Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Loads and Response of a Tension Leg Platform
Wind Turbine with Non-Rotating Blades:
An Experimental Study
Timothy Murfet and Nagi Abdussamie *
National Centre for Maritime Engineering and Hydrodynamics, Australian Maritime College, University of
Tasmania, Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-3-6324-9732




Received: 31 December 2018; Accepted: 22 February 2019; Published: 27 February 2019


Abstract: This paper describes model testing of a Tension Leg Platform Wind Turbine (TLPWT)
with non-rotating blades to better understand its motion and tendon responses when subjected to
combined wind and unidirectional regular wave conditions. The TLPWT structure is closely based
on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 5 MW concept. Multiple free decay tests
were performed to evaluate the natural periods of the model in the key degrees of freedom, whilst
Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) were derived to show the motion and tendon characteristics.
The natural periods in surge and pitch motions evaluated from the decay tests had a relatively close
agreement to the theoretical values. Overall, the tested TLPWT model exhibited typical motion
responses to that of a generalised TLP with significant surge offsets along with stiff heave and pitch
motions. The maximum magnitudes for the RAOs of surge motion and all tendons occurred at the
longest wave period of 1.23 s (~13.0 s at full-scale) tested in this study. From the attained results,
there was evidence that static wind loading on the turbine structure had some impact on the motions
and tendon response, particularly in the heave direction, with an average increase of 13.1% in motion
amplitude for the tested wind conditions. The wind had a negligible effect on the surge motion
and slightly decreased the tendon tensions in all tendons. The results also showed the set-down
magnitudes amounting to approximately 2–5% of the offset. Furthermore, the waves are the dominant
factor contributing to the set-down of the TLPWT, with a minimal contribution from the static wind
loading. The results of this study could be used for calibrating numerical tools such as CFD codes.

Keywords: offshore wind; tension leg platforms; loads and response; model testing

1. Introduction
There is an increasing demand worldwide for renewable energy generation, largely due to the
increasing awareness of climate change and limited fossil fuel resources [1]. The total capacity of
offshore wind has increased considerably in the last decade, with global capacity reaching a recorded
19.27 gigawatts (GW) in 2017, up from only 1.44 GW in 2008 [2]. Many major countries are continuing
to develop offshore wind technology. The current rate of development is only set to increase, with
predictions of up to 120 GW to be installed by 2030 [3].
Wind energy is considered a potential solution to cope with increasing energy demand, but
development has largely been limited to onshore applications. This is particularly evident with 88% of
the global offshore wind energy generation capacity located in European shallow waters as of the end
of 2016 [4]. A major reason for this is the increased complexity of offshore turbine support structures,
combined with additional factors from the maritime environment [5]. Typically, support structures
include gravity bases, monopole and jacket structures, with monopoles being the most common, based

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56; doi:10.3390/jmse7030056 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 2 of 23

on competitive fabrication and installation costs [6–8]. However, with space fast becoming a limiting
factor for land-based wind power generation, significant research and development has been directed
towards alternatives better suited for deeper waters [9]. In some cases, nearshore developments are
undesirable due to their visual impact, further supporting these developments. For deeper water,
floating structures appear to be a viable alternative to the restrictions of piled and jacket-based designs.
However, floating structures are more challenging to design, based upon considerations of coupling
between the turbine and support structure. Other factors such as mooring configurations and sea state
conditions are likely to have a greater effect on the performance of the structure [10].
Currently, there has only been one full-scale Floating Offshore Wind Turbine (FOWT) commercial
project commissioned. The Hywind project off the coast of Peterhead, Scotland began commercial
generation in October 2017 and consists of five 6 MW turbines supported by spar-buoy floating
structures. With the implementation of the first FOWTs, there is potential for FOWTs to play a more
prominent role in the offshore wind industry [11]. This is most likely to be evident for larger countries
such as the United States, China, Japan and Norway, which are limited in the amount of shallow water
areas to place turbines [9].
One proposal for FOWT developments is the concept of Tension Leg Platforms (TLPs). TLPs have
long been utilised in the offshore oil and gas industry, with the potential for this expertise to be applied
to offshore renewable energy technology [1,12,13]. TLPs are a promising option for intermediate water
depths due to the limited motions of the platform, allowing for the reduction of turbine motions and
loads [14]. TLPs may also prove more effective for the relatively light topside conditions.
TLPs consist of a floating structure that uses a vertical tether system connected to the seafloor
to achieve its required stability [15]. There are a wide range of TLP structure arrangements that
have been developed for the different purposes they serve. These different types can be categorised
into mono-column and conventional multi-column TLPs [16]. Up until the late 1990s, most oil and
gas production platforms consisted of square four-column configurations. However, as time has
progressed, more unique designs have been developed such as the single-column SeaStar TLP and the
extended pontoon TLP [17].
The intact tendon system provides sufficient righting moments in response to small deformations
due to the high vertical tension. This is unique compared to ships or other offshore structures that use
conventional mooring systems [16]. This limits the structural loadings on the topside without the need
of a deep draft or spread mooring system [14]. The design of the tendons has significant influence over
the motion response of TLP structures. The stiff mooring system significantly limits the motions in
the heave, pitch, and roll directions when subjected to environmental forces [18]. The tendons also
assist in ensuring the natural periods of the structure are outside the typical range of appreciable ocean
waves of 6–20 s [19]. However, because of the high axial tension, higher order resonant responses
from second order waves can occur in low and high frequency regimes due to the random nature
of the sea state [20]. An investigation by Srinivasan et al. [21] has analysed non-linear phenomena
such as ringing and springing responses [12,22] that have been observed in TLPs under impact and
non-impact wave conditions. These phenomena can pose a threat to platform stability and can result
in the eventual fatigue failure of the tendons [21,23].
According to Nihei et al. [24], typical turbine structures of around 450 tonnes total weight could
allow for a reduction of a total water plane area and overall hull displacement. These alterations could
lead to a reduction in cost and spatial requirements whilst also potentially leading to less tendon
tension requirements. There can be major differences in the requirements of the support structure based
on the size and rated output of the turbine. Over recent decades, the rated output of wind turbines has
substantially increased from 75 kW to the largest current concepts ranging from 5–10 MW [4]. As a way
of supporting research and development into TLPWTs, the NREL concept is based on a 5 MW turbine
to represent the current technology for typical three-blade designs [25]. This turbine has been used in
model experiments and numerical simulations such as Kimball et al. [26] and Koo et al. [10]. This has
been applied in a conceptual NREL-MIT TLPWT design developed by Tracy [27].
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 3 of 23

There are variants of mono-column TLPWTs that have been examined in a parametric study by
Bachynski and Moan [14], with five different structures having been investigated that include different
hull arrangements and different sizes of submerged pontoons. Up until now, numerical simulations
and codes such as FAST, Bladed or FLEX have been used to perform dynamic analysis [9,11,23,28–30].
Nevertheless, any numerical simulation techniques can only be trusted by the industry if their results
have been thoroughly validated against experimental data first. To date there have been limited scaled
model tests performed for FOWTs, particularly with TLPWTs [24,28,31–33]. The main purpose of this
study is to fill this gap by conducting an experimental study into the hydrodynamic performance
of a generic TLPWT model. The outcome of this study can serve as preliminary work to better
understanding the motion and tendon responses under the influence of waves and wind forcing.
Furthermore, the study aims at providing valuable data to verify/validate the results of numerical
simulations to be conducted in future. In order to easily identify the effect of the wind loading on the
global loads and responses of the TLPWT model, the wind turbine structure was modelled without
considering the turbine thrust generated by spinning blades.
The main scope of this study is to investigate a conceptual TLPWT with a static rotor (i.e.,
non-rotating blades) using experimental tests at a scale of 1:112 with emphasis on the global
hydrodynamic performance under combined wave and wind conditions. The scaled TLP model
was based on a generic TLPWT derived from concept designs developed by Matha [9] and Bachynski
and Moan [14]. Whilst the wind turbine structure was closely based on the NREL 5 MW turbine to
represent the current technology used in the offshore wind industry [4]. To better understand the
motion and tendon responses, the model was subjected to several wind and unidirectional regular
wave conditions derived from Bachynski and Moan [14]. The study presents the differences in the
platform wave-induced motions and tendon response with and without wind acting on the structure.
An analysis of how offset and set-down correlate under changing wind and wave conditions was
also performed. The materials of this paper are set out as follows: Section 2 describes the TLPWT
model, instrumentations and the experimental setup. Furthermore, the wave and wind conditions
selected for this study are included in Section 2. Section 3 introduces the results of free decay tests
in different degrees of freedom and introduces the results of the uncertainty analyses. Section 4
discusses the obtained results of the model’s dynamic response and tendon tensions and response
amplitude operators.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. TLP Model Description

The TLPWT model used for the testing has been closely based in the NREL concept developed by
Matha [9], from an initial investigation from Tracy [27]. This TLPWT concept has been used as a basis
for experimental testing, including investigations by Nihei et al. [24] and Zamora-Rodriguez et al. [34].
The primary motivation behind using a similar hull and turbine arrangement allows for the close
comparison of similarities and differences in results from this set of testing to previous experiments.
This arrangement also represents a potential concept that could be used for full scale commercial
development in the future.
Froude scaling law was applied to the TLP structure and turbine model to achieve the best possible
scaled geometrical and mass properties for the TLPWT model. This methodology is commonly used
for offshore structures for experimental testing in wave tanks [19,35,36]. To capture and measure the
hydrodynamic behaviour of the model, an appropriate and practical scale of 1:112 was chosen. Based
on the platform column diameter and the tested wave conditions discussed thereafter, the Reynolds
number was estimated to be in the range of 1.69 × 104 –2.90 × 104 (2.00 × 107 –3.43 × 107 at full-scale).
This scale was chosen due to laboratory and wind/wave generation constraints. However, such
a selection does have implications for the scaling of the water depth, as the maximum achievable depth
in the testing facility was limited to 900 mm which corresponded to a full-scale water depth of 100.8 m.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 4 of 23

This approach is considered acceptable since this study aims at investigating the hydrodynamic and
wind loads of a generic TLPWT platform rather than the response of a specific TLPWT to be installed
at a specific water depth. It is worth mentioning that the 1:112 model scale of the experiment is outside
the typically chosen scale range (1:30–1:100) for hydrodynamic model testing [36] which might affect
the quality of obtained data. Not only are smaller scales rarely used due to increased uncertainties
and less repeatability in the modelling, but also due to scaling effects [36]. However, Hansen et al. [35]
constructed and tested a floating TLP wind turbine at 1:200 scale to analyse its dynamic response
experimentally in co-directional wind and waves. The authors concluded that their experiments have
demonstrated the potential of the model scale floating wind turbine and the measurement set-up to
provide data and insight into the dynamic response of a floating wind turbine in different mooring
and weather conditions.
The scaled and ‘as-constructed’ parameters for the TLPWT hull are shown in Table 1, with
reference to the literature and concept designs to which it is based. A combination of interpretations of
this concept design from Matha [9] and Bachynski and Moan [14] were used as a basis for the full-scale
parameters. The TLP model was constructed by Chia [37], with the structural geometry remaining the
same for this experiment. Some changes were made based on construction and facility limitations,
most notably the column height, freeboard and draft. The mass of the structure is greater which
resulted in a higher pre-tension, however this proved beneficial for obtaining more reliable tendon
tension data during the model testing. Although these changes increase the full-scale footprint and
mass of the structure, the general hydrodynamic behaviour will still provide meaningful relationships
and trends for the hydrodynamic performance of the model.

Table 1. ‘As constructed’ parameters of TLP hull.

Planned Tested Reference for Planned

Parameter
Full-Scale Model-Scale Model-Scale Full-Scale Values
Hull column diameter 18.00 m 160.71 mm 160.00 mm Bachynski and Moan [14]
Hull column height 52.60 m 469.64 mm 600.00 mm Bachynski and Moan [14]
Draft 47.89 m 427.59 mm 500.00 mm Matha [9]
Freeboard 5.00 m 44.64 mm 100.00 mm Matha [9]
Pontoon length 18.00 m 160.71 mm 160.00 mm Bachynski and Moan [14]
Pontoon width 2.40 m 21.42 mm 21.70 mm Bachynski and Moan [14]
Pontoon height 2.40 m 21.42 mm 21.70 mm Bachynski and Moan [14]
Hull structural mass - - 2.63 kg -
Ballast mass - - 1.82 kg -
Total pre-tension - - 5.11 kg -
Volumetric displacement 11.80 × 107 m3 8.44 × 106 mm3 1.04 × 107 mm3 Bachynski and Moan [14]
Water depth 150.00 m 1.34 m 0.90m Bachynski and Moan [14]

2.2. Turbine Model Description

The turbine model was scaled using the same factor as that used for the TLP hull, to ensure
similarity for both components. The turbine was constructed as a fixed structure so that only static
wind loading would be experienced on the structure. PLA plastic was used for the turbine assembly,
which was created using a 3D printer. As can be seen in Table 2, all the geometrical parameters were
able to be represented with a high accuracy. However, due to limitations with 3D printing and the
scaling of the turbine blades, the weight of the blades was slightly higher compared to the intended
scaled value. The turbine blade twist was also neglected, whilst the nacelle dimensions were chosen
such that the nacelle mass was scaled appropriately.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 5 of 23

Table 2. ‘As constructed’ parameters of the scaled NREL 5 MW turbine.

Planned Tested Reference for Planned

Parameter
Full-Scale Model-Scale Model-Scale Full-Scale Values
Tower height 90.00 m 803.00 mm 800.00 mm
Tower bottom diameter 6.00 m 53.50 mm 53.30 mm
Tower top diameter 3.87 m 34.50 mm 34.50 mm
Hub height 90.00 m 803.00 mm 800.00 mm
Rotor hub diameter 3.00 m 26.70 mm 35.00 mm
Rotor diameter 126.00 m 1.12 m 1.13 m Matha [9]
Overhang 5.00 m 44.60 mm 45.00 mm
Blade length 61.50 m 549.00 mm 550.00 mm
Tower mass 3.47 × 105 kg 247.00 g 246.00 g
Nacelle mass 2.40 × 105 kg 171.00 g 170.00 g
Rotor mass 1.10 × 103 kg 78.20 g 160.00 g

2.3. TLPWT Model Construction

The constructed TLPWT model is shown in Figure 1A. The materials that were used for each
component of the model are also shown in Table 3, with their respective weights. To ensure the model
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24
was water-tight for the testing, silicon sealant and waterproof tape were applied to the model. These
have not been explicitly stated but have
Blade length been
61.50 m accounted
549.00 mm for in550.00
the total
mm weight of the model.
Figure 2 shows Towerthe mass
arrangement of×the
3.47 105tendons
kg andgequipment
247.00 246.00 within
g them. Each of the tendon
lines consisted ofNacelle
7-strand, mass 2.40 wire,
coated steel × 10 kg
5
each 171.00
with agspring 170.00 g constant of 16.8 N/mm) and
(spring
load cell attachedRotor mass the tendon
to record 103 kg data.
1.10 × tension 78.20Two
g 160.00 g types of load cells (LCs) were
different
used during the experiment, with the forward and aft pontoons using Futek LCs, whilst the port and
2.3. TLPWT Model Construction
starboard pontoons consisted of X-Trans LCs. The induced tension on the forward and aft pontoons
was increased The to constructed
account for TLPWT model is shown
the variance in Figure
in weight 1A. The
between thematerials
two LC that were used
models. for eachthe
To achieve
component of the model are also shown in Table 3, with their respective weights.
required draft, a tension load of 1.28 kg was induced into each line, then threaded through eyelets To ensure the model on
was water-tight for the testing,
the base-plate sitting on the floor of the basin.silicon sealant and waterproof tape were applied to the model. These
have not been explicitly stated but have been accounted for in the total weight of the model.
(A) (B)

FigureFigure 1. Constructed
1. Constructed TLPWT
TLPWT model
model (A),experimental
(A), experimental setup
setup (B).
(B).

Table 3. Summary of component materials and masses.

Model Component Material Mass (g)

Hull cylinder Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 1890
External pontoons Timber 72.00 (each)
Bottom and top caps Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 173.00 (each)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 6 of 23

Table 3. Summary of component materials and masses.

Model Component Material Mass (g)

Hull cylinder Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 1890
External pontoons Timber 72.00 (each)
Bottom and top caps Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 173.00 (each)
Ballast Lead 1866.00
Turbine
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW PLA plastic 576.00 7 of 24
Qualisys probes - 50.00
required draft, a tension load
Tendon of 1.28 kg was
lines induced
7-Strand, into each
coated steel line,
wire then threaded
- through eyelets on
the base-plate sitting on the floor of the basin.
(A) (B)

Figure 2. Plan view of external pontoon configuration (A) and profile view of tendon arrangement (B).
Figure 2. Plan view of external pontoon configuration (A) and profile view of tendon arrangement
Before
(B). the experiment was conducted, the vertical centre of gravity was verified experimentally.
The TLP model and turbine topside were placed on a metal bar to measure the point of equilibrium,
with the Before
distancethefrom
experiment
the keelwas conducted,
of the model tothe
thevertical
point ofcentre of gravity
equilibrium was verified
forming the KG.experimentally.
A computerised
model of the physical TLPWT model was developed to determine the mass moments ofequilibrium,
The TLP model and turbine topside were placed on a metal bar to measure the point of inertia for the
withand
model, thethe
distance
obtainedfrom the keel
results of the model
are presented to the
in Table 4. point of equilibrium forming the KG. A
computerised model of the physical TLPWT model was developed to determine the mass moments
of inertia for the model,
Table and the obtained
4. Summary results
of mass and are parameters
inertia presented in
of Table 4.
the TLPWT model.

Parameter
Table 4. Summary Value
of mass and inertia parameters of Unit
the TLPWT model.
Vertical Centre of Gravity (KG)
Parameter Value0.29 m Unit
Vertical Centre of Buoyancy (KB) 0.24 m
Vertical Centre of Gravity (KG) 0.29 m
Mass Moment of Inertia about x-axis, Ixx 9.71 × 105 kg·mm2
Vertical Centre of Buoyancy (KB) 0.24 m
Mass Moment of Inertia about y-axis, Iyy 9.79 × 105 kg·mm2
Mass Moment of Inertia about x-axis, I xx
Mass Moment of Inertia about z-axis, Izz 9.71 × 10×
3.26
5
104 kg·mm2kg.mm 2

Mass Moment of Inertia about y-axis, Iyy 9.79 × 105 kg.mm2

Mass Moment of Inertia about z-axis, Izz 3.26 × 104 kg.mm2
2.4. Experimental Setup and Test Matrix
2.4.
The Experimental Setupwas
model testing and Test Matrix
carried out in the Model Test Basin (MTB) at the Australian Maritime
College The(AMC).model testing was carried out×in12the
The MTB is 35 m long m Model
wide (Figure
Test Basin3), (MTB)
with aatwater depth of 0.9
the Australian m being
Maritime
consistent
Collegeacross
(AMC).allThetests.
MTBThis is 35allowed
m long for× 12the best possible
m wide (Figure 3), scaling
with aof the model
water depth ofparameters
0.9 m beingand
tendons considering the facility limitations. The model was placed at a distance
consistent across all tests. This allowed for the best possible scaling of the model parameters of 5.8 m fromandthe
wave-maker such that the
tendons considering thefan and limitations.
facility motion capture systemwas
The model could be appropriately
placed at a distance ofplaced. Wave
5.8 m from tank
the
modelwave-maker
tests may such thatlarge
exhibit the fan and motionscatter
experimental capture system
due to wallcould be appropriately
interaction placed.
[19]. As such theWave tank of
centreline
model tests
the model’s may exhibit
column large experimental
was positioned scatter due
at approximately 3m to from
wall interaction
the side of[19]. As such
the basin the centreline
which yields 18.75
times the column diameter. The fans were placed 2 m in front of the model to obtain the bestyields
of the model’s column was positioned at approximately 3 m from the side of the basin which possible
18.75 however
air-flow, times the this
column
was diameter. The fans
not optimised for were placed 2 m in
this experiment. frontthe
While of the modelwas
TLPWT to obtain
in the the besttwo
basin,
wave probes (WP) placed along the side of the tank approximately 0.6 m from the wall, 2.8 m the
possible air-flow, however this was not optimised for this experiment. While the TLPWT was in (WP1)
basin, two wave probes (WP) placed along the side of the tank approximately 0.6 m from the wall,
and 5.8 m (WP2) away from the wavemaker, and 0.6 m off the basin wall were used to measure the
2.8 m (WP1) and 5.8 m (WP2) away from the wavemaker, and 0.6 m off the basin wall were used to
measure the wave elevations along the basin. As the wave height depends on the location of the wave
probes, WP1 was employed for the wavemaker calibration whereas WP2 (in-line with the model)
was employed to derive response amplitude operators. It is worth mentioning that the aspect of wave
evolution along the physical wave tank is beyond the scope of this study. Several studies have
recently been conducted on experimental waves generated in the model test basin of AMC and the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 7 of 23

wave elevations along the basin. As the wave height depends on the location of the wave probes, WP1
was employed for the wavemaker calibration whereas WP2 (in-line with the model) was employed
to derive response amplitude operators. It is worth mentioning that the aspect of wave evolution
along the physical wave tank is beyond the scope of this study. Several studies have recently been
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 24
conducted on experimental waves generated in the model test basin of AMC and the quality of such
waves along
quality of the
suchbasin
waves has beenthe
along documented in [13,38,39].
basin has been documented A in
digital Qualisys
[13,38,39]. motion
A digital tracking
Qualisys system
motion
wastracking
used tosystem
measure all model motion response in six degrees of freedom [40]. The
was used to measure all model motion response in six degrees of freedom [40]. The system consists
of 8system
cameras located
consists of 8around
camerasthe test basin
located aroundwhich provide
the test the reference
basin which provide coordinates
the reference of the Qualisys
coordinates
markers
of theplaced
Qualisys onmarkers
the model’s
placedtower
on theby picking
model’s up reflections
tower by pickingofupthe markersoffrom
reflections an infra-red
the markers from signal.
an
Theinfra-red
coordinates areThe
signal. plotted in relation
coordinates to the model’s
are plotted VCG
in relation andmodel’s
to the accurately
VCGcapture all motions
and accurately during
capture
wavealltesting.
motionsAduring sampling wavefrequency
testing. Aofsampling
200 Hz frequency
was used inof 200 Hz was
the data used in the
acquisition data acquisition
system.
system.

Figure 3. 3.Plan
Figure Planview
viewof
ofTLPWT
TLPWT experimental setup(not
experimental setup (nottoto scale).
scale).

TheThe
basis forfor
basis thethetesting
testingprogram
programwas wasderived from the
derived from theBachynski
Bachynskiand and Moan
Moan [14]
[14] environmental
environmental
condition
condition3 (EC3);
3 (EC3);representative
representativeofofoperational
operational wind and wave
wind and waveconditions,
conditions, with
with a significant
a significant wavewave
height
height of 4.4
of 4.4 m, m, peak
peak periodofof10.6
period 10.6s,s,and
andmean
mean wind speedspeedof of18.0
18.0m/s
m/s at at
thetheturbine hubhub
turbine (Table 5). 5).
(Table
According
According to to Bachynskiand
Bachynski andMoan
Moan[14], [14], the
the EC3
EC3 represents
represents an anabove-rated
above-ratedcondition
condition where
wherethe the
generator is operational. At model scale, this translated to a wave height of 0.039
generator is operational. At model scale, this translated to a wave height of 0.039 m, peak period of m, peak period of 1 1s
s and wind speed of 1.70 m/s. The test matrix for the model testing involved
and wind speed of 1.70 m/s. The test matrix for the model testing involved a series of regular wave a series of regular wave
runs,
runs, bothboth with
with varying
varying waveheight
wave heightand andfrequency
frequency conditions,
conditions,totobeberepeated
repeated forfor
conditions
conditionswithwith
and without wind present. The use of regular waves in model testing has been common in practice,
and without wind present. The use of regular waves in model testing has been common in practice,
as it provides a practical starting point towards more complex conditions such as testing in irregular
as it provides a practical starting point towards more complex conditions such as testing in irregular
waves. As seen in Table 6, test conditions 1–10 of the experiment involved changing the wave period
waves. As seen in Table 6, test conditions 1–10 of the experiment involved changing the wave period
(for T/Tp from 0.777 to 1.23) for ‘wind’ and ‘no-wind’ conditions, whilst conditions 11–20 analysed
T/Tp from
(forincreasing 0.777
wave to 1.23)
height forpeak
at the ‘wind’
periodandof‘no-wind’
the EC3 wave conditions,
spectrumwhilst
(for H/Hconditions 11–20 analysed
s form 0.0.641 to 1.795).
increasing wave height at the peak period of the EC3 wave spectrum
The corresponding values of wave length (L) estimated based on the dispersion (for H/H s form
relationshipto[36]
0.0.641 1.795).
Theyields
corresponding
a d/L range values
of 0.39oftowave length
0.95 (i.e. (L) estimated
intermediate based
to deep on the
water dispersion
conditions) andrelationship
a D/L range[36] yields
of 0.07
a d/L 0.39 to 0.95 (i.e., intermediate to deep water conditions) and a D/L
to 0.17. As the D/L ratio (column diameter to wave length ratio) is below 0.2 (i.e. the limit of small0.17.
range of range of 0.07 to
As the D/L ratio
structures), (column
wave diameter
diffraction to wave length
and reflection ratio)
effects due tois below
the model0.2 (i.e., thecan
presence limit of small structures),
be neglected [36,41].
waveAsdiffraction and reflection
such the model was placedeffects due distance
at a closer to the model
(5.8 m)presence
from thecan be neglected
wave-maker which [36,41]. As such the
was controlled
by the
model waswind
placedquality
at a that could
closer be produced
distance (5.8 m) at the the
from MTB.wave-maker which was controlled by the wind
quality that could be produced at the MTB.
Table 5. Environmental condition to be tested.
Table 5. Environmental condition
Parameter to be tested.
Full-Scale Model-Scale
SignificantParameter
wave height, Hs (m) 4.40 0.039
Full-Scale Model-Scale
Peak wave period, Tp (s) 10.60 1.00
Significant wave height, H (m) 4.40 0.039
Mean wind speed at hub, Us (m/s) 18.00 1.70
Peak wave period, Tp (s) 10.60 1.00
Mean wind speed at hub, U (m/s) 18.00 1.70
Table 6. Experimental test matrix for regular waves.

Condition H (m) T (s) Condition H (m) H/Hs (-) T (s)

1 1.230 11 0.025 0.641
0.039 1.000
2 1.147 12 0.030 0.769
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 8 of 23

Table 6. Experimental test matrix for regular waves.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018,Condition

6, x FOR PEER REVIEW
H (m) T (s) Condition H (m) H/Hs (-) T (s) 9 of 24

1 1.230 11 0.025 0.641

3 2 1.1151.147 13
12 0.030 0.0350.769 0.897
4 3 1.0781.115 14
13 0.035 0.0400.897 1.026
5 4 1.0431.078 14
15 0.040 0.0451.026 1.154
5 1.043 15 0.045 1.154
6 0.0391.000 16 0.050 1.282
1.000
6 1.000 16 0.050 1.282
7 7 0.9630.963 17
17 0.055 0.0551.410 1.410
8 8 0.9350.935 18
18 0.060 0.0601.539 1.539
9 9 0.9050.905 19
19 0.065 0.0651.667 1.667
10 0.777 20 0.070 1.795
10 0.777 20 0.070 1.795

3. Model
3. Model Calibrations
Calibrations

3.1. Wave Calibration

3.1. Wave Calibration
The wave probes used in the experiment were calibrated on daily basis by positioning them
The wave probes used in the experiment were calibrated on daily basis by positioning them at
at identified heights in a still water condition and fitting a linear relationship to the corresponding
identified heights in a still water condition and fitting a linear relationship to the corresponding
measured voltage. Without the TLPWT being in the basin, the change in wave height across the basin
measured voltage. Without the TLPWT being in the basin, the change in wave height across the basin
was investigated using two wave probes, WP2 (0.6 m from the basin side wall) and the other one at
was investigated using two wave probes, WP2 (0.6 m from the basin side wall) and the other one at
the model’s virtual location (3.0 m from the basin side wall). As seen in Figure 4, the wave height
the model’s virtual location (3.0 m from the basin side wall). As seen in Figure 4, the wave height
measured across the tank at these two points was quite consistent; the deviation in data started at
measured across the tank at these two points was quite consistent; the deviation in data started at H
H > 60 mm. This reveals that the effects of the tank walls have negligible implications on the estimation
> 60 mm. This reveals that the effects of the tank walls have negligible implications on the estimation
of RAOs which were obtained using H ~ 40 mm (refer to Table 6). In comparison with wave theory,
of RAOs which were obtained using H ~ 40 mm (refer to Table 6). In comparison with wave theory,
Figure 5 shows an example of a time-history of the waves for condition 5 as recorded by WP2 (0.6 m
Figure 5 shows an example of a time-history of the waves for condition 5 as recorded by WP2 (0.6 m
from the basin side wall). The Power Spectral Density (PSD) graph was generated from this time-series
from the basin side wall). The Power Spectral Density (PSD) graph was generated from this time-
which shows a peak wave frequency of 0.959 Hz (T = 1.043 s). Upon comparing the obtained wave
series which shows a peak wave frequency of 0.959 Hz (T = 1.043 s). Upon comparing the obtained
elevation to the Airy and Stokes 2nd orderndwave theories, as expected the measured waves exhibited
wave elevation to the Airy and Stokes 2 order wave theories, as expected the measured waves
more and less as Stokes 2nd order, with slight differences in the magnitudes of the peaks and troughs
exhibited more and less as Stokes 2 order, with slight differences in the magnitudes of the peaks
nd
as shown in Figure 5C.
and troughs as shown in Figure 5C.
90
R2 = 0.933
H at 3.0 m from the side wall (mm)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
H at 0.6 m from the side wall (mm)

Figure 4. Wave height data measured at 5.8 m away from the wavemaker and at different distances
from the basin side wall.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 9 of 23
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24

(A)
(B)

(C)
Measured Wave
30 Airy Wave Theory
Stokes 2nd Order

20

10

-10

-20

-30
16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5
Time (s)

Figure 5. Measured wave elevation time history at WP2 (A), PSD for wave elevation time history (B)
Figure
and 5. Measured
comparisons wave
with elevation
wave time history at WP2 (A), PSD for wave elevation time history (B)
theory (C).
and comparisons with wave theory (C).
3.2. Wind Calibration
3.1. Wind Calibration
The wind generation was performed by using an array of fans placed 2 m in front of the model.
For this
Theexperiment,
wind generation a single
waswind speed was
performed testedantoarray
by using understand the differences
of fans placed in model
2 m in front of themotion
model.
compared to a ‘no-wind’ condition. As already mentioned, the tested
For this experiment, a single wind speed was tested to understand the differences in model wind speed was basedmotion
on the
environmental
compared to a condition
‘no-wind’3condition.
(EC3) fromAsBachynski and Moan [14]
already mentioned, as a representative
the tested wind speed was operational
based on wind
the
condition. The wind speed was scaled in line with the model scaling, resulting
environmental condition 3 (EC3) from Bachynski and Moan [14] as a representative operational wind in an input wind
speed of 1.70
condition. Them/s.
wind Tospeed
measure
was the mean
scaled wind
in line speed,
with a hand-held
the model scaling, anemometer
resulting in was usedwind
an input to assist in
speed
calibrating the fans to achieve the best possible representation of the scaled
of 1.70 m/s. To measure the mean wind speed, a hand-held anemometer was used to assist in wind speed. Figure 6 shows
the differentthe
calibrating recording
fans to locations
achieve the forbest
windpossible
speed, whilst Figure 7 shows
representation the recorded
of the scaled wind speeds
wind speed. Figureat6
each
shows location, after a three-minute
the different period for
recording locations of monitoring.
wind speed, It whilst
should Figure
be noted that thethe
7 shows anemometer used
recorded wind
for the testing did not have time-series data collection capabilities, thus the
speeds at each location, after a three-minute period of monitoring. It should be noted that the recorded range is based on
visual observations of the wind speed reading. From Figure 7 the calibrated
anemometer used for the testing did not have time-series data collection capabilities, thus the wind speed was closest to
the target wind
recorded rangespeedis based(U) of
on1.70 m/sobservations
visual at the recording points
of the wind located
speed near the turbine
reading. Fromhub (locations
Figure 7 the
#4–9).
calibrated wind speed was closest to the target wind speed (U) of 1.70 m/s at the recordingbearing
Further away from the hub, the wind speed was not as accurate, however this had less points
on the results
located dueturbine
near the to lesshub
impact on the structure.
(locations #4–9). Further away from the hub, the wind speed was not as
accurate, however this had less bearing on the results due to less impact on the structure.
3.3. Free Decay Tests
Decay tests were performed on the TLPWT model in the heave, pitch, surge, and yaw directions
to estimate the natural periods of the structure. The surge and yaw directions (Figure 8A,B) were
obtained from the motion capture, whilst the heave and pitch natural periods (Figure 8C,D) were
found using the dynamic tension in the tendon load cells. A single impact load on the model allowed
for the most accurate measurement in each direction. The logarithmic decrement method was used
for the most consistent signal for each test, checked against the spectral method using a Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT). From these tests, it was found that the heave and pitch natural periods of 0.256 s and
0.260 s were very similar. The full-scale surge and pitch natural periods were consistent with the results
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 10 of 23

of Oguz et al. [28] despite the difference in the tested water depths. The full-scale values obtained for
surge, heave and pitch were all outside the typically experienced wave periods of 6–20 s [19], whilst
yaw fell inside this range. The evaluation for yaw is significant in the selection process for TLPWTs.
J. Mar.
For Sci. Eng. 2018,
full-scale 6, x FORyaw
turbines, PEER REVIEWof the nacelle is typically used to orient the turbine towards
control 11 ofthe
24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018,
predominant wind6, direction,
x FOR PEERwhich
REVIEW 11 of 24
could lead to an increase in yaw motion if excited by wave motion.

Figure 6. Anemometer recording locations for wind speed calibration.

Figure 6. Anemometer recording locations for wind speed calibration.
Figure 6. Anemometer recording locations for wind speed calibration.
speed
Wind
Wind [m/s]
[m/s]
speed

Figure 7. Recorded wind speeds for each test location.

Figure 7. Recorded wind speeds for each test location.
Figure 7. Recorded wind speeds for each test location.
3.3. Free Decay Tests
3.3. Free Decay Tests
Decay tests were performed on the TLPWT model in the heave, pitch, surge, and yaw directions
Decay tests
to estimate were performed
the natural periods ofonthe
thestructure.
TLPWT model in theand
The surge heave,
yawpitch, surge, (Figure
directions and yaw8A,B)
directions
were
to estimate
obtained the the
from natural periods
motion of the
capture, structure.
whilst The and
the heave surge andnatural
pitch yaw directions 8A,B) were
periods (Figure 8C,D)
obtained
found usingfromthethe motiontension
dynamic capture, whilst
in the the heave
tendon andApitch
load cells. natural
single impactperiods
load on(Figure 8C,D)
the model were
allowed
found
for theusing
most the dynamic
accurate tension in the
measurement tendon
in each load cells.
direction. TheAlogarithmic
single impact load on the
decrement modelwas
method allowed
used
 and 0.260 s were very similar. The full-scale surge and pitch natural periods were consistent with the
results of Oguz et al. [28] despite the difference in the tested water depths. The full-scale values
obtained for surge, heave and pitch were all outside the typically experienced wave periods of 6–20
seconds [19], whilst yaw fell inside this range. The evaluation for yaw is significant in the selection
process for TLPWTs. For full-scale turbines, yaw control of the nacelle is typically used to orient the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 11 of 23
turbine towards the predominant wind direction, which could lead to an increase in yaw motion if
excited by wave motion.
(A) (B)
80 8

60
6
40
4
20

0 2

-20 0

-40
-2
-60
-4
-80

-100 -6
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time (s) Time (s)

(C) (D)
Force (N)

Figure 8. Free
Figure decay
8. Free testtest
decay results
resultsfor
forsurge
surgemotion
motion (A),
(A), yaw motion
motion(B),
(B),heave
heavemotion
motion(C)(C)
andand pitch
pitch
motion (D).(D).
motion

TheThenatural periods
natural evaluated
periods evaluatedfrom
fromthe
the decay
decay tests have
have aa relatively
relativelyclose
closeagreement
agreement to to
thethe
theoretical values
theoretical using
values equations
using equationsfrom
fromDNV-RP-C205
DNV-RP-C205 [36] andNaess
[36] and Naessand andMoan
Moan [42].
[42]. It was
It was found
found
thatthat
the the heave
heave andand
yawyaw errors
errors werethe
were themost
mostsignificant
significant at 20.2%
20.2%and
and15.2%
15.2%exactly, whilst
exactly, whilstsurge andand
surge
pitchpitch
werewere more
more accurate
accurate with
with 1.68%
1.68% and6.99%
and 6.99%error,
error,respectively
respectively (Table
(Table 7).
7).

Table
Table 7. Comparison
7. Comparison between
between theoretical
theoretical and obtained
and obtained natural
natural periods,
periods, withwith full-scale
full-scale equivalent
equivalent values.
values.
Degree of Freedom Predicted Tn (s) Measured Tn (s) Full-Scale Equivalent Tn (s)
Degree of Full-scale equivalent Tn
Surge Predicted Tn (s)
2.113 Measured
2.078 Tn (s) 21.99 (s)
Freedom
Heave 0.213 0.256 2.71
Surge 2.113 2.078 21.99
Pitch 0.243 0.260 2.75
HeaveYaw 0.213
0.675 0.256
0.586 6.20 2.71
Pitch 0.243 0.260 2.75
Yaw 0.675 0.586 6.20
3.4. Data Analysis
3.4.
TheData
timeAnalysis
series of the data was collected with a sample frequency of 200 Hz for a collection period
of 40 s. Due
The to theseries
time disturbance caused
of the data wasbycollected
the start-up
with condition of the wavemaker
a sample frequency of 200 Hz(the
forinitial transient
a collection
periods
period of 40 seconds. Due to the disturbance caused by the start-up condition of the wavemakerof
in Figure 9) and reflected waves travelling back up the tank, a steady state period fully
(the
developed waves was selected for analysis in each run. The steady state period to be analysed was
first determined by examining and trimming the phase wave probe data (WP2), and subsequently
trimming the motion data relative to the trimmed WP2 data. An example of this process in presented
in Figure 9 where the vertical lines represent the range of data to be trimmed.
According to DNV-RP-C205 [36], the repeatability analysis of tank measurements should be
documented. A repeatability analysis was performed across all data recording platforms to understand
the variability of results from run to run. The generated wave data, load cell data, and motion response
data for condition 5 were compared for five repeated runs with identical input wave parameters with
and without wind. For the motion response data, the surge motion (denoted by X) was analysed, as it
J. Mar.J.Sci.
Mar.Eng.
Sci. Eng.
2019,2018,
7, 566, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 2412 of 23

initial transient periods in Figure 9) and reflected waves travelling back up the tank, a steady state
period ofthe
experienced fully developed
most waves
significant was selected
motions of any fordirection.
analysis inFigure
each run. The steady
10A,C,E showstate
the period to be data
time-series
analysed
for wave was first
elevation, determined
dynamic by examining
tendon and
tension (i.e., trimming
the the phase
pretension wave probe
was subtracted datathe
from (WP2),
totaland
tension),
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24
subsequently trimming the motion data relative to the trimmed WP2 data. An example
and surge motion for the wave only condition, whilst Figure 10B,D,F show the runs inclusive of wind. of this process
in presented in Figure 9 where the vertical lines represent the range of data to be trimmed.
initial transient periods in Figure 9) and reflected waves travelling back up the tank, a steady state
period of fully developed waves was selected for analysis in each run. The steady state period to be
analysed was first determined by examining and trimming the phase wave probe data (WP2), and
subsequently trimming the motion data relative to the trimmed WP2 data. An example of this process
in presented in Figure 9 where the vertical lines represent the range of data to be trimmed.
Wave elevation [mm]
Wave elevation [mm]

Figure 9. Time history of wave elevation at WP2 and the selected time window for data analysis.
Figure 9. Time history of wave elevation at WP2 and the selected time window for data analysis.

By referring
Accordingtotothe details of data
DNV-RP-C205 [36],variances shown analysis
the repeatability in Tables of8tank
andmeasurements
9, it can be appreciated
should be that
the wave elevation
documented. A and surge motion
repeatability analysis variation between each
was performed acrossrun all was
datawithin
recording expected limits,
platforms to with
a maximum
understand coefficient of variance
the variability (CV)from
of results and arun maximum
to run. TheNormalised
generated Root
waveMean Square
data, load cellError
data, (NRMSE)
and
of 0.99 and 0.91%,
motion response respectively. Furthermore,
data for condition a cross-correlation
5 were compared R2 was
for five repeated runsobtained for the
with identical collected
input wave time
Figure 9. Time history of wave elevation2 at WP2 and the selected time window for data analysis.
parameters with and without wind. For the motion response data,
series data in which the minimum R was 0.9745 for the tendon tensions of LC3. The load cell the surge motion (denoted by X) data
was
encounteredanalysed,
slightlyas it experienced the most significant motions of any direction. Figure 10A,C and ECV of
According to more noise, particularly
DNV-RP-C205 for the windanalysis
[36], the repeatability assistedofconditions with a maximum
tank measurements should be
5.23%show the time-series
(4.97% NRMSE) data for wave
for the minimum elevation, dynamic tendon tension (i.e. the pretension was
documented. A repeatability analysis tension values. The
was performed minimum
across all datatension demonstrated
recording platforms a to large
subtracted from the total tension), and surge motion for the wave only condition, whilst Figure 10 B,
variability,
understand whichthecould be caused
variability by the
of results dynamic
from run to response in the tendons
run. The generated wave[43].
data,Overall,
load cellthe maximum
data, and
D, and F show the runs inclusive of wind.
andmotion
minimum tensions
response data forwere consistent
condition 5 were between
compared wave peaks
for five and runs,
repeated runs resulting
with identicalin usable data for
input wave
(A)
parameters (B)
analysis. Thesewith and without
findings were alsowind. For the motion
supported responsework
by a previous data,[12,38,43,44]
the surge motion (denoted
conducted at abysmaller
X)
was analysed, as it experienced the most significant motions of any direction.
scale (1:125) which has indicated that good qualitative repeatability can be achieved among multiple Figure 10A,C and E
show runs
repeated the time-series
for all wave data for wave
probes, elevation,
Qualisys system dynamic
and load tendon tension
cells used (i.e. the
in their pretension
model tests suchwasthat
subtracted from the total tension), and surge
lower values of CV were obtained during model calibrations. motion for the wave only condition, whilst Figure 10 B,
D, and F show the runs inclusive of wind.
(A) (B)

Figure 10. Cont.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 13 of 23
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 24

(C) (D)

(E) (F)
Surge Motion (Without Wind)
20

15

10

-5

-10

-15

-20
16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5
Time (s)

Figure Time
10.10.
Figure history
Time of wave
history elevations,
of wave dynamic
elevations, tensions
dynamic and
tensions surge
and motions
surge forfor
motions five repeated
five repeatedruns.
runs.
Table 8. Results of repeatability analysis for wave only runs.

By referring to the details of data WP2variances

(mm) shown LC3 in Tables
(N) 8 andQualisys,
9, it can Xbe(mm)
appreciated that
the wave elevation andRun surge motion variation between each run was within expected limits, with a
Max Min Max Min Max Min
maximum coefficient Run 1
of variance22.24
(CV) and a maximum
−20.73 1.41
Normalised
−1.33
Root Mean
16.14 −18.19
Square Error
(NRMSE) of 0.99 and 0.91%,
Run 2 respectively.
22.26 Furthermore,
−20.77 1.44 a cross-correlation
−1.36 16.46 R2 was obtained for the
−18.23
collected time seriesRundata
3 in which22.47 −20.75 R2 was
the minimum 1.42 0.9745−1.33
for the tendon
16.34 −18.23 of LC3. The
tensions
Run 4
load cell data encountered slightly22.50 −20.75particularly
more noise, 1.42 −1.37
for the wind assisted −conditions
16.39 18.14 with a
Run 5 22.36 −20.86 1.44 −1.38 16.18 −18.48
maximum CV of Mean, 5.23%m(4.97% NRMSE)22.37 for the minimum
−20.77 1.43 tension
−1.35 values.
16.30 The − minimum
18.25 tension
demonstrated a largedeviation,
Standard variability,
σ which
0.12 could0.05be caused
0.01by the 0.02
dynamic response
0.14 in0.13
the tendons [43].
Overall, the maximum CV (%) and minimum 0.54 tensions
0.24 were 0.70consistent
1.48 between0.86 wave 0.71
peaks and runs,
resulting in usable 2data for analysis. These findings were also supported by a0.65
NRMSE (%) 0.47 0.22 0.88 1.55 0.75 previous work
R (-) 0.9926 0.9745 0.9978
[12,38,43,44] conducted at a smaller scale (1:125) which has indicated that good qualitative
repeatability can be achieved among multiple repeated runs for all wave probes, Qualisys system and
load cells used inTable Results
their 9.model of repeatability
tests such that loweranalysis for wave
values of CVwith windobtained
were runs. during model
calibrations. WP2 (mm) LC3 (N) Qualisys, X (mm)
Run
Max Min Max Min Max Min
Table 8. Results of repeatability analysis for wave only runs.
Run 1 22.61 −20.64 1.36 −1.46 15.38 −18.92
Run 2 (mm) −20.55
WP222.52 1.39 LC3 − (N)
1.56 −19.29 X (mm)
15.29 Qualisys,
Run Run 3
Max 22.33 Min−20.75 1.38
Max −1.48
Min 15.33 Max −19.29
Min
Run 4 22.63 −20.57 1.43 −1.66 15.11 −18.90
Run 1 Run 5 22.24 22.48−20.73 −20.50 1.41
1.36 −1.49 −1.33 15.33 16.14 −19.18 −18.19
Run 2 Mean, m 22.26 22.55−20.77 −20.60 1.44
1.38 −1.53 −1.36 15.28 16.46 −19.12 −18.23
RunStandard
3 deviation, σ
22.47 0.12 −20.750.10 0.03
1.42 0.08−1.33 0.10 16.340.19 −18.23
CV (%) 0.53 0.49 2.17 5.23 0.65 0.99
Run 4 NRMSE (%) 22.50 0.50 −20.750.42 1.42
1.89 4.79
−1.37 0.61
16.390.91
−18.14
2
R (-) 0.9997 0.9993 0.9994
 Table 9. Results of repeatability analysis for wave with wind runs.

WP2 (mm) LC3 (N) Qualisys, X (mm)

Run
Max Min Max Min Max Min
Run 1 22.61 −20.64 1.36 −1.46 15.38 −18.92
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 14 of 23
Run 2 22.52 −20.55 1.39 −1.56 15.29 −19.29
Run 3 22.33 −20.75 1.38 −1.48 15.33 −19.29
Run 4
4. Results and Discussion 22.63 −20.57 1.43 −1.66 15.11 −18.90
Run 5 22.48 −20.50 1.36 −1.49 15.33 −19.18
Mean, m 22.55
4.1. Time Series of Motion and Tendon Responses −20.60 1.38 −1.53 15.28 −19.12
Standard deviation, σ 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.08 0.10 0.19
FigureCV 11(%)
shows the steady 0.53
state motions
0.49
of the model
2.17
observed
5.23
in condition
0.65
3 (no wind 0.99
action).
Overall,NRMSEthe tested (%) TLPWT model
0.50 exhibited
0.42 typical motion
1.89 responses
4.79 to that of
0.61 a generalised
0.91 TLP
with significant R2 (-) surge offsets along with
0.9997 stiff heave and pitch
0.9993motions [41,43]. Moreover,
0.9994 there was
an evidence of a potential coupling between multiple DOFs, particularly for heave and surge motions.
This could beand
4. Results attributed
Discussionto the relationship of offset and set-down for TLPs, based on their tethered
nature [45]. Such a relationship will be discussed in detail thereafter in Section 4.3. There are larger surge
4.1. Time
motions Series
in the of Motion
positive and Tendon
direction as theResponses
model was constantly subjected to waves, which did not allow
for evenFigure
amplitude in both directions.
11 shows the steady state motionsThis observation was observed
of the model also noticeable for the3heave
in condition (no windmotion, with
action).
theOverall,
magnitude the of the downward
tested TLPWT model motion proving
exhibited to be more
typical motion significant
responsescompared
to that oftoa the upward motion
generalised TLP
of the model. The pitch angles experienced were consistent, with the amplitude
with significant surge offsets along with stiff heave and pitch motions [41,43]. Moreover, there was in the positive direction
onlyanslightly
evidence greater
of a than that incoupling
potential the negative direction.
between SuchDOFs,
multiple observations in motion
particularly nonlinearities
for heave and surge were
anticipated
motions. Thisas the nature
could of the physical
be attributed to the wave was nonlinear
relationship as well.
of offset and As expected,
set-down for TLPs,the magnitude
based on their of
sway, roll and
tethered yaw[45].
nature motions
Such awas negligiblewill
relationship in this case, as tests
be discussed werethereafter
in detail only performed
in sectionin 4.3.
head seas are
There [35].
larger surge motions in the positive direction as the model was constantly subjected
Figure 12 shows the time-series data of the dynamic tendon tension from each of the load cells to waves, which
did an
using notexample
allow for evencondition
from amplitude in both
3 (no winddirections. This observation
action). These graphs clearly wasshowalso the
noticeable
excitationfor in
thethe
heave from
tendons motion,thewith the motions,
model magnitude of the
with thedownward motion proving
forward (up-wave) tendon to (LC3)
be more significant compared
experiencing the highest
to the upward
magnitudes motion oftension.
for dynamic the model.TheThe pitch
port andangles experienced
starboard tendonswere (LC1 consistent,
and LC4)with the amplitude
experienced almost
similar magnitudes of tension; the variation among them can be attributed to the yaw motion ofinthe
in the positive direction only slightly greater than that in the negative direction. Such observations
motion
model nonlinearities
(Figure 11D). Thewere anticipated astendon
aft (down-wave) the nature
(LC2)ofexperienced
the physical higher
wave was nonlinear
tension whenas well. As to
compared
theexpected,
port andthe magnitude
starboard of sway,
tendons, roll and
which yaw relatively
showed motions was negligible
consistent in thisfluctuations.
tension case, as tests were only
performed in head seas [35].
(A) (B)
Amplitude (mm)

Amplitude (mm)

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 24

(C) (D)
Amplitude (deg)

(E) (F)Cont.
Figure 11.
Pitch
0.2

0.15

0.1
tude (deg)

0.05
 Amplitud
Pitch
0.2

0.15

0.1

Amplitude (deg)
J. Mar. Sci.
0.05
Eng. 2019, 7, 56 15 of 23

(E)-0.05 (F)
-0.1 Pitch
0.2

-0.15
0.15 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (s)
0.1
Amplitude (deg)

Figure 11. Time history of model motions recorded for condition 3: surge motion (A), sway motion
0.05

(B), heave motion (C), yaw motion (D), pitch motion (E) and roll motion (F).
0

Figure 12 shows the time-series data of the dynamic tendon tension from each of the load cells
-0.05

using-0.1 an example from condition 3 (no wind action). These graphs clearly show the excitation in the

tendons
-0.15
from the model motions, with the forward (up-wave) tendon (LC3) experiencing the highest
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
magnitudes for dynamic tension.
Time (s)
The port and starboard tendons (LC1 and LC4) experienced almost
similar magnitudes of tension; the variation among them can be attributed to the yaw motion of the
model
Figure (Figure
Figure 11D).
11.11.Time
Time The of
history
history aft (down-wave)
ofmodel
modelmotions tendon
recorded(LC2)
motionsrecorded for experienced
forcondition
condition 3: higher
3: surge
surge motion
motiontension
(A), when
(A),sway
sway compared
motion
motion(B),
to heave
the port
(B), motion
heave starboard
andmotion
(C), yaw tendons,
(C),motion
yaw motion(D),which
pitch showed
(D), motion
pitch relatively
(E)
motion and
(E) roll consistent
andmotion (F). tension
roll motion (F). fluctuations.
(A)
Figure 12 shows the time-series data of the dynamic tendon tension from each of the load cells
using an example from condition 3 (no wind action). These graphs clearly show the excitation in the
tendons from the model motions, with the forward (up-wave) tendon (LC3) experiencing the highest
Dynamic Tension (N)

magnitudes for dynamic tension. The port and starboard tendons (LC1 and LC4) experienced almost
similar magnitudes of tension; the variation among them can be attributed to the yaw motion of the
model (Figure 11D). The aft (down-wave) tendon (LC2) experienced higher tension when compared
to the port and starboard tendons, which showed relatively consistent tension fluctuations.
(A)
Dynamic Tension (N)

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24

(B)

Figure 12. Time history of dynamic tendon tension measured by load cells for condition 3: LC1 and
Figure
LC4 12. LC2
(A) and Timeand
history
LC3of(B).
dynamic tendon tension measured by load cells for condition 3: LC1 and
LC4 (A) and LC2 and LC3 (B).
4.2. Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs)
4.2.Wave
Response Amplitude
frequency Operators
Response (RAOs) Operators (RAOs) of motion and tendon responses are
Amplitude
discussed in this
Wave section.
frequency Figure Amplitude
Response 13 A–C show the translational
Operators RAOs for
(RAOs) of motion andsurge,
tendonsway and heave,
responses are
respectively,
discussed inwhilst Figure 13
this section. D–F13
Figure show
A–Cthe rotational
show RAOs forRAOs
the translational roll, pitch, and sway
for surge, yaw. and
FFT heave,
analysis
wasrespectively,
used for eachwhilst
run Figure
to find13theD–F show
RAOs the rotational
at each RAOs forAsroll,
wave frequency. pitch,mentioned,
already and yaw. FFT
the analysis
wave and
wasconditions
wind used for each runfor
tested to find the RAOsofatthe
the analysis each waveare
RAOs frequency.
based onAs already
EC3 mentioned,
[14] to representthe
an wave and
operational
wind conditions tested for the analysis of the RAOs are based on EC3 [14] to represent
case. For the key motions of surge, heave, and pitch, there were some clear trends apparent from an operational
case. For the key motions of surge, heave, and pitch, there were some clear trends apparent from the
‘wave only’ and wind assisted runs. By studying the effect of wind, the magnitude of heave motion
was found to increase due to wind forcing with an average increase of 13.1% for the tested conditions.
The effects of natural periods on the motion amplitudes cannot be identified as the results obtained
in Table 7 fall out of the tested range of 0.777–1.230. Furthermore, it should be stressed that it is
 4.2. Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs)
Wave frequency Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) of motion and tendon responses are
discussed in this section. Figure 13 A–C show the translational RAOs for surge, sway and heave,
respectively,
J. Mar. whilst
Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 Figure 13 D–F show the rotational RAOs for roll, pitch, and yaw. FFT analysis 16 of 23
was used for each run to find the RAOs at each wave frequency. As already mentioned, the wave and
wind conditions tested for the analysis of the RAOs are based on EC3 [14] to represent an operational
the ‘wave
case. only’
For the keyand windofassisted
motions runs. and
surge, heave, By studying
pitch, therethe effect
were someof clear
wind, the magnitude
trends apparent from of the
heave
motion was found to increase due to wind forcing with an average increase
‘wave only’ and wind assisted runs. By studying the effect of wind, the magnitude of heave motion of 13.1% for the tested
conditions.
was foundThe effects of
to increase duenatural
to wind periods
forcingon thean
with motion
averageamplitudes
increase ofcannot
13.1% for be the
identified as the results
tested conditions.
obtained in Table
The effects 7 fall out
of natural of the
periods ontested rangeamplitudes
the motion of 0.777–1.230. Furthermore,
cannot be identified it as
should be stressed
the results that it
obtained
is in Table 7that
unlikely fall the
outmaximum
of the tested range of the
motions 0.777–1.230.
model were Furthermore,
captured itduring
shouldthesebe stressed that it is in
tests conducted
unlikely
this study. that the maximum
A clearer motionslikely
picture would of thebe
model werewith
obtained captured during
further these
testing intests conducted in
a survivability this
sea state
(Hstudy.
max ~ A
1.86clearer
H s picture
correspondingwould tolikely
the be obtained
design returnwith further
period) testing
[36]. in
Analysinga survivability
similar sea
tests state (H
performed max by

~ 1.86 Hs corresponding
Zamora–Rodriguez to the
et al. [34], design
trends returnresults
in surge period)were
[36].basically
Analysing similar tests
comparable, performed
with by
only minimal
Zamora–Rodriguez et al. [34], trends in surge results were basically comparable,
variation between each wind condition. An increase in heave motions with wind was also found to be with only minimal
variation
similar, between
albeit each wind
to a different condition.The
magnitude. An increase
variationsin heave motionsinwith
experienced pitchwind werewas also found
minimal, to
however
be similar,
were albeit
in a similar rangeto awhen
different
comparedmagnitude. The variations experienced
to Zamora–Rodriguez et al. [34]. in pitch were minimal,
however were in a similar range when compared to Zamora–Rodriguez et al. [34].
(A) (B)
Surge
1.4
Wave Only
Wave with Wind
1.2

1 RAO (mm/mm)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

J. Mar. 0Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 24

0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
Period (s)

(C) (D)
Heave Roll
0.045
Wave Only Wave Only
0.14
Wave with Wind Wave with Wind
0.04
0.12
RAO (mm/mm)

RAO (o /mm)

0.035
0.1

0.03
0.08

0.06 0.025

0.04 0.02

0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
Period (s) Period (s)

(E) (F)
Pitch
0.09
Wave Only
0.085 Wave with Wind

0.08
RAO (o /mm)

0.075

0.07

0.065

0.06

0.055

0.05
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
Period (s)

Figure 13. Motion response amplitude operators for each degree of freedom: Surge RAO (A), sway
Figure 13. Motion response amplitude operators for each degree of freedom: Surge RAO (A), sway
RAO (B), heave RAO (C), roll RAO (D), pitch RAO (E) and yaw RAO (F).
RAO (B), heave RAO (C), roll RAO (D), pitch RAO (E) and yaw RAO (F).

The tendon RAOs were also evaluated for the same wind and wave conditions as the motion
RAOs (Figure 14). Each LC was analysed for the maximum dynamic tension for each of the different
wave periods, with clear trends being observed. Overall, it is noted that the dynamic tension in all
tendons was lower for most of the wind assisted runs, whilst the largest dynamic tensions were
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 17 of 23

The tendon RAOs were also evaluated for the same wind and wave conditions as the motion
RAOs (Figure 14). Each LC was analysed for the maximum dynamic tension for each of the different
wave periods, with clear trends being observed. Overall, it is noted that the dynamic tension in
all tendons was lower for most of the wind assisted runs, whilst the largest dynamic tensions were
experienced with the lower frequency waves. As expected, the RAOs of the port and starboard tendons
(LC1 and LC4) were quite similar due to symmetry. Likewise, the maximum dynamic tensions of
the model’s tendons were captured during these tests for a mild to moderate sea state. A testing in
a survivability sea state test would likely provide such information. It should be noted that the RAOs
of the surge motion and all tendon tensions follow a similar trend with a larger magnitude response
to larger wave periods. However, these responses are also a function of tendon length and stiffness
which should be considered when optimising and designing a mooring arrangement. The maximum
magnitudes for these RAOs occurred at the longest wave period of 1.23 s tested (~ 13.0 s at full-scale)
with Table 10 outlining the values. As can be seen the wind had a negligible effect on the surge motion
and slightly decreased the tendon tensions in all tendons except the forward/up-wave tendon (LC3).
These findings were consistent with the results of Nihei and Fujioka [31] who stated that the wind
J.effect
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018,the
decreases 6, xdynamic
FOR PEER response
REVIEW of the tendons in waves and wind coexisting field. 19 of 24

(A) (B)

(C) (D)

Figure 14. Dynamic tendon tension response amplitude operators for each tendon: LC1 RAO (A), LC2
Figure 14. Dynamic tendon tension response amplitude operators for each tendon: LC1 RAO (A), LC2
RAO (B), LC3 RAO (C), LC4 RAO (D).
RAO (B), LC3 RAO (C), LC4 RAO (D).

Table 10. Maximum RAO values of the TLPWT model at T = 1.23 s.

RAO Parameter Max RAO (wave only) Max RAO (wave and wind) Wind Effect
Surge motion 1.091 mm/mm 1.102 mm/mm 1.0%
LC1 0.167 N/mm 0.158 N/mm −6.0%
LC2 0.298 N/mm 0.292 N/mm −2.0%
LC3 0.320 N/mm 0.340 N/mm 6.0%
LC4 0.169 N/mm 0.168 N/mm −1.0%

4.3. Model’s Offset Versus Set-Down

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 18 of 23

Table 10. Maximum RAO values of the TLPWT model at T = 1.23 s.

RAO Parameter Max RAO (Wave Only) Max RAO (Wave and Wind) Wind Effect
Surge motion 1.091 mm/mm 1.102 mm/mm 1.0%
LC1 0.167 N/mm 0.158 N/mm −6.0%
LC2 0.298 N/mm 0.292 N/mm −2.0%
LC3 0.320 N/mm 0.340 N/mm 6.0%
LC4 0.169 N/mm 0.168 N/mm −1.0%

4.3. Model’s Offset Versus Set-Down

An analysis of how offset and set-down correlate under changing wind and wave conditions
was performed. For a TLP, the kinematic coupling between the horizontal surge/sway motions and
the vertical heave motions results in the so-called platform set-down [46]. The set-down refers to the
vertical downward movement of the hull when the platform moves in its compliant modes (surge,
sway and yaw). The relationship between offset and set-down changes depending on the input wave
frequency, whilst wind loading can also have an effect. In this case, a mathematical formula developed
by Demirbilek [45] can be used to evaluate the set-down based on the offset experienced by the model
and the length of the tendons. By referring to the definition sketch shown in Figure 15, this relationship
is given in equation (1) where Lo is the initial tendon length and X(t) is the surge motion time-series:
q
Z (t) = Lo − ( L2o − X (t)2 ) (1)

This was done with the assumption of zero pitch rotational motion while the platform is moving
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 24
in the x-direction and neglecting the elongation in the tendon [43]. The magnitude of the set-down
fluctuated during
This was this setwith
done of tests as the model
the assumption waspitch
of zero moving backmotion
rotational and forth.
whileOverall, the magnitude
the platform is moving of
the set-down was minimal, likely due to the high stiffness of the tendons
in the x-direction and neglecting the elongation in the tendon [43]. The magnitude of the set-downas discussed in Section 3.3.
fluctuated
Figure 16A showsduring this set ofmotion
the set-down tests as in
thethe
model was moving
following waveback and forth.
direction i.e., Overall, the magnitude
wave travelling direction
of the set-down
being greater than thatwas minimal,
in the likelydirection.
opposite due to theThishigh isstiffness
due toofthetheimpact
tendonsofasthediscussed
waves in section
not allowing
3.3. Figure 16A shows the set-down motion in the following wave
the structure to move equally in the opposite direction. Furthermore, the effect of wind was more direction i.e. wave travelling
direction being greater than that in the opposite direction. This is due to the impact of the waves not
pronounced in in the following wave direction than in the in the opposite direction. Figure 16B
allowing the structure to move equally in the opposite direction. Furthermore, the effect of wind was
illustrates
more thepronounced
differences in experienced
in the following with
waveand without
direction thanwind acting
in the in theon the structure
opposite direction.asFigure
a function
16B of
wave period. The
illustrates theset-down
differences followed the with
experienced same trend
and as the
without windsurge motion
acting on the with lowasfrequency
structure a function ofwaves
(long waves) inducing
wave period. Thethe most offset
set-down andthe
followed contributing
same trend to as the surge
most set-down
motion with experienced
low frequency by waves
the model.
By comparing the magnitudes
(long waves) inducing theofmost the offset and contributing
offset and set-down (Figures 13Aset-down
to the most the ratio ofbyZ/X
and 16B),experienced the was
model. By comparing the magnitudes of the offset and set-down (Figure
found to be 2–5%. Such findings can be useful in the calculation of tendon forces and in the calculation 13A and Figure 16B), the
ratio of Z/X was found to be 2–5%. Such findings can be useful in the calculation
of responses in power take-off cables as well as the evaluation of the air gap of an FOWT system in of tendon forces and
in the calculation of responses in power take-off cables as well as the evaluation of the air gap of an
accordance with the DNVGL-ST-0119 standard [46].
FOWT system in accordance with the DNVGL-ST-0119 standard [46].

Figure 15. Definition sketch for offset and set-down relationship.

Figure 15. Definition sketch for offset and set-down relationship.

(A) (B)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 19 of 23
Figure 15. Definition sketch for offset and set-down relationship.

(A) (B)

Figure 16. Comparison of set-down time history for condition 3 (A) and maximum set-down
experienced for all conditions (B).
Figure 16. Comparison of set-down time history for condition 3 (A) and maximum set-down
experienced for
5. Conclusions andallRecommendations
conditions (B).

This paperand
5. Conclusions describes model testing of a TLPWT model with non-rotating blades to better
Recommendations
understand its motion and tendon responses when subjected to combined wind and unidirectional
regular wave conditions. The turbine structure of the TLPWT model was closely based on the NREL
5 MW concept. The analysis of the measurements and observations of the model response enabled
several general conclusions to be drawn as follows:

1. Several free decay tests were performed to evaluate the natural periods of the model in the
key degrees of freedom including surge, heave, pitch, and yaw. The natural periods in the
surge and pitch motions evaluated from the decay tests had a relatively close agreement to the
theoretical values. Furthermore, the natural periods in the surge, heave, and pitch degrees of
freedom were all outside the range of 6–20 s, whilst the yaw natural period fell inside this range.
As the yaw control of the nacelle is typically used to orient the turbine towards the predominant
wind direction, such a situation could lead to an increase in the yaw motion if excited by waves.
Therefore, it is recommended to investigate the effect of yaw motion on the performance of
a TLPWT.
2. The tested TLPWT model showed typical motion responses to that of generalised TLP systems
with significant surge offsets along with stiff heave and pitch motions. The maximum magnitudes
for the RAOs of surge motion and all tendons occurred at the longest wave period of 1.23 s (~13.0 s
at full-scale) tested in this study.
3. There was evidence that static wind loading on the turbine structure had some impact on the
motions and tendon response, particularly in the heave direction, with an average increase of
13.1% in motion magnitude for the tested wind conditions. The wind had a negligible effect on
the surge motion and slightly decreased the tendon tensions in all tendons.
4. The results also showed the set-down magnitudes amounting to approximately 2–5% of the offset.
Furthermore, the waves are the dominant factor contributing to the set-down of the TLPWT, with
a minimal contribution from the static wind forcing.
5. As the environmental condition tested in this study is considered a mild to moderate sea state,
it should be stressed that it is unlikely that the maximum motions and loads of the model were
captured during these tests. A testing in a survivability sea state condition would likely provide
such information. It is therefore recommended that further testing into the survivability of the
TLPWT should be performed. Furthermore, the use of a drag plate instead of the static rotor
tested in this study can be investigated in future studies, as the thrust distribution would be more
uniform. The results of this study could be used for calibrating numerical tools such as CFD
codes which can then be used for further investigations.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 20 of 23

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, T.M.; investigation, T.M. and N.A.; supervision, N.A.; writing—original
draft, T.M.; writing—review & editing, N.A.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank William Chia for his preliminary work conducted on the
topics covered in this study along with thanks to Tim Lilienthal, Christopher Dunn, Uddish Singh, Darren Lee,
and Thiban Subramaniam for assistance during the experimental setup, and Jock Ferguson for assistance in 3D
printing the turbine model.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations and Notations

AMC Australian Maritime College
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CV Coefficient of Variation (%)
D Column diameter (m)
d Water depth (m)
EC Environmental Condition
FAST Fatigue, Aerodynamics, Structures, and Turbulence
FFT Fast Fourier Transform
FOWT Floating Offshore Wind Turbine
H Wave height (m)
Hmax Maximum wave height (m)
Hs Significant wave height (m)
Ixx Mass Moment of Inertia about x-axis (kg·mm2 )
Iyy Mass Moment of Inertia about y-axis (kg·mm2 )
KB Vertical distance measured from the model’s keel to the centre of buoyancy (m)
KG Vertical distance measured from the model’s keel to the VCG (m)
L Wave length (m)
LC Load Cell
Lo Original tendon length (m)
m Mean value (vary)
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MTB Model Test Basin
MW Mega Watt
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NRMSE Normalised Root Mean Square Error
PSD Power Spectral Density (m2 /Hz)
R2 Correlation coefficient (-)
RAO Response Amplitude Operator
t Time (s)
T Wave period (s)
TLP Tension Leg Platform
Tn Natural period (s)
Tp Peak period (s)
U Mean wind speed (m/s)
VCG Vertical Centre of Gravity
WP Wave Probe
X Horizontal offset (m)
Z Set-down (m)
σ Standard deviation (vary)

References
1. Breton, S.-P.; Moe, G. Status, plans and technologies for offshore wind turbines in Europe and North America.
Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 646–654. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 21 of 23

2. IRENA. Renewable Capacity Statistics 2018; The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA): Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 2018.
3. Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Global Wind Report: Annual Market Update 2017. Available online:
https://www.tuulivoimayhdistys.fi/filebank/1191-GWEC_Global_Wind_Report_April_2018.pdf (accessed
on 31 December 2018).
4. Wang, X.; Zeng, X.; Li, J.; Yang, X.; Wang, H. A review on recent advancements of substructures for offshore
wind turbines. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 158, 103–119. [CrossRef]
5. Arshad, M.; O’Kelly, B.C. Offshore wind-turbine structures: A review. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Energy 2013, 166,
139–152. [CrossRef]
6. Doherty, P.; Gavin, K. Laterally loaded monopile design for offshore wind farms. Proc. ICE-Energy 2011, 165,
7–17. [CrossRef]
7. Sclavounos, P.; Tracy, C.; Lee, S. Floating offshore wind turbines: Responses in a seastate pareto optimal
designs and economic assessment. In Proceedings of the ASME 2008 27th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Estoril, Portugal, 15–20 June 2008; American Society of
Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
8. Wang, C.; Utsunomiya, T.; Wee, S.; Choo, Y. Research on floating wind turbines: A literature survey. IES J.
Part A Civ. Struct. Eng. 2010, 3, 267–277. [CrossRef]
9. Matha, D. Model Development and Loads Analysis of an Offshore Wind Turbine on a Tension Leg Platform with a
Comparison to Other Floating Turbine Concepts: April 2009; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden,
CO, USA, 2009.
10. Koo, B.J.; Goupee, A.J.; Kimball, R.W.; Lambrakos, K.F. Model tests for a floating wind turbine on three
different floaters. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2014, 136, 020907. [CrossRef]
11. Skaare, B.; Hanson, T.D.; Nielsen, F.G.; Yttervik, R.; Hansen, A.M.; Thomsen, K.; Larsen, T.J. Integrated
Dynamic Analysis of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines. In Proceedings of the 2007 European Wind Energy
Conference and Exhibition, Milan, Italy, 7–10 May 2007.
12. Abdussamie, N.; Drobyshevski, Y.; Ojeda, R.; Thomas, G.; Amin, W. Experimental investigation of
wave-in-deck impact events on a TLP model. Ocean Eng. 2017, 142, 541–562. [CrossRef]
13. Hore, J.; Abdussamie, N.; Ojeda, R.; Penesis, I. Experimental investigation into the hydrodynamic
performance of a TLP-OWC device. In Proceedings of the 28th International Ocean and Polar Engineering
Conference, Sapporo, Japan, 10–15 June 2018.
14. Bachynski, E.E.; Moan, T. Design considerations for tension leg platform wind turbines. Mar. Struct. 2012,
29, 89–114. [CrossRef]
15. Sclavounos, P.; Lee, S.; DiPietro, J.; Potenza, G.; Caramuscio, P.; De Michele, G. Floating offshore
wind turbines: tension leg platform and taught leg buoy concepts supporting 3-5 MW wind turbines.
In Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, Warsaw, Poland, 20–23 April 2010.
16. Xu, N.; Zhang, J. Pitch/Roll Static Stability of Tension Leg Platforms. In Proceedings of the ASME 29th
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Shanghai, China, 6–11 June 2010;
American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
17. Halkyard, J. Floating Offshore Platform Design, in Handbook of Offshore Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2005; pp. 419–661.
18. Nihei, Y.; Iijima, K.; Murai, M.; Ikoma, T. A comparative study of motion performance of four different
FOWT designs in combined wind and wave loads. In Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–13 June 2014; American
Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
19. Chakrabarti, S.K. Offshore Structure Modeling; World Scientific: Singapore, 1994; Volume 9.
20. Low, Y. Frequency domain analysis of a tension leg platform with statistical linearization of the tendon
restoring forces. Mar. Struct. 2009, 22, 480–503. [CrossRef]
21. Srinivasan, C.; Gaurav, G.; Serino, G.; Miranda, S. Ringing and springing response of triangular TLPs.
Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 2011, 58, 141–163.
22. Matsui, T.; Sakoh, Y.; Nozu, T. Second-order sum-frequency oscillations of tension-leg platforms: Prediction
and measurement. Appl. Ocean Res. 1993, 15, 107–118. [CrossRef]
23. Feng, W.H.; Hua, F.Y.; Yang, L. Dynamic analysis of a tension leg platform for offshore wind turbines. J. Power
Technol. 2014, 94, 42–49.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 22 of 23

24. Nihei, Y.; Matsuura, M.; Murai, M.; Iijima, K.; Ikoma, T. New Design Proposal for the TLP Type Offshore
Wind Turbines. In Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, Nantes, France, 9–14 June 2013; The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME):
Nantes, France, 2013.
25. Jonkman, J.; Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Scott, G. Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System
Development; Technical Report No. NREL/TP-500-38060; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden,
CO, USA, 2009.
26. Kimball, R.; Goupee, A.J.; Fowler, M.J.; de Ridder, E.-J.; Helder, J. Wind/wave basin verification of
a performance-matched scale-model wind turbine on a floating offshore wind turbine platform. In
Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering,
San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–13 June 2014; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA,
2014.
27. Tracy, C.C.H. Parametric Design of Floating Wind Turbines; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2007.
28. Oguz, E.; Clelland, D.; Day, A.H.; Incecik, A.; López, J.A.; Sánchez, G.; Almeria, G.G. Experimental and
numerical analysis of a TLP floating offshore wind turbine. Ocean Eng. 2018, 147, 591–605. [CrossRef]
29. Jonkman, J.M. Dynamics Modeling and Loads Analysis of an Offshore Floating Wind Turbine; Technical Report
NREL/TP-500-41958; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2008.
30. Bachynski, E.E. Design and Dynamic Analysis of Tension Leg Platform Wind Turbines. Ph.D. Thesis,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, March 2014.
31. Nihei, Y.; Fujioka, H. Motion characteristics of TLP type offshore wind turbine in waves and wind.
In Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering,
Shanghai, China, 6–11 June 2010; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
32. Martin, H.R.; Kimball, R.W.; Viselli, A.M.; Goupee, A.J. Methodology for wind/wave basin testing of floating
offshore wind turbines. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2014, 136, 020905. [CrossRef]
33. Zhao, Y.; Yang, J.; He, Y. Preliminary design of a multi-column TLP foundation for a 5-MW offshore wind
turbine. Energies 2012, 5, 3874–3891. [CrossRef]
34. Zamora-Rodriguez, R.; Gomez-Alonso, P.; Amate-Lopez, J.; De-Diego-Martin, V.; Dinoi, P.; Simos, A.N.;
Souto-Iglesias, A. Model scale analysis of a TLP floating offshore wind turbine. In Proceedings of the ASME
2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA,
8–13 June 2014; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2014.
35. Hansen, A.M.; Laugesen, R.; Bredmose, H.; Mikkelsen, R.; Psichogios, N. Small scale experimental study
of the dynamic response of a tension leg platform wind turbine. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2014, 6, 053108.
[CrossRef]
36. DNV. Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C205: Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads; DNV: Oslo,
Norway, 2010.
37. Chia, C.K.W. Experimental Investigation into Extreme Wave Impact on a TLP Offshore Wind Turbine.
In National Centre for Maritime Engineering & Hydrodynamics; University of Tasmania: Launceston,
Australia, 2017.
38. Banks, M.; Abdussamie, N. The response of a semisubmersible model under focused wave groups:
Experimental investigation. J. Ocean Eng. Sci. 2017, 2, 161–171. [CrossRef]
39. Groves, B.; Abdussamie, N. Generation of rogue waves at model scale. J. Ocean Eng. Sci. 2019, in press.
[CrossRef]
40. Qualysis. Qualisys Motion Tracking System. 2018. Available online: https://www.qualisys.com/ (accessed
on 31 December 2018).
41. Chakrabarti, S.K. Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 1987.
42. Naess, A.; Moan, T. Stochastic Dynamics of Marine Structures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 2012.
43. Abdussamie, N.; Ojeda, R.; Drobyshevski, Y.; Thomas, G.; Amin, W. Dynamic behaviour of a TLP in waves:
CFD versus model tests. In Proceedings of the 28th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference,
Sapporo, Japan, 10–15 June 2018.
44. Abdussamie, N. Towards Reliable Prediction of Wave-in-Deck Loads and Response of Offshore Structures.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia, June 2016.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 56 23 of 23

45. Demirbilek, Z. Design formulae for offset, set down and tether loads of a tension leg platform (TLP).
Ocean Eng. 1990, 17, 517–523. [CrossRef]
46. DNVGL. Floating Wind Turbine Structures—Standard—DNVGL-ST-0119; DNV.GL: Høvik, Norway, 2018.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).