the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dynamic response and loads analysis of a large offshore wind turbine under low-frequency wind fluctuations
Abstract. We investigate the impact of low-frequency wind fluctuations on the loads and response of a large reference offshore wind turbine. Synthetic wind fields containing low-frequency fluctuations down to 1 hr-1 are used in aeroelastic simulations with the HAWC2 code. The dynamic response and damage equivalent loads (DEL) for tower and blade moments are evaluated. Both monopile and floating configurations are tested against three wind fields: (i) high-frequency turbulence (3D), (ii) combined low- and high-frequency turbulence (2D+3D), and (iii) high-frequency turbulence scaled to match the measured standard deviation. Low-frequency fluctuations increase DEL for the fore-aft and flapwise moments at the tower base and the blade root, especially at low wind speeds. These are out-of-plane bending moments caused by longitudinal forces. Torsional moments, such as tower-top yaw, exhibit reduced DEL across most wind speeds due to increased coherence. The strongest dynamic response to low-frequency turbulence occurs in the tower fore-aft and blade root flapwise moments at frequencies below 2×10-3 Hz. For the floating turbine, the platform's surge and pitch motions, and the windward mooring line tension, show pronounced responses. This study underscores the importance of accounting for low-frequency wind fluctuations when simulating the loads and response of large offshore wind turbines.
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
(20819 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-4', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Feb 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2026-4', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Feb 2026
The paper addresses an interesting topic related to modelling the turbulent wind field. They have applied a newly developed 2D turbulent wind generator to the load simulation of a floating wind turbine, comparing both DEL and response. The topic is of broad international interest since the floating wind turbine is an industry that is growing in several regions.
The paper is well written with a clear objective to investigate both DEL and response from the floater. The method seems to be clearly described and reproduceable. The results are also presented in a clear way. The discussions are all well argumented for.
I recommend this paper for publication, after including the comments below
comments:
- Why are the simulations limited to one wave condition? It could have been interesting to have a typically wave for each wind speed, as they are important for how the response is for each wind speed. It would also give more realistic contribution to the DEL and to the response for each wind speed. I understand that the main focus here is the contribution of the wind to the DEL, but maybe the wind is contributing less to the DEL at higher wind speeds and so the relative importance is actually less. It may not be necessary to run the simulations over again, but it should at least be commented and mentioned.
- Line 96: which is the IEC recommended model. Both the Kaimal spectra with coherence model and the mann turbulence models are recommended by IEC, consider refraising to “one of the recommended models by IEC”
- Line 105: time Syed and Mann (2024b). Please improve the citation so that both name and year is within the brackets
- In Figure 3 (b) the scaling parameter c is plotted. How is this related to the L_2D and sigma_2D values that is discussed in the lines 93-95? I might have missed it when I was reading, but I could not see the link.
- Line 148. Stating that inclusion of 2D increases DEL is wrong, it is true for most cases, but not all cases.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-4-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-4', Abdul Haseeb Syed, 06 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2026-4/wes-2026-4-AC1-supplement.pdf
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 442 | 219 | 30 | 691 | 41 | 61 |
- HTML: 442
- PDF: 219
- XML: 30
- Total: 691
- BibTeX: 41
- EndNote: 61
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please see the attached PDF.