Despite several potential advantages, relatively few studies and design support tools have been developed for floating vertical axis wind turbines. Due to the substantial aerodynamics differences, the analyses of vertical axis wind turbine on floating structures cannot be easily extended from what have been already done for horizontal axis wind turbines. Therefore, the main aim of the present work is to compare the dynamic response of the floating offshore wind turbine system adopting two different mooring dynamics approaches. Two versions of the in-house aero-hydro-mooring coupled model of dynamics for floating vertical axis wind turbine (FloVAWT) have been used, employing a mooring quasi-static model, which solves the equations using an energetic approach, and a modified version of floating vertical axis wind turbine, which instead couples with the lumped mass mooring line model MoorDyn. The results, in terms of mooring line tension, fatigue and response in frequency have been obtained and analysed, based on a 5 MW Darrieus type rotor supported by the OC4-DeepCwind semisubmersible.
BorgM (2014) Offshore Floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbines: Development & Applications of a Coupled Model of Dynamics. Cranfield: Cranfield University
4.
BorgMColluM (2014) A comparison on the dynamics of a floating vertical axis wind turbine on three different floating support structures. Energy Procedia53: 268–279.
5.
BorgMColluM (2015a) A comparison between the dynamics of horizontal and vertical axis offshore floating wind turbines. Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences373: 20140076.
6.
BorgMColluM (2015b) Frequency-domain characteristics of aerodynamic loads of offshore floating vertical axis wind turbines. Applied Energy155: 629–636.
7.
BorgMColluMBrennanFP (2012) Offshore floating vertical axis wind turbines: Advantages, disadvantages, and dynamics modelling state of the art. In: Proceedings of the international conference on marine and offshore renewable energy, 26 September 2012. London: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
8.
BorgMColluMKoliosA (2014a) Offshore floating vertical axis wind turbines, dynamics modelling state of the art. Part II: Mooring line and structural dynamics. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews39: 1226–1234.
9.
BorgMWangKColluM. (2014b) A comparison of two coupled model of dynamics for offshore floating vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT). In: Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering OMAE, San Francisco, CA, 8–13 June.
CevascoDColluMHallM. (2017) 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. In: Proceedings of the 36th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, Trondheim, 25–30 June, pp. 1–9. New York: ASME.
12.
ChengZ (2016) Integrated Dynamic Analysis of Floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbines. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).
13.
ChengZMadsenHAChaiW. (2017) A comparison of extreme structural responses and fatigue damage of semi-submersible type floating horizontal and vertical axis wind turbines. Renewable Energy108: 207–219.
14.
ChengZWangKGaoZ. (2015) Dynamic response analysis of three floating wind turbine concepts with a two-bladed Darrieus rotor. Journal of Ocean and Wind Energy2: 213–222.
15.
ColluMBorgMLanceM (2016) On the relative importance of loads acting on a floating vertical-axis wind turbine system when evaluating the global system response. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2016 35th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, Busan, South Korea, 19–24 June, pp. 1–11. New York: ASME.
16.
ColluMBorgMShiresA. (2013) FloVAWT: Progress on the development of a coupled model of dynamics for floating offshore vertical axis wind turbines. In: 32nd international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, ASME (OMAE2013), Nantes, 9–14 June 2013.
17.
ColluMBorgMShiresA (2014) FloVAWT: Future progress on the development of a coupled model of dynamics for a offshore VAWT. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering OMAE. San Francisco, CA, 8–13 June, pp. 1–11. New York: ASME.
18.
ColluMManuelLBorgM. (2015) Long-term global response analysis of a vertical axis wind turbine supported on a semi-submersible floating platform: Comparison between operating and non-operating wind turbine load cases. In: SalvatoreFBrogliaRMuscariR (eds) Computational Methods in Marine Engineering VI (MARINE), pp. 377–388. International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE).
19.
GoldschmidtMMuskulusM (2015) Coupled mooring systems for floating wind farms. Energy Procedia80: 255–262.
20.
HallM (2015) MoorDyn User’s Guide: Version 1.0.1. From NWTC Information Portal (MoorDyn). Last modified 25-September-2015, https://nwtc.nrel.gov/MoorDyn.
21.
HallMGoupeeA (2015) Validation of a lumped-mass mooring line model with DeepCwind semisubmersible model test data. Ocean Engineering104: 590–603.
22.
HallMBuckhamBCrawfordC (2014) Evaluating the importance of mooring line model fidelity in floating offshore wind turbine simulations. Wind Energy17: 1835–1853.
23.
HoadleyPWFrankKHYuraJA (1983) Estimation of the fatigue life of structural steel bridge details. Research Report, Report No. 247-4. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
KarimiradM (2013) Modeling aspects of a floating wind turbine for coupled wave–wind-induced dynamic analyses. Renewable Energy53: 299–305.
29.
MaGSunLWangH. (2013) Nonlinear mechanical model for static analysis of stretched mooring line. In: Proceedings of the twenty-third international offshore and polar engineering conference, vol. 9, Anchorage, AK, 30 June–5 July, pp. 184–189. Cupertino, CA: ISOPE.
30.
MasciolaMRobertsonANJonkmanJM. (2013) Assessment of the importance of mooring dynamics on the global response of the DeepCwind floating semisubmersible offshore wind turbine. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers9: 359–368.
31.
MertensSKuikGVan BusselG (2003) Performance of an H-Darrieus in the skewed flow on a roof. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering125; 433–440.
PerezTFossenTI (2009) A matlab tool for parametric identification of radiation-force models of ships and offshore structures. Modelling, Identification and Control (MIC)30(1): 1–15, http://www.marinecontrol.org
RychlikI (1993) Characterization of random fatigue loads. In: SobczykK (ed.) Stochastic Approach to Fatigue: Experiments, Modelling and Reliability Estimation. Vienna: Springer-Verlag, pp. 35–78.
38.
ShiresAColluMBorgM (2013a) FloVAWT: Progress on the development of a coupled model of dynamics for floating offshore vertical axis wind turbines. In: Proceedings of the twenty-third international offshore and polar engineering, Anchorage, AK, 30 June–5 July, pp. 345–351. Cupertino, CA: ISOPE.
39.
VeritasDNLloydG (2015) Offshore Standard DNVGL-OS-E301: Position mooring. DNV-OS-E301, http://www.dnvgl.com
40.
VitaL (2011) Offshore floating vertical axis wind turbines with rotating platform. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Risø Campus, Roskilde.
41.
WangKMoanTHansenMOL (2013) A method for modeling of floating vertical axis wind turbine. In: Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, Nantes, 9–14 June, pp. 1–10. New York: ASME.
42.
WangKMoanTHansenMOL (2016) Stochastic dynamic response analysis of a floating vertical-axis wind turbine with a semi-submersible floater. Wind Energy19; 1853–1870.
43.
WangKMoanTLuanC. (2014) Comparative study of a FVAWT and a FHAWT with a semi-submersible floater. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fourth international ocean and polar engineering conference, Busan, Korea, 15–20 June, pp.302–310. Cupertino, CA: ISOPE.
