will Wiley
Amy Robertson
Jason Jonkman
Cédric Brun
Jean-Philippe Pineau
Quan Qian
Wen Maoshi
Alec Beardsell
Joshua Cutler
Fabio Pierella
Christian Anker Hansen
Jie Fu
Lehan Hu
Prokopios Vlachogiannis
Christophe Peyrard
Christopher Simon Wright
Dallán Friel
Øyvind Waage Hanssen-Bauer
Carlos Renan dos Santos
Eelco Frickel
Hafizul Islam
Arjen Koop
Zhiqiang Hu
Jihuai Yang
Tristan Quideau
Violette Harnois
Kelsey Shaler
Stefan Netzband
Daniel Alarcón
Pau Trubat
Aengus Connolly
Séan B. Leen
Oisín Conway
Abstract. This paper provides a summary of the work done within Phase IV of the Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) project, under International Energy Agency Wind Technology Collaboration Programme Task 30. This phase focused on validating the loading on and motion of a novel floating offshore wind system. Numerical models of a 3.6-MW horizontal-axis wind turbine atop the TetraSpar floating support structure were compared using measurement data from a 1:43 Froude-scale test performed in the University of Maine’s Alfond Wind-Wave (W2) Ocean Engineering Laboratory. Participants in the project ran a series of simulations, including system equilibrium, surge offsets, free-decays, wind-only conditions, wave-only conditions, and a combination of wind and wave conditions. Validation of the models was performed by comparing the aerodynamic loading, floating support structure motion, tower base loading, mooring line tensions, and keel line tensions. The results show a good estimation of the aerodynamic loading and a reasonable estimation of the platform motion and tower base fore-aft bending moment. However, there is a significant dispersion in the dynamic loading for the upwind mooring line. Very good agreement was observed between most of the numerical models and the experiment for the keel line tensions.
- Preprint
(2457 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Roger Bergua et al.
Status: open (until 07 Oct 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2023-103', Carlos Silva de Souza, 18 Sep 2023
reply
The paper provides a comparison between numerical simulations and model test results for a floating wind turbine, adopting the "TetraSpar" substucture. The simulations were carried out by 17 participants, adopting different software and assumptions for the hydrodynamic loads, aerodynamic loads, structural model, and mooring system formulation. The comparisons are made in terms of relevant quantities in the analysis of floating wind turbines, including horizontal platform motions, mooring lines tension, and tower base bending moment. In addition, the tensions on the lines connecting the platform upper structure and the keel are also assessed.
The topic has great relevance, since previous comparisons have shown significant discrepancies between different simulation software. However, the authors mentioned important sources of inaccuracy in the comparison, the most serious of them being the influence of the model's "umbilical" in the floater mean position, and on wind drag loads during idling conditions. In addition, the initial position of the floater changed significantly throughout the test campaign, which directly affects the mean mooring lines loads.
It can be noted that the platform wave-frequency response varies significantly in amplitude for the different participants. The authors are strongly encouraged to better discuss this point, since the response for platforms with a more conventional design is normally well predicted at the wave-frequency range. In particular, the discussion should consider the model for the hydrodynamic loads (Morison's equation, potential flow theory, hybrid) adopted by the different participants.
A PDF file containing details/suggestions for improvement will be sent to the authors directly.
Roger Bergua et al.
Roger Bergua et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
272 | 100 | 8 | 380 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 272
- PDF: 100
- XML: 8
- Total: 380
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1