IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology

eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

EFFECT OF WIND TURBINE ON TLP FLOATING PLATFORM

RESPONSES
Yeshwant Prabhu Chodnekar1, Sukomal Mandal2, Balakrishna Rao K3
1

M.Tech (Structures) student, Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Karnataka, India
2
Retd. Chief & Head, Ocean Engineering Division, CSIR National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, India
3
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Karnataka, India

Abstract
Ever increasing population of India demands high production of electrical energy which puts immense pressure on our limited
stock of non-renewable sources of energy and makes us dependent over imports from foreign countries. The present study focuses
on the innovative concept of renewable offshore wind energy wherein the hydrodynamic analysis of Tension Leg Platform (TLP)
Floating Offshore Wind Turbine (FOWT) which supports 5MW wind turbine tower is carried out using ANSYS Workbench 14.5.
The six degree responses of the structure are obtained in operational conditions considering rated wind velocity of 11.4m/s in an
irregular wave environment. Two cases are mainly considered, the first-one with incident wave and wind combined action along
00 (case 1) and the secondone with incident wave and wind combined action along 450 (case 2). The effect of wind turbine on
TLP responses is compared in between 10 different geometric models; 5 models (A, B, C, D, E) considering only the TLP
platform and 5 models (A, B, C, D, E) considering the same platforms along with wind turbine tower. It is observed that TLP
FOWT has higher translational motions (surge, sway, and heave) as compared to rotational motions (roll, pitch, and yaw). The
metacentric height improves drastically after adding weight to concrete ballast. Higher reserve buoyancy helps reduce surge,
sway, roll and yaw. The direction of the incident wave and wind does not affect heave response and remains same when incident
wave and wind acts at 00 or 450. Higher reserve buoyancy increases pitch response only when incident wave and wind is acting at
00 but the reverse effect is observed when incident wave and wind is acting at 450.

Keywords: TLP, floating offshore wind turbine, hydrodynamic analysis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------1. INTRODUCTION
The demand of electrical energy is getting higher around the
world every other passing day and India is no such
exception. With limited non-renewable resources of energy
(mainly coal) to generate electricity, [1] mentions that over
the recent years, India is slowly shifting its focus towards
renewable resources of energy like solar and wind to
produce electricity. As far as tapping and generating
electricity from the wind is concerned, one would really
wonder why to go offshore and complicate things when
tapping wind energy is fairly simple onshore? [2] and [3]
give the answer to this curious question while mentioning
the biggest advantage being uninterrupted and constant high
efficiency of tapping wind energy as compared to onshore.
Since then, this topic has been very intriguing and
challenging for researchers to develop new and efficient
methods of designing platform to support offshore wind
turbines.
[4] gives literature survey of various different Floating
Offshore Wind Turbine (FOWT) concepts that are being
researched at present around the world. Previously, many
researchers took the challenge to develop a mechanism to
analyse FOWT considering NREL (National Renewable
Energy Laboratory) 5MW baseline wind turbine developed
by [5]. [6] made the first to attempt analysis of Tension Leg
Platform (TLP) type FOWT concept considering it as a fully
coupled dynamic system. Later, [7] continued his work and

showed that tension-legged mooring system is soft in surge

and sway but stiff in rotational modes whereas taut-leg
mooring system was stiff in surge and sway and soft in
rotational modes. [8], presented a collaborative research
done by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and
NREL which compared the responses of a TLP and a
Shallow Drafted Barge (SDB) type of FOWT and showed
that dynamic response of both the concepts were favourable
but the cost of constructing SDB was 28.4% higher than
TLP. Considering the limitations of previous time and
frequency domain studies of FOWT, [9] made an attempt to
develop a simulation and modelling technique for fully
coupled aero-hydro-servo-elastic response. [10] and [11]
compared TLP, barge and spar-buoy type FOWT and
showed that barge type is more susceptible to roll and pitch
motions and consequently transfers higher loads to wind
turbine. The roll and pitch motions of spar type were greater
than TLP but was more stable in yaw than TLP. [12] carried
out analysis and compared various FOWT concepts like
TLP, spar, barge and semi-submersible and showed that
TLP experienced least loads amongst others. [13] carried out
analysis on fixed monopile foundation and other FOWT
concepts like spar, barge and semi-submersible type,
supporting NREL 5MW wind turbine and found that semisubmersible has better stability in surge than barge type;
spar is stable in pitch and heave than barge and semisubmersible and semi-submersible has higher pitch than
barge but surge, sway, roll and yaw motions are lesser than

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 05 | May-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org

211

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology

barge. Besides this an interesting thing that is observed is

that surge and pitch increases until wind is 12m/s and
decreases for 24m/s due to blade-pitch controller action of
wind turbine. [14], showed that by using space-frame in
wave action zone of FOWT wave and anchor loads can be
reduced. It would really be interesting to see if researchers
merge this concept with [15] and [16] to come up with an
innovative FOWT concept. [17] reported few of the FOWT
concepts that have been actually commissioned offshore and
also highlights various others that are under development
mainly in Europe and USA region. MIT/NREL TLP was
improvised by [18] and named it as South China Sea (SCSTLP) to show that the improvised SCS-TLP was stable in
both operational and extreme conditions but needed more
improvement in yaw motion. It is also suggested that
increasing the length of the spokes might improve the yaw
response but needs more research. Later, [19] proposed a
HIT-FOWT-TLP which has 49% displacement and 27%
mass as compared to NREL-TLP from [8]. [20] gives a
comprehensive research and design of TLP as FOWT using
new developed conceptual tool called SIMO-RIFLEXAeroDyn which shows that response of FOWT motions is
inversely proportional to the amount of water displaced. It is
also mentioned that yaw and roll natural periods can be
lowered by increasing the spoke/pontoon size.

eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

3. ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS & ANALYSIS

Generally, the wave and wind data are gathered from the site
which is favourable for commissioning FOWT in sea and
later analysis and design is carried out. In present study, the
responses of the TLP FOWT are studied considering the
combined wave and wind action under operational
conditions considering two cases i.e. case 1 and case 2 with
incident wave and wind at 00 and 450 respectively wherein
which the loads on TLP FOWT are simulated for
800seconds.

2. MODELLING
The models presented in this paper are inspired from SCSTLP developed by [18].The model basically consists of a
main steel spar buoy with concrete ballast attached
externally at the bottom and has four radiating spokes at a
distance of 8m from top of the concrete ballast. It is
chamfered at top to minimize loads due to wave action. Fig 1 shows the TLP FOWT (model A) with the wind turbine
tower. The rotor and the nacelle of the wind turbine are
modelled as lumped mass at a hub height of 90m. Fig -2
shows the TLP platform over which the wind turbine is
placed (model A).
Table 1 shows the various geometric models that are
modelled using ANSYS Design Modeler. Models A, B,
C, D & E are modelled considering only the TLP platform
and models A, B, C, D & E are modelled considering the
TLP platform with wind turbine. The tension-legged
mooring cable is connected at the end of each spoke and
anchored to sea bed at a water depth of 200m. The
combined linear stiffness of the single mooring cable is
considered as 108 N/m and is constant for all the cables of
the various geometric models. Freeboard of 10m is
maintained constant for all the geometric models. ANSYS
Mechanical Model module is used to read the data from
ANSYS Design Modeller to obtain mass properties and
center of gravity location, which are later used in ANSYS
Hydrodynamic Diffraction module. Using the output from
diffraction module, hydrodynamic time response analysis is
carried out.

Fig -1: TLP platform (model A) with wind turbine tower

(all dimensions in m)

Fig -2: TLP platform (model A) (all dimensions in m)

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 05 | May-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org

212

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology

Figs -3a & 3b show the top view of the TLP FOWT in XY.
The x-axis is shown in red colour, the y-axis is shown in
green colour and the z-axis in blue colour. Fig -3a shows
case 1 with incident wave and wind at 00 (as pointed by
arrow) and Fig -3b shows case 2 with incident wave and
wind at 450(as pointed by arrow). The wave and wind action
is assumed to act along same direction with no
misalignment.

15
20
25
25
20

2
2
2
4
4

5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5

3.1 Wave Loads

The irregular waves incident to the TLP FOWT are defined
by Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum as per DNV-OS-J101 and
DNV-RP-C205 offshore standards. The responses of the
TLP FOWT are studied under operational conditions
assuming the wave height of 3m with zero crossing period
of 4.25seconds. The waves of period in between 3 to 12
seconds are considered wherein the responses of TLP
FOWT is obtained using diffraction theory.

Spoke length
(m)

Spoke
diameter (m)

30
30
30
20
20

Ballast
thickness (m)

Draft (m)

Diameter (m)

Table -1: Geometric models

Model
(TLP
+
wind
turbine
/
TLP only)
A / A
B / B
C / C
D / D
E / E

eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

25
22.5
20
20
22.5

Reserve
Buoyancy
(%)

Model

Displacement
(free floating)
(m3)

Displacement
(moored
condition)
(m3)

Table -2: Variation of reserve buoyancy

8000.36

2850.46

64.4%

12160.10

3722.09

69.4%

17576.83

4798.61

72.7%

13657.78

6716.36

50.8%

9654.65

4904.04

49.2%

A'

8000.37

2185.38

72.7%

B'

12160.12

3057.02

74.9%

C'

17576.84

4133.54

76.5%

D'

13657.80

6051.29

55.7%

E'

9654.65

4238.97

56.1%

Fig -3a: Incident wave and wind at 00. (Case 1)

Table -3: Variation of metacentric height

Center
of
Center
of
Metacentric
Model
Buoyancy
Gravity (m)
Height (m)
(m)
A

0.86

-17.78

-18.34

-5.02

-17.06

-11.39

-9.50

-16.65

-6.06

-8.98

-12.00

-1.62

-5.01

-12.00

-6.17

A'

-21.42

-17.78

3.94

B'

-22.23

-17.06

5.82

C'

-22.95

-16.65

7.38

D'

-18.11

-12.00

7.51

E'

-17.42

-12.00

6.23

Fig -3b: Incident wave and wind at 450. (Case 2)

3.2 Wind Loads

The wind load on the tower supporting the lumped mass is
calculated by considering a constant wind velocity of
11.4m/s at 10m height above sea level, which is assumed to
be unidirectional and uniform with height. The aerodynamic
thrust generated by NREL 5MW wind turbine is considered
as a point load at the lumped mass at the top of the wind
turbine as mentioned by [23] for operating conditions.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 05 | May-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org

213

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology

After the hydrodynamic analysis is carried out the responses

in six degree of freedom system are obtained [translation
motion in X-axis (surge), translation motion in Y-axis
(sway), translation motion in Z-axis (heave), rotational
motion about X-axis (roll), rotational motion about Y-axis
(pitch), rotational motion about Z-axis (yaw)] for all the
geometric models. Table -2 shows variation in reserve
buoyancy for all the geometric models. It is observed that as
the diameter increases the reserve buoyancy is also
increases. Model E has the least reserve buoyancy and
model C has the maximum reserve buoyancy. Table -3
shows the variation in metacentric height. It is observed that
the metacentric height improves drastically as the center of
gravity approaches center of buoyancy by increasing the
ballast weight. The negative value of metacentric height for
geometric models supporting wind turbine tower (A, B, C,
D & E) show unstable equilibrium and need the help of
mooring lines to achieve stability. Models having positive
value of metacentric height (A, B, C, D & E) do not
need mooring line to achieve stability and hence can be
easily towed from construction site to the wind farm
commissioning site.

Fig -6a and 6b show peak heave responses for case 1 and
case 2 respectively. It is observed that due to higher reserve
buoyancy the models which considered only the TLP
platform (A, B, C, D & E) have higher peak heave
response as compared to models considering TLP with wind
turbine tower (A, B, C, D & E). Model C with highest
reserve buoyancy showed maximum heave response while
model E with least reserve buoyancy showed least value of
heave response. The direction of the incident wave and wind
does not affect peak heave responses and remains same for
both the cases.

A',B',C',D',E' (Max in +ve X)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max in -ve X)

A,B,C,D,E (Max in +ve X)

A,B,C,D,E (Max in -ve X)

Case 2

7
6
5
4
Surge (m)

4. RESULTS

eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

3
2
1

Figs -4a and 4b show the peak surge responses for case 1
and case 2 respectively. It is observed that as the reserve
buoyancy increases the value of peak surge decreases.
Incident wave and wind direction of 00 has more effect than
450. When the tower is not placed on the TLP platform, the
surge response remains almost equidistant from y-axis but
when wind turbine tower is placed the surge response
mainly undergoes along positive x-axis direction.

A',B',C',D',E' (Max in +ve X)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max in -ve X)

A,B,C,D,E (Max in +ve X)

A,B,C,D,E (Max in -ve X) Case 1

0
-1
-2
A'
A

B'
B

C'
C

D'
D

E'
E

Model

Fig 4b: Peak surge response (case 2)

-2

1.5x10

A',B',C',D',E' (Max in +ve Y)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max in -ve Y)

A,B,C,D,E (Max in +ve Y)

A,B,C,D,E (Max in -ve Y)

Case 1

-2

1.0x10
6
5

-3

5.0x10
Sway (m)

Surge (m)

4
3
2

0.0
-3

-5.0x10

1
0

-2

-1.0x10

-1
-2

-1.5x10

-2
A'
A

B'
B

C'
C

Model

D'
D

E'
E

Fig 4a: Peak surge response (case 1)

A'
A

B'
B

C'
C

Model

D'
D

E'
E

Fig 5a: Peak sway response (case 1)

Fig -5a and 5b shows the peak sway responses. It is

observed that sway response is negligible for case 1 than
case 2 respectively. The sway response of case 2 is almost
equal to surge response of case 2.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 05 | May-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org

214

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology

A',B',C',D',E' (Max in +ve Y)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max in -ve Y)

A,B,C,D,E (Max in +ve Y)

Case 2
A,B,C,D,E (Max in -ve Y)

-4

3.0x10

eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

A',B',C',D',E' (Max about +ve X)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max about -ve X)
Case 1

A,B,C,D,E (Max about +ve X)

A,B,C,D,E (Max about -ve X)

7
-4

2.0x10

6
5

-4

1.0x10
o

Roll ( )

Sway (m)

4
3
2

0.0
-4

-1.0x10

1
0

-4

-2.0x10

-1
-4

-2
A'
A

B'
B

C'
C

Model

D'
D

-3.0x10

E'
E

A'
A

Fig 5b: Peak sway response (case 2)

0.8

A',B',C',D',E' (Max in +ve Z)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max in -ve Z)

C'
C

Model

D'
D

E'
E

Fig 7a: Peak roll response (case 1)

A,B,C,D,E (Max in +ve Z)

A,B,C,D,E (Max in -ve Z)

Case 1

0.6

Heave (m)

B'
B

Fig -7a and 7b show peak roll responses. It is observed that

the roll responses are very much negligible for case 1 as
compared to case 2. Considering only Fig -7b it is seen that
lower reserve buoyancy increases roll response. Model E
with lowest reserve buoyancy showed highest value of peak
roll.
Fig -8a and 8b show peak pitch responses respectively. It is
seen that higher reserve buoyancy increases the peak roll
responses only for case 1 but the reverse effect is observed
for case 2. Model C shows highest value of peak pitch
response considering case 1 while model E shows the
highest value of peak pitch response considering case 2.

0.4

0.2

0.0
-2

A'
A

B'
B

C'
C

D'
D

6.0x10

E'
E

A',B',C',D',E' (Max about +ve X)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max about -ve X)
Case 2

A,B,C,D,E (Max about +ve X)

A,B,C,D,E (Max about -ve X)

Model

Fig 6a: Peak heave response (case 1)

-2

3.0x10
A,B,C,D,E (Max along +ve Z)
A,B,C,D,E (Max along -ve Z)
Case 2
o

Roll ( )

0.7

A',B',C',D',E' (Max along +ve Z)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max along -ve Z)

0.6

0.0

0.5

Heave (m)

0.4
-2

-3.0x10

0.3

A'
A

B'
B

C'
C

D'
D

E'
E

Model

0.2

Fig 7b: Peak roll response (case 2)

0.1
0.0
-0.1
A'
A

B'
B

C'
C

D'
D

E'
E

Model

Fig 6b: Peak heave response (case 2)

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 05 | May-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org

215

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology

-2

6.0x10

A',B',C',D',E' (Max about +ve Y)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max about -ve Y)

A,B,C,D,E (Max about +ve Y)

A,B,C,D,E (Max about -ve Y)

1.0

Case 1

eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

A',B',C',D',E' (Max about +ve Z)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max about -ve Z)

A,B,C,D,E (Max about +ve Z)

A,B,C,D,E (Max about -ve Z)

Case 1

-2

3.0x10

Pitch (

Yaw (

0.5

0.0

0.0

-2

-3.0x10

A'
A

B'
B

C'
C

D'
D

E'
E

-0.5
A'
A

Model

Fig 8a: Peak pitch response (case 1)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max about +ve Y)

A',B',C',D',E' (Max about -ve Y)

D'
D

E'
E

Model

1.0

A,B,C,D,E (Max about +ve Z)

A,B,C,D,E (Max about -ve Z)

Case 2

0.5

A,B,C,D,E (Max about +ve Y)

A,B,C,D,E (Max about -ve Y)

Case 2

A',B',C',D', E' (Max about +ve Z)

A',B',C',D', E' (Max about -ve Z)

Yaw (

-2

C'
C

Fig 9a: Peak yaw response (case 1)

Fig -9a and 9b show the peak yaw responses for case 1 and
case 2 respectively. It is seen that the yaw responses are
negligible for case 1 than case 2. Considering case 2 it is
observed that higher reserve buoyancy helps reduce yaw
responses. Model C with highest reserve buoyancy shows
lowest yaw response while model E with lowest reserve
buoyancy showed highest yaw response.

6.0x10

B'
B

0.0

-2

Pitch (

3.0x10

-0.5

0.0

A'
A

B'
B

C'
C

D'
D

E'
E

Model

Fig 9b: Peak yaw response (case 2)

-2

-3.0x10

A'
A

B'
B

C'
C

D'
D

Model

Fig 8b: Peak pitch response (case 2)

E'
E

5. CONCLUSION
Hydrodynamic analysis was carried out to obtain effect of
wind turbine tower TLP FOWT responses. It is observed
that TLP FOWT has higher translational motions (surge,
sway, and heave) as compared to rotational motions (roll,
pitch, and yaw). The metacentric height improves drastically
after adding weight to concrete ballast. Higher reserve
buoyancy helps reduce surge, sway, roll and yaw. The
direction of the incident wave and wind does not affect
heave response and remains same when incident wave and
wind acts at 00 or 450. Higher reserve buoyancy increases
pitch response only when incident wave and wind is acting
at 00 but the reverse effect is observed when incident wave
and wind is acting at 450.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 05 | May-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org

216

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr SWA Naqvi, Director, National
Institute of Oceanography-Goa; Dr. Mohandas Chadaga,
H.O.D. of Department of Civil Engineering at Manipal
Institute of Technology, Manipal-Karnataka for giving me
this opportunity to carry out research and last but not the
least a special thanks to Mr. Pierpaolo Ricci from Global
Maritime Consultancy, London (www.researchgate.net) who
helped me to overcome critical difficulties.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

MNRE. (2013, 15 June). National Offshore Wind

Energy
Policy
[English].
Available:
http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/UserFiles/draftnational-policy-for-offshore-wind.pdf
Henderson, C. Morgan, B. Smith, H. Sorensen, R.
Barthlmie, and B. Boesmans, "Offshore Wind
Energy in Europe - A Review of the State-of-the-art,"
Wind Energy, vol. 6, pp. 35-52, 2003.
W. Musial and S. Butterfield. Future for Offshore
Wind Energy in United States [Online]. Available:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36313.pdf
C. M. Wang, T. Utsunomiya, S. C. Wee, and Y. S.
Choo, "Research of floating wind turbines: a
literature survey," The IES Journal Part A: Civil &
Structural Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 267-277, 2010.
J. Jonkman, S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and G. Scott,
"Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for
Offshore System Development," USA NREL/TP500-38060, 2009.
J. E. Withee, "Fully Coupled Dynamic Analysis of a
Floating Wind Turbine System," Ph.D., Naval
Architecture and Marie Engineering, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 2004
K. H. Lee, "Response of Floating Wind Turbines to
Wind and Wave Excitation," MS, Naval Architecture
and Marine Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2005.
E. N. Wayman, P. D. Sclavounos, S. Butterfield, J.
Jonkman, and W. Musial, "Coupled Dynamic
Modeling of Floating Wind Turbine System,"
presented at the Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, 2006.
J. M. Jonkman, "Dynamic Modeling and Loads
Analysis of an Offshore Floating Wind Turbine,"
National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL/TP500-41958, 2007.
D. Matha, "Model Development and Loads Analysis
of an Offshore Wind Turbine on a Tension Leg
Platform, with a Comparison to Other Floating
Turbine Concepts," NREL/SR-500-45891, 2009.
D. Matha, T. Fischer, M. Kuhn, and J. Jonkman,
"Model Development and Loads Analysis of a Wind
Turbine on a Floating Offshore Tension Leg
Platform," presented at the European Offshore Wind
Conference and Exhibition, Stockholm, Sweden,
2009.
N. Robertson and J. M. Jonkman, "Loads Analysis of
Several Offshore Floating Wind Turbine Concepts,"

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]
[22]

[23]

eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

presented at the International Society of Offshore and

Polar Engineers, Maui, Hawaii, 2011
H. Bagbanci, "Dynamic Analysis of Offshore
Floating Wind Turbines," Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering, Technical University of Lisbon,
2011.
Myhr and T. A. Nygaard, "Load Reductions and
Optimizations on Tension-Leg-Buoy Offshore Wind
Turbine Platforms," in International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference, Rhodes, Greece, 2012
D. S. B. Rao and R. P. Selvam, "Dynamic Time
Domain Analysis of a Tension Based Tension Leg
Platform (TBTLP) Under Irregular Waves," Journal
of Information, Knowledge and Research In
Mechanical Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 217-221, 2013.
D. S. B. Rao, R. P. Selvam, and N. Srinivasan,
"Response Analysis of Tension Based Tension Leg
Platform Under Irregular Waves," in Indian National
Conference on Harbour and Ocean Engineering, Goa,
India, 2014, pp. 1-6
Athanasia and A. B. Genachte, "Deep offshore and
new foundation concepts," presented at the Deep
Wind, Trondheim Norway, 2013.
H. Wang and Y. Fan, "Preliminary Design of
Offshore Wind Turbine Tension Leg Platform In
South China Sea," Journal if Engineering Science
and Technology Review, vol. 6, pp. 88-92, 2013.
H. Wang, Y. Fan, and Y. Liu, "Dynamic Analysis of
a Tension Leg Platform for Offshore Wind
Turbines," Journal of Power Technology, vol. 94, pp.
42-49, 2014.
E. E. Bachynski, "Design and Dynamic Analysis of
Tension Leg Platform Wind Turbines," Ph.D.,
Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Norway,
2014
"Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Standard," in
DNV-OS-J101, ed: Det Norske Veritas, 2014.
"Environmental Conditions and Environmental
Loads," in DNV-RP-C205, ed: Det Norske Veritas,
2010
R. Zhang, Y. Tang, J. Hu, S. Ruan, and C. Chen,
"Dynamic response in frequency and time domains
of a floating foundation for offshore wind turbines,"
Ocean Engineering, vol. 60, pp. 115-123, 2013

BIOGRAPHIES
Yeshwant V. Prabhu Chodnekar is
M.Tech Structural Engineering student at
Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal
Karnataka, India

Dr. Sukomal Mandal is Retd. Chief

Scientist & Head of Ocean Engineering
Division at CSIR - National Institute of
Oceanography, Donapaula-Goa, India.
He has research interest in design
parameters for marine structures,

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 05 | May-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org

217

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology

eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

coastal/ocean structures, neural networks in coastal/ocean

engineering, ocean waves. He has several publication in
national & international journals.
Dr. Balakrishna Rao K. is Professor at
Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal
Institute of Technology, Manipal
Karnataka, India. He has several
publication in national & international
journals.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 05 | May-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org

218