D2.04 Collation of Offshore Wind-Wave Dynamics

bbbbbb
MarineRenewablesInfrastructureNetwork
D2.4:Collationofoff
shorewindwave
dynamics
Author(s):
H.Bredmose
DTUWIND
S.E.Larsen
DTUWIND
D.Matha
USTUTT
A.Rettenmeier
USTUTT
E.Marino
UNIFI
L.Saettran
NTNU
Revision:02
Date:30November2012
D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics
ABOUT MARINET
MARINET (Marine Renewables Infrastructure Network for Emerging Energy Technologies) is an ECfunded
consortium of 29 partners bringing together a network of 42 specialist marine renewable energy testing facilities.
MARINEToffersperiodsoffreeaccesstothesefacilitiesatnocosttoresearchgroupsandcompanies.Thenetwork
also conducts coordinated research to improve testing capabilities, implements common testing standards and
provides training and networking opportunities in order to enhance expertise in the industry. The aim of the
MARINETinitiativeistoacceleratethedevelopmentofmarinerenewableenergytechnology.
Companiesandresearchgroupswhoareinterestedinavailingofaccesstotestfacilitiesfreeofchargecanavailofa
range of infrastructures to test devices at any scale in areas such as wave energy, tidal energy and offshorewind
energyortoconductspecifictestsoncrosscuttingareassuchaspowertakeoffsystems,gridintegration,moorings
and environmental data. In total, over 700 weeks of access is available to an estimated 300 projects and 800
externalusers.
MARINETisconsistsoffivemainareasoffocusorWorkPackages:Management&Administration,Standardisation
&BestPractice,TransnationalAccess&Networking,ResearchandTraining&Dissemination.Theinitiativerunsfor
fouryearsuntil2015.
Partners
Ireland
UniversityCollegeCork,HMRC(UCC_HMRC)
Coordinator
SustainableEnergyAuthorityofIreland(SEAI_OEDU)
Denmark
AalborgUniversitet(AAU)
DanmarksTekniskeUniversitet(RISOE)
France
EcoleCentraledeNantes(ECN)
Netherlands
StichtingTidalTestingCentre(TTC)
StichtingEnergieonderzoekCentrumNederland
(ECNeth)
Germany
FraunhoferGesellschaftZurFoerderungDer
AngewandtenForschungE.V(Fh_IWES)
GottfriedWilhelmLeibnizUniversittHannover(LUH)
UniversitaetStuttgart(USTUTT)
InstitutFranaisdeRecherchePourl'Exploitationde
laMer(IFREMER)
UnitedKingdom
NationalRenewableEnergyCentreLtd.(NAREC)
TheUniversityofExeter(UNEXE)
EuropeanMarineEnergyCentreLtd.(EMEC)
UniversityofStrathclyde(UNI_STRATH)
TheUniversityofEdinburgh(UEDIN)
QueensUniversityBelfast(QUB)
PlymouthUniversity(PU)
Spain
EnteVascodelaEnerga(EVE)
TecnaliaResearch&InnovationFoundation
(TECNALIA)
Portugal
WaveEnergyCentreCentrodeEnergiadasOndas
(WavEC)
Italy
UniversitdegliStudidiFirenze(UNIFICRIACIV)
UniversitdegliStudidiFirenze(UNIFIPIN)
UniversitdegliStudidellaTuscia(UNI_TUS)
ConsiglioNazionaledelleRicerche(CNRINSEAN)
Brazil
InstitutodePesquisasTecnolgicasdoEstadodeSo
PauloS.A.(IPT)
Norway
SintefEnergiAS(SINTEF)
NorgesTekniskNaturvitenskapeligeUniversitet
(NTNU)
Belgium
1Tech(1_TECH)
Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

Page 2 of 50
Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework
Programme(FP7)undergrantagreementno.262552.
Legal Disclaimer
Theviewsexpressed,andresponsibilityforthecontentofthispublication,liesolelywiththeauthors.TheEuropean
Commissionisnotliableforanyusethatmaybemadeoftheinformationcontainedherein.

Page 3 of 50
REVISION HISTORY
Rev.
01
02
Date
31/102012
30/112012
Description
Draft
Final
Author
H.BredmoseandS.E.Larsen
H.BredmoseandS.E.Larsen

Page 4 of 50
Checkedby
Selfchecked
Crosschecked
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ThepresentreportconstitutestheProtocolManualforensuringharmonisationofoffshorewindandwave
simulationbeingimplementedatMaRINETfacilities.Windandwaveclimatesforfiveoffshorewindsitesinthe
NorthSeaandtheBalticSeahavebeenpresentedintermsofprobabilitydistributionsforwindspeedalongwitha
seriesoflumpedseastatesandturbulenceintensityvalues,parameterisedwithrespecttothewindspeed.Further,
extremevaluesforwindspeedandsignificantwaveheighthavebeenprovided.
Furthertothewinddistributionsandlumpedcharacteristics,theWeibullparametersforthewinddistributionand
explicitformulasfortheturbulenceintensityandsignificantwaveheightareprovided.Forthecorrelationofwave
peakperiodandsignificantwaveheight,astandardformulafromtheIEC614003codehavebeenfoundtocover
thescatterinthedata,althoughonecoefficientinthisformulamustbedecideduponbytheuser.Further,thevalue
of,theJONSWAPpeakenhancementparametermustbechosenbytheuser.Thiscanbedoneeitherfroman
explicitformulaorbythestandardchoicesof =1.0or =3.3.Herebyafulldescriptionofaunidirectionalwindwave
climatecanbeconstructed.Ifneeded,thisclimatecanbesupplementedbytheuserwiththecombineddirectional
distributionofwindandwaves,eitherbasedondataorintermsofparametricstudies.
Thescalingmethodproposedisthedynamicelasticscaling,whichmaintainstheratiosbetweenhydrodynamic,
aerodynamic,stiffnessinducedandgravitationalforces.ThisscalingpreservestheFroudenumberforthewater
phaseandthetipspeedratiofortherotor.TheReynoldsnumbersforairandwater,however,arenotconserved.A
redesignofthemodelscalebladeswillthereforebeneeded.Herethescaledthrustcurvemustbematched.Further,
ifpossible,thetorquefromtheairfoilshouldbematched.Thisrequirement,however,isdifficulttoachievedueto
thechangeinlift/dragratioatlowReynoldsnumber.Itisthereforeforeseen,thattheaerodynamictorqueandthus
producedpowerwillnotbescaledcorrectly.Asaconsequence,rollforcinginducedbythedynamicchangein
generatormomentwillnotscalecorrectly.However,thecorrectscalingofrotorthrustisfoundtohavehigher
priorityandthusjustifiesthescalingchoice.
Anexampleofdownscalingofwindandwaveconditionshasbeensupplied.Theexamplealsodemonstrateshow
thestructure(afloatingwindturbine)shouldbescaled.Itisdemonstratedthattheproposedscalingyieldsmodel
scaleresultsforthrustandwaveinducedmotionthatcanbeupscaledtoprototypescalewithaperfectmatch.

Page 5 of 50
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................7
CHARACTERISTICSOFOFFSHOREWINDWAVECLIMATE................................................................................8
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
SOURCESOFDATA......................................................................................................................................8
PARAMETERSFORWINDANDWAVESPECIFICATION............................................................................................9
ONEPARAMETERCLIMATEBASEDONWINDSPEED.........................................................................................10
STANDARDOFFSHORECONDITIONSFORTESTINGANDMODELLING......................................................................21
SCALINGOFWINDANDWAVECONDITIONSFORPHYSICALMODELTEST.......................................................29
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
REVIEWOFEXISTINGSCALINGSTUDIESANDRELEVANTNONDIMENSIONALNUMBERS...............................................29
RECOMMENDEDSCALINGMETHOD...............................................................................................................33
SCALINGOFWINDANDWAVECLIMATEPARAMETERS.......................................................................................38
EXAMPLE:SCALEDEXPERIMENTOFAFLOATINGWINDTURBINE..........................................................................38
DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................46
CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................47
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................48

Page 6 of 50
1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this report is to constitute a protocol manual to ensure harmonisation of offshore wind and wave
simulationatfacilitieswithintheMaRINETproject.
Basically,thepresentationisorganisedintotwoparts:
In section 2, we review the information that is available in international standards, reports and papers describing
datasets,informationandproceduresregardingenvironmentalparametersthatmustbespecifiedforoffshorewind
turbines. The review is specifically focused on parameters that are often handled also within laboratory facilities
meaning that focus is on the wind and wave parameters. In section 2.4 the review is condensed into a
recommendationforasetofstandardwindandwaveclimates,whicharesuitableforgenericuse.Itisemphasised
thattheseclimatesarenotintendedtoformadesignbasisforanyrealstructure.
In section 3, we review the scaling necessary for physical model tests with simultaneous wind and waves. The
necessary considerations for dynamicelastic scaling is introduced and applied to the wind and wave fields for a
floatingwindturbine.Anexampleofdownscalingawindwaveclimatetomodelscaleandupscalingofthemodel
resultstoprototypescaleisgiven.Theresultsandimplicationsarediscussed.
Finallysection4and5containtheoverallconclusionandthereferencesrespectively.

Page 7 of 50
2 CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE WIND WAVE CLIMATE.
In the present section, we consider the current specification of the offshore wind and wave climate for design
purposes. We mention other parameters that would be part of an offshore observation system, but would only
rarelyenterintotestsinlaboratoryfacilitiesduetomodellingdifficulties.Finally,theclimatespecificationsfromfive
specificsitesarecomparedandagenericdescriptionisdevised.
2.1 SOURCES OF DATA

ThemaindatasourcesforthisreportarethedesignbasisfromtheEUUpWindproject[1].Thereportgivesmet
oceandatafromtwositesintheNorthSea.Onesite,IJmuidenMunitiestort,isashallowwatersitewith21meter
waterdepth.Theothersite,K13of25mdepthisalsodenotedashallowwatersite.Aftersuitablesupplementof
datafromanadditionalwavebuoyat50mdepth,theK13dataarefurtherarguedtoreflectanominaldepthof50
m,sincethelargerdepthwillmainlybeimportantfortheextremewaveheights[1].Inthefollowingweshallshorten
IJmuidenMunitiestorttosimplyIjmuiden.
TheUpWindsitelocationsareshowninFigure2.1.1.
Figure2.1.1.UpWindsitesforthedatasamplingfordesignbasisstudies.Left:K13,servingbothasdeepwaterandshallow
watersite.Right:IJmuidenMunitiestortshallowwatersite.From[1].
Additional tothedatafromthe UpWindthe presentreportdrawsfromanumberofstandardsdevelopedforthe

offshorewindenergyindustry,notablyIEC614003[2],DNV:OJJ101[3]andABS[4].Further,additionaldataare
addedfromotherEUprojects,notablytheEUDOWNVInD(withtheBeatriceandtheSdraMidsjbanken)andthe
EUNORSEWINDprojects.ThepositionsofthefourassociatedlocationsareshowninFigure2.1.2.

Page 8 of 50
Figure2.1.2.Fulloverviewoflocationsreferredtointhisreport,Thesitesare:IJmuiden:1,K13:2,Beatrice:3andSdra
Midsjbanke:4.Forthetwofirstseethemoredetailedfigure2.1.1.
ThewindandwavedatapresentedinthisstudythusprovideexamplesfromsitesintheNorthSeaandBalticSea
andfurtherillustratethevariabilitybetweenthelocations.Forsomeparametersandrelations,notablesimilarities
are observed and might thus represent general climate characteristics with wider applicability. Here, however, it
mustbeemphasizedthattheapplicabilityofsuchgeneralrelationsareonlyvalidtotheextentthatnoexplicitand
implicit assumptions of the applied models are violated. Examples of such violating aspects could be depth
limitations,waverefraction,fetchconditionsforwindgenerationofwavesandinadequatewindsheardescription.
Withtheaboveinmind,forfulldesignbasisactivities,theimportanceofsitespecificdatacannotbeoverstated.In
thiscontext,anobviousmissinthedatasetsfromaEuropeanclimatepointofview,aredatafromtheAtlanticWest
coast, and from the Mediterranean, as well as the Baltic Sea with ice probabilities. Both because of the different
windandwaveclimaterulingthereandbecauseofthepracticalneedsforconsiderationsaboutdrifticeandicing
due to spray. Additional sites outside Europe would also make out a relevant extension of the study, as many
Europeanentrepreneursareactiveplayersinthenowworldwideexpansionofoffshorewindenergy.
Inspiteofthesereservations,wehavestillchosentheUpWinddesignbasis[1]asthebasicillustrativedataforthis
report,becauseitisarecent,large,comprehensiveandaccessibledatabase.
2.2 PARAMETERS FOR WIND AND WAVE SPECIFICATION
Thecorepartofthedesignbasisforanoffshorewindfarmconsistsofdataforthewindandwaveclimate.Thewind
characteristicsofagivensitecanbedeterminedfrommultiyearmeasurementsofwindspeedandwinddirection,
preferablyatseveralheights.Similarandsimultaneoustimeseriesfortheheightanddirectionofthesurfacewaves
mustbeestablished.

Page 9 of 50
Thewindclimateischaracterisedby
meanspeed
winddirection
windshear
turbulencestandarddeviationandturbulenceintensity
turbulencefrequencyspectrum
extremewindspeedwith1yearand50yearreturnperiod.
The wind measurements must be accompanied by measuring height, z, averaging time, often 10 min averages,
samplingtime,often10min)
Thewaveclimateischaracterisedby
significantwaveheight,Hs(standardderivedonbasisof3hoursdata)
peakperiod,Tp.
wavedirection
frequencyspectrum
directionaldistribution
misalignment(relativetothewinddirection)distribution
extremevalueofHswithTp,andthederivedheights,HSmax,andHSred(with1and50yearreturnperiod)
The multidimensional distribution function for these parameters must be considered to evaluate the design.
Normally one can simplify the approach considerably, using physical and statistical knowledge. This is illustrated
below,wherewediscusstheclimateconditionsasfunctionofoneparameteronly,thewindspeed.Thebasisfor
this approach is that the mean wind speed is the most important parameter to characterise both the wind
turbulenceandthewavefield.
Additionalinformationlikewaterdepth,tides,currentsandtemperatureinairandwatermustbemonitoredatthe
measuring site too. This information is available in the data of the UpWind design basis [1] project along with
informationonmarinegrowthandbottomsoilfeatures.Finallywenotethattheoccurrenceofwatericeandicing,
with associated loads, should be considered in relevant regions. This was not relevant, however, for the UpWind
sites.
Inthepresentreportwewillconcentrateonthewindandwaveinformationduetothefocusofmodellingandtests
attheexperimentalfacilitieswithintheMaRINETproject.Ourapproachistoseekforrobustcorrelationsbetween
the wind and wave parameters important for the evaluation of both fatigue and extreme loads on offshore wind
turbinestructures.Inordertodoso,westartbysummarisingasimplifiedoffshoreclimatedrivenbythewindspeed
inthenextsection.
2.3 ONE PARAMETER CLIMATE BASED ON WIND SPEED.
Inthissectionweseektodescribethedesignandloadparametersforoffshorewindturbines,bothwithrespectto
wind and other atmospheric parameters and with respect to the surface waves and other characteristic water
parameters.Aoneparameterapproachispresented,wherethewindspeedisconsideredafreeparameterandall
the other quantities are described conditionally to the wind speed. In the following, the parameters of this
descriptionandtheirtypicaldistributionsaresummarized.

Page 10 of 50
2.3.1 Winds and other atmospheric parameters.

ThedistributionofthemeanwindisnormallytakenasaWeibulldistribution,inthemediumtohighwindintervalas
is illustrated in the Figure 2.3.1. The distribution can either be derived for each wind direction sector, or as the
marginaldistributionforallsectors.Ithasthefollowingmathematicalform:
k V
f (V )
A A
(2.3.1)
k 1
V k
exp ,
A
Vbeingwindspeed,andAandkbeingthescaleparameterandshapeparameterrespectively.Forthepowerand
loadestimates,therelevantheightisthehubheight,presentlybeing80110 meter, which is the height interval
used throughout the UpWind reference 1 and in the figures and tables here, copied from that report. By
convention, however, wind climates are usually described at 10 m height. Conversion of the wind velocity
between heights can be done with equation 2.3.2 , or with equation 2.3.4 , which is a powerlaw wind profile.
Here we use 2.3.4 with,thepowerlawexponent,=0.14,ifnothingelseisindicated,followingtheinformationin
[1,2].

Figure2.3.1The10mwinddistributionathubheightfromtheIJmuidensite.From(1)
Whilethepowerlawprofileisacommonlyusedapproximation,thewindspeedtypicallyvarieswithheightasgiven
bythefollowingprofileexpression:
(2.3.2)
V ( z)
(ln(
z
) ( z , h, T )) ,
z0
wherezisthemeasuringheight,u*,thefrictionvelocity,andz0theroughnesslengthofthesurface.Furtherisa
correction function that becomes important if 1) z becomes significant relative to the height of the atmospheric
boundary layer, h, or 2) the difference in temperature between the water and the air, T, becomes significant.
Togetherwiththeotherparametersintheequation,Tdescribestheatmosphericthermalstability.isnormally
neglected over the ocean, but with the wind turbines reaching hubheights larger than 100m, it may not be
defensibleanymore.Asthissubjectisstillunderactiveresearchandisnotyetincludedinthedesignstandards,
0 isassumedthroughoutthepresentreport.
Theroughnessheightz0canbedeterminedfromCharnocksrelation:

Page 11 of 50
(2.3.3)
z0 Cu2 / g ,
whereCisacoefficientbetween0.01and0.015,dependentonthenearnessofacoast(andtosomeextentalsoon
windandwavehistory),andgistheaccelerationduetogravity.Overwater,z0isasmallquantity,oftheorderof
0.10.3mm.
Asanalternativetotheloglawaboveonecanusethesocalledpowerlawprofilegivenby
(2.3.4)
V ( z ) V ( z10 )( z / z10 )
,
Thepowerlawcoefficientistakenas0.14intheUpWinddesignbasis[1],whichisalsorecommendedin[2],but
bycomparisonwiththelogexpression(2.3.2)itisseenthatitwillvarywithz0andTandalsothezintervalused.
Thisvariationisneglectedinmostguidelineandstandardliterature.Hereitwillshowuptogetherwiththestatistical
scatter around the average behaviour. However, from both (2.3.2) and (2.3.4 with variable ), it is seen that the
Weibull distribution must change both A and k with height, not only A, as would be the case with a constant .
Indeedcloserstudiesshowthattypicallykwillincreasefromitsvalueat10mwithheightuptoaround80mfollowed
byagradualdecreasefurtherup[16],showingamaximumvariationof0.5acrosstheboundarylayer[,However,
thisispresentlyunderresearch.Inthepresentsimplifieddescription,theWeibullkparameteristhereforetakento
beindependentwithheight,consistentwiththechoiceofaconstantvalueof.
In the EUNORSEWIND project, the shear is measured directly from measuring stations in the North Sea and the
WesternBaltictypicallyaround100meterabovetheseasurface.ThemeasurementsarebasedonbothLIDARsand
conventionalprofileinstrumentation.Theresultsshowafairlylargescatterbetweenstationsandforeachstation.
TypicaldistributionsareshowninFigure2.3.2.EstimatesfortheextremeshearvaluesaregivenintheIEC614001
designcode[6].
Figure2.3.2.Theshearpowercoefficient, ,fromtwoNorthSeasites,GreaterGabbardandBeatrice.From[13].
Usingtheexpressionsof(2.3.2)or(2.3.4)onecanreferthe10meterwindspeedtohubheight,whichisthespeed
normally used in connection with design studies. As seen from the figure a good deal of variability in the
extrapolationmustbeexpectedduetothevariabilityofthepowercoefficient.Equation(2.3.2)illustratessomeof
thesourcestothisvariability,namelyz0andthefunction.
Additionallytotheverticalprofileofwindspeed,thewinddirectionisloggedwitheachrecordedwindspeed,and
thedirectionwilloftenbereportedintermsofwindroses,withorwithoutwindspeeddistributionsasisexemplified

Page 12 of 50
inFigure2.3.3.Thewinddirectiondistribution,however,isnotincludedinthesimpleoneparameterclimatedriven
bythewindspeed,whichisthefocusofthepresentsection.
Figure2.3.3.WindRose,winddirectiondistribution,withnumberofoccurrencesontheradialaxis,
fromtheIJmuidendata.From[1].
TheturbulenceintensityisgivenbyTI=1/V(z),where1isthestandarddeviationofthewindvelocityturbulence.
Indesignstudies1isnotsimplyderivedasthemeanvalueofaseriesofcomputedstandarddeviations,,around
themeanwind.Ratheritisthe90%quantileoftheseriesofstandarddeviations[2].Differentfittingexpressionsare
presentedintheliterature[2,6],where1isparameterisedbythewindspeedathubheight.From[1]wepresent
themostrecentformulationoveroceanconditionsinequation(2.3.5)aswellasinFigure2.3.4.
(15 aV )
(2.3.5) TI (V )
I15
(1 a )V
Herethecoefficient,a,isacoefficientaround5andI15isareferenceturbulenceintensityat15m/s,heretakenas
0.15or0.14,see[6].NotethattheTIformulationin(2.3.5)doescontainanexplicitheightvariation.
Figure2.3.4.TurbulenceIntensityathubheightaccordingUpWind,IEC(1,2,6).From[1].

Page 13 of 50
For lower wind speeds, and 1 (the 90% quantile) do not decrease as fast as V(z) for decreasing wind and TI
increasesfordecreasingwind.ForlargerwindsTIreachesalimitvalue,ordoesactuallyincreasealittle,duetoan
increasingz0withu*asgivenbytheCharnockrelation(2.3.3).
AlthoughwehaveherespecifiedboththewindshearandtheturbulenceintensityasanalyticalfunctionsofV,they
will appear with statistical scatter around these expected values, when they are based on direct measurements.
Furthertothenormalturbulencedefinedby(2.3.5)onecanalsospecifyanextremeturbulenceintensityforcertain
loadstudies,seeFigure2.3.4.
Turbulencecanbecharacterisedbythefrequencyspectrum,S(f),ofthehorizontalwindspeed,scalingwiththe
turbulencestandarddeviation,, anditsspatialandtemporalscales.Theliteratureshowsseveralformsthathave
agreatdealofoverlapastheyallrepresentthesameatmosphericphysics,withsimilarcombinationsofdatafitting
andtheory.HerewecitetheKaimalformaspresentedin[3]:
Lf
V10
fS ( f ) 2
,
Lf
(1 6 )5/3
V10
4
(2.3.6)
wherefisfrequency(Hz), isthestandarddeviationoftheturbulenceandListhecharacteristicturbulencelength
scale,takenas:
(2.3.7)
5.67 z for z 60 m
340.2
60
for
z
m
The turbulence spectrum above describes the frequency distribution as well the wave number spectrum, because
theatmosphericturbulencetoagoodapproximationobeyTaylorshypothesisoffrozenturbulence,meaningthatf=
VkV/2,wherekVisthewavenumberalongthemeanwinddirection.
Figure 2.3.1 illustrates how the overall wind speed distributions are normally well approximated by Weibull
distributions. However, these distributions are less satisfactory for extreme events. Here, it can be shown
mathematically that the most common realistic extreme value distribution functions have high value tails that
convergetowardsaGumbeldistribution,undertheassumptionofstationarity.Fromtheobservedwindrecords,one
cannowgenerateadistributionofmaximumwindspeedsoveragivenbasictimethatmustbelargeenoughforthe
maximum values to be independent of each other. Using the characteristics of the Gumbel distribution, one can
nextestimateextremewindeventsthatwillhappeninaverageoveracertainperiod,denotedreturnperiod,e.g.
onceeveryyear,50yearor100year,eventhoughthetimeseriesavailablearenotablyshorterthanthelargerof
thesereturnperiods.AccordingtothecharacteristicsoftheGumbeldistribution,therelationbetweentheexpected
extremewindanditsreturnperiodcanbefoundfrom:
(2.3.8)
VT ln( ln(1 T0 / T )) ln(T / T0 ) A b ln T ,
where and are the most probable value and the standard deviation of the series of maximum values,
respectively.Further,Aandbareconstants,derivedfromafittothemaximumvaluesplottedversustheirestimated
probability . NotethatthemiddleapproximationrequiresthatT>>T0 .Finally,Aandbcanbeestimatedfromactual
dataseries,asisillustratedinFigure2.3.5.

Page 14 of 50
Figure2.3.5.ExtremewindspeedversusreturnperiodfromUpWindIJmuidendataathubheight.From[1].
From Figure 2.3.5 one can from the red line data fit determine the extreme wind with associated probability or
returnperiod,aspresentedinTable2.3.1[1].Note,thatthereissomefreedomforthelinefitassociatedwitheq.
(2.3.8).Whiletheredlineappeartobebasedonthefulldatarange,acloserfittotheextremevalueobservations
couldbeobtainedifthefitwasperformedclosertothetailofthedistribution.Thiswouldyieldsomewhatsmaller
extremewinds.
Table2.3.1.Summaryofextremewindversusreturnperiodathubheight.IJmuidendata.FromUpWind[1]
Obviously these kinds of extreme value estimations can be used on other measured parameters than the wind
speeds, e.g. the shear or the turbulence intensity, but here one often prefer to work with distributions and
conditionaldistributions,e.g.givencertainwindsspeeds,ashavebeendonefortheextremeturbulencemodelin
Figure2.3.4.Specificcombinationsofwindandwaveparametersforextremeloadcasesareprovidedinthedesign
code[6].
2.3.2 Waves and other oceanic parameters

Whenthewindblowsoverthewater,surfacewaveswillbegenerated.Forreasonablyhomogeneousandstationary
windfields,thewavescangenerallybedescribedbyafairlynarrowbandfrequencyspectrumthatintegratestothe
variance of the wave field. Like the atmospheric turbulence the wave spectra show characteristic behaviour that
haveresultedinseveralanalyticalformsbasedonmixturesoftheoryanddatafitting.Theformpresentedhereis
extractedfrom[2].TheformulationstartswiththePiersonMoskowitzspectrum.

Page 15 of 50
(2.3.9)
S PM ( f ) 0.3125 H s2 f p4 f 5 exp(1.25(
fp
f
) 4 ) ,
whereHsisthesignificantwaveheight,fthefrequencyinHzandfpthepeakfrequency(=1/Tp).Thetwoparameters
mustbedeterminedfromotherequationsorfromfittingtoactualdata.Theydependonthedurationandstrength
oftheactingwind.GenerallyHsincreasesandfpdecreaseswithfetchordurationofthewind.
TheJONSWAPspectrumisformulatedasamodificationtothePiersonMoskowitzspectrumandismoreapplicable
tofetchlimitedsituationsandgrowingwaves,asisfoundformostoffshorewindturbinesitesintheNorthSea.It
reads:
(2.3.10)
S JS ( f ) C ( ) S PM ( f ) ,
where is denoted the peak enhancement parameter, is a function of frequency and C is a normalisation
factor. The forms of the two spectra are illustrated in Figure 2.3.6.
Figure2.3.6.SketchofthewavespectrumaccordingtothePiersonMoskowitzspectrumandaccordingtotheJONSWAP
spectrum.From[9].

For 1 the PiersonMoskowitz spectrum is recovered. Formulas for and C are provided in 2 . The value of
is often taken to be 3.3 for storm waves and 1.0 for fatigue calculations. It can also be estimated with
basis in the spectral parameters 6 where Hs must be inserted in metres and Tp in seconds:

2.3.11

Even for a constant wind speed of wind direction 0, all waves do not propagate along the wind direction, but in
an angle interval around 0. This is normally expressed by a directional wave spectrum [2,15] , for example the
cosine2sspectrum

Page 16 of 50
(2.3.12)
S ( f , ) S ( f ) D( f , ), with D( f , ) cos s ( 0 ) .
Here D(f,) normalises to 1 by integration over , and s is described by a complex function of f and the
characteristicsofthespectralfunctionin(2.3.11),see[15].
Another reason for waves propagating in different directions from the local wind is that the wind is neither
homogenousnorstationary,andwavesgeneratedatothertimesandplacesmaypropagateacrossthemeasuring
sitefollowingthedirectionofthewind,whenandwheretheywereformed.Theywilltypicallyappearatthelower
frequencyendofthelocallygeneratedSJS(f)spectrum,becauselongwavesdissipateslowerthanshortwaves.They
aredenotedswells,andwillatsomesitesbesignificant.
Asafinalreasonforthewavepropagatingdirectiontobeoffthewinddirection,onemustmentionwavediffraction
thatcanhappenforthelongerwavespropagatingontolowerwaterdepthorduetointeractionwithacurrent.Just
asforthewindonecanestablishawaverose,summarisingthe climaticdirectionofthewavefields.Suchoneis
illustratedinFigure2.3.7.
Figure2.3.7.Waverose.From[1]
Asforwinds,onecouldalsofromwavedataderiveclimaticdistributionsofthecharacteristicwaveparameters,HS
and fp, but since wind speed is the dominating driver of the wave field, it is more useful to consider the wave
parameters conditional to the wind parameters. Rather than a wave rose, as above, one focus on the directional
difference between the wind and the wave direction, and rather than the climatic distribution of fp and HS one
focusesontherelationoftheseparameterstothewindspeed.Thelatteristypicallydonethroughascattermatrix
forthedistributionof(Hs,Tp)conditionalonthewindspeed.Suchmatricescanbefoundin[1],whileinthepresent
report, we report only averaged values. Additionally, since the directional wave distribution is site specific in the
present report, we shall use only unidirectional waves along the wind direction. However, for a real design one
would need to consider the full scatter diagrams of wind and wave direction. In Table 2.3.2 we illustrate the
combinedmarginaldistributionofwindandwavedirectionforallwindspeeds,takenfromoneoftheUpWindsites
[1].Sincethewavedirectiondistributionasstatedissitespecific,wehavenottriedtomergethedifferentTablesof
[1]fromthedifferentUpWindsites.

Page 17 of 50
Table2.3.2.Distributionofsimultaneouspropagationdirectionsforwindandwaves,takenfromtheK13siteinUpWind.
Takenfrom[1].
2.3.3 Lumped windwave climate for fatigue calculation

Whilethefullwindwaveclimateatasiteisamultidimensionalparameterspacewithamultidimensionalstatistical
distribution function, it can be practically expressed in terms of a oneparameter climate conditional to the wind
speed. In this approach, central values of all other parameters are determined by suitable averaging through the
parameterspace.Theoverallpurposeofsuchasimplerclimatedescriptionistosimplifythefatiguecalculationsfor
thestructure.Therefore,theaveragingoftheclimateparametersisdonewithrespecttofatiguecontributionand
not simply with respect to probability of occurrence. An example of such a lumped windwave climate is given in
Table2.3.3whichshowsthewaveandwindparametersasfunctionofmeanwindspeedathubheighttogetherwith
thefrequencyofoccurrenceforeachwindspeedbin.Thestatisticsinthetablearelumpedaccordingtothemethod
ofKhn[1,43].Twoturbulenceintensityvaluesareshown,namelythoseassociatedwiththenormalandextreme
turbulencemodels,see[1].Itshouldbeemphasizedthattheestimatesofturbulenceintensityarederivedfromthe
normalturbulencemodelusedalsoinFigure2.3.4andin(2.3.4),basedonassumptionsaboutthedistributionofTI
foragivenwindspeed.
Thetwovaluesof1.0and3.3arequiteusual,andweshallreturntothisinsection2.4.Finally,wepointoutthatHS
and Tp values are weighted values for a given wind speed. Individual values will scatter statistical around these
averages.
It should be mentioned that the fatigueweighting of the wave data cited here was done for bottom fixed wind
turbines. Hence, for a floating wind turbine, the weighting is likely to be different and might thus lead to other
weightedvaluesofHsandTp.CurrentlyanextensivestudyisconductedbyNREL,UniversityofMassachusetts,and
University of Stuttgart to address this question. An large set of aeroelastic simulations (12 million of 10min
duration)ismadeandwillbeusedtoestablisharecommendationforsimplifyingloadcasesforextremeandfatigue
calculations for floating wind turbines. First results from the study will be presented at OMAE 2013: L. Haid, G.
Stewart, Jason Jonkman, Matthew Lackner, Denis Matha, Amy Robertson SimulationLength Requirements in the
LoadsAnalysisofOffshoreFloatingWindTurbines.

Page 18 of 50
Table2.3.3.Lumpedwindwaveclimateconditionaltowindspeedathubheight(here85meterabovemeansealevel).The
tableprovidesturbulenceintensities,significantwaveheight,periodofthepeakfrequency,andpeakednessforthewave
spectrum,probabilityofoccurrence,orcorrespondinglydurationofoccurrenceperyear.DataarefromtheK13sitefrom
theUpWindproject.Takenfrom[1].

2.3.4 Extreme values for wave climate
Thelumpedstatisticsofdatainthetableaboveisverysuitableforfatigueloadstudies.Fortheextremeloadsone
must use the extreme values of both winds and wave heights as estimated by the Gumbel statistics in the text
above,correspondingtoa1yearand50yearreturnperiod.Thisisillustratedinfigure2.3.8,alsotakenfromtheK13
siteintheUpWindreport[1].
Figure2.3.8.ExtremeHSversusreturnperiodbytheGumbelmethodfortheK13shallowdepthsiteofUpWind.From[1].

Page 19 of 50
FromFigure(2.3.8),wecansummarisetheextremewavesasfunctionofthereturnperiod:
Table2.3.4.ExtremesignificantwaveheightsasderivedfromtheGumbelcorrespondingtotheUpWindK13shallowdepth
site.From[1].
TheHSvalueistakendirectlyfromtheGumbelfitmethodoftheFigure2.3.8.SimilarremarksasforFigure2.3.5on
therangeoflinefittingandtheimplicationfortheextremevaluesofTable2.3.4apply.HmaxisbasedonthatHSis
derivedfromanaverageover3hoursandthatthewavesareRayleighdistributed,givingrisetoamaximumvalue
being~1.86timesHS[2].The peak periodcorresponding totheextremewindspeedsmustbeboundedbythe
followingformulacriterion,[2]:
(2.3.12)
11.1 H S (U ) / g T 14.3 H S (U ) / g ,
whereoneshouldselectthepeakperiodthatresultsinthestrongestloads.

Page 20 of 50
2.4 STANDARD OFFSHORE CONDITIONS FOR TESTING AND MODELLING
Inthissectionweextractasetofoffshorestandardconditionsfortestandmodelling.Theextractionismadefrom
dataoftheUpWinddesignbasisandfromtheBeatriceandSdraMidsjbanksites.
2.4.1 Wind climate parameters in the extended North Sea and Baltic Sea
ThewindconditionsovertheextendedNorthSeaandBalticSeaisillustratedinFigure2.4.1and2.4.2takenfromthe
EUNORTHWINDreporting[13,14]onthemarinewindsofNWEurope.Figure2.4.1showsthemesoscalemodelling
resultoftheaverage100meterwindspeed200611,whilethefourplotsofFigure2.4.2depictsthemarinewind
climateat10meterheightmeasuredbyradarfrom10yearsatellitemeasurements[14].Thefiguresillustratethe
variabilityofwindparametersintheextendedNorthSeaandBalticSea.
Figure2.4.1.Thevariationofthe100mmeanwindacrosstheNorthWesternEuropeanwaters,asmodelledbymesoscale
modelling,Norsewind.From[13].

Page 21 of 50
Figure2.4.2.The10metermarinewindclimateacrosstheNorthWesternEuropeanseas.Thewhiteareascorrespondtolack
ofdata,mainlyduetoprecipitation.From[14].
ThefiguresindicatethatoneshouldexpectafairlygradualchangeinthewindcharacteristicoftheNorthWestern
Europeanwaters,withexceptionofthequiteclosetocoastalareas.At10mabovethesurface,atypicalWeibullA
parameter is seen to be about 9 m/s, with a kvalue about 2. The A and kvalue seems of the order of the ones
derivedfromthe10mdistributionsinFigure2.4.3andpresentedinTable2.4.1.
2.4.2 Wind and wave climate for five specific sites

Wenowcomparethewindandwaveclimateparametersforfivesites,namelythethreesitesoftheUpWinddesign
basis, the Beatrice site and Sdra Midsjbanken. The UpWind data are extracted from [1], while the Beatrice and
SdraMidsjbankenresultsaretakenfrom[10,11].ItshouldbenotedthatthewavedatafromSdraMidsjbanken
arenotbasedonmeasurementsbuthavebeencalculatedwithclosedformwavegrowthmodels.
AfirstsummaryisprovidedinTable2.4.3whichliststheWeibullwinddistributionparameters,theextreme(1,50)
yearwindspeedandsignificantwave heights,the waterdepth andthelumpedwaveclimateparametersforV10=
20m/s.Giventhedifferenceingeographicallocation,thesimilaritybetweenthewindandwaveparametersisquite
remarkable.Further,the10meterAandkvaluesofthetablecomparequitewellwiththesatellitedataofFigure
2.4.2.

Page 22 of 50
Site
IJmuiden
K13shallow
K13Deep
Beatrice
Sdra
Midsjbanken
A10
7.9
9.3
9,3
8,7
8,2
K
2.1
2.0
2.1
1,9
2.1
HS
V10=20m/s
4.2
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.3
Tp,
V10=20m/s
8.7
8.0
8.0
6.5
7.5
V50
m/s
31.5
34.1
34.1
38.5
35.2
V1
m/s
23.8
25.9
25.9
HS,50
m
7.6
8.2
9.4
HS,1
M
5.7
6.1
7.1
Depth
m
21
25
50
44
15
Table2.4.1Summaryofparametersfromthe5sitesconsidered.NotethatthewaveparametersfromSdraMidsjbanken
aremodelledandnotbasedonmeasurements.OntheK13Deepsite,thedepthisindicatedby50,becauseofthewaythe
K13Deepdatasetismade,seesection2.1.TheHSandTpdatafromSdraMidsjbankenaremarkedwithalso,because
theyarebasedonwavegrowthmodelsnotdataAtBeatriceandSdraMidsjbankennootherextremevaluesthanthe50
yearwindspeedweredetermined.
Next, two tables of lumped windwave climates are provided in Table 2.4.2 and 2.4.3, pertaining to the IJmuiden
shallowwatersiteandtheK13shallowwatersite.ThesimilartablefortheK13deepwatersite(notshownhere)is
identical to the one of the K13 shallow water side except for 1) the probabilities, which are associated with the
differenceintheWeibullparametersforthewindspeeddistributionatthetwosites;and2)theextremewavedata,
whicharenotlistedinthesetables.
Table2.4.2LumpedstatisticsfromtheIJjmuidensite.Thewindspeedreferstothehubheight(83.9m).From[1].

Page 23 of 50
Table2.4.3LumpedstatisticsfromtheK13shallowsite.Thewindspeedreferstothehubheight(85.2m).From[1].
Thesimilarityanddifferencesbetweenthedifferentsitesarenowanalysedintermsofgraphicalcomparison.Figure
2.4.3 shows the wind distributions together with raw data and the fitted Weibull distributions. The Weibull
parametersarethoseofTable2.4.1.IngeneralareasonablematchtotheWeibullcurveisobserved.Further,asis
also reflected by the similarity of the Weibull parameters in Table 2.4.1, the wind distributions from the different
sitesarefairlysimilar.
Figure2.4.3The10mwindspeeddistributionatthe5sitesconsidered,comparedtoaeachotherandananalyticalWeibull
function.

Page 24 of 50
TheturbulenceintensityathubheightiscomparedinFigure2.4.4.TheturbulenceintensityforthethreeUpWind
siteswerebasedontheformulain(2.3.5)ratherthanonmeasurementsandarethereforeingoodagreement.The
Beatricevaluesaresmaller.Thevalueof(2.3.5)fora=5m/sandI15=0.14areshownonthefigureaswell.
Figure2.4.4.Normalturbulenceintensityversuswindspeedatthehubheightfrom4ofthesitesconsidered.Theblackcurve
isthenormalturbulenceformulafrom[1]givenin(2.3.5),whichisthebasisfortheTIestimatesfromtheUpWindsites.The
BeatriceTIisdeterminedfromTlvaluesovertheNorthSeaextrapolatedbyuseof(2.3.3).NoindependentTIwasestimated
atthefifthsite.
ThedependenceofsignificantwaveheightHstowindspeediscomparedinFigure2.4.5.Thecurvesforthefoursites
areseento beverysimilar.Thissuggeststhatagenericrelationmightexist,althoughit shouldbe notedthat the
valuesarebasedonfatiguelumpedHsvalueswhichmightthusinducesomedependencetostructuralparameters.
Nevertheless,ananalyticalfunctionwasfittedtothedata.Itwasfoundthatthecurve
(2.4.1)HS/H0=1+2.6(V/V0)3/(1+(V/V0)2)H0=1m,V0=13m/s
providesareasonablefittothedata.

Page 25 of 50
Figure2.4.5.HSversusthe10meterwindspeedforthe4sitesconsideredwithwavemeasurements.TheHSvaluesforthe
fifthsitewereestimatedfromwavemodelsonlyandarenotshownhere.ThefitisdefinedasHS/H0=1+2.6
(V/V0)3/(1+(V/V0)2),withH0=1mandV0=13m/s.
ThecorrelationofpeakperiodandsignificantwaveheightisshowninFigure2.4.6.FortheUpWinddata,thetwo
curvesofK13shallowandK13deepareidentical.Further,thecorrelationforIJmuidenisseentobequitesimilarto
thatfromK13.ThecorrelationfromBeatrice,however,isseentohavesubstantiallysmallervaluesofTpthanthe
UpWindsites.Thismaybeduetoadifferenceintheappliedmethodforfatiguebasedlumping,asthelumpedTp
valuesofBeatricewereweightedwith1/Tptoreflectthenumberofstresscyclesassociatedwithagivenperiod.On
thefigure,thecurves
(2.4.2)Tp=asqrt(Hs/g)
witha=11.1anda=14.3havealsobeenincluded.Thisreflectstherequirementof(2.3.12).Itisseenthatthedatais
withinthesebounds,exceptfortheBeatricedatawhichisverycloseandsometimessmaller(Tpwise)thanthelimit
associatedwitha=11.1.
AllthreecurvesshowapeculiarupwardturnforsmallHsvalues.Thisbehaviourisnotreflectedinthegenericcurves
associatedwith(2.4.2)andmaythuseitherbysitespecificorsimplyaconsequenceofthefatiguelumping.

Page 26 of 50
Figure2.4.6.TpversusHS,estimatedfromdataatthefoursitesconsidered.FortheUpWindsites(2),thedataaretabulatedin
section2.3.TheBeatricecurveisfrom[10]andisonthelowerbound,whichmayreflectthenearnessofthecoastatthissite.
ThetwoanalyticalcurvesreflectboundsforTpin(2.3.12).
TheJONSWAPpeakenhancementparameter,, isdeterminedfrom(2.3.11)anddepictedinfigure2.4.7.Itisseen
that the UpWind sea states show a general increase in for increasing wind speed, towards a maximum value of
approximately2.5.TheBeatricevaluesgrowreadilytoavalueof=5,whichisverylarge.Thismaybeexplainedby
therelativelysmallTpvalues,whichagainmightbeaconsequenceofthefatiguelumpingmethodratherthanthe
actualsiteswaveclimate.
Figure2.4.7.Thepeakfactor versus the 10 meter wind speedforthe4sitesconsidered.ThehighvaluesfromBeatrice

reflecttherelativelylowTpvaluesforthissite,seeFigure2.4.4.

Page 27 of 50
2.4.3 Recommendation
On the basis of the analysis and comparisons of the windwave climates at the five selected sites, the following
approach for the generation of generic windwave climates for model test purposes and generic numerical
computationisrecommended:
1. ThewinddistributionischosenasaWeibulldistributionwithparameterssimilartotheonesinFigure2.4.3/
Table 2.4.1. The wind speeds are extrapolated to hub height by use of the power law profile given in
equation (2.3.4). A power law coefficient of = 0.14 is applied, consistent with IEC 16043 [2]. When
choosing the Weibull parameters, one should consider both the geographic variation, illustrated in this
section,andtheuncertaintyassociatedwiththeirheightextrapolation,discussedinsection2.3.
2. With basis in the chosen wind distribution, a number of wind speed bins with associated probability are
determined.
3. Foreachwindspeed,theassociatednormalturbulenceintensityisdeterminedfromFigure2.4.4.
4. Foreachwindspeed,aHsvalueisdeterminedfromFigure2.4.5orthefittedformula(2.4.1).
5. TheassociatedTpvalueisestimatedfromFigure2.4.6.Thedatashowsquitesomescatterbutfallswithin
theboundsdeterminedfrom(2.3.12).
6. TheJONSWAPpeakenhancementfactorischosenas=1.0forfatiguestudiesor=3.3forultimateload
cases.Alternatively,onecandeterminefromequation(2.3.11).
7. Extreme values of wind speed and wave height are chosen from Table 2.4.1. A choice consistent with the
chosenWeibulldistributionisrecommended.
Herebyalumpedwindwaveclimateisestablishedalongwithextremevaluesforwindspeedandwaveheight.The
climates are not intended as a replacement of any real data for a specific site. But with no data available the
procedurecanservetoexemplifytherelevantparametersandtheircorrelationwithwindspeed.

Page 28 of 50
3 SCALING OF WIND AND WAVE CONDITIONS FOR PHYSICAL

MODEL TEST
In this section, we review the relevant scaling considerations for offshore wind turbines that are subject to
simulteneous loads from waves and wind. A recent study for a floating wind turbine is reviewed too. Next, the
suggested scaling methodology is derived and a scaling method for structural parameters and wind/wave climate
parametersaredevised.ThescalingmethodisappliedtoasimplenumericalmodelforafloatingTLP(TensionLeg
Platform) wind turbine, subjected to an external climate of section 2.4. It is demonstrated that a perfect
reproduction of structural response at model scale can be achieved, provided that the structural loads are
reproduced correctly. This requirement implies a redesign of the blades due to the smaller Reynolds number at
modelscaleandassumesinsensitivityofthehydrodynamicloadcoefficientstothehydrodynamicReynoldsnumber.
Thelimitationsofthescalingprocedurearediscussed.
3.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING SCALING STUDIES AND RELEVANT NONDIMENSIONAL

NUMBERS
Althoughoffshorewindturbinesarepredominantlybottomfixed,mostoftheexistingstudiesofsimultaneouswind
andwaveloadsinoffshorewindenergyareconcernedwithfloatingwindturbines.Thisisattributedtothelarger
responseofthesupportstructurecomparedtobottomfixedstructures.
Until now, only little material has been published regarding FOWT (Floating Offshore Wind Turbine) scale model
testing.ThescaletestingeffortsrelatedtoprototypesofFOWT(e.g.StatoilsHywindprototypeorEDPsWindFloat)
havenotbeenpublished.ThemostcomprehensivepublishedFOWTscaletestwasperformedintheUnitedStates
bycollaborationbetweentheNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory,NREL,andtheUniversityofMaine,UMaine.
Experiences from this test are reviewed in the following. Further, a review of relevant scaling laws and a list of
relevantpublicationsaddressingthisissueareprovided.
3.1.1 List of Symbols for the review

cs
=speedofsound
C
=wavecelerity
Fr
=Froudenumber
g
=accelerationofgravity
l
=characteristiclength
KC=KeuleganCarpenternumber
Ma
=Machnumber
=rotorangularvelocity[radians/sec]
=fluiddensity
R
=bladeradius
Re
=Reynoldsnumber
St
=Strouhalnumber
TSR
=tipspeedratio
=fluiddynamicviscosity
U
=freestreamfluidvelocity

Page 29 of 50
3.1.2 Important NonDimensional Numbers

Nondimensional numbers are dimensionless fractions or products resulting from relations between parameters
definedbythefundamentalquantitiesL,M,andT(length,mass,andtime,respectively).Thetwomostimportant
nondimensionalnumberstoconservewhenmodelingascaledrotorsystemaretheLockNumberandtheReynolds
Number [27,28]. These reflect the most important parameters involved with aerodynamic and elastic forces. The
FroudeNumberisthemostimportantnondimensionalnumbertopreservewhenmodelingfloatingstructuresfor
hydrodynamicsimilarity[29,30].

Geometric Scaling Factor ()
Thegeometricscalingfactordescribestheratioofthephysicallengthbetweenthefullscaleturbineandthescaled
testmodel.Thevalueofisconstrainedbythesizeofthetestingfacility,feasibilityofmodelconstruction,scaling
lawsimilituderequirements,andtheprojectsbudget.

Froude Number (Fr)
The Froude number is a dimensionless number that defines the ratio of inertial forces to gravitational forces in a
fluid.Whenafreesurfacewavepropagateswithinafluid,theFroudenumbercanbedefinedinthefollowingway
[29]:
3.1.1

Frwave C/ gl
In windwave basin model tests, the Froude number is the most frequently conserved dimensionless number to
ensurehydrodynamicsimilitude.WhileviscouseffectsdoaffectFOWTplatformhydrodynamics,theyareconsidered
smallincomparisontoinertialeffects atbothtest andmodelscales.Viscouseffectsaremostlymanifestedin the
thinboundarylayeraroundfloatingbodies[31].
Reynolds Number (Re)

TheReynoldsnumberisdefinedastheratioofinertialforcestoviscousforcesinaflow.Foracylinderexposedtoa
fluidwithvelocityu,theReynoldsnumberis
3.1.2
Re DU/
TheReynoldsnumberisimportantinfluidsystemsbecausequalitatively,flowoverabodyactssimilarlyforidentical
Reynoldsnumbers.Herebye.g.liftanddragcoefficientscanbeparamterizedintermsoftheReynoldsnumber[33].
Becauseofthesmalllengthscalesatwhichmodelsaretested,thereisalmostalwaysReynoldsnumbermismatch
between model and full scales that cannot be resolved unless there is a change in the fluid of the system (i.e.
viscosityordensity)[27,32].Althoughthishasbeendonesuccessfullyinthehelicopterindustry,webelieveitisout
ofthescopeofexistingwindwavebasintestfacilities.Thismismatchisoftencombatedbyusingairfoilsthathave
coefficientsofliftanddragwithminimaldependenceonReynoldsnumber.Thisisespeciallyimportantinthelow
Reynoldsnumberregimesencounteredinmodeltesting[27].
KeuliganCarpenter number (KC)

TheKeuliganCarpenternumberisacharacteristicnumberforplanaroscillatoryflowsdefinedas
(3.1.3)KC=UmTw/D,
whereUmisthemaximumvelocityintheouterflow,TwistheperiodoftheflowandDisthecylinderdiameter.It
providesameasureforthelengthofahorizontalparticlepathintheouterflowrelativetothecylinderdiameter.For

Page 30 of 50
small KC numbers, there will be no flow separation around the cylinder, where for large KC numbers, vortex
sheddingwilloccurduringtheflowcycle.Asaruleofthumb,thebalancebetweeninertiaandviscousforcesisequal
to20/KC[15].SmallKCnumbersthusimpliesdominantinertialloading,whilelargeKCnumbersareassociatedwith
dominantviscousloading.
Tip Speed Ratio (TSR)
Thetipspeedratioistheratiooftherotorsvelocitytothewindsfreestreamvelocity:
(3.1.4)
TSR R/U
MaintainingaconstantTSRisoneofthemostbasicproceduresusedtopreservesimilarityinscalingawindturbine
system[34].IftheTSRandthegeometryofthebladesarescaledsimilarly,theflowgeometryoverthebladeswillbe
preserved.ThisstatementisonlyanapproximationbecausetheReynoldsnumberwillvaryasthescaleoftheblade
changes,thereforecausingflowdissimilarity.However,TSRconsistencyshouldstillberealizedinmodeltesting,and
iscompatiblewithFroudesimilitudewhenusedtoconstrainrotationalfrequenciesandwindspeed[29].
Mach Number (Ma)

The Mach number is the ratio of the flow velocity to the speed of sound, and is an influential parameter in gas
dynamics[35]:
3.1.5

Ma U/cs
The conservation of the Mach number is often employed in aerodynamic model scaling because it characterizes
compressibilityeffects[30].AtMachnumbersbelow0.3,flowcanbeconsideredincompressible[35].Figure3.1.1
depicts the Mach number for a full size and model size (1:45) NREL 5 MW reference rotor. It is seen that
compressibilityeffectscanbeignoredatbothscalesbecausetheMachnumberremainsbelow0.3.Thismeansthat
conservingtheMachnumbersexactvaluebetweenscalesisnotnecessaryforaerodynamicsimilitude[29].
Figure3.1.1.MachnumbercalculationforafullscaleNREL5MWreferenceturbineandits1/45thscalemodel(calculated
usingBEMtheory)[29].TheMachnumbersinbothsystemsarebelow0.3,whichvalidatestheassumptionofincompressible
flowatfullandmodelscales.Thisdatawasgeneratedinasimulationwherethewindspeedwas11.4m/sandtherotorTSR
was6.958.

Page 31 of 50

Strouhal Number (St)
TheStrouhalnumberisthedimensionlessvortexsheddingfrequencyforabodyemergedinaviscousfluid
3.1.6 St f D / V
IfFroudescalingisemployed,theStrouhalnumbercannotalwaysbemaintainedbecauseofitsdependenceonthe
Reynolds number. However, the Strouhal number stays at a value of 0.2 for a range of Reynolds number and its
effects have been neglected in past experiments [29]. The Strouhal number is typically conserved to ensure
similitudeinvortexinducedvibration(VIV)driveneffects,whichmaynotbeimportantforFOWT(specificallyTLP)
modeltesting.
3.1.3 Dominant scaling methodologies for FOWT

Geometric Scaling
The simplest method of creating a scale model is to scale the full turbines geometry by a factor of , thereby
creatingaminiatureturbinethatpreservesallrelativelengthdimensions.However,theperformanceofturbinesat
differentlengthscalesdependsonmorethantheirgeometryandcrucial dissimilaritieswillexistifthis istheonly
scalingmethodchosen.Forinstance,everynondimensionalnumber(except)intheprevioussectiondependson
environmentalparametersindependentofthemodelsgeometry,meaningthatthedynamicandkinematiceffects
describedbysuchnondimensionalnumberswilldifferbetweenthemodelandfullscaleturbinesunlesseffortsare
madetoequatethevaluesofthesenumbersatallscales.

Dynamic and Elastic Scaling
In order for model size turbines to act dynamically similar to full size turbines, one must ensure that the models
aerodynamicsandhydrodynamicsmatchthoseofthefullscalesystem[31].Additionally,dynamicsimilarityrequires
thatnaturalfrequenciesandgyroscopicmomentsareproperlyscaledfromthefulltomodelscale[36].Ithasbeen
wellestablishedbytheoilandgasindustrythatFroudenumberequalitybetweenthemodelscaleandfullscaleis
most effective in achieving hydrodynamic similarity. Froude scaling has been succesfully applied in several model
studiesoffloatingwindturbinesincludingthoseofNRELandUMAINE.
FroudescalinghasfurtherbeenvalidatedbyNRELFASTsimulations[36].However,thesetestsassumethatReynolds
number dependent aerodynamic parameters (airfoil Cl, Cd, and viscous damping) were kept constant between
modelandfullscales,anassumptionthatisdifficulttorealizeinphysicalmodeling.InadditiontoFroudescaling,the
TSR should be held constant at different scales in order to yield consistency in FOWT kinematics and flow
geometries.Thiswillbefurtherdetailedinthisreport.
The scaling methodology proposed in this report is the dynamic and elastic scaling, based on preservation of the
Froudenumberandtipspeedratio.Thiswillbedetailedinsection3.2.
3.1.4 UMAINE scaled FOWT testing review

TheUniversityofMainedesignedtheirtowertomimicthedynamicbehavioroftheOC3Hywindtowerbyscalingthe
lowestfrequencymodesandcenterofgravityaccordingtoFroudesimilarity[29].Themassofthetowerfailedto
directly follow Froude scaling, because a massscaled tower construction was impractical and difficult in initial

Page 32 of 50
designs.UMainejustifiedandcompensatedforthisdissimilaritybyscalingthecombinedmassofthetower,nacelle,
androtor.Thenacellewasoverweight,andthelightweighttowerwouldhelpcompensate.Thetowerhadaforeaft
fundamentalbendingfrequencythatwasonly5.4%lowerthandesiredandthecenterofgravityforthemodelwas
3.3%higherthandesired[29].Themodeltowerdiameterwas3.7timessmallerthanaFroudescaleddiameter,and
UMaineconsideredthistobeadvantageousbecauseitdecreasedaerodynamicinteractionbetweenthetowerand
theturbine,somethingtheavailableNRELsoftwarecouldnotsimulate[37,29].
UniversityofMainesgoalwhendesigningbladeswastokeepthemlightweightandtohavetheairfoilcrosssections
toremainasconsistentaspossiblewiththefullscalemodel.Prioritywasgiventogatheringinformationaboutthe
global responses of the FOWT system, not the blade deformation, rotor dynamics, and higher order aeroelastic
effects[29].
Geometric redesign was also avoided. Blades were constructed out of carbon fiber to eliminate as much blade
flexibilityaspossibleandreducethenumberofvariablesintesting.Thismadebladetipdeflectionsnegligibleand
limitedthechancesofbladefailureduringexperiments.Thelowweightofcarbonfiberwasadvantageousbecause
ofthesmallblademassrequiredforFroudeconsistencyinrotormassandgyroscopicmoments.
Amoldandbladderprocesswasusedtofabricate15bladeswithamassof0.130kg.Thiswas.010kglowerthan
Froudescaledmass,whichbenefitedUMainebymakingupfortheoverweightnacelleandtestingwires[29].
Thebladedeflectionswereonly2%oftheoreticalmaximumbladedeflections,whichsatisfiedUMainebecauseof
thebladesnearrigidnature.Therotorwasunabletoproduce Froudescaledthrustwhenthe testingwindspeed
wasconstrainedbythewindspeedtowavecelerityratio(),sotestswereruninfasterwinds.Doingsoeliminated
thepossibilityoftestingatTSRshigherthanfive,becausetherotorhadnotbeen designedforsuchhighangular
velocities[36].
Besidesthescalingissuesdescribedabove,UMAINEusedacabletocollectthedatafromtheFOWT,thatmighthave
influencedthefloatermotionsduringthetest.Thereforeitisrecommended,thatalightweightcableorawireless
dataacquisitionsystemisusedinfuturetests.
3.2 RECOMMENDED SCALING METHOD
Theproposedscalingmethodisderivedinthissection.ItisconsistentwiththeonedesribedbyMartin[29]apart
from the inclusion of a different water density at prototype scale and model scale in the present scaling. Such a
differencewilloftenoccurduetotheuseoffreshwaterinmodeltests,opposedtotheseawateratprototypescale.
Formodeltestswithcombinedwindandwaveforcing,themaininterestistheglobalmotionofthestructuresubject
to the aero and hydrodynamic loads plus the loads from mooring and gravity. The ratio of these loads must
therefore be preserved between prototype scale and model scale. Further, as the loads are dynamic in time, the
frequencies of the loads, the structural frequencies and the rotor frequency must scale consistently. These
requirementsdefinethescalingofallrelevantquantitiesandarederivedinthefollowing.Thescalingcanbeapplied
toe.g.modeltestsoffloatingwindturbines,asillustratedinFigure3.2.1.TheproposedscalingpreservestheFroude
numberandKCnumberforthehydrodynamicmotionandthetipspeedratiofortherotor.TheReynoldsnumberfor
waterandair,however,arenotpreserved.Thisleadstotherequirementofaredesignofthebladestoachievethe
correctthrustforce.Further,theinvarianceofthehydrodynamicforcecoefficients(intertiaanddragcoefficients)to
the hydrodynamic Reynolds number should be checked and significant differences be compensated, see e.g. [44].
Also, but of less practical impact, the Weber number for water (surface tension) and Mach number for air
(compressibility)arenotpreserved.

Page 33 of 50
Itshouldalsonotedthatwhiletheproposedscalingleadstoaconsistentthrustforcefromtherotor,theredesigned
blades at the model scale Reynolds number might not reproduce a consistent rotor torque. This will lead to an
inconsistentpowerproductionandaninconsistentdynamicgeneratormoment.Thelattermomentcontributesto
therollforcingoftheplatform.Hence,toavoidthisimperfection,areproductionoftheaerodynamictorqueofthe
redesigned blades should be pursued. Most important, as already mentioned, however, is a correct thrust
reproduction.

3.2.1 Scaling of geometric length and mass properties
Thegeometriclengthscaleratioisdefinedby
(3.2.1)
Foracorrectdynamicscalingtheratioofstructuralmassanddisplacedwatermassmustbepreserved:
(3.2.2)
Asthevolumescaleslike3thisyields
(3.2.3)
Figure3.2.1:AfloatingwindturbineinawaveflumewithopenjetwindtunnelatDTU(Hansen&Laugesen[38]).Thesketch
totherightshowstheforcesinvolved.Thecircledquantitiesaredimensionlessnumbersthatcharacterisestheenvironment
andthemotion.

Page 34 of 50
ThisdefinesthescalingofthemassmomentofinertiaJ
(3.2.4)
andthescalingoftheareamomentofinertiaforastructuralcrosssectionI
(3.2.5)
3.2.2 Froude scaling of hydrodynamic forces

Acorrectdynamicscalingrequiresthattheratioofinertialforcetogravitationalforceispreserved
(3.2.6)
Further,thetravelleddistanceofawaterparticleoveragiventimemustscalewiththegeometriclength:
(3.2.7)
which defines the global time scale. This constitutes the classical Froude scaling of the hydrodynamic forces and
motion.
3.2.3 Aerodynamic scaling

For dynamic similarity, the ratio of the aerodynamic thrust force to the gravity force on the structure must be
preserved
(3.2.8)
Itisdesirablethattherelativevelocitybetweenthestructureandairispreserved.Thereforetheairvelocitiesmust
scalelike1/2.ItisthereforenecessarytoscaletheCTvalueswiththedensityratiotoobtain.
(3.2.8)
Hereby,however,theproposedscalingwillnotpreservetheReynoldsnumberintheairorwater.Forthisreasona
redesignofthebladeswillbeneededtoobtainthedesiredvalueofCTm.
Thechosenscaling,however,preservesthetipspeedratio(TSR)

Page 35 of 50
(3.2.9)
astherotorfrequencyscalesinverselywithtimep/m=1/2.
3.2.4 Scaling of structural stiffness

The structural stiffness must be scaled such that the natural frequencies scale consistently with time. Further the
structural deflection must scale directly with the length scale. The appropriate scaling can be derived from the
dynamicbeamequation
(3.2.10)
HeresAisthestructuralmassperlength,xtransversedeflection,zthespatialcoordinatealongthebeamaxis,E
Youngsmodulus,Iareamomentofinertiaandpthetransverseloadperunitlength.Itisobservedthatthefirstterm
on the left hand side and the transverse load term scale like (wp/wm)2 while the middle term scales like E. A
consistentscalingoftheequationofmotionisthereforeobtainedfor
(3.2.11)
3.2.5 Check of natural frequency and gyroscopic force

The above derivation defines the necessary scaling. A check on the natural frequency and gyroscopic force is
provided.ThenaturalfrequencyofacantileverbeamoflengthLisgivenby
(3.2.12)
Applicationoftheabovescalingyields
(3.2.12)
whichisconsistentwiththetimescalingt~1/2.
Thegyroscopicmomentfromthechangeoftheorientationoftherotoris
whereisistherotationalvectorandJisthemassmomentofinertia.Thegyroscopicmomentsscalesaccordingto
(3.2.13)
whichisconsistentwiththescalingofforcetimeslength.

Page 36 of 50
3.2.6 Properties that may not scale consistently

Ithasalreadybeenmentionedthatcertainpropertieswillnotscaleconsistentlywiththeproposedscaling.Theseare
1. theaeroandhydrodynamicReynoldsnumbers.
2. thehydrodynamicWebernumber
3. theaerodynamicStrouhalnumber
4. theaerodynamicMachnumber
5. theaerodynamictorque
6. theaerodynamicpower
7. thegeneratortorqueanditscontributiontorollforcing
While(1)iscompensatedbyaredesignofthebladesandacheckofthehydrodynamicdragandinertiacoefficients,
(26)areconsideredofsmallsignificancefortheglobalplanarmotionofthewindturbine.Thescalingthusensuresa
consistentinplanemotionofthefloatingwindturbine.Fortheoutofplanemotion(sway,roll,yaw)thegyroscopic
moments will scale correctly, while the rollforcing from a dynamic generator torque (7) will not necessarily scale
correctly.Acorrectionofthiseffectisopenforfutureresearch.
3.2.7 Summary of the scaling

TheproposedscalingissummarisedinTable3.2.1
Property
Scalingfactor
Length
Mass
massmomentofinertia(J)
areamomentofinertia(I)
Velocity
acceleration
Time
frequency
Angle
Force
Moment
stiffness(E)
Stress
Power
Thrustcoefficient(CT)
(wp/wm)3
(wp/wm)5
4
1/2
1
1/2
1/2
1
(wp/wm)3
(wp/wm)4
(wp/wm)
(wp/wm)
(wp/wm)7/2
(wp/wm)
Table3.2.1Summaryofphysicalquantitiesandscalingfactors.

Page 37 of 50
3.3 SCALING OF WIND AND WAVE CLIMATE PARAMETERS

Thedynamicandelasticscalingcanbedirectlyappliedtothewindandwaveclimatestoscalefromprototypescale
tomodelscale,asthescalingsforlengthandvelocityhasbeendefined.Thisyieldsthefollowingscaling:
Property
Scalingfactor
geometricheight(z)
windspeed(V)
turbulentwindspectrumSw
turbulentwindfrequency(f)
turbulenceintensity
windprofilepowercoefficient()
waterdepth
velocity
significantwaveheight
peakperiod
windwavemisalignment
1/2
3/2
1/2
1
1
1/2
1/2
1
Table3.3.1.Scalerelationsforwindandwaveclimate.

3.4 EXAMPLE: SCALED EXPERIMENT OF A FLOATING WIND TURBINE
Inthefollowingthescalingprocedureisillustratedwithanumericalexample.AsimplemodelforaTLPfloatingwind
turbine is derived. The wind turbine is subjected to stochastic wind and wave loads at prototype scale. Next, the
windclimate,waveclimateandwindturbinearescaledtoscale1:50andthesmallscaleresponseiscomputedin
thenumericalmodel.Theprototypescaleandsmallscaleresponsesmomentarecompared.Itisdemonstratedthat
a perfect scaling can be achieved if the aerodynamic thrust and hydrodynamic loads are reproduced correctly at
modelscale.Imperfectionsduetoincompleteaerodynamicscalingarediscussed.
3.4.1 The TLP wind turbine

The wind turbine is the NREL 5 MW reference turbine (Jonkman et al [39]) placed on the NRELMIT TLP platform
(Matha [40]). A sketch of the structure is shown in Figure 3.4.1. The purpose of the example is to illustrate the
scaling in a simplified setting that includes hydrodynamic forces from a wave climate, aerodynamic forces from a
wind climate, gravitational forces and structural elasticity. Only two degrees of freedom are retained and several
simplifyingassumptionsaremade.Thesearelistedbelow
onlytwodegreesoffreedomareconsidered:platformsurgeandtowerflexibility
thetowerisconsideredmasslessandwithuniformstiffness.Theoriginaltowermassisdistrubutedontothe
topmassandthefloatermass.
smalldeflectionsfortheplatformisassumed
thetethersareassumedmasslessandstiff
therotormass,nacellemassareconsideredasapointmass,placedontopofthetower.Halfoftheoriginal
towermassisincluded.
thefloaterisconsideredslender(D/L<0.2)
thewavesareconsideredsmalltoallowapplicationoflinearwavetheory
spatiallycoherentturbulenceisassumed

Page 38 of 50
Figure3.4.1.ModelsketchforsimplemodelofaTLPwindturbine.
ThestructuralparametersarelistedinTable3.4.1.
Property
Symbol
Valueprototypescale
8.774x106kg
518.5x103kg
300x109Pa
90m
18m
47.89m
200m
152.11m
126m
1.29kg/m3
(wp/wm)3
(wp/wm)3
(wp/wm)5
2
1
Value, model
(1:50)
68.48kg
4.047kg
936.6Pa
1.80m
0.36m
0.958m
4.00m
3.04m
2.52m
1.29kg/m3
1025kg/m3
wp/wm
1000kg/m3
Floatermass
Topmass
Towerstiffness
Hubheight
Floaterdiameter
Floaterdraft
Waterdepth
Tetherlength
Rotordiameter
Densityofair
m1
m2
EI
HH
Df
df
h
LT
DR
Densityofwater
Scaling
Table3.4.1:Parametersforfloatingwindturbineatfullscaleandmodelscale.

Page 39 of 50
scale
3.4.2 Equations of motion

TheequationsofmotionconsistofNewtonssecondlawforthefloaterandthetopmass.Thedisplacementofthe
massesrelativelytoanearthfixedreferencepointisdenotedx1andx2,respectively,asshowninFigure3.4.1.The
restoringforcefromthemooringsystemcanbederivedbycalculationoftheexcessbuyancyforceFBE
(3.4.1)
which constitutes the vertical component of the total tether force T. Next, the force triangle for the tether force,
excessbuyancyforceandhorizontaltetherforceFxgives
(3.4.2)
where is the tether angle with vertical, measured positive in the counterclockwise direction. Under the
assumptionofsmalldeflectionangles,thisisapproximatedbyx1/LTwhereby
(3.4.3)
The elastic bending of the tower constitutes the connection force between the tower and floater, tower and top
mass, respectively. The tower is considered massless and no dynamic loads are thus associated with the tower.
FromstandardEulerBernoullibeamtheory,theforceneededtodisplacetheendpointofacantileverbeambya
distance x is F=3 EI x/L3, where EI is the stiffness and L is the length. The equations of motion can thereby be
expressedas
(3.4.4a)
(3.4.4b)
whereFHisthehydrodynamicexcitationforce,A11isthehydrodynamicaddedmassforthefloater(derivedinnext
paragraph)andFWistheaerodynamicthrustforcefromthewind.
3.4.3 Hydrodynamic force

Thehydrodynamicloadingisderivedfromsimplelinearwavetheoryundertheassumptionofsmallwavesteepness.
ThefreesurfaceelevationisexpressedasaFourierseries
(3.4.5)
wheretheamplitudesaparerelatedtothewavespectrumby
(3.4.6)
andtheradianfrequencypandwavenumberkparerelatedthroughthedispersionrelation

Page 40 of 50
(3.4.7)
andfurtherpisasetofrandomphases,uniformlydistributedontheinterval[0;2].
Thehorizontalfluidvelocitiesaregivenby
(3.4.8)
andallowscomputationofthehydrodynamicforceonahorizontalcrosssectionofheightdzthroughtheMorison
equation[45]undertheassumptionofsmallfloaterdiametertowavelength:
(3.4.9)
HereCmisthehydrodynamicaddedmasscoefficient,CDisthedragcoeffientandAfisthecrosssectionalareaofthe
floater.Stillundertheapproximationoflinearwavetheory,thehydrodynamicforcingisintegratedfromthebottom
ofthefloatertothestillwaterlevel.Further,thecontributionfromx1,ttismovedtothelefthandsidewhereitforms
theA11termofthemassmatrix:
(3.4.10)
(3.4.11)
ThehydrodynamiccoefficientsarechosenbasedontheReynoldsnumberandKCnumbertobeCD=0.7andCm=0.8.
3.4.4 Aerodynamic force

Thewindforceisbasedonatimeseriesofhorizontalwindvelocityathubheight
(3.4.12)
whereVhubisthemeanwindspeedatthehubandtheFourieramplitudesarebasedonthewindspectrumSf
(3.4.13)
andfurthermisasetofrandomphases,uniformlydistributedontheinterval[0;2].Theinstantaneousthrustcan
thenbeexpressedby:
(3.4.14)
whereCTisthethrustcoefficient.Undertheapproximationofsteadywindspeed,CT canbeobtainedfromasteady
BEMmodelasfunctionofwindspeed,seee.g.Hansen[41].Thecurveappliedinthepresentexampleisshownin

Page 41 of 50
Figure3.4.2andresemblestheonefortheNREL5MWreferencerotor.Inthesamefigure,alsothethrustforceFwind
is plotted. It is seen how the thrust force increases up to the rated speed of 11.4 m/s, where the rated power of
5MW is obtained. Beyond the rated wind speed, the thrust force decreases due to the active blade pitch system,
whichpitchesthebladestoreducetheaerodynamictorqueinordertomaintaintheratedpower.
Figure3.4.2.ThrustcoefficientandthrustasfunctionofinflowspeedV.
Thepitchingofthebladesiscontrolledbyanactivecontrolsystem.IthasbeenshownbyLarsenandHanson[42]
that the standard onshore control algorithm can lead to an instability for the platform pitch motion. The control
system therefore needs to be modified. In the present simplistic model, a simple Pcontrol is used to model the
reaction time of the bladepitching, based on the instantenous difference between the current CT value and the
targetCTvaluefortheinstantenousrelativewindspeedVx2,t.
3.4.5 Wind and wave climate
Basedonthegenericwaveandwindclimatesofsection2.4,asetofprototypewindandwaveconditionsarenow
chosen.Next,theclimateparametersarescaledtomodelscale.
TheWeibulldistributionsforwindheightatz=10mofFigure2.4.1canbetransformedtothehubheightbyascaling
oftheAparameterbytheassumedpowerlawprofile.Itisfurtherassumedthattheshapeparameter,k,doesnot
changewithheight.Theapproximationassociatedwiththisisdiscussedinsection2.
(3.4.15)
TheadjustedWeibullparametersprovideacompleteprobabilitydistributionforthemeanwindspeedathubheight.
Forthepresentexample,wechooseasingleclimateforasinglerealizationwiththenumericalmodel.Wechoosea
hub wind speed of Vhub=18m/s. Next, the turbulence intensity is found by the formula (2.3.5) which with a=5 and
I15=0.14yields

Page 42 of 50
(3.4.16)
The standard deviation to be used in combination with the Kaimal spectrum is then =TI V = 2.45 m/s. Next the
significantwaveheightischosenwithbasisinFigure2.4.3.WechoosethefittedcurvefortherelationbetweenVhub
andHs(2.4.1)andobtain
(3.4.18)
ThepeakperiodischosenbasedonFigure2.4.4whichshowsquitesomescatter.Ratherarbitrarilyavalueofa=12
forthecoefficientinformula(2.4.2)ischosentoyield
(3.4.19)
Finally,fortheJonswapspectrum, needstobedetermined.Hereformula(2.3.11)suggests=3.83whichseems
unrealisticasitexceedsthestandardizedvalueof3.3.Forthisreason=3.3ischosen.Itshouldbenotedherethat
forafloatingwindturbine,thedepthwillusuallybelargesuchthatthePiersonMoscowitzspectrumislikelytobe
morerealistic.Thisisrecoveredwithreason=1.0.However,forthepresentexample=3.3isapplied.
Oncethewindandwaveclimateparametersaredetermined,theycanbescaledtomodelscaleaccordingtoTable
3.4.1.TheresultislistedinTable3.4.2alongwiththeprototypevaluesandthescalerelation.
Property
Symbol
Value prototype Scaling
Value,
model
scale
scale(1:50)
hubheight
zhub
90m
1.8m
1/2
windspeed10mheight
V10
13.2m/s
1.87m/s
hubwindspeed
V
18m/s
1/2
2.55m/s
powerlawcoefficient
0.14
1
0.14
turbulenceintensity
standarddeviationforturbulence
lengthscaleforKaimalspectrum
WindvelocityFourieramplitude
significantwaveheight
peakperiod
Jonswappeakenhancementparameter
TI
L
b
Hs
Tp
0.136
2.45m/s
1
1/2
0.136
0.347m/s
340.2m
Fromeq(3.4.13)
3.37m
7.03s
3.3
1/2
1/2
1
6.80m
Fromeq(3.4.13)
0.0674m
0.994s
3.3
Table3.4.2.Windandwaveclimate.Prototypescaleandmodelscale.

Page 43 of 50
3.4.6 Results for perfect aerodynamic scaling

ResultsfortherealizationatprototypescaleareshowninFigure3.4.3.Theleftcolumnshowstimeseriesofwind
speedathubheight,freesurfaceelevationforthewaves,floaterdisplacementandnacelledisplacement.Theright
columnshowsthecorrespondingpowerspectra.Itcanbeseenthatthewindsignalhasspectralenergyinthefull
frequencyintervalshown,whilethewavesignaldoesnothaveanyenergyforfrequenciesbelow0.1Hz.Further,the
floatersurgesignalisdominatedbytheresponsetothewindatthefirstnaturalfrequencyof0.017Hz(60s)whichis
associatedwiththerestoringforceofthetethers.Responsetothewaveforcingisevidentbothfromthetimeseries
and the power spectrum. For the nacelle displacement, a similar response can be seen, although with a larger
contentoftowervibration.Thisisduetothewindsforcingofthetowernaturalfrequencyat0.25Hz(4s).
Figure3.4.3.Responseatprototypescaleforsimultaneouswindandwaveloading.
Next, the numerical model was rerun at model scale. All the model parameters and external climate parameters
werescaledaccordingtoTables3.2.1and3.3.1.ThescaledparametervaluesarelistedinTables3.4.1and3.4.2.The
numericaltimeseriesareshowninFigure3.4.4,plottedontopofthefullscalevalues.Priortothecomparison,the

Page 44 of 50
modelscaleresultswerescaledupagaintoprototypescale.Themodelscaleresultsareshownasblackdotsontop
oftheprototypescaleresults(redline).Aperfectmatchisseen.Inhindsight,thisisnotasurprise,sincethescaling
isconsistentwiththegoverningequations.Theexamplethusillustratesthatitispossibletoscaledownthewindand
waveclimatesandscalebackthemodelresponsetofullscale.Thegoodmatch,however,reliesonthemodelsability
to reproduce the aerodynamic (and hydrodynamic) loads at model scale. For both of them, the Reynolds number
dependence is likely to induce scale effects. As already stated, a redesign of the blades will be thus necessary to
maintainthethrustcurveatthereducedReynoldsnumber.
Figure3.4.4.Comparisonofprototypescaleresults(redline)andmodelscaleresults(blackdots).Themodelscaleresults
havebeenscaleduptoprototypescalebeforeplotting.
3.4.7 Consequences of imperfect aerodynamic scaling
To illustrate the consequences of an imperfect reproduction of the aerodynamic loads at model scale, a
complementarycomputationwascarriedout,withathrustcurvethatdeferredfromthetargetcurve.Themodified
thrustcurveisshowninFigure3.4.5inprototypescale.Further,theresponseatprototypescale(withcorrectthrust
curve) and model scale (with imperfect thrustcurve) are compared in the figure. Again, for this comparison, the
modelscaleresultswerescaledbacktofullscale.Itisseenhowthereductionintheaerodynamicthrustaffectsthe
floaterandnacelleresponses.

Page 45 of 50
Figure3.4.5.Consequencesofimperfectaerodynamicscaling:Left:Imperfectaerodynamicthrustcurveandtargetthrust
curve.Right:Comparisonofprototypescaleresponseandmodelscaleresponse.Themodelscaleresponsewasproduced
withtheimperfectthrustcurveandscaledbacktoprototypescale.
3.5 DISCUSSION
Throughtheexampleithasbeendemonstratedthatthedevisedscalingmethodallowsforaperfectreproductionof
model response at model scale, provided that the structural loads can be reproduced correctly. This implies a re
design of the blades to the lowered Reynolds number at model scale. The redesigned blades must be able to
reproduce thethrustcurveofthefullscaleblades. Whiletheaboveexample onlycoverstheplanemotionofthe
wind turbine, a real wind turbine will also have response in the outofplane direction. These can be induced by
transverse waves, gyroscopic effects, the dynamic change of rotor moment and through interaction with the
mooringsystem.Atruereproductionofthesefeaturesrequiresacorrectreproductionoftherotortorqueaswell.
Thismaybedifficulttoachievesimultaneouslywiththefullfilmentofcorrecttipspeedratioandandthrustcurve.In
suchcases,whereaperfectreproductionofthefullscalebehaviouratlabscaleisnotpossible,thephysicalmodelis
ofcoursestillvalidandtrueinitsownright.Itcanthusbeusedtovalidateanumericalresponsemodel,whichcan
laterbeappliedatfullscale.

Page 46 of 50
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ThepresentreportconstitutestheProtocolManualforensuringharmonisationofoffshorewindandwave
simulationbeingimplementedatMaRINETfacilities.Windandwaveclimatesforfiveoffshorewindsitesinthe
NorthSeaandtheBalticSeahavebeenpresentedintermsofprobabilitydistributionsforwindspeedalongwitha
seriesoflumpedseastatesandturbulenceintensityvalues,parameterisedwithrespecttothewindspeed.Further,
extremevaluesforwindspeedandsignificantwaveheighthavebeenprovided.
Furthertothewinddistributionsandlumpedcharacteristics,theWeibullparametersforthewinddistributionand
explicitformulasfortheturbulenceintensityandsignificantwaveheightareprovided.Forthecorrelationofwave
peakperiodandsignificantwaveheight,astandardformulafromtheIEC614003codehavebeenfoundtocover
thescatterinthedata,althoughonecoefficientinthisformulamustbedecideduponbytheuser.Further,thevalue
of,theJONSWAPpeakenhancementparametermustbechosenbytheuser.Thiscanbedoneeitherfroman
explicitformulaorbythestandardchoicesof =1.0or =3.3.Herebyafulldescriptionofaunidirectionalwindwave
climatecanbeconstructed.Ifneeded,thisclimatecanbesupplementedbytheuserwiththecombineddirectional
distributionofwindandwaves,eitherbasedondataorintermsofparametricstudies.
Thescalingmethodproposedisthedynamicelasticscaling,whichmaintainstheratiosbetweenhydrodynamic,
aerodynamic,stiffnessinducedandgravitationalforces.ThisscalingpreservestheFroudenumberforthewater
phaseandthetipspeedratiofortherotor.TheReynoldsnumbersforairandwater,however,arenotconserved.A
redesignofthemodelscalebladeswillthereforebeneeded.Herethescaledthrustcurvemustbematched.Further,
ifpossible,thetorquefromtheairfoilshouldbematched.Thisrequirement,however,isdifficulttoachievedueto
thechangeinlift/dragratioatlowReynoldsnumber.Itisthereforeforeseen,thattheaerodynamictorqueandthus
producedpowerwillnotbescaledcorrectly.Asaconsequence,rollforcinginducedbythedynamicchangein
generatormomentwillnotscalecorrectly.However,thecorrectscalingofrotorthrustisfoundtohavehigher
priorityandthusjustifiesthescalingchoice.
Anexampleofdownscalingofwindandwaveconditionshasbeensupplied.Theexamplealsodemonstrateshow
thestructure(afloatingwindturbine)shouldbescaled.Itisdemonstratedthattheproposedscalingyieldsmodel
scaleresultsforthrustandwaveinducedmotionthatcanbeupscaledtoprototypescalewithaperfectmatch.

Page 47 of 50
5 REFERENCES
1. UpWind:Fisher,T.,W.deVriesandB.Schmidt:UpWinddeliverable,DesignBasisWP4:OffshoreFoundations
andSupportStructuresUpWindProject.UniversittStuttgart,2010.
2. IEC614003:WindturbinesPart3:Designofoffshorewindturbines,2009
3. DNVOJJ101.OFFSHORESTANDARD:Designofoffshorewindturbinestructures.DNV,2007.
4. ABS(AmericanBureauofShipping),OffshoreWindTurbineInstallation,AmericanBureauofShipping,2010
5. ABS(AmericanBureauofShipping),DesignStandardsforoffshorewindfarms,AmericanBureauofShipping,
2011
6. IEC614001,Designrequirements,2008.
7. IEC614001,Designrequirementsamendment1,2010
8. DS/EN614003,WindturbinesPart3:Designrequirementsforoffshorewindturbines,2009.
9. J.Mann,Windfieldsimulation,Prob.Engng.Mech.Volume14,no4,269282,1998
10. E.R.Jrgensen,S.E.Larsen,S.Frandsen,N.J.TarpJohansenandJennyTrumars,BeatriceEnvironmentaldata,
RisI2354FP6IntegratedprojectDOWNVIndcontract503202.
11. S.E.Larsen,N.E.TarpJohansen,S.FrandsenandE.R.Jrgensen,SdraMidsjbankenEnvironmentalData
Initialanalysis,RisI2505.FP6IntegratedprojectDOWNVIndcontract503202
12. Pena, T. Mikkelsen, S.E. Gryning, C.B. Hasager, A.N. Hahmann, M. Badger, I. Karagali and M. Coutney,
Offshore vertical wind shear. Final report NORSEWIND work task 3,1, DTU Wind Energy reort 0005 (EN),
2012
13. N.Hahmann,JuliaLange,AlfredoPeaandCharlotteB.Hasager:TheNORSEWInDnumericalwindatlasfor
theSouthBaltic,DTUWindEnergyEReport0011(EN).
14. Karagali,A.Pena,M.BadgerandC.B.Hasager,WindcharacteristicsoftheNorthSeaandtheBalticSeasfrom
QuickScattsatellite.WindEnergy.2012
15. BMSumerandJFredse"Hydrodynamicsaroundcylindricalstructures".WorldScientific2006.
16. Wierings,J.Shapesofannualfrequencydistributionsofwindspeedobservedonhighmeteorologicalmasts.
BoundLayerMeteorol,1988,47,85
17. M.K.Ochi.Oceanwaves:thestochasticapproach.CambridgeOceanTechnologySeries,2005.
18. Y.Goda.RandomSeasandDesignOfMaritimeStructures.AdvancedSeriesOnOceanEngineering,Volume
15WorldScientificPublishingCompany,2000.
19. O. Ditlevsen. Stochastic model for joint wave and wind loads on offshore structures. Structural Safety,
24:139163,2002.

Page 48 of 50
20. P.W. Cheng, G.J.W. van Bussel, G.A.M. van Kuik, and J.H. Vugts. Reliabilitybased design methods to
determinetheextremeresponsedistributionofoffshorewindturbines.WindEnergy,6:122,2003.
21. K. Johannessen. Joint distribution for wind and waves in the northern north sea. In Proceedings of the
EleventhInternationalOffshoreandPolarEngineeringConference,2001.
22. P.Agarwal,L.Manuel.Simulationofoffshorewindturbineresponseforlongtermextremeloadprediction.
EngineeringStructures,Volume31,Issue10,October2009,Pages22362246
23. Hildebrant and T. Schlurmann: Breaking wave kinematics, local pressure, and forces on a tripod support
structure.CoastalEngineering,114,2012.
24. O. J. Andersen and J. Lvseth: The Frya database and maritime boundary layer wind description. Science
DirectMarineStructures,173192.2006.
25. O.J.AndersenandJ.Lvseth:StabilitymodificationsoftheFryawindspectrum.Journ.WindEngeneering
IndustrialAerodynamics,236242,2010.
26. O. J. Andersen and J. Lvseth: Gale force maritime wind. The Frya data base. Part1: Sites and
instrumentation.Reviewofthedatabase.Jour.WindEngeneeringIndustrialAerodynamics,97109,1995
27. Bottasso,Carlo."DevelopmentofaWindTunnelModelforSupportingResearchonAeroServoElasticityand
ControlofWindTurbines."Diss.PolitecnicodiMilano,2011.
28. Wolowicz , Chester, James Bowman, and William Gilbert. United States of America. NASA. Similitude
RequirementsandScalingRelationshipsasAppliedtoModelTesting(NASATechnicalPaper1435).Hampton,
Virginia:LangleyResearchCenter,1979.
29. Martin, Heather. METHODOLOGY FOR WINDin/WAVE BASIN TESTING OF FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND
TURBINES.UniversityofMaine,June10152012.
30. Singleton,Jeffrey."IMPORTANTSCALINGPARAMETERSFORTESTINGMODELSCALEHELICOPTERROTORS."
Diss.U.S.ArmyResearchLaboratories,VehicleTechnologyCenterNASALangleyResearchCenter.
31. Newman,JohnNicholas.MarineHydrodynamics.1.Cambridge:MITPress,1977.
32. Dagher, Habib. "Floating Offshore Wind". University of Maine, DeepCwind Consortium. 27 Apr. 2011.
AdvancedStructures&CompositesCenter.25June2012.
33. Hall,Stephen."DynamicModeling."SportAviatioin.July1987:288298.
34. Jameson,Peter.InnovationonWindTurbineDesign.Sussex:JohnWileyandSonsLtd.,2011.78.
35. Anderson,John.FundamentalsofAerodynamics.4th.Singapore:McGrawHill,2007.41,499.
36. Jain, Anant, Amy Robertson, Jason Jonkman, Andrew Goupee, Richard Kimball, and Andrew Swift. United
StatesofAmerica.U.SDepartmentofEnergy.FASTCodeVerificationofScalingLawsforDeepCwindFloating
WindSystemTests.OakRidge,TN:OfficeofScientificandTechnicalInformation,2012.
37. Jonkman,J.M."DynamicsModelingandLoadsAnalysisofanOffshoreFloatingWindTurbine."Diss.National
RenewableEnergyLaboratory,2007.

Page 49 of 50
38. Hansen,AMandLaugesenRExperimentalstudyofthedynamicresposeofaTLPwindturbine.BScthesis,
DTUMechanicalEngng.Lyngby,Denmark,June2012.
39. Jonkman, J, Butterfield, S, Musial, W, Scott, G. Definition of a 5 MW reference wind turbine for offshore
systemdevelopment.NREL,US,2009.
40. Matha, D. Model development and loads analysis of an offshore wind turbine on a tension leg platform
withacomparisontootherfloatingwindturbineconcepts.MScthesis.Univ.Colorado,US.April2009.
41. Hansen,MOLAerodynamicsofwindturbines.Earthscan,London,UK,2008.
42. Larsen, TJ and Hanson, TD A method to avoid negative damped low frequency tower vibrations for a
floatingpitchcontrolledwindturbine,Proc.ScienceTorqueWind.2007.
43. MKhn,"Dynamicsanddesignoptimisationofoffshorewindenergyconversionsystems,"PhDThesis,Delft
UniversityofTechnology,Delft,TheNetherlands.2001.
44. J.N.Newman,MarineHydrodynamics,1977,MITPress
45. MorisonJR,OBrienMP,JohnsonJWandSchaafSATheforcesexertedbysurfacewavesonpiles.J.Petrol.
Techn.,PetroleumTransactions,AIME189pp149154.1950.

Page 50 of 50

D2.04 Collation of Offshore Wind-Wave Dynamics

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

D2.04 Collation of Offshore Wind-Wave Dynamics

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

bbbbbb

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

2 CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE WIND WAVE CLIMATE.

2.1 SOURCES OF DATA

Additional tothedatafromthe UpWindthe presentreportdrawsfromanumberofstandardsdevelopedforthe

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

2.2 PARAMETERS FOR WIND AND WAVE SPECIFICATION

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

2.3 ONE PARAMETER CLIMATE BASED ON WIND SPEED.

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

2.3.1 Winds and other atmospheric parameters.

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

2.3.2 Waves and other oceanic parameters

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

2.3.3 Lumped windwave climate for fatigue calculation

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

2.4 STANDARD OFFSHORE CONDITIONS FOR TESTING AND MODELLING

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

2.4.2 Wind and wave climate for five specific sites

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012

D2.4: Collation of offshore wind-wave dynamics

Figure2.4.7.Thepeakfactor versus the 10 meter wind speedforthe4sitesconsidered.ThehighvaluesfromBeatrice

Rev. 02, 30 November 2012