On the comparison of the dynamic response of an offshore floating VAWT system when adopting two different mooring system model of dynamics: quasi-static vs lumped mass approach

• Published in: Volume 10: Ocean Renewable Energy
• Main Authors: CEVASCO, DEBORA, Collu M., Hall M., Rizzo, Cm
• Other Authors: Cevasco, Debora, Collu, M., Hall, M.
• Format: Conference Object
• Language: English
• Published: ASME - The American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2017
• Subjects: dynamic response; offshore paltform; VAWT; mooring system; Arctic
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/11567/870037; https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2017-61450

The interest in floating offshore wind turbines (FOWT) has been growing substantially over the last decade and, after a number of prototypes deployed [1], the first offshore floating wind farms have been approved and are being developed. While a number of international research activities have been conducted on the dynamics of offshore floating HAWT systems (e.g. OC3-Phase IV2, OC4-Phase II3), relatively few studies have been conducted on floating VAWT systems, despite their potential advantages [2]. Due to the substantial differences between HAWT and VAWT aerodynamics, the analyses on floating HAWT cannot be extended to floating VAWT systems. The main aim of the present work is to compare the dynamic response of the FOWT system adopting two different mooring dynamics approaches. Two version of the in-house aero-hydromooring coupled model of dynamics for VAWT “FloVAWT” [3] are used: one which adopts a mooring quasi-static model, and solves the equations using an energetic approach [4], and a modified version of FloVAWT, which uses instead the lumpedmass mooring line model “MoorDyn” [5]. The floating VAWT system considered is based on a 5MW Darrieus type rotor supported by the OC4-Phase II3 semi-submersible. The results for the considered metocean conditions show that MoorDyn approach estimate larger translational displacements of the platform, compared to the quasi-static rigid approach previously implemented in FloVAWT. As expected, the magnitudes of the forces along the lines are lower, being part of the energy employed for the elastic deformation of the cables. A systematic comparison of the differences between the two approaches is presented. 1 Previous affiliation: University of Maine