1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Validation of a FAST semi-submersible floating wind turbine numerical model with DeepCwind test data
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.4796197
/content/aip/journal/jrse/5/2/10.1063/1.4796197
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jrse/5/2/10.1063/1.4796197

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Image of the 1/50th-scale DeepCwind semi-submersible floating wind turbine.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Coordinate system and dimensions of the DeepCwind semi-submersible platform.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Plots of first-order transfer functions at a zero-degree wave heading for (a) forces and (b) moments, along with phase lag angles for forces and moments in (c) and (d), respectively, as a function of frequency.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Plots of the nonzero entries of the damping matrix as a function of frequency for the (a) translational modes, (b) rotational modes, and (c) coupled translation-rotation modes.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Comparison of calibrated FAST and tested wind turbine performance as a function of rotor speed for (a) rotor power and (b) thrust under steady 21.80 m/s winds.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Plots of airfoil lift and drag coefficients at low Reynolds number for (a) NACA 64-618, (b) DU 21, (c) DU 25, (d)DU 30, (e) DU 35, and (f) DU 40 airfoils for the tuned FAST aerodynamic model.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Plots of the FAST normalized ninth-order tower mode shapes for (a) fore-aft and (b) side-side bending DOF.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Comparisons for FAST prediction and test data free-decay damping ratios for (a) surge and heave as well as (b) pitch DOF.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Comparisons for FAST prediction and test data for (a) surge mooring restoring force and (b) sway mooring restoring force.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Comparison of simulation and test data steady-state response under steady winds for (a) surge, (b) pitch, (c) tower-base fore-aft bending moment, and (d) mooring line 2 fairlead tension.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Comparison of simulation and test data damping ratios for (a) surge and (b) pitch motion for no wind and 11.23 m/s steady wind cases.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

PSD plot for NPD wind spectrum with mean wind speed of 20.6 m/s at 90 m above SWL.

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

Comparisons of PSDs from FAST and test data for (a) pitch and (b) mooring line 2 fairlead tension for a dynamic wind-only case with a mean hub-height wind speed of 20.6 m/s.

Image of FIG. 14.
FIG. 14.

Comparisons of time-series from FAST and test data for (a) pitch and (b) mooring line 2 fairlead tension for a dynamic wind-only case with a mean hub-height wind speed of 20.6 m/s.

Image of FIG. 15.
FIG. 15.

Comparisons of RAOs from FAST and test data for (a) surge, (b) heave, (c) pitch, (d) tower base fore-aft bending moment, (e) mooring line 1 fairlead tension, and (f) mooring line 2 fairlead tension.

Image of FIG. 16.
FIG. 16.

PSD for 11.3 m significant wave height white noise wave.

Image of FIG. 17.
FIG. 17.

Comparison of RAO magnitudes and phase angles from FAST and test data for (a) surge, (b) heave, and (c) pitch.

Image of FIG. 18.
FIG. 18.

Comparisons of PSDs from FAST and test data for (a) surge, (b) heave, (c) tower-base fore-aft bending moment, and (d) mooring line 2 fairlead tension for an irregular white noise wave only case with a significant wave height of 11.3 m.

Image of FIG. 19.
FIG. 19.

Comparisons of time-series from FAST and test data for (a) surge and (b) heave for an irregular white noise wave only case with a significant wave height of 11.3 m.

Image of FIG. 20.
FIG. 20.

PSD for 10.5 m significant wave height JONSWAP wave condition.

Image of FIG. 21.
FIG. 21.

Comparisons of tower-base fore-aft bending moment PSDs from FAST and test data for (a) 20.6 m/s mean wind speed dynamic wind only, (b) 10.5 m significant wave height irregular wave only, and (c) combined dynamic wind and wave cases.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Wind turbine gross properties.

Generic image for table
Table II.

Hub and nacelle gross properties.

Generic image for table
Table III.

Blade gross properties.

Generic image for table
Table IV.

Blade-distributed mass properties.

Generic image for table
Table V.

Blade-distributed aerodynamic properties.

Generic image for table
Table VI.

Wind turbine operating parameters.

Generic image for table
Table VII.

Gross tower properties.

Generic image for table
Table VIII.

Tower distributed properties.

Generic image for table
Table IX.

Platform gross properties.

Generic image for table
Table X.

Mooring system properties.

Generic image for table
Table XI.

Comparison of calibrated FAST model and tested wind turbine thrust.

Generic image for table
Table XII.

Platform quadratic drag coefficients.

Generic image for table
Table XIII.

Comparison of FAST prediction and test data for the six rigid-body motion natural periods.

Generic image for table
Table XIV.

Comparison of FAST prediction and test data statistics for a dynamic wind-only case with a mean hub height wind speed of 20.6 m/s.

Generic image for table
Table XV.

Regular wave amplitudes and natural periods.

Generic image for table
Table XVI.

Comparison of FAST prediction and test data statistics for an irregular white noise wave only case with a significant wave height of 11.3 m.

Generic image for table
Table XVII.

Comparison of FAST prediction and test data statistics for an irregular wave-only case with a significant wave height of 10.5 m.

Generic image for table
Table XVIII.

Comparison of FAST prediction and test data statistics for the combined case consisting of an irregular wave with a significant wave height of 10.5 m and a dynamic wind with a mean hub height wind speed of 20.6 m/s.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/jrse/5/2/10.1063/1.4796197
2013-03-26
2014-04-19
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Validation of a FAST semi-submersible floating wind turbine numerical model with DeepCwind test data
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jrse/5/2/10.1063/1.4796197
10.1063/1.4796197
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM