energies

Article
Load Evaluation for Tower Design of Large Floating Offshore
Wind Turbine System According to Wave Conditions
Hyeonjeong Ahn , Yoon-Jin Ha and Kyong-Hwan Kim *

Korean Research Institute of Ship & Ocean Engineering, Daejeon 34103, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-42-866-3941

Abstract: This study entailed a load evaluation for the tower design of a large floating offshore wind
turbine system in accordance with the wave conditions. The target model includes the IEA 15 MW
reference wind turbine and a semi-submersible VolturnUS-S reference floating offshore wind turbine
platform from the University of Maine. The OpenFAST, which is an aero-hydro-servo-elastic fully
coupled analysis tool, was used for load analysis. The DLC1.2 and 1.6 were used as the design
load cases, and the environmental conditions suitable for the design load cases were cited in the
VolturnUS-S platform report. Load evaluation was performed according to time series and FFT results.
The findings of the study are as follows: first, in the correlation analysis, the tower-top deflection
had the highest correlation, and this further affects nacelle acceleration. Second, the tower-base pitch
moment increased with the significant wave height. However, the wave peak period increased until it
matched the tower-top deflection frequency and decreased thereafter. Third, the comparison between
the normal and severe sea state conditions revealed that the tower-base pitch moments for the two
conditions are almost similar, despite the conditions wherein the wave spectral energy differs by a
factor of 3.5. Fourth, the tower shape is changed while adjusting the diameter of the tower, and the
tower-top and tower-base pitch moments are reviewed using a redesigned tower. Even if the mass is
the same, adjusting the diameter of the tower reduces only the pitch moment.

Keywords: fast Fourier transform; floating offshore wind turbine system; semisubmersible; tower-
base pitch moment; wave spectral energy
Citation: Ahn, H.; Ha, Y.-J.; Kim,
K.-H. Load Evaluation for Tower
Design of Large Floating Offshore
Wind Turbine System According to
Wave Conditions. Energies 2023, 16,
1. Introduction
1862. https://doi.org/10.3390/ The global offshore wind energy has scaled by over 50 GW in the past year. Most
en16041862 installed wind turbines are either onshore or offshore fixed types. Commercial floating
offshore wind turbines are virtually nonexistent. This is due to the fact that the initial cost is
Academic Editor: João Carlos de
Campos Henriques
higher compared to that of the fixed type [1]. There has been an increase in research studies
on large-scale floating offshore wind turbine systems in recent years due to favorable factors
Received: 13 January 2023 such as highly stable generator power, which further enables applications in deeper waters
Revised: 9 February 2023 and yields stable wind energy. They can be easily installed in deep water because they are
Accepted: 11 February 2023 relatively less dependent on seabed conditions, and this characteristic favors transportation
Published: 13 February 2023 and installation. Therefore, the commercialization of floating offshore wind turbine system
in the future is almost inevitable, and it is necessary to reduce the overall costs before full
practical use. In fact, publicly available reference wind turbines such as the 5 MW reference
wind turbines [2] developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), have
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
been publicly shared in order to study the complex dynamics of the FOWT. The extensive
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
studies have helped reduce the cost of the entire system.
distributed under the terms and
In 2020, the International Energy Agency (IEA) developed a 15 MW reference wind
conditions of the Creative Commons turbine with a fixed-bottom monopole support structure [3]. In the same year, the University
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// of Maine released a semi-submersible turbine system, which was designed to support the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ IEA 15 MW reference wind turbine [4]. There has been significant research on large floating
4.0/). offshore wind turbines such as the 15 MW FOWT. Mahfouz et al. [5] investigated the

Energies 2023, 16, 1862. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16041862 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 1862 2 of 18

response of a 15 MW floating offshore wind turbine system platform according to different

load cases. They revealed that the platform motion was dominated by low-frequency forces
under small-wave conditions. Liu [6] and Pollini et al. [7] optimized semi-submersible and
spar-type platforms for a 15 MW reference wind turbine. Mendoza et al. [8] implemented
control actions and strategies for a 1:70 scale model of a 15 MW reference wind turbine
in a wind–wave basin. They compared their results with those of numerical models from
three different software tools, and they further demonstrated the ability to effectively
represent the aerodynamic response of the wind turbine to the control actions. Loubeyres
et al. [9] investigated the response of a 15 MW reference wind turbine blade to extreme
wind conditions based on configurations involving severe stall flutter vibrations. They
investigated the sensitivity of the stall flutter phenomenon during calculation, and they
inferred that it is possible to create a link between the local aeroelastic stability properties
of each blade section and the global behavior. Rinker et al. [10] compared the aero-elastic
loads calculated using different fidelities of the blade model in OpenFAST and HAWC2 for
a 15 MW reference wind turbine. Their results were in good agreement with those of the
loads dominated by the aerodynamic thrust and forces, except for the asymmetric loading
of the rotor. Papi et al. [11] compared a 5 MW and 15 MW floating offshore wind turbine
system under the same sea and inflow conditions with varying degrees of severity. They
confirmed that there was no significant difference in the overall performance and rotor
loads. However, they stated that these conditions had a significant impact on the tower
load during the floating installation. The model used in this study is also a 15 MW reference
wind turbine, and the platform integrates a semi-submersible type turbine system. Because
turbines with increased hub height and rotor and nacelle assembly (RNA) weight are used,
a load assessment on the tower must be performed. The turbine weight, tower-top motion,
control complexity, and maximum healing angle were introduced as representative items
to analyze the impact of the stability class on turbine design [12]. Because the tower is
connected to the platform as well as the RNA, the tower load can be significantly large due
to the dynamics and, thus, careful load evaluation is required.
This study entailed an analysis of the significance of wave conditions for the tower
design of a large floating offshore wind turbine system. The load analysis was performed
for the tower-top and tower-base pitch moments according to various wave conditions
with regard to the results of the previous study. The target model includes the IEA 15
MW reference wind turbine and the semi-submersible type VolturnUS-S reference floating
offshore wind turbine provided by the University of Maine. The DLC1.1 and 1.6 were
used as the design load cases, and the environmental conditions suitable for the design
load cases were cited in the VolturnUS-S platform report. It was confirmed that a high
tower-base pitch moment occurs despite the wave condition of low wave spectral energy.
Thus, when designing a tower, it is necessary to review both the Campbell diagram of the
tower and the frequency of the tower-top deflection. If the wave peak period is close to this
value, the tower should be designed such that it avoids the high pitch moment.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 explains the numerical
model, validation of the numerical setup, and design load cases, including environmental
conditions. Section 3 describes the results of tower-base pitch moment according to various
wave conditions as time series and FFT results. The conclusions are presented in Section 4.

2. Numerical Setup
2.1. Target Model
This study integrates the semi-submersible type VolturnUS-S reference floating off-
shore wind turbine by the University of Maine, which was designed to support the
IEA 15 MW reference wind turbine. The IEA 15 MW reference wind turbine is the largest
among the existing turbine systems. Figure 1 shows the floating offshore wind turbine
system and the reference coordinate system used in this study, and Table 1 summarizes
the important characteristics of the system. Although the detailed design process and
 This study integrates the semi-submersible type VolturnUS-S reference floating off-
shore wind turbine by the University of Maine, which was designed to support the IEA
15 MW reference wind turbine. The IEA 15 MW reference wind turbine is the largest
among the existing turbine systems. Figure 1 shows the floating offshore wind turbine
Energies 2023, 16, 1862 3 of 18
system and the reference coordinate system used in this study, and Table 1 summarizes
the important characteristics of the system. Although the detailed design process and
specifications are not provided here, the same can be obtained by referring to a recent
specifications are not provided here, the same can be obtained by referring to a recent study,
study,we
which which we provided
provided in the references
in the references [4]. [4].

Figure
Figure 1.1.15
15MW
MWfloating
floating offshore
offshore wind
wind turbine
turbine system
system and reference
and reference coordinate
coordinate system. system.

Table1.1.1515MW
Table MWfloating
floating offshore
offshore wind
wind turbine
turbine system
system general
general properties.
properties.

Parameter
Parameter Units Units ValueValue
TurbineTurbine
rating rating MW MW 15 15
Hub height
Hub height m m 150 150
Excursion (Length, Width, Height) m 90.1, 102.1, 290.0
Excursion (Length, Width, Height) m 90.1, 102.1, 290.0
Platform type - Semisubmersible
Platform
Freeboard type m - Semisubmersible
15
DraftFreeboard m m 20 15
Total system mass t 20,093
Platform mass
Draft t
m 17,839
20
Total
Tower mass system mass t t 1,26320,093
RNR Platform
mass mass t t 991 17,839
Water depth m 200
Tower mass
Mooring system -
t 1,263
Three-line chain catenary
RNR mass t 991
2.2. Method Water depth m 200
Mooring
The aerodynamics of asystem
wind turbine were modeled-with Turbsim
Three-line chain catenary
and Aerodyn, part
of the OpenFAST [13] software package developed by the National Renewable Energy
2.2. Method OpenFAST is required for coupled analysis considering aerodynamic loads
Laboratory.
and response of wind turbine
The aerodynamics and platform.
of a wind This modeled
turbine were simulation toolTurbsim
with considersand
structural
Aerodyn, part
responses such as aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, control, and elastic behavior of the total
of the OpenFAST [13] software package developed by the National Renewable Energy
system. Figure 2 shows the some of the various modules connected by OpenFAST, and
Laboratory. OpenFAST is required for coupled analysis considering aerodynamic loads
for more detailed theory, refer to the user guide or the manual of each package. It has
and
been response
proven forofyears
wind turbine
that and platform.
the dynamics This
of floating simulation
offshore tool considers
wind turbine structural
system can be re-
sponses such[14,15].
captured well as aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, control, and elastic behavior of the total
system. Figure 2 shows the some of the various modules connected by OpenFAST, and
for more detailed theory, refer to the user guide or the manual of each package. It has been
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

proven for years that the dynamics of floating offshore wind turbine system can be cap-
Energies 2023, 16, 1862 4 of 18
tured
provenwell
for[14,15].
years that the dynamics of floating offshore wind turbine system can be cap-
tured well [14,15].

Figure 2. Various modules connected by OpenFAST (Figure adapted from [16]).

Figure2.2.Various
Figure Variousmodules
modulesconnected
connectedby
byOpenFAST
OpenFAST(Figure
(Figureadapted
adaptedfrom
from[16]).
[16]).
Elastodyn is a structural dynamics module for wind turbine, solved using modal-
basesElastodyn
structures.is
Elastodyn isItaacan consider
structural
structural the flexibility
dynamics
dynamics module
module of blade and tower
for wind
for wind turbine,
turbine, and platform
solved
solved using
using DOF [17].
modal-
modal-
Aerodyn
bases [18]
structures. is theIt time
can domain
consider module
the that
flexibility
bases structures. It can consider the flexibility of blade and tower and calculates
of blade the
and aerodynamic
tower and loads
platform applied
DOF to
[17].
the blades
Aerodyn[18]
Aerodyn and tower,
[18]isisthethetime and
timedomain it is modelled
domainmodule modulethat using Blade–Element–Momentum
thatcalculates
calculatesthe theaerodynamic
aerodynamicloads theory
loadsapplied (BEM).
appliedto to
The
the bladesand
theblades
blades are tower,
and modelled
tower, andusing
and itit is a set of tabulated
is modelled
modelled lift and drag coefficient [11].
using Blade–Element–Momentum
using Blade–Element–Momentum Inflowdyn
theory (BEM).
is
The
The a blades
module
bladesare that
are processes
modelled
modelled using theainflow
using a set
set of of oftabulated
wind generated
tabulated lift lift
andanddragusing
drag a stochastic,
coefficient
coefficient full-field,
[11].[11]. Inflowdyn
Inflowdyn tur-
is a
bulent
is a module
module wind generation
that
that processes processesthemodule the inflow
inflow called
of wind ofTurbsim
wind
generated [19].
generated Servodyn
using using aisstochastic,
a stochastic, a control and electrical
full-field,
full-field, turbulenttur-
drive
bulent dynamics
wind module
generation for
module OpenFAST.
called One
Turbsim of the
[19].
wind generation module called Turbsim [19]. Servodyn is a control and electrical drive biggest
Servodyn designis adifferences
control andfrom land-
electrical
based
dynamics wind
drive dynamics turbine
module modulesystems
for for is
OpenFAST. the control
OpenFAST.
One ofOne system, of the
the biggest and the negative
biggest
design design damping fromphenomenon
differences
differences from land-
land-based
[20]
wind is the
basedturbine most
wind turbine active
systemssystems among
is the control researchers
is the control studying
system,system,
and theand floating offshore
the negative
negative damping wind
damping turbine
phenomenon system.
phenomenon [20] is
The
the reference
[20]most
is theactive open-source
most amongactive among controller
researchers (ROSCO)
studying
researchers has
floating
studying been developed
offshore
floating wind wind
offshore by NREL
turbine to
system.
turbine provide
The
system.
aThe
modular
reference
reference reference
open-source
open-source wind
controllerturbine
controller controller
(ROSCO) (ROSCO) hasand been
has included
developed
been control
developed by by capabilities
NRELNREL to to such as
provide
provide a
wind
modular
a modularspeed estimation,
reference
reference wind windsmoothing
turbine turbine algorithm,
controller
controller TSR included
and included
and tracking
control generator
capabilities
control torquesuch
capabilities and as mini-
wind
such as
mum
wind pitch
speed saturation
estimation,
speed [21].
smoothing
estimation, Thealgorithm,
smoothing platform isTSR
algorithm, calculated
tracking forgenerator
TSR tracking it interactiontorque
generator with and
torque theminimum
sea using
and mini-
Hydrodyn
pitch
mumsaturation [22],
pitch saturation an OpenFAST
[21]. [21].The The hydrodynamics
platformplatform is calculated module.
is calculated forfor Hydrodyn
it interaction
it interaction requires
with
withthe data
theseaseasuch
usingas
using
added
Hydrodyn mass
Hydrodyn [22], matrix
[22],an at
anOpenFAST frequency
OpenFASThydrodynamics and wave
hydrodynamicsmodule. excitation loads
module. Hydrodyn from
Hydrodyn requiresthe WAMIT
requires data files
datasuch [23]
suchasas
which
added is
added an external
mass
mass matrix
matrix at potential
at frequency
frequency flowand solver.
and wave
wave excitation
excitation loads loads fromfrom the the WAMIT
WAMIT files files [23]
[23]
which
whichisisan anexternal
externalpotential
potentialflow flowsolver.
solver.
2.3. Validation of Numerical Model
2.3.
2.3. Validation
Validation ofofNumerical
Numerical Model
The numerical modelModel of the floating offshore wind turbine system was validated
throughThe numerical model of steady-state
the floating offshore wind turbine
further system was validated
The numerical model of the floating analysis,
a free-decay test and offshore which wind turbine yield
system detailed insights
was validated
through
into a free-decay
the fundamental test and steady-state analysis, which further yield detailed insights into
through a free-decay performance
test and steady-state of the platform
analysis,and wind
which turbines,
further yield respectively.
detailed insightsFree-
the fundamental performance of the platform and wind turbines, respectively. Free-decay
decay
into the tests in OpenFAST
fundamental were considered
performance for all DOFs,
of the platform and wind including
turbines,the blades, tower,Free-
respectively. and
tests in OpenFAST were considered for all DOFs, including the blades, tower, and platform.
platform.
decay tests Figure 3
in OpenFAST shows the
wereof time series
considered of the heave free-decay test, and Table 2 summa-
Figure 3 shows the time series the heavefor all DOFs,test,
free-decay including
and Table the 2blades, tower, and
summarizes the
rizes the natural
platform. Figure frequencies
3 shows the of
timetheseries
system, of which
the heave arefree-decay
obtained as theand
test, average
Table oscillation
2 summa-
natural frequencies of the system, which are obtained as the average oscillation period for
period
rizes
the the
decay fornatural
the decay
results results
frequencies
shown in Figureshown
of the 3.in Figurewhich
system, 3. are obtained as the average oscillation
period for the decay results shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Time series of the heave free-decay test.

Figure 3. Time series of the heave free-decay test.
Figure 3. Time series of the heave free-decay test.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18
Energies 2023, 16, 1862 5 of 18

Table 2. Rigid-body natural frequencies.

Table 2. Rigid-body natural frequencies.
Rigid-Body Model Value Unit
Surge
Rigid-Body Model Value 0.007 Unit Hz
Surge Sway 0.007 0.007 Hz Hz
Sway Heave 0.007 0.049 Hz Hz
Heave Roll 0.049 0.036 Hz Hz
Roll Pitch 0.036 0.036 Hz Hz
Pitch 0.036 Hz
Yaw
Yaw 0.011
0.011 Hz
Hz

The steady-state analysis is used to analyze the performance of the wind turbine as a
The of
function steady-state
wind speed analysis is used to analyze
using OpenFAST. the performance
This further of the wind turbine
reveals the characteristics of the
as a function of wind speed using OpenFAST. This further reveals the characteristics of
applied control system; a detailed description of the control system according to the afore-
the applied control system; a detailed description of the control system according to the
mentioned analysis can be found in the Definition of the IEA Wind 15 MW Offshore Ref-
aforementioned analysis can be found in the Definition of the IEA Wind 15 MW Offshore
erence Wind
Reference Turbine.
Wind Figure
Turbine. 4 shows
Figure the result
4 shows the of the steady-state
result analysisanalysis
of the steady-state of the floating
of the
offshore
floating offshore wind turbine, and it is confirmed that all results are almost the same in
wind turbine, and it is confirmed that all results are almost the same as those as
the technical
those report. report.
in the technical

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Steady-state
Steady-state analysis
analysis results
results of
of the
the 15
15 MW
MW floating offshore wind
floating offshore wind turbine.
turbine.

2.4. Design
Design Load Cases and Environmental Conditions
To analyze
analyzethe theperformance
performanceofoffloating
floating offshore
offshore wind
wind turbines,
turbines, IEC61400-3-2
IEC61400-3-2 [24] [24]
pro-
posed normal
proposed and extreme
normal designdesign
and extreme load cases.
load Table
cases.3Table
summarizes the design
3 summarizes theload casesload
design and
environmental conditions, which are described in the Definition of the
cases and environmental conditions, which are described in the Definition of the UMaine UMaine VolturnUS-S
Reference Platform.
VolturnUS-S Reference The environmental
Platform. conditions were
The environmental described
conditions werebydescribed
Stewart etbyal. [25]
Stew-
andetViselli
art et and
al. [25] al. [26], andetthese
Viselli conditions
al. [26], and theseare conditions
primarily associated
are primarilywithassociated
the U.S. East
withCoast.
the
The analysis
U.S. East Coast. conditions used conditions
The analysis in this study include
used a wind
in this studyspeed
includeof a12wind
m/sspeed
for theofDLC1.6.
12 m/s
Next,
for theand the analysis
DLC1.6. Next, andwasthe
added by changing
analysis was added theby
significant
changingwave height and
the significant wave
wave peak
height
period, which were mostly similar to the conditions shown in Table
and wave peak period, which were mostly similar to the conditions shown in Table 3. All3. All conditions used
in this study
conditions were
used inaligned withwere
this study the wind
alignedandwith
wavethedirections
wind andatwave0◦ , asdirections
shown in Figure 1.
at 0°, as
The performance of the tower of a floating offshore wind turbine system
shown in Figure 1. The performance of the tower of a floating offshore wind turbine sys- was analyzed
according
tem to the aforementioned
was analyzed according to the design conditions. design conditions.
aforementioned

3. IEC
Table 3.
Table IEC design
design load
load case
case matrix.
matrix.

DLC
DLC DLC
DLC 1.1 1.1 DLC1.6
DLC 1.6
Wind
Wind Speed
Speed [m/s] Hs [m]
[m/s] Hs [m] Tp Tp
[s] [s] γ [-]
γ [-] Hs[m]
Hs [m] Tp [s]
[s] γ
γ [-]
4.00
4.00 1.10 1.10 8.528.52 1.00
1.00 6.30
6.30 11.50
11.50 2.75
2.75
6.00
6.00 1.18 1.18 8.318.31 1.00
1.00 8.00
8.00 12.70
12.70 2.75
2.75
8.00
8.00 1.32 1.32 8.018.01 1.00
1.00 8.00
8.00 12.70
12.70 2.75
2.75
10.00 1.54 7.65 1.00 8.10 12.80 2.75
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18

12.00 1.84 7.44 1.00 8.50 13.10 2.75

Energies 2023, 16, 1862 14.00 2.19 7.46 1.00 8.50 13.10 2.75 6 of 18
16.00 2.60 7.64 1.35 9.80 14.10 2.75
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18.00 3.06 8.05 1.59 9.80 14.10 2.75
6 of 18
Table 3.20.00
Cont. 3.63 8.52 1.82 9.80 14.10 2.75
22.00 4.03 8.99 1.82 9.80 14.10 2.75
DLC DLC 1.1 DLC 1.6
24.00 4.52 9.45 1.89 9.80 14.10 2.75
12.00 1.84 7.44 1.00 8.50 13.10 2.75
Wind Speed [m/s] Hs [m] Tp [s] γ [-] Hs [m] Tp [s] γ [-]
14.00 2.19 7.46 1.00 8.50 13.10 2.75
3. Results 10.00
and Discussion1.54 7.65 1.00 8.10 12.80 2.75
16.00 2.60 7.64 1.35 9.80 14.10 2.75
12.00 of Tower Moment
3.1. Comparison 1.84 7.44 to Environmental
According 1.00 8.50
Conditions 13.10 2.75
18.00
14.00 3.06
2.19 8.05
7.46 1.59
1.00 9.80
8.50 14.10
13.10 2.75
2.75
Before analyzing the 2.60
20.00
16.00 impact
3.63 on the 8.52
7.64 wave conditions,
1.82
1.35 the tower-top
9.80
9.80 and tower-base
14.10
14.10 2.75
2.75
pitch moments18.00 when the 3.06
22.00 wind
4.03 and waves
8.99 acted1.82
8.05 individually
1.59 9.80
9.80 and when they acted
14.10
14.10 to-
2.75
2.75
gether were 20.00 3.63
compared. Figures
24.00 8.52
4.52 5 and 69.45 1.82
show the 1.89 9.80
time series9.80 14.10
of the tower-top
14.10 and 2.75 2.75
tower-
base pitch22.00
moments for the 4.03three specified
8.99 1.82 The simulation
conditions. 9.80 14.10was 5400
time 2.75s.
24.00 4.52 9.45 1.89 9.80 14.10 2.75
The statistical
3. Results andanalysis was performed with simulation results of 1 h excluding the transi-
Discussion
ent effect.
3.1.
3. Comparison
Results andofDiscussion
Tower Moment According to Environmental Conditions
3.1.Before analyzing
Comparison the Moment
of Tower impact on the wave
According conditions, theConditions
to Environmental tower-top and tower-base
pitch moments
Before analyzing the impact on the wave conditions, theand
when the wind and waves acted individually when they
tower-top acted to-
and tower-base
gether
pitch moments when the wind and waves acted individually and when they actedtower-
were compared. Figures 5 and 6 show the time series of the tower-top and together
base
werepitch moments
compared. for the
Figures three
5 and specified
6 show conditions.
the time series ofThe simulationand
the tower-top time was 5400pitch
tower-base s.
The statistical
moments foranalysis
the threewas performed
specified with simulation
conditions. resultstime
The simulation of 1was
h excluding thestatistical
5400 s. The transi-
entanalysis
effect. was performed with simulation results of 1 h excluding the transient effect.

Figure 5. Time series of the tower-top pitch moments for the three specified conditions.

In the case of the tower-top pitch moment, the largest moment occurred under the
wave-only condition. It shows the smallest moment in the wind and wave conditions
mainly due to the aerodynamic damping, which occurs because of the rotor rotation. The
mean and standard deviation for the wind-only condition and the wind and wave condi-
tions were similar. This means that the tower-top pitch moment is significantly affected
Figure
by 5. Time
aerodynamic
Figure series
5. Time of of
damping
series thethe
tower-top
but pitch
not by
tower-top themoments
pitchwaves. forfor
moments thethe
three specified
three conditions.
specified conditions.

In the case of the tower-top pitch moment, the largest moment occurred under the
wave-only condition. It shows the smallest moment in the wind and wave conditions
mainly due to the aerodynamic damping, which occurs because of the rotor rotation. The
mean and standard deviation for the wind-only condition and the wind and wave condi-
tions were similar. This means that the tower-top pitch moment is significantly affected
by aerodynamic damping but not by the waves.

Figure 6. Time
Figure series
6. Time of tower-base
series pitch
of tower-base moments
pitch forfor
moments three specified
three conditions.
specified conditions.

In the case
In the of the
case tower-base
of the tower-top pitch moment,
pitch moment, thethe
largest moment
largest moment occurred under
occurred thethe
under
wind and wave
wave-only conditions.
condition. The mean
It shows value formoment
the smallest the wind-only condition
in the wind and and
wavewind and
conditions
mainly due to the aerodynamic damping, which occurs because of the rotor rotation.
The mean and standard deviation for the wind-only condition and the wind and wave
conditions were similar. This means that the tower-top pitch moment is significantly
Figure 6. Time
affected series of tower-base
by aerodynamic pitch but
damping moments forthe
not by three specified conditions.
waves.

In the case of the tower-base pitch moment, the largest moment occurred under the
wind and wave conditions. The mean value for the wind-only condition and wind and
Energies 2023, 16, 1862 7 of 18
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18

In the case of the tower-base pitch moment, the largest moment occurred under the
wind
wave and wave conditions.
conditions was similar, The mean
and thatvalue for standard
for the the wind-only condition
deviation and wind This
was different. and
wave conditions was similar, and that for the standard deviation was different.
means that in contrast to the tower-top pitch moment, the tower-base pitch moment is This means
that in contrast
significantly to the tower-top
affected pitch
by waves but moment,
not the tower-base
by aerodynamic pitchTable
damping. moment is significantly
4 summarizes the
affected by waves but not by aerodynamic damping. Table
statistical values of the tower-top and tower-base pitch moments. 4 summarizes the statistical
values of the tower-top and tower-base pitch moments.
Table 4. Statistical values of tower-top and tower-base pitch moments.
Table 4. Statistical values of tower-top and tower-base pitch moments.
Parameter Conditions Min. Mean Max. S.D
Parameter
Tower-top Conditions Min. 32,650
Wind only Mean
54,328 Max.
76,240 S.D
5753
Pitch moment
Tower-top WindWave
only only 32,650 62,520 71,719
54,328 82,450
76,240 2580
5753
Pitch[kNm]
moment Wave only
Wind and Wave62,520 31,540 71,719
54,381 82,450
78,250 2580
6326
[kNm] Wind and Wave 31,540 54,381 78,250 6326
Tower-base Wind only 59,500 245,482 377,300 48,244
Tower-base
Pitch moment WindWave
only only 59,500−418,700 245,482
−123,044 377,300
151,900 48,244
68,494
Pitch moment Wave only −418,700 −123,044 151,900 68,494
[kNm] Wind and Wave −55,100 241,790 520,500 77,117
[kNm] Wind and Wave −55,100 241,790 520,500 77,117

Next, the frequency domain analysis was performed using a fast Fourier transform
Next,
(FFT). the7frequency
Figure shows thedomain analysis
FFT results wastop
for the performed
and baseusing
pitchamoments
fast Fourier transform
of the tower.
(FFT). Figure 7 shows the FFT results for the top and base pitch moments of the tower. The
The impact of waves on the tower-top pitch moment is relatively high, and the impact of
impact of waves on the tower-top pitch moment is relatively high, and the impact of waves
waves on the tower-base pitch moment is higher than that of wind. In addition, the wind
on the tower-base pitch moment is higher than that of wind. In addition, the wind and
and wave cases are similar to the sum of the spectra with wind and waves that are applied
wave cases are similar to the sum of the spectra with wind and waves that are applied
separately. In particular,
separately. In particular, aa peak
peak occurred
occurred near
near 0.3
0.3 to
to 0.4
0.4 Hz
Hz at
at the
the tower-top
tower-top pitch
pitch moment,
moment,
and this is the natural frequency of the tower fore–after
and this is the natural frequency of the tower fore–after mode. mode.

Figure 7. FFT results of tower-top and tower-base pitch moments for three
three specified
specified conditions.
conditions.

3.2. Correlation
3.2. Correlation Analysis
Analysis
A correlation
A correlation analysis
analysis was
was performed
performed to to determine
determine the
the parameters
parameters with
with aa significant
significant
effect on the tower-base pitch moment in the case of both wind and waves. TheThe
effect on the tower-base pitch moment in the case of both wind and waves. main main
pa-
parameters mentioned in Section 2.4 are used for the correlation analysis. In this
rameters mentioned in Section 2.4 are used for the correlation analysis. In this study, be- study,
because
cause thethe tower-top
tower-top andand tower-basepitch
tower-base pitchmoments
momentswerewereanalyzed
analyzedaccording
according to
to the
the wave
wave
conditions, a correlation analysis was performed at frequencies less than 0.2 Hz. Figure 88
conditions, a correlation analysis was performed at frequencies less than 0.2 Hz. Figure
shows the
shows the FFT
FFT results
results between
between tower-base
tower-base pitch
pitch moment
moment and and main
main output
output parameters.
parameters.
Energies
Energies 2023,
2023, 16,
16, x1862
FOR PEER REVIEW 8 8ofof18
18

FFTresults
Figure8.8.FFT
Figure resultsbetween
betweentower-base
tower-base pitch
pitch moment
moment (black)
(black) and
and main
main output
output parameters
parameters (red).
(red).

Approximately four
Approximately four peaks
peaks can
can be
be identified
identifiedin inthe
thetower-base
tower-basepitch
pitchmoment
momentresults at
results
frequencies less than 0.2 Hz. The cause of each peak was identified using the
at frequencies less than 0.2 Hz. The cause of each peak was identified using the correlation correlation
analysis. First,
analysis. First, the
the correlation
correlationbetween
betweenexternal
externalforces, wind
forces, windand
andwaves, andand
waves, the the
tower-base
tower-
base pitch moment was examined. The wind exhibited the highest peak at afrequency,
pitch moment was examined. The wind exhibited the highest peak at a low low fre-
and waves
quency, andexhibited the largest
waves exhibited thepeak during
largest peak the wavethe
during peak period
wave peak(0.076
period Hz). Because
(0.076 Hz).
the tower-base pitch moment also shows a response at the same frequency,
Because the tower-base pitch moment also shows a response at the same frequency, the the tower-base
pitch moment
tower-base pitch is directly
momentaffected by affected
is directly the windby and
thewaves. The waves.
wind and blade pitch angle pitch
The blade and rotor
an-
speed
gle andresults related
rotor speed to therelated
results turbineto control system
the turbine are shown
control system below. Because
are shown below.theBecause
control
system
the of the
control turbine
system is closely
of the turbinerelated to the
is closely wind,toboth
related parameters
the wind, showed theshowed
both parameters highest
response in the low-frequency region. At the rotor speed, some responses occurred even at
the highest response in the low-frequency region. At the rotor speed, some responses oc-
the wave frequency. This response appeared because the platform motion caused by the
curred even at the wave frequency. This response appeared because the platform motion
waves was sensed by the nacelle as relative wind speed. Although some responses also
caused by the waves was sensed by the nacelle as relative wind speed. Although some
occur at wave frequency, the nacelle acceleration shows the largest response around 0.12 Hz.
responses also occur at wave frequency, the nacelle acceleration shows the largest re-
The frequencies around 0.12 Hz also show the largest response even in the tower-base pitch
sponse around 0.12 Hz. The frequencies around 0.12 Hz also show the largest response
moment, and they do not appear in all main parameter results except for the tower-top
even in the tower-base pitch moment, and they do not appear in all main parameter re-
deflection result. Equations (1) and (2) show the RNA and tower’s dynamic equilibrium
sults except for the tower-top deflection result. Equations (1) and (2) show the RNA and
equations and notation. From the equation, it is confirmed that the nacelle acceleration is
tower’s dynamic equilibrium equations and notation. From the equation, it is confirmed
that the nacelle acceleration is related to the tower-top deflection, as shown in Equation
(1), and that the 0.12 Hz frequency is related to the tower-top deflection.
Energies 2023, 16, 1862 9 of 18

related to the tower-top deflection, as shown in Equation (1), and that the 0.12 Hz frequency
is related to the tower-top deflection.
. .. .. ..
V RNA = XO + Lθ O + zθ RNA + ∂tt ξ ( L, t) (1)

Mtop, y = EI∂zz ξ ( L, t), Mbase, y = EI∂zz ξ (0, t) (2)

.
V RNA Acceleration of the RNA’s CoM (center of mass)
Mtop,y , Mbase,y Tower-top and tower-base pitch moments
t Time
L Tower length
z RNA’s CoM coordinates w.r.t. tower’s top along the z-axis
EI Bending stiffness
..
XO Tower-top acceleration
..
θO Tower-top angular acceleration
..
θ RNA RNA angular acceleration
∂tt ξ, ∂zz ξ Tower deflection function, temporal and spatial derivatives

The results of the rotor thrust and tower-top pitch moment are almost similar, and the
response occurs at low frequencies because it is affected by the wind. Further, the response
occurs at the wave frequency because of the relative wind speed, and this is similar to
the results of the rotor speed. Finally, in the results of the platform motion, the platform
surge shows a response at the surge natural frequency and wave frequency, platform
heave only at the wave frequency, and platform pitch at a low frequency, pitch natural
frequency, and wave frequency. The tower-base is directly connected to the platform.
Therefore, the platform motion had a significant impact on the tower-base pitch moments.
However, under some wave conditions, the tower-top deflection has a greater impact on
the tower-base pitch moment than the platform pitch motion.

3.3. Comparison of Tower-Base Pitch Moment According to Wave Peak Period

The wave conditions in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 include a significant wave height of
8.0 m and a peak period of 13.1 s. From the results of the frequency analysis of the tower-
base pitch moment, it is clear that the impact of the platform pitch motion and tower-top
deflection is significant. Therefore, in this section, the tower-base pitch moment is examined
according to the change in wave peak period. The wave frequency was divided into equal
intervals, and a short wave of approximately 6–28 s, which is the natural period of the
platform pitch motion, was analyzed. Because only the wave peak period is compared, the
significant wave height is fixed. Table 5 summarizes the wave peak periods and frequencies
for difference cases in this section.

Table 5. Wave peak period and wave peak frequency for different cases (Hs: 8.5 m).

Cases (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o)
Tp [s] 27.78 22.73 19.23 16.67 14.71 13.10 11.91 10.87 10.00 9.26 8.62 8.07 7.58 7.14 6.76
1/Tp [Hz] 0.036 0.044 0.052 0.060 0.068 0.076 0.084 0.092 0.100 0.108 0.116 0.124 0.132 0.140 0.148

Figure 9 shows the FFT results of tower-base pitch moments and waves according to
wave peak periods presented in Table 5. For a fair comparison, identical boundaries of the
y axis were set.
Energies 2023,
Energies 2023,16,
16,1862
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10
10 of 18
of 18

Figure 9.
Figure 9. FFT
FFTresults
resultsofoftower-base
tower-basepitch moments
pitch (black)
moments and
(black) waves
and (blue)
waves according
(blue) to wave
according to wave
peak periods.
peak periods.

For wave
For wave peak
peak periods
periods longer
longer than
than 1010 s,
s, aa small
small peak
peak isis observed
observed in in the
the tower-base
tower-base
pitch moment at the wave frequency. By referring to the results
pitch moment at the wave frequency. By referring to the results for the period of for the period of 13.1
13.1 ss
shown in the previous section, detailed peaks were identified. On
shown in the previous section, detailed peaks were identified. On the other hand, for the other hand, for aa
wave peak
wave peak period
period ofof less
less than
than 1010 s,
s, the
the peak
peak near
near 0.12
0.12 Hz
Hz gradually
gradually increases
increases andand the
the total
total
tower-base pitch
tower-base pitch moment
moment alsoalso increases.
increases. The
The total
total tower-base
tower-base pitch
pitch moment
moment is is an
an area
area that
that
indicates the
indicates the integration
integration over
over the
the entire
entire frequency
frequency range.
range. This
This isis because
because thethe frequency
frequency of of
the tower-top deflection and the wave frequency tend to become
the tower-top deflection and the wave frequency tend to become closer. The period wherein closer. The period
wherein
the the peak
peak and and total tower-base
total tower-base pitch moment pitchare moment are the
the largest is 8 largest is 8 s,
s, and they and they
decrease de-
again
crease
in againpeak
the wave in the waveofpeak
period less period
than 8 s.ofFigure
less than 8 s. Figure
10 shows 10 shows
the total the total
tower-base pitchtower-base
moment
 Energies2023,
Energies 2023,16,16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
1862 11 ofof1818
11

pitch
and moment and
normalized normalized
value per wave value per wave peak
peak frequencies, frequencies,
which which
are divided are results
by the dividedfor
bythe
the
results forofthe
frequency frequency
0.076 of 0.076
Hz indicated byHz
theindicated
red bar inby the red
Figure 10.bar in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Total tower-base pitch moment and normalized value per wave peak frequencies.
Figure 10. Total tower-base pitch moment and normalized value per wave peak frequencies.

Thetotal
The total tower-base
tower-base pitch
pitch moment
moment increased
increased withwith the wave
the wave frequency,
frequency, and it de-
and it decreased
creased
again again
below 0.124below
Hz. 0.124 Hz. In particular,
In particular, because
because 0.036 Hz is0.036 Hz is the
the natural natural
period period
of the of the
platform
platform
pitch pitch
motion, themotion, the total tower-base
total tower-base pitchis
pitch moment moment
slightlyisgreater
slightlythan
greater
the than
resultthe
forresult
the
for the frequency
frequency of 0.044 Hz.of 0.044 Hz. According
According to the normalized
to the normalized value results,value results,
as the waveasfrequency
the wave
frequencythe
increases, increases, the total tower-base
total tower-base pitch moment pitchismoment
doubled.isHowever,
doubled. However,
considering considering
that the
that the significant wave height used in this analysis is 8.5 m, the wave
significant wave height used in this analysis is 8.5 m, the wave frequency with more than frequency with
morethe
twice than twice
total the total tower-base
tower-base pitch moment pitch moment
appears appears infrequently.
infrequently. However, However,
because this be-
cause this
moment doesmoment doesatnot
not occur alloccur at all thereafter,
thereafter, an analysisanofanalysis
some ofofthe some of the frequencies
frequencies causing
causing resonance
resonance such as thesuch as the
natural natural frequencies
frequencies of the
of the platform platform
motion, motion, rotor-passing
rotor-passing frequencies
frequencies
(1P and 3P), and(1P tower-top
and 3P), and tower-top
deflection deflectionfor
is necessary is necessary for the tower design.
the tower design.

3.4.
3.4.Comparison
Comparisonofofthe theTower-Base
Tower-BasePitchPitchMoment
MomentAccording
AccordingtotoSignificant
SignificantWave
WaveHeight
Height
InInthe
theprevious
previous section, the highest
section, the highest total
totaltower-base
tower-basepitch pitchmoment
momentis is generated
generated in in
the
the wave condition of 8.07 s with a significant wave height of 8.5 m. Therefore,
wave condition of 8.07 s with a significant wave height of 8.5 m. Therefore, in this section, in this
section, the impact
the impact of significant
of significant wave is
wave height height is analyzed
analyzed for thepeak
for the wave wave peak where
period periodthe
wheretotal
the total tower-base pitch moment is the largest. A wave period of approximately
tower-base pitch moment is the largest. A wave period of approximately 8 s often occurs, 8 s often
occurs,
even inevenrealinseas.
realThus,
seas. Thus, a detailed
a detailed review review is necessary.
is necessary. EvenEven in design
in the the design
loadload cases
cases pre-
presented
sented in the Definition of the UMaine VolturnUS-S Reference Platform, a majority of of
in the Definition of the UMaine VolturnUS-S Reference Platform, a majority the
the wave peak periods are 7 to 9 s and the significant wave heights are
wave peak periods are 7 to 9 s and the significant wave heights are 1.0 to 4.5 m, used in 1.0 to 4.5 m, used
inDLC1.1
DLC1.1and and 1.3.
1.3. Therefore,
Therefore, thethe significant
significant wave
wave height
height is divided
is divided intointo equal
equal intervals,
intervals, and
and a low wave of about 1.0 m to about 4.5 m is analyzed. Because
a low wave of about 1.0 m to about 4.5 m is analyzed. Because only the significant wave only the significant
wave heights
heights are compared,
are compared, the wave
the wave peakpeak
periodperiod is fixed
is fixed for for
now.now. Table
Table 6 summarizes
6 summarizes the
the significant wave heights for different cases in this section, and Figure 11 shows the
significant wave heights for different cases in this section, and Figure 11 shows the FFT
FFT results of tower-base pitch moments and waves according to significant wave height
results of tower-base pitch moments and waves according to significant wave height pre-
presented in Table 6. For a fair comparison, identical boundaries of y axis were set.
sented in Table 6. For a fair comparison, identical boundaries of y axis were set.
Table 6. Significant wave heights for different cases (Tp: 8.07, 1/Tp: 0.124).
Table 6. Significant wave heights for different cases (Tp: 8.07, 1/Tp: 0.124).
Cases
Cases (p)
(p) (q)
(q) (r)
(r) (s)
(s) (t)(t) (u)
(u) (v)
(v) (w)
(w)
Hs
Hs[m]
[m] 1.0
1.0 1.5
1.5 2.0
2.0 2.5
2.5 3.0
3.0 3.5
3.5 4.0
4.0 4.5
4.5
Energies 2023,
Energies 2023, 16, x1862
FOR PEER REVIEW 1212ofof 18
18

Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18

Figure
Figure11.
11.FFT
FFTresults
resultsof
oftower-base
tower-basepitch
pitchmoments
moments(black)
(black)and
andwaves
waves(blue)
(blue)according
accordingto tosignificant
significant
wave
wave height.
height.
Figure 11. FFT results of tower-base pitch moments (black) and waves (blue) according to significant
wave height.
The total
The totaltower-base
tower-basepitch pitchmoment
moment and andwavewave spectral
spectral energy
energy increased
increased withwith the
the sig-
significant
nificant wave
wave height.
height. In In particular,
particular, the the
peakpeak near
near 0.12
0.12 Hz Hzin
The total tower-base pitch moment and wave spectral energy increased with the sig-in the
the tower-base
tower-base pitch
pitch moment
moment
isnificant
is low when
low when
wavethethe significant
significant
height. wavethe
wave
In particular, height
height
peakis is less0.12
less
near than
than Hz22inm.
m. However,
However,
the tower-base asaspitch
thesignificant
the significant
moment wave wave
height
is low increases,
when the a large
significant peak
wave occurs
height at
is a frequency
less than
height increases, a large peak occurs at a frequency of approximately 2 m. of approximately
However, as the 0.12 Hz.
significant On
wave the
Hz. On the other other
height
hand, at
hand, increases,
at low a large
low frequencies, peak
frequencies, the occurs
the total at a frequency
total tower-base
tower-base pitch of approximately
pitch moments
moments were 0.12 Hz.
were almost On the
almost the other
the same
same forfor all
all
hand, at lowThis
conditions.
conditions. frequencies,
This means that
means the
thattotal tower-base
significantpitch
thesignificant
the wave
wave moments werenot
height does
height does almost
not have
havetheaasame for all impact
significant
significant impact
conditions.
on lowThis
the low means that the significant wave height does nottower-top
frequency, have a significant impact Figure 1212
on the frequency, but it affects the frequency of the deflection. Figure
on the
shows the low frequency,
the total
total tower-base but it affects
tower-base pitch the
pitch moment frequency
moment and of
and wavethe tower-top
spectraldeflection.
wave spectral energy as asFigure
values 12 for each
shows energy values for each
shows the total tower-base pitch moment and wave spectral energy as values for each
significant wave
significant wave height.
height. As Asconfirmed
confirmedpreviously,
previously, the the total
total tower-base
tower-base pitch pitch moment and and
significant wave height. As confirmed previously, the total tower-base pitch momentmoment and
wave
wave spectral energy increased with the significant wave height. However, because the
wave spectral energyincreased
spectral energy increased withwith
the the significant
significant wavewaveheight.height.
However,However,
becausebecause
the the
total
total tower-base
total tower-base
tower-base pitch pitch moment
pitchmoment
moment in inin the
thethe low-frequency
low-frequency
low-frequency region region
region was almost
was almost
was almost the same the same
theforsame for
all for allall
conditions,
conditions,
conditions, the the increase
theincrease in
increaseininthethethe tower-base
tower-base
tower-base pitch pitch
pitch
moment moment
moment was
wasdue
was only only due
onlytodue to the tower-top
to the tower-top
the tower-top
deflection around0.12
deflection around
deflection around 0.12Hz.
0.12 Hz.
Hz.

Figure 12. Total tower-base pitch moment and wave spectral energy per significant wave height.
Figure 12. Total tower-base pitch moment and wave spectral energy per significant wave height.
Figure 12. Total tower-base pitch moment and wave spectral energy per significant wave height.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18
Energies 2023, 16, 1862 13 of 18

3.5.
3.5.Comparison
Comparisonofofthe
theNormal
NormalSeaSeaState
Stateand
andSevere
SevereSea
SeaState
State
Among
Among the design load cases of IEC61400-3-2, theevaluation
the design load cases of IEC61400-3-2, the evaluationusing
usingDLC1.1
DLC1.1reveals
reveals
that the wave condition is a normal sea state (NSS), and that using DLC1.6
that the wave condition is a normal sea state (NSS), and that using DLC1.6 revealed revealed that
that the
the wave condition is a severe sea state (SSS). In this section, by referring to the Definition
wave condition is a severe sea state (SSS). In this section, by referring to the Definition of
ofthe
theUMaine
UMaine VolturnUS-S
VolturnUS-S Reference
Reference Platform,
Platform, thethe results
results areare compared
compared by applying
by applying the
the NSS
NSS
and and SSS wave
SSS wave conditions
conditions to analyze
to analyze the impact
the impact on theon the tower-base
tower-base pitch moment.
pitch moment. Table 7
Table 7 summarizes
summarizes the twotheseatwo sea conditions
conditions compared compared in this The
in this section. section.
two The
wavetwo wave con-
conditions are
ditions are most
most similar similar
to those into
thethose in the of
Definition Definition
the UMaineof the UMaine VolturnUS-S
VolturnUS-S Referencein
Reference Platform;
Platform; in other
other words, theywords,
are thethey
validare the conditions
wave valid waveused
conditions usedanalysis.
in the load in the load analysis.

Table
Table7.7.Normal
Normalsea
seastate
stateand
andsevere
severesea
seastate
stateconditions.
conditions.
Cases
Cases (w)
(w) (f)
(f)
Sea state Normal sea state Severe sea state
Sea state Normal sea state Severe sea state
HsHs[m]
[m] 4.5
4.5 8.5
8.5
Tp
Tp[s]
[s] 8.07
8.07 13.10
13.10
1/Tp [Hz]
1/Tp [Hz] 0.124
0.124 0.076
0.076

Figure
Figure13 13shows
showsFFT FFTresults
resultsofoftower-base
tower-basepitch pitchmoments
momentsand andwaves
wavesaccording
accordingtoto
sea
sea conditions summarized in Table 7, and Figure 14 shows the normalized valuethat
conditions summarized in Table 7, and Figure 14 shows the normalized value thatisis
obtained
obtainedby bydividing
dividingthe thetotal
totaltower-base
tower-basepitch pitchmoment
momentand andwavewavespectral
spectralenergy
energyunder
under
the
thecondition
conditionthat thatthe
thesignificant
significantwave waveheight
heightisis4.54.5mmfor fordirect
directcomparison
comparisonofofthe thetwo
two
conditions.
conditions.InInFigureFigure13, 13,the
thetotal
totaltower-base
tower-basepitch pitchmoment
momentappears appearsalmost
almostidentical.
identical.
When
Whenthe thewave
wavepeak peakperiod
period waswas 13.1 s, the
13.1 response
s, the responseof theof tower-base
the tower-base pitchpitch
momentmomentap-
peared
appeared eveneven
at the
at wave
the wavefrequency.
frequency.Under the condition
Under the conditionthat thethatwave peak peak
the wave period is 8.07is
period
s,8.07
the s,
tower-top deflection
the tower-top frequency
deflection and wave
frequency frequency
and wave are the
frequency aresame and,and,
the same thus,thus,
the re-
the
response
sponse of the
of the tower-base
tower-base pitch
pitch moment
moment is excited
is excited even
even at at a relativelysmall
a relatively smallwave
waveheight.
height.
Theresponses
The responsesofofthe thetower-base
tower-basepitch pitchmoment
momentininthe thelow-frequency
low-frequencyregion regionwere
werealmost
almost
similarfor
similar forthe
thetwo
twoconditions.
conditions. InIn Figure
Figure 14,14,
thethe
wavewave spectral
spectral energy
energy differs
differs by abyfactor
a factor
of
of approximately 2.5 for the two conditions. However, in the
approximately 2.5 for the two conditions. However, in the case of the total tower-base case of the total tower-base
pitchmoment,
pitch moment,aamere meredifference
differenceofofapproximately
approximately4% 4%waswasobserved.
observed.InInotherotherwords,
words,the the
floatingoffshore
floating offshore wind
wind turbine systemsystem usedused ininthe
theanalysis
analysisindicates
indicatesthat thateven
evenunder
under normal
nor-
seasea
mal state conditions
state conditions with a wave
with a wave peak
peakperiod
period of of
8 s, the
8 s, thetotal
totaltower-base
tower-basepitchpitchmoment
momentis
issimilar
similartotothat
thatunder
undersevere
severesea seastate
stateconditions.
conditions.

Figure
Figure13.
13.FFT
FFTresults
results of
of tower-base pitchmoments
tower-base pitch moments(black)
(black) and
and waves
waves (blue)
(blue) according
according toconditions.
to sea sea con-
ditions.
Energies 2023,
Energies 16,16,
2023, x FOR
1862PEER REVIEW 14 of
1418
of 18

Figure 14.14.
Figure Normalized values
Normalized of total
values tower-base
of total pitch
tower-base moments
pitch and
moments wave
and spectral
wave energy.
spectral energy.

3.6.3.6. Tower
Tower Redesign
Redesign by by Changing
Changing Tower
Tower Diameter
Diameter
TheThe tower-top
tower-top andand tower-base
tower-base pitch
pitch moments
moments according
according to the
to the change
change in the
in the dimen-
dimen-
sions
sions of the
of the towertowerareare compared.
compared. TheTheIEAIEA15 MW15 MWtowertower
was was designed
designed by dividing
by dividing into 10into
10 equal
equal heights,
heights, and the anddiameter
the diameter and thickness
and thickness were determined
were determined for eachforsection.
each section.
In this In
this dimension
study, study, dimensionanalysisanalysis was performed
was performed by changing
by changing the tower the tower diameter
diameter of each
of each tower
tower section while the thickness was fixed. The diameter was
section while the thickness was fixed. The diameter was determined by minimizing the determined by minimizing
the change
change in mass inand
mass and center
center of gravity.
of gravity. In caseIn1,case
the 1, the diameter
diameter of the of the entire
entire sectionsection
was 9.5 was
9.5 m. In cases 2 and 3, the tower-top and tower-base diameters are
m. In cases 2 and 3, the tower-top and tower-base diameters are 8 and 10 m, respectively.8 and 10 m, respectively.
However,
However, case
case 2 2exhibits
exhibitsaasudden
suddenchange
change in in diameter
diameter in in the
themiddle,
middle,andandcase
case3 is a tapered
3 is a ta-
typetype
pered thatthat
changes
changes constantly.
constantly. Table
Table8 summarizes
8 summarizesthe thetower
towerdimensions
dimensionsas as function
function of
height for
of height for four
four cases
casesandandFigure
Figure1515show
showthe thetower
towershape
shapefor for four
four cases.
cases. Figure
Figure 1616 shows
shows
the tower-top and tower-base difference from “Original” case
the tower-top and tower-base difference from “Original” case as a time series graph.as a time series graph.

Table
Table 8. Tower
8. Tower dimensions
dimensions as as function
function of of height
height forfor four
four cases.
cases.

Height
Height Thickness
Thickness OuterOuter Diameter
Diameter [m][m]
[m][m] [m][m] Original
Original Case 1 1
Case Case 2 2
Case Case 3 3
Case
15.000
15.000 0.083
0.083 10.000
10.000 9.500
9.500 10.000
10.000 10.000
10.000
28.000
28.000 0.083
0.083 9.964
9.964 9.500
9.500 10.000
10.000 9.799
9.799
28.001
28.001 0.083
0.083 9.964
9.964 9.500
9.500 10.000
10.000 9.799
9.799
41.000 0.083 9.967 9.500 10.000 9.599
41.000 0.083 9.967 9.500 10.000 9.599
41.001 0.083 9.967 9.500 10.000 9.599
41.001
54.000 0.083
0.083 9.967
9.927 9.500
9.500 10.000
10.000 9.599
9.398
54.000
54.001 0.083
0.030 9.927
9.927 9.500
9.500 10.000
10.000 9.398
9.398
67.000
54.001 0.030
0.030 9.528
9.927 9.500
9.500 10.000
10.000 9.197
9.398
67.001 0.028 9.528 9.500 10.000 9.197
67.000 0.030 9.528 9.500 10.000 9.197
80.000 0.028 9.149 9.500 10.000 8.997
67.001
80.001 0.028
0.026 9.528
9.149 9.500
9.500 10.000
10.000 9.197
8.997
80.000
93.000 0.028
0.026 9.149
8.945 9.500
9.500 10.000
8.000 8.997
8.796
93.001
80.001 0.023
0.026 8.945
9.149 9.500
9.500 8.000
10.000 8.796
8.997
106.000
93.000 0.023
0.026 8.735
8.945 9.500
9.500 8.000
8.000 8.595
8.796
106.001 0.020 8.735 9.500 8.000 8.595
93.001
119.000
0.023
0.020
8.945
8.405
9.500
9.500
8.000
8.000
8.796
8.395
106.000
119.001 0.023
0.018 8.735
8.405 9.500
9.500 8.000
8.000 8.595
8.395
106.001
132.000 0.020
0.018 8.735
7.321 9.500
9.500 8.000
8.000 8.595
8.194
132.001
119.000 0.021
0.020 7.321
8.405 9.500
9.500 8.000
8.000 8.194
8.395
144.582 0.021 6.500 9.500 8.000 8.000
119.001 0.018 8.405 9.500 8.000 8.395
Mass [t] (ratio) 1263 (1.00) 1266 (1.00) 1272 (1.01) 1243 (0.98)
132.000C.G. [m] (ratio)
0.018 7.321
39.6 (1.00) 9.500
42.5 (1.07) 8.000
39.8 (1.01) 8.194
40.4 (1.02)
132.001 0.021 7.321 9.500 8.000 8.194
144.582 0.021 6.500 9.500 8.000 8.000
Mass [t] (ratio) 1263 (1.00) 1266 (1.00) 1272 (1.01) 1243 (0.98)
C.G. [m] (ratio) 39.6 (1.00) 42.5 (1.07) 39.8 (1.01) 40.4 (1.02)
 Energies2023,
Energies 2023,16,
16,x xFOR
FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of1818
Energies 2023, 16, 1862 PEER REVIEW 15
15 of
of 18

Figure15.
Figure
Figure 15.Tower
15. Towershape
Tower shapefor
shape for
for fourcases.
four
four cases.
cases.

Figure16.
Figure 16.Tower-top
Tower-topand
andtower-base
tower-basepitch
pitchmoments
momentsdifference
differencefrom
from“Original”
“Original”case.
case.
Figure 16. Tower-top and tower-base pitch moments difference from “Original” case.

Thetower-top
The
The tower-toppitch
tower-top pitchmoment
pitch momentdifference
moment differencebetween
difference betweenthe
between theoriginal
the originalcase
original caseand
case andcases
and cases222and
cases and333
and
is not
is not
is significant;
not significant; case
significant; case 1 shows
case 11 shows a maximum
shows aa maximum difference
maximum difference
difference ofof approximately
of approximately 5,400
approximately 5400 kNm.
5,400kNm.
kNm. The The
The
averageof
average
average ofthe
of thefour
the fourcases
four cases
casesisisisapproximately
approximately
approximately 54,000
54,000 kNm,
kNm,
54,000 andand
and
kNm, themaximum
the maximum
the tower-top
tower-top
maximum pitch
pitch
tower-top
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 18
Energies 2023, 16, 1862 16 of 18

moment difference is approximately 10%. The tower-base pitch moment difference ap-
pitch moment difference is approximately 10%. The tower-base pitch moment difference
peared in the
appeared order
in the of 1,
order of 3,
1, and 2, 2,
3, and andandcase 1 showed
case 1 showed a amaximum
maximumdifference
differenceofofapproxi-
approxi-
mately
mately 26,000 kNm. The average of the four cases is approximately 240,000kNm,
26,000 kNm. The average of the four cases is approximately 240,000 kNm,and andthe
the
maximum tower-base pitch moment difference is approximately 10%.
maximum tower-base pitch moment difference is approximately 10%. Figure 17 shows Figure 17 shows
the
the normalized
normalized values
values thatthat
were were obtained
obtained by dividing
by dividing the total
the total tower-top
tower-top and tower-base
and tower-base pitch
pitch moments
moments of theoforiginal
the original casea for
case for a direct
direct comparison
comparison of theoffour
the cases.
four cases.

Figure
Figure17.
17.Normalized
Normalizedvalues
valuesof
oftower-top
tower-topand
andtower-base
tower-basepitch
pitchmoments.
moments.

In
InCases
Cases1,1,2,2,and
and3,3,the
thedifferences
differencesof ofthe
thetower-top
tower-topand and tower-base
tower-basepitchpitchmoments
moments
were
were within
within 2%. Case 1 showed
showed thethesmallest
smallesttower-top
tower-toppitch
pitchmoment
moment because
because itsits tower-
tower-top
top diameter
diameter waswas
the the largest.
largest. CaseCase 2 shows
2 shows a lower
a lower tower-top
tower-top and and tower-base
tower-base pitchpitch mo-
moments
ments compared
compared to thosetoofthose of the original
the original cases.
cases. This This is because
is because both theboth the base
top and top and
hadbase had
relatively
relatively large diameters. However, the 80–93 m section, wherein the
large diameters. However, the 80–93 m section, wherein the diameter changes rapidly, isdiameter changes
rapidly, is structurally
structurally weaker than weaker than
the other the other
sections. Case sections.
3 showsCase 3 shows
a larger a larger
tower-top tower-top
and tower-base
and tower-base
pitch moments pitch
comparedmoments compared
to those to thosecases.
of the original of theThis
original
is duecases. This
to the is due
steady to the
decrease
steady decrease
in diameter frominthediameter
base tofrom thecompared
the top base to thetotop compared
other cases. to other cases.

4.4.Conclusions
Conclusions
Thecharacteristics
The characteristicsof ofthe
thetower-top
tower-topandandtower-base
tower-basepitch pitchmoments
momentsof ofthe
the floating
floating
offshore wind
offshore wind turbine
turbine system
system were
were confirmed
confirmedthrough
throughnumerical
numericalanalysis.
analysis.From
Froma aseries of
series
numerical analyses, the following conclusions were
of numerical analyses, the following conclusions were drawn. drawn.
Thecorrelation
The correlation analysis
analysis was
wasused
usedtotoanalyze
analyzethe theimpact
impact of of
thethe
main
mainparameters
parameters related
re-
to the tower-base pitch moment. The tower-top deflection frequency has
lated to the tower-base pitch moment. The tower-top deflection frequency has a signifi- a significant impact
on the
cant tower-base
impact pitch moment,
on the tower-base pitchwhich
moment,is also
whichrelated to nacelle
is also related acceleration. The other
to nacelle acceleration.
parameters showed a response that was suitable for their respective characteristics,
The other parameters showed a response that was suitable for their respective character- such as
a large response in a natural period.
istics, such as a large response in a natural period.
As the
As the wave
wave peak
peakperiod
periodapproached
approached thethe
tower-top
tower-topdeflection frequency,
deflection the response
frequency, the re-
was excited, and as it moved away, the response became smaller again. However, as the
sponse was excited, and as it moved away, the response became smaller again. However,
significant wave height increases, only the wave spectral energy and total tower-base pitch
as the significant wave height increases, only the wave spectral energy and total tower-
moment increase in tandem, and no other characteristics are observed. This means that
base pitch moment increase in tandem, and no other characteristics are observed. This
when designing the tower of a floating offshore wind turbine, the importance of the wave
means that when designing the tower of a floating offshore wind turbine, the importance
peak period is higher than the significant wave height.
of the wave peak period is higher than the significant wave height.
The conditions of a significant wave height of 4.5 m and a wave peak period of 8.07 s
The conditions of a significant wave height of 4.5 m and a wave peak period of 8.07
is compared with those of 8.5 m and 13.1 s. The former refers to a normal sea state, and the
s is compared with those of 8.5 m and 13.1 s. The former refers to a normal sea state, and
latter a severe sea state. The wave spectral energy differed by a factor of 3.5. However, the
the latter a severe sea state. The wave spectral energy differed by a factor of 3.5. However,
difference in the total tower-base pitch moment was only approximately 4%. As mentioned
the difference in the total tower-base pitch moment was only approximately 4%. As men-
previously, the impact of the wave peak period is greater than that of the significant
tioned previously, the impact of the wave peak period is greater than that of the significant
wave height.
wave Theheight.
shape was changed by adjusting the diameter of each section of the tower, and the
The
tower-top shape was changed
and tower-base by moments
pitch adjusting were
the diameter
examined ofaccording
each section of the
to the tower,shape.
changed and
the tower-top and tower-base pitch moments were examined according
The larger the diameter at the top or base, the smaller the pitch moment. In addition, the to the changed
Energies 2023, 16, 1862 17 of 18

pitch moment is lower when the tower-top and tower-base diameters remain the same up
to a certain height.
The hub height and blade length increased with the capacity of the floating offshore
wind turbine system increased. This implies that the tower height and thrust applied
to the blades increased. The beam deflection is often proportional to the force and cube
of the tower height. Therefore, the tower-top deflection increases with the capacity of
the floating offshore wind turbine system. This is because redesigning the tower is the
most economical way to reduce the tower-top deflection rather than reducing the hub
height and blade length. Therefore, in future studies, the tower-top and tower-base pitch
moments will be reduced when redesigning the tower. The tower mass used in this study
is 1263 tons, and there is a need for mass reduction to reduce the cost. The main purpose
of optimal tower design is mass reduction and load reduction. Therefore, the tower mass
is adjusted using the diameter and thickness per tower height, which are directly related
to the tower mass, and the change in the loads on the tower-top and tower-base will be
examined accordingly. The optimal solution is founded by specifying the mass and load as
two objective functions and using Pareto analysis, which is a method of simultaneously
optimizing the two objective functions. However, tower clearance, which is the distance
between the blade tip and tower considering blade deflection in extreme conditions, and
the natural frequency of the tower fore–after and side–side must be additionally considered
in tower design. Future research will design an improved tower that takes all of these
points into account.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.A., Y.-J.H. and K.-H.K.; Methodology, H.A., Y.-J.H. and
K.-H.K.; Software, H.A.; Validation, H.A.; Formal analysis, H.A., Y.-J.H. and K.-H.K.; Investigation,
H.A. and Y.-J.H.; Resources, H.A. and Y.-J.H.; Data curation, H.A.; Writing—original draft, H.A.;
Writing—review & editing, H.A., Y.-J.H. and K.-H.K.; Visualization, H.A.; Supervision, K.-H.K.;
Project administration, K.-H.K.; Funding acquisition, K.-H.K. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was supported by a grant from the endowment project of “Development of
core technology for integrated offshore green hydrogen production system” funded by the Korea
Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering (PES4801).
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Jonkman, J.M. Dynamics Modeling and Loads Analysis of an Offshore Floating Wind Turbine. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA, 2007.
2. Jonkman, J.; Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Scott, G. Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System Development;
(No. NREL/TP-500-38060); National Renewable Energy Laboratory (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy): Golden, CO, USA, 2009.
3. Gaertner, E.; Rinker, J.; Sethuraman, L.; Zahle, F.; Anderson, B.; Barter, G.E.; Abbas, N.; Meng, F.; Bortolotti, P.; Skrzypinski,
W.; et al. IEA Wind TCP Task 37: Definition of the IEA 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine; (No. NREL/TP-5000-75698);
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy): Golden, CO, USA, 2020.
4. Allen, C.; Viscelli, A.; Dagher, H.; Goupee, A.; Gaertner, E.; Abbas, N.; Matthew, H.; Barter, G. Definition of the UMaine VolturnUS-S
Reference Platform Developed for the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine; (No. NREL/TP-5000-76773); National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy):
Golden, CO, USA; University of Maine: Orono, ME, USA, 2020.
5. Mahfouz, M.Y.; Molins, C.; Trubat, P.; Hernández, S.; Vigara, F.; Pegalajar-Jurado, A.; Bredmose, H.; Salari, M.; Salari, M. Response
of the international energy agency (IEA) Wind 15 MW WindCrete and Activefloat floating wind turbines to wind and second-order
waves. Wind. Energy Sci. 2021, 6, 867–883. [CrossRef]
6. Liu, S.; Chuang, Z.; Wang, K.; Li, X.; Chang, X.; Hou, L. Structural parametric optimization of the VolturnUS-S semi-submersible
foundation for a 15 MW floating offshore wind turbine. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1181. [CrossRef]
7. Pollini, N.; Pegalajar-Jurado, A.; Dou, S.; Bredmose, H.; Stolpe, M. Gradient-based optimization of a 15-MW wind turbine spar
floater. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 2018, 012032. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 1862 18 of 18

8. Mendoza, N.; Robertson, A.; Wright, A.; Jonkman, J.; Wang, L.; Bergua, R.; Ngo, T.; Das, T.; Odeh, M.; Mohsin, K.; et al. Verification
and validation of model-scale turbine performance and control strategies for the IEA wind 15 MW reference wind turbine.
Energies 2022, 15, 7649. [CrossRef]
9. Loubeyres, J.; Pfister, J.-L.; Blondel, F.; Guy, N. Stall flutter instabilities on the IEA-15 reference wind turbine in idling conditions:
Code-to-code comparisons and physical analyses. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2022, 2265, 032019. [CrossRef]
10. Rinker, J.; Gaertner, E.; Zahle, F.; Skrzypiński, W.; Abbas, N.; Bredmose, H.; Barter, G.; Dykes, K.; Barter, G.; Dykes, K. Comparison
of loads from HAWC2 and OpenFAST for the IEA Wind 15 MW Reference Wind Turbine. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1618, 052052.
[CrossRef]
11. Papi, F.; Bianchini, A. Technical challenges in floating offshore wind turbine upscaling: A critical analysis based on the NREL 5
MW and IEA 15 MW Reference Turbines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 162, 112489. [CrossRef]
12. Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Jonkman, J.; Sclavounos, P. Engineering Challenges for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines; (No. NREL/CP-
500-38776); National Renewable Energy Laboratory (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy): Golden, CO, USA, 2007.
13. Jonkman, J.M.; Buhl, M.L. FAST User’s Guide; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2005; Volume 365.
14. Robertson, A.; Jonkman, J.; Vorpahl, F.; Popko, W.; Qvist, J.; Frøyd, L.X.; Chen, X.; Azcona, J.; Uzunoglu, E.; Soares, C.G.;
et al. Offshore code comparison collaboration continuation within IEA wind task 30: Phase II results regarding a floating
semisubmersible wind system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–13 June 2013; Volume
45547, p. V09BT09A012.
15. Robertson, A.N.; Wendt, F.; Jonkman, J.M.; Popko, W.; Dagher, H.; Gueydon, S.; Qvist, J.; Vittori, F.; Azcona, J.; Uzunoglu, E.; et al.
OC5 Project Phase II: Validation of Global Loads of the DeepCwind Floating Semisubmersible Wind Turbine. Energy Procedia
2017, 137, 38–57. [CrossRef]
16. Jonkman, J.; Branlard, E.; Hall, M.; Hayman, G.; Platt, A.; Robertson, A. Implementation of Substructure Flexibility and Member-Level
Load Capabilities for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines in OpenFAST; (No. NREL/TP-5000-76822); National Renewable Energy Lab.
(NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2020.
17. Jonkman, J.; Jonkman, B.J. FAST modularization framework for wind turbine simulation: Full-system linearization. J. Physics:
Conf. Ser. 2016, 753, 082010. [CrossRef]
18. Jonkman, J.M.; Hayman, G.J.; Jonkman, B.J.; Damiani, R.R.; Murray, R.E. AeroDyn v15 User’s Guide and Theory Manual; NREL
Draft Report; NREL: Golden, CO, USA, 2015; p. 46.
19. Jonkman, B.J. TurbSim User’s Guide: Version 1.50; (No. NREL/TP-500-46198); National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden,
CO, USA, 2009.
20. Shah, K.A.; Meng, F.; Li, Y.; Nagamune, R.; Zhou, Y.; Ren, Z.; Jiang, Z. A synthesis of feasible control methods for floating offshore
wind turbine system dynamics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 151, 111525. [CrossRef]
21. Abbas, N.J.; Zalkind, D.S.; Pao, L.; Wright, A. A reference open-source controller for fixed and floating offshore wind turbines.
Wind. Energy Sci. 2022, 7, 53–73. [CrossRef]
22. Jonkman, J.M.; Robertson, A.N.; Hayman, G.J. HydroDyn User’s Guide and Theory Manual; National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
Golden, CO, USA, 2014.
23. Lee, C.H. WAMIT Theory Manual; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Ocean Engineering: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 1995.
24. International Electrotechnical Commission. Wind Energy Generation Systems—Part 3-2: Design Requirements for Floating Offshore
Wind Turbines; IEC TS: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 61400–61403.
25. Stewart, G.M.; Robertson, A.; Jonkman, J.; Lackner, M.A. The creation of a comprehensive metocean data set for offshore wind
turbine simulations. Wind. Energy 2016, 19, 1151–1159. [CrossRef]
26. Viselli, A.M.; Forristall, G.Z.; Pearce, B.R.; Dagher, H.J. Estimation of extreme wave and wind design parameters for offshore
wind turbines in the Gulf of Maine using a POT method. Ocean Eng. 2015, 104, 649–658. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.