the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Sensitivity analysis of numerical modeling input parameters on wind turbine loads in deterministic transient load cases
Abstract. Aero-hydro-elastic-servo numerical models used to design and analyze wind turbines are based on thousands of variable input parameters that dictate the inflow, aerodynamic, structural, and control characteristics of the system as well as sea state, hydrodynamic, and mooring characteristics for fixed-bottom and floating offshore wind turbines. Each of these parameters has some level of uncertainty, which can significantly impact the predicted loads. Understanding the uncertainty in the inputs is critical to understanding the uncertainty in the outputs. This work demonstrates a screening technique to identify which parameters ultimate loads are most sensitive to so that more focus can be given to quantifying the possible range of those parameters. This technique has been demonstrated previously for different turbine and load case types and is extended here for a floating offshore wind turbine in design load cases with transient events both in the inflow and operations. Each load case features a deterministic gust including variations in wind speed, direction, and shear. Load cases are considered with an operating turbine as well as with prescribed fault, startup, and shutdown procedures. The study found that key input parameters with a large impact on loads include the length of the gust, the magnitude of direction change and speed in the gust, the initial wind speed, and the shape of the gust profile.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Wind Energy Science.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(11394 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-228', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Nov 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-228', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Dec 2025
General comments:
An interesting article about the application of sensitivity analyses to transient load cases. As the framework has been used before, the novelty mainly lies in the application area to gust cases. The largest part of the paper is describing the methodology, which is quite rigorous and well written. Although there are many visualizations of the results, it is felt that a more elaborate interpretation of selected results (why are certain parameters more impactful?) could be valuable.ÂIt is recommended to follow up on the below suggestions for improvement:
-p1 abstract last sentence
Acknowledging the number of parameters to define the gusts in Table 4, the five impactful parameters mentioned in the abstract constitute almost three quarter of the total parameters. To what extent can this be considered as an expected outcome?-p3 table 1Â
To what extent is the detail of this table needed for the storyline in section 2? Could it be removed as well and the relevant info explained in wording or is it relevant to refer to in the remainder of the paper?-p4 section 2.2 Test system
A wind turbine on a semisubmersibe platform is chosen for this study instead of an onshore wind turbine. Is there a particular reason for this choice in the light of the gust cases? Would it be more straightforward to use a bottom fixed turbine for this purpose, yielding similar results for turbine load semsitivity to gusts?-p8 line 124
Can the authors comment on the apparent absence of coupling between the parameters and its influence on the current sensitivity study?-p11 line 174Â
Please clarify based on what info and assumptions the different parameters for the two sites in table 5 and 6 are defined. If these are defined in the following sections it would be good to indicate that or place the tables afterwards.-p15 line 207
Acknowledging the differences in desired airfoil characteristics along the span of a wind turbine blade, can the authors comment on the validity of a linear interpolation of these characteristics between root and tip?-Figures 15 to 16 and 18 to 21 (and some in the appendices) contain too many lines/bars and too small axis annotation and legend fonts for a reader to allow interpretation. Consider redesigning these plots to convey the necessary information in an adequate manner.
-p31 lines 421-423
The aerodynamic model challenge mentioned relates to unsteady airfoil effects. It is known that the defined gusts also challenge dynamic wake and yaw models. Would this be a recommendation to investigate e.g. using a free vortex wake method?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-228-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-228', Will Wiley, 02 Feb 2026
Dear referees,
Thank you for your time providing feedback and suggestions for our paper. Please find our answers to your comments and the corresponding updates to the paper in the attached document. We hope to have addressed all of your comments, improving the manuscript. We will be happy to have continued discussion. We will submit the revised manuscript including a pdf highlighting the differences made to the text in the next few days.
Thank you,
Will Wiley, Jason Jonkman, and Amy Robertson
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 384 | 131 | 28 | 543 | 26 | 22 |
- HTML: 384
- PDF: 131
- XML: 28
- Total: 543
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please see the attached document.