LABHY - TP5

Station-keeping of a Floating Offshore Wind Turbine

Teja Boddu, Kamal El Tabshe and François

Thomas

Labs in Hydrodynamics and Propulsion Systems

École Centrale de Nantes
France
January 14th, 2024
Contents
1 Introduction 3
1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Results 6
2.1 Test 1 - Decay test after a short burst of wind, no waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1 Sampling frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2 Pitch decay tests analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3 Decay tests comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.4 Validity of the exponential fit and the damping coefficient . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Test 2 - Regular waves at different frequencies, no wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 Water wave periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2 Wave heights for different wave steepness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.3 Wave Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.4 Time for original and reflected waves to reach the FOWT . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.5 Amplitude and phase of the transfer function - Fourier analysis . . . . . . . 11
2.2.6 Nacelle acceleration and tower base bending strain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.7 Keulegan-Carpenter numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Test 3 - Irregular wind and irregular waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.1 Amplitude and phase of the transfer function - Welch method . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.2 Spectrum analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.3 Platform motions RAOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.4 Rotor loads effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.5 Wave-only response compared to time domain or frequency domain analysis 17
2.3.6 Main scaling laws for hydrodynamic loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.7 Comparison of the FOWT pitch natural period with the usual ocean wave
frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3 Conclusion 20

4 Appendix 21
4.1 Useful figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2 Regular waves Fourier analysis for pitch motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3 Regular waves Fourier analysis for nacelle acceleration and tower base bending strain 23

List of Tables
1 Lists of the 7 tests that were conducted (all values at model scale) . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Irregular sea states, wind mean speed at hub height and turbulence intensity . . . 5
3 Pitch decay analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Wave type analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5 Wave heights for a steepness of 3% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6 Wave heights for a steepness of 4% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7 Wave Theory parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8 Time at which the initial and reflected wave front reach the FOWT . . . . . . . . . 11
9 Keulegan-Carpenter numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10 Caption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11 Natural Pitch periods at full scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1
List of Figures
1 FOWT mooring types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Platform pitch decay Test 1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Platform pitch decay Test 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Experimental results of the wave theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5 Wave theories validity fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6 Plot of the values from Table 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7 Scc Wave Spectrum Magnitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8 Scc Wave Spectrum Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9 Smm Pitch Spectrum Magnitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10 Smm Pitch Spectrum Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11 Smc Cross Spectrum Magnitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12 Smc Cross Spectrum Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13 Coherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
14 Wave and Pitch spectrum, and RAO magnitude and phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
15 Transfer function in the case of the irregular waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
16 Wave power over a range of wave periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
17 Schematic of a FOWT coordinate system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
18 Fourier analysis for Case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
19 Fourier analysis for Case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
20 Fourier analysis for Case 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
21 Fourier analysis for Case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
22 Fourier analysis for Nacelle acceleration case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
23 Tower base bending strain case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
24 Fourier analysis for Nacelle acceleration case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
25 Tower base bending strain case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
26 Fourier analysis for Nacelle acceleration case 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
27 Tower base bending strain case 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
28 Fourier analysis for Nacelle acceleration case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
29 Tower base bending strain case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2
1 Introduction
Floating Offshore Wind Turbines (FOWT) are increasingly becoming a well-established technology,
with the installation of the first commercial floating wind farms in recent years. The majority of
these turbines feature multi-megawatt horizontal axis rotors, and various platform concepts are
currently under consideration for large-scale deployment, shown on Figure 1 below.
1. The Spar platform
2. The Semi-submersible platform
3. The Tension Leg platform

Figure 1: FOWT mooring types

Each of these concepts relies on stabilization mechanisms such as a substantial water plane
area, a low center of gravity, or taut mooring lines, resulting in distinct behaviors at sea.
This laboratory work aims to investigate the station-keeping performance of a 5 MW FOWT
supported by a semi-submersible platform under realistic environmental conditions. The chosen
wind turbine is the NREL 5 MW turbine, and the floater’s design originates from the DeepCWind
Consortium. The model used in the experiments adheres to a 1:32 scale and maintains Froude
similarity in terms of hydrodynamic loads, aerodynamic loads, mass, inertia, position of the center
of gravity, and rigid response, including natural frequencies in surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and
yaw.

1.1 Objectives
The CREATIF project is a research project funded by the French National Research Agency,
involving Centrale Nantes and four other French academic and industrial partners. The project
aims at improving the performance of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines.
The objectives of this experimental lab-work are:
• Characterise the model and its natural periods
• Characterise the global response of the wind turbine in regular and irregular waves
• Include and study the effects of the aerodynamic loads on the response of the FOWT
This experiment is divided into three parts. Their respective objectives are the following:
1. Estimate the natural period in pitch and the hydrodynamic damping
2. Determine the platform motions transfer functions to the wave elevation, as well as the
sensitivity of the computed motions RAOs to different wave elevation signals (regular waves
and irregular waves)
3. Use the Software-In-the-Loop method to include the aerodynamic thrust in the analysis of
the response of the FOWT, and check the influence of the rotor loads on the FOWT motions
and on tower base loads

3
1.2 Problem Description
Table 1 below shows the parameters of each test that was conducted during the experiment.
Following this table is a description of each of the three phases of the experiment.

Test # Wind? Wind Force [N] Waves? Type Wave Frequency [Hz]
1.1 Yes 8 No - -
1.2 Yes 25 No - -
2.1 No - Yes Regular 0.87
2.2 No - Yes Regular 0.71
2.3 No - Yes Regular 0.49
2.4 No - Yes Regular 0.39
3 Yes Irregular Yes Irregular -

Table 1: Lists of the 7 tests that were conducted (all values at model scale)

This experiment is divided into three phases, detailed below:

1. A single short 8N force burst is applied on the apparatus by the propellers. The water surface
is virtually flat and no waves are induced on the system.
The primary aim of this test is to determine the natural period in pitch and the hydrodynamic
damping of the system.
The experiment involves two load conditions, applying forces of 8N and 25N. Rotary drone
actuators are briefly activated and then halted to generate the load, causing the system to
oscillate at its natural period for the specified degree of freedom constrained by the mooring
arrangements. Through the decay test, valuable estimations of natural periods, damping,
and added mass can be obtained.
To calculate ξ (damping ratio), δ (logarithmic decrement), one can utilize the equation:
1
ξ=q
1 + ( 2π
δ )
2

If the damping is low (ξ << 1), we often consider:

δ
ξ≈
2π

2. The objectives of this phase were to establish the transfer functions of platform motions
concerning wave elevation and assess the sensitivity of the computed Response Amplitude
Operators (RAOs) to varying wave elevation signals, including both regular and irregular
waves.
For precise motion testing of the platform, it was crucial to set wave parameters that closely
aligned with those encountered at full scale, where gravity waves typically exhibit periods
ranging from 2 to 25 seconds. In this study, four different waves with periods of 6s, 8s, 10s,
and 12s were tested in model scale. The input provided to the wavemaker included the wave
periods and amplitudes, adjusted to model scale.
. The wavelength can be determined using Equation 1, expressed as:

gT 2
λ= (1)
2π
Subsequently, the wave height can be calculated using below equation with a specified wave
steepness i.e,
H/λ = 4% :

It was necessary to allow the tank to rest between tests to detect any natural surge motion.
The subsequent experiment could proceed once the amplitude of the platform’s surge motion
dropped below 4 mm.

4
3. In this part, the focus is on determining the platform motions transfer functions to the wave
elevation under both irregular wave and turbulent wind conditions. The primary objective
is to assess the sensitivity of the computed Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) across
different wave elevation signals, specifically examining the variations between irregular waves
and turbulent conditions. By comparing the RAOs obtained under these two distinct sce-
narios, this tests aims to determine the interactions between the floating platform and its
environmental inputs.

Tp (s) Hs (m) Uw (m/s) T I (%)

12 5 10.3 16
12 7 11.4 15
12 9 13.9 9

Table 2: Irregular sea states, wind mean speed at hub height and turbulence intensity

The final segment of the lab was to utilise the Software-In-the-Loop (SIL) method, known
as Sof tW ind, to incorporate aerodynamic thrust into the analysis of the Floating Offshore
Wind Turbine (FOWT) response. Additionally, the objective was to assess the impact of
rotor loads on both the motions of the floating wind turbine and the loads at the tower base.
In terms of the experimental procedure, the same irregular waves utilized in previous tests
were introduced to interact with the structure, with the rotor activated to generate wind
at a given velocity. This experimental setup aimed to examine the effects induced by the
aerodynamic thrust on the structural response of the FOWT.

5
2 Results
2.1 Test 1 - Decay test after a short burst of wind, no waves
As mentioned earlier, a decay test will be executed where in the actuator is engaged for about one
second with an applied force of 8N for the initial test, and 25N for the subsequent one. The motion
of the model during these tests provides the means to determine the pitch natural period.
Following this, the post-processing of the data will enable us to visualize and plot the structural
behavior.

2.1.1 Sampling frequency

The signals from the FOWT model were recorded at a sampling rate of 200 Hz, which is well
sufficient for capturing the dynamics of the system during the gust of wind and the subsequent
decay. It should provide a detailed representation of the movements and responses of the model
to the applied forces, allowing for a thorough analysis of the system’s behavior.
A high sampling rate as such allows for better resolution in capturing the details of the signals,
ensuring that rapid fluctuations and transients are adequately represented in the recorded data.
However, it’s important to consider the trade-off between a high sampling rate and the amount of
data generated. Higher sampling rates result in larger datasets, which may require more storage
and processing resources. In this case, 200 Hz seemed about right for the situation and tests to be
conducted.

2.1.2 Pitch decay tests analysis

Firstly, Test 1.1 with the 8 N burst of wind:
The progression of pitch over time can be observed, an exponential fit can be employed to represent
linear damping (ξ). On Figure 2, it is evident that the decay aligns quite closely with the fitted
exponential damping function.

Figure 2: Platform pitch decay Test 1.1

6
As we can see on Figure 2, we obtained an estimation of the period T = 4.47 seconds, and damping
coefficient ξ = 0.008. We could see how the structure moves mainly at one period, but there is
also movement at a different and larger period. A Fast Fourier Transform can be applied in order
to change from a time domain to frequency domain. Here we can see the frequencies at which the
model is moving.
2π
ω0 = = 1.405 [rad/s]
T
δω0
− = −0.011
2π
0.011 × 2π
δ= = 0.04919
ω0
Since the damping ratio was estimated to be 0.008, we can calculate it using the following equation:
δ
ξ= = 0.007829
2π
Secondly, Test 1.2 with the 25 N burst of wind:
We can repeat the same calculations using the values shown on Figure 3 to obtain the natural
period, logarithmic decrement and damping ratio of the second test (1.2).

T = 4.48sec
2π
ω0 = = 1.402 [rad/s]
T
δω0
− = −0.027
2×π
0.027 × 2π
δ= = 0.12096
ω0
In this case, we obtain this damping coefficient:
δ
ξ= = 0.019251
2π

Figure 3: Platform pitch decay Test 1.2

7
 Test Period Natural Frequency Logarithmic Estimated damping Computed Damping
n◦ T [s] ω0 [rad/s] Decrement δ Ratio ξestimated Ratio ξcomputed
1.1 4.47 1.405 0.04919 0.008 0.007829
1.2 4.48 1.402 0.12096 0.019 0.019251

Table 3: Pitch decay analysis

2.1.3 Decay tests comparison

The pitch movement of Test 1.2 on Figure 3 can be observed to have almost the same period as for
Test 1.1, confirming the correct determination of the natural period. As anticipated, the motions
are more pronounced due to the application of a higher force in Test 1.2.
The results indicate that the damping coefficient of the model is relatively low, particularly for
the higher force decay test, proportionally. This suggests that the FOWT may be susceptible to
excessive pitch oscillations in real-world conditions, particularly during periods of strong gusts of
wind.

2.1.4 Validity of the exponential fit and the damping coefficient

For Test 1.1, the estimated damping ratio value of 0.008 is only 2.2% away from the computed
value of 0.007826 and for Test 1.2, the estimated damping ratio value of 0.019 is only 1.3% away
from the computed value of 0.019251, which proves the accuracy of both exponential fits and the
obtained damping coefficients.

8
2.2 Test 2 - Regular waves at different frequencies, no wind
In the this section of the laboratory work, we will derive the platform transfer functions to the
wave elevation and assess the sensitivity of the computed Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs)
to various wave elevation signals. To achieve this, we will conduct tests using both regular and
irregular waves.
To gauge the reliability of the outcomes obtained from the experimental setup, we will compare
them with the theoretical pitch transfer function across a spectrum of frequencies.

2.2.1 Water wave periods

Gravity-driven water waves can have a wide range of periods, from a few seconds to several dozen
seconds. In the open ocean, typical wave periods fall between 0.2 and 25 seconds. However, the
exact period of a wave can be influenced by various factors, including the source of the wave, wind
conditions, and the location of the water body.

Wave type Description Wave length (m) Period (s)

Cusp waves Sharp-crested waves with steep fronts 1-5 0.2-2
Surging waves Waves that rise and fall rapidly 1-30 0.1-10
Roller Large, smooth waves that form in deep water 100-1000 5-50
Breakers Waves that collapse and form foam on the shore 1-100 1-20
Tsunamis Natural Disruptions 100-1000 30-120

Table 4: Wave type analysis

2.2.2 Wave heights for different wave steepness

For the wave periods 6.5 sec, 8.0 sec, 11.5 sec, and 14.5 sec (full scale), determine the wave height
to input to the wave maker to obtain a constant wave steepness of H/λ = 3.%.

Period Steepness Lambda Full scale Model scale Amplitude Frequency Period mod
[s] [%] [-] Height [m] Height [m] [m] [Hz] [s]
6.5 3 65.91 1.98 0.06 0.03 0.87 1.15
8.0 3 99.84 3.0 0.09 0.05 0.71 1.41
11.5 3 206.31 6.19 0.19 0.10 0.49 2.03
14.5 3 327.99 9.84 0.31 0.15 0.39 2.56

Table 5: Wave heights for a steepness of 3%

Then, for a wave steepness of 4%, we have the corresponding values in Table 6 below. If
Steepness = H/λ, then for an equal lambda, the wave heights for a steepness of 4% instead of 3%
will be 33% greater.

Height (full scale) [m] Height (model scale) [m] Steepness [%]
2.636 0.082 4
3.994 0.125 4
8.252 0.258 4
13.120 0.410 4

Table 6: Wave heights for a steepness of 4%

9
2.2.3 Wave Theory
The wave tank parameters are the following: gravity constant g = 9.81 [m/s2 ] and depth h =
5.0 [m].

Wave parameters Computed adim. Parameters

Wave period T [s] Wave height H [m] H/gT−2 h/gT−2
6.0 0.05 1.42E − 04 1.42E − 02
6.5 0.06 1.45E − 04 1.21E − 02
8.0 0.09 1.43E − 04 7.96E − 03
10.0 0.15 1.53E − 04 5.10E − 03
11.5 0.19 1.46E − 04 3.85E − 03
12.0 0.21 1.49E − 04 3.54E − 03
14.5 0.31 1.50E − 04 2.42E − 03

Table 7: Wave Theory parameters

From the data gathered in Table 7 above, we could obtain the resulting data points on Figure
4 below, and compare them to the reference on Figure 5.

Figure 4: Experimental results of the wave theory

Figure 5: Wave theories validity fields

All our data points fall into the ”intermediate depth waves” part of the graph, as well as under
the ”breaking limit”, which fits the parameters of the setup used during the experiment. However,
the first four data points satisfy the linear theory (yellow area of the graph on Figure 5), while the
remaining three satisfy the Stokes 2nd order wave theory (lower white area).

10
2.2.4 Time for original and reflected waves to reach the FOWT
The distance from the wave makers to the wind turbine is:

d1 = 17.33m

and the distance from the wind turbine to the other end of the pool is:

P ool length − d1 = 46.4 − 17.33 = 29.07m

Therefore, the distance traveled by the wave from the wave maker, to the other end of the pool
and back to the FOWT is:
d2 = 17.33 + 29.07 × 2 = 75.47m
The formulas used to compute wave velocity and time traveled are the following:

Vwave = λ × f
d
t=
Vwave
The results are summarized in Table 8 below.

Wave condition Wavelength Frequency Wave velocity Initial wave time Reflected wave time
n◦ λ [m] f [Hz] Vwave [m/s] t1 [s] t2 [s]
1 65.91 0.87 0.574 30.2 131.6
2 99.84 0.71 0.706 24.5 107.0
3 206.31 0.49 1.015 17.1 74.4
4 327.99 0.39 1.280 13.5 59.0

Table 8: Time at which the initial and reflected wave front reach the FOWT

2.2.5 Amplitude and phase of the transfer function - Fourier analysis

A total of four regular waves were examined, Fourier analysis was conducted for each degree of free-
dom, namely surge, heave, and pitch, as the waves exclusively induce movement in the x-direction.
Additionally, Fourier analysis will be applied to assess the bending moment of the tower and the
resulting wave. But in this section we will only discuss about the Fourier analysis for pitch motion .

1. Initial case analysis done for a time period T = 1.149 sec in Figure 18. Considering only
pitch motion, pitch amplitude has a peak value of 0.12 m at a frequency of 0.87Hz. This
peak is higher than the peak amplitude of the wave, which is consistent with the fact that
the pitch is a measure of the overall motion of the structure. The phases of the pitch are
uneven throughout the time period.
2. From Figure 19, we can identify that the pitch amplitude has increased to 0.42 m as there
was increase in time period compared to Case 1. A longer time period implies that the waves
oscillate less frequently. In this context, the structure, being subjected to less rapid wave
cycles than before. But the frequency at peak wave amplitude is decreased from the Case 1
which tells us that the time required to reach peak amplitude decreases as wave time period
is increased.
3. Observing Figure 20, the time period is greater than in Cases 1 and 2. That implies that
the pitch amplitude must be increased. And it is increased up to 1.0023m which more than
double the previous cases. The increase in pitch amplitude can be attributed to the longer
time period of the waves. With a longer time period, the waves oscillate at a slower frequency,
providing the structure more time to tilt or rotate during each wave cycle.
4. Similar to previous case from Figure 21 as time period is increased, the pitch amplitude also
has been increased to 1.025 m, proportional to the time period.
In the same scenario, pitch phases are large initially, and then reduce as the frequency is
increased, similarly to Case 3. It implies that the frequency of the waves increases, the
structure may experience a change in its pitch response. The reduction in pitch phases at
higher frequencies could indicate that the system is less sensitive or less responsive to the
wave-induced pitch motion as the frequency of the waves increases.

11
2.2.6 Nacelle acceleration and tower base bending strain
The graphs of the nacelle acceleration analysis and the tower base bending strain are shown on
Figures 22 to 29, in section 4.3, in the Appendix. The analysis of the four cases is explained below.

1. In Case 1, it is evident from Figure 22 Nacelle acceleration is prominently high along the
Z-axis, indicating a vertical displacement between 2.739m to 2.785m. The rotational motion,
represented by Nacelle Yaw acceleration, is slightly larger, approximately 0.2◦ . This suggests
a significant rotation of the nacelle towards one side of the tower,
The tower base bending strain graph 23, depicts that it exhibits periodic variations synced
with wave excitation. Notably, there’s substantial strain in the Y-direction (Pitch) ranging
from -11 Nm to +11 Nm. This substantial strain signifies significant bending moments in the
vertical direction, with negative strain values indicating slight deformation in the Floating
Offshore Wind Turbine (FOWT).
2. In this case, the Figure 24 is similar to the previous case, the nacelle accelerations are highest
in the z-direction through out the duration with same range.This implies a sustained vertical
motion of the FOWT.
The nacelle accelerations are high (in terms of degree of rotation) in the anti-clockwise pitch
direction between T= 30sec to 70 sec. This is due to the interaction of the FOWT with the
seabed, which can cause it to experience high accelerations for longer duration as seen higher
oscillations in graph. Both Nacelle Pitch and Roll are relatively less oscillating.
Based on Figure 25, FOWT finds a huge amount of strain towards Y-direction which higher
than the previous case and around t=110 sec strain value falls drastically due to the passage
of wave crest. Considering the translation motions, the strain is higher in Z-direction.
3. From Figure 26 the nacelle exhibits a pronounced upward heave motion along the Z-axis,
correlating with wave elevation. This consistent movement indicates sustained upward forces
on the Floating Offshore Wind Turbine (FOWT). Conversely, surge motion shows minimal
oscillations.
In the pitch direction, the nacelle experiences a pronounced downward pitch throughout time
period. This downward pitch motion coincides with a period of wave trough passage, where
the downward force of the wave tends to cause the nacelle to lean forward.
Simultaneously, a continuous downward pitch aligns with wave trough passage, inducing a
forward lean in the nacelle. Strain (shown on Figure 27) during pitch peaks around 120
seconds, surpassing previous cases, emphasizing the dynamic response complexity. Surge
accelerations along the X-axis remain stable, indicating a sustained to-and-fro motion. Heave
motion, dominant in translational movements along the Z-axis, displays prolonged periods
of lower strain values after 120 seconds.
4. In Case 4, the nacelle undergoes substantial oscillations along the Z-axis (Figure 28), partic-
ularly evident in heavy heave motions between 25 to 75 seconds, coinciding with wave trough
passage. These significant upward motions correspond to peak displacement values. Addi-
tionally, oscillatory sway motion is observed, maintaining a flat trajectory during specific
time intervals. In terms of rotational dynamics, Case 4 exhibits less significant downward
pitch and leftward roll motions during wave trough passage and wave breaking periods. No-
tably, the nacelle’s yaw motion in a clockwise direction stands out as the primary rotational
motion in this scenario.
By Figure 29, it is clear that Floating Offshore Wind Turbine (FOWT) undergoes a notably
high level of strain during its pitching motion, but this heightened strain is observed only
for a brief duration of time. This implies that while there are periods of intense stress
or deformation associated with pitching, these instances are short-lived and not sustained
throughout the entire observation or operational period. This suggests that, while there is
some deformation or stress associated with pitching.

12
2.2.7 Keulegan-Carpenter numbers
The Keulegan-Carpenter (KC) number is a dimensionless parameter used to characterize the in-
teraction between a structure and water waves. It is defined as the ratio of the wave amplitude
to the characteristic horizontal size of the structure. The size of the structure remains constant,
meaning that it will behave like a small or large body depending on the wave amplitude and this
will affect the response of the sea structure.
The Keulegan-Carpenter number for different wave amplitudes can be computed by the follow-
ing formula:
A
K.Cnumber = 2π ×
D
where A is the wave amplitude (given in Table 9) that were used in the last four tests with regular
waves, and D = 0.375m is the Diameter of the Upper columns at model scale

Amplitude [m] K-C Number

0.031 0.52
0.047 0.78
0.097 1.62
0.154 2.58

Table 9: Keulegan-Carpenter numbers

The obtained KC numbers provide a valuable lens through which to examine the dynamic
behavior of a sea structure as wave amplitude increases.
Figure 6 below shows that our experimental data points fit a linear trendline with an R2 value
of 1.000, validating this linear model.

Figure 6: Plot of the values from Table 9

13
2.3 Test 3 - Irregular wind and irregular waves
2.3.1 Amplitude and phase of the transfer function - Welch method
Answer the question below:
For the irregular waves, evaluate the amplitudes of the transfer functions and its phases using a
Welch method. See appendix for more details. Check if the coherence is always greater than the
required threshold for identification

The amplitude of the transfer functions are shown on Figures 7, 9 and 11. Their phases are
shown on Figures 8, 10 and 12. The Coherence C(f ) was then evaluated using the following
formula: s
|Smc |2
C(f ) =
Scc Smm

Figure 7: Scc Wave Spectrum Magnitude Figure 8: Scc Wave Spectrum Phase

Figure 9: Smm Pitch Spectrum Magnitude Figure 10: Smm Pitch Spectrum Phase

14
 Figure 11: Smc Cross Spectrum Magnitude Figure 12: Smc Cross Spectrum Phase

Figure 13: Coherence

As shown on Figure 13, the coherence stays mostly under the given threshold of [0.7 − 0.8],
with only a few spikes above it.

15
2.3.2 Spectrum analysis
Answer the question below:
For the irregular wave condition, analyse the spectrum for each quantity of interest. Compare it
to the incident wave spectrum. Comment.

Figure 14: Wave and Pitch spectrum, and RAO magnitude and phase

2.3.3 Platform motions RAOs

Floating offshore wind turbines are designed for deep waters. Waves are the primary force acting
on the floating structure, inducing motions like heave, pitch, and roll. The response of the structure
is characterized by its amplitude and phase.
The Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) is then calculated by dividing the amplitude of the
response (e.g., heave, pitch, roll) by the amplitude of the wave excitation at a specific frequency.
It provides insight into how much the structure responds to waves at different frequencies.

Test n◦ Pitch amplitude Wave amplitude Frequency [Hz] RAO

1 0.87 3.804
2 0.71 8.833
3 0.49 10.254
4 0.39 7.126

Table 10: Caption

16
 Figure 15: Transfer function in the case of the irregular waves

Figure 15 shows that To complete

2.3.4 Rotor loads effects

Answer the question below:
How does rotor loads affect in this case the platform pitch and the tower base bending strain?

2.3.5 Wave-only response compared to time domain or frequency domain analysis

Answer the question below:
Use various tools (time domain or frequency domain analysis) to compare response with the wave-
only response, with measurements of pitch motion, and bending strain at the bottom of the tower.

2.3.6 Main scaling laws for hydrodynamic loads

The main scaling laws for hydrodynamic loads are the Froude Number, the Reynolds number and
the Keulegan-Carpenter number.
1. The Froude number is a dimensionless number that characterizes the relative importance
of inertial forces to gravitational forces in open channel flow or the motion of a ship. The
Froude number is crucial in determining the similarity of flow patterns in different situations.
It is defined as:
V
Fr = √
gL
where V is the velocity of the object, g is the gravitational acceleration, and L is a charac-
teristic length scale (e.g., ship length).

2. The Reynolds number is a dimensionless quantity that characterizes the ratio of inertial forces
to viscous forces in fluid flow. The Reynolds number is essential in predicting the transition
from laminar to turbulent flow. It is defined as:
ρV L
Re =
µ
where ρ is the fluid density, V is the velocity, L is a characteristic length scale, and µ is the
dynamic viscosity of the fluid.

3. The Keulegan-Carpenter number is used to characterize the effect of oscillatory flow on a

structure. KC is often used in the analysis of structures subjected to wave loading, such as
offshore platforms like a FOWT. It is defined as:
2πa
KC =
D

17
 where a is the wave amplitude and D is the diameter of the object.

In the context of this experiment about the motion of a FOWT model, we mostly use a ”Froude
similarity” to replicate the same gravitational effects from the full scale FOWT on the model
available at the LHEEA lab. The main parameters respecting the Froude similarity are: the
hydrodynamic and aerodynamic loads; the mass, inertias and position of the centre of gravity;
and the rigid response (in particular, the natural frequencies in surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and
yaw).
The KC number was also a main concern, it is used to study the effect of the oscillatory flow
induced by the wave-makers in the wave tank on the FOWT.

2.3.7 Comparison of the FOWT pitch natural period with the usual ocean wave
frequencies
The natural period obtained from the experiment is based on the scaled model by using Froude
similitude. To convert it to full scale, we use√
the scaling factor (s) applied to the model.
The model is at 1:32 scale, therefore s = 32, for a time similitude.

Tf ull scale = Tmodel scale × s

From Table 3, we obtain:

Tmodel scale (s) Tf ull scale (s)

4.47 25.29
4.48 25.34

Table 11: Natural Pitch periods at full scale

Typical ocean wave frequencies categories include:

• Capillary Waves: 0.05 to 0.5 seconds

• Choppy Waves: 0.5 to 1.5 seconds

• Wind Waves: 1.5 to 8 seconds
• Swell Waves: 8 to 30 seconds
• Oceanic Waves: 30 seconds and above

Comparing with above Ocean wave frequencies, the obtained Pitch natural period of the full
scale FOWT fall into the category of Swell waves (have more organized and consistent pattern).
The power of these waves is shown on Figure 16 below.
The swell waves or ”gravity waves”, are the waves that carry the most energy, mostly when their
period falls into the range between 10 seconds and 25 seconds. The natural period of the full
scale FOWT is right around this dangerous period range. The ocean waves with a period close to
that of the apparatus have a high chance of inducing dangerous oscillating motions to the FOWT.
Moreover, those dangerous waves also carry the most energy, further endangering the stability and
the integrity of the FOWT.

18
Figure 16: Wave power over a range of wave periods

19
3 Conclusion
Basically go through the objectives and say if we met them

20
4 Appendix
4.1 Useful figures

Figure 17: Schematic of a FOWT coordinate system

4.2 Regular waves Fourier analysis for pitch motion

Figure 18: Fourier analysis for Case 1

21
Figure 19: Fourier analysis for Case 2

Figure 20: Fourier analysis for Case 3

Figure 21: Fourier analysis for Case 4

22
4.3 Regular waves Fourier analysis for nacelle acceleration and tower
base bending strain

Figure 22: Fourier analysis for Nacelle acceleration case 1

Figure 23: Tower base bending strain case 1

23
Figure 24: Fourier analysis for Nacelle acceleration case 2

Figure 25: Tower base bending strain case 2

24
Figure 26: Fourier analysis for Nacelle acceleration case 3

Figure 27: Tower base bending strain case 3

25
Figure 28: Fourier analysis for Nacelle acceleration case 4

Figure 29: Tower base bending strain case 4

26