Offshore Wind Turbine Load Reduction Employing Optimal Passive Tuned Mass Damping Systems

1090
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 21, NO. 4, JULY 2013
Offshore Wind Turbine Load Reduction Employing

Optimal Passive Tuned Mass Damping Systems
Gordon Stewart and Matthew Lackner
Abstract Offshore wind turbines can capture the high-quality

offshore wind resource but suffer from increased loading from
waves and ice. Reducing these loads through structural control
techniques has the potential to be an economically viable solution.
Both fixed-bottom and floating substructures are considered in
this paper, which will investigate a fixed-bottom monopile as
well as a barge, spar buoy, and tension-leg platform for the
floating platforms. A set of optimum passive tuned mass dampers
are developed by creating a limited degree-of-freedom model for
each of the four offshore wind platforms. These models are then
integrated into an optimization function using a genetic algorithm
to find a globally optimum design for the tuned mass damper. The
tuned mass damper parameters determined by the optimization
are applied to a series of wind turbine design code simulations
using FAST. A sensitivity analysis of the tuned mass damper
parameters and a study on the effect of misaligned wind and
waves on load reductions are also conducted. Results from these
simulations are presented, and tower fatigue damage reductions
of up to 20% are achieved for the various tuned mass damper
configurations.
Index Terms Floating offshore wind, offshore wind turbines,
structural control, tuned mass dampers.
I. I NTRODUCTION
FFSHORE wind has the potential to become a large

contributor to the United States energy portfolio in
the future. This is due to the higher quality offshore wind
resource as well as the proximity of coastal population centers.
However, offshore wind introduces new problems including
wave and ice loading, higher cost foundations, and higher
operation and maintenance costs. The ability to reduce loads
is therefore extremely important for offshore wind turbines, as
it allows increased reliability and possibly lighter and cheaper
structures [1]. This paper will focus on reducing the motion
(and thus loading) of offshore wind turbines through the use
of structural control techniques.
stability from a large pile embedded in the seabed. Other fixedbottom substructures include gravity and suction foundations,
but these are less common. Transitional depth technologies,
including tripod and jacket substructures, can be installed in
water depths up to 60 m. Research has shown that tower
bending can cause failures in the transitional piece between
the tower and the substructure in monopiles [2].
Floating wind turbines have the potential to be placed
anywhere in the ocean from depths of 60 m to upwards of
900 m or beyond. This is a great benefit, because floating
platforms allow offshore wind penetration into locations where
it may be economically prohibitive for fixed-bottom offshore
turbines. These locations include the Great Lakes and the west
coast of the United States where there is a limited shallowwater resource, but extremely large deep-water resources [3].
Floating platforms are also much less dependent on seabed
conditions than fixed-bottom structures because they do not
rely on the ocean floor for support with the exception of
the mooring lines. Many of the floating platform designs are
able to be towed by boats in order to be moved relatively
easily. This may reduce costs associated with construction and
maintenance.
Three different floating platforms designs are described in
this paper. The three major sources of stability for floating
platforms are buoyancy, ballast, and mooring line tension.
Each platform uses some combination of these three stability sources, with one source typically being dominant. The
platforms reported in this paper are the ITI energy barge, the
OC3-Hywind Spar Buoy, and the NREL tension-leg platform
(TLP). The barge derives its stability mostly from buoyancy,
the spar buoy mostly from ballast, and the TLP mostly from
mooring line tension. A depiction of the three platforms can
be seen in Fig. 1 [4][11].
B. Structural Control
A. Offshore Wind Turbines

The current state of the industry for offshore turbines is
dominated by fixed-bottom substructures, which are suitable
for water depth of up to approximately 60 m. Most fixedbottom offshore turbines are monopiles, which derive their
Manuscript received December 15, 2011; revised July 25, 2012; accepted
December 20, 2012. Manuscript received in final form April 26, 2013. Date of
current version June 14, 2013. Recommended by Associate Editor L. Fagiano.
The authors are with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 USA (e-mail:
gmstewar@student.umass.edu; lackner@ecs.umass.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCST.2013.2260825
For over 20 years, numerous large-scale active and passive

structural control systems have been implemented for civil
structures [12][17]. The simplest type of structural control
devices are passive, which use no power to operate and are
the focus of this paper. As the structure vibrates, some of the
vibrational energy is transferred to the mass of the structural
control device and dissipated by the damper.
The most common passive structural control device is the
tuned mass damper (TMD). This device utilizes a mass on
an ideally frictionless track. The TMD mass and the main
structure are connected via a spring and dashpot. The mass
and spring are tuned to a system frequency, which results
1063-6536/$31.00 2013 IEEE
STEWART AND LACKNER: OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE LOAD REDUCTION
Fig. 1.
1091
Floating platform models (Source: NREL).

Fig. 2.
nacelle.
in the TMD mass vibrating at this frequency. The damper

then dissipates energy from the whole system in the form
of heat. The theory is simple, but tuning the spring and
damping constants for optimal structural energy dissipation
can be difficult. Even for an idealized one-degree-of-freedom
structure, the optimal tuning for the spring and damper is
dictated by a complex function [18]. For structures with more
degrees of freedom and nonlinearities, such as an offshore
wind turbine, there is no analytical solution for the optimal
tuning, and numerical approaches must be used.
Research has been conducted on using passive TMDs for
wind turbines, especially for offshore structures because of
their larger loading [19][23]. Earlier studies focused on fixedbottom structures, but previous work by one of the authors also
focused on floating structures [24], [25]. This research led to
the development of a modification to FAST to accommodate
structural control (FAST-SC), an updated version of the NREL
wind turbine aero-elastic design code, which has the capability
to simulate both passive and active TMDs. More details on the
capabilities of the FAST-SC code are discussed below, and can
be found in the literature [25][27].
FAST is a coupled aero-hydro-servo-elastic code that simulates the performance of wind turbines [28]. It uses the blade
element-momentum theory or generalized dynamic wake theory to calculate aerodynamic loads, a linear modal representation for structural components, and a nonlinear hydrodynamic
subroutine that calculates wave loading on the platform for
offshore applications [29]. This code is interfaced through
M ATLAB/Simulink, and a controller can be implemented
graphically with Simulink.
FAST-SC was developed by Lackner and Rotea [25]. This
code includes the capability to model two independent TMDs,
one in the fore-aft direction and one in the side-side direction
(see Fig. 2). The TMDs can be located in the nacelle or
on the platform. This is a conceptual evaluation of TMDs
in wind turbines, and future work will have to evaluate
specific designs and integration with existing structures. As
a point of comparison, a steel TMD with a 20 000-kg mass
(approximately 2% of the turbine mass) has a volume equal
to only 0.4% of the total nacelle volume. Position constraints
known as stops are imposed on the stroke of the TMDs.
Diagram showing direction of fore-aft and side-side TMDs in a
TABLE I
P HYSICAL PARAMETERS OF NREL 5-MW BASELINE T URBINE [30]
Rating
5 MW
Rotor orientation, configuration
Upwind, three blades
Control
Variable speed, collective pitch
Drive train
High-speed multiple-stage gearbox
Rotor, hub diameter
126 m, 3 m
Hub height
90 m
Cut-in, rated, cut-out wind speed
3 m/s, 11.4 m/s, 25 m/s
Cut-in, rated rotor speed
6.9 rpm, 12.1 rpm
Rated tip speed
80 m/s
Overhang, shaft tilt, precone
5 m, 5, 2.5
Rotor mass
110 000 kg
Nacelle mass
240 000 kg
Tower mass
347 460 kg
Coordinate location of overall CM
(0.2 m, 0.0 m, 64.0 m)
Nacelle dimensions
18 m 6 m 6 m
These constraints were introduced because the nacelle has

a limited amount of space, but the stops can be set to any
distance.
This paper reports a representative 5-MW wind turbine
model, which is a three-bladed upwind machine with a
90-m hub height and a 126-m rotor diameter, that has been
developed by NREL for simulation [30]. Table I outlines other
properties of the turbine. The baseline control includes variable
speed operation and collective blade pitch control. This turbine
is used for many research efforts, as it provides a common
model for comparison between studies.
This paper will advance previous work on passive structural
control of floating and fixed-bottom offshore wind turbines, by
considering a broad range of floating support structures and
utilizing advanced optimization methods.
1) Section II develops a limited DOF structural model of
each wind turbine system.
2) Section III describes the implementation of these structural models in the Simulink framework.
3) Section IV uses the limited DOF model as an objective
function for a variety of optimization methods, including
1092
the use of a genetic algorithm to find the TMD spring

and damping constants that provide the largest tower
fatigue reduction.
4) Section V discusses the results of a series of high-fidelity
FAST simulations using the optimum TMDs found by
the genetic algorithm.
5) Section VI presents conclusions and future work.
II. L IMITED DOF O FFSHORE T URBINE M ODELS
The ideal way to optimize the TMD parameters would be
to create a function that would wrap an optimization scheme
around FAST-SC, which would pick a spring and damping
constant, simulate the system in FAST-SC, and then modify
the parameters in order to get closer to the minimum of some
output from FAST-SC, e.g., tower fatigue. However, the simulation time for a 10-min FAST-SC simulation is approximately
1030 min, and the optimization scheme could potentially
need thousands of function calls to find an optimum. Also,
in the case of the offshore platforms used in this paper, there
is usually a single system degree of freedom that is responsible
for the most fatigue loading, and so FAST-SC is an overkill
in terms of the computations needed. Therefore, in order to
quickly and efficiently find the optimum TMD configuration
for each platform, a limited DOF model is constructed from
the basic equations of motion. For the monopile, barge,
and spar, minimization of tower base fatigue loading is the
objective function, whereas for the TLP, both tower fatigue and
mooring line fatigue are considered. These models are built to
capture the degrees of freedom for the specific platform that
are the source of most of the loading.
A. Monopile Limited DOF Model

The monopile is the simplest of the models; there are only
two degrees of freedom that are of concern: the tower bending
DOF and the TMD DOF. Since the fore-aft direction has the
highest loading from wind and waves, this direction has the
highest tower fatigue damage. For this reason, the following
models consider the for-aft direction, but side-side modeling is
possible with minor modifications. The tower is modeled as an
inverted pendulum, with the structural stiffness and damping
modeled as a rotary spring and rotary damper at the base of
the rigid body, and the TMD is modeled as a simple mass on
a linear track with a linear spring and damper. A diagram of
the model is shown in Fig. 3.
In Fig. 3, the k terms are spring constants, the d terms are
damping constants, and the m terms are masses. The subscripts
t represent the tower degree of freedom and the subscripts
tmd are for the TMD. The angle that the tower has bent
from vertical is denoted by t , and the displacement of the
TMD from its undisturbed position is shown as x tmd . After
applying a simple dynamic analysis as well as small-angle
approximations to the two degrees of freedom, (1) and (2) are
found. Small-angle approximations are appropriate throughout
this paper because, in simulations, none of the platforms
exceeds 10 degrees of pitch even in the heaviest wind and
Fig. 3.
Diagram of the limited DOF model for the monopile.
wave loadings
It t = m t g Rt t kt t dt t
ktmd Rtmd (Rtmd t x tmd )
dtmd Rtmd (Rtmd t xtmd )
m tmd g(Rtmd t x tmd )
m tmd xtmd = ktmd (Rtmd t x tmd )
+ dtmd (Rtmd t xtmd ) + m tmd gt .
(1)
(2)
The R terms are the distances from the tower hinge to

the center of mass of the degree of freedom indicated by
the subscript. For example, Rtmd is the distance from the
tower hinge to the center of mass of the TMD. All degrees of
freedoms in the models are in a global reference frame. Thus,
x tmd is not defined relative to the position in the nacelle, but
rather from the global zero, which can be seen in Fig. 3 as
the z-axis. If the nacelle has moved 1 m to the right, and the
TMD has moved 1 m to the right in the nacelle, then x tmd
would equal 2 m. This modeling choice is made so there are
no inertial terms from other degrees of freedom in any of the
equations, which simplifies the implementation of the model,
although completely equivalent results would be obtained if
the relative displacements were utilized in conjunction with
the proper transformations (see Section III).
B. Barge
The barge must be modeled with an additional degree
of freedom to account for the compliance of the floating
platform. It has been shown in other studies that the platform
pitching degree of freedom for the barge causes the most tower
bending [31]. Therefore, the model includes the tower and
TMD degrees of freedom, and also has a platform pitching
degree of freedom. This model can be seen in Fig. 4. Equations
Fig. 4.
1093
Diagram of the limited DOF model for the barge.
(3)(5) show the equations for the platform, tower, and TMD,
respectively
I p p = d p p k p p m p g R p p
+ kt (t p ) + dt (t p )
It t = m t g Rt t kt (t p ) dt (t p )
ktmd Rtmd (Rtmd t x tmd )
dtmd Rtmd (Rtmd t xtmd )
m tmd g(Rtmd t x tmd )
m tmd xtmd = ktmd (Rtmd t x tmd )
+ dtmd (Rtmd t xtmd ) + m tmd gt .
(3)
Fig. 5. Diagram of the limited DOF model for the spar with the TMD in
the nacelle and in the spar.
(4)
(5)
The subscripts and variables in these equations are the same

as in (1) and (2), with the addition of the p subscript
for the platform DOF. The spring constant of the barge,
k p , represents a summation of hydrostatic restoring moments
and mooring line stiffness. The barge damping constant, d p ,
includes many sources of hydrodynamic damping, including wave radiation and viscous damping. These terms are
nonlinear, so the assumption of a linear damping constant
adds some inaccuracies to the model. Once again, the angles
and displacement are in absolute coordinates so the equations include only one inertial term. The R parameters are
from the hinge to the center of mass of the corresponding degree of freedom. In all models, the choice of the
hinge point as a reference is arbitrary, but it is convenient
because the corresponding distances from this point are
straightforward to calculate from the given dimensions of the
platforms.
It was also determined that a platform-based TMD could
be effective for the barge. With this system, the gravitational
forces, not the spring and damping forces, of the TMD would
be the most influential in load reduction. The tuned spring and
damper serve the purpose of forcing the TMD mass to be on
the side of the barge, which causes a restoring gravitational
moment during platform pitch. A parametric study was used to
tune this TMD rather than a limited DOF model. Section V-B
provides more details on this configuration.
C. Spar
The spar buoy model is very similar to the barge in that
platform pitch is the dominant platform mode. In order to
analyze both the nacelle-based and platform-based TMDs, two
models are developed for the spar buoy. Fig. 5 shows the two
models for the spar. There are different sets of equations for
the spar with TMD in the nacelle and TMD in the platform.
For the spar with the TMD in the nacelle, the equations are
identical to (3)(5); it is only the parameters themselves that
change. With the TMD in the spar, the equations can be seen
in (6)(8)
I p p = d p p k p p m p g R p p
+ kt (t p ) + dt (t p )
ktmd Rtmd (Rtmd p x tmd )
dtmd Rtmd (Rtmd p xtmd )
+ m tmd g(Rtmd p x tmd ))
It t = m t g Rt t kt (t p ) dt (t p )
(6)
(7)
m tmd xtmd = ktmd (Rtmd p x tmd )

+ dtmd (Rtmd p xtmd ) + m tmd g p .
(8)
Most of the spar buoys stiffness in pitch comes from the

ballast term, which is the m p g R p p term. The spring constant
1094
Barge Pitch Angle
5
Pitch Angle (deg)
State Space Model

FAST Results
20
40
60
Time (s)
80
100
120
Tower Top Displacement

2
State Space Model
FAST Results
1.5
TTD (m)
1
0.5
0
0.5
Fig. 6. (From left to right) Diagram of the limited DOF model for the surging
TLP, the pitching TLP with the TMD in the platform, and the pitching TLP
with the TMD in the nacelle.
1
1.5
Fig. 7.
term for the spar buoy represents the effect of the mooring
lines and the buoyancy. Since the flotation force is in the
upward direction, the spring constant in this case gives a
destabilizing moment to the spar, so it shows up as a negative
constant in the equation. The terms in (4) and (5) that describe
the interaction between the tower and the TMD have switched
to terms in (6) and (8) that describe the interaction between
the TMD and the platform.
D. TLP
For the TLP, the dominant mode of the system in terms
of platform motion is surge: the translational motion into and
out of the wind. The TLP undergoes cycles on the order of a
few meters in surge, and it is relatively stiff in other degrees
of freedom, so this platform motion was initially chosen as
the modeling degree of freedom. However, it was found that,
while the surge motion is the largest in terms of magnitude,
it was not the cause of most of the tower bending or mooring
line fatigue. Instead, pitch was identified as the problem
degree of freedom, so models for both pitch and surge were
built. Furthermore, both nacelle- and platform-based TMDs
are feasible for the pitch model, while only a platform-based
TMD makes sense for the surge degree of freedom. Fig. 6
shows the three models used.
These three models show the configuration of the TLP
model, but the mathematical model could not be as easily
constructed because of a problem with the coupling of the
degrees of freedom of the TLP. When one tries to isolate
one platform degree of freedom like in the monopile, barge,
and spar models, the result is a poor estimate of the natural
frequencies and displacements due to missing the effects of
coupling. An important consequence of this coupling is that,
if the platform is forced to only surge, the mooring lines are
stretched more than they would if the platform could also
pitch and heave. This puts large forces on the platform and
changes the effective spring constant of the surging motion,
which changes the natural frequency of the motion. However,
trying to include all of the relevant degrees of freedom results
in a much more complex model and loses the clarity of the
20
40
60
Time (s)
80
100
120
Agreement between limited DOF model and FAST with no TMD.
single platform DOF models. For these reasons, a different

optimization strategy is used for the TLP, which will be
explained in Section IV-E.
III. M ODEL I MPLEMENTATION AND T UNING
With the mathematical models determined, the equations
are then implemented in Simulink. After solving each of
(1)(8) for the acceleration terms, the equations are put into
embedded function blocks. In order to use the models to
optimize the TMD, the model parameters and the loading must
be determined. For all platforms, the platform inertia, tower
inertia, platform mass, and tower mass can be determined from
the FAST-SC input files. The distance terms R p and Rt are
determined by the center of masss location in relation to the
base of the tower, and can be calculated from the platform and
tower input files as well. The platform and tower spring and
damping constants, however, need to be found by comparing
the model to FAST-SC outputs. By applying the same input
conditions to the model and a FAST-SC simulation, the outputs
can be compared and a nonlinear least squares algorithm can
determine the spring and damping constants that give the best
fit for the model. For the simulations, a step input of tower
deflection was used for the monopile, and an initial platform
pitch displacement was used for the barge and spar buoy. No
wave or wind loading was applied, and the only degrees of
freedom that were turned on in FAST-SC were the two or
three DOFs in the model. The displacements of the tower
and platform degrees of freedom were used as performance
metrics, and the least squares algorithm was used to fit the
output of the model to the output of FAST-SC. All platform
models showed good agreement with the FAST-SC output
using this tuning technique.
Fig. 7 shows a plot of the fit for the barge model as an
example. The barge pitch angle starts at 5 and oscillates
at a frequency of approximately 0.08 Hz, and the platform
damping attenuates the signal throughout the 100-s simulation.
The second plot is the tower top displacement (TTD), which
Barge Pitch
Pitch (deg)
Since there is limited space in the nacelle and platforms,

stops are necessary to prevent the TMD from exceeding
these space requirements. For the NREL 5-MW nacelle, the
dimensions dictate that the longest stroke for the TMD is
8 m in the fore-aft direction, and 2.5 m for the side-side
TMD. The stops in FAST-SC are modeled as a large spring
and damper that come into contact with the mass at a certain
set distance from the undeflected TMD spring position. This
makes the system highly nonlinear. In order to model this in
Simulink, a series of if-then-else statements are used. These
statements are inserted in the acceleration equations such that,
if the mass is hitting the stop, an additional force is applied
to the mass and an equal and opposite force is applied to
the nacelle or tower. This system gives good agreement with
FAST-SC.
In Fig. 8, both the effect of the stops and the nonzero mean
thrust loading can be seen. In this figure, the barges steadystate pitch angle is approximately 3 because of the steady
thrust loading. Also, the bottom graph shows the TMD hitting
the stop at 8 m.
IV. O PTIMIZATION S CHEME
Once the models for the platforms are built and tuned,
the next step is to use the models to optimize the TMD
parameters. In order to view a graphical representation of
the function that was being optimized, a surface response
method was employed. This proved useful to visualize how
to approach the problem, but it did not prove to be a viable
optimization method.
10
20
30
40
50
60
time (s)
Tower Top Displacement
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
70
80
90
100
70
80
90
100
70
80
90
100
1
0.5
0
Displacement (m)
0.5
50
60
time (s)
TMD Displacement
10
5
0
5
10
Fig. 8.
50
time (s)
60
Example of a barge limited DOF model simulation.
Barge Optimum No Stops
0.5
Standard Deviation of TTD (m)
B. Modeling TMD Position Constraints
1.5
A. Realistic Model Loading

With all of the parameters identified for the models, the
loading must be chosen for the optimization function. For
the actual turbine, the loading is a complex combination
of stochastic wind and wave loading. Originally, the model
loading for the optimization was the simple step input used
in the parameter identification. However, this was found to
give inaccurate results because of the fact that the thrust force
caused by the wind has a nonzero mean. The aerodynamic
thrust creates a nonzero mean pitch angle for some of the
platforms, specifically the spar buoy, which changes the parameters of the optimum TMD. Additionally, the thrust force
gives nonzero mean surge, which changes the mooring line
tensions, which affects the system frequencies. The solution
is to use a combination of a constant thrust moment on the
tower degree of freedom and a pitch step input. The magnitude
of the thrust force is the average of the thrust force from a
FAST-SC simulation at the rated wind speed.
TTD (m)
is the amount of tower bending in meters measured at the

top of the tower. TTD is relative to the platform coordinate
system, so if the platform is pitched but the tower is not bent,
then the TTD is zero. In this graph, both the tower and barge
pitch frequencies are apparent. The fit between the FAST-SC
output and the model output is close, and the differences can
be attributed to nonlinearities in the barge pitch damper and
spring in FAST-SC.
1095
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
7000
6000
5000
6000
4000
5000
4000
TMD
Sprin
(N/m) g
ing
mp )
a
D D s/m
TM (N
3000
3000
2000
2000
1000
1000
Fig. 9. Surface plot of standard deviation of TTD versus TMD spring and
damping constants for the barge with no stops.
A. Surface Response Plots

The surface response plots were created by inputting different combinations of spring and damping constants and
recording the standard deviation of the TTD, which is an
easy-to-calculate indicator of fatigue. By inputting a range
of evenly spaced spring and damping constants, and plotting
this array with the standard deviation of TTD on a surface
plot, the optimum can be found graphically. Fig. 9 shows the
response of the barge model with a 20 000-kg TMD for various
spring and damping constants. For Fig. 9, no stops were
applied, which makes the system linear. There is a very clear
optimum in this plot, which can be seen as the bottom of the
valley on the surface. Without stops this curve is very smooth;
however, as soon as stops are added, the surface appears as in
Fig. 10.
All parameters and loading conditions are the same for
Figs. 9 and 10; only the existence of stops is different.
The plot without stops has a clearly defined minimum at
1096
approach has a few problems. One is that it is very expensive

computationally. Each grid point on the surface is a function
call, and a full surface may need tens of thousands of grid
points to be resolved. This could translate to many hours
of processor time. The more important reason is that this
approach is limited in terms of the size of the design space
that is used, and it is possible that the optimum may not occur
within the design space. With this in mind, a more elegant
optimization algorithm is described next.
Barge Optimum +/8m Stops
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
B. Sequential Quadratic Programming Method
0.35
15000
15000
10000
Spr
ing
5000
(N/m Consta
nt
)
10000
ant
5000
0 0
st
Con
ping
Dam s/m)
(N
Fig. 10. Surface plot of standard deviation of TTD versus TMD spring and
damping constants for the barge with stops at 8 m.
Difference between Surface with stops and without stops
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
15000
15000
10000
Sp
10000
ring
5000
C
(N/ onsta
m)
nt
5000
0 0
n
onsta
ing C )
/m
s
N
(
p
Dam
Sequential quadratic programming (SQP) is a common

iterative steepest descent method for finding an optimum.
M ATLAB has a built-in function that uses this algorithm called
f mi ncon. This algorithm, unfortunately, performs poorly for
the cases with stops. Because of the numerous local minima
that can be seen in Fig. 10, the algorithm gets stuck in the
local minima closest to the initial condition. This would be true
for all gradient-based methods for this problem, so a global
optimization technique is needed.
C. Genetic Algorithm
The global optimization method that was selected in this
paper is known as a genetic algorithm. Refer to an optimization
textbook for genetic algorithm details. This algorithm suffers
from the same constraint problem as the surface response
method; if the optimum is outside the initial range of values
chosen, the algorithm will not find it. Compared to the surface
response method, however, there is much less computation
cost associated with increasing the range of values used, so
the search range can be expanded such that there is high
confidence in the algorithm finding the global minimum.
The algorithm used is a modification of the open source
SpeedyGA written for M ATLAB by Keki Burjorjee. The
capability of using multiple design variables is introduced,
so both the spring and damping constants can be specified
in one individual. Sigma-scaling and roulette-wheel uniform
crossover are used with a Pcrossover = 0.7. A mutation
probability of Pmutation = 0.01 per bit is applied.
Fig. 11. Surface plot showing the difference between surfaces with stops
and without stops.
D. Results of GA
ktmd = 4600N/m, dtmd = 2700N s/m. The plot with stops

enabled has several local minima, and the global minimum is
approximately ktmd = 2700N/m, dtmd = 4700N s/m. (The
swap of values is purely coincidental.) It should be noted that
for low spring and damping, the mass tends to hit the stops
more, but for higher spring and damping, the mass does not
hit the stops and the system resembles the linear case. Fig. 11
shows the difference of Figs. 9 and 10. For high spring and
damping constants, the difference in the two plots equals zero,
which means the responses are the same with stops or without
stops for these cases.
Regardless of nonlinearity, these surface plots could theoretically be created for all models, and TMD masses that
are desired and the optima could be found. However, this
With a population size of 50 individuals, the algorithm

converges within approximately 10 generations. This amounts
to 500 function calls, which takes approximately 30 min. This
is much more feasible for use than the surface method, which
took tens of thousands of function calls.
The previous work by Lackner [25] considered a 20 000-kg
mass for the TMD in the nacelle of the barge and monopile.
This mass was chosen because it is approximately 2% of the
total mass of the monopile, which is a mass percentage that
is commonly used in civil structures. For this paper, 10 000,
20 000, and 40 000 kg masses were chosen for TMDs in the
nacelle, which equates to approximately 1%, 2%, and 4% of
the monopole-based offshore wind turbine. For the simulations
with the TMD in the platform, 100 000, 200 000, and
400 000 kg masses are used, as this is approximately 1%,
1097
TABLE II
TABLE S HOWING THE R ESULTS OF THE G ENETIC A LGORITHM
Platform
Barge
Barge
Barge
Barge
Barge
Barge
Monopile
Monopile
Monopile
Spar
Spar
Spar
Spar
Spar
Spar
TLP
TLP
TLP
TLP
TLP
TLP
TMD mass (kg)

10 000
20 000
40 000
100 000
200 000
400 000
10 000
20 000
40 000
10 000
20 000
40 000
100 000
200 000
400 000
10 000
20 000
40 000
100 000
200 000
400 000
ktmd (N/m)
1237
2345
5274
25 370
50 952
103 019
28 805
54 274
98 641
54 151
101 426
183 625
157
440
262 081
12 350
24 500
41 000
56 500
115 000
230 000
Natural freq. (rad/s)

0.35
0.34
0.36
0.50
0.50
0.51
1.70
1.65
1.57
2.33
2.25
2.14
0.040
0.047
0.81
1.11
1.11
1.01
0.75
0.76
0.76
2%, and 4% of the entire floating structure mass. The genetic

algorithm is run on all of the platform models, and the
optimum values can be seen in Table II.
E. TLP Optimization Method
For the reasons discussed in Section II-D, building a simple
mathematical model to represent the TLP was very difficult,
and it was decided that using FAST-SC to optimize the TMD
was the best option. This was accomplished by a simple
parametric study in which an initial range of spring constants
was chosen that gave TMD natural frequencies near the
platform pitching frequency. These spring constants and a
constant damping constant, initially chosen to give a 10%
damping ratio, was run in a full DOF simulation, and the
best spring constant was found for each TMD mass. Next,
the spring constants were set to the optimum that was found,
and the damping constant was varied. This technique found
a rough optimum for the system, but once again there were
issues with local optima. Table II includes the optimum TMDs
found for the TLP with this parametric study method. The
best damping ratio stayed around 10% for the nacelle-based
TMD, but for the platform-based TMD the system reduced had
higher load reductions at much lower damping ratios, although
the reduction was not very sensitive to the damping constant.
A more thorough (but time-consuming) optimization could use
FAST-SC itself as the design function in a genetic algorithm
(or similar global optimization algorithm), but for the purposes
of this paper, the parametric study is used.
V. FAST-SC S IMULATIONS
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the optimal TMD
designs, a series of simulations were run to compare baseline
dtmd (N -s/m)
255
1235
10 183
8205
20 777
60393
2800
7414
19 690
3759
10 076
26 747
57 395
92 506
131 008
1300
4000
8700
100
200
400
Damping ratio
0.036
0.090
0.35
0.081
0.10
0.15
0.082
0.11
0.16
0.080
0.11
0.16
7.2
4.9
0.20
0.058
0.090
0.11
0.00 066
0.00 066
0.00 066
TMD location
Nac
Nac
Nac
Plat
Plat
Plat
Nac
Nac
Nac
Nac
Nac
Nac
Plat
Plat
Plat
Nac
Nac
Nac
Plat
Plat
Plat
Stop dist.
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
12 m
12 m
12 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
8 m
cases to the TMD cases. Each case in Table II was run

in FAST-SC for 600 s for four different wind and wave
inputs; two wind-wave inputs with a mean wind speed of
10 m/s (below-rated, control region 2) and a significant wave
height of 2 m, and two with a mean wind speed of 18 m/s
(above-rated, control region 3) and a wave height of 3.5 m,
as well as a baseline with no TMD and the same wind
and wave inputs. The wave inputs were randomly generated
using the JONSWAP spectrum, and the wind inputs used the
von Karman spectrum with a normal turbulence model and
a wind shear power law coefficient of 0.14. The wind and
wave inputs that were generated were used for each platform
and TMD configuration. A side-side TMD simulation was
also run for each case using the same parameters. While the
optimal parameters found with the genetic algorithm might
not necessarily be optimal for a side-side TMD, it will at
least show what effect the side-side TMD has on the platform.
Finally, all cases were run with identical side-side and fore-aft
TMDs active simultaneously.
When running the simulations for the TLP and spar buoy
with the TMD in the platform, it was discovered that simply
adding mass to the platform in the form of a TMD has some
negative effects. The added mass causes the platform to be
positioned lower in the water. This is especially a problem in
the case of the TLP, because the mooring lines become more
slack, changing the natural frequency of the platform. Also, the
natural frequencies of the platform change. For these simulations, the mass and inertia of the platform were reduced by an
amount equivalent to the mass and inertia added by the TMD.
A. Results With Monopile With Passive TMD
This section analyzes the results of the simulations using the
monopile foundation and the previously determined optimum
1098
TABLE III
TABLE S HOWING THE R ESULTS OF THE M ONOPILE S IMULATIONS
Results of Monopile Simulations
Fore-aft TMD
Side-side TMD
Fore-aft and side-side TMDs
Baseline 10 000 kg 20 000 kg 40 000 kg 10 000 kg 20 000 kg 40 000 kg 10 000 kg 20 000 kg 40 000 kg
Fore-aft fatigue damage (kNm) 10 m/s
Percent improvement from baseline 10 m/s
6361
N/A
5997
5.7%
5968
6.2%
5817
8.5%
6333
0.4%
6328
0.5%
6335
0.4%
5997
6.1%
5857
7.9%
5724
10.0%

10 630
N/A
10 100
5.0%
9948
6.4%
9769
8.1%
10 641
0.1%
10 662
0.3%
10 678
0.5%
10 100
4.9%
9973
6.2%
9821
7.6%
Side-side fatigue damage (kNm) 10 m/s

2577
N/A
2625
1.9%
2820
9.5%
2943
14.2%
1182
54.1%
1107
57.0%
1043
59.5%
2625
55.4%
1083
58.0%
1020
60.4%

7084
N/A
7101
0.2%
5703
19.5%
6320
10.8%
2989
57.8%
2732
61.4%
2489
64.9%
7101
58.9%
2637
62.8%
2404
66.1%
Fore-aft 95th percentile load (kNm) 10 m/s

43 367
N/A
43 060
0.7%
43 152
0.5%
43 133
0.5%
43 368
0.0%
43 390
0.1%
43 524
0.4%
43 060
0.4%
43 196
0.4%
43 384
0.0%

32 925
N/A
32 836
0.3%
32 596
1.0%
32 742
0.6%
32 958
0.1%
33 000
0.2%
33 262
1.0%
32 836
0.0%
32 740
0.6%
32 934
0.0%
Side-side 95th percentile load (kNm) 10 m/s

5972
N/A
5806
2.8%
6070
1.6%
6233
4.4%
5042
15.6%
4970
16.8%
4946
17.2%
5806
15.8%
4984
16.5%
4974
16.7%
11 479
1.3%
10 561
9.2%
11 095
4.6%
8244
29.1%
8045
30.8%
7897
32.1%
8234
29.2%
8063
30.6%
7976
31.4%
Side-side 95th percentile load (kNm) 18 m/s 11 626

N/A
SideSide Monopile Tower Damage Equivalent Loads with SideSide TMD

8000
10 m/s Wind 1
10 m/s Wind 2
18 m/s Wind 1
18 m/s Wind 2
7000
Damage (kNm)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
2
TMD Mass (kg)
4
4
x 10
Fig. 12. Plot of side-side damage reduction from a side-side TMD in the
nacelle of the monopile.
TMD constants. Fore-aft and side-side tower fatigue damage

are considered, as well as the 95th percentile bending moment
that the tower experienced, which can be extrapolated to
estimate ultimate loading on the tower. The tower loads are
calculated using the bending moments at the tower base.
A rainflow counting algorithm is used to calculate fatigue loads
for an equivalent load at 1 Hz; a Woehler exponent of 3 is used.
Table III shows these metrics, which are averaged across the
two independent wind/wave conditions at each wind speed, as
well as the percent improvement over the baseline simulations
with no TMD. A negative value for the percent improvement
indicates an increase in that output compared to the baseline.
A number of interesting conclusions can be drawn from these
data. As a general rule, as the TMD mass increases, so does
the load reduction. However, diminishing returns can be seen
in this trend. A plot of the side-side tower damage can be seen
in Fig. 12 as a good depiction of the diminishing returns from
TMD mass.
The four lines represent the four different turbulent wind

files used. Each line has identical wind and wave loading;
the only difference is the TMD mass and parameters. The
plot shows a sharp drop from the baseline simulation with no
TMD to the 10 000-kg TMD, and, after that, an increase of
the mass improves the amount of fatigue damage only slightly.
The addition of a 10 000-kg side-side TMD reduces side-side
damage by approximately 55%, and the 40 000 kg achieves
approximately a 60% reduction.
Although not specifically designed to reduce ultimate loads,
the TMD in the monopile reduces the 95th percentile bending
moment by approximately 1% in the fore-aft direction and as
much as 32% for side-side loads. This is due to the fact that
the TMD reduces the amplitude of the bending moment, which
reduces ultimate loads as well as fatigue.
It is also interesting that, for both fatigue and ultimate
loading, the TMD is more effective in the side-side direction
than the fore-aft. This is most likely because the excitation
in the side-side direction is mostly caused by DOF coupling,
as there is no direct loading in this direction. This results
in the side-side bending signal having most of its energy
at the tower vibrational frequency (see Fig. 13). In Fig. 13,
which shows the spectra of the monopile fore-aft and sideside tower bending moment, the peak at 0.28 Hz is the tower
vibrational mode. Since the TMD is tuned for this tower
vibrational frequency, the TMD is able to damp out much more
of the energy in the side-side direction. The fore-aft bending
moment, by comparison, is excited by broadband wind and
wave loading as well as the structural vibration. Also, the
side-side direction has no aerodynamic damping, which can
have a large impact on the fore-aft loading.
In FAST-SC, the wave forcing direction is in the same
direction as the wind. For realistic loading conditions,
this may not always be the case, as there is some
lag between wind and wave forcing. Further study using
1099
TABLE IV
TABLE S HOWING THE R ESULTS OF THE BARGE S IMULATIONS
Results of Barge Simulations
Fore-aft TMD
Side-side TMD
33 684
N/A
31 699
5.9%
29 984
11.0%
28 424
15.6%
33 881
0.6%
34 101
1.2%
34 647
2.9%
31 699
5.8%
30 338
9.9%
28 879
14.3%

54 230
N/A
52 109
3.9%
50 354
7.1%
49 267
9.2%
54 473
0.4%
54 739
0.9%
55 131
1.7%
52 109
2.8%
51 689
4.7%
46 516
14.2%

8111
N/A
8341
2.8%
7869
3.0%
8869
9.3%
8664
6.8%
8236
1.5%
6997
13.7%
8341
2.5%
7408
8.7%
6655
17.9%

17 001
N/A
15 440
9.2%
14 728
13.4%
15 888
6.5%
15 601
8.2%
15 231
10.4%
12 887
24.2%
15 440
11.8%
13 349
21.5%
11 427
32.8%

67 974
N/A
66 239
2.6%
64 078
5.7%
63 152
7.1%
71 640
5.4%
72 178
6.2%
73 531
8.2%
66 239
2.0%
65 403
3.8%
65 337
3.9%
Fore-aft 95th Percentile load (kNm) 18 m/s

Percent Improvement from baseline 18 m/s
83259
N/A
80687
3.1%
77836
6.5%
73126
12.2%
84515
1.5%
84869
1.9%
86480
3.9%
80687
2.3%
79398
4.6%
74638
10.4%

N/A
10 829
2.0%
10 626
3.8%
11 702
5.9%
11 143
0.8%
10 550
4.5%
9353
15.3%
10 829
4.1%
9810
11.2%
9156
17.1%

N/A
20 991
3.8%
20 011
8.3%
21 819
0.0%
19 487
10.7%
18 495
15.2%
16 491
24.4%
18 834
13.7%
17 246
21.0%
15 286
29.9%
x 10
ForeAft Barge Tower Damage Equivalent Loads with ForeAft TMD
x 10
10 m/s Wind 1
10 m/s Wind 2
18 m/s Wind 1
18 m/s Wind 2
5.5
Power ( kNHzm )
PSD of ForeAft Tower Bending Moment
4
5
0
0
0.5
2
Frequency (Hz)
2.5
3.5
4.5
PSD of SideSide Tower Bending Moment
1.5
Damage (kNm)
x 10
Power ( kNHzm )
3.5
1.5
3
1
2.5
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
2
Frequency (Hz)
2.5
3.5
Fig. 13. Comparison of the power spectrum of fore-aft and side-side bending
moments.
misaligned wind and wave forcing is needed to quantify this

effect.
B. Barge Results
The wind and wave inputs that were used for the monopile
simulation are also used for the barge simulations so that
comparisons can be drawn between the two. Table IV shows
both the fatigue damage and the 95th percentile load. Fig. 14
shows the fore-aft tower bending damage with a fore-aft
TMD. When compared with Fig. 12, the slopes of the lines is
roughly constant and does not show the diminishing returns
effect seen in the monopile simulations. The ultimate loads
for the fore-aft direction were more substantially reduced for
the barge than the monopile. Fore-aft 95th percentile loads
were reduced by up to 12% from the baseline. Once again,
2
TMD Mass (kg)
4
4
x 10
Fig. 14. Plot of fore-aft damage reduction from a fore-aft TMD in the nacelle
of the barge turbine.
the side-side loads were substantially reduced by the side-side

TMD, up to 30%.
It is also feasible to put the TMD in the platform of the
barge itself. With this configuration, the vertical gravitational
moment that the TMD applies to the barge has the largest
contribution to the tower loading. As Table V shows, this
configuration achieves large tower load reduction, comparable
to the nacelle-based TMD. This TMD configuration is more
attractive than the nacelle-based TMD because of limited
nacelle space as well as reduced tower top mass.
C. Spar Results
Two sets of simulations were run for the spar buoy. One
uses a nacelle-based TMD, and the other uses a TMD in the
spar itself. A few problems with the spar buoy TMDs were
discovered in the course of the research. The spar buoy is a
compliant structure in pitch, and the constant component of the
1100
TABLE V
TABLE S HOWING THE R ESULTS OF THE BARGE S IMULATIONS W ITH THE TMD IN THE P LATFORM
Results of Barge Simulations
Fore-aft TMD
Side-side TMD
33 684
N/A
32 206
4.4%
31 653
6.0%
30 309
10.0%
33 698
0.0%
33 864
0.5%
34 193
1.5%
32 206
4.2%
31 821
5.5%
30 573
9.2%

54 230
N/A
51 068
5.8%
48 366
10.8%
45 437
16.2%
54 702
0.9%
55 021
1.5%
55 672
2.7%
51 068
5.4%
48 819
10.0%
46 161
14.9%

8111
N/A
7896
2.7%
7796
3.9%
8012
1.2%
7238
10.8%
6978
14.0%
7094
12.5%
7896
7.3%
7254
10.6%
7397
8.8%

17 001
N/A
16 254
4.4%
16 093
5.3%
16 013
5.8%
15 140
10.9%
14 696
13.6%
14 079
17.2%
16 254
11.5%
14 528
14.5%
14 096
17.1%

67 974
N/A
66 376
2.4%
65 381
3.8%
63 600
6.4%
68 319
0.5%
68 364
0.6%
68 702
1.1%
66 376
1.8%
66 042
2.8%
64 284
5.4%
Fore-sft 95th percentile load (kNm) 18 m/s

83 259
N/A
78 990
5.1%
74 347
10.7%
70 421
15.4%
83 423
0.2%
83 861
0.7%
84 750
1.8%
78 990
5.0%
74 827
10.1%
71 148
14.5%

N/A
10 534
4.7%
10 350
6.3%
10 264
7.1%
9955
9.9%
9424
14.7%
9292
15.9%
10 534
10.6%
9406
14.9%
9370
15.2%

N/A
20 649
5.4%
20 280
7.1%
19 887
8.9%
19 184
12.1%
18 245
16.4%
17 419
20.2%
18 780
13.9%
17 709
18.8%
16 684
23.5%
aerodynamic thrust causes the spar to have a nonzero steadystate pitch angle. This puts a nonzero mean gravitational force
on the TMD and, coupled with the low spring constant of
the TMD, the TMD mass is forced against the downwind
stop. This issue was not seen to the same extent in the other
structures because the spar buoy is the least stiff structure
in pitch, which allows the large pitch offset (approximately
5 degrees) from the wind thrust. Also, a TMD tuned to
this slow pitching mode necessitates a soft TMD spring,
compounding the problem.
Another effect of the TMD resting against the stop in the
platform is that, when the TMD is displaced from its normal
equilibrium position, it creates a gravity moment on the spar
buoy. In 6, the term + m tmd g(Rtmd p x tmd ) encompasses
this effect. The TMD mass exerts a vertical gravity force on
the spar, and when the TMD is off center, this force turns
into a moment, with the moment arm being the distance that
the TMD has displaced relative to the spar coordinate system.
This term scales with the mass of the TMD and the amount
of TMD deflection, so when there is a heavy TMD that is
deflected as far as possible, which is the case in the spar, this
term becomes a nonnegligible destabilizing moment.
The TMD parameters are selected with the gravitational
moment taken into account, since this term is included in the
model that the genetic algorithm optimizes. For the 400 000-kg
mass, this term became too large, and the genetic algorithm
chose to maximize the spring and damping constants to force
the TMD to stay near the center of the spar, which essentially eliminates the moment arm and, thus, the destabilizing
moment. For this reason, the 400 000-kg TMD results are
essentially the same as not having a TMD at all and can be
disregarded.
Even with all of these problems, there is improvement in
fatigue and ultimate loads in some simulations, which can be
seen in Table VI. The 18 m/s average wind speed simulations
in particular show reductions in tower fatigue and ultimate

loads. This is because there is less rotor thrust in these
simulations, so the spar pitches less, and the effect of the
gravity moment is diminished.
Table VII shows the tower bending fatigue of the spar buoy
with the TMD moved to the nacelle. This TMD is tuned by
the GA to the tower first bending mode, which has a much
higher frequency than the pitching mode, and so the spring
constant is higher. This reduces the gravitational effect that is
seen in the platform-based TMD simulations.
These results show significant fatigue reduction in both
the fore-aft and side-side directions, but little ultimate load
reduction. In most simulations, the ultimate loads actually
increased.
D. TLP Results
As discussed in Section II-D, the TMD tuned to the surge
degree of freedom did reduce platform surge, but this had little
effect on mooring line fatigue or tower bending. Therefore,
a TMD tuned to the faster platform pitching mode was
developed. Like the spar buoy, this platform is compatible
with both a nacelle-based and platform-based TMD. Fore-aft
bending is reduced by up to 8%, and side-side bending up to
20%. For the TLP, the side-side TMD negatively impacts the
fore-aft bending, and the fore-aft TMD causes more damage
to the side-side tower degree of freedom. This effect was seen
for the other platforms, but not to the extent that it occurred
for the TLP.
In addition to tower loads, this TMD is also targeted
towards reducing mooring line loading. Mooring line fatigue
damage is reduced by up to 7% with a fore-aft TMD, but
the ultimate load is virtually unchanged. Table VIII shows
the tower loading and mooring line loading results from the
simulations with the TMD in the nacelle.
1101
TABLE VI
TABLE S HOWING THE R ESULTS OF THE S PAR B UOY S IMULATIONS W ITH THE TMD IN THE P LATFORM

Results of Spar Simulations With the TMD in the Platform

Fore-aft TMD
Side-side TMD
15 319
15 217
15 076
15 360
15 263
15 318
15 224
15 032
14 986
15 483
N/A
0.7%
1.6%
0.3%
0.4%
0.0%
0.6%
1.9%
2.2%
1.1%
25 048
23 277
22 302
23 586
23 775
24 974
25 024
25 640
23 899
30 169
N/A
7.1%
11.0%
5.8%
5.1%
0.3%
0.1%
2.4%
4.6%
20.4%
4683
4683
4642
4381
4679
5069
4735
4487
4387
4206
N/A
0.0%
0.9%
6.5%
0.1%
8.2%
1.1%
4.2%
6.3%
10.2%
7043
7118
6951
6156
6717
8785
6807
6954
7660
6672
N/A
1.1%
1.3%
12.6%
4.6%
24.7%
3.4%
1.3%
8.8%
5.3%
53 595
55 060
56 368
52 718
53 065
52 484
51 670
52 255
51 540
46 554
N/A
2.7%
5.2%
1.6%
1.0%
2.1%
3.6%
2.5%
3.8%
13.1%
62 515
59 749
59 148
59 850
57 931
62 462
59 536
62 134
59 240
65 129
N/A
4.4%
5.4%
4.3%
7.3%
0.1%
4.8%
0.6%
5.2%
4.2%
7563
7437
7332
7129
9970
13 373
7373
8933
10 433
6683
N/A
1.7%
3.1%
5.7%
31.8% 76.8%
2.5%
18.1% 37.9%
11.6%
12 223
12 078
11 718
10 961
15 202
22 487
11 618
15 243
17 213
11 426
N/A
1.2%
4.1%
10.3%
24.4% 84.0%
5.0%
24.7% 40.8%
6.5%
TABLE VII
TABLE S HOWING THE R ESULTS OF THE S PAR B UOY S IMULATIONS W ITH THE TMD IN THE N ACELLE
Results of Spar Simulations With the TMD in the Nacelle
Fore-aft TMD
Side-side TMD
15 319
N/A
15 026
1.9%
14 647
4.4%
14 034
8.4%
15 261
0.4%
14 985
2.2%
14 449
5.7%
15 026
2.2%
14 447
5.7%
13 670
10.8%

25 048
N/A
25 290
1.0%
24 406
2.6%
25 859
3.2%
24 798
1.0%
24 758
1.2%
24 141
3.6%
25 290
4.0%
24 939
0.4%
28 254
12.8%

4683
N/A
3946
15.7%
3662
21.8%
3055
34.8%
4415
5.7%
3893
16.9%
3387
27.7%
3946
15.1%
3392
27.6%
2902
38.0%

7043
N/A
5809
17.5%
5654
19.7%
6011
14.6%
6367
9.6%
6124
13.0%
5441
22.7%
5809
17.3%
5057
28.2%
5136
27.1%

53 595
N/A
54 334
1.4%
55 042
2.7%
56 255
5.0%
54 644
2.0%
55 686
3.9%
58 110
8.4%
54 334
3.5%
57 192
6.7%
61 412
14.6%

62 515
N/A
63 727
1.9%
62 086
0.7%
65 036
4.0%
63 042
0.8%
60 855
2.7%
63 219
1.1%
63 727
1.9%
63 439
1.5%
74 262
18.8%

7563
N/A
7191
4.9%
7118
5.9%
6953
8.1%
7366
2.6%
7365
2.6%
7545
0.2%
7191
2.9%
7359
2.7%
7781
2.9%

12 223
N/A
12 054
1.4%
11 981
2.0%
12 511
2.4%
12 128
0.8%
12 681
3.7%
12 278
0.4%
12 201
0.2%
11 710
4.2%
14 007
14.6%
Since the platform in the TLP has a 45-m draft, there is

both space and a suitable moment arm to implement a TMD
in the platform. Locating the platform-based TMD at 45 m
below the water line is less than the nacelles 90-m distance
to the water level, but the platform-based TMD can use a larger
mass. Table IX shows the effect of the platform-based TMD
on tower loading and mooring line loading. This configuration
performed poorly for reducing tower bending. This is most
likely because the TMD cannot directly apply forces to the
tower like the TMD in the nacelle.
The TMD in the nacelle had better performance than the
platform-based TMD in reducing mooring line loading, with
the platform-based TMD only achieving a 0.8% reduction
in mooring line fatigue for the combined fore-aft and side-
side configuration. This is due to the shorter moment arm

combined with the gravitational moment effect described in
Section V-C. It should be noted that, for all platform-based
TMDs, the configuration with both fore-aft and side-side
TMDs is necessary since the platform does not yaw with the
wind like the nacelle. This means that the TMD is only aligned
with the wind for specific wind and wave directions. Future
work should quantify the effect of different loading directions
on the platform-based TMD systems.
E. Sensitivity Study
In order to investigate the robustness of the optimum found
by the genetic algorithm, a sensitivity work was conducted
1102
TABLE VIII
TABLE S HOWING THE R ESULTS OF THE TLP S IMULATIONS W ITH THE TMD IN THE N ACELLE
Results of TLP Simulations With the TMD in the Nacelle
Fore-aft TMD
Side-side TMD
Fore-aft and Side-side TMDs
13 926
13 425
13 110
12 837
14 159
14 515
15 210
13 425
13 271
13 411
N/A
3.6%
5.9%
7.8%
1.7%
4.2%
9.2%
3.8%
4.7%
3.7%
23 370
22 923
22 674
22 566
23 793
24 278
25 311
22 923
23 261
23 769
N/A
1.9%
3.0%
3.4%
1.8%
3.9%
8.3%
1.3%
0.5%
1.7%
3392
3481
3491
3398
3118
2903
2804
3481
2836
2675
N/A
2.6%
2.9%
0.2%
8.1%
14.4%
17.3%
8.9%
16.4%
21.1%
7394
7384
7445
7958
7020
6759
6626
7384
6356
6110
N/A
0.1%
0.7%
7.6%
5.1%
8.6%
10.4%
8.3%
14.0%
17.4%
68 827
68 606
68 588
68 739
69 073
69 425
70 173
68 606
68 922
69 392
N/A
0.3%
0.3%
0.1%
-0.4%
-0.9%
-2.0%
0.1%
-0.1%
-0.8%
55 182
55 032
54 940
54 964
55 639
55 982
57 128
55 032
55 434
56 282
N/A
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.8%
1.5%
3.5%
0.3%
0.5%
2.0%
Side-side 95th percentile load (kNm) 10 m/s 6592
6631
6703
6682
6381
6231
6181
6631
6185
6139
N/A
0.6%
1.7%
1.4%
3.2%
5.5%
6.2%
3.4%
6.2%
6.9%
11 892
12 150
12 865
11 746
11 486
11 244
11 524
11 166
11 012
N/A
0.4%
1.8%
7.8%
1.6%
3.8%
5.8%
3.5%
6.5%
7.8%
Line fatigue damage (kN) 10 m/s
372
364
357
347
388
388
389
364
363
350
N/A
2.2%
4.0%
6.8%
4.3%
4.3%
4.6%
0.5%
2.3%
5.9%
Line fatigue damage (kN) 18 m/s
599
588
578
563
601
603
609
588
577
563
N/A
1.9%
3.4%
6.1%
0.4%
0.7%
1.7%
2.2%
3.6%
6.1%
Line 95th percentile load (kN) 10 m/s
4989
4983
4977
4975
5096
5083
5066
4983
5050
4997
N/A
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
2.2%
1.9%
1.5%
1.8%
1.2%
0.2%
Line 95th Percentile load (kN) 18 m/s
4916
4912
4903
4889
5019
5009
4988
4912
4977
4914
N/A
0.1%
0.3%
0.5%
2.1%
1.9%
1.5%
1.8%
1.2%
0.0%
TABLE IX
TABLE S HOWING THE R ESULTS OF THE TLP S IMULATIONS

Line fatigue damage (kNm) 10 m/s
Line fatigue damage (kNm) 18 m/s
Line 95th percentile load (kNm) 10 m/s
Line 95th percentile load (kNm) 18 m/s
Results of TLP Simulations With the TMD in the Platform

Fore-aft TMD
Side-side TMD
Fore-aft and Side-side TMDs
7882
7857
7819
7817
7907
7936
8084
7857
7854
7894
N/A
0.3%
0.8%
0.8%
0.3%
0.7%
2.6%
0.1%
0.4%
0.2%
13 013
12 965
12 993
13 039
13 109
13 194
13 365
12 965
13 056
13 221
N/A
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.7%
1.4%
2.7%
0.0%
0.3%
1.6%
1901
1909
1933
1944
1882
1866
1920
1909
1943
1971
N/A
0.5%
1.7%
2.3%
1.0%
1.8%
1.0%
0.7%
2.2%
3.7%
4148
4140
4072
4022
4194
4235
4273
4140
4117
4152
N/A
0.2%
1.9%
3.1%
1.1%
2.1%
3.0%
0.2%
0.8%
0.1%
37 319
37 285
37 304
37 323
37 353
37 311
37 371
37 285
37 336
37 343
N/A
0.1%
0.0%
-0.0%
-0.1%
0.0%
-0.1%
0.1%
-0.0%
-0.1%
29 844
29 818
29 828
29 985
29 942
30 000
30 081
29 818
29 895
30 020
N/A
0.1%
0.1%
0.5%
0.3%
0.5%
0.8%
0.0%
0.2%
0.6%
5108
5112
5128
5157
5112
5104
5177
5112
5134
5165
N/A
0.1%
0.4%
1.0%
0.1%
0.1%
1.4%
0.0%
0.5%
1.1%
8456
8466
8437
8420
8504
8522
8576
8472
8414
8451
N/A
0.1%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.4%
0.2%
0.5%
0.1%
371
369
367
365
372
383
435
369
368
368
N/A
0.5%
1.1%
1.6%
0.3%
3.2%
17.4%
0.3%
0.7%
0.8%
611
607
604
601
617
627
665
607
607
607
N/A
0.6%
1.1%
1.6%
1.1%
2.6%
9.0%
0.4%
0.6%
0.6%
3613
3609
3607
3606
3496
3386
3166
3609
3609
3610
N/A
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
3.2%
6.3%
12.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
4104
4100
4097
4088
3989
3886
3671
4100
4101
4093
N/A
0.1%
0.2%
0.4%
2.8%
5.3%
10.6%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
to quantify the change in fatigue reduction with a change in

the TMD parameters. The barge platform was used for this
study. FAST-SC was run for with a TMD spring constant
that was 10% higher and 10% lower than the optimum found
with the genetic algorithm, and a TMD damping constant that

was 10% higher and lower than the optimum. The change in
fatigue damage from the optimum for these cases is shown in
Table X.
1103
TABLE X
TABLE S HOWING THE R ESULTS S ENSITIVITY S TUDY U SING THE BARGE F LOATING P LATFORM
Percentage Increase in Fore-Aft Tower Fatigue Damage from Optimum
TMD mass (kg) +10% damping constant 10% damping constant +10% spring constant 10% spring constant
10 000
0.91
0.55
1.03
0.06
20 000
0.38
0.63
1.52
1.16
40 000
0.17
0.77
1.24
0.32
TABLE XI
TABLE S HOWING THE R ESULTS OF THE S IMULATIONS W ITH M ISALIGNED W IND AND WAVES
Offshore structure
Fore-aft aligned
Fore-aft misaligned
Side-side aligned
Side-side misaligned
Baseline (kN) With TMD (kN) Baseline (kN) With TMD (kN) Baseline (kN) With TMD (kN) Baseline (kN) With TMD (kN)
Monopile DEQL
6361
5857
6361
5858
2577
1083
2589
1090
% Improvement over Bsline
7.9%
7.9%
58.0%
57.9%
Monopile 95% load
43 367
43 196
43 368
43 208
5972
4984
6001
4994
0.4%
0.4%
16.5%
16.8%
26 437
Barge DEQL
33 684
30 338
31 867
28 104
8111
7408
35 036
9.9%
11.8%
8.7%
24.5%
Barge 95% load
67 974
65 403
64 873
61 356
11 049
9810
45 273
34 071
3.8%
5.4%
11.2%
24.7%
Spar DEQL
15 319
14 447
15 117
14 184
4683
3392
5383
4466
5.7%
6.2%
27.6%
17.0%
Spar 95% load
53 595
57 192
53 293
56 974
7563
7359
8590
8505
6.7%
6.9%
2.7%
1.0%
TLP DEQL
7882
7655
7596
7427
1901
1629
2632
2384
2.9%
2.2%
14.3%
9.4%
TLP 95% load
37 319
37 422
36 927
37 091
5108
5001
5888
5765
0.3%
0.4%
2.1%
2.1%
In Table X, it can be seen that, in general, a 10% change

in TMD parameters results in a much smaller change in tower
fatigue damage, which means that the system is robust to
inconsistencies in the TMD parameters. Changing the spring
constant seems to have more effect on the tower fatigue
than changing the damping constant, with changes of over
1%. This is most likely due to the fact that changing the
spring constant changes the TMD frequency tuning. One other
important conclusion of this sensitivity study is that the spring
constant is slightly mistuned for the barge because, with a 10%
reduction in TMD spring constant, there is a further reduction
in tower fatigue damage. However, this additional reduction is
small, so the optimum found by the genetic algorithm is close
to the true optimum.
F. Misaligned Wind and Waves
The previous simulations have used wind and waves coming
from the same direction. The effects of misaligned wind and
waves can cause large changes in the tower forces, especially
in the side-side direction. For this reason, a study into the
effect of the optimized TMDs on the misaligned wind and
wave case was conducted. A misalignment of 30 degrees was
used as a representative value. A suite of FAST simulations
was performed for the four different platforms. The TMDs
used in this section are the optimal fore-aft and side-side
20 000 kg nacelle-based TMDs found from the genetic algorithm. Results from these simulations can be seen in Table XI.
The results show that the monopile was relatively uneffected
by the wave misalignment. However, when the floating platforms were subjected to misaligned wind and waves, the tower
fatigue and ultimate load in the fore-aft direction (aligned with
the wind) decreased slightly, while the side-side fatigue and
ultimate load increased substantially. When the optimal TMDs
were introduced for the barge, TMD percentage load reduction
performance was substantially increased for both fore-aft and
side-side loading in the misaligned case. The TMD had less
effect on the spar and TLP. These platforms benefit less from
the TMD in the aligned case, and undergo less wave loading
than the barge due to their geometry. Therefore, the TMD
caused less percentage load reduction with the misaligned
case.
VI. C ONCLUSION
This paper developed simplified structural models for a
monopile, the ITI Energy Barge, the OC3 Hywind Spar buoy,
and the NREL/MIT TLP. Using these simplified models, a
passive TMD was optimized in a number of configurations
using a genetic algorithm. These optimum configurations were
simulated in FAST in order to find the load reduction for
each of the platforms. The results from these simulations
1104
show substantial fatigue and ultimate load reductions for the

monopile and barge, and, to a lesser extent, the spar buoy and
TLP. Issues with applying a TMD to the spar buoy platform
were discovered from the slow pitching period of the spar.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted that confirmed that the
optimum found by the genetic algorithm was near the true
optimum. Because of the lack of broadband loading in the
side-side direction, the passive TMD investigated in this paper,
which is tuned to a single frequency, had the largest reduction
for side-side tower fatigue. While these side-side loads are
not commonly seen as design drivers, recent research into
misaligned wind and waves shows that side-side loads may
be a larger contributor to the overall fatigue than previously
thought. A simplified study of misaligned wind and waves
showed that TMDs were able to reduce loading for most
substructures in these conditions; a more exhaustive study of
wind and wave misalignment is in progress. Further work
should explore more TMD configurations for the spar buoy
and TLP, as well as investigate other mass damper systems
including tuned liquid column dampers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. J. Jonkman for help
with modifications to FAST.
R EFERENCES
[1] W. Musial, S. Butterfield, and B. Ram, Energy from offshore wind,
in Proc. Offshore Technol. Conf., Houston, TX, USA, May 2006,
pp. 18881898.
[2] A. Rodrguez T., C. E. Carcangiu, I. Pineda, T. Fischer, B. Kuhnle,
M. Scheu, and M. Martin, Wind turbine structural damping control
for tower load reduction, in Civil Engineering Topics, Volume 4
(Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics),
vol. 7, T. Proulx, Ed. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag, 2011,
pp. 141153.
[3] W. Musial and B. Ram, Large-scale offshore wind power in the united
states: Assesment of oppurtunities and barriers, Nat. Renew. Energy
Lab., Golden, CO, USA, Tech. Rep., Sep. 2010.
[4] W. Musial, S. Butterfield, and A. Boone, Feasibility of floating platform
systems for wind turbines, in Proc. 42nd AIAA Aeros. Sci. Meeting
Exhibit., Reno, NV, USA, Jan. 2004, pp. 476486.
[5] A. Hendersen, M. Zaaijer, B. Bulder, J. Pierik, R. Huijsmans, M. van
Hees, E. Snijders, G. H. Wijnants, and M. J. Wolf, Floating windfarms
for shallow offshore sites, in Proc. ISOPE Conf., Toulon, France,
May 2004, pp. 120127.
[6] E. Wayman, P. Sclavounos, S. Butterfield, J. Jonkman, and W. Musial,
Coupled dynamic modeling of floating wind turbine systems, in Proc.
Offshore Technol. Conf., Houston, TX, USA, May 2006, pp. 122.
[7] J. Jonkman and P. Sclavounos, Development of fully coupled aeroelastic and hydrodynamic models for offshore wind turbines, in Proc.
44th AIAA Aeros. Sci. Meeting Exhibit., Reno, NV, USA, Jan. 2006,
pp. 20062995.
[8] F. Nielsen, T. Hanson, and B. Skaare, Integrated dynamic analysis of
floating offshore wind turbines, in Proc. 25th Int. Conf. Offshore Mech.
Arctic Eng., Hamburg, Germany, Jun. 2006, pp. 19.
[9] T. Larsen and T. Hanson, A method to avoid negative damped low
frequent tower vibrations for a floating, pitch controlled wind turbine,
Sci. Making Torque Wind, J. Phys., Conf. Ser., vol. 75, no. 1, p. 012073,
Aug. 2007.
[10] M. Lackner, Controlling platform motions and reducing blade loads for
floating wind turbines, Wind Eng., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 541553, 2009.
[11] S. Butterfield, W. Musial, J. Jonkman, and P. Sclavounos, Engineering
challenges for floating offshore wind turbines, in Proc. Copenhagen
Offshore Wind Conf., Copenhagen, Denmark, Oct. 2005, pp. 377382.
[12] B. Spencer and M. Sain, Controlling buildingsA new frontier in
feedback, Shock Vibrat. Dig., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 267281, 1998.
[13] B. Spencer and S. Nagarajaiah, State of the art of structural control,

J. Struct. Eng., vol. 129, no. 7, pp. 845856, 2003.
[14] H. Adeli and A. Saleh, Integrated structural/control optimization
of large adaptive/smart structures, Int. J. Solids Struct., vol. 35,
nos. 2829, pp. 38153830, 1998.
[15] H. Adeli, Smart structures and building automation in the 21st century,
in Proc. 25th Int. Symp. Autom. Robot. Construct., Jun. 2008, pp. 510.
[16] H. Kanegaonkar, Smart technology Applications in offshore structures:
Status and needs, in Proc. 9th Int. Offshore Polar Eng. Conf., Brest,
France, May 1999, p. 231.
[17] M. Singh and E. Matheu, Active and semi-active control of structures
under seismic excitation, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., vol. 26,
no. 2, pp. 193213, 1997.
[18] S. Krenk, Frequency analysis of the tuned mass damper, ASME J. Appl.
Mech., vol. 72, pp. 936942, Nov. 2005.
[19] S. Colwell and B. Basu, Tuned liquid column dampers in offshore wind
turbines for structural control, Eng. Struct., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 358368,
2009.
[20] P. Murtagh, A. Ghosh, B. Basu, and B. Broderick, Passive control of
wind turbine vibrations including blade/tower interaction and rotationally sampled turbulence, Wind Energy, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 305317,
2007.
[21] A. Wilmink and J. Hengeveld, Application of tuned liquid column
dampers in wind turbines, Mecal Applied Mechanics, Eindhoven, The
Netherlands, Tech. Rep., 2006.
[22] I. Enevoldsen, Effects of a vibration mass damper in a wind turbine
tower, Mech. Struct. Mach., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 155187, 1996.
[23] B. Calderon, Design and optimization of a wind turbine tower by using
a damper device, M.S. thesis, Stuttgart Univ., Stuttgart, Germany, 2009.
[24] M. Lackner, An investigation of the control and loads of floating wind
turbines, Under Rev., Wind Energy, no. 4, pp. 11181142, 2009.
[25] M. Lackner and M. Rotea, Passive structural control of offshore wind
turbines, Wind Energy, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 373388, Apr. 2011.
[26] M. Lackner and M. Rotea, Structural control of floating wind turbines,
Mechatronics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 704719, Jun. 2011.
[27] M. Rotea, M. Lackner, and R. Saheba, Active structural control of
offshore wind turbines, in Proc. 48th AIAA Aeros. Sci. Meeting Exhibit.,
Orlando, FL, USA, Jan. 2010, pp. 121.
[28] J. Jonkman and M. L. Buhl, Fast users guide, Nat. Renew. Energy
Lab., Golden, CO, USA, Tech. Rep. NREL/EL-500-38230, 2006.
[29] B. Jonkman and M. L. Buhl, Turbsim users guide, Nat. Renew. Energy
Lab., Golden, CO, USA, Tech. Rep. NREL/EL-500-36970, 2005.
[30] J. Jonkman, S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and G. Scott, Definition of
a 5-mw reference wind turbine for offshore system development, Nat.
Renew. Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, Tech. Rep. TP 500-38060,
2008.
[31] J. Jonkman, Influence of control on the pitch damping of a floating
wind turbine, in Proc. 46th AIAA Aeros. Sci. Meeting Exhibit., Reno,
NV, USA, Jan. 2008, pp. 115.
Gordon Stewart received the B.S. and M.S. degrees

in mechanical engineering from the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA, where he is
currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in mechanical
engineering.
He is a Fellow with the UMass Offshore Wind
Energy IGERT. He is conducting his Ph.D. research
on developing design standard recommendations for
floating offshore wind turbines.
Matthew A. Lackner received the B.S.E. degree in

mechanical and aerospace engineering from Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA, the M.S. degree
in aerospace engineering from MIT, Cambridge,
MA, USA, and the Ph.D. degree in mechanical
engineering from UMass Amherst, MA, USA.
He is an Assistant Professor of mechanical
engineering with the University of Massachusetts
Amherst, and a member of the Wind Energy Center.
He was a Post-Doctoral Researcher with the Technical University of Delft, Delft, The Netherlands. His
current research interests include floating offshore wind turbine aerodynamics,
simulation, and structural control.

Offshore Wind Turbine Load Reduction Employing Optimal Passive Tuned Mass Damping Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Offshore Wind Turbine Load Reduction Employing Optimal Passive Tuned Mass Damping Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1090

Offshore Wind Turbine Load Reduction Employing

Abstract Offshore wind turbines can capture the high-quality

FFSHORE wind has the potential to become a large

A. Offshore Wind Turbines

For over 20 years, numerous large-scale active and passive

1063-6536/$31.00 2013 IEEE

STEWART AND LACKNER: OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE LOAD REDUCTION

Floating platform models (Source: NREL).

in the TMD mass vibrating at this frequency. The damper

Diagram showing direction of fore-aft and side-side TMDs in a

Rotor orientation, configuration

Upwind, three blades

Variable speed, collective pitch

High-speed multiple-stage gearbox

Rotor, hub diameter

Cut-in, rated, cut-out wind speed

3 m/s, 11.4 m/s, 25 m/s

Cut-in, rated rotor speed

6.9 rpm, 12.1 rpm

Rated tip speed

Overhang, shaft tilt, precone

Coordinate location of overall CM

(0.2 m, 0.0 m, 64.0 m)

These constraints were introduced because the nacelle has

the use of a genetic algorithm to find the TMD spring

A. Monopile Limited DOF Model

Diagram of the limited DOF model for the monopile.

The R terms are the distances from the tower hinge to

STEWART AND LACKNER: OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE LOAD REDUCTION

Diagram of the limited DOF model for the barge.

The subscripts and variables in these equations are the same

m tmd xtmd = ktmd (Rtmd p x tmd )

Most of the spar buoys stiffness in pitch comes from the

Pitch Angle (deg)

State Space Model

Tower Top Displacement

Agreement between limited DOF model and FAST with no TMD.

single platform DOF models. For these reasons, a different

STEWART AND LACKNER: OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE LOAD REDUCTION

Since there is limited space in the nacelle and platforms,

Example of a barge limited DOF model simulation.

Barge Optimum No Stops

Standard Deviation of TTD (m)

B. Modeling TMD Position Constraints

A. Realistic Model Loading

is the amount of tower bending in meters measured at the

A. Surface Response Plots

approach has a few problems. One is that it is very expensive

Barge Optimum +/8m Stops

Standard Deviation of TTD (m)

B. Sequential Quadratic Programming Method

Standard Deviation of TTD (m)

Difference between Surface with stops and without stops

Sequential quadratic programming (SQP) is a common

ktmd = 4600N/m, dtmd = 2700N s/m. The plot with stops

With a population size of 50 individuals, the algorithm

STEWART AND LACKNER: OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE LOAD REDUCTION

TMD mass (kg)

Natural freq. (rad/s)

2%, and 4% of the entire floating structure mass. The genetic

cases to the TMD cases. Each case in Table II was run

Fore-aft fatigue damage (kNm) 18 m/s

Side-side fatigue damage (kNm) 10 m/s