Wind/Wave Misalignment in the

Loads Analysis of a Floating

Offshore Wind Turbine
Preprint
L. Barj and S. Stewart
The Pennsylvania State University

G. Stewart and M. Lackner

The University of Massachusetts

J. Jonkman and A. Robertson

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Presented at AIAA SciTech 2014
National Harbor, Maryland
January 13-17, 2014

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Conference Paper
NREL/CP-5000-61043
February 2014

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

 NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
(Alliance), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, the US
Government and Alliance retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of
this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL
16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
 Wind/Wave Misalignment in the Loads Analysis of a
Floating Offshore Wind Turbine

Lucie Barj * and Susan Stewart †

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802

Gordon Stewart ‡ and Matt Lackner §

The University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003

Jason Jonkman ** and Amy Robertson ††

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 80401

and

Denis Matha ‡‡
Endowed Chair of Wind Energy, University of Stuttgart, BW, 70569, Germany

Wind resources far from the shore and in deeper seas have encouraged the offshore wind
industry to look into floating platforms. As a result, the International Electrotechnical
Commission is developing a new technical specification for the design of floating offshore
wind turbines that extends existing design standards for land-based and fixed-bottom
offshore wind turbines. The work summarized in this paper supports the development of
best practices and simulation requirements in the loads analysis of floating offshore wind
turbines by examining the impact of wind/wave misalignment on the system loads under
normal operation.
We conducted simulations of a spar-type floating offshore wind turbine system under a
wide range of wind speeds, significant wave heights, peak-spectral periods, and wind/wave
misalignments using the aero-servo-hydro-elastic tool FAST. The extreme and fatigue loads
were calculated for all of the simulations. The extreme and fatigue loading as a function of
wind/wave misalignment are represented as load roses and a directional binning sensitivity
study is performed. This study focused on identifying the number and type of wind/wave
misalignment simulations needed to accurately capture the extreme and fatigue loads of the
system in all possible meteorological and ocean conditions considered, and for a down-
selected set of conditions identified as the generic U.S. East Coast site.
For this axisymmetric platform (except for the mooring lines), perpendicular wind and
waves play an important role in the loading of the support structure. Therefore, including
these conditions in the design loads analysis can improve the estimation of extreme and
fatigue loads. However, most support-structure locations experience their highest extreme
and fatigue loads when the wind and waves are aligned. These findings are specific to the
spar-type platform, but we expect that the results presented here will be similar to other
floating platforms.

*
Graduate Student (now graduated), Energy and Mineral Engineering, 157 Hosler, University Park, PA, 16802.
†
Assistant Professor and Research Associate, Aerospace Engineering, 230B Hammond, University Park, PA,
16802, AIAA Professional Member.
‡
PhD Candidate, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 160 Governors Dr., Amherst, MA, 01003,
AIAA Student Member.
§
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 160 Governors Dr. Amherst, MA,
01003.
**
Senior Engineer, NREL, 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO, 80401, AIAA Professional Member.
††
Senior Engineer, NREL, 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO, 80401.
‡‡
Research Associate, Endowed Chair of Wind Energy, Allmandring 5B, Stuttgart, 70569, Germany.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 Abbreviations

Meteorological ocean parameters

Ws wind speed at hub height in m/s

Wd wind/wave misalignment in degrees
Hs significant wave height in m
Tp wave peak-spectral period in s

Structural locations §§

Anch1Ten anchor tension of the first mooring line

Anch2Ten anchor tension of the second mooring line
Anch3Ten anchor tension of the third mooring line
Fair1Ten fairlead tension of the first mooring line
Fair2Ten fairlead tension of the second mooring line
Fair3Ten fairlead tension of the third mooring line
IPDefl1 in-plane deflection of blade 1
OoPDefl1 out-of-plane deflection of blade 1
LSSGagMya rotating low-speed shaft-bending moment about the ya axis
LSSGagMza rotating low-speed shaft-bending moment about the za axis
RootMxc1 first blade in-plane root-bending moment about the xc1 axis
RootMyc1 first blade out-of-plane root-bending moment about the yc1 axis
TwrBsMxt tower-base roll bending moment about the xt axis
TwrBsMyt tower-base pitch bending moment about the yt axis
YawBrMxp yaw-bearing roll bending moment about the xp axis
YawBrMyp yaw-bearing pitch bending moment about the yp axis

I. Introduction

M OST fixed-bottom offshore wind turbine support structures are axisymmetric and stiff enough to ensure that
wave loads do not have a significant impact on the overall structural loads of the system above the water. It is
often conservative to assume that the winds, waves, and currents are co-directional for fixed-bottom offshore
wind turbines because fore-aft loadings, which drive the design of their support structures, are highest when the
winds, waves, and currents are from the same direction. However, in a floating wind turbine system there is greater
potential for motion of the support structure, which combined with a lack of aerodynamic damping in the side-to-
side direction, may cause wind, wave, and current directionality to more heavily impact both extreme and fatigue
loading.

The goal of this work is to examine the importance of wind/wave misalignment when assessing the extreme and
fatigue loads in a floating wind turbine system. We focused on identifying the number and type of wind/wave
misalignment simulations needed to accurately capture the loads of the system over a large range of possible
meteorological ocean (met-ocean) conditions. Specifically, this paper addresses the impact of wind/wave
misalignment on the extreme and fatigue loading for a spar-type floating platform. This work is affiliated with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) working group 3-2, with the intent of informing an upcoming
floating wind turbine design technical specification.

To date, a few studies have been conducted that investigate the impact of wind/wave misalignment on the
response of floating wind turbine platforms. Philippe et al.1 studied the impact of wind/wave misalignment on a
floating wind turbine located on a barge platform and discovered that the sway, roll, and yaw response amplitude
operators (RAOs) increased with misaligned wind and waves, especially for a misalignment of 90º. Ramachandran
et al.2 studied the importance of wind/wave misalignment on a tension-leg platform (TLP) platform under wind

§§
See FAST documention4 for a definition of the different coordinate systems

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 excitation of 10 m/s, and showed the significance of 90º and 180º misalignments in both the spectral energy contents
and the time series of the platform motions. Kokubun et al.3 modeled a 1/34.5-scale prototype of a wind turbine with
a spar-buoy platform in an ocean engineering basin and were able to recreate storm situationswith blades fully
featheredusing aligned wind, waves, and current and misaligned wind and waves. In this paper, misalignment
situations created higher platform motions. These studies show the impact of wind/wave misalignment on floating
platforms, especially in the side-to-side direction caused by increased compliance of the floating support structure.

II. Methods

This study uses the wind turbine computer-aided engineering tool FAST4 to simulate the Offshore Code
Comparison Collaboration (OC3)-Hywind spar-buoy platform5 supporting the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) 5-MW reference wind turbine.6 FAST is a nonlinear aero-hydro-servo-elastic tool that uses
AeroDyn7 to compute the rotor aerodynamics and HydroDyn8 to compute the platform hydrodynamics. FAST
models wind turbines as a combination of rigid and flexible bodies, and allows the user to turn individual degrees of
freedom (DOFs) on or off. All relevant structural DOFs were enabled in the present simulations.

We performed an exhaustive series of simulations with the OC3-Hywind system to examine the met-ocean
conditions that produce the largest motions and loads in the structure during power production according to the IEC
wind turbine standard’s design load cases 1.1 and 1.2. No discrete-event, fault, start, stop, parked/idling, or transport
cases were considered in this study. Instead, we considered variations in mean wind speed at hub height, wave
direction, significant wave height, and peak-spectral wave period (which define the wave spectrum; modeled using a
modified Pierson Spectrum).9 The wind direction was fixed at 0º with no nacelle yaw so the wind/wave
misalignment was equal to the wave direction. Future work will consider separate wind and wave direction
distributions to more accurately characterize fatigue damage accumulation, but for the extreme load and preliminary
fatigue analyses presented in this study, the simplification of fixed wind direction allows one less variable to be
considered. Figure 1 shows the different directions of importance in this study.

Figure 1. Schematic showing the floating offshore wind turbine and direction of the waves and wind. The
wind is fixed at 0° so the wave propagation direction is equal to the wind/wave misalignment. (The 90˚ wave
direction is shown.)

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 Instead of choosing values for these parameters (shown in Figure 1) that were site-specific, we chose a range of
values for the expected conditions that an operating floating wind turbine could encounter almost anywhere offshore
of the United States, as shown in Table 1. To consider all of the possible combinations of the four parameters’
values, 370,656 simulations are required per seed. For our study, only one time-domain realization (one seed) of the
wind/wave spectrum for a given combination was used. We ran time-domain simulations that were 10 minutes in
length (after removal of the first 60 seconds of transient behavior with initial conditions chosen properly for each
wind speed).10 In addition, we used random turbulent wind fields created in TurbSim.11 Furthermore, we examined
the following system responses: the platform motions and the loads/moments in the blade root, low-speed shaft
(LSS), yaw bearing, tower base, and fairlead and anchor connections of the mooring lines.

In order to run all of these simulations, we used the high-performance computing (HPC) resources at NREL (a
cluster with about 200 cores available for simulations). A Perl script, RunIEC,12 was also used to create all of the
FAST input files and batch files to submit to the HPC.

Table 1. Values for the different parameters of the met-ocean conditions.

Bin Numbers Minimum Maximum
width of bins* value value
Wind speed at hub height (Ws) 2 m/s 11 3 m/s 25 m/s
Significant wave height (Hs) 0.5 m 26 0m 13 m
Peak-spectral period (Tp) 0.5 s 54 0s 27 s
Wave direction (Wd) 15° 24 -180° 180°
* The bins were simulated at their midpoints, except for the wave direction, which used the bin endpoints.

Once the simulations from all of the combinations of the four met-ocean parameters were complete, we
interpreted the data for a given site’s specific conditions (and its associated probabilities). Specifically in this study,
the results were interpreted at a generic site located on the East Coast of the United States. The site was created as
part of a previous study (reference forthcoming) that examined data provided by buoys that were located offshore
from all of the U.S. coasts. Buoys with at least 5 years of data containing both wind and wave direction were kept
and grouped into coastal regions depending on their locations: East Coast, West Coast, and the Gulf of Mexico. For
each buoy, conditional distributions related to the four parameters were fit, including:
● the wind speed at hub height was fitted with a two-parameter Weibull distribution;
● the wind/wave misalignment was fitted with a two-parameter Von Mises distribution with parameters
conditioned on the wind speed;
● the significant wave height was fitted with a two-parameter Gamma distribution with parameters conditioned
on wind speed and wind/wave misalignment;
● the peak-spectral wave period was fitted with a two-parameter Gamma distribution with parameters
conditioned on wind speed and wave height.
For each coastal region, we created a “generic” site with the average parameters of all the buoys in the area.
From this, a four-dimensional array was created containing the probabilities of each combination of met-ocean
parameters for the East Coast generic site. This information was used to analyze the simulation outputs.

III. Extreme Load Results

The extreme loading (taken here as the maximum positive value) experienced on various components of the
floating wind turbine system were extracted from the simulation outputs using MExtremes.13 When considering all
of the possible met-ocean conditions (370,656 simulations), we found that the highest significant wave height (12.75
m) caused the highest loads for the blade-root, LSS, yaw-bearing, and tower-base bending moments, as well as for
the anchor and fairlead tensions of mooring line 1 (which is directed downwind), as shown in Table 2. Also, more
than half of these extreme loads were caused with a misalignment higher than 75°.

However, a 12.75-m significant wave height value is an extremely rare occurrence at most offshore sites, thus the
simulation set was filtered to only include conditions that pass a 50-year return period threshold as shown in Table
2. To create this subset of simulations, the individual joint probabilities from the East Coast generic site were sorted
in descending order, and a cumulative sum array was created from this sorted list. The 50-year probability of
3.7*10-8 (the probability of a 10-minute event in 50 years) could then be applied to the cumulative sum array such

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 that all simulations with lower probability are considered to have a return period larger than 50-years. This analysis
reduced the number of simulations from 370,656 to around 70,000. This process filtered out simulations with high
significant wave heights and high wind/wave misalignments (wave heights at real offshore sites tend to diminish
with increasing wind/wave misalignmnent). A more accurate way of finding the 50-year return period uses the
inverse first-order reliability method (IFORM), which will be investigated in future work.

With simulations of the most extreme conditions no longer present, the extreme loads observed at the (filtered)
East Coast generic site were significantly lower than previously found and now occur at milder conditions. The
significant wave height that caused these extreme loads decreased from 12.75 m to between 3 and 8 m, and aligned
wind and waves were responsible for more than half of the extreme loads shown in Table 2. Of particular note is the
reduction of the side-to-side tower-base moment from 322 MN-m to 173 MN-m and the 31% reduction in the fore-
aft tower-base moment. Also note that in Table 2, mooring line 1 is the downwind line, so higher wind speeds
(corresponding to higher rotor thrust) relieve the tension on this line, hence the extreme tensions occur at the lowest
wind speeds; the other two mooring lines will be examined in future work.

To determine the general importance of the wind/wave misalignment on the extreme loads of the system, we
compared the extreme loads for each angle of wind/wave misalignment (presented in load roses in Figure 2).
Generally, we observe the importance of the 90° and -90° wind/wave misalignment for the side-to-side wind turbine
loadings; the anchor and fairlead tensions for the three mooring lines experienced more significant loads in waves
directed along the mooring line (the three lines are positioned at the 0°, 120°, and 240° angles around the platform;
see Figure 1). The yaw bearing side-to-side bending moment, as well as the blade-root bending moments, blade
deflection, and LSS moments (not shown here) are more impacted by high waves as their load rose profiles changed
significantly from all conditions to those of the East Coast site with the 50-year return threshold. For the East Coast
site, the load rose profiles show a dominant direction between -30 and 30 degrees, except for the yaw-bearing side-
to-side bending moment, in which the perpendicular directions are more important.

Table 2. Extreme loads for different components of the floating wind turbine and the corresponding met-
ocean conditions that produced these extremes. A comparison is made between the extreme loads for all
conditions and for the U.S. East Coast conditions with a 50-year threshold.

All Conditions East Coast 50- 50- 50- 50-

All All All All
(All) (50-Year) % Decrease Year Year Year Year
From All to
Maximum Maximum 50-Year Ws Ws
Locations Units Hs (m) Hs (m) Tp (s) Tp (s) Wd (°) Wd (°)
loads loads (m/s) (m/s)
RootMxc1 kN-m 12,422.0 11,743.3 5% 14 24 12.75 7.25 12.75 2.25 -105° -90
RootMyc1 kN-m 26,780.5 23,721.3 11% 10 10 12.75 4.75 20.75 12.75 -135° 15
YawBrMxp kN-m 13,920.5 10,662.0 23% 16 16 12.75 6.25 6.75 5.25 90° 90
YawBrMyp kN-m 18,517.8 15,674.6 15% 24 24 12.75 6.75 6.25 6.25 0° -15
TwrBsMxt kN-m 322,110.4 173,271.4 46% 16 18 12.75 7.75 6.75 5.25 90° 75
TwrBsMyt kN-m 391,964.1 269,252.2 31% 12 16 12.75 6.25 8.25 6.25 180° 0
Fair1Ten kN 1,554.3 1,360.0 13% 4 4 12.75 3.25 16.25 17.75 0° 0
Anch1Ten kN 1,291.9 1,098.8 15% 4 4 12.75 3.25 16.25 17.75 0° 0

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 ALL CONDITIONS EAST COAST (50-YEAR RETURN)
YawBrMxp (MN*m)
180°
165° -165°
150° -150°
135° -135°
120° -120°

105° -105°

90° -90°

75° -75°

60° -60°
45° -45°
30° -30°
15° -15°
0°

YawBrMyp (MN*m)
180°
165° -165°
150° -150°
135° -135°
120° -120°

105° -105°

90° -90°

75° -75°

60° -60°
45° -45°
30° -30°
15° -15°
0°

TwrBsMxt (MN*m)
180°
165° -165°
150° -150°
135° -135°
120° -120°

105° -105°

90° -90°

75° -75°

60° -60°
45° -45°
30° -30°
15° -15°
0°

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 TwrBsMyt (MN*N)
180
165 -165
150 -150
135 -135

120 -120

105 -105

90 -90

75 -75

60 -60

45 -45
30 -30
15 -15
0

Fair1Ten (MN*m)
180
165 -165
150 -150
135 -135

120 -120

105 -105

90 -90

75 -75

60 -60

45 -45
30 -30
15 -15
0

Anch1Ten (MN)
180°
165° -165°
150° -150°
135° -135°
120° -120°

105° -105°

90° -90°

75° -75°

60° -60°
45° -45°
30° -30°
15° -15°
0°

Figure 2. Loads roses representing the extreme loads as a function of the wave direction. From top to bottom:
yaw-bearing side-to-side and fore-aft bending moments; tower-base side-to-side and fore-aft bending
moments; anchor and fairlead tensions of mooring line 1. The roses on the left correspond to the complete
range of met-ocean conditions and the roses on the right correspond to the generic U.S. East Coast site.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 IV. Extreme Loading Directional Binning Sensitivity

In this study, we addressed a second issue: the minimum resolution of the wind/wave misalignment needed to
accurately capture the extreme loads. To investigate this issue, we used the results from the East Coast generic site
(provided in the previous section), and examined the extreme loads for varying numbers of simulated wave
directions. In Figure 3, the various bars represent different directional binning schemes, with each configuration
having the number of bins specified with even bin spacing around 360°. The loads are normalized by the 24-bin
case.

RootMxc1 RootMyc1 TwrBsMxt TwrBsMyt Anch2Ten

Figure 3. Comparison of the extreme loads when considering different numbers of wave direction bins. The
extreme loads are normalized by the 50-year extremes with all 24 misalignment bins.

For most of the loads, aligned wind and waves produced the maximum values, therefore only one bin (0 degrees)
was needed to capture the extreme load. However, for the tower-base side-to-side loading, considering only aligned
wind and waves resulted in an extreme load that is three times less than what would be experienced when
wind/wave misalignment is considered. Still, tower-base fore-aft bending moments are higher in magnitude than
tower-base side-to-side bending moments. Finally, the lower extreme loads for the offset 4-bin case (-135°, -45°,
45°, 135°) for most channels can be explained by the absence of the important bins of 0°, 90°, and -90° wind/wave
misalignment. From these initial results, considering 0° as well as either -90° or 90° should be sufficient to
characterize the extreme load for this system. More work needs to be done concerning this question however,
because this study only included one 10-minute simulation for each combination of met-ocean parameters, and
extreme loads may change with the addition of more seeds.

V. Fatigue Load Results

Similar analyses were conducted to investigate the impact of wind/wave misalignment on the fatigue loads
considering the set of simulations that represent the East Coast generic site with a 50-year return period. The goal of
this analysis was to determine the necessary simulations needed to accurately characterize the fatigue of this floating
platform. We used a customized version of the postprocessor MLife14 that includes the capability to consider a four-
parameter probability distribution in the fatigue calculations. With this addition, MLife is able to use the four-
parameter conditional probability distribution derived from our East Coast generic site to calculate lifetime fatigue.

From the various MLife runs, the fatigue lifetime damage was obtained as a function of the wind/wave
misalignment. We calculated the lifetime fatigue damage by determining the short-term fatigue damage from each
separate simulation using a rainflow-counting algorithm, and summing these short-term fatigue damage values
weighted by their probability. Load roses for the fatigue lifetime damage similar to those used for the extreme loads

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 are shown in Figure 4. The Wöhler exponents used are 10 for the blade root-bending moments and 4 for the other
structural locations (typical Wöhler exponents are 3−5 for steel and 8−12 for fiberglass blade materials).15 Figure 4
shows that similar trends were found: the side-to-side tower-base and yaw-bearing loadings experience their highest
lifetime damage towards the 90° and -90° directions and the other locations experience their highest lifetime damage
towards the 0° direction.

YawBrMxp (kN·m) YawBrMyp (kN·m)

180 180
-165 -165
150 -150 150 -150
135 -135 135 -135
120 -120 120 -120
105 -105 105 -105

90 -90 90 -90

75 -75 75 -75
60 -60 60 -60
45 -45 45 -45
30 -30 30 -30
15 -15 15 -15
0
0

Anch1Ten (kN) Fair1Ten (kN)

180 180
-165 -165
150 -150 150 -150
135 -135 135 -135
120 -120 120 -120

105 -105 105 -105

90 -90 90 -90

75 -75 75 -75
60 -60 60 -60
45 -45 45 -45
30 -30 30 -30
15 -15 15 -15
0
0

TwrBsMxt (kN·m) TwrBsMyt (kN·m)

180 180
-165 -165
150 -150 150 -150
135 -135 135 -135
120 -120 120 -120

105 -105 105 -105

90 -90 90 -90

75 -75 75 -75

60 -60 60 -60
45 -45 45 -45
30 -30 30 -30
15 -15 15 -15
0 0

Figure 4. Lifetime fatigue damage roses for the U.S. East Coast generic site.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 VI. Fatigue Loading Directional Binning Sensitivity

We analyzed several directional bin sizes, which was the same analysis conducted for the extreme loads. Figure
5 shows the effect of changing the wind/wave misalignment bins on the lifetime fatigue damage-equivalent loads of
the edgewise and flapwise blade root-bending moment, fore-aft and side-to-side tower-bending moment, and anchor
tensions. A two-bin case was added for this analysis, in which only 0° and 90° bins were considered, but the
probability of the 0° bin was combined with the probability of the 180° bin, and the -90° bin probability was added
to the 90° bin to ensure that the total probability remained equal. From Figure 5, it can be determined that blade and
anchor tension loads are not strongly affected by wave misalignment. Of note is that the only anchor tension
considered in Figure 5 is the mooring line directed along the wind; future work will look at the other two mooring
lines as well. The side-to-side and fore-aft tower loads show the importance of considering wind/wave
misalignment; with only one bin (aligned wind/waves), side-to-side tower damage is underpredicted by
approximately 50%, and fore-aft tower fatigue is overpredicted by more than 5%.

RootMxc1 RootMyc1 TwrBsMxt TwrBsMyt Anch1Ten

Figure 5. Comparison of the damage-equivalent loads when considering different numbers of wind/wave
misalignments for the U.S. East Coast generic site. The loads are normalized by the case with all 24
misalignment bins.

VII. Conclusions

This study investigates the importance of wind/wave misalignment in predicting the loads for an offshore
floating wind turbine with a spar-type floating platform. A wide range of met-ocean conditions were investigated
and the extreme loads were found to occur at the maximum significant wave height and for high wind/wave
misalignments. The set of simulations was then filtered by using a four-parameter joint probability distribution
representing a generic site on the U.S. East Coast with a 50-year return period. Once filtered, the extreme loads
occurred mostly during aligned wind and waves or low misalignment values and lower significant wave heights.
Tower-base side-to-side bending moments showed a strong dependency on the perpendicular wind and waves cases.
This finding was demonstrated by a sensitivity study in which the extreme side-to-side tower loads were three times
smaller when considering only aligned wind and waves. For other structural locations, extreme loads can be well
estimated by aligned wind and wave situations. The fatigue analysis for the same U.S. East Coast generic site
showed similar trends. However, considering only aligned wind and waves leads to an underestimation of the tower-
base side-to-side bending moment by approximately 50% and an overestimation of the tower-base fore-aft bending
moment by about 5%. Based on these results, we recommend considering at least two wave directions (aligned with
the wind and 90˚ misaligned) to precisely capture the extreme and fatigue characteristics of a spar-type platform.

10

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
 Future work will consider separate wind and wave direction distributions to increase the accuracy of the fatigue
damage calculation, as well as investigate the validity of the 50-year return period approach with joint probability
distributions. Other floating platforms must be investigated to fully understand the impact of wind/wave
misalignment, especially for nonaxisymmetric platforms.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the staff at the National Wind Technology Center in Boulder, Colorado, for
helping with HPC issues, especially Torri Lopez and Marshall Buhl. The University of Massachusetts authors were
funded by an Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) grant, number 1068864. The
NREL authors performed this work in support of the U.S. Department of Energy, under contract number DE-AC36-
08GO28308.

References

[1] Philippe, M., Babarit, A., and Ferrant, P. “Modes of response of an offshore wind turbine with directional wind and
waves,” Renewable Energy, 49, 151–155. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.042, 2013.
[2] Ramachandran, G. K. V., Bredmose, H., Sørensen, J. N., and Jensen, J. J. “Fully Coupled Three-Dimensional Dynamic
Response of a TLP Floating Wind Turbine in Waves and Wind,” Ocean Space Utilization; Ocean Renewable Energy, Vol. 7, pp.
299, 2012,. ASME. doi:10.1115/OMAE2012-83371
[3] Kokubun, K., Ishida, S., Nimura, T., Chujo, T., Yoshida, S., and Utsunomiya, T. “Model Experiment of a SPAR Type
Offshore Wind Turbine in Storm Condition,” Ocean Space Utilization; Ocean Renewable Energy, Vol. 7, pp. 569, 2012, ASME.
doi:10.1115/OMAE2012-83993
[4] NWTC Computer-Aided Engineering Tools (FAST by Jason Jonkman, Ph.D.).
http://wind.nrel.gov/designcodes/simulators/fast/.
[5] Jonkman, J., “Definition of the Floating System for Phase IV of OC3,” NREL/TP-500-47535, NREL: Golden, CO, 2010.
[6] Jonkman, J., Butterfield, S., Musial, W., and Scott, G. “Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore
System Development,” NREL/TP-500-38060, NREL: Golden, CO, 2009.
[7] Moriarty, P., and Hansen, C. “AeroDyn Theory Manual,” NREL/EL-500-36881, NREL: Golden, CO, 2005.
[8] Jonkman, J. “Dynamics Modeling and Loads Analysis of an Offshore Floating Wind Turbine,” NREL/TP-500-41958
NREL: Golden, CO, 2007.
[9] Faltinsen, O. M. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990.
[10] Haid, L., Matha, D., Stewart, G., Lackner, M., Jonkman, J., and Robertson, A. “Simulation-length requirements in the
loads analysis of offshore floating wind turbines,” ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, France, 2013.
[11] Jonkman, B. J. “TurbSim User’s Guide: Version 1.50,” NREL/EL-500-46198, NREL: Golden, CO, 2009.
[12] NWTC Design Codes (RunIEC_mod.prl by G. Scott, 2011).
[13] NWTC Design Codes (MExtremes by Greg Hayman). http://wind.nrel.gov/designcodes/postprocessors/MExtremes/.
Last modified 31-May-2012; Accessed 31-May-2012.
[14] NWTC Design Codes (MLife by G.J. Hayman, NREL 2012, v1.00.00h-gjh, 16-Apr-2013).
[15] Sutherland, H. J. “On the Fatigue Analysis of Wind Turbines,” SAND99-0089, Sandia National Laboratory:
Albuquerque, NM, 1999.

11

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.