Post on 17-Jun-2020
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
ESTUDO COMPARATIVO DE UMA PLATAFORMA FLUTUANTE
OFFSHORE PARA GERAÇÃO DE ENERGIA EÓLICA NAS REGIÕES
NORDESTE E SUDESTE DO BRASIL
Carolina Langenegger Videiro
2019
i
ESTUDO COMPARATIVO DE UMA PLATAFORMA FLUTUANTE OFFSHORE
PARA GERAÇÃO DE ENERGIA EÓLICA NAS REGIÕES NORDESTE E
SUDESTE DO BRASIL
Carolina Langenegger Videiro
Rio de Janeiro
Setembro de 2019
Projeto de Graduação apresentado ao Curso de
Engenharia Naval e Oceânica da Escola Politécnica,
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, como parte dos
requisitos necessários à obtenção do título de
Engenheiro.
Orientadores:
Marcelo Igor Lourenço de Souza
Milad Shadman
ii
ESTUDO COMPARATIVO DE UMA PLATAFORMA FLUTUANTE OFFSHORE
PARA GERAÇÃO DE ENERGIA EÓLICA NAS REGIÕES NORDESTE E
SUDESTE DO BRASIL
Carolina Langenegger Videiro
PROJETO DE GRADUAÇÃO SUBMETIDO AO CORPO DOCENTE DO CURSO DE
ENGENHARIA NAVAL E OCEÂNICA DA ESCOLA POLITÉCNICA DA
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO DE JANEIRO COMO PARTE DOS
REQUISITOS NECESSÁRIOS PARA A OBTENÇÃO DO GRAU DE ENGENHEIRO
NAVAL E OCEÂNICO.
Examinado por:
RIO DE JANEIRO, RJ – BRASIL
SETEMBRO 2019
___________________________________________
Prof. Marcelo Igor Lourenço de Souza, D.Sc.
___________________________________________
Milad Shadman, D.Sc.
___________________________________________
Prof. Segen Farid Estefen, Ph.D.
___________________________________________
Ana Paula França de Souza, D.Sc.
iv
Videiro, Carolina Langenegger
Estudo Comparativo de uma Plataforma Flutuante Offshore
para Geração de Energia Eólica nas Regiões Nordeste e Sudeste do
Brasil/ Carolina Langenegger Videiro – Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/
Escola Politécnica, 2019
VII, 55 p.: il.: 29,7 cm
Orientador: Marcelo Igor Lourenço de Souza e Milad
Shadman
Projeto de Graduação – UFRJ/ Escola Politécnica/ Curso de
Engenharia Naval e Oceânica, 2019
Referências Bibliográficas: p. 51-53.
1. Energia Eólica. 2. Plataforma Flutuante. 3. Geração de
Energia. 4. Comportamento Hidrodinâmico. 5. Análise Estrutural.
I. Lourenço de Souza, Marcelo Igor. II. Shadman, Milad. III.
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Escola Politécnica, Curso
de Engenharia Naval e Oceânica. IV. Título
v
Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank Professor Marcelo Igor and D.Sc Milad Shadman for their
expert advice and encouragement throughout this work.
I would also like to thank the Professors from the Department of Naval Architecture for
all teachings during my years at UFRJ as well as the professors from Ecole Centrale
Marseille who introduced me the domain of renewable energies.
Also, I would like to thank all the people, from several laboratories, who helped me in
this project, especially in getting the input data and understanding the FAST code.
I’m also thankful to all friends that I have made during these years at university and who
have always been there for me.
Finally, thanks to my family, especially to my mother, my father and my brother. Thank
you for always supporting me and for always being an example to me.
vi
Abstract of Undergraduate Project presented to POLI/UFRJ as a partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Engineer.
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF AN OFFSHORE FLOATING PLATFORM FOR WIND
POWER GENERATION IN THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST REGIONS OF
BRAZIL
Carolina Langenegger Videiro
September/2019
Advisors: Marcelo Igor Lourenço de Souza and Milad Shadman
Course: Naval Architecture
The increasing demand for energy as well as the concern of global warming stimulate the
search for renewables energies. One of the most developed green energy today is wind
power.
Wind power development has started with land-based structures. However, concerns
about visual and noise impacts as well as difficulties to find appropriate spaces for it have
boosted the transition to shallow waters with bottom fixed structures. Currently, it can be
observed the transition to deep waters with floating structures. This can be explained by
the better quality of wind at a considerable distance from the shore as well as the limitation
related to water depth for the installation of bottom fixed structures.
Thus, this work aims to compare the behaviour of a wind turbine supported by a floating
platform in two different regions near the shore of Brazil to evaluate its feasibility. The
power production of the turbine, the hydrodynamic behaviour of the platform and an
extreme structural analysis in the connection between the tower and the platform are
considered in this comparison.
All simulations are done with the FAST code, in which the hydrodynamic and
aerodynamic effects on the structure are considered. The platform and the mooring system
considered are the one available at the FAST library. The wind condition as well as the
wave condition are determined according to the studied regions.
Keywords: Wind Energy, Floating Platform, Wind Power Generation, Hydrodynamic
Behaviour, Structural Analysis.
vii
Resumo do Projeto de Graduação apresentado à Escola Politécnica/UFRJ como parte dos
requisitos necessários para a obtenção do grau de Engenheiro Naval e Oceânico.
ESTUDO COMPARATIVO DE UMA PLATAFORMA FLUTUANTE OFFSHORE
PARA GERAÇÃO DE ENERGIA EÓLICA NAS REGIÕES NORDESTE E
SUDESTE DO BRASIL
Carolina Langenegger Videiro
Setembro/2019
Orientadores: Marcelo Igor Lourenço de Souza e Milad Shadman
Curso: Engenharia Naval e Oceânica
A crescente demanda por energia assim como a preocupação com o aquecimento global
estimulam a busca por energias renováveis. Uma das energias verdes mais desenvolvidas
atualmente é a energia eólica.
O desenvolvimento da energia eólica começou com turbinas terrestres. No entanto, as
preocupações com os impactos visuais e sonoros assim como as dificuldades em
encontrar espaços apropriados para sua instalação, impulsionaram a transição para águas
rasas com estruturas fixas no fundo do oceano. Atualmente, pode-se observar uma
transição para águas profundas com estruturas flutuantes. Isto pode ser explicado pela
melhor qualidade do vento a uma distância considerável da costa assim como pela
limitação relacionada à profundidade da água para a instalação de estruturas fixas.
Assim, este trabalho tem como objetivo comparar o comportamento de uma turbina eólica
sustentada por uma plataforma flutuante em duas regiões diferentes próximas à costa do
Brasil para avaliar sua viabilidade. A produção de energia da turbina, o comportamento
hidrodinâmico da plataforma e uma análise estrutural extrema na conexão entre a torre e
a plataforma são considerados nesta comparação.
Todas as simulações são feitas com o código FAST, no qual são considerados os efeitos
hidrodinâmicos e aerodinâmicos na estrutura. A plataforma e o sistema de ancoragem
considerados são os disponíveis na biblioteca do FAST. As informações do vento assim
como as informações das ondas são determinadas de acordo com a região estudada.
Palavras-chave: Energia Eólica, Plataforma Flutuante, Geração de Energia,
Comportamento Hidrodinâmico, Análise Estrutural.
viii
Sumário Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
1.1. Renewable Energies .....................................................................................................1
1.2. Wind Energy ................................................................................................................1
1.3. Types of Floating Platforms .........................................................................................3
1.3.1. Spar ......................................................................................................................3
1.3.2. Tension Leg Platform (TLP).................................................................................3
1.3.3. Semisubmersible...................................................................................................4
1.4. Comparisons of Floating Platforms ..............................................................................5
1.5. Floating Concepts .........................................................................................................7
1.5.1. Spar - Statoil Hywind ...........................................................................................8
1.5.2. Semisubmersible - Principle Power WindFloat ....................................................9
2. Objective ............................................................................................................................11
3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................12
4. FAST ..................................................................................................................................14
4.1. Theoretical Background .............................................................................................14
4.1.1. Aerodynamic Model ...........................................................................................14
4.1.2. Hydrodynamic Model .........................................................................................15
4.1.3. Structural Model .................................................................................................16
4.1.4. Mooring Model ...................................................................................................16
5. Input Data ...........................................................................................................................17
5.1. Floating System - OC4 DeepCwind .......................................................................17
5.2. Turbine ...................................................................................................................20
5.3. Study Regions.........................................................................................................21
5.4. Design Load Cases .................................................................................................22
5.5. Environmental Loads ..............................................................................................25
6. Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................38
6.1. Power Production .......................................................................................................38
6.2. Hydrodynamic Behavior.............................................................................................41
6.3. Structural Analysis .....................................................................................................47
7. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................50
Referências Bibliográficas .........................................................................................................51
Annexes .....................................................................................................................................54
Annex I: Summary of Simulation Cases.................................................................................54
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Renewable Energies Nowadays, a quickly increasing demand for energy as a consequence of the rapid global
economic growth can be observed. Since the industrial revolution, the main sources of
energy have been the conventional fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. However,
these sources are facing depletion besides becoming a concern due to their effects on our
environment [1]. The main culprits of global warming are considered the greenhouse
gases emitted by burning these fossil fuels, especially carbon dioxide [2].
The Kyoto Protocol has established limits of greenhouse gases emissions. So, in order to
reduce these emissions as well as to search for energy security, the development of
renewable energies has been pushed. In addition to that, the aversion to the traditional
fission nuclear power and the lack of progression in the fusion nuclear power has also
contributed to that development [3]. The renewable energy is expected to play an import
role in handling the demand of the energy required along with environmental pollution
prevention [2], because it uses the own resources of a region and it has a non-significant
contribution to the emissions of carbon dioxide [3].
Among many renewable resources, the importance of wind power can be explained by
the combination of two factors: the availability of resources and the maturity of the
technology in term of cost efficiency [3]. Wind power is the only one that offers a mature
technique as well as promising commercial prospects and is already applied in large-scale
electricity generation [1]. Due to that, wind energy is the one that presents the fastest
development by all the renewable energies [3].
Other advantages of wind energy are that it is an infinitive type of energy that can be
gathered either in the mainland with land-based turbines or on the ocean with bottom-
fixed structures at shallow waters or floating structures at deep waters [2].
1.2. Wind Energy The wind energy technology has started with land-bases structures, followed by bottom-
fixed offshore structures at shallow waters and now floating types are being developed
for deep waters [4].
Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the environment compared
to fossil fuel power plants, concerns have been raised over the noise produced by rotor
blades, visual impacts and deaths of birds and bats that fly into the rotors [2]. Because of
this, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find appropriate sites for the future growth of
onshore wind turbines that are near their limits [5]. So, space for turbines is becoming
scarce [1], leading to the investigation of offshore site locations, where most of these
issues are eliminated [6].
Offshore wind turbines have greatly reduced visual impacts, less turbulence and lower
noise constraints because they are far enough away from the shore and human life,
allowing higher rotor speeds. Besides, offshore wind power plants can produce up to 50%
more electricity than onshore wind power as the wind, normally stronger and more
uniform at sea than on land, allows the installation of larger turbines [5] [1]. Therefore,
2
offshore wind power has recently been widely focused on and developed, as it is reliable,
intensive and its source is abundant and offers vast offshore areas [1]. Besides, comparing
to its onshore counterpart, the offshore wind energy exhibits advantages such as security
of supply, stability of output electricity and less environmental impacts [7].
The first advantage of offshore wind installations is the better quality of the wind resource
in the sea, where wind speed is usually bigger, even increasing with the distance to the
coast, and more uniform, leading to less turbulence effects; therefore, the fatigue is less
important and let to increase the lifetime of the offshore wind turbine generator [3].
The second advantage becomes from the bigger suitable free areas in the sea where
offshore wind farms can be installed, leading to greater installations. Their placement, far
from population areas, lets to reduce the environment regarding the noise emission. Also,
this large distance allows to reduce the visual impact from the coast [3].
It is also relevant to mention a few disadvantages of offshore installations, which with
technological development can be improved and become effective in the near future.
The first disadvantage is the cost of the permitting and engineering process, and of the
construction and operation phases due to the high costs of the sea operations. Besides,
unlike onshore wind farms, there are not usually marine electrical infrastructures that
connect the highest wind resource areas with the consumers centres, leading to the
construction of longer electrical networks [3].
A second disadvantage is the necessity of a more developed offshore wind farms
technology. This is essential for the wind turbine generators which will be subjected to
high loads and must adapt themselves to the marine environment and therefore to be
prepared for the corrosion conditions [3].
And the last disadvantage is that, due to the limited roughness of the sea surface, the
turbulences propagation are higher offshore than onshore; then wake effects provoked by
the own wind turbine generators are very important leading to a big impact over the
lifetime of the wind turbines. To reduce it, the wind turbines must be disposed obeying a
minimum separation among them [3].
It should be taken into account that, along with the development of offshore wind energy
industry, it is inevitable that offshore wind farms would move from shallow waters to
deep waters for harnessing the abundant wind resource available at a considerable
distance from the shore [7].
The cost of fixed mounted offshore wind turbines increases with water depth. Their use
is consequently not economical in some locations. In deep water areas, floating wind
turbines can be the most cost-effective and reasonable solution [5].
Several important benefits will be delivered when utilizing the floating foundation to
support the offshore wind turbine in deep waters. The first one is the less cost compared
with the fixed-bottom configuration in deeper waters (water depth range: 50-300 m). The
second one is the better flexibility with regards to construction and installation
procedures, easy removal and decommissioning. The third one is the wide varieties of
technical solutions available in terms of floating platform design. The last one is the
feasibility of a large number of countries and regions [7].
3
1.3. Types of Floating Platforms Floating wind turbines are supported by floating structures. They have six degrees of
freedom, which can be excited by wave, wind and current loads. The entire system should
be moored and can be ballast, mooring or buoyancy stabilized [8].
Any kind of stabilized and moored floating body can be considered as a base structure for
a wind turbine. However, the base cases are spar, tension-leg platform (TLP) and
semisubmersible [8]. They differ in their source of stability.
1.3.1. Spar
Spar platform is a large circular cylinder made from steel or concrete with low water
plane area [6]. At the top of it, the tower and the rotor/nacelle assembly are put [8], as it
can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Spar offshore wind turbine layout [8]
This large cylinder is used to stabilize the spar structure [7]. The lower compartments are
ballasted using water, metal or concrete [8]. The upper compartments remain light. This
configuration lows the centre of mass below the centre of buoyancy of the structure [5].
In this case, the stability is obtained with the difference between the vertical distances
from the centre of buoyancy and the centre of gravity, which leads to a recovering
moment when the floating cylinder declines from the present axis [7]. Moreover, the high
metacentric height helps to increase the stability of the structure [8].
For stability requirements, the draft of the floating spar is usually larger than the hub
height. This makes a spar more likely for deeper water with a restriction of the minimum
water depth for application [4].
1.3.2. Tension Leg Platform (TLP)
A tension leg platform consists of a central column with the tower and rotor/nacelle
assembly mounted at the top of it [8] moored onto the seabed through a set of tension legs
[7], as it can be seen in Figure 2. The tendons can be attached using stiff arms or pontoons,
depending on the design. The use of pontoon will reduce the size of the central column
and consequently reduce the hydrodynamics loads.
4
Figure 2: Tension Leg Platform offshore wind turbine layout [8]
Tension Leg Platforms are mooring stabilized. The stability is conditional and derived
from the restoring moment due to the tension in the tethers [4]. The tension legs
compensate the force difference between buoyancy and total weight [8]. In other words,
the TLP achieves stability through the equilibrium of tensioned taut mooring lines and
the excess buoyancy of the platform [5].
It is important to notice that the installation of this system can be a challenge. Generally,
the system is ballasted before transportation and installation and then deballasted prior to
installation of tension legs. Another important point is that the metacentric height of such
a system is likely to be negative. This means that the structure is not stable if the tendons
are removed [8].
1.3.3. Semisubmersible
Combining the two designs of the spar and the TLP, a semisubmersible foundation is
introduced to achieve static stability [7].
Usually, the semisubmersible foundation is composed of three or four slender columns
that are connected to each other through braces, as it can be seen in Figure 3. The wetting
surface area of a single column, the height of the buoyance centre and the distances
between two columns affect the forces acting on the floating foundation. These three
elements recover the original location and posture of floating foundation. Moreover, the
increase of the wetting surface provides more hydrodynamic stability and more structural
stiffness to sustain the wave load. For the connections between columns, steel braces/bars,
which increase the stiffness of the foundation, are widely used [7].
5
Figure 3: Semisubmersible offshore wind turbine layout [8]
This type of platform is buoyancy or water-plane stabilized. The water-plane moment is
considerably increased by the spacing of the water-piercing columns, ensuring stability
for the platform [4]. Moreover, the columns also provide ballast and flotation stability
[6].
Semisubmersibles are suggested for supporting offshore wind turbines thanks to the wave
cancellation effect, which could improve wave-induced dynamic responses of the
offshore structure [7].
1.4. Comparisons of Floating Platforms Ref [7] presents a comparison among the three main types of floating platforms. As it can
be seen in Table 1, TLP is advantageous in the matter of natural periods, coupled motions,
moorings and maintenance. On the other hand, spar presents advantages of wave
sensitivity and anchors. Lastly, semisubmersible has advantages in what concern turbine
weights, anchors, construction and installation. Other advantages and disadvantages of
which type of platform are presented in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.
Table 1: The comparisons of mainstream floating foundations [7]
+ Relative Advantage
TLP Spar Semi-submersible 0 Neutral
- Relative Disadvantage
Pitch Stability Mooring Ballast Buoyancy
Natural Periods + 0 -
Coupled Motion + 0 -
Wave Sensitivity 0 + -
Turbine Weight 0 - +
Moorings + - -
Anchors - + +
Construction and
Installation - - +
Maintenance + 0 -
6
Table 2: Advantages of floating foundations
ADVANTAGES
SPAR TLP SEMISUBMERSIBLE
Little volume close to free
surface – small wave forces
[5]
Little volume close to free
surface – small wave forces
[5]
Better hydrodynamic
behaviors to the wind load
excitations [7]
Advantageous in natural
period, anchors, operation
and maintenance [5]
Advantageous in the natural
period, couple motions,
operation and maintenance
[5]
Relatively lower cost
associated with the
installation of mooring
system [7]
Better heave performance
than semisubmersibles due to
deep draft [9]
Lower fatigue loads in
tower and blades than
semisubmersibles and in
the tower base than spar [6]
Easily towed back to shore in
case of major repairs due to
stability and low draft [6]
Catenary mooring: low cost
and easy to install [5]
Can be fully assembled in a
dry-dock [6]
Better surge response than
TLP [7]
Inherently hight stability
structure [6]
Very good heave and
angular motions [9]
Smaller pitch motion than
spar [7]
A relatively simple structure
to manufacture, minimum
amount of welds, possibility
to use concrete [6]
Simple structure to inspect;
Few active systems and
components; Low amount
of welds that will require
inspections [6]
Good stability in operational
and transit conditions –
significantly cheaper to tow
out, install and commission
[9]
Few active systems or
complicated components [6]
Most flexible design with
regard to water depth with a
typically low draft [6]
Inexpensive platform
geometry [5]
Construction, assembly,
outfitting and commissioning
of the foundation and even
the installation of wind
turbines can be done on the
dock [7] [6]
Reduced vertical wave
exciting forces [9]
Table 3: Disadvantages of floating foundations
DISADVANTAGES
SPAR TLP SEMISUBMERSIBLE
Small water line area:
buoyancy far below the free
surface, stability relies on
buoyancy/weight distribution
[5]
Small water line area:
buoyancy far below the free
surface, stability relies on
positive mooring tension [5]
Challenging design due
to complex dynamic
responses induced by
the wind-wave
combined loads [7]
Installation need special
procedures [5]
Vertical moorings: positive
tension needed, expensive
anchors, weight-sensitive [5]
Difficult to control
vertical motions; the
heave responses is the
prime concern [7]
More pitch and roll motions
since the water plane area
contribution to stability is
reduced [9]
Complexity of platform
depends upon design [5]
Might have larger wave-
induced motions that
may impact the rotor,
tower and blades [6]
7
Not suited for shallow water
[5]
Challenging in anchors and
construction [5]
More complex structure
to manufacture [6]
The hydrodynamic motion
characteristics in a stormy
seastate are superior
compared to the
semisubmersible [4]
Not suited for shallow water
[5]
Might be more subject
to corrosion and ice-
loads since much of the
structure is close to the
water surface [6]
Fatigue load in tower base
might be higher than for TLP
[6]
Less technological experience
[6]
The large draft may limit the
possibility for in-shore
assembly which would add
several offshore operations
[6]
Tendon tensioning and
transitioning from a free-
floating phase to a TLP phase
could be challenging [6]
The large draft may limit the
possibility for tow-back to
shore in case major
maintenance is required [6]
Can be challenging to
disconnect for tow-to-shore in
case of major repairs. Tendon
termination points (and
possibly active tensioning
system) needs attention [6]
Challenging in weight and
mooring [5]
Complexity and cost of the
mooring installation [9]
Change in tenden tension due
to tidal variations [9]
Structural frequency coupling
between the mast and the
mooring system [9]
1.5. Floating Concepts
A summary of various floating concepts around the world is summarized in [10] and the
list of them is presented in Table 4. Then, some of them are going to be presented in this
work.
Table 4: Global Floating Offshore Wind Foundation Development [10]
Global Floating Offshore Wind Foundation
Development
Project Name Technology
1 Principle Power WindFloat Semisubmersible
2 Mitsui SemiSub Semisubmersible
3 DeepCwind Semisubmersible
4 HiPR Wind Semisubmersible
5 Mitsubishi Semisubmersible
6 DIWET Semisub Semisubmersible
7 Gusto TriFloater Semisub Semisubmersible
8 Shimizu Semisub Semisubmersible
9 Wind Lens Floater Semisubmersible
10 Hitachi Semisub Semisubmersible
11 MODEC (Mitsui) Skwid Floater
12 Nass et Wind WinfFlo Floater
8
13 Technip Vertiwind Floater
14 Pelagic Power Floater
15 Poseidon Floating Power Floater
16 IDEOL Floater (Floatgen) Floater
17 Technip INFLOW Floater Floater
18 Hexicon Floater Floater
19 WindSea Floater Floater
20 Statoil HyWind Spar
21 Toda Construction Hybrid Spar Spar
22 Japan Marine United Advanced Spar Spar
23 Nautica AFT Spar
24 Sea Twirl Spar
25 Sway Floating Tower Spar
26 GICON TLP
27 Blue H TLP TLP
28 Pelastar TLP TLP
29 Iberdrola ETORGAI FLOTTEK TLP
30 Mitsui TLP TLP
31 Ocean Breeze TLP
It can be noticed that semisubmersible is the most popular floater at the moment. This can
be explained by all the advantages presented by this floating platform combined with its
small number of disadvantages.
1.5.1. Spar - Statoil Hywind
Hywind was the world’s first full-scale floating wind turbine. It was installed in 2009 in
the North Sea, 10 km from the shore. It was a 2,3 MW spar type floating wind turbine
moored to the seabed using three sets of catenary mooring [8], as it can be seen in Figure
4.
Figure 4: Hywind Demo [11]
9
After 8 years of testing of the full-scale prototype offshore in Norway, the Hywind Demo
has shown to function well in all wind and wave conditions [12].
The next step was the Hywind Scotland, the world’s first fully operational floating wind
farm. The wind farm is composed of five 6MW turbines with a total installed capacity of
30 MW located 25 kilometres offshore Scotland [12].
Figure 5: Hywind Scotland [12]
Figure 5 shows how the wind turbines will be positioned in the water offshore Scotland.
They are anchored up with three suction anchors each and linked together to send the
electricity produced onshore [12].
The floating platform is a spar type and it consists of a steel cylinder filled with ballast
water and rock or iron ore. Updates in the design have been made based on the experience
from the Hywind demo prototype [12]. The technical information about Hywind demo
and Hywind Scotland are presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Technical information from Hywind Demo and Hywind Scotland [12]
Dimension
Hywind Demo
2,3 MW
Hywind Scotland 6
MW
Mass 5300 tonnes 11200 tonnes
Draught 100 m 78 m
Hub Height 65 m 98 m
Water Depth 220 m 105 m
Substructure
Diameter 8,3 m 14,4 m
Rotor Diameter 85 m 154 m
Anchor
Drag embedded
anchor Suction anchor
Mooring Wire/Chain Chain
1.5.2. Semisubmersible - Principle Power WindFloat
WindFloat is a semisubmersible type floating offshore wind turbine. The prototype
project was located 6 km offshore Portugal, at a depth of about 42 m [8]. The full-scale
pilot was launched into the water at the end of 2011 [10].
The semisubmersible platform consists of three columns that provide buoyancy to support
the turbine. The columns are connected by braces to each other and the 2MW turbine is
10
located above one of the columns, as it can be seen in Figure 6. The structure is anchored
to the seabed by four mooring lines made of conventional components. Two are attached
to the column which supports the turbine and the other two are attached to the other
column [8].
Figure 6: WindFloat [13]
Its stability is due to the use of water entrapment plates on the bottom of each column
combined with a static and dynamic ballast system [13].
This project constitutes the first offshore wind deployment worldwide which did not
require the use of heavy-lift equipment offshore. Moreover, this is the first offshore wind
turbine in open Atlantic waters and the first deployment of a semisubmersible platform
supporting a multi-megawatt wind turbine. WindFloat operated for 5 years with high
availability [13].
The next step in the development of WindFloat will be the WindFloat Atlantic. This wind
farm will consist of three turbines that will collectively deliver an installed capacity of 25
MW. It will be located 20 kilometres off the coast of Portugal, where the water depth
reaches 100 meters [13].
11
2. Objective This work aims to compare the behavior of a 5 MW wind turbine supported by a semi-
submersible floating platform in two regions near the shore of Brazil: one in the southeast
and another in the northeast.
The comparisons are made based on the power production of the turbine, the
hydrodynamic behavior of the platform and an extreme structural analysis in the
connection between the tower and the platform.
12
3. Methodology The first step was the choice of the wind turbine platform. Based on the perspective of
the evolution of wind energy, a floating system was selected. Then, according to all
advantages and disadvantages presented by the main types of floating platforms as well
as the existing floating concepts, a semisubmersible platform was considered the best
option. Afterwards, the floating system OC4 DeepCwind was selected because it was
available at FAST library.
The second step was the choice of the two study regions. A northeast region and a
southeast region were targeted, based on their great energy potential. Then, the regions
were selected according to their water depth and their distances from the shore.
The third step was the definition of which design load case would be considered in the
analysis. This was based on “DNVGL-ST-0437: Loads and site conditions for wind
turbines” [14]. Afterwards, with the design load cases defined, wind, wave and current
information were searched.
The wind information required was the mean wind speed at the hub height and the
extreme wind speed. The wave information required was the significant wave height and
the wave frequency. The current information required was the current speed. It was
possible to calculate all required design load cases due to this information.
The wind models were defined based on the wind information. Then, the wind files were
generated by FAST using TurbSim and IECWind. Afterwards, the input files for FAST
were prepared based on the required design load cases. The files from hydrodynamic and
aerodynamic models were also available at FAST library as well as the files with tower,
blades and mooring properties. Finally, all simulations were done by running FAST.
The power production and the capacity factor of the turbines were calculated. To calculate
them, the average power production was estimated by the wind distribution and the power
curve from the turbine.
The main movements of the platform (surge, pitch and heave) were considered to
compare its hydrodynamic behavior. The extreme values of the platform movements were
calculated by FAST as well as the critical design load cases. Then, a comparison of these
movements during the time series of the simulation was made.
An extreme structural analysis was made in the connection between the tower and the
floating platform. The design load case considered was defined according to the
recommendations of DNVGL rule.
Based on the power production of the turbines and the hydrodynamic behavior of the
platforms, a comparative result analysis was made. The extreme structural analysis
validated the resistance of the structure.
A flow chart illustrating this methodology can be seen in Figure 7.
14
4. FAST FAST (Fatigue, Aerodynamics, Structures and Turbulence) is an open-sourced
aeroelastic computer-aided engineering (CAE) tool for horizontal axis turbines developed
by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The coupled dynamic response of
wind turbines can be simulated in it. [15]
FAST is divided into several models to enable coupled nonlinear aero-hydro-servo-elastic
simulation in the time domain. There are aerodynamics models, hydrodynamics models,
control and electrical system (servo) dynamics models and structural (elastic) dynamics
models. [15]
FAST tool enables the analysis of different wind turbine configurations as two or three-
blade horizontal-axis rotor and upwind or downwind rotor, for instance. Besides that, the
wind turbine can be modelled on land or offshore on fixed-bottom or floating
substructures. [15] An overview of FAST for floating platforms can be seen in Figure 8.
The aerodynamic models use wind-inflow data and solve blade-element aerodynamic
loads, including dynamic stall. The hydrodynamics models simulate the regular or
irregular incident waves and currents and solve for hydrostatic, radiation, diffraction and
viscous loads on the offshore substructure. The servo dynamics models simulate control
devices as well as the generator and power-converter components of the electrical drive.
The elastic dynamics models apply the control and electrical system reactions as well as
the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic loads. They also add gravitational loads and simulate
the elasticity of the rotor, drivetrain and support structure. [15]
Figure 8: Overview of FAST for floating structures [16]
4.1. Theoretical Background
4.1.1. Aerodynamic Model
AeroDyn is the time-domain wind turbine aerodynamics module in FAST that enables
aero-elastic simulation of horizontal-axis wind turbines. [17]
The aerodynamic calculations are based on the principles of actuator lines. The three-
dimensional flow around a body is approximated by local two-dimensional flow at cross-
15
sections and the distributed pressure and shear stresses are approximated by lift and drag
forces and pitching moments grouped at a node in a 2D cross-section. [17]
The 2D forces and moment at each node along the length of each blade and tower are
computed as distributed loads per unit length. Then, the total 3D aerodynamic loads are
found by integrating the 2D distributed loads along the length. [17]
AeroDyn is divided into four submodels: rotor wake/induction, blade airfoil
aerodynamics, tower influence on the wind local to the blade nodes and tower drag. [17]
The influence of the wake is calculated via induction factors based on the quasi-steady
Blade Element Momentum (BEM) theory. [17] This is an iterative approach that based
on the conservation of momentum coupled with the lift and drag coefficients. [18]
The flow field expands radially after passing the rotor-plane. Then, it is not possible to
calculate the resulting forces and torques on a rotating wind turbine rotor directly from
the rotor and fluid velocity. Based on the Froude-Rankine theorem, the axial fluid velocity
in the rotor-plane is the average between the wind speeds far ahead and far behind it. [18]
The induction calculation as well as the resulting inflow velocities and angles are based
on local flow to each analysis node of each blade, according to the relative velocity
between the wind and the structure. 3D corrections can be optionally applied in the BEM
solution as Prandtl tip-loss, Prandtl hub-loss and Pitt and Peters skewed-wake. [17]
The blade airfoil aerodynamics can be steady or unsteady. In the first model, the supplied
static airfoil data are used directly to calculate nodal loads. The second one accounts for
flow hysteresis and can be considered as 2D dynamic corrections to the static airfoil
response as a result of time-varying inflow velocities and angles. [17]
The influence of the tower on the wind local to the blade is based on a potential-flow and
a tower shadow model. The potential-flow model uses the analytical potential-flow
solution for flow around a cylinder to model the tower dam effect on upwind rotors. The
tower shadow model considers the tower wake deficit on downwind rotors. Both tower-
influence models are quasi-steady models and are applied within the BEM iteration. [17]
The wind load on the tower is based on the tower diameter and drag coefficient as well
as the local relative velocity between wind and structure at each tower analysis node. The
tower drag load calculation is quasi-steady and independent from the tower influence on
wind models. [17]
4.1.2. Hydrodynamic Model
HydroDyn is the time-domain hydrodynamics module in FAST that enables aero-hydro-
servo-elastic simulation of offshore wind turbines. [19]
HydroDyn allows multiple approaches for calculating the hydrodynamic loads on a
structure: a potential-flow theory solution, a strip-theory solution or a hybrid combination
of these two. The potential-flow solution is applicable to substructures or members of
substructures that are largely relative to a typical wavelength while the strip-theory
simulation is used for substructures or members of substructures that are small in diameter
relative to a typical wavelength. [19]
16
The waves are analytically generated for finite depth using linear Airy theory or first plus
second-order wave theory. The wave kinematics are only computed in the domain
between the flat seabed and still water level (SWL). [19]
The hydrodynamic forces on floating structures can be divided into three independent
parts. One part is the hydrostatic displacement-dependent forces. The two other parts are
wave-related problems. One of them is the radiation and the other is the diffraction. The
radiation problem is due to structure-generated radiating waves and describes the memory
effect that those waves have on the platform. The diffraction problem assumes the waves
are diffracted when passing the structure and includes the frequency-dependent wave-
excitation vector. [18]
Commonly, the marine engineering problems are solved in the frequency domain.
However, the FAST code works in a time-domain simulation. Then, the frequency-
domain wave properties are transformed into time-domain through an Inverse Fast
Fourier Transform (IFFT). [18]
4.1.3. Structural Model
ElastoDyn is the time-domain structural-dynamics module for floating substructures. It
combines multi-body and modal dynamics.
The structural model divides the system into small separate bodies that are dynamically
linked with each other. Flexible multibody systems allow the description of bodies and
associated degrees of freedom that account for body deformation. Then, numerical
reduction methods are applied to reduce the high order of ordinary differential equations.
[18]
FAST code models the three turbine blades and the tower as flexible bodies, representing
dynamics up to the second mode in two directions as well as variable rotor-speed. [18]
For the reduced model a rigid multibody system approach is chosen. This system consists
of four rigid bodies with an associated lumped inertial mass and a mass moment of inertia.
The spring-damper element that represents the tower deformation is the only elastic part
whereas the platform, nacelle and rotor are fully indeformable. [18]
The mathematical model has been elaborated using the Newton-Euler formalism which
takes the dynamics effects of local rotations like Coriolis and gyroscopic forces into
account. [18]
4.1.4. Mooring Model
The code FAST uses the quasi-static model. This approach assumes that the motion of
the system is linear and uniform between two static positions during a given time step for
which the loads on the system are assumed constant. The dynamic effects on the mooring
system is not considered, disregarding the motion dependency of mass, damping and fluid
acceleration on the system. The mooring line shape and tension are derived from the
catenary formulations, based on the three assumptions. First, it is assumed that the line is
in static equilibrium in each time step. Then, it is also assumed that inertia effects can be
neglected and that the line profile is well described by the catenary equations. The
mooring force consists only of the position-dependent static restoring force. The
hydrodynamic and inertial forces on the line are neglected. [20]
17
5. Input Data
5.1. Floating System - OC4 DeepCwind
For this work, the semisubmersible floating system OC4 DeepCwind was chosen,
because it was already available at FAST library. As it can be seen in Figure 9, the upper
column length is 26 m, the base column length is 6 m and the tower length is 77,6 m. The
tower is 10 m above the sea water level and the platform draft is 20 m.
The total metal mass of the structure is around 4000 ton (3,8522E+6 kg) and the total
water mass is around 9500 ton (9,6208E+6 kg) [21].
Figure 9: OC4 DeepCwind [21]
5.1.1. Platform
The floating platform consists of a main column attached to the tower and three offset
columns that are connected to the main column through a series of smaller diameter
pontoons and cross members. At the base of the three offset columns is a base column
with a larger diameter. They help to suppress motion particularly in the heave direction,
but also in surge, sway, roll and pitch [21]. The platform can be seen in Figure 10 and in
Figure 11.
The total mass, including ballast, of the floating platform is around 13500 ton. This mass
was calculated such that the combined weight of the rotor-nacelle assembly, tower and
floating platform plus the weight of the mooring system in water balances with the
buoyancy of the platform. The centre of mass of the floating platform is located at 13,46
m along the platform centreline below the still water level (SWL) [21].
18
The information of the floating platform geometry can be seen in Table 6 and the floating
platform structural properties can be seen in Table 7.
Figure 10: OC4 DeepCwind platform for 1/50th scale tests [21]
Figure 11: Plan and side view of the DeepCwind semisubmersible platform, respectively [21]
Table 6: Floating platform geometry [21]
Floating Platform Geometry
Depth of platform base below SWL (total draft) 20 m
Elevation of main column (tower base) above SWL 10 m
Elevation of offset columns above SWL 12 m
Spacing between offset columns 50 m
Length of upper columns 26 m
Length of base columns 6 m
Depth to top of base columns below SWL 14 m
Diameter of main column 6,5 m
Diameter of offset (upper) columns 12 m
Diameter of base columns 24 m
Diameter of pontoons and cross braces 1,6 m
19
Table 7: Floating platform structural properties [21]
Floating Platform Structural Properties
Platform mass, including ballast 1,3473E+7 kg
CM location below SWL 13,46 m
Platform roll inertia about CM 6,827E+9 kg-m²
Platform pitch inertia about CM 6,827E+9 kg-m²
Platform yaw inertia about CM 1,226E+10 kg-m²
5.1.2. Tower
The base of the tower is coincident with the top of the main column of the
semisubmersible platform and the top of it is coincident with the yaw bearing. The base
is located at an elevation of 10 m above the still water level (SWL) and the top is located
at an elevation of 87,6 m above the SWL, as it can be seen in Table 8Erro! Fonte de
referência não encontrada. [21].
The base of the tower has a diameter of 6,5 m and a thickness of 0,027 m. This diameter
is the same as the diameter of the main column of the semisubmersible platform. The top
of the tower has a diameter of 3,87 m and a thickness of 0,019 m. The diameter and
thickness of the tower are assumed to decrease linearly from the base to the top [21].
The total tower mass is around 250 ton and the centre of mass of the tower is located at
43,4 m along the tower centreline above the SWL, as it can be seen in Table 8 [21].
Table 8: Tower properties [21]
Undistributed Tower Properties
Elevation to tower base (platform top) above SWL 10 m
Elevation to tower top (yaw bearing) above SWL 87,6 m
Overall (integrated) tower mass
249718
kg
CM location of tower above SWL along tower centerline 43,4 m
Tower structural-damping ratio (all modes) 1%
5.1.3. Mooring
The OC4 DeepCwind platform is moored with three catenary lines spread symmetrically
about the platform Z-axis. The mooring lines are attached to the platform at the top of the
base columns at a depth of 14 m below the still water level (SWL).
The mooring system properties can be seen in Table 9.
Table 9: Mooring system properties [21]
Mooring System Properties
Number of mooring lines 3
Angle between adjacent lines 120 °
Depth to anchors below SWL 200 m
Depth to fairleads below SWL 14 m
Radius to anchors from platform centerline 837,6 m
20
Radius to fairleads from platform centerline 40,868 m
Unstretched mooring line length 835,5 m
Mooring line diameter 0,0766 m
Equivalent mooring line mass density
113,35
kg/m
Equivalent mooring line mass in water
108,63
kg/m
Equivalent mooring line extensional stiffness 753,6 MN
Hydrodynamic drag coefficient for mooring lines 1,1
Hydrodynamic added-mass coefficient for mooring lines 1,0
Seabed drag coefficient for mooring lines 1,0
Structural damping of mooring lines 2%
5.2. Turbine
The NREL offshore 5-MW wind turbine has three blades and presents an upwind
orientation. The rotor diameter is 126 m and the hub height is located 90 m above the
mean sea level (MSL). The rotor speed varies from 6,9 rpm to 12,1 rpm. The cut-in wind
speed is 3 m/s, the cut-out wind speed is 25 m/s and the rated wind speed is 12 m/s. The
rotor-nacelle assembly (RNA) weights 350 ton [22].
The properties of the NREL 5-MW wind turbine can be seen in Table 10. The structural
properties of the blades can be seen in Table 11. The properties from the nacelle and hub
can be seen in Table 12.
Table 10: NREL 5-MW Wind Turbine Properties [22]
Gross Properties Chosen for the NREL 5-MW Baseline Wind Turbine
Rating 5 MW
Rotor orientation, configuration Upwind, 3 blades
Control Variable speed, collective pitch
Drivetrain High speed, multiple-stage gearbox
Rotor, hub diameter 126 m, 3 m
Hub height 90 m
Cut-in, rated, cut-out wind speed 3 m/s, 11,4 m/s, 25 m/s
Cut-in, rated rotor speed 6,9 rpm, 12,1 rpm
Rated tip speed 80 m/s
Overhang, shaft tilt, precone 5 m, 5°, 2,5°
Rotor mass 110000 kg
Nacelle mass 240000 kg
Tower mass 347460 kg
Coordinate location of overall CM (-0,2 m, 0,0 m, 64 m)
Table 11: Blade structural properties [22]
Undistributed Blade Structural Properties
Length (w.r.t. root along preconed axis) 61,5 m
21
Mass scaling factor 4,536%
Overall (integrated) mass 17740 kg
Second mass moment of inertia (w.r.t. root)
11.776.047 kg-
m²
First mass moment of inertia (w.r.t. root) 363.231 kg-m
CM location (w.r.t. root along preconed axis) 20,475 m
Structural-damping ration (all modes) 0,48%
Table 12: Nacelle and hub properties [22]
Nacelle and Hub Properties
Elevation of yaw bearing above ground 87,6 m
Vertical distance along yaw axis from yaw bearing to shaft 1,96256 m
Distance along shaft from hub center to yaw axis 5,01910 m
Distance along shaft from hub center to main bearing 1,912 m
Hub mass 56.780 kg
Hub inertia about low-speed shaft 115.926 kg-m²
Nacelle mass 240.000 kg
Nacelle inertia about yaw axis 2.607.890 kg-m²
Nacelle CM location downwind of yaw axis 1,9 m
Nacelle CM location above yaw bearing 1,75 m
Equivalent nacelle-yaw-actuator linear-spring constant 9.028.320.000 N-m/rad
Equivalent nacelle-yaw-actuator linear-damping constant 19.160.000 N-m/(rad/s)
Nominal nacelle-yaw rate 0,3 °/s
5.3. Study Regions
This work aims to compare the power production and the hydrodynamic behavior of a
semisubmersible platform in two different locations near the shore of Brazil. Thus, one
region in the northeast and another in the southeast were selected.
These regions were selected based on their water depth and their distance from the shore.
As the total cost varies with the distance from the shore and the water depth [7], these
regions should not be too far from the coast. Besides that, they should have a water depth
above 50 m to justify the use of a floating platform. The two regions were selected based
only on their water depth and their distance to the shore. A comprehensive study to select
the regions with the biggest power capacity was not made.
The southeast region selected is near Cabo Frio, Rio de Janeiro. The region is 100 km by
100 km, located around 100 km from the coast. The water depth in this region varies from
50 to 300 m. This region can be seen in Figure 12, highlighted by a black square.
22
Figure 12: Southeast region selected
The northeast region selected is near São Luís, Maranhão. The region is also 100 km by
100 km, located around 100 km from the coast. The water depth in this region varies from
40 to 300 m. This region can be seen in Figure 13, highlighted by a black square.
Figure 13: Northeast region selected
5.4. Design Load Cases
Based on DNVGL-ST-0437 [14], there are eight design situations that should be
considered to verify the structural integrity of wind turbines components. These situations
are divided into:
1) Power production: that is when the wind turbine is in operation and connected to
the electrical grid. It is assumed that no-fault situation occurs and that the control
system is active;
2) Power production with the occurrence of fault: that is when a significant fault for
wind turbine loading is assumed to occur during power production. It can be any
fault in the control or safety systems or any internal fault in the electrical system;
23
3) Start-up: that is when the loads during the transitions from any standstill or idling
situation to power production on the wind turbine are considered;
4) Normal shutdown: that is when the loads during the normal transitions from power
production to stand-by condition on the wind turbine are considered;
5) Emergency stop: that is when a manual actuation of the emergency stop
pushbutton is considered;
6) Parked: that is when the rotor of the wind turbine in stand-by mode is at standstill
or idling;
7) Parked and fault conditions: that is when the non-stand-by state (standstill or
idling) resulting from the occurrence of a fault is considered;
8) Transport, installation, maintenance and repair: that is when situations and loads
due to transport, installation, maintenance and repair from the wind turbine are
considered.
The purpose of this work is to compare the power production as well as the hydrodynamic
behavior of a semisubmersible in two different regions. Thus, it was considered that only
some design situations were necessary for this first study of comparison.
The comparison of the hydrodynamic behaviour of the platform will initially be made
only on power production and parked situations. Thus, transition situations as start-up
and shutdown were not analysed. Similarly, transport, installation, maintenance and
repair situations were also disregarded.
5.4.1. Power production
Design situation “Power Production” has seven design load cases (DLC) associated
with it, as it can be seen in Figure 14.
DLC 1.1 is required only for calculation of the ultimate loads acting on the RNA and on
tower and foundation of onshore wind turbines [14]. As this load case is not related to an
offshore wind turbine, it will be disregarded.
DLC 1.2 is used for fatigue analysis. The discretization of the wind speed intervals within
the wind speed ranges to be investigated shall not be chosen to be larger than 2 m/s [14].
At the beginning, a fatigue analysis would be included in this work. However, an extreme
structural analysis was considered more appropriate as this work presents a first
evaluation of the behavior of an offshore wind turbine. Nevertheless, it is known that a
fatigue analysis will be considered in further work of structural analysis.
DLC 1.3 embodies the requirements for the ultimate loading resulting from extreme
turbulence conditions. These conditions include both environmental turbulence as well as
turbine wake extreme turbulence [14]. Only environmental turbulence is being considered
in this work, so this load case was also disregarded.
DLC 1.4 and DLC 1.5 consider different rotor azimuth positions [14].
DLC 1.6 considers an offshore wind turbine in the event of a combination with a severe
sea state [14].
DLC 1.7 considers humid weather conditions with ice formation on the rotor blades [14].
As both study regions are located near Brazil’s shore, it wasn’t considered the formation
of ice on the rotor blades. So, this load case was also disregarded.
24
Figure 14: Design load cases for power production situation [14]
5.4.2. Parked
Design situation “Parked” has five design load cases (DLC) associated with it, as it can
be seen in Figure 15.
DLC 6.1 considers an average oblique inflow of ± 8° and also that the average yaw
misalignment does not lead to larger values and, consequently, that slippage of the yaw
system can be excluded [14].
DLC 6.2 considers a grid failure in an early stage of the storm with the extreme wind
situation [14]. As the connection of the platform in a grid wasn’t part of this work, this
load case was disregarded.
DLC 6.3 considers the extreme wind speed with a recurrence period of one year together
with an extreme oblique inflow or average extreme oblique inflow. An average oblique
inflow of up to ± 20° shall be assumed [14], then an average oblique inflow of 20° was
considered.
DLC 6.4 considers significant fatigue damage at any component due to a fluctuating load
appropriate for each wind speed in a non-power production time [14].
DLC 6.5 includes weather conditions with ice formation on the offshore wind turbine
structure. For the same reason as DLC 1.7, this load case was disregarded.
In the design load cases DLC 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.5, the extreme wind speed model (EWM)
shall be applied and in DLC 6.4, the normal turbulence model (NTM) shall be used [14],
as it can be seen in Figure 15.
Figure 15: Design load cases for parked situation [14]
25
5.4.3. Parked and fault conditions
Design situation “Parked and fault conditions” has two design load cases (DLC)
associated with it, as it can be seen in Figure 16.
DLC 7.1 considers a fault condition combined with the extreme wind speed model and a
recurrence period of one year [14]. A fault on blade number 1 pitch-drive was considered
[23].
DLC 7.2 considers significant fatigue damage in any component due to faults of the
electrical network [14]. For the same reason presented for DLC 6.2, this load case was
disregarded.
In design load case DLC 7.1, the extreme wind speed model (EWM) shall be applied and
in DLC 7.2, the normal turbulence model (NTM) shall be used [14], as it can be seen in
Figure 16.
Figure 16: Design load cases for parked and fault conditions situation [14]
All design load cases simulated with their information can be seen in Annex I: Summary
of Simulation Cases at the end of this work.
5.5. Environmental Loads
5.5.1. Wind Condition
Based on the design load cases explained above, all wind conditions will be presented in
this section. Besides, the classification of a wind turbine in the two study regions will be
made.
5.5.1.1. Classification of Wind Turbines
According to IEC Classification of Wind Turbines [24], a wind turbine can be classified
as class I, II or III and the turbulence intensity can be classified as A, B or C (higher,
medium or lower, respectively).
The wind turbine class is defined according to the annual mean wind speed at hub height
(Vave), the 50-year extreme wind speed over 10 minutes (Vref) or the 50-year extreme gust
over 3 seconds (V50,gust). Besides that, the category of turbulence intensity is defined
according to the mean turbulence intensity at 15 m/s (Iref), as it can be seen in Table 13.
26
Table 13: IEC Classification of Wind Turbines [24]
Wind Turbine Class I II III
Vave (m/s) 10 8,5 7,5
Vref (m/s) 50 42,5 37,5
V50,gust (m/s) 70 59,5 52,5
Iref
A 0,16
B 0,14
C 0,12
5.5.1.1.1. Mean wind speed
The mean wind speed was obtained through the website “Research Data Archive” [25].
The database “NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2) Selected Hourly Time-
Series Products” was used. It is possible to select the variables wanted with a temporal
selection and a spatial selection.
Here, the variables of interest are u- and v-components of the wind. The temporal
selection was chosen to be the past five years, from December 2013 to December 2018,
and the spatial selection was made based on the study regions.
The parameters of the wind are measured at 10 m above the water level. The wind speed
at the hub height will be estimated based on the measure mentioned by the following
formula:
𝑣2
𝑣1= (
ℎ2
ℎ1)
𝛼
Here, v1 is the wind speed at height h1 and v2 is the wind speed at height h2. α is the
shear exponent, according to Table 14 [23]. For tropical offshore regions, the wind shear
exponent range is 0,07 to 0,1. The value of 0,1 was chosen.
Table 14: Typical shear exponents for different site conditions [23]
Typical Shear Exponents for Different Site Conditions
Terrain Type
Land
Cover
Approximate Range of Annual
Mean Wind Shear Exponent α
Offshore, temperate Water 0,10 - 0,15
Offshore, tropical Water 0,07 - 0,10
There are many options to the grid size of the spatial selection. The smaller option was
selected in order to have a bigger number of points in the study region. Thus, the grid
0,205° x 0,204°, which is approximately 25 km x 25 km, was selected. As the study
regions are 100 km x 100 km, this selection guarantees 16 elements inside the study
region.
The spatial selection was made using a bounding box. It is important to notice that
latitudes and longitudes must be specified in whole degrees. Therefore, the southeast
bounding box is a little bit bigger than the study region selected. The spatial selection as
well as the bounding box used for them can be seen in the figure below.
27
Figure 17: Southeast region
Figure 18: Bounding box for southeast region
Figure 19: Northeast region
Figure 20: Bounding box for northeast region
The output file is converted to netCDF and they are grouped by month. In order to
calculate the monthly mean wind speed, a code using “Jupyter” was created as it can be
seen in Figure 21. The monthly wind speeds for the southeast region are shown in Table
15 and for the northeast region in Table 16.
28
Table 15: Southeast region - wind speeds 10 m above the ground
Table 16: Northeast region - wind speeds 10 m above the ground
Then, the total mean wind speed and the standard deviation were calculated, as it can be
seen in Table 17.
Table 17: Total mean wind speed and total standard deviation for both regions
Southeast Northeast
Mean (10 m) 3,86 Mean (10 m) 6,67
StdDeviation 1,77 StdDeviation 0,58
Lastly, the wind speed at the hub height was estimated based on the wind measured 10 m
above the water level by the formula:
𝑣2
𝑣1= (
ℎ2
ℎ1)
𝛼
For the southeast region:
𝑣2
3,86= (
90
10)
0,1
𝑣2 (90 𝑚) = 4,8 𝑚/𝑠
For the northeast region:
𝑣2
6,67= (
90
10)
0,1
𝑣2 (90 𝑚) = 8,3 𝑚/𝑠
Then, according to Table 13, the wind turbine class from the southeast region is class III
and the one from the northeast region is class II.
30
5.5.1.1.2. Turbulence intensity
Based on [23], the turbulence intensity (Iref) can be calculated by the following formula:
𝜎1 = 𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓(0,75𝑉ℎ𝑢𝑏 + 5,6)
𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 =𝜎1
0,75𝑉ℎ𝑢𝑏 + 5,6
Here, σ1 is the standard deviation and Vhub is the mean wind speed at the hub height.
Based on the values presented in Mean wind speed, the turbulence intensity for both study
regions was calculated. Then, based on Table 13, they were classified.
The southeast region presents Iref = 0,19 and its turbulence intensity is classified as A.
The northeast region presents Iref = 0,05 and its turbulence intensity is classified as C.
5.5.1.2. Extreme wind speed model (EWM)
The extreme wind speed model (EWM) is characterized by the 50-year extreme wind
speed over 10 minutes (Vref) and the 1-year extreme wind speed(V1-yr) [23].
The 50-year extreme wind speed over 10 minutes (Vref) was estimated with NBR 6123
[26]. Based on Figure 22, the extreme wind speed in the southeast region is 37 m/s and in
the northeast region is 39 m/s.
Based on Table 13, the wind turbine class in the southeast region is class III and the one
in the northeast region is class II. This classification is in accordance with the one made
based on the mean wind speed.
Figure 22: Extreme wind speed in Brazil
31
5.5.1.3. Normal turbulence model (NTM)
In the normal turbulence model (NTM), the wind speed at the hub height will vary from
2 m/s to 70% of the Vref [23]. The discretization of the wind speed intervals within the
wind speed ranges to be investigated shall not be chosen to be larger than 2 m/s [14].
Then, in the southeast region the range of wind speed in the NTM will vary from 2 m/s
to 26 m/s and in the northeast region the range will vary from 2 m/s to 27 m/s. In both
cases, the increment is of 2 m/s.
5.5.1.4. Extreme Coherent Gust with Direction Change (ECD)
In the extreme coherent gust with direction change (ECD) the wind speed at the hub
height will be considered as the rated speed from the wind turbine as well as this speed ±
2 m/s, denoted (Vr, Vr+2 and Vr-2) [23].
As the rated speed is 12 m/s, Vr+2 is 14 m/s and Vr-2 is 10 m/s.
5.5.1.5. Extreme Wind Shear Model (EWS)
The extreme wind shear model (EWS) only considers that the wind speed at the hub
height will be equal to the rated speed from the wind turbine [23].
5.5.2. Wave Condition
Based on the design load cases explained in Design Load Cases, all wave conditions will
be presented in this section.
5.5.2.1. Extreme Sea State (ESS)
The extreme sea state (ESS) is characterized by a significant wave height and a wave
period. The ESS is used for return periods of 50-years and 1-year. The range of wave
period appropriate to each of these significant wave heights shall be considered [14].
5.5.2.1.1. Significant Wave Height
Based on DNVGL-RP-C205 [27], a 2-parameter Weibull distribution can be assumed for
the marginal distribution of significant wave height (Hs) by the formula:
𝐹(𝐻𝑠) = 1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝 {−𝐻𝑠
𝛼}
𝛽
Here, α is the scale parameter and β is the shape parameter. These distribution parameters
are determined in appendix C according to the nautic zones presented in appendix B from
the recommended practice [27].
By definition, the cumulative distribution function of a real-valued random variable X
evaluated at x is the probability that X will take a value less than or equal to x.
𝐹𝑋(𝑥) = 𝑃(𝑋 ≤ 𝑥)
If N sea states are considered during a period of time, the probability of occurrence of
each of these sea states will be 1/N. Then, the probability to have a significant wave height
bigger than these sea states will be 1 – 1/N.
𝐹(𝐻𝑠) = 1 −1
𝑁
An expression to determine the significant wave height can be calculated equating the
two expressions from F(Hs):
32
𝐹(𝐻𝑠) = 1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝 {−𝐻𝑠
𝛼}
𝛽
= 1 −1
𝑁
𝑒𝑥𝑝 {−𝐻𝑠
𝛼}
𝛽
=1
𝑁
{𝐻𝑠
𝛼}
𝛽
= − ln1
𝑁
𝐻𝑠 = 𝛼 [− 𝑙𝑛 (1
𝑁)]
1𝛽⁄
Based on DNVGL-RP-C205 - Appendix B [27], the nautic zones were defined to the two
study regions. The southeast region is zone 74 and the northeast region is zone 66, as it
can be seen in Figure 23.
Figure 23: Appendix B Nautic zones for estimation of long-term wave distribution parameters [27]
Based on DNVGL-RP-C205 - Appendix C [27], the distribution parameters were defined
to the two study regions, as it can be seen in Table 18.
Table 18: Distribution parameters for Hs
Southeast Northeast
Area 74 Area 66
α 2,23 α 2,33
β 1,69 β 2,15
33
The number of sea states in one year is calculated by the formula:
𝑁1 = 365 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 × 24 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
3 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠= 2920 𝑠𝑒𝑎 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠
Here, it is assumed that a sea state takes 3 hours.
The number of sea states in 50 years is calculated multiplying the number of sea states in
one year by 50:
𝑁50 = 50 × 𝑁1 = 146000 𝑠𝑒𝑎 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠
Then, the significant wave height for return periods of 1-year and 50-years can be
calculated by the formulas below. The results are presented in Table 19.
𝐻𝑠 1 − 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 𝛼 [− 𝑙𝑛 (1
𝑁1)]
1𝛽⁄
𝐻𝑠 50 − 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 = 𝛼 [− 𝑙𝑛 (1
𝑁50)]
1𝛽⁄
Table 19: Significant wave heights
Southeast Northeast
Hs 1-year 7,62 m Hs 1-year 6,12 m
Hs 50-years 9,65 m Hs 50-years 7,37 m
5.5.2.1.2. Wave Period
Based on DNVGL-RP-C205 [27], joint environmental models are required for a
consistent treatment of the loading in reliability analysis and for assessment of the relative
importance of the various environmental variables during extreme load/response
conditions and at failure.
Different approaches to establishing a joint environmental model exist. The maximum
likelihood model (MLM) and the conditional modelling approach (CMA) [27].
The following CMA joint model is recommended when the significant wave height is
modelled by a 3-parameter Weibull probability density function [27]:
𝑓𝐻𝑠(ℎ) =𝛽𝐻𝑠
𝛼𝐻𝑠(
ℎ − 𝛾𝐻𝑠
𝛼𝐻𝑠)
𝛽𝐻𝑠−1
𝑒𝑥𝑝 {− (ℎ − 𝛾𝐻𝑠
𝛼𝐻𝑠)
𝛽𝐻𝑠
}
And the zero-crossing wave period conditional on Hs is modelled by a lognormal
distribution [27]:
𝑓𝑇𝑧|𝐻𝑠(𝑡|ℎ) =1
𝜎𝑡√2𝜋𝑒𝑥𝑝 {−
(𝑙𝑛𝑡 − 𝜇)2
2𝜎2}
Here, the distribution parameters μ and σ are functions of the significant wave height.
34
For the nautic zones defined in Appendix B [27], the distribution parameters are given in
Appendix C [27], where:
𝛾𝐻𝑠 = 0
𝜇 = 0,70 + 𝑎1𝐻𝑠𝑎2
𝜎 = 0,07 + 𝑏1𝑒𝑏2𝐻𝑠
The coefficients a1, a2, b1 and b2 for the two study regions can be seen in Table 20.
Table 20: Coefficients for Tz
Southeast Northeast
Area 74 Area 66
a1 1,143 a1 1,115
a2 0,148 a2 0,183
b1 0,1148 b1 0,1192
b2 -0,0087 b2 -0,0203
Then, to calculate the wave period the program CONTHT, developed by Paulo Mauricio
Videiro at LACEO Coppe/UFRJ, was used. This program calculates the extreme contour
of an ocean area based on the Winterstein procedure.
The inputs needed by the program are the Weibull distribution and the lognormal
distribution as presented above.
𝑊𝐸𝐼𝐵(𝐻𝑠; 𝛾𝑠; 𝛼𝑠; 𝛽𝑠)
𝐿𝑂𝐺𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝐴𝐿(𝑇𝑧; 𝜇; 𝜎)
For the southeast region:
𝑊𝐸𝐼𝐵(𝐻𝑠; 0; 2,23; 1,69)
𝐿𝑂𝐺𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝐴𝐿(𝑇𝑧; 0,70 + 1,143 ∗ 𝐻𝑠 ∗∗ 0,148; 0,07 + 0,1148 ∗ 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−0,0087 ∗ 𝐻𝑠)
For the northeast region:
𝑊𝐸𝐼𝐵(𝐻𝑠; 0; 2,33; 2,15)
𝐿𝑂𝐺𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝐴𝐿(𝑇𝑧; 0,70 + 1,115 ∗ 𝐻𝑠 ∗∗ 0,183; 0,07 + 0,1192 ∗ 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−0,0203 ∗ 𝐻𝑠)
Then, for the two return periods chosen (1-year and 50-years), the output of the program
is the extreme contour. The contour related to the southeast region can be seen in Figure
24 and the one related to the northeast region can be seen in Figure 25. As the significant
wave height was already calculated in Significant Wave Height, it is possible to find the
correspondent wave period in the result graphs. The results are presented in Table 21.
35
Table 21: Wave periods
Southeast Northeast
Tz, 1-year 9,8 s Tz, 1-year 9,65 s
Tz, 50-years 10,5 s Tz, 50-years 10,2 s
Figure 24: Contour from the southeast region
Figure 25: Contour from the northeast region
5.5.2.2. Severe Sea State (SSS)
The severe sea state (SSS) is also characterized by a significant wave height and a wave
period [14].
The same values calculated for the extreme sea state (ESS) were considered as
conservative values [23].
36
5.5.2.3. Normal Sea State (NSS)
The normal sea state (NSS) is also characterised by a significant wave height and a wave
period. It is associated with a concurrent mean wind speed. The significant wave height
of the NSS is defined as the expected value of the significant wave height conditioned on
the concurrent 10-minute mean wind speed [14]. The significant wave height and the
wave period will vary with the wind speed.
The significant wave height and the wave period can be calculated by the Sverdruv Munk
Bretschneider (SMB) method [23], by the following formulas:
𝐻𝑆 = 0,3𝑈2
𝑔{1 − [1 + 0,004(𝑔𝐹/𝑈2)1/2]
−2}
𝑇1/3 = 1,372𝜋𝑈
𝑔{1 − [1 + 0,008(𝑔𝐹/𝑈2)1/3]
−5}
𝑇𝑝 = 1,05𝑇1/3
Here, U is the mean wind speed at 10 m above sea level, g is the gravitational acceleration
and F is the fetch length.
5.5.2.3.1. Fetch Length
The fetch length is the length of water over which a given wind has blown. Fetch length
along with the wind speed determines the size of waves produced. The longer the fetch
length is and the faster the wind speed is, more energy will be imparted to the water
surface and larger the sea state will be.
The wave generation can be limited by fetch or duration. Based in Figure 26, there is a
limit value of fetch length that divides the sea in developed or growing/developing. A
developed sea is considered when the following relation is fulfilled:
𝐹𝑒𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ > 2,32 × 𝑈2
Here, U is the mean wind speed at 10 m above the mean sea level (MSL).
The normal sea state (NSS) will be associated with the normal turbulence model (NTM)
in which the wind speed varies from 2 m/s to 26 or 27 m/s. Then, to ensure a developed
sea, the fetch length was calculated considering the higher value of the wind speed in each
study region.
In Table 22, it can be seen the inferior limit of fetch length according to the wind speed as
well as the fetch length chosen for each study region. As it can be observed, the fetch
length chosen is bigger than all values of (2,32 x U²), ensuring a developed sea in all
conditions.
37
Figure 26: Fetch Limited Sea
Table 22: Fetch Length
5.5.2.4. Current
The current speed can be divided into two parts: a tide speed part and a wind speed part
[23].
𝑈(𝑧) = 𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑒(𝑧) + 𝑈𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑(𝑧)
The wind speed part is calculated based on the mean wind speed at 10 m height, by the
formula:
𝑈𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 = 𝑘𝑉𝑚(10𝑚)
Here, Vm(10m) is the mean wind speed at 10 m height and k is 0,016 [23].
The tide speed part was calculated based on tides and currents map available at the
website from the Brazilian navy [28] [29].
Based on the charts, the three required values from tide speed were calculated and they
can be seen in Table 23.
Table 23: Tide speeds
Southeast Northeast
Utide, mean 0,3 m/s Utide, mean 0,1 m/s
Utide, 1-year 0,5 m/s Utide, 1-year 0,4 m/s
Utide, 50-years 0,7 m/s Utide, 50-years 0,7 m/s
38
6. Results and Discussion
6.1. Power Production
The average power production can be estimated by the wind distribution and the power
curve from the turbine.
The wind variations in a regime can be described using Weibull distribution with an
acceptable accuracy level [30].
The probability density function (f(V)) indicates the fraction of time (or probability) for
which the wind is at a given velocity V [30]. The Weibull’s probability density function
is given by:
𝑓(𝑉) =𝑘
𝑐(
𝑉
𝑐)
𝑘−1
𝑒−(𝑉𝑐⁄ )
𝑘
Here, k is the Weibull shape factor and c is a scale factor.
The Weibull factors k and c can be estimated from the mean (Vm) and standard deviation
(σV) of wind data [30], by the following formulas:
𝑘 = (𝜎𝑉
𝑉𝑚)
−1.090
𝑐 = 𝑉𝑚 𝑘2.6674
0.184 + 0.816 𝑘2.73855
Based on the formulas above, the probability density function from the two regions
considered in this work was calculated and they can be seen in Figure 27 and in Figure
28.
Figure 27: Probability density function – Northeast
Table 24: Parameters used for the Northeast region
Northeast
Vm 8,310
σV 0,580
k 18,207
c 8,283
-1,0E-01
0,0E+00
1,0E-01
2,0E-01
3,0E-01
4,0E-01
5,0E-01
6,0E-01
7,0E-01
8,0E-01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Probability density function - Northeast
39
Figure 28: Probability density function – Southeast
Table 25: Parameters used for the Southeast region
Southeast
Vm 4,810
σV 1,770
k 2,973
c 5,393
The power curve of the 5MW NREL turbine can be found at [22]. It indicates the power
generated by the turbine given a wind speed. The numerical data used to make it was
given by Jason Jonkman at the NREL’s forum. Based on these data, it was possible to
draw the power curve from the turbine.
The power generated by the turbine (P) can be estimated by the following formula:
𝑃 = ∫ 𝑝(𝑉)𝑓(𝑉)𝑑𝑉
-5,0E-02
0,0E+00
5,0E-02
1,0E-01
1,5E-01
2,0E-01
2,5E-01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Probability density function - Southeast
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Gen
erat
ed P
ow
er (
kW)
Wind speed (m/s)
5MW NREL Turbine Power Curve
GenPwr (kW)
40
Here, the p(V) is the power generated by the turbine at a given wind velocity V and f(V)
is the probability of the occurrence of wind velocity V.
Based on the formula above, the power generated in the two regions considered in this
work was calculated and it can be seen in Table 26.
Table 26: Power generated in the two regions
Power Generated (kW)
Northeast 1651
Southeast 518
The capacity factor is the average power generated divided by the rated peak power, 5000
kW in this case.
𝐶𝐹 = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟=
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑
5000
Based on the formula above, the capacity factor in the two regions was calculated and it
can be seen in Table 27.
Table 27: Capacity factor in the two regions
Capacity Factor
Northeast 33%
Southeast 10%
As it can be observed, the capacity factor in the northeast region is triple that of the
southeast region. Based on power production, the northeast region seems to be more
interesting for the installation of a floating wind turbine.
However, since a comprehensive study to select the regions with the biggest power
capacity was not made, other areas in both regions might present a bigger capacity factor.
Besides, the capacity factors calculated above were compared to the capacity factors of
existing offshore wind farms. The aim of this comparison was to evaluate the feasibility
of the two study regions based on their power production.
The information of the capacity factors was found on the website “Energy Numbers” [31].
The average capacity factor for Belgian offshore wind farms is 36,8% and it varies in a
range from 31,6% to 43,4%. For Danish offshore wind farms, the average is 41,7% and
it varies in a range from 22% to 49%. The average capacity factors for offshore wind
farms in the UK is 37,9% and it varies in a range from 9,2% to 49,3%. Lastly, for German
offshore wind farms, the average capacity factor is 39,2% and it varies in a range from
27,4% to 48,2%.
The capacity factor for the northeast study region is similar to the average of the existing
wind farms. On the other hand, the capacity factor for the southeast study region is well
below average. This corroborates the preference for the installation in the northeast
region.
41
6.2. Hydrodynamic Behavior
The hydrodynamic behavior of the platform will be evaluated comparing the movements
of heave, pitch and surge in the two study regions. Only three of the six movements will
be compared due to their relevance. As it can be seen in Table 28, the movements of surge,
pitch and heave are much bigger than the other movements.
Initially, the extreme values of the platform movements, considering all simulated design
situations, were calculated by FAST. The extreme values can be seen in Table 28.
It is already possible to observe that most parts of the biggest movements were presented
by the platform in the southeast region.
Table 28: Extreme values of platform movements
Then, the time series of the simulation was compared considering an interval of 200 s.
The most part of the extreme values has occurred in design load case 6.1. The only
exception was the maximum of the pitch movement that has occurred in design load case
1.6 with a wind speed of 12 m/s.
DLC 6.1 considers the extreme wind speed model (EWM) and the extreme sea state (ESS)
with a period of return of 50 years. The information on this design load case can be seen
in Table 29.
Table 29: Information of design load case 6.1
Southeast Northeast
Vhub 37 m/s Vhub 39 m/s
Hs 9,6 m Hs 7,4 m
Tp 10,5 s Tp 10,2 s
Utide 0,7 m/s Utide 0,7 m/s
Uwind 0,5 m/s Uwind 0,5 m/s
DLC 1.6 considers the normal turbulence model (NTM) and the extreme sea state (ESS)
with a period of return of 50 years. The information on this design load case can be seen
in Table 30.
42
Table 30: Information of design load case 1.6 with wind speed 12 m/s
Southeast Northeast
Vhub 12 m/s Vhub 12 m/s
Hs 9,6 m Hs 7,4 m
Tp 10,5 s Tp 10,2 s
Utide 0,3 m/s Utide 0,1 m/s
Uwind 0,1 m/s Uwind 0,1 m/s
• Heave
As it can be observed in Figure 29 and in Figure 30, the amplitude of the movement of
heave from the platform in the southeast is always bigger than the one from the platform
in the northeast region.
This can be explained by the fact that the significant wave height in the southeast region
is bigger than in the northeast region.
Figure 29: Comparison of heave movement between 1000s and 1200s of simulation (DLC6.1)
Figure 30: Comparison of heave movement between 3300s and 3500s of simulation (DLC6.1)
-5,00E+00
0,00E+00
5,00E+00
1,00E+01
1,50E+01
1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
Heave (m)
Heave Southeast Heave Northeast
-5,00E+00
0,00E+00
5,00E+00
1,00E+01
1,50E+01
3300 3320 3340 3360 3380 3400 3420 3440 3460 3480 3500
Heave (m)
Heave Southeast Heave Northeast
43
• Surge
As it can be observed in Figure 31 and in Figure 32, the amplitude of the movement of
surge from the platform in the southeast region is always bigger than the one from the
platform in the northeast region.
This can also be explained by the fact that the significant wave height in the southeast
region is bigger than in the northeast region.
Figure 31: Comparison of surge movement between 1000s and 1200s of simulation (DLC6.1)
Figure 32: Comparison of surge movement between 3300s and 3500s of simulation (DLC6.1)
-1,00E+01
-5,00E+00
0,00E+00
5,00E+00
1,00E+01
1,50E+01
1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
Surge (m)
Surge Southeast (m) Surge Northeast (m)
-1,00E+01
-5,00E+00
0,00E+00
5,00E+00
1,00E+01
1,50E+01
3300 3320 3340 3360 3380 3400 3420 3440 3460 3480 3500
Surge (m)
Surge Southeast (m) Surge Northeast (m)
44
• Pitch
As it can be observed in Figure 33 and in Figure 34, the negative values of the movement
of pitch from the platform in the southeast region are always absolutely bigger than the
ones from the platform in the northeast region. On the other hand, the positive values vary
in a way that they are sometimes bigger in the platform in the southeast region and
sometimes in the northeast region. This was observed in the design load case 6.1.
In design load case 1.6 with wind speed 12 m/s, the negative values always have bigger
absolute value in the southeast region and the positive values are always bigger in the
northeast region, as it can be seen in Figure 35 and in Figure 36. It can be also observed
that the amplitude of the movement is bigger in the southeast region.
Figure 33: Comparison of pitch movement between 1000s and 1200s of simulation (DLC6.1)
Figure 34: Comparison of pitch movement between 3300s and 3500s of simulation (DLC6.1)
-1,20E+01
-1,00E+01
-8,00E+00
-6,00E+00
-4,00E+00
-2,00E+00
0,00E+00
2,00E+00
4,00E+00
1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
Pitch (deg)
Pitch Southeast (deg) Pitch Northeast (deg)
-1,20E+01
-1,00E+01
-8,00E+00
-6,00E+00
-4,00E+00
-2,00E+00
0,00E+00
2,00E+00
4,00E+00
3300 3320 3340 3360 3380 3400 3420 3440 3460 3480 3500
Pitch (deg)
Pitch Southeast (deg) Pitch Northeast (deg)
45
Figure 35: Comparison of pitch movement between 200s and 400s of simulation (DLC1.6)
Figure 36: Comparison of pitch movement between 400s and 600s of simulation (DLC1.6)
The comparisons presented above have shown a bigger movement of heave, surge and
pitch of the platform in the southeast region.
However, the two design load cases considered above are defined according to the
significant wave height with a 50-years period of return. As this wave height is bigger in
the southeast region, it was already expected a bigger movement of the platform in this
region.
Then, to compare the movement of the two platforms in a similar situation, it was chosen
to make a comparison considering the design load case 1.2. It considers the normal
turbulence model (NTM) and the normal sea state (NSS). The wind speed of 8 m/s was
chosen.
-3,00E+00
-2,00E+00
-1,00E+00
0,00E+00
1,00E+00
2,00E+00
3,00E+00
4,00E+00
5,00E+00
6,00E+00
7,00E+00
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
Pitch (deg)
Pitch Southeast Pitch Northeast
-3,00E+00
-2,00E+00
-1,00E+00
0,00E+00
1,00E+00
2,00E+00
3,00E+00
4,00E+00
5,00E+00
6,00E+00
7,00E+00
400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600
Pitch (deg)
Pitch Southeast Pitch Northeast
46
Table 31: Information of DLC 1.2 with 8 m/s wind speed
DLC 1.2 _ 8 m/s
Vhub 8 m/s
Hs 0,9 m
Tp 4,7 s
Figure 37: Comparison of heave movement (DLC1.2)
Figure 38: Comparison of surge movement (DLC1.2)
0,00E+00
1,00E+00
2,00E+00
3,00E+00
4,00E+00
5,00E+00
6,00E+00
7,00E+00
8,00E+00
9,00E+00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Heave (m)
Heave Southeast Heave Northeast
-2,00E+00
-1,50E+00
-1,00E+00
-5,00E-01
0,00E+00
5,00E-01
1,00E+00
1,50E+00
2,00E+00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Surge (m)
Southeast Surge Northeast Surge
47
Figure 39: Comparison of pitch movement (DLC1.2)
As it can be seen in the figures above, there is no difference in the movement of heave of
the platform in the two regions. A small difference in the movement of surge can be
observed, in which the platform in the southeast region presents a bigger amplitude of
movement. The bigger difference can be seen in the movement of pitch, in which it is
also the platform in the southeast region that presents a bigger amplitude of movement.
At this last analysis the difference between the southeast and the northeast simulation was
only the turbulence intensity of the wind speed at the study regions. The turbulence
intensity in the southeast region (A) is bigger than the turbulence intensity in the northeast
region (C). Thus, it can be concluded that the turbulence intensity affects with more
significance the movement of pitch. Besides that, the turbulence intensity has just a small
influence on the movement of surge and no influence on the movement of heave.
The significant wave heights in the northeast region are smaller than the ones in the
southeast region. In addition to that, the turbulence intensity in the northeast region is also
smaller than the one in the southeast region. Then, based on the hydrodynamic behavior
of the platform in the two study regions, the northeast region is more suitable for the
installation of the floating wind turbine.
6.3. Structural Analysis
The transition region, where the tower base is connected to the floating platform, is a
critical region of the system. Thus, a structural analysis was made to ensure that the
maximum stress in this region is below the minimum yield stress. As this work presents
an initial analysis, only an extreme structural analysis was made. However, in further
work, a fatigue analysis shall be made.
Based on DNV-ST-0437 [14], the severe sea state (SSS) model shall be used in
combination with normal wind conditions for calculation of the ultimate loading of an
offshore wind turbine during power production. Then, DLC 1.6 was used in this analysis
and the wind speed of 24 m/s was considered.
-2,00E+00
-1,00E+00
0,00E+00
1,00E+00
2,00E+00
3,00E+00
4,00E+00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Pitch (deg)
Pitch Southeast Pitch Northeast
48
The forces and moments at the tower base were calculated by FAST. Then, to calculate
the stress in the section of the tower base, the force along the z-axis as well as the moments
about the x-axis and y-axis were considered. The tower base coordinate system can be
seen in Figure 40.
Figure 40: Tower base coordinate system [32]
The section of the tower base is an annulus (a ring-shaped object). The base diameter is
6,5 m and the thickness is 0,027 m. Eight points around this section were defined in which
the stress was calculated, as it can be seen in Figure 41.
Figure 41: Eight points to stress calculation
The stress in each point was calculated by the following formula:
𝜎 = −𝑇𝑤𝑟𝐵𝑠𝐹𝑧𝑡
𝑆+
𝑇𝑤𝑟𝐵𝑠𝑀𝑥𝑡
𝐼𝑦. 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝜃 +
𝑇𝑤𝑟𝐵𝑠𝑀𝑦𝑡
𝐼𝑥. 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
Here, TwrBsFzt is the force directed along the z-axis; TwrBsMxt is the moment about
the x-axis; TwrBsMyt is the moment about the y-axis; S is the surface of the tower base
section; I is the inertia of the tower base section and θ is the angle between the point and
the x-axis.
The maximum and the minimum stress at the tower base section are presented in Table
32.
49
Table 32: Maximum and minimum stress at tower base section
Southeast Northeast
σ max 301 MPa σ max 243 MPa
σ min -299 MPa σ min -241 MPa
The steel was selected based on DNVGL-OS-C101 [33] and the minimum yield stress
was calculated based on DNVGL-OS-B101 [34].
Based on section 3.2.2 of [33], the structural category of this transition region is classified
as special due to the substantial consequences caused by a failure in this region as well as
the concentration of stress in it.
Then, based on section 4.3 of [33], structural steel can be selected. It is already known
that the structural category is special and that the strength group is high strength. Then
according to the design temperature as well as the thickness of the material, the grade of
the steel can be determined.
As it is presented above, the thickness of the tower base is 27 mm. It is supposed that the
platform is going to be constructed in Brazil, where temperature will never be below zero
degree. Then, the grade of the steel must be “E”.
Based on section 1.2 of [34], the minimum yield stress of high strength steel grade E
(DNV HS E 36) is 355 MPa.
In both regions, the maximum calculated stress is below the minimum yield stress. The
maximum calculated stress of the southeast platform is 85% of the yield stress and the
one of the northeast platform is 68% of the yield stress.
It can be observed that there is a good margin between the calculated stress and its
maximum. However, in further work, an analysis of the stress concentration factor (SCF)
shall be made in this section.
50
7. Conclusion This work presents three analyses to compare the behavior of a wind turbine supported
by a semi-submersible floating platform.
In the study of the power production of the two turbines, it was observed that the capacity
factor of the northeast region is triple that of the southeast region. This can be explained
by the higher mean wind speed in the northeast region as well as the lower turbulence
intensity presented in this region.
In the hydrodynamic behavior analysis, it was observed that the platform in the southeast
region presented bigger amplitudes of movement than the one in the northeast region.
This can be explained by the fact that the significant wave heights observed in the
southeast region is bigger than the ones in the northeast region. Besides that, it was also
observed that a higher turbulence intensity causes higher movements of pitch. The
movements of surge and heave were not significantly influenced by the turbulence
intensity.
In the structural analysis, it was defined that the structural steel for the transition region
should be DNV HS E 36 with a minimum yield stress of 355 MPa. In both regions, the
maximum calculated stress in the tower base was below the yield stress. The maximum
calculated stress of the southeast platform was 85% of the yield stress and the one of the
northeast platform was 68% of the yield stress.
It is important to point out that the analyses were made only for the two selected regions.
These regions were chosen based only on their water depth and their distance to the shore.
Besides that, only three from eight design cases defined by the DNVGL rule were
considered.
Then, based on the results presented above, the northeast region seems more interesting
for the installation of a wind turbine supported by a semi-submersible floating platform.
A summary of the results can be seen in Table 33.
Table 33: Summary of the results
Results
Northeast Southeast
Power Production (kW) 1651 518
Capacity Factor 33% 10%
Hydrodynamic Behaviour
Surge (m) 8,1 11,18
Heave (m) 9,67 11,93
Pitch (deg) -7,04 -9,62
Structural Analysis
Maximum stress (Mpa) 243 301
For further work, a study to select the areas with the biggest power capacity in the two
regions should be made. In addition to that, all design cases must be considered to define
which region is more suitable for the installation of a wind turbine supported by a semi-
submersible floating platform.
51
Referências Bibliográficas
[1] D. Y. C. Leung and Y. Yang, “Wind energy development and its environmental impact : A
review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, pp. 1031-1039, 2012.
[2] R. Saidur, N. A. Rahim, M. R. Islam and K. H. Solangi, “Environmental impact of wind
energy,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, pp. 2423-2430, 2011.
[3] M. D. Esteban, J. J. Diez, J. S. López and V. Negro, “Why offshore wind energy ?,”
Renewable Energy, pp. 444-450, 2011.
[4] K. P. Thiagarajan and H. J. Dagher, “A Review of Floating Platform Concepts for
Offshore Wind Energy Generation,” Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, 2014.
[5] V.-n. Dinh and B. Basu, “On the Modeling of Spar-type Floating Offshore Wind
Turbines,” pp. 636-643, 2013.
[6] E. I. Zountouridou, G. C. Kiokes, S. Chakalis, P. S. Georgilakis and N. D. Hatziargyriou,
“Offshore floating wind parks in the deep waters of Mediterranean Sea,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, pp. 433-448, 2015.
[7] Y. Liu, S. Li, Q. Yi and D. Chen, “Developments in semi-submersible fl oating
foundations supporting wind turbines : A comprehensive review,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, pp. 433-449, 2016.
[8] M. Karimirad, Offshore Energy Structures for Wind Power, Wave Energy and Hybrid
Marine Platforms, Springer, 2014.
[9] H. Bagbanci and N. Architecture, “Dynamic Analysis Of Offshore Floating Wind
Turbines,” 2011.
[10
]
M. I. Consulting, “Floating Offshore Wind Foundations: Industry Consortia and Projects
in the United States, Europe and Japan,” 2011.
[11
]
“Expanding into Deeper Waters: Development of the Hywind floating wind,” Statoil,
2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.boem.gov/NREL-Expanding-Deeper-Waters/.
[Acesso em 24 07 2019].
[12
]
“Equinor,” [Online]. Available: https://www.equinor.com/en/what-we-do/hywind-where-
the-wind-takes-us.html. [Acesso em 24 07 2019].
[13
]
“Energias de Portugal (EDP),” [Online]. Available: https://www.edp.com/en/windfloat.
[Acesso em 24 07 2019].
[14
]
DNVGL, “DNVGL-ST-0437 - Loads and site conditions for wind turbines,” 2016.
[15
]
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL),” [Online]. Available: https://nwtc.nrel.gov/FAST. [Acesso em January 2019].
52
[16
]
J. Jonkman, FAST: An Open-Source Platform for Wind Turbine Multi-Physics Engineering
Modeling, 2017.
[17
]
G. H. B. J. R. D. J.M. Jonkman, “AeroDyn v15 User’s Guide and Theory Manual”.
[18
]
F. Sandner, “Reduced Model Design of a Floating Wind Turbine,” 2012.
[19
]
A. R. G. H. J.M. Jonkman, “HydroDyn User’s Guide and Theory Manual”.
[20
]
J. R. Josh Davidson, “Mathematical Modelling of Mooring Systems for Wave Energy
Converters—A Review,” Energies, 2017.
[21
]
A. Robertson, J. Jonkman, M. Masciola e H. Song, “Definition of the Semisubmersible
Floating System for Phase II of OC4,” 2014.
[22
]
J. Jonkman, S. Butterfield, W. Musial e G. Scott, “Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind
Turbine for Offshore System Development,” 2009.
[23
]
T. Utsunomiya, Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures (3), 2018.
[24
]
M. H. Zhang, “Appendix II IEC Classification of Wind Turbines,” em Wind Resource
Assessment and Micro-siting: Science and Engineering, Wiley, 2015.
[25
]
“Research Data Archive,” [Online]. Available:
https://rda.ucar.edu/#!lfd?nb=y&b=proj&v=NCEP%20Climate%20Forecast%20System%
20Reanalysis. [Acesso em 01 2019].
[26
]
ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, “NBR 6123 - Forças devidas ao vento
em edificações,” 1988.
[27
]
DNVGL, “DNVGL-RP-C205 - Environmental conditions and environmental loads,” 2017.
[28
]
Diretoria de Hidrografia e Navegação - Marinha do Brasil, “Cartas de Correntes de Maré -
Baía de Guanabara,” [Online]. Available:
https://www.marinha.mil.br/chm/sites/www.marinha.mil.br.chm/files/u1974/ccm-baia-de-
guanabara.pdf. [Acesso em 02 2019].
[29
]
Diretoria de Hidrografia e Navegação - Marinha do Brasil, “Cartas de Correntes de Maré -
Proximidades da Baía de São Marcos e Portos de São Luís e Itaqui,” [Online]. Available:
https://www.marinha.mil.br/chm/sites/www.marinha.mil.br.chm/files/u1974/ccm-baia-
sao-marcos.pdf. [Acesso em 02 2019].
[30
]
S. Mathew, Wind Energy Fundamentals, Resource Analysis and Economics, Springer.
[31
]
Andrew, “Energy Numbers,” [Online]. Available: http://energynumbers.info/. [Accessed
08 2019].
53
[32
]
M. L. B. J. Jason M. Jonkman, “FAST User’s Guide,” 2005.
[33
]
DNVGL, “DNVGL-OS-C101 - Design of offshore steel structures, general - LRFD
method,” 2017.
[34
]
DNVGL, “DNVGL-OS-B101 - Metallic materials,” 2015.
54
Annexes
Annex I: Summary of Simulation Cases
All design load cases simulated with their information can be seen in Figure 42 for the
southeast region and in Figure 43 for the northeast region.
Figure 42: Design situations for southeast region