1

Spar-Torus Combination (STC): a Combined

Floating Wind Turbine and Wave Energy
Converter

Made J. Muliawan, Madjid Karimirad, Zhen Gao, Torgeir Moan

Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures (CeSOS)- NTNU-Norway

28 May 2013, Trondheim

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al –– Centre

CeSOS Centre for
for Ships
Ships and
and Ocean
Ocean Structures
Structures
2

Outline
• Introduction
• STC
• Effect of adding WEC to WT
• Summary and further study

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

3

Introduction
• Energy demand and concerns about global warming =>
wind energy production has increased at an annual rate of
25-30%
• Need on additional and higher-quality wind resources =>
offshore deployment => floating wind turbine (FWT)
• Space between FWT in the order of 1 km to reduce the
effect of aerodynamic wakes
• Wave energy converter (WEC)
could be deployed but expensive
=> reduce the economical value

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

4

Spar-Torus Combination (STC) – an idea

FWT
WEC

Spar

Two-body axi-symmetric
Spar-type FWT
(Wavebob-type)
(Hywind concept)

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

5

Reduce in the structural cost

• No need Float (90% of Wavebob-

type WEC mass)
• Shared mooring system (7-25% of
WEC’s CAPEX)

• Shared power cable (14% of WEC’s

CAPEX)
• Maintenance cost will reduce

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

6

STC Highlight [1]

STC consists of:
• Spar + Torus
• Permanent ballast (inside the bottom of the
spar)
• An active water ballast (in the Torus)
• Power take-off (PTO) to absorb wave power
• A wind turbine (tower,rotor,nacelle)
• Bearing system to connect the two bodies in
surge/sway, roll/pitch.
• End stop system to limit relative heave
motion between two bodies.
• Mooring system

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

7 STC Highlight (con’t)

Properties of the STC

Property Value Unit
Torus At the present stage, the
Outer diameter 20 m
Draft 2 m properties of the STC are
Height 8 m
Displacement 408 m3 directly adopted from the
Centre of mass -0.9 m below the free surface
Stroke length 6 m
properties of the existing
Spar spar-type FWT and WEC
Diameter at water level 6.5 m
Diameter at bottom 9.4 m
Draft 120 m
Displacement (total) 8016 m3 No detailed engineering
Centre of mass -78.5 m below the free surface
Fairlead elevation -70 m
and optimization yet

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

8 STC Highlight (con’t)
Horizont

The bearing system

Top view

Torus Torus

Spar
Spar Torus

Horizontal view

• to transfer the coupling forces => move

Torus
together in surge, sway, roll and pitch Rail
Spring+
Damper
• initial force to avoid impact force

Spar
between the bodies
Wheel

Wheel/contact point
www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures
9 STC Highlight (con’t)

The end stop system

End stop spring

us
r
To
End stop spring

Spar
Spar

Torus

Horizontal view Top view

• to limit the relative heave motion and to lock the bodies => move
together in yaw.

• depend on the load at the operational site and WEC PTO.

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

10

Effect of adding WEC to WT

• During operational – power [2]

• During extreme – ULS responses [3]

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

11

The model (general) – using SIMO(+WADAM & TDHMILL)

Thrust force

Two rigid bodies:

Aerodynamic

1. SPAR FWT (all included)

Wind force on the tower
2. TORUS
RIGID BODY 2 Contact forces, End stop,
(TORUS) PTO, Hydro-coupling
z

y Waves force +
Connected by:
• Bearing system
viscous

COG2

RIGID BODY 1
(SPAR FWT)
• End stop system
Hydrodynamic

• WEC PTO system

• Hydrodynamic interaction
Waves force +
Mooring COG1
viscous

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

12

Case study – Northern North Sea

Case no. Vmean(m/s)1 Hs (m) Tp (s) Turb
1 8 2.5 9.8 0.18
2 11.2 3 10 0.15
3 14 3.6 10.2 0.15
operational
4 17 4.2 10.5 0.15

50-years 5 25 5.9 11.3 0.12

6 30 7.1 11.9 0.11 survival
7 50 13.15 14.2 0.1

1) the 10-min averaged wind speed at the nacelle

900
Bpto=100

Mean absorbed wave power (kW)

800
Operational modes 700
Bpto=1000
Bpto=4000
600 Bpto=8000
• Wind turbine in operation with 500 Bpto=12000

control 400
300

• WEC system in operation: 200

100
Kpto=50k N/m & Bpto=8000 kN.s/m 0
5 10 15 20
Mean wind speed (m/s)
www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures
13

Survival modes for STC

up to 14 m

‘released mode’ ‘locked mode’ ‘submerged mode’

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

14 Operational condition
Wind power production
Increase Surge
the motion
stability of the Spar
of the spar Pitch motion
6000
of the spar
27,5 6
5000

wind power production (kW)

25

22,5 5
4000
20
4 Mean-spar only
17,5 3000
STD-spar only

pitch (deg)
surge (m)

15
Mean-spar only Mean-spar only
3 Mean-combined
12,5 2000
STD-spar only STD-spar only
STD-combined
10 Mean-combined
2 Mean-combined
STD-combined 1000
7,5 STD-combined
5
1 0
2,5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
0 0 Vmean (m/s)
7 9 11 13 15 17 19
7 9 11 13 15 17 19
Vmean (m/s)
Vmean (m/s)

Increase the
Wind wind power
power production Increase the total power
6000
110
100
5000 Combined/Spar only (%)
90
wind power production (kW)

4000 80
70
(+) 10% - 15%
Mean-spar only
3000 60 Power production from wind
STD-spar only
50
Mean-combined
Absorbed power from waves
2000 40
STD-combined
30
1000 20
10
0
0
7 9 11 13 15 17 19
1 2 3 4
Vmean (m/s) Case no.

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

15
Operational + Survival

Maximum values based on a simulation

survival
18000
FWT Alone • 2 peaks: at rated wind speed & at 50-
16000
STC - released years
14000 STC - Locked
• Both of them need to be checked
Mooring tension (kN)

12000

10000 during design

8000
• In this case, extreme condition (50-
6000 years) gives largest one
4000

2000
• Significant increase in max mooring
0
tension (for this location)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
• Mooring line experience higher
Mean wind speed (m/s)
tension due to ‘locked mode’

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

16
Operational + Survival

Maximum values based on a simulation

5000 180000
STC - released STC - Locked (Locking system)
STC - Locked 150000 STC - released (End stop)
4000
Contact force (kN)

120000
3000

Force (kN)
90000
2000
60000

1000
30000

0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Mean wind speed (m/s) Mean wind speed (m/s)

• Extreme condition (50-years) gives largest one => check for design
• Large forces (end stops and contact points) due to ‘released mode’
=> need more end stop and larger stroke

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

17
Operational + Survival

Maximum values based on a simulation

20000 5000
STC - Locked (wave only) STC - Locked (wave only)
STC - Locked (wave+turbulence wind) 4000 STC - Locked (wave+turbulence wind)
15000
Mooring tension (kN)

Contact force (kN)

3000
10000
2000

5000
1000

0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Mean wind speed (m/s) Mean wind speed (m/s)

• Extreme responses are dominated by wave induce response

• ‘Contour line’ method could be applied

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

18
50-year condition

based on 3-hour simulations (12 realizations)

-4
x 10 -3
8 x 10
2.5
STC - Locked
STC - locked
STC - released
7 STC - released
FWT alone

2
6

5
1.5
PDF

PDF
3 1

0.5
1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
3H max mooring tension (kN) 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
x 10 3H max contact force (kN)

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

19

3H - Extreme ULS Responses

Preferable
FWT alone STC - released STC - locked

448700

351050

302175

160000

21000
17260 5599 38419
3193 0 2345 0 0 0 0

Mooring tension Contact force End stop force Locking force Bending moment

kN
kN.m
Vmean(m/s)1 Hs (m) Tp (s) Turb
50 13.15 14.2 0.1
www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures
20

Conclusion and next

• A combined concept (STC) has been introduced

• Effect of adding WEC to WT has been studied:
 Operational => positive synergy
 Extreme => higher loads + additional loads
• Study more on survival strategy
• Model test to validate the numerical model

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

21

References

[1] Muliawan, M.J., Karimirad, M., Moan, T., Gao, Z., 2012. STC (Spar-Torus Combination): a combined spar-
type floating wind turbine and large point absorber floating wave energy converter—promising and challenging.
In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
(OMAE) 2012, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

[2] Muliawan, M.J., Karimirad, M, Moan, T., 2013. Dynamic response and power performance of a combined
spar-type floating wind turbine and coaxial floating wave energy converter. Renewable Energy 50 (2013), 47–57.

[3] Muliawan, M.J., Karimirad, M., Moan, T., Gao, Z. 2013. Extreme responses of a combined spar-type floating
wind turbine and floating wave energy converter (STC) system with survival modes. Ocean Engineering 65
(2013), 71-82.

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures

22

Thank You

www.cesos.ntnu.no Muliawan et al – Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures