Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Research paper

Experimental and numerical studies on regular wave responses of a

very-light FOWT with a guy-wired-supported tower: Effects of wave height,
wave direction, and mooring line configuration
Takaya Nagumo 1, Hideyuki Suzuki , Hidetaka Houtani , Mayuko Takaoka , Rodolfo
T. Gonçalves *
OSPL – Ocean Space Planning Laboratory, Department of Systems Innovation, School of Engineering – The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-
8656, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The study aims to investigate the wave motion characteristics of the Optiflow concept, which is a low-rigidity
Floating offshore wind turbine (FOWT) FOWT supported by guy-wires and a tower, and was accomplished through wave tank experiments and nu­
Regular waves merical calculations using the UTWind code. The study examined the impact of wave height, wave direction, and
Model tests
mooring line configuration on the Optiflow’s motion behavior in waves. The research revealed nonlinear motion
Numerical simulations
behavior due to varying levels of viscous damping caused by wave height effects. The single-point mooring
system played a significant role, resulting in a coupling of vertical motions, mainly as heave and pitch, which
varied with the wave incidence angle. Unexpectedly, mooring line configurations affected first-order motions in
waves, making the impact of the mooring line particularly pronounced for very-light FOWT like the Optiflow.
Furthermore, all experiments noted a typical semi-submersible type floater behavior where the cancellation point
(or waveless) response was observed. Numerical UTWind code simulations showed satisfactory agreement with
the experiment’s results, except for the resonance period, where the viscous effect had a significant impact on
motions that the numerical code did not accurately consider.

overall cost (Stehly and Patrick, 2021). A comparison of the levelized

1. Introduction
Renewable energy from offshore wind sources is gaining attention in
Japan as a means of achieving decarbonization in the energy sector. Due
to the predominant depth of the sea higher than 50 m, even near the
coast (Komiyama and Fujii, 2021), Floating Offshore Wind Turbines
(FOWTs) can be an attractive solution.
While commercialization of FOWTs is progressing in Japan through
demonstration experiments, such as semi-submersibles (Ohta et al.,
2013; Yamaguchi and Imakita, 2018) and advanced spar type at
Fukushima (Matsuoka and Yoshimoto, 2015), a spar type at Goto Island
(Tanaka et al., 2020), and a barge type at Kitakyushu (Kosasih et al.,
2020; Otori et al., 2023), the cost remains a challenge. Compared to
fixed types, floating types require larger platforms to support the tower
and turbine for stability, motion requirements, and a mooring line sys­
tem. Therefore, reducing the size of the floater is necessary to lower the
energy cost for different platform concepts in Japan can be seen, for
example, in Kikuchi and Ishihara (2020).
The designs of FOWTs have undergone modifications over the years.
Recent reviews by Leimeister et al. (2018) and Barooni et al. (2023)
have shown that proper hull designs have made FOWTs feasible. The
development of non-linear hydrodynamic models and optimization
processes contributed to demonstrating the potential of a new type of
FOWTs that includes new geometries, materials, types, and challenges,
as pointed out by Feraggiana et al. (2022) and Zeng et al. (2024) among
others.
One of the alternatives to offshore wind exploration in Japan is using
the Optiflow concept (GLOCAL, 2023), as can be depicted in Fig. 1.
Optiflow is a new type of FOWT designed to reduce construction costs
with two characteristics: a guy-wire supported tower and a single-point
mooring configuration. A thinner tower can be applied by bearing the
weight and inertia forces of the wind turbine not only on the tower but

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nagumo-takaya@jmuc.co.jp (T. Nagumo), suzukih@sys.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp (H. Suzuki), houtani@g.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (H. Houtani), takaoka@g.ecc.
u-tokyo.ac.jp (M. Takaoka), goncalves@g.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (R.T. Gonçalves).
1
currently at JMU – Japan Marine United Corporation, Kanagawa, Japan.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.116844
Received 14 September 2023; Received in revised form 18 December 2023; Accepted 20 January 2024
Available online 30 January 2024
0029-8018/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Nagumo et al. Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844

Nomenclature My bending moment around y-axis [N.m]

N direction unit vector of the guy-wire in space fixed
a main dimension of the rectangular section coordinate
b secondary dimension of the rectangular section n number of nodes
[C] damping matrix Rx long radius of an element [m]
Cax added mass coefficient in x-axis direction Rxx gyration radius about x [m]
Cay added mass coefficient in y-axis direction Ry short radius of an element [m]
Caz added mass coefficient in z-axis direction Ryy gyration radius about y [m]
Cdx drag coefficient in x-axis direction v fluid particle velocity [m/s]
Cdx drag coefficient in y-axis direction v̇ fluid particle acceleration [m/s]
Cdx drag coefficient in z-axis direction x nodal displacement vector [m]
D diameter of column element [m] ẋ nodal velocity vector [m/s]
EA axial rigidity [Nm2 ] ẍ nodal acceleration vector [m/s2]
EI flexural rigidity [N] Θ rotation vector of a guy-wire
Faero aerodynamic force [N] δl stretching length of a guy-wire [m]
Fbuoyancy restoring force [N] ρ fluid density [kg/m3]
Fhydro hydrodynamic force [N]
Acronyms
Flines mooring forces [N]
CC center column
fguywire guy-wire tension [N]
DOF degrees of freedom
fpre guy-wire pretension [N] DWA down-wind arm
GMl metacentric height for pitch motion [m] DWC down-wind column
GMt metacentric height for roll motion [m] FBG fiber Bragg grating
[K] structural stiffness matrix FEM finite element method
k spring constant [N/m] FOWT floating offshore wind turbine
KG distance from the center of gravity to the keel point [m] NEDO new energy and industrial technology development
L0 original length of a guy-wire [m] organization
Lerror calculation error by rotation [m] RAO response amplitude operator
[M] mass matrix UWA up-wind arm
Mx bending moment around x-axis [N.m] UWC up-wind column

demonstrated by Takata et al. (2021). Therefore, using codes such as

Fig. 1. 3D model of the Optiflow FOWT. Source [GLOCAL (2023)].
also on the guy-wire tension. Furthermore, by making it possible for the
floater to rotate around a single-point mooring, the mechanism for
controlling the nacelle yaw rotation, usually set on the tower top, can be
excluded. With these two characteristics, the motion behavior in the
wave and wind of the floater can be remarkably modified, and the
floater can be lighter. However, the non-usual geometry of the floater
has several points to discuss, such as a nonlinear motion behavior in
waves; an elastic deformation of the floater due to its low-rigidity
characteristics; the presence of guy-wires itself; and a single-point
mooring configuration.
Research has shown that despite the initial use of a rigid body
approach during the design of a FOWT, the Optiflow FOWT’s low-
rigidity properties are noteworthy. The elastic behavior of FOWTs can
impact the first-order movements of highly flexible floaters, as
UTWind is essential as described by Suzuki et al. (2013). These codes can
accurately reflect non-linearities that arise from wave height and
incorporate the floater’s structural elasticity. It needs to be more than
just traditional potential theory, such as the WAMIT code (WAMIT and
Inc, 2019), which can be useful for calculating added mass coefficients
and damping levels. The combination of both codes has been proven to
be a helpful solution. Other studies, such as those conducted by Ishihara
and Liu (2020) and Liu and Ishihara (2021), have also addressed the
low-rigidity properties of FOWTs.
Previous studies about a FOWT with a guy-wire-supported tower can
be found in Suzuki et al. (2019), Suzuki et al. (2020),Shiohara et al.
(2020) and Srinivasamurthy et al. (2021). The load-supporting function
of guy-wires was investigated by changing the rigidity of the tower and
pontoons. It was found that the inertia force due to tower motion was
transmitted through side guy-wires, external columns, and pontoons.
The effect of the guy-wires’ presence showed that the guy-wire concept
could be a helpful alternative when designing very-light FOWT.
Regarding the dynamic response in waves, the structure’s motion in the
vertical direction showed typical characteristics of a
semi-submersible-type floating structure, i.e. the presence of a cancel­
lation point (or waveless response (Motora and Koyama, 1965)). How­
ever, the structure’s overall motion was influenced mainly by heave and
pitch motions as a coupling between the degrees of freedom (DOF) due
to the turret characteristic of the mooring system. Moreover, the
first-order motion results could not show a nonlinear behavior for
different wave heights due to the limited number of waves performed
around the natural periods and should be better explored.
The present work shows a modified version of the Optiflow model
that more accurately represents the real floater geometry utilized in a
demonstration project in Japan by NEDO (GLOCAL, 2023). The actual
geometry features a rectangular cross-section of the lower hull, resulting

2
T. Nagumo et al. Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844

Table 1
Scale factors in the experiment.
Parameter Value

Length [m] 1/60

√̅̅̅̅̅̅
Time [s] 1/ 60
Mass [kg] 1/603
Force [N] 1/603
Bending Moment [Nm] 1/604
Flexural Rigidity EI [N m2 ] 1/605
Axial stiffness EA [N] 1/603

Table 2
Main properties of the floater.
Properties Full scale Model scale 1/60

Total mass 8064 t 37.34 kg

Draft 13.98 m 233 mm
KG 15.69 m 262 mm
Rxx 33.8 m 563 mm
Ryy 35.1 m 585 mm
GMl 18.5 m 308 mm
GMt 10.3 m 172 mm

Fig. 3. Side view of the reduced-scale segmented backbone model (dimensions

in [mm]).

Fig. 4. Top view of the reduced-scale segmented backbone model (dimensions

in [mm]).

Fig. 2. 1/60 reduced-scale segmented backbone model. setup, reduced-scale model details, and wave conditions. The method­
ology for numerically calculating the platform’s wave response is sum­
marized in Section 3. Section 4 delves into the comparison between
in increased viscous effects compared to the previous circular design.
experimental and numerical findings, particularly regarding the impact
Additionally, the mooring line configuration was adjusted, increasing
of wave height, wave direction, and mooring line configuration. Con­
the number of lines from three to six. The nonlinear behavior of the
clusions are drawn in Section 5.
first-order motion in waves characterized by different wave heights,
frequencies, and incidence angles was analyzed through model tests in a
2. Experimental setup
tank. Furthermore, numerical simulations were conducted using the
UTWind code (Suzuki et al., 2013), to enable comparisons with the
2.1. Reduced-scale model
experiment. Generally, mooring lines should not affect the floater mo­
tion, as commented by Arai et al. (1976); however, this study investi­
In order to replicate both rigid body movement and elastic defor­
gated the effects of different mooring line configurations numerically.
mation, a reduced-scale model was constructed. To achieve this, the
Section 2 provides a comprehensive description of the experimental

3
T. Nagumo et al. Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844

Table 3 Table 4
Property of guy-wires in the reduced scale 1/60. Mooring line specifications.
Position Pretension Spring Constant Spring Constant Mooring Line Anchor Point (x, y) Segment Length Weight in Air
[N] (target) [N/mm] (measured) [N/mm] ID [m] ID [m] [kg]

Up Wind 34 8.5 8.6 1 (− 9.9, 0.0) I 0.42 0.095

Down 16.5 7.4 7.1 II 1.67 0.225
Wind III 7.91 0.095
2 (− 2.0, +4.0) I 0.42 0.095
II 1.67 0.225
III 2.61 0.095
3 (+2.0, +4.0) I 0.42 0.095
II 1.67 0.225
III 2.61 0.095
4 (+9.9, 0.0) I 0.42 0.095
II 1.67 0.225
III 7.91 0.095
5 (+2.0, − 4.0) I 0.42 0.095
II 1.67 0.225
III 2.61 0.095
6 (− 2.0, − 4.0) I 0.42 0.095
II 1.67 0.225
III 2.61 0.095

Fig. 6. Top view of the towing tank setup.

2.2. Mooring lines

Fig. 5. Position of FBG sensors.
model applied Froude similarity laws to both its rigid and elastic char­
acteristics, which can be found in Table 1. To achieve both geometric
and elastic similarity, a segmented backbone model was utilized. The
elastic similarity was met by using stainless steel beams as the core
material, while the geometric similarity was achieved by covering the
beams with urethane. The model was designed to be at a 1/60 scale of
the Optiflow at full size.
Table 2 outlines the key features of both the full-scale and reduced-
scale models. As for Fig. 2, it displays a snapshot of the reduced-scale
model, while Figs. 3 and 4 present its primary dimensions from the
side and top views, respectively.
To replicate the rigidity of actual guy-wires, wire and spring were
merged in the reduced-scale guy-wire system since the rigidity of a
single wire alone was too large. In addition, a turnbuckle was added to
regulate pretension, and an FBG (fiber Bragg grating) sensor was
incorporated to measure tension. Table 3 displays the measured prop­
erty of the reduced-scale guy-wire system.
Bending moments at specific positions of the model and tension in
mooring lines and guy-wires were measured by FBG sensors. The posi­
tion of the sensors is shown in a blue dot in Fig. 5. Bending moments
were measured at the tower top, the tower bottom, CC (center column),
each outer column (UWC – upwind column, DWC1 – downwind column
1, and DWC2 – downwind column 2), and the CC side of each lower hull
and outer column side of each lower hull.
A single-point mooring configuration was set up at the bottom of
UWC by attaching six mooring lines in catenary configuration to a turret
system. This ensured that all lines had the same fairlead point. The
mooring lines were arranged with a 60-degree spacing between each
other. The turret system enables the floater to rotate around a single
point.
Each mooring line was divided into three segments of chains with
different lengths and weights in air. These segments were numbered I
through III, starting from the turret connection and ending at the anchor
point at the bottom of the tank. Table 4 outlines the specifications of the
mooring lines. The diagonal mooring line, which extended diagonally in
relation to the longitudinal direction of the wave basin, was stretched all
the way to the basin wall. This resulted in the shortening of the anchor of
the side mooring line length. Despite this adjustment, the model tests
showed that the touchdown points of the diagonal mooring lines did not
reach the basin wall, indicating that the shortened length did not impact
the results. Sensors were attached between the turret connection and
each mooring to measure mooring tension during the tests.
The top view of the model positioned in the tank, including the
mooring lines and respective anchor points, can be seen in Fig. 6.
2.3. Tank and test conditions
The towing tank at the Mitsui E&S Akishima Research Center in
Japan was utilized for conducting experiments. Its dimensions measure
at 55.0m × 8.0m × 3.0m (length, width, depth). To replicate the shallow
water condition of 55.8m in full scale, the water depth was adjusted to

4
T. Nagumo et al. Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844

determine the natural period and viscous damping level of the model,
free decay tests were carried out for different DOF namely, surge, heave,
roll, and pitch.
Regular wave tests were conducted at varying wave heights to
examine the nonlinear motion behavior in waves, with different wave
incidences tested under different angles for a 40 mm wave height. The
incidence angles are detailed in Fig. 8, while further information on the
regular wave tests can be found in Table 5. Throughout these tests, the
mooring line remained constant, with changes made to the angle be­
tween the model and the incidence wave to modify the wave incidence.
An additional wire was connected to the model to maintain a constant
average yaw angle and prevent any drift in this DOF, without impacting
the stiffness in other degrees of DOF.

3. Numerical method

In the present study, numerical analysis was conducted using

UTWind (Suzuki et al., 2013); an in-house code developed by the Uni­
versity of Tokyo for coupled analysis of FOWT. The code adopts the FEM
(finite element method) to model the floater, while Morison equations
are utilized to evaluate hydrodynamic loads. Considering that the
Optiflow model features slender structures (4 columns and 3 pontoons)
with high aspect ratios (length by diameter higher than 5), Morison
equations are deemed appropriate and have been implemented
accordingly. As in Suzuki et al. (2019, 2020), previous works showed
Fig. 7. Picture of the model positioned in the towing tank.
good agreement between wave response results from Morison equations
and potential theory by WAMIT code (WAMIT Inc, 2019) calculations.
The calculation is carried out in the time domain by solving the equation
of motion in each timestep. UTWind can reproduce both rigid body
motions and elastic deformations. Additional information regarding the
use of NK-UTWind can be found in various articles such as in Suzuki
et al. (2019), Suzuki et al. (2020), Inoue et al. (2020), Takata et al.
(2021) and Takata et al. (2022).

3.1. UTWind code model

The full-scale FOWT was numerically modeled and analyzed using a

coupled analysis code for the rotor-floater-mooring response.
The rotor’s aerodynamic and inertia loads were integrated into the
structural part, which was created using a finite element model and
discretized into node and beam elements. Each node had three trans­
lational and three angular DOFs, as outlined in Equation (1).
{ }
[M]{ẍ} + [C]{ẋ} + [K]{x} = F hydro + Flines + F buoyancy + Faero (1)
Fig. 8. Definition of the wave incidence angles.

where [M] is the mass matrix whose dimension is 6n for the structural
Table 5 model of n nodes, [C] the damping matrix, [K] the structural stiffness
Regular wave test conditions in model scale. matrix, and x denotes the nodal displacement vector, and its first de­
rivative and second derivative denote the velocity and acceleration
Wave Height [mm] Wave Period [s] Incidence Angle [deg]
vectors, respectively. The right-hand side vector comprises four force
40 0.6–3.6 0–90
components: the hydrodynamic force, the forces from mooring lines, the
84 1.2–3.4 0
150 1.2–3.4 0 restoring force, and the aerodynamic force. The hydrodynamic force was
evaluated based on Morison’s Equation (Sarpkaya, 2014), as given in
Equation (2). This evaluation method is applicable for slender structures
0.93m in the model scale. Fig. 7 shows a visual of the setup and the that are hydrodynamically transparent.
model positioned in the towing tank.
To capture the model’s six DOF, an optical measurement system πD2 π D2 1
F hydro = ρ v̇ + Ca ρ (v̇ − ẍ) + Cd ρD(v − ẋ)|v − ẋ| (2)
called Qualysis® was utillized. This system tracked the model’s 4 4 2
displacement and rotation around its center of gravity. In order to where ρ is the fluid density, D is the diameter of the column element, and
v is the fluid particle velocity. Moreover, Ca and Cd denote the added
mass coefficient and drag force coefficient, respectively. The mooring
force can be evaluated by either quasi-static catenary calculation,
lumped-mass method, or linear spring. Wheeler’s stretch method
(Wheeler, 1970) estimated wave forces for the submerged domain for
each time step.
Fig. 9. Transformation of UWA cross-section into the corresponding ellipse. The UTWind code exclusively focuses on elliptical cylinders, result

5
T. Nagumo et al. Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844

Table 8
Comparison of the reduced model in the tank experiments and the numerical
model in the UTWind code analysis.
Property Tank Experiment UTWind
Fig. 10. Transformation of the DWA cross-section into the correspond­ Total Mass [t] 8064 8219
ing ellipse. Draft [m] 14.0 14.0
KG [m] 15.7 15.0
Rxx [m] 33.8 33.2
Ryy [m] 35.1 34.7
GMl [m] 18.5 15.6
GMt [m] 10.3 9.9

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
4a + πb
Ry = b (4)
(a + b)π

The meshes, elements, and nodes considered in the UTWind code

model are presented in Fig. 11. The numerical model consisted of 79
nodes and 78 elements.
Table 6 and Table 7, present the added mass and drag force co­
efficients for cylinders of varying cross-section shapes, which were
sourced from DNV standard guidelines (Det Norske Veritas, 2014) and
(Blevins, 1984). The values were obtained based on standard corre­
spondent values of circular cross-section cylinders for floater’s columns,
rectangular cross-section cylinders for UWA, and rectangular and ellipse
cross-section cylinders for DWA. The cylinder cross-section area was
adjusted using the transformation outlined in Equation (3).
The mooring system was modeled using the quasi-static catenary
mooring method.
Table 8 compares the tank experiments’ reduced model properties
and the UTWind code analysis numerical model. In addition, the values
of the tank experiment were converted to full scale.

3.2. Guy-wire tension calculation

UTWind code did not have any function to calculate guy-wire tension
Fig. 11. Mesh and nodes considered in the UTWind code analysis. initially; thus, a development was added in the present study. The
following equation calculated the guy-wire tension:
fguywire = fpre + k × δl (5)
Table 6
Added mass coefficients considered in the UTWind code.
where fpre is the pretension, k is the spring constant, and δl is the
Location Cax Cay Caz stretching length of the guy-wire. For fpre and k, the design value was
column 1.00 1.00 1.00 applied. δl was calculated by the distance of the two points that the guy-
up wind 1.75 1.34 0.30 wire connects in each timestep. While analyzing UTWind code’s rota­
down wind 1.00 1.15 0.30
tion, a second-order calculation error arises. This error, though small
enough to be ignored when discussing rigid body motion, must be
considered when discussing guy-wire tension. Experimental tank results
Table 7 indicate that guy-wire stretches no more than 0.1 % of its total length.
Drag coefficients considered in the UTWind code. To account for the aforementioned error, the following equation must be
Location Cdx Cdy Cdz used.
column 0.67 0.67 0.86
( )
Θ2 − (N⋅Θ)2
up wind 1.49 2.41 0.10 Lerror = L0 (6)
down wind 0.40 2.20 0.10 2

ing in the need to convert the rectangular cross-section of the floater’s

lower hulls into an ellipse, as illustrated in Figs. 9 and 10. The di­
mensions of the rectangular section, denoted by a and b, were used to
derive the transformation. Fig. 9 depicts the UWA (upwind arm) trans­
formation, while Fig. 10 shows the DWA (downwind arm) trans­
formation. Equations (3) and (4) describe Rx and Ry , respectively. The
original geometry’s aspect ratio and area were both preserved.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( ) ̅
4a + πb
Rx = (a + b) (3)
π Fig. 12. Free decay test time series of pitch comparisons between experiment
and numerical calculations for a negative pitch initial condition.

6
T. Nagumo et al. Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844

where Θ is the rotation vector of the guy-wire in space fixed coordinate,

N is the direction unit vector of the guy-wire in space fixed coordinate,
and L0 is the original length of the guy-wire.

4. Results

4.1. Free-decay tests

Fig. 13. Free decay test time series of pitch comparisons between experiment Figs. 12–14 exhibit the time series of the free-decay tests. Pitch
and numerical calculations for a positive pitch initial condition. motion is illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13, while Fig. 14 depicts the heave
motion. These time series show a comparison between experimental and
numerical calculations. To ensure repeatability and accuracy, decay
tests for each DOF were performed two to three times.
Natural periods obtained from free-decay tests are shown in Table 9,
both from the experiment and numerical calculation. The values inside
the parentheses represent the period corresponding to the peak in the
RAO, and outside the parentheses represent the natural period obtained
from free decay tests. The natural period from free decay tests was
calculated by taking an average of peak periods at the beginning of the
time series where the motion was considered uncoupled.
Fig. 14. Free decay test time series of heave comparisons between experiment Two distinct starting conditions were utilized to conduct pitch decay
and numerical calculations. tests. The first involved a negative pitch state, where the turret column
emerged, while the second involved a positive pitch state, where the
turret column submerged. Fig. 8 displays a time series of the negative
Table 9 pitch state during a free-decay test, which produced a pure pitch motion.
Comparison between the natural period from free decay tests in still waters.
In contrast, Fig. 9 depicts a time series of the positive pitch state during a
Degree of freedom Experiment [s] UTWind [s] free-decay test, which exhibited coupling with heave motion, as also
Heave 19.6 (17.1) 17.6 (17.8) seen in Fig. 10 for the free-decay time series of heave motion.
Roll 26.5 (26.4) 27.0 (27.1) According to Suzuki et al. (2020), the previous Optiflow model tests
Pitch 23.2 (23.3) 23.1 (24.0) encountered an issue with coupling heave and pitch motions. This was

Fig. 15. Response amplitude operator (RAO) result comparisons between the experiment and numerical calculations for 0-deg incidence and different wave heights:
(a) surge; (b) heave; (c) roll; and (d) pitch.

7
T. Nagumo et al.
Fig. 16. Guy-wire tension response amplitude operator (RAO) result comparisons between the experiment and numerical calculations for 0-deg incidence and
different wave heights: (a) UW; (b) DW1; and (c) DW2.
attributed to the configuration of a turret and single-point mooring,
which caused the DOFs to be coupled. Specifically, the single-point
mooring altered the model’s rotation point, which was not centralized
at the center of gravity, resulting in a combination of heave and pitch
motions.
The qualitative agreement between the numerical simulations and
experimental results was good, albeit with a noticeable quantitative
difference. The experimental damping resulting from viscous effects was
higher than that observed in the numerical simulations. As previous
studies using Morison equations have highlighted, such as Suzuki et al.
(2020) and Takata et al. (2021, 2022), drag coefficients based on
simplified geometries like cylinders tended to be conservative. To
address the quantitative difference attributed to viscous effects in future
research, a series of experiments should be conducted to obtain drag
coefficients for intricate structures, such as the connection between
ponton and column. Despite this, these findings can be valuable in the
initial phases of FOWTs design.
4.2. Regular wave tests
In this section, the results of the motion response amplitude operator
(RAO) for surge, heave, roll, and pitch are examined. Additionally, the
RAO results for the tension on three guy-wires: UW, DW1, and DW2, are
discussed to validate the low-rigidity model accuracy. These RAOs were
calculated through both experimental and numerical regular wave tests.
4.2.1. Influence of the wave height
In Fig. 15, a comparison of motion RAO results from experiments and
numerical calculations with different wave heights and 0-deg incidence
angle can be seen. The peak around natural periods was well defined for
heave and pitch, as shown in Fig. 15(b) and (d), respectively. However,
8
Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844
the natural period of surge was outside the range of the results, as it
exceeds 30 s, see Fig. 15(a); moreover, the roll natural period could not
be determined due to the symmetry of the wave excitation in this DOF,
as seen in Fig. 15(c).
Overall, the experiment and numerical calculations showed similar
trends for all DOF, indicating good qualitative agreement. However,
there were some quantitative differences in the results, particularly
around the natural periods where nonlinear effects of viscous damping
were significant due to the UTWind code assumptions and simplifica­
tions for drag coefficients.
It has been confirmed that wave height significantly impacted the
viscous damping around the natural periods. Specifically, higher wave
amplitudes resulted in a greater level of damping. Interestingly, this
finding was not previously noted in related research (Suzuki et al., 2019;
Suzuki et al., 2020; Shiohara et al., 2020), possibly due to the limited
number of regular wave points tested at the heave and pitch natural
periods.
Around a wave period of 22 s, heave motion is significantly reduced,
as seen in Fig. 15(b). According to Halkyard (2005), semi-submersible
designs can manipulate their heave responses by adjusting the
pontoon-to-column volume ratio. The wave pressure forces exerted on
the bottom of the columns are counteracted by the inertial forces acting
on the pontoons caused by the accelerating fluid. These opposing forces
reach a point of cancellation, unique to the volume ratio and spacing of
the columns, which can be referred to as a cancellation point (or
waveless response). It has been observed that Optiflow exhibits a similar
response pattern to that of a semi-submersible floater.
A decline in RAO values can be observed for pitch motion at
approximately 20 s, as seen in Fig. 15(d). As occurred for heave motions,
Optiflow presented the effects of cancellation of pitch moments from the
horizontal loads on columns and the vertical inertial forces on pontoons.
T. Nagumo et al.
Fig. 17. Response amplitude operator (RAO) result comparisons between the experiment and numerical calculations different wave incidence angles: (a) surge; (b)
heave; (c) roll; and (d) pitch.
Fig. 16 compares guy-wire tension RAO results between the experi­
ments and numerical calculations for different wave heights and 0-deg
incidence angle. Although guy-wires DW1, Fig. 16(b), and DW2,
Fig. 16(c), presented a symmetric position in the FOWT, a non-
symmetric pretension adjustment in the experiments caused a
different behavior in RAOs results; however, the trend was similar, and
the agreement with the numerical results was considered satisfactory
and the results were enough to validate the numerical calculation since
the flexible model could represent the behavior of the floater. The
maximum measured stretching of the length of the guy-wire was lower
than 0.1 %; thus, guy-wires worked as designed.
Upon comparing the motion RAO results, it was inferred that the UW
guy-wire tension, Fig. 16(a), was influenced by both pitch and heave
motions, resulting in two peaks around the natural period of the corre­
sponding DOF. In contrast, the DW guy-wire tension was only impacted
by pitch, thereby exhibiting only one peak around the natural period of
pitch.
As previous research (Suzuki et al., 2019; Suzuki et al., 2020; Shio­
hara et al., 2020) pointed out, the numerical results indicated that the
UW guy-wire RAO results exhibited a waveless response (cancelation
point) at a specific wave period. When the wavelength aligned with the
floating body’s length, the sagging-hogging effect led to an increase in
response, while matching with the lower hull’s length led to minimal
deformation in the lower hull, causing a decrease in the UW guy-wire
tension and resulting in the cancelation point.
4.2.2. Influence of the wave direction
The results depicted in Fig. 17 show the RAO results of the experi­
ment conducted under various wave incidences ranging from 0 to 90◦ ,
with relatively small wave heights. These results confirmed the strong
9
Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844
coupling between DOFs due to the single-point mooring system. For
instance, a 90-degree incidence should yield a surge and pitch RAO re­
sults close to zero when utilizing a floater with symmetrical geometry
and symmetrical mooring line configuration. However, as depicted in
Fig. 17 (a) and 17(d), the RAO results for surge and pitch still remained
noticeable. This highlights the significant impact of the single-point
mooring configuration. As expected, the roll RAO results indicated an
increase in values, as seen in Fig. 17(c), while the pitch RAO results
presented a decrease in values, as seen in Fig. 17(d). Heave RAO results
exhibited a decrease in the cancellation valley with an increase in wave
incidence angle, as seen in Fig. 17(b).
To confirm the experimental findings, numerical simulations were
conducted for wave incidence angles ranging from 0 to 90◦ . The results
of the numerical calculations were compared with the experimental data
and showed good agreement in Fig. 17. In general, the hydrodynamic
loads varied depending on the direction of the waves, leading to com­
plex changes due to the new asymmetric conditions of the floater related
to the incidence wave.
Upon closer inspection, the heave RAO results indicated changes in
the cancellation point period as the wave incidence angle increased, as
seen in Fig. 17(b). However, a significant shift in behavior occurred
between 60 and 90 degrees of incidence, with the cancellation point
changing from approximately 22 to 17 s. This change was due to al­
terations in the excitation forces caused by different incidence angles
and modifications to the column and pontoon positions relative to the
wave direction.
The experiment for different wave incidence angles demonstrated
that the peaks for heave, roll, and pitch were smaller than the numerical
calculations around the natural periods, the same behavior observed in
the experiments for different wave heights. There could be two reasons
T. Nagumo et al.
Fig. 18. Guy-wire tension response amplitude operator (RAO) result comparisons between the experiment and numerical calculations for different wave incidence
angles: (a) UW; (b) DW1; and (c) DW2.
Table 10
Linear weight values for single-point mooring configuration.
Mooring type Weight in water [kgf/m]
Heavy 650
Normal 519
Light 350
Without mooring 0
for this discrepancy; first, the UTWind’s viscous damping modeling
could have been more accurate, as discussed in the results in Fig. 15;
second, the UTWind calculations included additional damping due to
the spring adapted to prevent the floater from drifting and rotating,
situation different of the experimented in the model tests.
The numerical RAO results for various wave incidence angles
ranging from 0 to 90-degree incidence and small wave heights for guy-
wire tension are presented in Fig. 18. According to these numerical re­
sults, modifying the wave incidence can increase the guy-wire tensions
up to three times. Additionally, slight variations in wave angle for short
and long wave periods can significantly alter the amplitude of the guy-
wire tension. Therefore, it is crucial to calculate the guy-wire tension for
different wave incidence angles, even during the initial stages of the
FOWT structural design project.
4.2.3. Influence of the mooring line configuration
Typically, the motion of floating units such as oil and gas platforms is
not impacted by mooring lines at the first-order motion level. However,
with the introduction of new FOWT concepts with low displacement, the
weight and configuration of the mooring lines may in fact have an
impact. Consequently, to uncover the impact of mooring lines on Opti­
flow, multiple numerical tests were conducted using the UTWind code,
10
Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844
with varied mooring line weight and geometrical configurations.
4.2.3.1. Influence of the mooring line weight. The same configuration of
mooring lines previously used in the regular wave study experiments
was utilized to examine how the weight of the lines affects the first-order
motion of the Optiflow in waves. The initial configuration consisted of a
single-point mooring with six catenary lines, as shown before in Fig. 6.
Four different configurations with varying linear weights, as outlined in
Table 10, were numerically simulated in regular wave with a 0-degree
incidence and small wave height.
The results, presented in Fig. 19, showed that the mooring weight
significantly impacted the peak value around natural periods, while only
slightly altering the cancellation point period. This impact was partic­
ularly evident in heave, see Fig. 19(b), and pitch motions, see Fig. 19(d),
contradicting the widely accepted notion that mooring does not signif­
icantly affect floater first-order motion. Interestingly, it is possible to
believe that the lighter the FOWT, the greater the impact of the mooring
weight. Further studies are necessary to understand better the effect of
the weight ratio between the mooring line system and the floater weight.
4.2.3.2. Influence of the mooring line configuration. Numerical simula­
tions were conducted to test regular waves on two different mooring
configurations, which are displayed in Fig. 20. The three-point mooring
configuration, depicted on the right side of the figure, consisted of
catenary lines aligned to the pontoon line, and moors UWC, DWC1, and
DWC2. The number of catenary lines remained the same as the single-
point mooring configuration, i.e. six lines. Three different mooring
weights for three-point mooring configurations were then simulated, as
detailed in Table 11, and the numerical RAO results for different
mooring configurations are presented in Fig. 21.
The results showed that there was a slight difference when changing
T. Nagumo et al. Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844

Fig. 19. Response amplitude operator (RAO) result comparisons between the experiment and numerical calculations different morring line weights: (a) surge; (b)
heave; (c) roll; and (d) pitch.

due to the single-point mooring had a greater influence than the

mooring linear weight. Additionally, the results indicated that the
mooring weight might impact the first-order motion of the floater, and
this effect was more pronounced for pitch than heave motions for a
three-point mooring line configuration, see details in Fig. 21(d) and (b).
Therefore, further work is needed to expand the first-order motion of the
floater for the range of the linear mooring weight tested.

5. Conclusions

Overall, the UTWind code was found to be effective in replicating the

movement and structural loads of intricate floating structures through
careful calibration of hydrodynamic coefficients and node division. The
numerical simulations aligned well with experimental results, though
improvements are needed in the calibration of added mass and drag
Fig. 20. Top view of the mooring configurations (left side: single-point coefficients for greater accuracy in natural period and viscous damping
mooring, right side: three-point mooring). levels, particularly around peaks in RAO results.
Tests with various wave heights exposed important features of the
Optiflow, including waveless response at the cancelation point; and
Table 11 nonlinear behavior in waves that was most pronounced near resonance
Linear weight values for three-point mooring configuration. periods. Higher wave heights led to lower RAO peaks due to increased
Mooring configuration Weight in water [kgf/m] viscous damping.
The regular wave test also revealed the strong coupling between
1-point 519
3-points heavy 650 vertical motions (heave, pitch, and sometimes roll) caused by the single-
3-points normal 519 point mooring. Moreover, the wave direction in asymmetric conditions
3-points light 350 greatly impacted the hydrodynamic loads due to the geometry and,
particularly, the single-point mooring. As such, this behavior must be
accounted for in the design phase.
the mooring linear weight for three-point mooring. However, when
In regards to the impact of the mooring line configuration, an anal­
comparing the heave RAO results for single-point and three-point
ysis of various mooring linear weight conditions and configurations
mooring configurations, it was found that the coupling between DOFs

11
T. Nagumo et al.
Fig. 21. Response amplitude operator (RAO) result comparisons between the experiment and numerical calculations different morring line configurations: (a) surge;
(b) heave; (c) roll; and (d) pitch.
revealed that the mooring significantly affected the first-order motion of
the floater. This effect was particularly pronounced in single-point
mooring configurations due to the coupling between vertical motions.
Interestingly, the influence of the mooring configuration was most sig­
nificant for heave and pitch motions at long wave periods, which is
contrary to what is commonly believed in the oil and gas industry. These
findings highlight the importance of considering the coupled response of
the floating body and mooring system, particularly for relatively light­
weight, moored FOWT installed in shallow waters. Additionally, the
influence of the existing mooring line system may be larger than
UTWind calculations based on the quasi-static catenary solution suggest.
To further develop our understanding of the coupled motions resulting
from distinct mooring line configurations, it is recommended to explore
this topic in greater detail as a future task. Ultimately, these insights are
crucial for the design of FOWT.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Takaya Nagumo: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft. Hideyuki Suzuki:
Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Supervision.
Hidetaka Houtani: Data curation, Investigation, Software. Mayuko
Takaoka: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodol­
ogy, Software. Rodolfo T. Gonçalves: Conceptualization, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
12
Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgments
This article is based on the results obtained from a project,
JPNP14022, commissioned by the New Energy and Industrial Technol­
ogy Development Organization (NEDO). The authors would like to
thank NEDO for allowing the paper’s publication. In addition, the au­
thors would like to thank the student Marques, M. A. from the Federal
University of Pernambuco (UFPE), Brazil, for his help during the image
development.
References
Arai, S., Nakado, Y., Takagi, M., 1976. Study on the motion of a moored vessel among the
irregular waves. J. Zosen Kiokai 140, 142–151.
Barooni, M., Ashuri, T., Velioglu, S.D., Wood, S., Ghaderpour, T.S., 2023. Floating
offshore wind turbines: current status and future prospects. Energies 16 (1), 2.
Blevins, R.D., 1984. Applied Fluid Dynamics Handbook. Krieger Publishing Company,
Malabar, Florida.
Det Norske Veritas, 2014. Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C205 (Environmental
Conditions and Environmental Loads). Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway.
Feraggiana, E., Giorgi, G., Sirigu, M., Ghigo, A., Bracco, G., Mattiazzo, G., 2022. A review
of numerical modelling and optimization of the floating support structure for
offshore wind turbines. J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy 8, 433–456.
GLOCAL, 2023. Next Generation Floating Offshore Wind Power Generation System
Demonstration Research (OPTIFLOW). https://g-local.co.jp/works/optiflow/.
(Accessed 17 March 2023).
Halkyard, J., 2005. Chapter 7 – floating offshore platform design. In: Handbook of
Offshore Engineering. Elsevier Science, Illinois, USA.
T. Nagumo et al.
Inoue, T., Adilah, A., Iijima, K., Oh, S., Suzuki, H., 2020. Discussion on coupling effect in
structural load of FOWT for condensing wind and wave bins for spectral fatigue
analysis. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8, 937.
Ishihara, T., Liu, Y., 2020. Dynamic response analysis of a semi-submersible floating
wind turbine in combined wave and current conditions using advanced
hydrodynamic models. Energies 13, 5820.
Kikuchi, Y., Ishihara, T., 2020. Comparison of dynamic response and levelized cost of
energy on three platform concepts of floating offshore wind turbine systems. J. Phys.
Conf. 142, 012035.
Komiyama, R., Fujii, Y., 2021. Large-scale integration of offshore wind into de Japanese
power grid. Sustain. Sci. 16, 429–448.
Kosasih, K.M.A., Suzuki, H., Niizato, H., Okubo, S., 2020. Demonstration experiment and
numerical simulation analysis of full-scale barge-type floating offshore wind turbine.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8 (11), 880.
Leimeister, M., Kolios, A., Collu, M., 2018. Critical review of floating support structures
for offshore wind farm deployment. J. Phys. Conf. 1104, 012007.
Liu, Y., Ishihara, T., 2021. Numerical study in sectional loads and structural optimization
of an elastic semi-submersible floating platform. Energies 14, 182.
Matsuoka, R., Yoshimoto, H., 2015. Verification of precision concerning the design of
advanced spar type structure. In: The Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean
Engineers, Sendai, Japan, 25–26 May 2015.
Motora, S., Koyama, T., 1965. On wave-excitation free ship forms. J. Zosen Kiokai 117,
115–126.
Ohta, M., Komatsu, M., Ito, H., Kumamoto, H., 2013. Development of a V-shaped semi-
submersible floating structure for 7MW offshore turbine. In: The World NAOE Forum
2013 & International Symposium on Marine and Offshore Renewable Energy, Tokyo,
Japan, 28–30 October 2013.
Otori, H., Kikuchi, Y., Rivera-Arreba, I., Viré, A., 2023. Numerical study of
hydrodynamic forces and dynamic response for large type floating platform by
computational fluid dynamics and engineering model. Ocean Eng. 284, 115100.
Sarpkaya, T.S., 2014. Wave Forces on Offshore Structures, Reprint ed. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Shiohara, H., Gonçalves, R.T., Houtani, H., Suzuki, H., Schnepf, A., Hirabayashi, S.,
Carmo, L.H.S., Nihei, Y., 2020. Numerical and experimental comparison of the wave
response of a very light floating offshore wind turbine with guy-wires. In: The ASME
13
Ocean Engineering 295 (2024) 116844
39th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Virtual,
Online, 21–30 July 2020.
Srinivasamurthy, S., Iwamatsu, S., Hashimoto, K., Suzuki, H., Chujo, T., Haneda, K.,
Nihei, Y., 2021. Study of slow-drift damping on wind tracking performance of a new-
type FOWT ‘Optiflow’ with single-point mooring. Ocean Eng. 242, 110131.
Stehly, T., Patrick, D., 2021. 2020 Cost of Wind Energy Review. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, pp. 28–31.
Suzuki, H., Shibata, H., Fujioka, H., Hirabayashi, S., Ishii, K., Kikuchi, H., 2013.
Development of an analysis code of rotor-floater coupled response of a floating
offshore wind turbine. In: The ASME 32nd International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Nantes, France, 9–14 June 2013.
Suzuki, H., Xiong, J., Carmo, L.H.S., Vieira, D.P., Mello, P.C., Malta, E.B., Simos, A.N.,
Hirabayashi, S., Gonçalves, R.T., 2019. Elastic response of a lightweight floating
support structure of FOWT with guywire supported tower. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 24,
1015–1028.
Suzuki, H., Shiohara, H., Schnepf, A., Houtani, H., Carmo, L.H.S., Hirabayashi, S.,
Haneda, K., Chujo, T., Nihei, Y., Malta, E.B., Gonçalves, R.T., 2020. Wave and wind
responses of a very-light FOWT with guy-wired-supported tower: numerical and
experimental studies. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8, 841.
Takata, T., Takaoka, M., Gonçalves, R.T., Houtani, H., Yoshimura, Y., Hara, K., Oh, S.,
Dotta, R., Malta, E.B., Iijima, K., 2021. Dynamic behavior of a flexible multi-column
FOWT in regular waves. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9, 124.
Takata, T., Takaoka, M., Houtani, H., Hara, K., Oh, S., Malta, E.B., Iijima, K., Suzuki, H.,
Gonçalves, R.T., 2022. Effect of heave plates on the wave motion of a flexible
multicolumn FOWT. Energies 15 (20), 7605.
Tanaka, K., Sato, I., Utsunomiya, T., Kakuya, H., 2020. Validation of dynamic response of
a 2-MW hybrid-spar floating wind turbine during typhoon using full-scale field data.
Ocean Eng. 218, 108262.
WAMIT, Inc, 2019. WAMIT® Manual Version 7.3. Chestnut Hill, MA, USA.
Wheeler, J.D., 1970. Method for calculating forces produced by irregular waves.
J. Petrol. Technol. 22 (3), 359–367.
Yamaguchi, H., Imakita, A., 2018. Learning from field test regarding damping of a floater
motion -– 2MW FOWT Fukushima Mirai. In: Grand Renewable Energy, Japan, 17-22
Jun 2018.
Zeng, X., Shao, Y., Feng, X., Xu, K., Jin, R., Li, H., 2024. Nonlinear hydrodynamics of
floating offshore wind turbines: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 191, 114092.