the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 29 Apr 2024
Dynamic Modelling and Response of a Power Cable connected to a Floating Wind Turbine
Abstract. A power cable that connects a floating power plant to the grid is exposed to a dynamic environment that can pose challenging design conditions for the cable. This dynamic environment is caused by the movements of the floating substructure due to a combination of wind, wave and current forces. The power cable model needs to be able to account for its bending and axial stiffness, and hydrodynamic forcing. In this publication a catenary mooring/cable line element with bending stiffness is verified with a reference tool to assure the bending stiffness of a power cable is captured correctly. By using an existing parametric design model, a simple power cable design (in terms of overall cable length) is proposed for the IEA15MW turbine with UMaine floating substructure for a site with a water depth of 82 meter. A simple geometric method is proposed to initialize this complex lazy wave cable design in a dynamic and time domain simulation environment. The hydro-servo-aero-elastic wind turbine simulation environment HAWC2 is then used to establish an estimate of how much movements the combined system (turbine, floater, mooring lines, and power cable) experiences. This study discusses the necessary steps that are to be considered when including the dynamic power cable in the analysis and when adjusting a floating reference wind turbine design to a specific site with different water depth.
- Preprint
(1318 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-24', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 May 2024
The topic of modeling and analyzing dynamic cables is extremely important in floating offshore wind. However, the scientific contributions of the present publication are not clear. The verification section is valuable, but the case study section is focused on the offsets of the VolturnUS-S platform, which have been analyzed in many previous studies. Instead, a valuable contribution would be to provide a loads analysis of the dynamic cable (i.e. tensions and curvature). The provided results should also be more extensive than is presently included.
Additionally, the introduction is non-traditional for a journal paper. It needs a literature review, as there has been other, similar work done in this space. The goal and motivation should be clearly stated to help explain the need for the current publication.
Figure 1 axis is confusing. Also, when referenced in the text it says each element along the line segment is considered linear (see figure 1). I'm not sure how figure 1 shows this, as the segments are curved
Figure 4 can the discretizations be labeled in the legend.
The equation 1 parameters pmax and Tmax are not defined. also, the description of the equation isn't clear. Is the highest or lowest fitness considered the best?
Figure 8, should R3 be the height of in z of the third section?
The equation 7 inputs are not clearly explained.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-24-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-24', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jul 2024
The abstract needs to be improved significantly. It does not clearly state what the actual goal of this work is or what the work that has actually been carried out is.
The description of the implemented (bending stiffness) method in HAWC2 is insufficiently described. It must be described to a level of detail so it could be reproduced by someone else.
The difference between the bending stiffness calculation newly implemented and the calculations of the bending stiffness of the other programs and models that you are comparing to for verification is not stated. This is related to their general formulation, not only the results.
Section 4 must be improved so that the reader can easily follow and understand what is explained. Data is lacking which is mentioned in the attached PDF.
The environmental conditions must be more specified. For example, that includes that profiles of wind and current must be provided.
The results are very weak and poorly presented. The relationship between floater and cable advertised in the title of the work is not considered.
The contribution of this work to research in general must be stated clearly. This must especially be explained in the Abstract and the Conclusions.
Almost everywhere where the own work is described, unclear language is used. The text must be improved by using precise academic language and using the right terminology.
The entire document is full of grammar and punctuation mistakes, and also the citation style is not properly integrated into the text. That could have easily been corrected before submission.
There are too many references to different sections in the text. That makes it difficult to follow. The document must be restructured to remove these references from other sections.
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-24', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 May 2024
The topic of modeling and analyzing dynamic cables is extremely important in floating offshore wind. However, the scientific contributions of the present publication are not clear. The verification section is valuable, but the case study section is focused on the offsets of the VolturnUS-S platform, which have been analyzed in many previous studies. Instead, a valuable contribution would be to provide a loads analysis of the dynamic cable (i.e. tensions and curvature). The provided results should also be more extensive than is presently included.
Additionally, the introduction is non-traditional for a journal paper. It needs a literature review, as there has been other, similar work done in this space. The goal and motivation should be clearly stated to help explain the need for the current publication.
Figure 1 axis is confusing. Also, when referenced in the text it says each element along the line segment is considered linear (see figure 1). I'm not sure how figure 1 shows this, as the segments are curved
Figure 4 can the discretizations be labeled in the legend.
The equation 1 parameters pmax and Tmax are not defined. also, the description of the equation isn't clear. Is the highest or lowest fitness considered the best?
Figure 8, should R3 be the height of in z of the third section?
The equation 7 inputs are not clearly explained.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-24-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-24', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jul 2024
The abstract needs to be improved significantly. It does not clearly state what the actual goal of this work is or what the work that has actually been carried out is.
The description of the implemented (bending stiffness) method in HAWC2 is insufficiently described. It must be described to a level of detail so it could be reproduced by someone else.
The difference between the bending stiffness calculation newly implemented and the calculations of the bending stiffness of the other programs and models that you are comparing to for verification is not stated. This is related to their general formulation, not only the results.
Section 4 must be improved so that the reader can easily follow and understand what is explained. Data is lacking which is mentioned in the attached PDF.
The environmental conditions must be more specified. For example, that includes that profiles of wind and current must be provided.
The results are very weak and poorly presented. The relationship between floater and cable advertised in the title of the work is not considered.
The contribution of this work to research in general must be stated clearly. This must especially be explained in the Abstract and the Conclusions.
Almost everywhere where the own work is described, unclear language is used. The text must be improved by using precise academic language and using the right terminology.
The entire document is full of grammar and punctuation mistakes, and also the citation style is not properly integrated into the text. That could have easily been corrected before submission.
There are too many references to different sections in the text. That makes it difficult to follow. The document must be restructured to remove these references from other sections.
Data sets
Dynamic Modelling and Response of a Power Cable connected to a Floating Wind Turbine Rasmus S. Lund and David R. Verelst https://doi.org/10.11583/DTU.25577157
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 348 | 66 | 21 | 435 | 16 | 15 |
- HTML: 348
- PDF: 66
- XML: 21
- Total: 435
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1