OC6 project Phase IV: validation of numerical models for novel floating offshore wind support structures

• Published in: Wind Energy Science 2024-04, Vol.9 (4), p.1025-1051
• Main Authors: Bergua, Roger, Wiley, Will, Robertson, Amy, Jonkman, Jason, Brun, Cédric, Pineau, Jean-Philippe, Qian, Quan, Wen Maoshi, Beardsell, Alec, Cutler, Joshua, Pierella, Fabio, Christian Anker Hansen, Shi, Wei, Fu, Jie, Hu, Lehan, Vlachogiannis, Prokopios, Peyrard, Christophe, Christopher Simon Wright, Friel, Dallán, Hanssen-Bauer, Øyvind Waage, dos Santos, Carlos Renan, Frickel, Eelco, Islam, Hafizul, Koop, Arjen, Hu, Zhiqiang, Yang, Jihuai, Quideau, Tristan, Harnois, Violette, Shaler, Kelsey, Netzband, Stefan, Alarcón, Daniel, Trubat, Pau, Connolly, Aengus, Leen, Seán B, Conway, Oisín
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aerodynamics; Collaboration; Deformation; Design; Floating; Load; Mathematical models; Mooring lines; Mooring systems; Movement; Numerical models; Ocean engineering; Offshore; Offshore engineering; Simulation; Towers; Turbines; Wind power; Wind turbines
• ISSN: 2366-7443; 2366-7451
• DOI: 10.5194/wes-9-1025-2024

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-decay tests, 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 relatively 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.