0
Special Section Articles

Model Tests for a Floating Wind Turbine on Three Different Floaters

[+] Author and Article Information
Bonjun J. Koo

Technip USA, Inc.,
11700 Katy Freeway, Suite 150,
Houston, TX 77079
e-mail: bkoo@technip.com

Andrew J. Goupee

Advanced Structures and Composites Center,
University of Maine,
35 Flagstaff Road,
Orono, ME 04469

Richard W. Kimball

Maine Maritime Academy,
54 Pleasant Street,
Castine, ME 04420

Kostas F. Lambrakos

Technip USA, Inc.,
11700 Katy Freeway, Suite 150,
Houston, TX 77079

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Manuscript received January 14, 2013; final manuscript received May 2, 2013; published online March 24, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Krish Thiagarajan.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 136(2), 020907 (Mar 24, 2014) (11 pages) Paper No: OMAE-13-1004; doi: 10.1115/1.4024711 History: Received January 14, 2013; Revised May 02, 2013

Wind energy is a promising alternate energy resource. However, the on-land wind farms are limited by space, noise, and visual pollution and, therefore, many countries build wind farms near the shore. Until now, most offshore wind farms have been built in relatively shallow water (less than 30 m) with fixed tower type wind turbines. Recently, several countries have planned to move wind farms to deep water offshore locations to find stronger and steadier wind fields as compared to near shore locations. For the wind farms in deeper water, floating platforms have been proposed to support the wind turbine. The model tests described in this paper were performed at MARIN (maritime research institute netherlands) with a model setup corresponding to a 1:50 Froude scaling. The wind turbine was a scaled model of the national renewable energy lab (NREL) 5 MW horizontal axis reference wind turbine supported by three different generic floating platforms: a spar, a semisubmersible, and a tension-leg platform (TLP). The wave environment used in the tests is representative of the offshore in the state of Maine. In order to capture coupling between the floating platform and the wind turbine, the 1st bending mode of the turbine tower was also modeled. The main purpose of the model tests was to generate data on coupled motions and loads between the three floating platforms and the same wind turbine for the operational, design, and survival seas states. The data are to be used for the calibration and improvement of the existing design analysis and performance numerical codes. An additional objective of the model tests was to establish the advantages and disadvantages among the three floating platform concepts on the basis of the test data. The paper gives details of the scaled model wind turbine and floating platforms, the setup configurations, and the instrumentation to measure motions, accelerations, and loads along with the wind turbine rpm, torque, and thrust for the three floating wind turbines. The data and data analysis results are discussed in the work of Goupee et al. (2012, “Experimental Comparison of Three Floating Wind Turbine Concepts,” OMAE 2012-83645).

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Wind turbine model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Selected platforms

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Principal dimensions of the spar-buoy

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Principal dimensions of the TLP (pontoon length = 22.5 m)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Principal dimensions of the semisubmersible

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Schematic of the delta connection

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Instrumentation on the wind turbine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Instrumentation on the turbine tower and floating platform

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

NREL 5 MW wind turbine performance curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Wind field measurement locations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Wind field measurement results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Operational wave 2 comparisons (measured versus theory)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Hammer test results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of static offset test results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparisons of the damping ratios (TLP)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparisons of the damping ratios (semisubmersible)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparisons of the damping ratios (spar-buoy)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Surge RAOs of the TLP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

The TLP surge response spectra

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Pitch RAOs of the TLP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Pitch responses of the TLP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Surge RAOs of the spar-buoy

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Heave RAOs of the spar-buoy

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Pitch RAOs of the spar-buoy

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Surge response of the spar-buoy

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Pitch response of the spar-buoy

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Surge RAOs of the semisubmersible

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Heave RAOs of the semisubmersible

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Pitch RAOs of the semisubmersible

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 32

Surge response of the semisubmersible

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 33

Pitch response of the semisubmersible

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In