Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Normal Operating Performance Study of 15 MW Floating Wind
Turbine System Using Semisubmersible Taida Floating
Platform in Hsinchu Offshore Area
Hoi-Yi Tong, Tsung-Yueh Lin and Shiu-Wu Chau *

The Department of Engineering Science and Ocean Engineering, National Taiwan University,
Taipei 10617, Taiwan
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This study predicted the motion response and power performance of a floating wind
turbine system equipped with a semisubmersible Taida platform, an IEA 15 MW wind turbine, and a
3 × 2 mooring design in the Hsinchu offshore area in the Taiwan Strait. The hydrodynamic properties
were calculated using ANSYS-AQWA and STAR-CCM+. The motion equations were solved by
OrcaFlex to obtain the motion response and generator power, as well as the dynamics of the mooring
system and aerodynamics of the wind turbine. The waves were assumed to share the same direction
as the wind. This study compared the mean values and standard deviations of the motion response,
generator power, and mooring line tension between the potential- and viscous-flow approaches by
considering the combination of seven wind directions and four current directions under two wave
conditions in the Hsinchu offshore area. The numerical prediction shows that the viscous effect has
a larger impact on the hydrodynamic properties in the heave, roll, and pitch motions. The angle
between the leading mooring line of the system and dominant wind direction in the Taiwan Strait,
which comes from the northeast, should be from 120◦ to 180◦ in order to deliver a relatively favorable
performance of the system.
Citation: Tong, H.-Y.; Lin, T.-Y.; Chau,
S.-W. Normal Operating Performance
Keywords: floating wind turbine; semisubmersible; hydrodynamic properties; operating perfor-
Study of 15 MW Floating Wind
mance; Hsinchu offshore area; Taiwan Strait
Turbine System Using
Semisubmersible Taida Floating
Platform in Hsinchu Offshore Area. J.
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457. https://
doi.org/10.3390/jmse11020457
1. Introduction
In April 2022, the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) reported that more than
Academic Editors:
93.6 GW of onshore and offshore wind energy capacity was newly installed in 2021, and
Unai Fernandez-Gamiz, Giuseppe
that the total amount of the global wind energy capacity has exceeded 837 GW, which is the
Roberto Tomasicchio and
Eva LOUKOGEORGAKI
second highest record over the years [1]. The development of green energy, and especially
wind power, is one of the most important global issues of the future. The government of
Received: 14 December 2022 Taiwan aims to install an offshore wind energy capacity of 20 GW by 2035 [2]. Having
Revised: 13 February 2023 high wind power potential, the Taiwan Strait is a promising site for developing offshore
Accepted: 14 February 2023 wind turbines, and especially in the area where the water depth exceeds 50 m [3]. When
Published: 20 February 2023
an increasing water depth heavily challenges the cost and installation of bottom-fixed
offshore wind turbines, floating wind turbines are a relatively economical solution in
deep waters. Thus, research on the motion response and generator power of floating
offshore wind turbines is an important task to efficiently explore the offshore wind energy
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
in the Taiwan Strait.
This article is an open access article
Previous studies on the offshore wind resources and environment conditions of the
distributed under the terms and Taiwan Strait are first summarized. The seismic and geological data of the Zhangbin
conditions of the Creative Commons offshore area were analyzed in [4], and the influence of climate change on the wind
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// resources in the Taiwan Strait was predicted in [5]. The performances of different types
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ of floating platforms have also been investigated in related research. The various design
4.0/). concepts for floating offshore platforms are commonly categorized into four basic types:

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11020457 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 2 of 34

spar, semisubmersible, barge, and tension leg platforms [6]. The motion response of spar-
type platforms was studied in [7–9]. References [10,11] investigated the motion response of
semisubmersible platforms. Li, et al. [12] compared the hydrodynamic and global motion
behavior in the South China Sea among semisubmersible, tension leg, and spar-type
platforms. According to [12], the spar-type platform has a better performance in general,
but it requires a deep-water depth. De Guzman, et al. [13] proposed a reduced-draft-spar
concept with high stability for shallow-water regions. In contrast, the performance of
the semisubmersible platform is promising because it only requires a relatively shallow
water depth, which is suitable for the area with of the Taiwan Strait with high wind power
potential, where the water depth ranges from 50 m to 70 m. For semisubmersible platforms,
pontoons and columns provide resistance to aerodynamic loads, and braces and trusses
deliver resistance to hydrodynamic loads. However, the complex construction of the
tower systems, either at-center or off-center [14], might involve issues of structural fatigue.
Moreover, the early research on the performances of floating offshore wind turbines mainly
focused on the NREL 5 MW [15] and DTU 10 MW [16] wind turbines. The current tendency
for offshore wind turbines is designs with increasing rotor sizes. For example, Liu and
Manuel [17] developed the mooring systems for a 13.2 MW wind turbine. IEA 15 MW
offshore wind turbines [18] are rarely employed in the related studies for the Taiwan Strait.
Therefore, the performance of a wind turbine system equipped with an IEA 15 MW wind
turbine under the metocean conditions of the Hsinchu offshore area, which is one of the
sites with the most potential in the Taiwan Strait, requires further study.
Studies in the field of floating offshore wind turbines have adopted various approaches.
Udoh and Zou [19] used coupled OrcaFlex and FAST simulation to study the motion
response of the DTU 10 MW mounted on various platforms. Zhang, et al. [20,21] solved
the viscous-flow field of the OC5 DeepCwind semisubmersible platform with an NREL
5 MW wind turbine. Because the viscous-flow calculation generally requires tremendous
computational resources, it is not efficient for the transit analysis of irregular waves. Instead
of using time-consuming viscous-flow calculations, the authors of [22] computed the
hydrodynamic coefficients via the boundary element method based on the potential-flow
theory. Luquet, et al. [23] solved viscous-flow fields via the explicit spectrum method to
investigate the nonlinear free-surface effect of a tension leg platform. Sethuraman and
Venugopal [24] conducted a seakeeping experiment of a ballasted floater with a 2 MW
wind turbine and compared it with OrcaFlex numerical results. Reference [25] analyzed the
motion response of a 5 MW wind turbine on a semisubmersible platform, and they found
that the bottom plates on the pontoon had significant effects in reducing the wind-induced
rolling. Nematbakhsh, et al. [26] developed a viscous-flow code to study the performance
degradation of a floating 5 MW wind turbine in extreme sea states in the North Sea. The
study concluded that the nonlinear interaction between the floater and free surface could
not be described by the potential-flow theory. Reference [27] used OpenFOAM to simulate
the motion response of a moored floater, and they validated the numerical results against
experiments. Karimirad and Michailides [28] coupled several types of software, including
HydroD, GeniE, WAMIT, SIMA, Simo-Riflex, and Simo-Riflex-Aerodyn, to analyze a 5 MW
wind turbine on a semisubmersible platform under normal and extreme conditions. The
study found that oblique wave loads contributed to the yaw motion. Zheng and Lei [29]
analyzed a floating offshore wind turbine integrated with a steel fish farming cage by
coupling FAST and WAMIT, and they found that its design is more resistant to overturning,
heaving, pitching, and surging than OC3Hywinde3 and OC4DeepCwind. Ishihara and
Zhang [30] used ANSYS-AQWA with the corrected Morison equation to study the motion
response under irregular waves. The numerical results were then compared with the model
test measurements. Lerch, et al. [31] considered three main degrees of freedom in FOWAT,
FAST, and MATLAB to compute a 5 MW floating wind turbine in the European offshore
regions, where the expected power capacity factor can reach 75%. Reference [32] used
WADAM, which is a frequency-domain potential-flow solver, to simulate a moored 5 MW
floating wind turbine with a water depth between 50 m and 70 m. The horizontal load in
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 3 of 34

the mooring lines was dominated by the wave load, while the axial tension was determined
by the residual buoyancy. Ferrandis, et al. [33] compared the potential-flow-based and
viscous-flow-based solvers AQWA, AEGIR, and STARCCM+, in the aspects of the viscosity
and nonlinearities in the motions of a semisubmersible platform. When the frequency of
the incident wave is closed to the natural frequency of the floater, the viscous solver can
better describe the motions.
To lower the production cost, and to adapt the floating offshore wind turbine sys-
tem to the metocean conditions in the Taiwan Strait, designing an indigenous floating
offshore wind turbine is an essential task for Taiwan. The Taida floating platform [34] is an
original delta-shaped semisubmersible platform designed by a research team at National
Taiwan University. The proposal contains a new design shape for the floater, which is
capable of delivering significant viscous damping to stabilize the motion in waves. The
motion-induced viscous damping here is specifically addressed through the viscous-flow
approach. This study predicted the motion response, generator power, and mooring line
tension of a 15 MW floating wind turbine system equipped with a Taida platform, an IEA
15 MW offshore wind turbine, and a 3 × 2 mooring design under the metocean conditions
in the Hsinchu offshore area in the Taiwan Strait. Several aspects of viscous damping
via comparison with the potential-flow approach are the second highlight of this study.
According to [35], the local wind in the Taiwan Strait most likely comes from the northeast,
with a probability of about 70%. The third highlight of this study is its aim to find the
orientation range of the Taida platform with respect to the dominant wind direction, where
the motion response and power output are the most favorable under the conditions of
normal operation.
The present study is written in the following structure. Section 2 describes the Taida
platform design. Section 3 describes the numerical framework and each submodule applied
in the simulation. Section 4 discusses the motion response, power output, and mooring lines.
Detailed comparisons between normal and high waves and between the potential-flow and
viscous-flow modeling are included. Section 5 concludes the research.

2. Wind Turbine System Design

2.1. Floating Platform Design
The Taida platform, which was designed to carry a 15 MW wind turbine, was consid-
ered the target platform in this study. According to the design constrains of a 15 MW wind
turbine system given in [34,36], the characteristic length of the Taida platform is limited to
85 m to fit in the drydock of a potential shipyard in Taiwan for production, and the wind
turbine system is limited to a pitch angle between −10◦ and 10◦ and a mean pitch angle
between −5◦ and 5◦ during normal operation.
The Taida platform is a three-column delta-shaped semisubmersible floating platform
with a characteristic length of 81.6 m, height of 35 m, and draft of 20 m. The column
under the turbine is 60% wider than the other two columns with the same size. The total
displacement of the system is 23.683 kton. The specifications and dimensions of the Taida
platform are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, respectively.

Table 1. Specifications of Taida platform.

Properties (Unit) Value

Draft (m) 20
Total System Displacement (kton) 23.683
Total System CG (m) (4.117, 0, −2.29)
Ixx 4.932 × 1010
Iyy 5.335 × 1010
Izz 2.834 × 1010
Principal Inertias about CG (kg·m2 )
Ixy −6.734 × 105
Ixz −9.954 × 109
Iyz −3.047 × 106
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 35

𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 −6.734 × 105

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 −9.954 × 109 4 of 34
𝐼𝐼𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 −3.047 × 106

Figure
Figure1.1.Dimensions
DimensionsofofTaida
Taidaplatform.
platform.

2.2.
2.2.Mooring
MooringDesign
Design
AA33××2 2mooring
mooringdesign
designwaswasemployed
employedininthis
thisstudy.
study.The
Themooring
mooringline linewas
wasdesigned
designed
with the following constraints [37]: the allowable offset of the wind turbine
with the following constraints [37]: the allowable offset of the wind turbine system system waswas30%
of the water depth, which was 21 m, to protect the dynamic cables, the
30% of the water depth, which was 21 m, to protect the dynamic cables, the anchor weightanchor weight was
preferably
was lessless
preferably thanthan
18 tons, andand
18 tons, the the
mooring chain
mooring chainwaswas
limited to atodiameter
limited of 16.51
a diameter cm.
of 16.51
cm. Table 2 shows the specifications of the mooring lines. The Taida platform is equipped
withTable
two mooring lines
2 shows the on each column,
specifications of theand the angle
mooring between
lines. theseplatform
The Taida two mooring lines is
is equipped
◦
10 , two
as shown in Figure 2. The
with mooring lines on eachfairleads
column,are 18the
and m below
angle the free surface.
between these twoThemooring
water depthlinesis
is 10°, as shown in Figure 2. The fairleads are 18 m below the free surface. The water depthof
assumed to be 70 m. The length of an unstretched mooring line is 448 m. The break load
the mooring line is 14.96 MN.
is assumed to be 70 m. The length of an unstretched mooring line is 448 m. The break load
of the mooring line is 14.96 MN.
Table 2. Specifications of mooring lines.

Table 2. Specifications ofProperties

mooring lines.
(Unit) Value
Properties
Number of Mooring (Unit)
Lines 3 × 2 Value
Angle between Adjacent
Number of MooringLines (◦ ) Lines 10/119.8 3 × 2
Depth to Anchors below SWL (m) 70
Angle
Depth to between
Fairleads belowAdjacent
SWL (m) Lines (°) 18 10/119.8
Depth
Radius Measured from to Anchors
Centroid below
of Platform SWL (m)(m)
to Anchors 484.3 70
Depth
Radius Measured from to Fairleads
Centroid below
of Platform SWL (m)(m)
to Fairleads 47.1 18
Radius MeasuredMooring
Unstretched from Centroid
Line Lengthof Platform
(m) to Anchors (m) 448 484.3
Mooring Line Diameter (m) 0.229
Radius Measured from Centroid of Platform to Fairleads (m)
Mooring Nominal Diameter (m) 0.127
47.1
Mooring Line MassMooring
Unstretched Line Length (m)
Density (kg/m) 321 448
Mooring Mooring
Line BreakLineLoadDiameter
(MN) (m) 14.96 0.229
MooringMooring
Line Axial Nominal Diameter (m)
Stiffness (GN) 1.377 0.127
Mooring Line Mass Density (kg/m) 321
Mooring Line Break Load (MN)
2.3. Wind Turbine Design 14.96
An IEA 15 MWMooring
offshore Line
windAxial Stiffness
turbine (GN) in this study. The detailed
was employed 1.377design
is given in [18,38]. The specifications and dimensions of the IEA 15 MW wind turbine are
shown in Table 3 and Figure 3, respectively. It is an upwind wind turbine with three blades.
The cut-in, rated, and cut-out wind speeds are 3 m/s, 10.59 m/s, and 25 m/s, respectively.
The cut-in and rated rotor speeds are 5 RPM and 7.56 RPM, respectively. The hub height
and rotor diameter are 150 m and 240 m, respectively. The DTU FFA-W3 airfoil series was
used in the blade design of the IEA 15 MW offshore wind turbine. Figure 4 shows the
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 5 of 34

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023,dependence

11, x FOR PEER
ofREVIEW
the bladepitch angle (β b ), generator power (Pg ), rotor speed (Ωr ), and rotor 5
thrust force (Tr ) on the wind speed at hub height (Uw ).

Figure 2. Mooring design

Figure of winddesign
2. Mooring turbineofsystem.
wind turbine system.

Table 3. Specifications
2.3. Windof IEA 15 MW
Turbine offshore wind turbine.
Design
An IEA(Unit)
Properties 15 MW offshore wind turbine was employed Value in this study. The detailed
sign is given in [18,38]. The specifications and dimensions of the IEA 15 MW wind tur
Rated Power (MW) 15
are shown
Blade in Table
Length (m) 3 and Figure 3, respectively. It is120 an upwind wind turbine with t
blades. The cut-in,
Hub Height (m) rated, and cut-out wind speeds 150 are 3 m/s, 10.59 m/s, and 25 m/s
spectively.
Hub/Rotor The cut-in
Diameters (m) and rated rotor speeds are 57.94/240
RPM and 7.56 RPM, respectively
Tower
hubBase Diameter
height (m) diameter are 150 m and 240 m, respectively.
and rotor 10 The DTU FFA-W3 a
Hub Overhang (m) 11.35
series was used in the blade design of the IEA 15 MW offshore wind turbine. Figu
Cut-in/Rated/Cut-out Wind Speeds (m/s) 3/10.59/25
shows the dependence of the blade pitch angle (𝛽5/7.56
Cut-in/Rated Rotor Speeds (RPM) 𝑏 ), generator power (𝑃𝑔 ), rotor s
Shaft(𝛺 𝑟 ), and rotor
Tilt/Precone thrust
Angles ( )force (𝑇𝑟 ) on the wind speed at6/4
◦ hub height (𝑈𝑤 ).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Rotor Nacelle Assembly Mass (ton) 1016.6 6 of 36
Table
Tower 3.Mass
Specifications
(ton) of IEA 15 MW offshore wind turbine.
860

Properties (Unit) Value

Rated Power (MW) 15
Blade Length (m) 120
Hub Height (m) 150
Hub/Rotor Diameters (m) 7.94/240
Tower Base Diameter (m) 10
Hub Overhang (m) 11.35
Cut-in/Rated/Cut-out Wind Speeds (m/s) 3/10.59/25
Cut-in/Rated Rotor Speeds (RPM) 5/7.56
Shaft Tilt/Precone Angles (°) 6/4
Rotor Nacelle Assembly Mass (ton) 1016.6
Tower Mass (ton) 860

Figure Figure
3. Dimensions of IEA 15
3. Dimensions MW15
of IEA offshore wind turbine.
MW offshore wind turbine.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 6 of 34

Figure 3. Dimensions of IEA 15 MW offshore wind turbine.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 35
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Comparison
Comparison of
of (a)
(a) blade
blade pitch
pitch angle,
angle, (b) generator power,
(b) generator (c) rotor
power, (c) rotor speed,
speed, and
and (d)
(d) rotor
rotor
thrust force between this study and [18].
thrust force between this study and [18].
AQWA for the potential-flow hydrodynamic coefficients, STAR-CCM + for the viscous
3. Numerical
3. Numerical Methods
Methods
damping, and OrcaFlex for the aerodynamics of the wind turbine, mooring, and motion,
A numerical
A numerical
are elaborated framework
followingfor
framework
in the predicting
The the
for predicting
sections. motionresponse
the motion
proposed response
framework and
and
waspower performance
power performance
benchmarked
of
with
aoffloating
a floating
windwindturbineturbine
system system is proposed
is proposed in this in this
study study
(Figure (Figure
5), in which5), in
thewhich the
metocean
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)’s OC4 DeepCwind with a 5 MW wind
metocean
condition
turbine condition
of the Hsinchu
[10]. of theofHsinchu
The results
offshore offshore area is referenced
area is referenced
the motions, rotor speed, fromand
from [35,39].
pitch angle, [35,39]. Thegeneration
hydrody-
The hydrodynamic
power
namic
propertiesproperties
were were
predicted predicted
using using
ANSYS-AQWA ANSYS-AQWA
via the via the
potential-flow
agreed with the NREL reports [40] and thus confirmed that the proposed numerical potential-flow
approach. approach.
The forced
motion of the
The forced motion platform
of the was simulated
platform was using
simulated STAR-CCM+ to
using STAR-CCM+ obtain the hydrodynamic
to obtain the hydro-
framework
properties is reliable.
considering In
theaddition,
viscoustheHong
effects. [11] successfully
Theeffects.
aerodynamics predicted the
and dynamics performance
of dynamics of a
the mooring
dynamic
disk-type properties considering
semisubmersible floating viscous
wind turbine The
system aerodynamics
installed in and
the Taiwan of
Strait.
system
the were calculated
mooring system using
were OrcaFlexusing
calculated via theOrcaFlex
blade element
via themomentum
blade theory
element and finite
momentum
The
elementsamemethod.
framework Withwas also adopted
allmethod.
these results, in this study. of the motions were solved, and the
theory and finite element With the equations
all these results, the equations of the motions were
motion
solved, response and generator
and the motion responsepower of the wind
and generator turbine
power of system
the wind were obtained.
turbine system were
obtained.
Figure 5 shows the numerical framework for predicting the motion response and
power performance of a floating wind turbine system. The numerical details of ANSYS-

Figure
Figure 5.
5. Numerical
Numerical framework
framework for
for floating
floating wind
wind turbine performance prediction.
turbine performance prediction.

3.1. Equations
Figure 5 of Motion
shows the numerical framework for predicting the motion response and
power Toperformance
predict the motion response
of a floating windandturbine
powersystem.
performance of the floating
The numerical wind
details turbine
of ANSYS-
system, the motion equations with coupled effects were solved in OrcaFlex. The equation
AQWA for the potential-flow hydrodynamic coefficients, STAR-CCM + for the viscous
of the motion
damping, and of the floating
OrcaFlex for thebody is given asoffollows:
aerodynamics the wind turbine, mooring, and motion, are
elaborated in the following6 sections. The proposed framework was benchmarked with the
��𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗′′ + 𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗′ + 𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 = 𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖 + 𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖𝑜𝑜 , (1)
𝑗𝑗=1

where 𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is the body mass; 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is the added mass; 𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is the damping; 𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is the stiff-
ness of the floating body; 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 is the displacement; 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 ′ is the velocity; 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 ′′ is the accelera-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 7 of 34

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)’s OC4 DeepCwind with a 5 MW wind tur-
bine [10]. The results of the motions, rotor speed, pitch angle, and power generation agreed
with the NREL reports [40] and thus confirmed that the proposed numerical framework
is reliable. In addition, Hong [11] successfully predicted the performance of a disk-type
semisubmersible floating wind turbine system installed in the Taiwan Strait. The same
framework was also adopted in this study.

3.1. Equations of Motion

To predict the motion response and power performance of the floating wind turbine
system, the motion equations with coupled effects were solved in OrcaFlex. The equation
of the motion of the floating body is given as follows:

6
∑ Mij + Aij x j + Bij x 0j + Cij x j = Fi + Fio ,

00
(1)
j =1

where Mij is the body mass; Aij is the added mass; Bij is the damping; Cij is the stiffness
of the floating body; x j is the displacement; x j 0 is the velocity; x j 00 is the acceleration. The
subscripts (i, j = 1, 2, . . . , 6) refer to the six degrees of freedom (i.e., surge, sway, heave,
roll, pitch, and yaw), respectively. On the right-hand side of the equations, Fi is the wave-
exciting force, and Fio is the force other than the fluid force, such as the aerodynamic loading
and mooring tension. Aij , Bij , Cij , and Fi come from the results of ANSYS-AQWA, as well as
from the viscous damping prediction. The wave drift force, which is a kind of second-order
force, is considered, while the motion response is solved in the time domain. The predicted
viscous components are used in AQWA to obtain the response amplitude operators (RAOs).
As shown in Figure 6, the fluid force, which is divided into hydrodynamic force and
00
hydrostatic force, is composed of Aij x j , Bij x 0j , Cij x j , and Fi . The hydrodynamic force is
further divided into the wave-exciting force and radiation force. The former, which is a com-
bination of the Froude–Krylov force and diffraction force, is provided by incoming waves
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEERunder
REVIEW the condition that the floating body is fixed, while the latter, which is a combination8 of 35
of the added inertia force and damping force, is caused by the forced motion of the floating
body without considering incoming waves. The Froude–Krylov force on the floating body
is introduced
waves, by the
while the unsteadyforce
diffraction pressure
is due field generated
to the by undisturbed
disturbance waves,
of the floating while
body the
to the
diffraction force
incoming waves. is due to the disturbance of the floating body to the incoming waves.

Figure 6. Components of fluid force.

Figure 6. Components of fluid force.

3.2.
3.2. Potential-Flow
Potential-Flow Modeling
Modeling
Under
Under thethe assumption
assumptionofoflinear
linear
andand small-amplitude
small-amplitude waves,
waves, the hydrodynamic
the hydrodynamic prop-
properties of the floating body were predicted in ANSYS-AQWA via the
erties of the floating body were predicted in ANSYS-AQWA via the panel method, whichpanel method,
which
is basedis on
based on the three-dimensional
the three-dimensional potential-flow
potential-flow theory
theory [41]. The[41].
flowThefieldflow
wasfield was
assumed
assumed to be inviscid, irrotational, and incompressible in the potential flow. The added
mass and damping were obtained from the radiation force (𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟 ):
6
6
𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟 = � � 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝛷𝛷𝑗𝑗 (𝑥𝑥, 𝑦𝑦, 𝑧𝑧) 𝑒𝑒 −𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐧𝐧𝑖𝑖 (𝑥𝑥, 𝑦𝑦, 𝑧𝑧)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = � 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗′′ + 𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗′ , (2)
𝑗𝑗=1
𝑆𝑆 𝑗𝑗=1
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 8 of 34

to be inviscid, irrotational, and incompressible in the potential flow. The added mass and
damping were obtained from the radiation force (Fr ):

x 6 6
∑ iωx j Φj (x, y, z)e−iωt ni (x, y, z)dS = ∑ Aij x j + Bij x 0j ,
00
Fr = (2)
S j =1 j =1

where Φj ( x, y, z) is the radiation velocity potential; ω is the angular frequency of the wave;
x j is the motion amplitude of the floating body; t is the time; ni ( x, y, z) is the normal vector
on the body surface; S is the immersed area of the floating body.

3.3. Viscous Damping

The hydrodynamic properties predicted by ANSYS-AQWA are potential results. With
the load response of the platform calculated in STAR-CCM+, which is a viscous-flow solver,
the viscous damping was then predicted via forced-motion simulation [11].
The flow field has zero initial velocity, which indicates that there is no wave-exciting
force acting on the platform. Therefore, radiation and hydrostatic forces are the only fluid
forces that act on the platform. The radiation force includes the added inertia force and
radiation damping force, which occurs when there are no incoming waves. The total force
(Fk ) that acts on the floating body, which is obtained from the result of the viscous-flow
modeling in STAR-CCM+, is expressed in terms of the generalized displacement (xk ), as
shown below:
Fk = Ak xk + Bk xk0 + Ck xk .
00
(3)
00
From (5), xk , xk0 , and xk are expressed as follows:

xk = −ζ cos(ωt), (4)

xk0 = ζω sin(ωt), (5)

00
xk = ζω 2 cos(ωt). (6)
With the help of Equations (4)–(6), (6) is rewritten as follows:
  
Fk = ζ ω 2 Ak − Ck cos(ωt) + ωBk sin(ωt) = Dk cos(ωt + ϕk ), (7)

00
where Dk is the amplitude of Fk , and ϕk is the phase difference between xk and Fk , as shown
in Figure 7. Therefore, Ak and Bk are determined by Dk and ϕk , as follows:
q
2
Dk = (ω 2 Ak − Ck ) + (ωBk )2 , (8)

−ωBk
ϕk = tan−1 (9)
ω 2 Ak − Ck
Ck + Dk cos ϕk
Ak = , (10)
ω2
− Dk sin ϕk
Bk = , (11)
ω
where Ck comes from the result of AQWA.
Assuming that Aij is the sum of Aij,p and Aij,v , Bij is the sum of Bij,p and Bij,v , where
Aij,p and Bij,p are the potential components predicted via the potential-flow theory in
AQWA, and Aij,v and Bij,v are the viscous components, Ak and Bk , (i.e., Aij and Bij are
obtained from the results of STAR-CCM+). The detailed viscous-flow formulation and
setup are included in Appendix A.
 Assuming that 𝐴 is the sum of 𝐴 , and 𝐴 , , 𝐵 is the sum of 𝐵 , and
where 𝐴 , and 𝐵 , are the potential components predicted via the potential-flo
ory in AQWA, and 𝐴 , and 𝐵 , are the viscous components, 𝐴 and 𝐵 , (i.
and 𝐵 are obtained from the results of STAR-CCM+). The detailed viscous-flow f
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 9 of 34
lation and setup are included in Appendix A.

Figure 7. Schematic of phase difference between force and acceleration.

Figure 7. Schematic of phase difference between force and acceleration.
3.4. Modeling of Floating Wind Turbine System
3.4.1.
3.4. Aerodynamic
Modeling Modeling
of Floating Wind Turbine System
3.4.1. The aerodynamic loading of a wind turbine is calculated in OrcaFlex using the blade
Aerodynamic Modeling
element momentum theory [42], which is a combination of the momentum theory and
The
blade aerodynamic
element theory. Theloading of (T
thrust force a rwind turbine(dQ)
) and moment is calculated in OrcaFlex
on the actuator using the
disk derived
by the axial momentum theory are expressed as follows:
element momentum theory [42], which is a combination of the momentum theor
blade element theory. The thrust force
1 (𝑇
2
) and moment (𝑑𝑄) on the actuator disk d
Tr = ρAUin 4a(1 − a), (12)
by the axial momentum theory are2 expressed as follows:
11
dQ = 4a0 (1 𝑇− a=) ρU𝜌𝐴𝑈 ωr2 2πrdr,
4𝑎(1 − 𝑎), (13)
2 2 in
where ρ is the fluid density, A is the disk area, Uin is the inflow velocity, and r is the radius
1
of the cross section. The axial induction factor (a) and angular velocity induction factor (a0 )
are defined as follows: 𝑑𝑄 = 4𝑎 ( 1 − 𝑎 ) 𝜌𝑈 𝜔𝑟 2𝜋𝑟𝑑𝑟,
Uin − U1 2
a= . (14)
where 𝜌 is the fluid density, 𝐴 is the Udisk in and 𝑟
area, 𝑈 is the inflow velocity,
radius of the cross section. The axial induction ω0
factor (𝑎) and angular velocity ind
a0 = , (15)
factor (𝑎 ) are defined as follows: 2ω
where U1 is the velocity before the fluid flows into the actuator disk. The axial force (dFa )
and moment (dQ) that act on a blade section derived 𝑈 − by𝑈the blade element theory are
𝑎= .
expressed as follows: 𝑈
1
dFa = nb c ρU 2 [Cl cos(θ ) + Cd sin(θ )]dr, (16)
2
1
dQ = nb c ρU 2 [Cl sin(θ ) − Cd cos(θ )]rdr, (17)
2
where nb is the number of blades, c is the chord length of the blade section, r is the radius of
the blade section, and Cd and Cl are the drag and lift coefficients, respectively. The relative
inflow velocity (U) is defined as follows:

Uin (1 − a)
U= , (18)
sin(θ )

where θ is the relative inflow angle. Because dTr from the axial momentum theory is equal
to dFa from the blade element theory, and dQ from the angular momentum theory is equal
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 10 of 34

to dQ from the blade element theory, a and a0 are expressed as the following equations by
combining (15) and (19), and (16) and (20):

1
a= , (19)
4 sin2 θ
1+ σ [Cl cos(θ )+Cd sin(θ )]

1
a0 = 2 sin(θ ) cos(θ )
, (20)
σ [Cl cos(θ )+Cd sin(θ )]
−1
nb c
σ= , (21)
2π
where σ is the local solidity. The total thrust force and mechanical power are subsequently
obtained: Z Rr
Tr = dTr , (22)
rh
Z Rr
P= ωdQ, (23)
rh

where rh is the hub radius, and Rr is the rotor radius.

3.4.2. Control System Modeling

The control system modeling for the wind turbine in OrcaFlex is a proportional integral
derivative (PID) controller that is supported through Python [42]. It involves the design of
two controllers: the generator torque controller and full-span rotor-collective blade pitch
controller. The former is designed for the range below the rated wind speed, while the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
latter 11 of 35
is designed for the range above the rated wind speed. Figure 8 shows the schematic
of the employed control system.

Figure8.8.Schematic
Figure Schematicofofemployed
employedcontrol
controlsystem.
system.

3.4.3.
3.4.3.Mooring
MooringModeling
Modeling
The finite element method is used for the mooring line modeling in OrcaFlex [42]. The
The finite element method is used for the mooring line modeling in OrcaFlex [42].
line is divided into a series of straight massless model segments with a node at each end,
The line is divided into a series of straight massless model segments with a node at each
and each segment models only the axial and torsional properties of the line. It turns out
end, and each segment models only the axial and torsional properties of the line. It turns
that the axial force predominates in the mooring system. Each line segment is divided into
out that the axial force predominates in the mooring system. Each line segment is divided
two subsegments, and the properties of each subsegment, such as the mass, weight, and
into two subsegments, and the properties of each subsegment, such as the mass, weight,
buoyancy, are lumped to the neighboring node.
and The
buoyancy, are lumped
axial force containstothe
theeffective
neighboring node.
tension (Te ) and wall tension (Tw ), which are
The axial force contains the
corelated using the following equation:effective tension (𝑇 ) and wall tension (𝑇 ), which are
corelated using the following equation:
Te = Tw + ( pex aex − pin ain ), (24)
𝑇 = 𝑇 + (𝑝 𝑎 − 𝑝 𝑎 ), (24)

where 𝑝 and 𝑝 are the external and internal pressure, respectively, and 𝑎 and 𝑎
are the external and internal cross-sectional stress areas, respectively. The wall tension is
obtained as follows:
𝜏 𝑑𝑙 1
𝑇 = 𝐸𝐴𝜀 − 2𝜈(𝑝 𝑎 −𝑝 𝑎 )+𝑘 + 𝐸𝐴𝑐 , (25)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 11 of 34

where pex and pin are the external and internal pressure, respectively, and aex and ain are the
external and internal cross-sectional stress areas, respectively. The wall tension is obtained
as follows:
τ dl 1
Tw = EAε − 2ν( pex aex − pin ain ) + k tt + EAcd , (25)
l0 dt l0
l − λ s l0
ε= , (26)
λ s l0
where EA is the axial stiffness of the line; ε is the total mean axial strain; ν is the Poisson
ratio; k tt is the coefficient for the torque coupling tension; τ is the segment twist angle;
l is the segment length; l0 is the initial segment length; λs is the expansion factor of the
segment; cd is the damping coefficient for the mooring line, which is defined as follows:

λa
cd = cc , (27)
100
r
2ml0
cc = , (28)
EA
where λ a is the target tension damping, cc is the critical damping value for a segment, and
m is the segment mass including the contents but not of any attachment.

4. Performance Prediction
4.1. Case Description
The performance of a 15 MW floating wind turbine system using the semisubmersible
Taida floating platform equipped with an IEA 15 MW offshore wind turbine predicted
via the potential-flow approach (PF approach), which only considers the potential result,
and the viscous-flow approach (VF approach), which additionally considers the effects
of the viscosity, in the Hsinchu offshore area is presented in this study. The irregular
wave conditions discussed in this study correspond to the wave scatter diagram of the
Hsinchu offshore area, which is shown in Table 4 [35], in which the significant wave height
is Hs and the zero-crossing period is Tz . In this study, the common wave condition (CW
condition) (i.e., ( Hs , Tz ) = (1.5 m, 5.5 s)) and high wave condition (HW condition) (i.e.,
( Hs , Tz ) = (4.5 m, 7.5 s)) were both considered. According to [39], the JONSWAP spectrum
with γ = 2.08 was chosen as the wave spectrum. The wind profile (Figure 9) and current
profile of an offshore area are defined as follows:
 0.1
w z
Uin = Uw , (29)
Hh
 1
c z+h 7
Uin = Uc , (30)
h
where Uw is the wind velocity at the hub height; Uin w is the wind velocity; U is the current
c
c
velocity at the free surface; Uin is the current velocity; z is the height above mean sea
level; Hh is the hub height of an IEA 15 MW wind turbine (Hh = 150 m); h is the water
depth (h = 70 m). The wind velocity obtained from the Beaufort scale (UB ) is the wind
velocity defined at 10 m above MSL, and the Uw is then calculated via (32). According
to [16], the surface current speed (Uc ) was assumed to be 0.93 m/s, which occurs in the
Taiwan Strait with a probability of 75%. The metocean conditions adopted in this study
are summarized in Table 5. The waves were assumed to have a direction consistent with
the wind. In this study, seven wind and wave directions (θw = 0◦ , 30◦ , . . . , 180◦ ) and four
current directions (θc = 0◦ , 90◦ , 180◦ , 270◦ ) are discussed. The wind, wave, and current
directions are defined as the angles measured counterclockwise from the positive x-axis to
the incoming wind or current directions, as shown in Figure 10.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 12 of 34

Table 4. Wave scatter diagram of Hsinchu offshore area.

Tz (s)
Hs (m)
3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 Sum
0.5 14.79% 41.96% 5.49% 0.44% 0.02% 62.7%
1.5 0.31% 12.23% 18.31% 0.70% - 31.55%
2.5 - 0.02% 4.35% 0.90% 0.04% 31.55%
3.5 - - - 0.35% 0.04% 5.32%
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
4.5 - - - 0.04% 0.02% 0.07%13 of 35
Sum 15.10% 54.21% 28.15% 2.43% 0.11% 100%

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 35

Figure
Figure9.9.Schematic
Schematic illustration of wind
illustration of windprofile.
profile.

Table 5. Metocean conditions of two irregular wave conditions.

Properties (Unit) CW Condition HW Condition

γ for JONSWAP Spectrum 2.08 2.08
Hs (m) 1.5 4.5
Tz (s) 5.5 7.5
UB (m/s) 8.11 17.8
Uw (m/s) 10.63 23.34
U c (m/s) 0.93
Figure 9. Schematic illustration of wind profile. 0.93

Figure 10. Definition of wind, wave, and current directions.

4.2. Hydrodynamic Properties

This study estimated the hydrodynamic properties of the Taida platform in the fre-
quency domain from 0 Hz to 0.5 Hz via AQWA. STAR-CCM+ was then employed to obtain
the load response of the platform under forced motion in the viscous-flow field to predict
the viscous damping. The comparison between the hydrodynamic properties via the PF ap-
proach and VF approach (i.e., 𝐴 , vs. 𝐴 , and 𝐵 , vs. 𝐵 ) is shown in Figures 11 and 12.
The mean value of the hydrodynamic properties of the last five periods of a forced motion
Figure
was
Figure 10.Definition
10. Definition
employed in theofof wind,
viscous
wind, wave,
damping
wave, and
and current directions.
prediction,
current and only the nonnegative predicted re-
directions.
sult was used.
4.2.Under
Hydrodynamic
the CW Properties
condition (𝑇 = 5.5 s), the heave motion has an added mass of around
This
51 kton, studyis estimated
which the largestthe hydrodynamic
among properties
the translation of the
motions, Taida
while theplatform in the
surge and fre-
sway
quency have
motions domainaddedfrommasses
0 Hz toof0.5 Hz via12
around AQWA.
kton andSTAR-CCM+ was then employed
10 kton, respectively. Among to theobtain
ro-
the load
tation response
motions, of the
the roll platform
and under forced
pitch motions motionmasses
have added in the of
viscous-flow field to predict
around 23 Mton∙m 2/rad,
 motions, while the pitch and yaw motions have added masses of around 20 Mton
The sway motion has a damping of around 13 MN∙s/m, which is the largest am
translation motions, while the surge and heave motions have damping values of
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 11 MN∙s/m and 10 MN∙s/m, respectively. The yaw motion has a damping 13 of 34 of aro
GN∙m∙s/rad, which is the largest among the rotation motions, while the roll and pi
tions have damping values of around 5 GN∙m∙s/rad. The added mass of the heave
4.2. Hydrodynamic
predicted via theProperties
viscous-flow approach is up to 14% higher than that predicted
This study estimated
potential-flow approach. the The
hydrodynamic
dampingproperties
of the heave of the Taida platform
motion predictedin the
viafre-
the visco
quency domain from 0 Hz to 0.5 Hz via AQWA. STAR-CCM+ was
approach is up to about 7 times that predicted via the potential-flow approach. then employed to obtain
the load response of the platform under forced motion in the viscous-flow field to predict
The prediction
the viscous damping. The result showsbetween
comparison that thetheviscous effect has
hydrodynamic a larger
properties viaimpact
the PF on the
dynamicand
approach properties
VF approach in (i.e.,
the heave,
Aij,p vs. roll, and
Aij , and pitch
Bij,p vs. Bmotions than in the surge, sway, a
ij ) is shown in Figures 11 and 12.
motions. The viscous effects that impact the hydrodynamic of
The mean value of the hydrodynamic properties of the last five periods properties under the C
a forced motion
was employed in the viscous damping prediction,
dition are larger than those under the HW condition. and only the nonnegative predicted
result was used.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 11. Comparison of added masses in different motion directions: (a) surge; (b) sway; (c) heave;
(d) roll; (e) pitch; (f) yaw.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457

Figure 11. Comparison of added masses in different motion directions: (a) surge; (b) sway; (
14 of 34
(d) roll; (e) pitch; (f) yaw.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure12.12.
Figure Comparison
Comparison of damping
of damping in different
in different motion directions:
motion directions: (a)sway;
(a) surge; (b) surge;
(c)(b) sway; (c) h
heave;
(d) roll; (e) pitch; (f) yaw.
roll; (e) pitch; (f) yaw.
Under the CW condition (Tz = 5.5 s), the heave motion has an added mass of around
4.3.
51 Motion
kton, whichResponse and Generator
is the largest Power
among the translation motions, while the surge and sway
motions have added masses of around 12
The motion response and generator power kton and 10 kton,
wererespectively.
obtained Among the the eq
by solving
rotation motions, the roll and pitch motions have added masses of around 23 Mton·m2 /rad,
of the motions in OrcaFlex. 𝜂 represents the linear and angular displacement in t
while the yaw motion has an added mass of around 13 Mton·m2 /rad. The heave motion has
amotions,
damping of around𝑖14
where =MN1, 2, … , 6which
·s/m, refer to the
is the surge,
largest amongsway, heave, roll,
the translation pitch,
motions, and yaw m
while
respectively.
the surge and swayMoreover, because
motions have dampingthevalues
simulations
of aroundwere
10 MNconducted
·s/m and 8 MNunder
·s/m,irregul
respectively.
conditions inThetheyaw motion
time has a the
domain, damping of around
raw data 11 GN·m·s/rad,
are presented which
in time is the
series for 1000 s
largest among the rotation motions, while the roll and pitch motions have damping values
13 presents the pitch motion and power output under 𝜃 = 0° and 𝜃 = 0°, where
line denotes the CW response, and the blue line represents the HW result. The r
ness in the responses as well as the greater fluctuation can be seen in the HW resu
different means. The following sections use the means (a bar on the variable) and s
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 15 of 34

of around 3 GN·m·s/rad and 4 GN·m·s/rad, respectively. The added mass of the heave
motion predicted via the viscous-flow approach is up to 15% higher than that predicted via
the potential-flow approach. The damping of the roll motion predicted via the viscous-flow
approach is up to about 14 times that predicted via the potential-flow approach.
Under the HW condition (Tz = 7.5 s), the heave motion has an added mass of around
50 kton, which is the largest among the translation motions, while the surge and sway
motions have added masses of around 18 kton and 19 kton, respectively. The roll motion
has an added mass of around 21 Mton·m2 /rad, which is the largest among the rotation
motions, while the pitch and yaw motions have added masses of around 20 Mton·m2 /rad.
The sway motion has a damping of around 13 MN·s/m, which is the largest among the
translation motions, while the surge and heave motions have damping values of around
11 MN·s/m and 10 MN·s/m, respectively. The yaw motion has a damping of around
11 GN·m·s/rad, which is the largest among the rotation motions, while the roll and pitch
motions have damping values of around 5 GN·m·s/rad. The added mass of the heave
motion predicted via the viscous-flow approach is up to 14% higher than that predicted
via the potential-flow approach. The damping of the heave motion predicted via the
viscous-flow approach is up to about 7 times that predicted via the potential-flow approach.
The prediction result shows that the viscous effect has a larger impact on the hydro-
dynamic properties in the heave, roll, and pitch motions than in the surge, sway, and
yaw motions. The viscous effects that impact the hydrodynamic properties under the CW
condition are larger than those under the HW condition.

4.3. Motion Response and Generator Power

The motion response and generator power were obtained by solving the equations
of the motions in OrcaFlex. ηi represents the linear and angular displacement in the 6 dof
motions, where i = 1, 2, . . . , 6 refer to the surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw motions,
respectively. Moreover, because the simulations were conducted under irregular wave
conditions in the time domain, the raw data are presented in time series for 1000 s. Figure 13
presents the pitch motion and power output under θw = 0◦ and θc = 0◦ , where the red line
denotes the CW response, and the blue line represents the HW result. The randomness in
the responses as well as the greater fluctuation can be seen in the HW results with different
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEERmeans.
REVIEWThe following sections use the means (a bar on the variable) and standard deviations
16 of 35
(σ) of the motion response, power output, and mooring line tension to characterize the
time-domain results.

(a)

(b)
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Time
Time histories
histories of
of (a)
(a) pitch
pitch motion
motionand
and(b)
(b)power
poweroutput underθ𝜃
outputunder w ==00°and
◦ andθ 𝜃= =
c 0◦0°.
.

4.3.1. Common Wave Condition

The mean and standard deviation of the platform motions and generator power un-
der the CW condition are shown in Figures 14–20. The largest means of the surge, sway,
heave, roll, pitch, and yaw motions of the platform appearing at 𝜃 = 0°, 90°, 0°, 90°,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 16 of 34

4.3.1. Common Wave Condition

The mean and standard deviation of the platform motions and generator power under
the CW condition are shown in Figures 14–20. The largest means of the surge, sway, heave,
roll, pitch, and yaw motions of the platform appearing at θw = 0◦ , 90◦ , 0◦ , 90◦ , 180◦ ,
and 60◦ , respectively, are −6.685 m, −5.684 m, −2.168 m, 6.995◦ , 4.521◦ , and −1.707◦ ,
respectively. The smallest means of the surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw motions
of the platform appearing at θw = 120◦ , 0◦ , 180◦ , 0◦ , 90◦ , and 0◦ , respectively, are −0.079
m, 0.045 m, −1.392 m, −0.284◦ , −0.062◦ , and 0.076◦ , respectively. The largest standard
deviations of the surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw motions of the platform appearing
at θw = 150◦ , 60◦ , 0◦ , 90◦ , 180◦ , and 90◦ , respectively, are 0.153 m, 0.141 m, 0.038 m, 0.089◦ ,
0.057◦ , and 0.148◦ , respectively. The smallest standard deviations of the surge, sway, heave,
roll, pitch, and yaw motions of the platform appearing at θw = 90◦ , 0◦ , 60◦ , 180◦ , 120◦ ,
and 0◦ , respectively, are 0.048 m, 0.003 m, 0.025 m, 0.009◦ , 0.021◦ , and 0.003◦ , respectively.
The largest mean of the generator power appearing at θw = 150◦ is 14.544 MW, followed
by the generator power at θw = 180◦ and 120◦ , where the means of the power are up to
14.461 MW and 14.409 MW, while the smallest mean appearing at θw = 0◦ is 11.282 MW.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 35
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER The largest standard deviation of the generator power appearing at θw = 180◦ is 0.185
REVIEW MW,
17 of 35
◦
while the smallest one appearing at θw = 0 is 0.104 MW.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure 14.
Figure14.
Figure Comparison of
Comparisonof
14.Comparison (a)
of(a) means and
(a) means and (b)
(b) standard
standard deviations
standard deviationsof
deviations ofplatform
of platformsurge
platform surgemotion
surge motionunder
motion underCW
under
CW condition.
condition.
CW condition.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure 15.
Figure 15. Comparison of
of (a) means
means and (b)
(b) standard
standard deviations
deviations of
of platform
platform sway
sway motion
motion under
under
Figure 15.Comparison
Comparison of(a)
(a) means and
and (b) standard deviations of platform sway motion under CW
CW
CW condition.
condition.
condition.
 (b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 17 of 34
Figure 15. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of platform sway motion under
CW condition.

(a)

(b)
Figure 16.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16. Comparison
Comparisonof
of(a)
(a)means
meansand
and(b)
(b)standard
standarddeviations
deviationsofofplatform
platformheave
heavemotion
18 under
motionofunder
35
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEERFigure
REVIEW 18 of 35
CW condition.
CW condition.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure17.
17.Comparison
Comparisonofof
of(a) means
(a) and
means (b)(b)
and standard deviations
standard of of
deviations platform rollroll
platform motion under
motion CWCW
under
Figure 17. Comparison (a) means and (b) standard deviations of platform roll motion under CW
condition.
condition.
condition.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure 18. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of platform pitch motion under
Figure 18. Comparison of (a)
(a) means
meansand
and(b)
(b)standard
standarddeviations
deviationsofofplatform
platformpitch
pitch motion
motion under
under CW
CW condition.
CW condition.
condition.
 (b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 18 of 34
Figure 18. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of platform pitch motion under
CW condition.

(a)

(b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEERFigure
REVIEW
Figure19.
19.Comparison
Comparisonofof(a)(a)means
meansand
and(b)(b)
standard deviations
standard of of
deviations platform yaw
platform motion
yaw 19
under
motion ofCW
under 35CW
condition.
condition.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure20.
20.Comparison
Comparisonofof
(a)(a)
means and
means (b)(b)
and standard deviations
standard of generator
deviations electrical
of generator power
electrical under
power under
CW condition.
CW condition.

4.3.2. High Wave Condition

The results shows that the means and standard deviations are sensitive to the wind
directions.
The means Theand
performance difference of
standard deviations between the two
the platform approaches,
motions as well as
and generator among
power
the four
under thecurrent directions,
HW condition are small
are shown in terms21–27.
in Figures of theThe
mean value,
largest but relatively
means substantial
of the surge, sway,
in terms
heave, roll,ofpitch,
the standard
and yawdeviation.
motions ofIn theconclusion, at 𝜃 power
the generator
platform appearing = 0°, 90°, 30°, 150°,
is relatively high
180°,
and stable θw = 120◦ to
and 0°,atrespectively, are180
◦ , and the corresponding motion responses all meet the
−5.172 m, 3.04 m, −1.855 m, 1.278°, 0.597°, and −3.761°, re-
design requirements discussed inthe
Sections θw = 120 ◦ to 180◦ is the most
spectively. The smallest means of surge,2.1 and heave,
sway, 2.2. Hence,
roll, pitch, and yaw motions of
favorable
the platform wind
appearing at 𝜃for=the
direction 150°, 180°,wind
studied 180°,turbine
60°, 120°,
system
and to120°,
operate under the
respectively, areCW
0.009 m, −0.227 m, −1.622 m, 0.088°, 0.027°, and 0.053°, respectively. The largest standard of
condition in the Hsinchu offshore area, where the mean output power can reach 90%
the rated power.
deviations The occurrence
of the surge, sway, heave, ofroll,
the most
pitch,favorable power performance
and yaw motions of the platform θw = 120◦
at appear-
◦
ing at 𝜃 is=clearly
to 180 180°, explained
60°, 0°, 90°,
by180°, and 60°,
the coupled platform motion
respectively, arewith the
1.241 m,motion-induced
0.717 m, 0.322 m, and
wave-excited
0.406°, 0.242°, components because the center
and 1.014°, respectively. of gravity
The smallest of the wind
standard turbineof
deviations system is off its
the surge,
geometrical
sway, roll, pitch, and yaw motions of the platform appearing at 𝜃 = 120°, 180°,
heave, center.
90°, 0°, 120°, and 0°, respectively, are 0.177 m, 0.039 m, 0.229 m, 0.034°, 0.110°, and
4.3.2. High
0.096°, Wave Condition
respectively. The mean of the generator power is 15 MW (i.e., the rated power at
𝜃 = 90°, 120°, 150°,
The means and and 180°),deviations
standard of the platform
while the smallest motionsat
mean appearing 𝜃 generator
and = 0° is 10.751
power
underThe
MW. thelargest
HW condition
standardare shown inofFigures
deviation 21–27. The
the generator largest
power means ofatthe
appearing 𝜃 surge,
= 60° sway,
is
heave,
0.385 MW, roll, pitch,
while theand yaw motions
smallest at 𝜃 = 120°
of the platform
one appearing appearing θw = 0◦ , 90◦ , 30◦ , 150◦ ,
is 0.182atMW.
Similar to the CW condition, the mean and standard deviation of the motion response
are sensitive to the wind directions, and the performance difference between the two ap-
proaches, as well as among the four current directions, are mainly reflected in the stand-
ard deviation rather than in the mean value. In conclusion, the generator power is rela-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 19 of 34

180◦ , and 0◦ , respectively, are −5.172 m, 3.04 m, −1.855 m, 1.278◦ , 0.597◦ , and −3.761◦ ,
respectively. The smallest means of the surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw motions
of the platform appearing at θw = 150◦ , 180◦ , 180◦ , 60◦ , 120◦ , and 120◦ , respectively, are
0.009 m, −0.227 m, −1.622 m, 0.088◦ , 0.027◦ , and 0.053◦ , respectively. The largest standard
deviations of the surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw motions of the platform appearing
at θw = 180◦ , 60◦ , 0◦ , 90◦ , 180◦ , and 60◦ , respectively, are 1.241 m, 0.717 m, 0.322 m, 0.406◦ ,
0.242◦ , and 1.014◦ , respectively. The smallest standard deviations of the surge, sway, heave,
roll, pitch, and yaw motions of the platform appearing at θw = 120◦ , 180◦ , 90◦ , 0◦ , 120◦ , and
0◦ , respectively, are 0.177 m, 0.039 m, 0.229 m, 0.034◦ , 0.110◦ , and 0.096◦ , respectively. The
mean of the generator power is 15 MW (i.e., the rated power at θw = 90◦ , 120◦ , 150◦ , and
180◦ ), while the smallest mean appearing at θw = 0◦ is 10.751 MW. The largest standard
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 35
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER deviation
REVIEW of the generator power appearing at θw = 60◦ is 0.385 MW, while the smallest 20 of 35
◦
one appearing at θw = 120 is 0.182 MW.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure21.
21. Comparison
Comparison of
of (a) means
means and(b)
(b) standarddeviations
deviations
of of platform surge motion under
Figure 21. Comparison of (a)
(a) meansand
and (b)standard
standard deviations platform
of surge
platform motion
surge under
motion HW
under
HW condition.
condition.
HW condition.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure 22. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of platform sway motion under
Figure
Figure22.
22. Comparison (a) means
Comparison of (a) meansand
and(b)
(b)standard
standarddeviations
deviationsof of platform
platform sway
sway motion
motion under
under HW
HW condition.
HW condition.
condition.

(a)
(a)
 (b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 20 of 34
Figure 22. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of platform sway motion under
HW condition.

(a)

(b)
J.J.Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci.Eng.
Eng.2023,
2023,11,
11,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
Figure
REVIEW23.
Figure 23. Comparison
Comparisonof
of(a)
(a)means
meansand
and(b)
(b)standard
standarddeviations
deviationsofofplatform
platformheave 21
heavemotion of 35
21 under
motion ofunder
35
HW
HW condition.
condition.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure24.
Figure 24.Comparison
24. Comparison
Comparison of (a)
ofof(a)means
(a)meansand
meansand(b)
and standard
(b)
(b) deviations
standard
standard of
ofplatform
deviations
deviations of roll
platform
platform motion
rollroll under
motion
motion HW
under
under HW HW
condition.
condition.
condition.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 25. Comparison of (a) means
means and
and (b)
(b) standard deviations of platform pitch motion under
Figure25.
25. Comparison
Comparison of
of (a)
(a) means and (b) standarddeviations
standard deviationsof
ofplatform
platformpitch
pitchmotion
motion under
under HW
HW
HW condition.
condition.
condition.
 (b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 21 of 34
Figure 25. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of platform pitch motion under
HW condition.

(a)

(b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Figure
Figure26.
26.Comparison
Comparisonofof(a)
(a)means
meansand
and(b)
(b)standard
standarddeviations
deviationsofofplatform
platformyaw
yawmotion
motionunder
underHW
HW
condition.
condition.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure27.
27.Comparison
Comparisonofof(a)
(a)means
meansand
and(b)
(b)standard
standarddeviations
deviationsofofgenerator
generatorelectrical
electricalpower
powerunder
under
HW
HWcondition.
condition.

SimilarLine
4.4. Mooring to the CW condition, the mean and standard deviation of the motion response
Tension
4.4.1. Common Wave wind
are sensitive to the directions, and the performance difference between the two
Condition
approaches, as well as among the four current directions, are mainly reflected in the
The means
standard and standard
deviation rather than deviations
in the meanof the mooring
value. line tension
In conclusion, theunder the CW
generator con-is
power
dition are shown in Figures 28–33. The
◦ largest◦ means of the mooring line
relatively high and stable at θw = 60 to 180 , and the corresponding motion responses all tension of Lines
A1,
meet A2,theB1, B2, C1,
design discussedatin𝜃Sections
and C2 appearing
requirements = 30°, 2.1
0°,and
150°,2.2.120°,
Hence, 180°,
θw =and 60◦180°,
to 180re-
◦ is
spectively, are 1.768 MN, 1.703 MN, 2.001 MN, 1.833 MN, 1.369 MN, and
the most favorable wind direction for the studied wind turbine system to operate under the 1.817 MN, re-
spectively.
HW condition The insmallest meansoffshore
the Hsinchu of the mooring line the
area, where tension
meanofoutput
Lines power
A1, A2,can B1,reach
B2, C1,
95%
and C2 rated
of the appearing
power. 𝜃 = 180°,
at When 180°,with
compared 0°, the
0°, CW60°, results,
and 60°it ,isrespectively,
obvious thatare the0.445 MN,in
increase
0.448 MN, speed
the wind 0.588 MN, 0.576the
extends MN, 0.317 MN,
favorable and 0.321
operation MN,
range in respectively.
the incomingThe windlargest stand-as
direction,
ard deviations of the mooring line
well as enhances the mean output power. tension of Lines A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 appearing
at 𝜃 = 60°, 0°, 150°, 120°, 150°, and 150°, respectively, are 0.038 MN, 0.031 MN, 0.037
4.4. 0.031
MN, MooringMN,Line Tension
0.023 MN, and 0.043 MN, respectively. The smallest standard deviations
of4.4.1.
the mooring
Commonline Wavetension of Lines A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 appearing at 𝜃 = 180°,
Condition
180°, The
0°, 0°, 0°, and
means and 0°, respectively,
standard are all
deviations around
of the 3 kN.line tension under the CW condi-
mooring
Similar to the motion response and generator power,
tion are shown in Figures 28–33. The largest means of the mooring the mooringline line tension
tension differ-
of Lines A1,
ence in the mean value between the two ◦ ◦
approaches, ◦
as well◦ as ◦
among
A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 appearing at θw = 30 , 0 , 150 , 120 , 180 , and 180 , respectively, the◦ four current
directions, is clearly smaller than that in the standard deviation. The sums of the means
and standard deviations of the mooring line tensions under the CW condition are all
smaller than one-seventh of the break load of the mooring line.
 dition are shown in Figures 28–33. The largest means of the mooring line tension of Lines
A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 appearing at 𝜃 = 30°, 0°, 150°, 120°, 180°, and 180°, re-
spectively, are 1.768 MN, 1.703 MN, 2.001 MN, 1.833 MN, 1.369 MN, and 1.817 MN, re-
spectively. The smallest means of the mooring line tension of Lines A1, A2, B1, B2, C1,
and C2 appearing at 𝜃 = 180°, 180°, 0°, 0°, 60°, and 60° , respectively, are 0.445 MN,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 22 of 34
0.448 MN, 0.588 MN, 0.576 MN, 0.317 MN, and 0.321 MN, respectively. The largest stand-
ard deviations of the mooring line tension of Lines A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 appearing
at 𝜃 = 60°, 0°, 150°, 120°, 150°, and 150°, respectively, are 0.038 MN, 0.031 MN, 0.037
are 1.768
MN, 0.031MN,MN,1.703 MN,
0.023 MN, 2.001
andMN, 1.833
0.043 MN,MN, 1.369 MN, and
respectively. The 1.817 MN,standard
smallest respectively. The
deviations
smallest means of the mooring line tension of Lines A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 appearing at
of the mooring line tension of Lines A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 appearing at 𝜃 = 180°,
θw = 180◦ , 180◦ , 0◦ , 0◦ , 60◦ , and 60◦ , respectively, are 0.445 MN, 0.448 MN, 0.588 MN, 0.576
180°, 0°, 0°, 0°, and 0°, respectively, are all around 3 kN.
MN, 0.317 MN, and 0.321 MN, respectively. The largest standard deviations of the mooring
Similar to the motion response and generator power, the mooring line tension differ-
line tension of Lines A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 appearing at θw = 60◦ , 0◦ , 150◦ , 120◦ , 150◦ ,
ence in the
and 150 mean valuearebetween
◦ , respectively, 0.038 MN, the0.031
two MN,
approaches,
0.037 MN,as0.031
well MN,
as among the four
0.023 MN, current
and 0.043
directions, is clearly
MN, respectively. Thesmaller
smallestthan that in
standard the standard
deviations of the deviation. The
mooring line sumsofofLines
tension the means
A1,
and
A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 appearing at θw = 180 , 180 , 0 , 0 , 0 , and 0 , respectively, areare
standard deviations of the mooring line
◦ tensions
◦ ◦ ◦under
◦ the◦ CW condition all all
smaller than
around 3 kN. one-seventh of the break load of the mooring line.

(a)

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 35

(b)
Figure28.
Figure Comparisonofof(a)
28.Comparison (a)means
meansand
and(b)
(b)standard
standarddeviations
deviationsofofmooring
mooringline
linetension
tensionofofLine
LineA1
A1
underCW
under CWcondition.
condition.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure29.
29.Comparison
Comparisonofof(a)
(a)means
meansand
and(b)
(b)standard
standarddeviations
deviationsofofmooring
mooringline
linetension
tensionofofLine
LineA2
A2
under
underCW
CWcondition.
condition.

(a)
 (b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 23 of 34
Figure 29. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of mooring line tension of Line A2
under CW condition.

(a)

(b)
J.J. Mar.
Mar. Sci.
Sci. Eng.
Eng. 2023,
2023, 11,
11, xx FOR
FOR PEER REVIEW
PEERFigure 24 of
of 35
REVIEW
Figure30.
30.Comparison
Comparisonof of
(a)(a)
means andand
means (b) (b)
standard deviations
standard of mooring
deviations line tension
of mooring of Line
line tension ofB1
24 35 B1
Line
under
underCW
CWcondition.
condition.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure31.
Figure 31.Comparison
31. Comparisonof
Comparison ofof(a)
(a)means
(a) meansand
means and
and (b)
(b) standard
(b)
standard deviations
standard of
deviations
deviations mooring
ofof line
mooring
mooring tension
line
line of
of Line
tension
tension of B2
Line
Line B2B2
under
under CW condition.
underCW
CWcondition.
condition.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 32. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of mooring line tension of
of Line C1
Figure32.
32.Comparison
Comparisonofof(a)
(a)means
meansand
and(b)
(b)standard
standarddeviations
deviationsofof
mooring line
mooring tension
line tension Line
of C1C1
Line
under
under CW
CW condition.
condition.
under CW condition.
 (b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 24 of 34
Figure 32. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of mooring line tension of Line C1
under CW condition.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure33.
33.Comparison
Comparison of of
(a)(a)
means andand
means (b) (b)
standard deviations
standard of mooring
deviations line tension
of mooring of Line
line tension ofC2
Line C2
under
underCW
CWcondition.
condition.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 35

Similar to the motion response and generator power, the mooring line tension differ-
ence in the mean value between the two approaches, as well as among the four current
4.4.2. High Wave Condition
directions, is clearly smaller than that in the standard deviation. The sums of the means and
The means and standard deviations of the mooring line tension under the CW con-
standard deviations of the mooring line tensions under the CW condition are all smaller
dition are shown in Figures 34–39. The largest means of the mooring line tension of Lines
than one-seventh of the break load of the mooring line.
A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 appearing at 𝜃 = 30°, 0°, 150°, 120°, 180°, and 180° , re-
spectively, are 1.426 MN, 1.273 MN, 1.473 MN, 1.314 MN, 1.077 MN, and 1.4 MN, respec-
4.4.2. High Wave Condition
tively. The smallest means of the mooring line tension of Lines A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2
The means
appearing at 𝜃 =and standard
180°, 180°, 0°, deviations
0°, 60°, and of the
60°mooring line tension
, respectively, under
are 0.594 MN,the0.607
CW condition
are shown
MN, 0.683 MN,in Figures 34–39.
0.608 MN, 0.474TheMN,largest
andmeans of the
0.458 MN, mooring line
respectively. Thetension
largestof Lines A1, A2, B1,
standard
B2, C1, and
deviations ofC2theappearing = 30◦of
at θwtension
mooring line , 0◦Lines
, 150◦A1, ◦ , 180
, 120A2, B1,◦B2,
, and 180
C1, ◦ , respectively,
and C2 appearingare at 1.426 MN,
𝜃1.273
= 0°, 0°, 180°, 180°, 150°, and 180° , respectively, are 0.174 MN,
MN, 1.473 MN, 1.314 MN, 1.077 MN, and 1.4 MN, respectively. The smallest means of 0.157 MN, 0.088
MN, 0.155 MN,
the mooring 0.129
line MN, and
tension of Lines0.246A1,
MN, respectively.
A2, B1, B2, C1,The andsmallest standard
C2 appearing θw = 180◦ , 180◦ , 0◦ ,
at deviations
of◦the mooring
◦ line
◦ tension of Lines A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and
0 , 60 , and 60 , respectively, are 0.594 MN, 0.607 MN, 0.683 MN, 0.608 MN, C2 appearing at 𝜃 = 0.474
120°, MN, and
120°, 0°, 0°, 0°, and 120° , respectively, are 0.015 MN, 0.019 MN,
0.458 MN, respectively. The largest standard deviations of the mooring line tension 0.063 MN, 0.02 MN, of Lines
0.024 MN, and 0.026 MN, respectively. ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 appearing at θw = 0 , 0 , 180 , 180 , 150 , and 180 , respectively,
Similar to the motion response and generator power, the mooring line tension differ-
are 0.174 MN, 0.157 MN, 0.088 MN, 0.155 MN, 0.129 MN, and 0.246 MN, respectively. The
ence in the mean value between the two approaches, as well as among the four current
smallest standard
directions, is smallerdeviations
than that in of the
thestandard
mooringdeviation.
line tension Theof Lines
sums of A1, A2, B1,and
the means B2, C1, and
C2 appearing at θ = 120 ◦ , 120◦ , 0◦ , 0◦ , 0◦ , and 120◦ , respectively, are 0.015 MN, 0.019 MN,
standard deviationswof the mooring line tensions under the HW condition are all smaller
0.063one-eighth
than MN, 0.02of MN,
the 0.024
break MN,
load ofandthe0.026
mooringMN,line.
respectively.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure34.
34.Comparison
Comparisonof (a)
ofmeans and (b)
(a) means andstandard deviations
(b) standard of mooring
deviations line tension
of mooring oftension
line Line A1 of Line A1
under HW condition.
under HW condition.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 36

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 25 of 34

(a)

J.
J. Mar.
Mar. Sci.
Sci. Eng.
Eng. 2023,
2023, 11,
11, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 26
26 of
of 35
35

(b)
(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure35.
35.Comparison
Comparison of of
(a)(a)
means andand
means (b) (b)
standard deviations
standard of mooring
deviations line tension
of mooring of Line
line tension ofA2
Line A2
Figure 35.
35. Comparison
FigureHW Comparison of
of (a)
(a) means
means and
and (b)
(b) standard
standard deviations
deviations of
of mooring
mooring line
line tension
tension of
of Line
Line A2
A2
under
under HW condition.
condition.
under HW condition.
under HW condition.

(a)
(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
(b)
Figure 36. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of mooring line tension of Line B1
Figure
Figure36.
Figure 36.Comparison
36. Comparison
Comparison of of
(a)(a)
means andand
means (b) (b)
standard deviations
standard of mooring
deviations line tension
of mooring of Line
line tension ofB1
Line B1
under HW condition. of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of mooring line tension of Line B1
under
underHW
under HWcondition.
HW condition.
condition.

(a)
(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 37.
37. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of
of mooring line
line tension of
of Line B2
37.Comparison
FigureHW
under
Comparison
condition.
ofof
(a)(a)
means and
means (b)(b)
and standard deviations
standard deviations mooring
of mooring tension Line
line tension of B2
Line B2
under HW condition.
under HW condition.
J.J. Mar.
Mar. Sci.
Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x457
FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of
26 35
of 34
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 35

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure 38. Comparison
Comparisonofofof(a) means
(a)means and
meansand (b)
and(b) standard
(b) deviations
standard of mooring
deviations line tension of of
Line C1
Figure38.
Figure 38.Comparison (a) standard deviations of of mooring
mooring line
line tension
tension Line
of Line C1 C1
under HW
underHW condition.
HWcondition.
condition.
under

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Figure 39. Comparison of (a) means and (b) standard deviations of mooring line tension of Line C2
Figure
Figure39.
39.Comparison
Comparisonofof(a)
(a)means
meansand
and(b) standard
(b) deviations
standard of of
deviations mooring line
mooring tension
line of Line
tension C2C2
of Line
under HW condition.
under
underHW
HWcondition.
condition.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
Similar to the motion response and generator power, the mooring line tension differ-
This
enceThis study
in the mean aimed to predict
value between the motion response and power performance of a 15 MW
study aimed to predict thethe two approaches,
motion response andaspower well as among theof
performance four
a 15current
MW
floating wind
directions, turbine
is turbine system
smallersystem
than thatequipped with
in the with a
standard semisubmersible
deviation. The Taida floating
sumsfloating platform,
of the platform,
means and
floating wind equipped a semisubmersible Taida
an IEA 15 MW offshore
standard wind turbine, and a 3 × 2 mooring design under the metocean
an IEA 15 deviations
MW offshore of the mooring
wind turbine, line
andtensions
a 3 × 2under
mooringthedesign
HW condition
under the aremetocean
all smaller
conditions
than of theof
one-eighth Hsinchu
the offshore
break load ofarea
the in the Taiwan
mooring line. Strait. We first compared the po-
conditions of the Hsinchu offshore area in the Taiwan Strait. We first compared the po-
tential and viscous results of the hydrodynamic properties. We then compared the means
tential and viscous results of the hydrodynamic properties. We then compared the means
5. Conclusions
and standard deviations of the motion response, generator power, and mooring line ten-
and standard deviations of the motion response, generator power, and mooring line ten-
sion via
Thisthe potential- and viscous-flow approaches, for which the combinationsofofaseven
sion via thestudy aimedand
potential- to predict the motion
viscous-flow response
approaches, forand power
which the performance
combinations of seven 15 MW
wind directions
floating wind and
turbine four current
system directions
equipped under
with a two wave
semisubmersibleconditions
Taida were considered.
floating platform,
wind directions and four current directions under two wave conditions were considered.
The results
an IEA 15 MWof this study are summarized below:
a 3 × 2 mooring design under the metocean
The results of thisoffshore
study arewind turbine, and
summarized below:
conditions
1. of the effect
The viscous Hsinchuhasoffshore area in the Taiwan
a more substantial impact Strait.
on theWe first compared
hydrodynamic the potential
properties in
1. The viscous effect has a more substantial impact on the hydrodynamic properties in
and the
viscous
heave,results of the
roll, and hydrodynamic
pitch motions than properties.
in the surge,We sway,
then compared the means
and yaw motions. and
The
the heave, roll, and pitch motions than in the surge, sway, and yaw motions. The
standard
viscous deviations
impact on of the
the hydrodynamic
motion response, generator
properties power,
under the and
CW mooring
conditionline tension
is larger
viscous impact on the hydrodynamic properties under the CW condition is larger
via the
thanpotential-
that under andthe
viscous-flow
HW condition. approaches,
The viscous for which the combinations
prediction of the addedof seven
mass wind
in the
than that under the HW condition. The viscous prediction of the added mass in the
directions
heave andmotion four current by
increases directions
up to 15% under
of thetwo wave conditions
potential result under were considered.
the CW condition, The
heave motion increases by up to 15% of the potential result under the CW condition,
results of this
while thatstudy
in theare summarized
heave motion under below:the HW condition increases by up to 14%. The
while that in the heave motion under the HW condition increases by up to 14%. The
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 27 of 34

1. The viscous effect has a more substantial impact on the hydrodynamic properties in
the heave, roll, and pitch motions than in the surge, sway, and yaw motions. The
viscous impact on the hydrodynamic properties under the CW condition is larger than
that under the HW condition. The viscous prediction of the added mass in the heave
motion increases by up to 15% of the potential result under the CW condition, while
that in the heave motion under the HW condition increases by up to 14%. The viscous
damping prediction in the roll motion increases by up to 13 times the potential result
under the CW condition, while that in the heave motion under the HW condition
increases by up to 6 times;
2. The viscous effect has a more substantial impact on the hydrodynamic properties in
the heave, roll, and pitch motions than in the surge, sway, and yaw motions. The
viscous impact on the hydrodynamic properties under the CW condition is larger
than that under the HW condition;
3. The means and standard deviations of the motion response, generator power, and
mooring line tension are obviously sensitive to the wind and wave directions, but
they were insensitive to the viscous effect and current directions under both studied
wave conditions. The influence of the viscous effect and current directions on the
motion response and generator power mainly shows in the standard deviation rather
than in the mean value;
4. Under the CW condition, the generator power is relatively high and stable at
θw = 120◦ to 180◦ . Hence, θw = 120◦ to 180◦ is the most favorable wind direction for
the studied wind turbine system to operate under the CW condition in the Hsinchu
offshore area, where the mean output power can reach 90% of the rated power. The
occurrence of the most favorable power performance at θw = 120◦ to 180◦ is clearly
explained by the coupled platform motion with the motion-induced and wave-excited
components because the center of gravity of the wind turbine system is off its geo-
metrical center. The sums of the means and standard deviations of the mooring line
tensions under the CW condition are all smaller than one-seventh of the break load of
the mooring line;
5. Under the HW condition, the generator power is relatively high and stable at θw = 60◦
to 180◦ . Hence, θw = 60◦ to 180◦ is the most favorable wind direction for the studied
wind turbine system to operate under the HW condition in the Hsinchu offshore area,
where the mean output power can reach 95% of the rated power. When compared
with the CW results, it is obvious that the increase in the wind speed extends the
favorable operation range in the incoming wind direction, as well as enhances the
mean output power. The sums of the means and standard deviations of the mooring
line tensions under the HW condition are all smaller than one-eighth of the break load
of the mooring line;
6. The most favorable wind direction range under the CW and HW conditions in this
study is θw = 120◦ to 180◦ , in which the corresponding motion responses all meet
the design requirements, and the corresponding power output can reach 90% of the
rated power. In the Taiwan Strait, the wind mostly comes from the northeast, with
a probability of 40%, followed by the north–northeast, with a probability of 30%.
Therefore, the angle between the leading mooring line of the system (i.e., Lines A1
and A2 in the study) and the most possible wind direction, which is the northeast,
should be from 120◦ to 180◦ in order to deliver a relatively favorable performance.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.-Y.T. and S.-W.C.; methodology, H.-Y.T., T.-Y.L. and
S.-W.C.; writing—original draft preparation, H.-Y.T.; writing—review and editing, T.-Y.L. and S.-W.C.;
visualization, H.-Y.T. and T.-Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, grant
numbers MOST 110-3116-F-002-001- and MOST 111-3116-F-002-007.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 28 of 34

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 29 of 35
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A.1.
Appendix A1. Governing
Governing Equations
Equations
This appendix
This appendix elaborates
elaborates the
the numerical
numerical details
details of
of the
the viscous-flow
viscous-flow modeling
modeling inin this
this
study. To obtain the hydrodynamic properties with viscous effects, the load
study. To obtain the hydrodynamic properties with viscous effects, the load response of the response of
the floating body is required, and hence, a forced-motion simulation of the
floating body is required, and hence, a forced-motion simulation of the platform with theplatform with
the inclusion
inclusion ofweight
of the the weight as as
as well well
theas the center
center of gravity
of gravity of theturbine
of the wind wind turbine
under a under
specifica
specific frequency was carried out via STAR-CCM+ [43], in which
frequency was carried out via STAR-CCM+ [43], in which a SIMPLE-type approach was a SIMPLE-type ap-
proach was
adopted adoptedthe
to decouple to velocity
decoupleandthepressure,
velocity and
andapressure, and amethod
finite volume finite volume method
of second-order
of second-order
accuracy accuracytowas
was employed employed
discretize to discretize
the governing the governing
equations. equations.system
The coordinate The coor-
for
dinate
the system forformulation
viscous-flow the viscous-flow formulation
is shown in FigureisA1.
shown in Figure A1.

Figure A1. Coordinate

Figure A1. Coordinate system
system for
for viscous-flow
viscous-flow formulation.
formulation.

Under
Under the
the assumption
assumption of an incompressible
of an incompressible fluid,
fluid, the
the time-averaged
time-averaged continuity
continuity equa-
equa-
tion is expressed as follows:
tion is expressed as follows:
∂ui
= 0, (A1)
∂z𝜕𝑢
i = 0, (A1)
where the subscripts i = 1, 2, 3 refer to the 𝜕𝑧 x-, y-, and z-directions, respectively. The
momentum equations𝑖 are
where the subscripts = 1,2,3
expressed
refer as the 𝑥-, 𝑦-, and 𝑧-directions, respectively. The mo-
to follows:
mentum equations are expressed as follows:
∂ρui0 u0j

" !#
∂ρui ∂ ρui u j ∂p ∂ ∂ui ∂u j
𝜕𝜌𝑢
+ 𝜕(𝜌𝑢 𝑢=) − 𝜕𝑝 + 𝜕µ 𝜕𝑢+ 𝜕𝑢 − 𝜕𝜌𝑢 𝑢 + ρgi , (A2)
∂t + ∂z j =∂z−i +i
∂z 𝜇 ∂z j +∂zi − ∂z j + 𝜌𝑔 , (A2)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑧
where u𝑢i isisthe
where thevelocity
velocitycomponent
component in the zi -direction,
in the 𝑧 -direction, p is 𝑝
theispressure
the pressure of theoffluid, µ is the𝜇
the fluid,
viscosity the fluid, and g i is the gravity component in the z
is the viscosity of the fluid, and 𝑔 is the gravity component in the 𝑧 -direction. The term
of i -direction. The third third
on
termtheon
right-hand side ofside
the right-hand (A2) ofis(A2)
the Reynolds stress, stress,
is the Reynolds which which
was calculated in this in
was calculated study
this
via an SST
study k–ω
via an SSTmodel.
𝑘–𝜔 The keyThe
model. model keyconstants used in the
model constants usedturbulence model are
in the turbulence listedare
model in
Table A1. The transport equation of the turbulent kinetic energy
listed in Table A1. The transport equation of the turbulent kinetic energy and its specificand its specific dissipation
rate are shown below:
dissipation rate are shown below:

" #
∂(ρk ) ∂ 𝜕ρu𝜌𝑢
𝜕(𝜌𝑘) jk 𝑘 ∗ ∗ ∂𝜕 ∂k𝜕𝑘
+ == −β + + (µ(𝜇++σk𝜎µt𝜇) ) , , (A3)
∂t 𝜕𝑡 + ∂z𝜕𝑧 j
−𝛽ρωk 𝜌𝜔𝑘 ∂z𝜕𝑧
j ∂z𝜕𝑧
j
(A3)

" #
) ∂ ρu𝜕j ω𝜌𝑢 𝜔
∂(ρω𝜕(𝜌𝜔) 2 ∂ 𝜕 ∂ω 𝜕𝜔 ρσ 𝜌𝜎 ∂k 𝜕𝑘 ∂ω𝜕𝜔
+ + = −= −𝛽𝜌𝜔 + + (µ + (𝜇σ+ω µ𝜎t ) 𝜇 ) + 2+ − F−1 )𝐹 )ω2
(12(1
∂z j𝜕𝑧 . (A4)
βρω . (A4)
∂t 𝜕𝑡 ∂z j 𝜕𝑧 ∂z j 𝜕𝑧 ∂z j 𝜕𝑧 ω 𝜔∂z j𝜕𝑧

The employed SST k–ω𝑘–𝜔 model

model is
is aa combination 𝑘–𝜔 models
combination of the standard k–ω models and
and
𝑘–𝜀 models.
standard k–ε models. The
The blending
blending function (F 𝑘–𝜔
(𝐹1 ) combines the coefficients of the k–ω
equation in the boundary layer and the coefficients of the 𝑘–𝜀 equation in the free shear
layer and free-flow domain, where 𝐹 equals unity on a no-slip wall, approaches unity in
the boundary layer, and equals zero at the margin of the boundary layer.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 29 of 34

equation in the boundary layer and the coefficients of the k–ε equation in the free shear
layer and free-flow domain, where F1 equals unity on a no-slip wall, approaches unity in
the boundary layer, and equals zero at the margin of the boundary layer.

Table A1. Model constants used in SST k–ω model.

Parameter Value
h f 14 


F1 h  tan
√ i
k
f1 min max 0.09ωd , 500v
d2 ω
, 2k
d2 CD kω
F2 tan
 √ h( f 22 ) 
f2 2 k 500v
max β∗ ωd , d2 ω
a1 0.31
α∗ F1 + (1 − F1 )
β 0.075F1 + 0.0828(1 − F1 )
β∗ 0.09F1 + 0.09(1 − F1 )
σk 0.85F1 + 1(1 − F1 )
σω  0.5F1 + 0.856(1 − F1 ) 
 
µt 1 0.6
, √
min
 max(ω/α∗ , ∇¯v −∇¯v T /2 F2 )/a1
 
3S 
 
CDkω max ω1 ∇k·∇ω, 10−20

The volume of fluid (VOF) method was used for the simulation of the free-surface
flow [44]. When multiple fluids are present in a cell, the volume fraction of the i-th fluid is
expressed as follows:
V
αi = i , (A5)
V
where Vi is the volume occupied by the i-th fluid in a cell, and V is the cell volume. Therefore,
the volume fraction of all the fluids in each cell must satisfy the following formula:

N
∑ αi = 1, (A6)
i =1

where N is the number of fluids. When αi = 0, this means that there is no i-th fluid present in
the cell. When αi = 1, this means that only the i-th fluid occupies the cell. When 0 < αi < 1,
this means that there are other fluids in addition to the i-th fluid coexisting in the cell, and a
free surface is implied in the cell. As a result, the density (ρ) and viscosity (µ) in a cell are the
weighted density and viscosity averages of all the fluid present in the cell, respectively:

N
ρ= ∑ ρi αi , (A7)
i =1

N
µ= ∑ µi αi , (A8)
i =1

where ρi and µi are the density and viscosity of the i-th fluid, respectively. The continuity
equation of the i-th fluid is formulated as follows:

∂αi ∂α
+ uk i + ∇·(αi vd,i ) + ∇·[αi (1 − αi )vc,i ] = 0, (A9)
∂t ∂zk

where vd,i and vc,i are the diffusion velocity and boundary-sharpening velocity of the i-th
fluid, respectively, which are defined as follows:

∇ αi
vc,i = Cα |v| , (A10)
|∇αi |
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 30 of 34

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 31 of 35

where Cα is the sharpening factor, and v is the velocity vector. Based on the normalized
variable diagram, the normalized volume fraction value at the cell interface between the
central cell and downwind cell (ξ f ) is defined in (A11) and Figure A2, where a is the area
where 𝐶 is the sharpening factor, and 𝐯 is the velocity vector. Based on the normalized
vector of the cell interface, and n is the normal vector of the fluid interface.
variable diagram, the normalized volume fraction value at the cell interface between the
central cell and downwind cell (𝜉 ) is defined in (A11) /and
[0, 1Figure A2, where 𝐚 is the area

ξ c for ξC ∈ ]
vector of the cell interface, and ξ𝐧f is the normal vector of
= 2ξ c for ξ C ∈ [0, 0.5] ,the fluid interface. (A11)
1 for ∈ [ 0.5, 1 ]

𝜉 for 𝜉 ∉ [0,1]
ξ C

where the normalized volume𝜉 fraction = 2𝜉 of for 𝜉 ∈ [0,0.5]

the central cell (ξ, c ) is defined as follows:(A11)
1 for 𝜉 ∈ [0.5,1]
αc − αu
where the normalized volume fraction of = central cell
ξ c the , (𝜉 ) is defined as follows: (A12)
αd − αu
𝛼 −𝛼
𝜉 = the, upwind, central, and downwind (A12)
where αu , αc , and αd are the volume fraction 𝛼 of
−𝛼 cells,
∗
respectively. ξ f is further modified to ξ f via the Courant number (Co):
where 𝛼 , 𝛼 , and 𝛼 are the volume fraction of the upwind, central, and downwind
cells, respectively. 𝜉 is further
 modified to 𝜉 ∗ via the Courant number (𝐶𝑜):
 ξf  for Co < Col
𝜉 ξ Cou −Co for for Col ≤ < 𝐶𝑜 Co𝐶𝑜
 
ξ ∗f =⎧ ξ c + ξ f − C Cou −Col < Cou , (A13)
 𝐶𝑜 − 𝐶𝑜
𝜉 ∗ = 𝜉 + 𝜉 − 𝜉ξ c for 𝐶𝑜 Co𝐶𝑜
for u ≤<Co𝐶𝑜 ,

(A13)
⎨ 𝐶𝑜 − 𝐶𝑜
where the upper bound ⎩ of the Courant
𝜉 number (Co foru ) is unity,
𝐶𝑜 and 𝐶𝑜the lower bound of the
Courant number (Co ) is 0.5. The Courant number (Co)
where the upper boundl of the Courant number (𝐶𝑜 ) is unity, and the is defined as lower
follows:
bound of the
Courant number (𝐶𝑜 ) is 0.5. The Courant number v·a (𝐶𝑜) is defined as follows:
Co = δt, (A14)
𝐯 ∙V𝐚c
𝐶𝑜 = 𝛿𝑡, (A14)
𝑉
where Vc is the characteristic velocity, and δt is the time-step size. When Co < Col , (A11) is
used.𝑉When
where is theCo l ≤ Co < Covelocity,
characteristic u , (A11) and 𝛿𝑡 is
and the the time-step
first-order When 𝐶𝑜
size. method
upwind < used.
are 𝐶𝑜 , (A11)
When
∗ is further modified to
Co u When 𝐶𝑜
is used.≤ Co, the 𝐶𝑜 < 𝐶𝑜 , (A11) and the first-order upwind method
first-order upwind method is used. The variable ξ are used. When

f
𝐶𝑜ξ ∗∗ via
𝐶𝑜,the
theangle
first-order upwind
between the method
fluid is used.
interface and The
cell variable 𝜉θ∗p is: further modified to
interface
f
𝜉 ∗∗ via the angle between the fluid interface and cell interface (𝜃 ):

C 
C 
ξ∗∗∗∗ = ξ∗ ∗f cos θ p θ + ξ c 1 − cos θ p θ , (A15)
𝜉 = 𝜉 cos 𝜃
f + 𝜉 1 − cos 𝜃 , (A15)
where
where the
the angle
angle factor
factor (𝐶(C
) θis) is
setset
to to 0.05.
0.05. The
The volume
volume fraction
fraction (𝛼 (α) fat
) at the
the cell
cell interface
interface is is
then
then obtained
obtained from
from the
the equation
equation below:
below:

= 𝜉ξ∗∗∗∗
𝛼α f = (𝛼 − 𝛼 ) + 𝛼 .
f (αd − αu ) + αu . (A16)
(A16)

Figure A2. Schematic of fluid interface and cells.

Figure A2. Schematic of fluid interface and cells.

Appendix
Appendix A.2.
A2. Setup
Setup of Modeling
of Modeling
The
The platform
platform undergoes
undergoes a forced
a forced motion,
motion, and
and thethe velocity
velocity of of
thethe forced
forced motion
motion is is
given as follows:
given as follows:
Vf = ζω sin(ωt), (A17)
𝑉 = 𝜁𝜔 sin(𝜔𝑡), (A17)

where 𝑉 is the generalized velocity of the motion, 𝜔 is the angular frequency of the mo-
tion, and 𝜁 is the generalized amplitude of the motion, which was assumed to be 1 m for
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457
x FOR PEER REVIEW 3231of
of 35
34

where Vf isand
translation the 1°
generalized
for rotation velocity
in this of the motion,
study. Generally, ω isatthe
leastangular
ten motionfrequency
periodsof the
are
motion, and
calculated is the
inζthe generalized
numerical amplitude
simulation, of the the
in which motion, which
typical 𝑦 ranges
was assumedbetween to 50
be and
1m
for translation and 1◦ for rotation in this study. Generally, at least ten motion periods are
100.
calculated
Overset in the
meshnumerical
was usedsimulation,
to simulateinthe which
forcedthemotion
typical ofy+theranges between
floating 50 and
platform 100.
in this
Overset mesh was used to simulate the forced motion of
study. Compared with the dynamic mesh approach, which is prone to result in a negativethe floating platform in this
study. Compared
volume with
of cells, the the dynamic
overset mesh is mesh approach,
relatively simplewhich to useistoprone
define to computation
result in a negative
grids,
volume of cells,
and it easily the overset
maintains mesh
its fine is relatively
mesh simplethe
quality during to use
body to define
movement. computation grids,
The complete
and it easily maintains its fine mesh quality during the body
mesh is composed of background and platform meshes. The former is defined with the movement. The complete
mesh iscomputational
whole composed of background
domain, while andtheplatform
latter ismeshes.
definedThe withformer is defined
the overset withThe
domain. the
whole computational domain, while the latter is defined with
entire component mesh is forced to translate or rotate during the forced-motion simula- the overset domain. The
entireThe
tion. component
boundary mesh is forced
condition to translate
of the platformorsurface
rotate during the forced-motion
is a no-slip wall. The boundary simulation.
con-
The boundary condition of the platform surface is a no-slip wall.
dition of the lower boundary of the computational domain is assumed to be a no-slip The boundary condition
wall,
of the lower boundary of the computational domain is assumed to be a no-slip wall, and
and the other boundaries use a zero-velocity condition due to the far-field assumption in
the other boundaries use a zero-velocity condition due to the far-field assumption in which
which the initial velocity of the flow field is set to zero.
the initial velocity of the flow field is set to zero.
The upper and lower boundaries of the computational domain were located 70 m
The upper and lower boundaries of the computational domain were located 70 m
above and below the water surface because 70 m is the typical water depth of the Hsinchu
above and below the water surface because 70 m is the typical water depth of the Hsinchu
offshore area. The height of the overset boundary was 80 m, which is close to the charac-
offshore area. The height of the overset boundary was 80 m, which is close to the
teristic length (𝐿) of the Taida platform. The length of the computational domain and over-
characteristic length (L) of the Taida platform. The length of the computational do-
set domain is proportional to the wavelength (𝜆), which is estimated by the shallow-water
main and overset domain is proportional to the wavelength (λ), which is estimated by
equation:
the shallow-water equation:
𝑔𝑇2
gT
λ 𝜆== .. (A18)
2π2𝜋
where TT denotes
where denotesthetheperiod
periodofofmotion.
motion. The
The computational
computational domain
domain hashas
a length of 20λ,
a length and
of 20𝜆,
the overset
and the oversetdomain has ahas
domain length of 3λ.ofFor
a length 3𝜆.theFortwo
thewave conditions
two wave (i.e., the
conditions common
(i.e., wave
the common
(CW)
wave condition and high
(CW) condition andwavehigh(HW)wavecondition), the corresponding
(HW) condition), the correspondingzero-crossing periods
zero-crossing
were 5.5 s and 7.5 s, respectively. Following (A18), the corresponding
periods were 5.5 s and 7.5 s, respectively. Following (A18), the corresponding wave wave lengths were 48
m and 92 m, respectively. Therefore, the lengths of the computational
lengths were 48 m and 92 m, respectively. Therefore, the lengths of the computational domain and overset
domain and
domain of the CW condition
overset domain ofwere the CW960condition
m and 144 werem, 960
respectively,
m and 144and those of the HW
m, respectively, and
condition were 1840 m and 276 m, respectively. The dimensions
those of the HW condition were 1840 m and 276 m, respectively. The dimensions and boundary conditions
and
of the computational
boundary conditions domain are shown in domain
of the computational Figure A3. are shown in Figure A3.

Figure A3.
Figure Computational domain
A3. Computational domain of
of viscous-flow
viscous-flow modeling.
modeling.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 32 of 34

Appendix A.3. Setup of Mesh

The parameters of the mesh generation are shown in Table A2, and the numerical mesh
is depicted in Figure A4. The vertical cut of the numerical mesh at y = 0 is illustrated in
Figure A4a, where the platform mesh is embedded inside the background mesh. Table A2a
discloses the cell size alongside the mesh number employed in the forced-motion simulation.
The background mesh refinement setup is shown in Table A2b. The background mesh was
refined with three grid levels to better resolve the flow near the platform (Figure A4b). This
successive mesh refinement was only performed on the xy plane. To accurately capture the
free-surface evolution, the cell size at the free surface needs to be refined in the z-direction.
As shown in Figure A4c,d, the refinement region of the platform mesh must be thicker than
that of the background mesh, and especially in the heave, roll, and pitch motions due to
the displacement of the platform mesh in the z-direction. Moreover, the peripheral part of
the background mesh needs to be further refined to capture the free-surface variation due
to the rapid decay of the outgoing waves. The mesh refinement setup near the free surface
is shown in Table A2c.

Table A2. Mesh parameters of viscous-flow modeling: (a) mesh number and cell size; (b) background
mesh refinement setup; (c) mesh refinement setup at free surface.

(a)
Properties (Unit) CW Condition HW Condition
Surge, Sway, Yaw 2.799 × 105 2.793 × 105
Platform Surface Mesh Faces
Heave, Roll, Pitch 6.459 × 105 5.937 × 105
Surge, Sway, Yaw 3.413 × 106 4.230 × 106
Total Cell Numbers
Heave, Roll, Pitch 7.559 × 106 8.096 × 106
Platform Surface Mesh Size (m) 0.625
Platform Mesh Cell Size (m) 6.25
Maximum Background Mesh Cell Size (m) 50
(b)
Outer Boundary of Refinement Region
Outer Boundary Shape Cell Size Scale
on xy-Plane from Origin
> 7λ 1
7λ 1/2
Cylinder
5λ 1/4
3λ 1/8
(c)
Properties (Unit) CW Condition HW Condition
Region Thickness of Platform Surge, Sway, Yaw 4 4
Mesh Refinement (m) Heave, Roll, Pitch 11 10
Region Thickness of Background Mesh Refinement (m) 2 2
Outer Boundary of Inner Refinement Region
Circle with Radius of 5λ
on xy-Plane
at Origin
Inner Region 0.05
Cell Size in z-Direction (m)
Outer Region 0.025
J.J.Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci.Eng. 2023,11,
Eng.2023, 11,457
x FOR PEER REVIEW 34 33
of of3534

(a)

(b) (c) (d)

Figure A4.
Figure A4. Mesh
Mesh ofofviscous-flow
viscous-flowmodeling:
modeling:(a)(a)vertical at 𝑦
cutcut
vertical at=y 0;
=(b)
0; horizontal cut𝑧 at
cut at
(b) horizontal = 0; (c)0;
z =
zoomed
(c) view
zoomed of horizontal
view of horizontal at 𝑦at=y 0;
cutcut = (d) surface
0; (d) mesh
surface of platform.
mesh of platform.

References
References
1. Global Wind Energy Council. Global Wind Report 2022. 2022. Available online: https://gwec.net/global-wind-report-2022/ (ac-
1. Global
cessedWind on 22 Energy
August Council.
2022). Global Wind Report 2022. 2022. Available online: https://gwec.net/global-wind-report-2022/
2. (accessed on 22
Open Access News. 2022.August 2022).
Offshore Wind Energy in Taiwan. Available online: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/taiwan-
2. Open Access News. 2022.
offshore-wind/129010/ OffshoreonWind
(accessed Energy2022).
22 August in Taiwan. Available online: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/taiwan-
3. offshore-wind/129010/
Wind Resource Assessment (accessed
Handbook. onNREL/TAT-5–15283-01;
22 August 2022). National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2011.
3.4. Wind
Wang, Resource Assessment
Y.K.; Chai, Handbook.
J.F.; Chang, Y.W.;NREL/TAT-5–15283-01;
Huang, T.Y.; Kuo, Y.S.National Renewable
Development Energy
of Seismic Laboratory:
Demand Golden, CO,
for Chang-Bin USA, 2011.
Offshore Wind
4. Wang,
Farm in Y.K.; Chai,Strait.
Taiwan J.F.; Chang,
Energies Y.W.; Huang,
2016, T.Y.; Kuo, Y.S. Development of Seismic Demand for Chang-Bin Offshore Wind Farm
9, 1036.
5. inChang,
TaiwanT.J.; Strait.
Chen,Energies
C.L.; Tu,2016, 9, 1036.
Y.L.; [CrossRef]
Yeh, H.T.; Wu, Y.T. Evaluation of the Climate Change Impact on Wind Resources in Taiwan
5. Chang, T.J.; Chen, C.L.; Tu, Y.L.; Yeh,
Strait. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 95, 435–445. H.T.; Wu, Y.T. Evaluation of the Climate Change Impact on Wind Resources in Taiwan Strait.
6. Energy
Uzunoglu, Convers. Manag.C.G.
E.; Soares, 2015, 95, 435–445. [CrossRef]
Hydrodynamic design of a free-float capable tension leg platform for a 10 MW wind turbine. Ocean.
6. Uzunoglu,
Eng. 2020, E.; 197,Soares,
106888. C.G. Hydrodynamic design of a free-float capable tension leg platform for a 10 MW wind turbine. Ocean.
7. Eng.
Lee,2020, 197,C.Y.;
Y.J.; Ho, 106888.
Huang,[CrossRef]
Z.Z.; Wang, Y.C. Improvements on the Output of a Spar-Type Floating Wind Turbine Influenced by
7. Lee, Y.J.; Ho, C.Y.;
Wave-Induced Huang, Z.Z.;
Oscillation. Wang,
J. Taiwan Y.C.
Soc. Improvements
Nav. on the
Archit. Mar. Eng. Output
2015, of a Spar-Type Floating Wind Turbine Influenced by
34, 55–62.
8. Wave-Induced
Huang, Z.Z. Dynamic Oscillation. J. Taiwan
Response Soc. Nav.
of Floating Archit.
Offshore Mar.Turbine.
Wind Eng. 2015,
Ph.D.34,Thesis,
55–62. Department of Engineering Science and Ocean
8. Huang, Z.Z. Dynamic
Engineering, NationalResponse of FloatingTaipei,
Taiwan University, Offshore Wind Turbine.
Taiwan, 2013. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Engineering Science and Ocean
9. Engineering,
Wang, Y.C. Motion National Taiwan University,
Characteristics and PowerTaipei, Taiwan,on2013.
Evaluation Floating Offshore Wind Turbine. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Engi-
9. Wang,
neeri7ng Y.C.Science
Motion and Characteristics
Ocean Engineering, and Power
NationalEvaluation on FloatingTaipei,
Taiwan University, Offshore Wind2011.
Taiwan, Turbine. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
10. Chen, C.Y. Comparative
Engineeri7ng Science and Study
Ocean on Engineering,
Semi-Submersible Floating
National Platforms
Taiwan for Offshore
University, Wind
Taipei, in Taiwan
Taiwan, 2011.Strait. Master’s Thesis, Depart-
10. ment C.Y.
Chen, of Engineering
Comparative Science
Study andonOcean Engineering, National
Semi-Submersible Floating Taiwan
PlatformsUniversity, Taipei,
for Offshore Taiwan,
Wind 2020. Strait. Master’s Thesis,
in Taiwan
11. Hong, J.J. Performance
Department of Engineering Prediction of aand
Science Disk-Type
Ocean Semi-Submersible
Engineering, NationalFloating Platform
Taiwan in TaiwanTaipei,
University, Strait.Taiwan,
Ph.D. Thesis,
2020. Department of
11. Engineering
Hong, Science and
J.J. Performance Ocean Engineering,
Prediction of a Disk-Type National Taiwan University,
Semi-Submersible FloatingTaipei,
PlatformTaiwan, 2022.Strait. Ph.D. Thesis, Department
in Taiwan
12. ofLi,Engineering
B.; Liu, K.; Yan,ScienceG.; and
Ou, J. Hydrodynamic
Ocean Engineering, Comparison of a Semi-Submersible,
National Taiwan University„ Taipei,TLP,Taiwan,
and Spar:
2022. Numerical Study in the South
12. China
Li, SeaK.;
B.; Liu, Environment.
Yan, G.; Ou,J.J.Mar. Sci. Appl. 2011,
Hydrodynamic 10, 306–314.
Comparison of a Semi-Submersible, TLP, and Spar: Numerical Study in the South
13. De Guzman,
China S.; Maron, D.;
Sea Environment. Bueno,
J. Mar. Sci. P.; Taboada,
Appl. 2011, 10,M.306–314.
A Reduced Draft Spar Concept for Large Offshore Wind Turbines. In Pro-
[CrossRef]
13. Deceedings
Guzman, of theS.; 37th
Maron, International
D.; Bueno,Conference
P.; Taboada, on M.Ocean, OffshoreDraft
A Reduced and Spar
ArcticConcept
Engineering, Madrid,
for Large Spain,Wind
Offshore 17–22Turbines.
June 2018;In
American Society
Proceedings of the of Mechanical
37th InternationalEngineers: New York,
Conference NY, USA,
on Ocean, 2018.and Arctic Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 17–22 June 2018;
Offshore
14. Quest Floating
American Society Wind Energy. 2022.
of Mechanical Available
Engineers: Newonline: https://questfwe.com
York, NY, USA, 2018. (accessed on 22 August 2022).
15.
14. Jonkman, J.; Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Scott, G. Definition
Quest Floating Wind Energy. 2022. Available online: https://questfwe.com (accessed of a 5-MW Reference Wind onTurbine for Offshore
22 August 2022).System Development.
15. NREL/TP-500–38060; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2009.
Jonkman, J.; Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Scott, G. Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System Development.
16. Bak, C.; Zahle, F.; Bitsche,
NREL/TP-500–38060; National R.; Renewable
Kim, T.; Yde, A.; Henriksen,
Energy Laboratory:L.C.; Hansen,
Golden, CO,M.H.;
USA,Blasques,
2009. J.P.A.A.; Gaunaa, M.; Natarajan, A.
16. TheC.;
Bak, DTU 10-MW
Zahle, Reference
F.; Bitsche, Wind
R.; Kim, T.; Turbine. In proceeding
Yde, A.; Henriksen, L.C.;ofHansen,
DanishM.H.;
WindBlasques,
Power Research, Fredericia,
J.P.A.A.; Gaunaa, M.;Denmark,
Natarajan,27−28
A. TheMay
DTU
2013. Reference Wind Turbine. In Proceedings of the Danish Wind Power Research, Fredericia, Denmark, 27−28 May 2013.
10-MW
17.
17. Liu,J.;J.;Manuel,
Liu, Manuel, L. L. Alternative
Alternative Mooring
Mooring Systems
Systems for for aa Very
Very Large
Large Offshore
Offshore Wind
Wind Turbine
Turbine Supported
Supportedby byaaSemisubmersible
Semisubmersible
Floating Platform. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 2018, 140,
Floating Platform. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 2018, 140, 051003. [CrossRef] 051003.
18.
18. Gaertner,E.;
Gaertner, E.;Rinker,
Rinker,J.; J.;Sethuraman,
Sethuraman, L.; L.; Zahle,
Zahle, F.;
F.; Anderson,
Anderson, B.; B.;Barter,
Barter,G.;
G.;Abbas,
Abbas,N.; N.;Meng,
Meng,F.;F.;Bortolotti,
Bortolotti,P.;P.;Skrzypinski,
Skrzypinski,W.;
W.;
et al. Definition of the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine; NREL/TP-5000–75698;
et al. Definition of the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine; NREL/TP-5000–75698; National Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy
Laboratory:Golden,
Laboratory: Golden,CO, CO, USA,
USA, 2020.
2020.
19.
19. Udoh, I.E.; Zou, J. Driving
Udoh, I.E.; Zou, J. Driving Down Cost: Down Cost: AA Case
Case Study
Study ofofFloating
FloatingSubstructure
Substructurefor forAA10MW
10MWWindWindTurbine.
Turbine.InInOffshore
OffshoreTechnology
Technology
Conference;OnePetro:
Conference; OnePetro:Richardson,
Richardson,TX, TX, USA,
USA, 2019.
2019.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 457 34 of 34

20. Zhang, Y.; Kim, B. A Fully Coupled Computational Fluid Dynamics Method for Analysis of Semi-Submersible Floating Offshore
Wind Turbines Under Wind-Wave Excitation Conditions Based on OC5 Data. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2314. [CrossRef]
21. Tran, T.T.; Kim, D.H. Fully coupled aero-hydrodynamic analysis of a semi-submersible FOWT using a dynamic fluid body
interaction approach. Renew. Energy 2016, 92, 244–261. [CrossRef]
22. Robertson, A.; Jonkman, J.; Vorpahl, F.; Popko, W.; Qvist, J.; Froyd, L.; Chen, X.; Azcona, J.; Uzungoglu, E.; Guedes Soares, C.
Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continuation within IEA Wind Task 30: Phase II Results Regarding a Floating Semisubmersible
wind System; National Renewable Energy Lab.: Golden, CO, USA, 2014.
23. Luquet, R.; Ducrozet, G.; Gentaz, L.; Ferrant, P.; Alessandrini, B. Applications of the SWENSE method to seakeeping simulations
in irregular waves. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Ann Arbor, MI, USA,
5–8 August 2007.
24. Sethuraman, L.; Venugopal, V. Hydrodynamic response of a stepped-spar floating wind turbine: Numerical modelling and tank
testing. Renew. Energy 2013, 52, 160–174. [CrossRef]
25. Antonutti, R.; Peyrard, C.; Johanning, L.; Incecik, A.; Ingram, D. An investigation of the effects of wind-induced inclination on
floating wind turbine dynamics: Heave plate excursion. Ocean. Eng. 2014, 91, 208–217. [CrossRef]
26. Nematbakhsh, A.; Olinger, D.J.; Tryggvason, G. Nonlinear simulation of a spar buoy floating wind turbine under extreme ocean
conditions. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2014, 6, 033121. [CrossRef]
27. Liu, Y.; Peng, Y.; Wan, D. Numerical Investigation on Interaction between a Semi-Submersible Platform and its Mooring System.
In International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY,
USA, 2015; p. 56550.
28. Karimirad, M.; Michailides, C. V-shaped semisubmersible offshore wind turbine: An alternative concept for offshore wind
technology. Renew. Energy 2015, 83, 126–143. [CrossRef]
29. Zheng, X.Y.; Lei, Y. Stochastic response analysis for a floating offshore wind turbine integrated with a steel fish farming cage.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1229. [CrossRef]
30. Ishihara, T.; Zhang, S. Prediction of dynamic response of semi-submersible floating offshore wind turbine using augmented
Morison’s equation with frequency dependent hydrodynamic coefficients. Renew. Energy 2019, 131, 1186–1207. [CrossRef]
31. Lerch, M.; De-Prada-Gil, M.; Molins, C. The influence of different wind and wave conditions on the energy yield and downtime
of a spar-buoy floating wind turbine. Renew. Energy 2019, 136, 1–14. [CrossRef]
32. Zhang, P.; Yang, S.; Li, Y.; Gu, J.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, R.; Tang, Y. Dynamic response of articulated offshore wind turbines under
different water depths. Energies 2020, 13, 2784. [CrossRef]
33. Ferrandis, J.D.Á.; Bonfiglio, L.; Rodríguez, R.Z.; Chryssostomidis, C.; Faltinsen, O.M.; Triantafyllou, M. Influence of viscosity and
non-linearities in predicting motions of a wind energy offshore platform in regular waves. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2020, 142,
062003. [CrossRef]
34. Hsu, I.J.; Ivanov, G.; Ma, K.T.; Huang, Z.Z.; Wu, H.T.; Huang, Y.T.; Chou, M. Optimization of Semi-Submersible Hull Design for
Floating Offshore Wind Turbines. In Proceedings of the ASME 2022 41st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 5–10 June 2022.
35. Huang, W.H. Influence of Water Depth Variation on the Mooring Line Design for FOWT in Shallow Waters. Master’s Thesis,
Department of Hydraulic and Ocean Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, 2021.
36. DNV GL. DNVGL-RP-0286 Coupled Analysis of Floating Wind Turbines; DNV GL: Oslo, Norway, 2019.
37. Ikhennicheu, M.; Lynch, M.; Doole, S.; Borisade, F.; Matha, D.; Dominguez, J.L.; Vicente, R.D.; Habekost, T.; Ramirez, L.; Potestio,
S.; et al. D2.1 Review of the State of the Art of Mooring and Anchoring Designs, Technical Challenges and Identification of
Relevant DLCs. Technical Report. CoreWind Project. 2020. Available online: https://corewind.eu/wp-content/uploads/files/
publications/COREWIND-D2.1-Review-of-the-state-of-the-art-of-mooring-and-anchoring-designs.pdf (accessed on 22 August
2022). Technical Report. CoreWind Project.
38. Gaertner, E.; Rinker, J.; Sethuraman, L.; Zahle, F.; Anderson, B.; Barter, G.; Abbas, N.; Meng, F.; Bortolotti, P.; Skrzypinski,
W.; et al. 15MW Reference Wind Turbine Repository Developed in Conjunction with IEA Wind. 2022. Available online:
https://github.com/IEAWindTask37/IEA-15--240-RWT/ (accessed on 22 August 2022).
39. Chuang, T.C.; Yang, W.H.; Yang, R.Y. Experimental and Numerical Study of a Barge-Type FOWT Platform under Wind and Wave
Load. Ocean. Eng. 2021, 230, 109015. [CrossRef]
40. Jonkman, J.; Jason, M.L.; Marchall, B., Jr. FAST User’s Guide; National Renewable Energy Lab: Golden, CO, USA, 2005.
41. Wehausen, J.V.; Laitone, E.V. Surface Waves in Fluid Dynamics III. In Handbuch der Physik; Springer Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1960;
Volume 9, pp. 446–778.
42. Orcina. OrcaFlex Documentation Version 11.2d; Orcina: Ulverston, UK, 2022.
43. Siemens. Simcenter STAR-CCM+ User Guide Version 2020.1; Siemens: Munich, Germany, 2020.
44. Hirt, C.W.; Nichols, B.D. Volume of Fluid Method for the Dynamics of Free Surface. J. Comput. Phys. 1981, 39, 201–225. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.