-
During the SFOWT whole machine towing test, it is necessary to ensure that the test model and prototype meet the similarity criteria, including geometric similarity, motion similarity, and dynamic similarity.
1) Geometric similarity
When making the TC-SFOWT or FC-SFOWT test models, it is necessary to scale the prototype according to the similarity ratio, and it is necessary to ensure that the shape of the model is completely similar to the prototype. In addition, the environmental water depth, wind, wave and current elements, and other conditions involved in the model test also need to be compared with the same physical quantities of the actual sea state according to the similarity ratio. The similar ratio in the experiment is $\lambda {\text{ = }}1:80$.
$$ \lambda = {L_{\rm{m}}}/{L_{\rm{p}}} $$ (1) 2) Motion similarity
Models and prototypes are similar to Fr (Froude number) and St (Strouhal number). The Fr equally guarantees the correct similar relationship between the inertia and gravity of the model and the prototype. The St is equally guaranteed that the movement and force of the floating fan of the entire machine trailer under the wavy load can present periodic changes. The expressions of Fr and St are shown below.
$$ {F_{\rm{r}}} = {V_{\rm{p}}}/\sqrt {g{L_{\rm{p}}}} = {V_{\rm{m}}}/\sqrt {g{L_{\rm{m}}}} $$ (2) $$ {S_{\rm{t}}} = {L_{\rm{p}}}/{V_{\rm{p}}}T = {L_{\rm{m}}}/{V_{\rm{m}}}{T_{\rm{m}}} $$ (3) 3) Power similarity
Power similarity means that the model and prototype are under the same conditions, the ratio of the same force in the same position is the fixed value, and the direction is the same. Including gravity G, viscous T, pressure p, inertial force i, etc. The expression is shown below.
$$ {S_{\rm{F}}} = \frac{{{F_{\rm{m}}}}}{{{F_{\rm{p}}}}} = \frac{{{G_{\rm{m}}}}}{{{G_{\rm{p}}}}} = \frac{{{T_{\rm{m}}}}}{{{T_{\rm{p}}}}} = \frac{{{P_{\rm{m}}}}}{{{P_{\rm{p}}}}} = \frac{{{I_{\rm{m}}}}}{{{I_{\rm{p}}}}} $$ (4) In the formula, G is the acceleration of gravity. L, V, and T respectively represent length, speed, and period, respectively. The bids p and m represent the prototype and model, respectively. Table 1 shows a similar relationship between the SFOWT prototype and the model.
Table 1. SFOWT prototype and model similar to the model
Project Symbol Ratio Project Symbol Ratio Length Lp/Lm λ Period Tp/Tm λ0.5 Angle Φp/Φy 1 Force Fp/Fm λ3 Velocity vp/vm λ0.5 Linear acceleration Ap/Am 1 Angle speed ωp/ωm λ-0.5 -
A submerged floating offshore wind turbine (SFOWT) is composed of the upper turbine (DTU 10 MW RWT), tower, and submerged floating foundation, as shown in Fig. 1. The submerged floating foundation is composed of a central column, a vertical float, a horizontal floating tank, and a diagonal brace. The submerged floating foundation has the following structural features. In the bit state, as shown in Fig. 1(a), the wind turbine's foundation is submerged below the water surface under the operation of the tension leg anchorage system. Therefore, it has a relatively small waterline area and is less affected by wave loads, which is SFOWT. In the state of self-floating and towing, as shown in Fig. 1(b), the wind turbine foundation belongs to the semi-submersible platform, which has a large water plane and good stability, and the self-floating towage of SFOWT can be realized by using this advantage.
-
In 2013, the Wind Energy Research Center of the Technical University of Denmark released the model parameters of the wind turbine prototype with a power of 10 MW, called DTU 10 MW RWT[19]. The prototype has the advantages of being lightweight and having high strength of the blade.
The tower of the DTU 10 MW turbine adopts a layered design method, which is divided into 10 sections from the bottom to the top, and the wall thickness of each section remains the same, vary from the bottom diameter to the top diameter. The bottom diameter is 8.3 m (the elevation is 0 m, corresponding to a wall thickness of 38 mm), and the top diameter is 5.5 m (the elevation is 115.63 m, corresponding to a wall thickness of 20 mm).
During the actual towing process, the wind turbines are in a shutdown state, there is no need to consider the rotation of the blade and the aerodynamic load it receives. Therefore, the model of the turbine blade in the test is based on the parameters of the DTU 10 MW turbine blade and is made of hard foam according to the change of its airfoil to ensure that its shape and quality are similar. The main design parameters of the turbine are shown in Table 2. The main design parameters of the turbine blades are given in the paper[20]. According to a similar theory, the tower and the engine room are made of plexiglass.
Table 2. DTU 10 MW turbine prototype and model basic parameters
Project Prototype Model Blade length/m 86.366 1.080 Impeller quality/kg 227 962 0.445 Cabin quality/kg 446 036 0.871 Tower quality/kg 628 442 1.227 Hub height/m 119 1.488 Diameter of impeller/m 178.3 2.229 -
The TC-SFOWT or FC-SFOWT foundation is made of plexiglass, and towing rope is made of steel wire rope and spring. During the production process, the shape and quality of each part are strictly controlled, to ensure that the position of the center of gravity of the SFOWT model is similar to that of the prototype. The basic parameters of the foundation and model are shown in Table 3, the SFOWT model of self-floating state is shown in Fig. 2.
Table 3. Submerged floating foundation prototype and basic parameters of the model
Project TC-SFOWT FC-SFOWT Prototype Model Prototype Model Column diameter/m 8.3 0.104 8.6 0.108 Column height/m 22 0.275 22 0.275 Diameter of float/m 12.68 0.159 11 0.138 Float height/m 15 0.188 15 0.188 Axis distance of float/m 61.24 0.765 50 0.625 Bracing Diameter/m 2 0.025 2 0.025 Basic quality/kg 4.819×106 8.710 4.812×106 9.400 Static draft/m 6.0 0.075 5.2 0.065 -
The size of the laboratory pool and the arrangement of sensors are shown in Fig. 3, the test water depth is 0.9 m. During the test, the main focus is on the heave, pitch, roll, and tow cable force response values of SFOWT during the towing process. Choose from three measurement sensors. The inclinometer is used to measure the roll and pitch angles of the SFOWT during towing. The acceleration sensor is used to measure the heave acceleration of the SFOWT during towing. Tension sensors are used to measure the towing force of the SFOWT during towing.
It mainly includes the following three test schemes. Both TC-SFOWT and FC-SFOWT are towed by head sea. Static water-free decay test, the TC-SFOWT, and the FC-SFOWT are released after a certain displacement in the three main degrees of freedom of roll, pitch, and heave respectively, and their motion response time history curves decaying with time were collected. The regular wave towing test is to study the influence of wave height on the dynamic response of each degree of freedom during the SFOWT towing process. Irregular wave towing test uses the Jonswap wave spectrum. During the test, the speed is fixed. According to the test conditions, measure the towed motion response and towing force of SFOWT under the action of irregular waves with different significant wave heights and spectral peak periods, and explore the effect of the height of the towline point on its motion.
-
Carry out the free decay test of TC-SFOWT and FC-SFOWT. The motion time-history curves of the heave, roll, and pitch degrees of freedom are collected and Fourier transformed respectively, to obtain the natural frequencies of TC-SFOWT and FC-SFOWT, the natural periodic frequency of the model test is converted into the natural periodic frequency of the prototype through similarity theory, and compared with the numerical simulation results, as shown in Table 4. From the comparison results, it can be seen that the model test results are in good agreement with the numerical simulation results.
Table 4. Comparison of SFOWT free attenuation frequency numerical simulation and test results
Degrees of freedom Frequency/Hz Numerical Simulation Prototype Relative error Heave TC-SFOWT 0.070 0.073 4.3% FC-SFOWT 0.056 0.057 1.8% Roll TC-SFOWT 0.025 0.027 8.0% FC-SFOWT 0.026 0.028 7.7% Pitch TC-SFOWT 0.024 0.023 4.2% FC-SFOWT 0.026 0.027 3.9% -
Carry out regular wave towing tests to study the influence of wave height and spectral period on the towing performance of SFOWT, the test conditions are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Design of regular wave test conditions
Conditions number Wave height/m Wave period/s Model Prototype Model Prototype 1 0.037 5 3.0 1.0 8.9 2 0.050 0 4.0 1.0 8.9 3 0.062 5 5.0 1.0 8.9 4 0.062 5 5.0 1.3 11.6 5 0.062 5 5.0 1.7 15.2 Take any 30 s during the towage process for analysis, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 respectively show the towing time history curve and motion response statistics under the regular wave environment. Research shows that the increase in wave height will obviously increase the response amplitude of each degree of freedom of SFOWT. When the wave height is 6.25 cm, the maximum heave acceleration of the TC-SFOWT is 1.26 m/s2, the maximum pitch is 1.58°, the maximum roll is 1.18°, and the maximum towline force is 3.61 N. The maximum heave acceleration of the FC-SFOWT is 0.97 m/s2, the maximum pitch is 2.27°, the maximum roll is 1.01°, and the maximum towline force is 3.71 N.
-
In the towing test of TC-SFOWT and FC-SFOWT in irregular waves, the design sea state has a significant wave height Hs=6.25 cm and a spectral peak period Tp=1.0 s. Fig. 6 shows the comparison results of test wave making and Jonswap spectrum, which are very close, so the test simulation is feasible and reasonable.
When studying the influence of wave height and period, the height of the towline point is located at the water plane. The tow point height of the TC-SFOWT model is 7.5 cm, and the tow point height of the FC-SFOWT model is 6.5 cm. Table 6 is the design of irregular wave test conditions.
Table 6. Design of irregular wave test conditions
Conditions number Significant wave height (H/m) Peak period (TP/s) Model prototype Model prototype 6 0.0375 3.0 1.0 8.9 7 0.0500 4.0 1.0 8.9 8 0.0625 5.0 1.0 8.9 9 0.0625 5.0 1.3 11.6 10 0.0625 5.0 1.7 15.2 -
Fig. 7 is the time-history curves of heave acceleration, pitch, roll, and towing force of SFOWT under different significant wave heights during the towing process, and takes any 30 s during the towage process for analysis. With the increase of wave height, the response of SFOWT on each degree of freedom and the towing force is increasing, the heave acceleration response value of SFOWT under different working conditions fluctuates between ±2 m/s2, the pitch response value fluctuates between ±4°, the roll response value fluctuates between ±4°, both the heave acceleration and inclination angle meet the requirements of the towing specification.
Figure 7. Response time-history curves of SFOWT towing motion at different significant wave heights (Tp=1.0 s)
Fig. 8 shows the statistical characteristics of heave acceleration, pitch, roll, and tow cable force of SFOWT under different significant wave heights during towing. It can be found that when the significant wave height is 6.25 cm, the heave acceleration amplitude of the TC-SFOWT is 1.28 m/s2, compared with working conditions 1 and 2, it increased by 100.0% and 50.0% respectively. The amplitude of the heaving acceleration of the FC-SFOWT is 0.96 m/s2, compared with working conditions 1 and 2, it increased by 74.6% and 41.8% respectively. It can be seen that the increase of the significant wave height has a greater influence on the motion in the heaving direction of the TC-SFOWT. To compare the responses of the respective degrees of SFOWT of the two structural types under the same working conditions, the TC-SFOWT has slightly larger heave acceleration, roll angle, slightly smaller pitch angle, and towline force than the FC-SFOWT. When the significant wave height is 6.25 cm, the average towing force of the two structural types of SFOWT is 2.45 N and 3.46 N respectively. Since the FC-SFOWT has a larger underwater area than TC-SFOWT, the viscosity of water is stronger, so a greater towing force is required.
-
Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 respectively show the time-history curves and statistical values of heave acceleration, pitch, roll, and towline force of SFOWT, during towing under different spectral peak periods. When the wave period differs greatly from the inherent period of SFOWT itself, with the increase of the wave period, except for the heave acceleration, the response of each degree of freedom of SFOWT presents a decreasing trend. Compared with the FC-SFOWT, the TC-SFOWT also has larger heave acceleration, roll value, and smaller pitch value and towline force. When the peak period is 1.7 s, the natural period of the heave of TC-SFOWT is 1.6 s, and the natural period of heave of FC-SFOWT is 1.9 s. The wave period is close to the natural period of the test model heave, resulting in resonance, when the spectrum peak period is 1.6 s, the heave acceleration value of SFOWT is relatively large.
-
Explore the SFOWT in the process of towing the whole machine, the response of the streamer point height to the motion of each degree of freedom, and the effect of the height of the towline point on the magnitude of the towline force, to determine the best towing point location and lay the foundation for the analysis of subsequent working conditions. In this paper, h is used to replace the height of the towing point. The working conditions design is shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Experimental conditions of the influence of towing point height on the towing process
Working conditions number 11 12 13 TC-SFOWT Model/cm 5.5 7.5(Free surface) 9.5 Prototype/m 4.4 6.0(Free surface) 7.6 FC-SFOWT Model/cm 4.5 6.5(Free surface) 8.5 Prototype/m 3.6 5.2(Free surface) 6.8 Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 respectively show the time-history curves and statistical values of the heave acceleration, pitch, roll, and towline force of the SFOWT during towage at different towline point heights. Analysis shows that the height of the towing point above and below the waterplane will increase the response of SFOWT in each degree of freedom, but has little effect on the average value of the towing force. Because the high tow point and low tow point will increase the overturning moment of SFOWT, it has a larger pitch value, but the effect on a roll is not great. When the towing point is below the waterplane, the pitch angle amplitudes of the two types of SFOWT are 1.59° and 2.08° respectively, compared with the conditions where the towing point is located at the waterplane, it increases by 3.1% and 26.8% respectively. When the towing point is above the water surface line, the pitch angle amplitudes of the two types of SFOWT are 1.86° and 2.27° respectively, compared with the conditions where the towing point is located at the waterplane, it increases by 20.8% and 38.4% respectively. When the height of the towing point is level with the waterplane, the towing force amplitudes of the two types are respectively 11.1% and 14.7% lower than those of the other two working conditions. Therefore, in actual engineering, the height of the towing point should be arranged where the waterplane of the structure is self-floating, to reduce motion response during towing.
Comparision of Integrated Towing Motion Performance for Multi-Column Semisubmersible Floating Offshore Wind Turbines
-
摘要:
目的 基于搭载了DTU 10 MW风机的三四筒型全潜式浮式风机整机海上拖航过程,开展了物理模型试验,对比研究三浮筒型式和四浮筒型式的SFOWT在拖航过程中各自由度运动响应及拖缆力在不同工况下的变化规律。 方法 首先在静水中开展自由衰减试验,随后在规则波和不规则波浪环境中开展拖航过程试验,研究不同的拖缆点高度、波高以及周期对拖航过程的影响。 结果 结果表明:(1)对SFOWT的垂荡、横摇和纵摇自振周期进行分析,发现相同自由度下2种结构SFOWT的自振周期相差在5 s以内,三浮筒式SFOWT与四浮筒式SFOWT相比,三浮筒式SFOWT垂荡加速度更小,纵摇和横摇的自然周期更大;(2)随着波高的增加,SFOWT在各自由度上的响应以及拖缆力都在增大,规则波和不规则波工况下波高的增加对三浮筒型式SFOWT垂荡加速度、横摇角的影响更大,纵摇角以及拖缆力较小;(3)当波浪周期与SFOWT自身的固有周期相差较大时,随着波浪周期的增大,除垂荡加速度外SFOWT各自由度上的响应呈现减小的趋势;(4)当拖缆点高度与水线面齐平时,2种型式SFOWT的拖缆力幅值较其他两种工况最大分别减小11.1%和14.7%。 结论 四浮筒型式SFOWT的拖航运动性能更佳。在实际工程中,应当将拖缆点高度布置在结构自浮时水面线所在的位置,以减小拖航过程中的运动响应。 Abstract:Introduction A comparative research was conducted to investigate the variation rules of motion responses in various degrees of freedom (DOF) and towline forces in the towing process of three-column submerged floating offshore wind turbines (TC-SFOWT) and four-column submerged floating offshore wind turbines (FC-SFOWT) under different working conditions, through a physical model test using a DTU 10 MW wind turbine. Method Firstly, a free attenuation test was carried out in still water. Then towing process tests were carried out in regular wave and irregular wave environments. The research focuses on the effects of different towline point heights, wave heights, and wave periods on the towing process of SFOWTs. Result These tests yielded the following findings. (1) The analysis related to heave, roll, and pitch natural vibration periods of SFOWTs reveals that the difference in natural vibration periods between the two SFOWT structures in the same DOF is within 5 seconds, the TC-SFOWT exhibits a smaller heave acceleration and longer natural periods of pitch and roll; (2) As wave height increases, the response of SFOWTs in each DOF and the towline force also increase, and the increase in wave height has a greater influence on the heave acceleration and roll angle of the TC-SFOWT under both regular wave and irregular wave conditions, while it has a smaller impact on the pitch angle and towline force; (3) When the wave period differs greatly from the natural period of SFOWTs, an increase in wave period results in a decreasing trend in the SFOWTs' responses across various DOFs, except for heave acceleration; (4) When the towline point is flush with the water level, the towline force amplitudes of the TC-SFOWT and FC-SFOWT are respectively 11.1% and 14.7% lower than those of the other two working conditions. Conclusion In conclusion, the towing motion performance of the FC-SFOWT is better. In actual engineering practices, the towline point height when the structure is self-floating should be arranged at the water surface line, so as to reduce motion response during the towing process. -
Tab. 1. SFOWT prototype and model similar to the model
Project Symbol Ratio Project Symbol Ratio Length Lp/Lm λ Period Tp/Tm λ0.5 Angle Φp/Φy 1 Force Fp/Fm λ3 Velocity vp/vm λ0.5 Linear acceleration Ap/Am 1 Angle speed ωp/ωm λ-0.5 Tab. 2. DTU 10 MW turbine prototype and model basic parameters
Project Prototype Model Blade length/m 86.366 1.080 Impeller quality/kg 227 962 0.445 Cabin quality/kg 446 036 0.871 Tower quality/kg 628 442 1.227 Hub height/m 119 1.488 Diameter of impeller/m 178.3 2.229 Tab. 3. Submerged floating foundation prototype and basic parameters of the model
Project TC-SFOWT FC-SFOWT Prototype Model Prototype Model Column diameter/m 8.3 0.104 8.6 0.108 Column height/m 22 0.275 22 0.275 Diameter of float/m 12.68 0.159 11 0.138 Float height/m 15 0.188 15 0.188 Axis distance of float/m 61.24 0.765 50 0.625 Bracing Diameter/m 2 0.025 2 0.025 Basic quality/kg 4.819×106 8.710 4.812×106 9.400 Static draft/m 6.0 0.075 5.2 0.065 Tab. 4. Comparison of SFOWT free attenuation frequency numerical simulation and test results
Degrees of freedom Frequency/Hz Numerical Simulation Prototype Relative error Heave TC-SFOWT 0.070 0.073 4.3% FC-SFOWT 0.056 0.057 1.8% Roll TC-SFOWT 0.025 0.027 8.0% FC-SFOWT 0.026 0.028 7.7% Pitch TC-SFOWT 0.024 0.023 4.2% FC-SFOWT 0.026 0.027 3.9% Tab. 5. Design of regular wave test conditions
Conditions number Wave height/m Wave period/s Model Prototype Model Prototype 1 0.037 5 3.0 1.0 8.9 2 0.050 0 4.0 1.0 8.9 3 0.062 5 5.0 1.0 8.9 4 0.062 5 5.0 1.3 11.6 5 0.062 5 5.0 1.7 15.2 Tab. 6. Design of irregular wave test conditions
Conditions number Significant wave height (H/m) Peak period (TP/s) Model prototype Model prototype 6 0.0375 3.0 1.0 8.9 7 0.0500 4.0 1.0 8.9 8 0.0625 5.0 1.0 8.9 9 0.0625 5.0 1.3 11.6 10 0.0625 5.0 1.7 15.2 Tab. 7. Experimental conditions of the influence of towing point height on the towing process
Working conditions number 11 12 13 TC-SFOWT Model/cm 5.5 7.5(Free surface) 9.5 Prototype/m 4.4 6.0(Free surface) 7.6 FC-SFOWT Model/cm 4.5 6.5(Free surface) 8.5 Prototype/m 3.6 5.2(Free surface) 6.8 -
[1] European Wind Energy Association (EWEA). The economics of wind energy [Z]. Brussels, Belgium: EWEA, 2015. [2] SKAARE B, NIELSEN F G, HANSON T D, et al. Analysis of measurements and simulations from the Hywind Demo floating wind turbine [J]. Wind energy, 2015, 18(6): 1105-1122. DOI: 10.1002/we.1750. [3] Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Global wind report 2021 [EB/OL]. (2021-11) [2023-05-20]. https://gwec.net/global-wind-report-2021/. [4] GUILLAUME B, CHRISTIAN B, CHRISTINE B, et al. Design and performance of a TLP type floating support structure for a 6 MW offshore wind turbine [C]//Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 2019. Houston: Offshore Technology Conference, 2019. DOI: 10.4043/29371-MS. [5] VITA L, RAMACHANDRAN G K V, KRIEGER A, et al. Comparison of numerical models and verification against experimental data, using pelastar TLP concept [C]//ASME 2015 34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, St. John's, May 31-June 5, 2015. St. Johns: ASME, 2015. DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2015-41874. [6] INOUE S, LIM S T. The course stability of towed boats (continued) [J]. Transaction of the West-Japan society of naval architects, 1971(43): 35-44. [7] STRANDHAGEN A G, SCHOENHERR K E, KOBAYASHI F M. The dynamic stability on course of towed ships [J]. Society ofnaval architects and marine engineers-transactions, 1958, 58: 32-66. [8] INOUE S, LIM S T. The course stability of towed boats-when the mass of tow rope is continued [J]. Transaction of the West-Japan society of naval architects, 1972(44): 129-140. [9] BERNITSAS M M, KEKRIDIS N S. Nonlinear stability analysis of ship towed by elastic rope [J]. Journal of ship research, 1986, 30(2): 136-146. DOI: 10.5957/jsr.1986.30.2.136. [10] VARYANI K. Course stability problem formulation. Gdansk Poland [C]//13th International Conference on Hydrodynamic in Ship Design (HYDRONAV 99), 2nd International Symposiums on Ship Manoeuvring (MANOEUVRING 99), 1999. [11] COLLU M, MAGGI A, GUALENI P, et al. Stability requirements for floating offshore wind turbine (FOWT) during assembly and temporary phases: overview and application [J]. Ocean engineering, 2014, 84: 164-175. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.03.018. [12] ADAM F, MYLAND T, DAHLHAUS F, et al. GICON®-TLP for wind turbines–the path of development [C]//Soares G. The 1st International Conference on Renewable Energies Offshore (RENEW), London, November 2014, 2014. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2014: 24-26. DOI: 10.1201/b18973-92. [13] HYLAND T, ADAM F, DAHLIAS F, et al. Towing tests with the GICON®-TLP for wind turbines [C]//The 24th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Busan, Korea, June 2014. Busan, Korea: International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, 2014: 283-287. [14] DING H Y, HAN Y Q, ZHANG P Y, et al. Dynamic analysis of a new type of floating platform for offshore wind turbine [C]//Proceedings of the 26th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Rhodes, Greece, June 26-July 1, 2016. Rhodes: The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, 2016. [15] HAN Y Q, LE C H, DING H Y, et al. Stability and dynamic response analysis of a submerged tension leg platform for offshore wind turbines [J]. Ocean engineering, 2017, 129: 68-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.10.048. [16] LE C H, ZHANG J, DING H Y, et al. Preliminary design of a submerged support structure for floating wind turbines [J]. Journal of ocean university of China, 2020, 19(6): 1265-1282. DOI: 10.1007/s11802-020-4427-z. [17] ZHANG P Y, ZHAO X, DING H Y, et al. The wet-towing resistance of the composite bucket foundation for offshore wind turbines [J]. Marine structures, 2021, 80: 103089. DOI: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2021.103089. [18] BÜTTNER T, PÉREZ-COLLAZO C, ABANADES J, et al. OrthoSpar, a novel substructure concept for floating offshore wind turbines: physical model tests under towing conditions [J]. Ocean engineering, 2022, 245: 110508. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110508. [19] GERWICK B C J. Construction of marine and offshore structures [M]. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000. [20] GAERTNER E, RINKER J, SETHURAMAN L, et al. IEA wind TCP task 37: definition of the IEA 15-Megawatt offshore reference wind turbine [R]. Golden: National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), 2020.