the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
On the prediction of underwater aerodynamic noise of offshore wind turbines
Abstract. The growing demand for offshore wind energy has led to a significant increase in wind turbine size and to the development of large-scale wind farms, often comprising 100 to 150 turbines. However, the environmental impact of underwater noise emissions remains largely unaddressed. This paper quantifies, for the first time, the underwater aerodynamic noise footprint of three large offshore turbines (5 MW, 10 MW, and 22 MW) and wind farms composed of these turbines. We propose a novel methodology that integrates validated wind turbine noise prediction techniques with plane wave propagation theory in different media, enabling turbine designers to predict and mitigate underwater noise emissions. Our results confirm that aerodynamic noise from offshore wind farms presents a potential environmental challenge, with negative effects on marine life. Addressing this issue is crucial to ensuring the sustainable expansion of offshore wind energy.
- Preprint
(2048 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 05 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-40', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Apr 2025
reply
Review on the manuscript entitled “On the prediction of underwater aerodynamic noise of offshore wind turbines” by Botero-Bolívar et al. (wes-2025-40)
The manuscript presents a numerical study on wind turbine noise generated from offshore wind turbines for underwater environmental impact consideration. The NREL 5MW turbine, DTU 10 MW turbine and IEA 22 MW turbine were used for wind turbine noise generation and the spherical and cylindrical sound propagations were used for the parts of sound propagation in air and in water, respectively. The manuscript is well-written and discusses an interesting problem about wind turbine noise from offshore wind turbines. This reviewer recommends the acceptance of the manuscript for publication when the following issues are addressed.
Special comments:
- Results should be summarized in the abstract.
- Line 27, it is not precise to say increasing with the rotor diameter, but better with the tip speed.
- Line 43, not only mechanical noise, also the structure borne of aerodynamic noise.
- Line 91, “the transition was fixed at 5% of the chord”, why didn’t you use free-transition?
- Figure 1, caption: Aerodynamic noise includes more than leading-edge and trailing-edge noise.
- Line 95: check the Doppler effect factor for Spp.
- Line 104, “at the same relative location with respect to the observer”, not a precise estimate.
- Figure 2, the symbol φ is not consistent with the one in the main text.
- Line 153, d1 or d2?
- Line 155, how do you consider the attenuation of sound in water?
- Table 1, the numbers for IEA 22MW are different from the original definition.
- Line 176, the definition of low-frequency sound is different from the standard definition.
- In figures, “Noise Amplitude”, should it be “Overall Sound Pressure Level”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-40-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
62 | 10 | 1 | 73 | 1 | 1 |
- HTML: 62
- PDF: 10
- XML: 1
- Total: 73
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1